digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Why Intellectual Property Is Different Than Real Property

techdirt.com — A good argument and counterpoint to a New York Times opinion piece on the idea that copyright deserves to last forever and be passed on from descendant to descendant.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • neiltc13, on 10/11/2007, -22/+17Title should read: "Why Intellectual Property Is Different to Real Property under US law".
    • asforme, on 10/11/2007, -1/+31This article does not discuss anything specific to US Law. It discusses the motivations behind creating copyright laws, and the ideas here are universal.
    • RealHyperX, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8The title suggest that intellectual property is not real property. Interesting.

    • juanjodic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+29Yea right, Imagine everyone paying to the owner of fire for the right to have a hot cup of coffee or a hot shower for all the eternity. This is just getting ridiculous. Humans have started to serve the interest of corporations instead of the other way around.
    • SecondGuesser, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5Ayn Rand must be rolling over in her grave. If you want to see creativity and productivity vanish, then tell people that they don't own their creations and have no right to control them.

      Anyone who disagrees with intellectual property rights is a looter.

      I understand the looters' argument against intellectual property rights - that great ideas should benefit the masses. But production (creative ideas are a form of that) deserves fair compensation; consumption demands compensation. While the DRM regime is functionally flawed, the broader concept of intellectual property rights is vital to capitalism and a healthy economy.
    • BDub7004, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@RealHyperx

      Legally speaking, "real property" refers to what is commonly known as real estate. Other forms of property are personal property.
    • Calcipher, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@SecondGuesser - Who said anything about no rights to control their works? It would seem that the argument is not that they shouldn't have some rights over their IP but, more, that they shouldn't have perpetual rights. This is a huge difference. Given that TFA talked almost exclusively about the difference between perpetual rights and limited rights, I'm surprised you didn't get the point.
    • emjaymj, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@SecondGuesser

      It's not that IP should not be protected, but there should definitely be a time limit. Just as telling somebody they don't own their works will stifle creativity, the same thing happens when the ability to build upon the works of others is taken away.

      I don't understand the mindset of people who think its wrong for IP owners to want to be paid. If they didn't have an expectation of money, then things like film and video games, where a lot of money is required just to create them, would never get made. Copyrights are definitely justified.

      The author makes one error in the assumption that IP doesn't involve scarce resources, because labor is itself a scarce resource. With his logic, the entire service industry would not be paid. If this were true, the economy would not work. Just like there is a reasonable expectation that you get paid to wait tables, there is a reasonable expectation to get paid for working on a novel - and, just like any area of the economy, the more society sees a need for your particular skill, the more you will be compensated.

      I agree with you that IP should definitely be taken seriously, but if copyright lasts forever, art will get stale very quickly.
    • SecondGuesser, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2But if my IP is a theme song for a particular product, and I want to create and sell my work to the manufacturer of the product, it will be worth less if I cannot sell the IP in perpetuity. Why should I be prohibited from selling my IP in perpetuity?

      I think the ideal is a finite amount of time with the right of first refusal for the renewal belonging to the current holder.

      If no one wants to own the IP anymore, that's cool. But there is no reason why someone should be forced to give it up just so some looter can come around and get an easy grab on my IP.
    • fyngyrz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3From techdirt:

      "However, when it comes to infinite resources, there's simply no need to worry about efficient allocation -- since anyone can have a copy."

      This is where Techdirt's argument fails. These resources are not naturally infinite. In fact, they are naturally non-existent until someone is *motivated* to create them. Money is the most flexible motivator (as it can be turned directly into anything from college to a night out to savings to food and shelter, etc) and so a causal relationship between the creation of these resources and money is both natural and to be expected.

      Treating the resources as "infinite" and copying them without compensating the producer(s) will result in a reduction of production, with resources then only coming from producers who are willing to accept abstract rewards such as recognition, emotional gratification, and other similar less- or non-negotiable means.

      I'm not saying this puts the answer squarely in the direct-pay-to-play camp, but clearly, the issue isn't as simple as Techdirt wants to make it out to be.

      My .02

    • locojones, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2The other major point on which Techdirt's argument fails is the following statement:

      "It has nothing to do with more efficient allocation of scarce resources. Instead, it's a government-granted incentive -- a subsidy -- to encourage the creation of new works."

      The underlying purpose of copyright is not to encourage the creation of new works. Rather, it was crafted to encourage dissemination of those works to the public. In the time of the printing press, it was dangerous to be an author. You could spend an inordinate amount of time and effort creating a new work, only to have it ripped off and printed wholesale and never see a dime from your efforts. The only real way to protect yourself was to keep your manuscript and ideas secret from the public. The founding fathers believed that learning and knowledge and the subsequent generation of a distinct and learned American culture should be one of the highest priorities when constructing a Constitution, and copyright was a cheap and easy way to ensure new information got disseminated to the public, for its overall benefit. It also withdrew this power from the states to create a uniform and standardized system of learning. This was done to prevent any one state from granting more protection for the dissemination of works than others, which would've created a destabilized system of learning.

      A textual examination of the Constitution supports this. The intellectual property clause grants time-limited monopolies "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." The Useful Arts refers to patentable ideas. The Science portion refers to copyrights, and it's interesting they use the term Science because in the 18th century, that generally refers to "knowledge." Moreover, our first 1790 copyright statute was built upon England's Statute of Anne. The Statute of Anne was entitled “An Act for the Encouragement of Learning,” and it was the founders belief that copyright, despite their distaste for monopolies, would enrich the learning of science, knowledge, and culture.
  • tdkyo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18Well, this forever copyright idea is from a newspaper, which is a form of intellectual property held by the NYT....
    • SecondGuesser, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3News is not IP - it's public domain, my friend. You can use the work freely for any reason as long as it is properly cited. News is considered "common knowledge" once its published.
    • fatdog789, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The factual content is public domain since you can't copyright facts. You can, however, copyright the particular way of expressing those facts. However, with news, the fair use exemption is generally so broad that the only restriction on use is that which is directly harmful and contrary to the interests of the author.
  • GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+40The reason intellectual property is different to real property is because intellectual property isn't property at all. Really we should use a different label but IP is used to intentionally confuse. IP is merely a limited time, state enforced, monopoly. Property requires scarcity, all property theory is based upon the idea that there is a limited amount of resources in the world. You aren't allowed to steal a chair from me because I might not be able to replace it. Property isn't about economy, it is about rights. My effort went into making the chair and I should be allowed to benefit from it. However making a copy of a copyrighted work does not remove the original copy. The original owner can still benefit.

    This is always the slippery slope though. When you offer people privileges that can't be logically justified within any property system then they will keep asking for more.

    Giving somebody infinite rights to something infinitely reproducible can only lead to all property being held by IP owners. Since real property is exchanged for IP it is clear that this can only be the result long term since the means to pay will not outlast what we are paying for.
    • Langford, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If they were to do something as absurd as extend copyright to forever, then it's only natural that it must be extended back retroactively to the dead. This would mean that many copyrights we now recognize would have to be revoked because of infringement with older work. Imagine a company like Disney for example. The bulk of their fortune was built on older works taken from the public domain. Permanent copyrights would prevent a "new Disney" from ever appearing, and a retroactive copyright would kill the existing Disney company.

      I suppose this is why large companies would be in favor of permanent copyrights for themselves, but not in favor of giving it to their predecessors. If we want to keep permanent copyrights a dead issue, we need to make sure it is always accompanied by retroactive copyrights, so that these large companies will fear the consequences of their potential selfishness.
    • Fartag, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@GMorgan

      The slippery slope here you mention does show the difficulty of trying to treat information as property. A lot of the related problems we've had for over a hundred years is from the conflict between the beneficial spread of information (a more informed public...) vs. paying those that create the works. The problem has _never_ been to limit the distribution of the work if the originator has been paid for it, but many have been convinced this is the only solution probably because it used to be easier to treat information like a product since it was naturally limited by poor copying techniques. These are now, of course, replaced with technical and legal restrictions, DRM, DMCA and criminalized copyright violations, harsh things because it's _so_ easy to copy information now.

      Suppose one day though we create a Google-like site that indexes every known piece of non-private information ever created by mankind. Suppose it helps people to search and fully access all of this information. Suppose also there's an "entry fee" to it that's covered through taxes (similar to tax based roadway system, pay for upkeep, etc. and drive anywhere). Now people can access what they want, they can help decide which works have merit and support them by determining which things get what amount of taxes (maybe in some automated fashion). Other groups can help decide for specialized information like research, journals, etc. A lot of details to work out to prevent abuse and other trouble.

      But, copyright without distribution restrictions is possible and the Internet seems to be the key to it. With such a system you can share every newspaper, movie, magazine, journal article, mp3, software and there's no need for archaic distribution limitations since the ability for anyone to access these things is there already. And all of those strange complicating symptoms from some definite underlying problem, the DMCA, DRM, etc. just fall away because they're unnecessary, and you're no longer a criminal for merely sharing information.
    • Fartag, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2By the FSM I apologize for the text around the middle of that 3rd uber-sentence. Two sentences crashed together during the 2 minute edit. :-(

    • SecondGuesser, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Hypothetically speaking...

      I've invented the solution to global warming. But I'm not sharing it with you because you don't think it belongs to me as my property. If I'm not entitled to profit from my creation, then I won't allow anyone to benefit from it.
    • paidhima, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@SecondGuesser

      The article doesn't posit that there should be no copyright law, no intellectual property, and no compensation given to people for innovative ideas. It simply says that your control of that idea shouldn't stretch into perpetuity. If you came up with this idea and copyrighted it, you would have every right to be compensated for it. That doesn't mean your descendant 200 years from now should have that same right.
    • SecondGuesser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What if I choose to sell it to someone? If I sold a painting to Amazon.com for display in their lobby, don't they have the right to own that painting forever? Why are digital works treated any different? If I write a song and sell it to Walmart to use as their jingle, they should own it forever, since it was my property to sell and Walmart's to own. You can't just take it from them because you think it should be free to others a decade or a century from now.
    • enharmonix, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@GMorgan: Wow. That is seriously the most logical thing I have read on digg in ages. You just made a better argument than techdirt. (And in case nobody's told you, Gmorgan is also the name of an ALSA-based MIDI rhythm Debian package, so I feel like already know you. Heh.) Cheers.
  • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5If anyone wants to read a similar view on IP there's a good (though long) thing here:

    http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5*****, ran out of edit time.

      One of the main concerns, I presume, about having no IP laws is that people won't make anything anymore, because it isn't worth it. The problem just really just needs an new ways to try profit. Lots of ideas are already with us, e.g. cd-keys for online play, 3d cinemas. There are billions of people on the planet that can think of new such ideas so I don't think there would be a shortage of them.

      As for patents, companies try and improve their products to compete. So, if they could find a better way of doing something, they would for their own benefit. If they copy it and they compete with a lower price then that is just the market at work. Afterall, the first company would have had a short monopoly on having a headstart! The other companies would need to develop a copy (even though in most cases it probably wouldn't make sense to make a direct copy.) Wouldn't only the cheap people who make bootlegs try and copy it exactly---but even then they don't, they make cheap copies which a customer with different evaluations buys. As for patents for drugs, the cost of producing drugs is so vast now to regulations etc I think (I think- as in I've read in a couple of places but not really read much on it) that drug companies try to purposely make the drugs patentable, so it costs even more to develop.
  • lordmike, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Mark Halperin is at it again... what he wants more money from his lousy books? Isn't it bad enough that he's been sucking up to right wingers for the last five years, begging them to watch ABC news... it got so bad they had to "reassign" him, since his objectivity was questioned by his obsequiousness to the hard right media.

    Copyrights already last five times longer than they did 200 years ago.... enough is enough! How long does one get to profit from work that you did fifty years ago. No one gets paid for a job they did a half a century ago, yet these guys want to be paid in perpetuity. Talk about creating a new aristocracy.

    Knowing Halperin's politics, I can understand why he'sd want to promote aristocracy.

    Thanks,

    Mike
    • nmckinlay, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1"How long does one get to profit from work that you did fifty years ago."

      Knowledge and ideas are not work, they are capital investment. You invest in your ideas just as you invest in your factories, and expect them to generate money for you - not your competitors or peers - for a reasonable amount of time. Consider the amounts spent on R&D at companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Pfizer, other software and pharmaceutical companies.. how fair is it that they put out the risk of investing in new ideas, new innovation, and new processes and allow others to simply "copy" the result of which and benefit from them. If things worked like this, and you were unable to protect who profitted from your investments, you would probably see a drop in R&D across the board - which would NOT benefit the end consumer.

      This is capitalism, for better or for worse it has seemed to benefit the G11 thus far.
    • GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14If people make bad investments that is their problem. IP is not there for them to make money, it's there to encourage them to do the work. If they make money from it great, if not my heart bleeds. Older limited term IP is about right for me, this later stuff is more about the secondary 'making more money' imperative about the primary imperative of getting the work done and released to the public as quickly as possible.

      With 25 year copyrights (from time of creation) and 10 year patents people would still innovate. IP should have as small a shelf life as the market can afford.
    • crc77, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"Consider the amounts spent on R&D at companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Pfizer, other software and pharmaceutical companies.. how fair is it that they put out the risk of investing in new ideas, new innovation, and new processes and allow others to simply "copy" the result of which and benefit from them."

      That is, of course, assuming that their "innovations" are truly original. In some cases they are, but in others they are just extensions of existing ideas, or even blatant rip-offs if the original source hasn't had the foresight to patent it first.
    • Homunculiheaded, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"how fair is it that they put out the risk of investing in new ideas, new innovation, and new processes and allow others to simply "copy" the result of which and benefit from them."

      However if you look at a lot of the risker more innovative things that are being created a lot is being done at research universities and government funded contractors and researchers. A lot of risk is actually your tax dollars. Yes the companies you mentioned aren't necessarily receiving tons government funding but there are many that benefit directly from university research, which takes larger risks and a lot of it, at least partially, on your tax dollar. Additionally a lot of really cutting edge stuff is being done by government contractors.

      look at MIT, I'm sure we can think of a few things that have come out of there that have effected research, well MIT is (or at least was last time I check) the largest receiver of government funded research. (to be fair it's also the largest funder of private research money)

      Look at the ARPANET, produced by a private government contractor. These are the high risk innovations which build the ground work for the companies you mentioned, they benefit free of cost because you, paid for them.
    • SecondGuesser, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1@GMorgan

      Funny that you think someone stealing an idea or creation is the creator's fault for making a "bad investment". You're so clueless.

      I'll try to explain it in clear terms. In order for someone to make the "investment" you talk about (i.e. taking the risk) then there must be the promise of some sort of reward at the end of it. If you eliminate intellectual property rights, then you eliminate the reward. So what's the incentive to create if there's no promise of a gain?

      Suppose I'm a brilliant scientist who has invented the cure for cancer. Why would I want to share my invention with anyone if I could not gain from it? Especially after I made the big investment and took the risk that no one else was willing to take?

      More importantly, why would I want to take any new risks creating other things that might benefit society?

      Say goodbye to progress if you say goodbye to IP rights.
    • mabhatter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This is about making copyright LONGER... NOT!

      Copyright doesn't need to be longer, it's a govt grant period. What's going on is that companies that already produced work and reaped benefit under the old rules want the rules CHANGED yet again to keep the same old products locked up making them money. Since the late 60's there's been a constant push that making companies "give up" their precious "IP" is somehow wrong. Nobody is forcing media companies to give up anything. The government granted writ of exclusivity is wearing off, now the natural order of information exchange between citizens can take place without unlawful govt interference. Copyrights were good at 14 or even 50 years... but the current change to 95+ years is longer than the average lifespan. What the CORPORATIONS want is to become the new feudal system. They want royalty for ALL recording for ALL songwriting played in public... even YOUR OWN... you can't get your money unless you swear "fealty" to one of their corporate sponsors.

      Call it what it is, the artists performed their works, got the full compensation, and now the payments are DONE! Just like your's or my paycheck the money stops.... it's a fact of life. At this point the money doesn't even go to the actual artist. but to their managers and publishers... who want to use the leverage to force more artists to sign with them and keep the ball rolling. If stuff from the 1920's was to go public again, it would wipe large cuts of "IP" out and put famous franchises into the PD for anybody to resurrect and write new stories about. I think famous characters like the Mouse could be protected from NEW development by trademark... but it shouldn't stop reproduction of the old stuff.
    • GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1@SecondGuesser

      The point is in an ideal world we would have no IP. In free market economics it isn't justifiable. What we have is a botch to fix something the state feels the free market fails on (of course this ignores the fact that progress went just fine before patents and their ilk were commonly used or even existed at all).

      If we are to have IP it should be at a minimum. Personally I'd tie it down on cost. The person claiming would have to list their costs and would be allowed to claim say 300% of their costs in profit. That sort of IP would terminate in about 3 months and provides incentive to do the work since they are able to make a profit on it.

      This isn't about incentive. This is about disproportionate incentives. Companies don't need to earn 9999999999999% of the development costs in order to have an incentive. As soon as there is some reasonable profit people will do it. This doesn't need 70 years after death or any other of that nonsense. A 4 year copyright would be more than enough to reward the artist.
      • SecondGuesser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Just so I'm understanding you...

        Profits should be artificially capped at 300% of costs? On what grounds do you arrive at that 300% number? Is it just an arbitrary value that you picked? Why not 130%? Why not 1300%?

        I personally think the market should dictate prices. Why? Because the market is a lot less arbitrary in determining fairness in things like prices and profits. If consumers didn't want a producer to profit from production, then they shouldn't buy the product.
    • SecondGuesser, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1You clearly don't believe in the free market or capitalism if you think that intellectual property shouldn't exist in an ideal world. And to suggest price controls, of all things, on property rights is the ultimate big brother nonsense. It's so comical I can't even take you seriously.

      If the creator of the work WANTS the work to be free and available to all, then they have that right. But if they want to sell it, they should have that right also. Why on earth would you want to take away people's rights to own, control, and transfer works that they produced as they see fit? What does that accomplish (other than giving freebies and handouts to those that couldn't afford them)?
  • sylentmode, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4I think they shouldn't be so willy nilly about handing out copyrights.


    "happy birthday to you..."x3....."happy birthday dear " + [insert name here]" ....happy birthday to you.

    Anytime anyone sings this in public........you can get a fine......http://unhappybirthday.com/

    I don't care if it was a good idea......the song is barely a song......it lasts 15 seconds......how the ***** could you copyright that?!?!

    On top of this, they hand out patents for things that were made long before the application for the patent was granted. I have a friend who works for a company.....who's sole purpose is to steal peoples ideas out of devices that have already been created.....they patent it.......and then sue everyone who uses it
    • petermoffat, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1*****. You don't have any friends.
    • alphonseragusa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2That's AWESOME!
      I actually work for ASCAP.

      FTW = "If you have seen someone singing Happy Birthday in a restaurant, a park, or at a school, you should tell ASCAP so that they can arrange for a license. If you are an offender, you should apologize and offer to pay whatever is due — a nickel, a quarter, a dollar — whatever ASCAP demands."

      You must all pay me $1 bitches!!
    • Darkhacker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5You know on the NBC nightly news, how they have those three chimes at the beginning. That is copyrighted and NBC has actually won lawsuits where those three notes were used in that combination in certain songs. That is much worse than the birthday song in my opinion.
  • majmcdonald, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13FTA: "It is amusing to note that some are already pointing out that Helprin's argument is a blatant copy of Mark Twain's -- and yet we doubt he paid the descendants of Mark Twain for it."

    Classic.
    • Gustav, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Heh, I enjoyed it too. Come to think of it, I'm sure the word "it" wasn't developed by Helprin. Maybe he wouldn't mind if we tracked down who owns it and makes him pay royalties. And also for every other word.
  • crc77, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Copyright is basically about being recognised as being the owner or originator of some piece of work, whether it's creative, technical, whatever, and being able to control the republication or distribution of that work. This means that the copyright holder can use their copy-rights for financial purposes if they want, as well as preventing other people from profiting from their work.

    The problem with copyright and patents is that in some cases they are something that only one person or group would ever have come up with in that form, e.g. Beethoven's symphonies or something, whereas other things are the next logical progression of existing ideas and inventions. You have to question whether it is really something nobody else could have come up with or whether it would just be a matter of time.

    For example, take patents on lightbulbs - can you imagine if every incandescent lightbulb made meant a royalty had to get paid to Thomas Edison's family? It would be ludicrous, because not only was he one of several people who invented them (look up Sir Joseph Swan if you're interested), but it was also something built upon the work of many that came before them. I agree with the article totally - granting copyright or patents in perpetuity would be a disaster. A time-limited copyright or patent is a good compromise between no protection and too much protection.
    • Ratteler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Given an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters, one of them will eventually write Hamlet, word for word with correct spacing.
      How many will get readably close except for spelling, grammer, character names.

      Language is mostly a closed system. Therefore there are a finite number of combinations that the language can be used in.
      Music is a mostly closed system. When is the last time some one added a new note to the musical scale?
      Processor instruction,while for more open to expansion than the previous two systems, are still mostly closed system.

      We already have restrictions in the usage of all the systems. In language we have spelling and grammar rules. Music is probably the least restrictive, but we all have a fairly common understanding of what sounds good.

      In computer code sometimes there is literally NO OTHER WAY to do something because of the limits of the the instruction set.

      If you add the limits of eternal copyright to these closed systems, eventually you will be unable to use them at all, because every possible combination of words will be copyrighted somewhere.

      Unless you will to give up the power of speech, and every shred of society that power has helped form, to return to a pre-caveman state... YOU DON'T WANT ETERNAL COPYRIGHT!

      When it took 2 and a half weeks to send a letter from Maine to Florida, our founding fathers gave copyright 13 Years.
      One year for every state in the union. That was to allow people to profit in from their work in every state before that work was GIVEN to the people who maintained the society that the environment that allowed them to create.

      With todays instant transmission of information from all over the world, they might have only given copyright a year.

      Copyright was created to give creative people the opportunity to eat and live indoors while they found new ways for all of us to express ourselves.
      It says NOTHING of protecting middle men whose only "creation" is a set of legal definitions that robs the author and inventor of their creative work.
      There is no Constitutional protection for financial managers who's creativity outlet is cutting costs by exploiting their workers.

      THAT is not a "contribution" a democracy holds any value in. That is a tool of an oligarchy and dictatorship.

      Copyright was created to motivate us to enrich all of our society, not a few rich people and con men disguised as politicians.
  • JQP123, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@crc77
    "This means that the copyright holder can use their copy-rights for financial purposes if they want, as well as preventing other people from profiting from their work."

    You mean like in the GPL?
    • GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3People can profit from the GPL, they just have to work within it's framework. The GPL is based upon the belief that in an ideal world public domain would be the best option. However this isn't the ideal world and in order to protect freedom from copyright we must turn copyright against itself. This is what the GPL does. It is a license that uses copyright to produce a result contrary to the normal result of copyright (i.e. normally copyright restricts the availability of a work, the GPL ensures it is always available).
  • mt066, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I don't see what all this grumbling is about. The government is doing you (the IP creator) a favor by creating an artificial legal barrier to protect your idea. There are massive amounts of government dedicated just to IP protection, without which, you would be S.O.L. because really, there is nothing else stopping someone else from taking up all your hard work. What more do you want? Everyone else is paying to have your property protected. No matter how much you protect someone's IP, they will keep crying for more and more.
  • Gustav, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7"A conspiracy-minded person might suggest that this is no coincidence, and that the best way to get stronger copyright and patent laws passed is to first get people arguing about ridiculously strong laws, and then get them to agree to "lesser" changes that are still much stronger than what we have today."

    Oh no, that's not a conspiracy-minded person, that is just a mindful, critical, thorough, and well-prepared person.
  • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -7/+0Dug down for childish name calling. Written by a 17 year old?
  • GRTWHT, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"A conspiracy-minded person might suggest that this is no coincidence, and that the best way to get stronger copyright and patent laws passed is to first get people arguing about ridiculously strong laws, and then get them to agree to "lesser" changes that are still much stronger than what we have today."

    OK, I must be the conspiracy-minded person referred to, because I believe the author hit upon the actual agenda here. I suspect that Helprin is the complete idiot that he appears to be, but is inadvertently working to help The Copyright Alliance advance their plans.

    They would be thrilled to have eternal rights and infinite ownership of all current and future ideas (in effect ownership of all thoughts, plans and dreams until the end of time, since anything can be shown to be derived from something prior), but will settle for the oil company method of taking more each year, while using the extremist's perspectives to show how they are "compromising".

    Remember: every time they "compromise", they gain a little more and we lose a little more.
  • RickWolff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The name of the article (as presented to Digg, anyway) is "Why Intellectual Property Is Different Than Real Property". Neiltc13 would like to re-name it "Why Intellectual Property Is Different to Real Property...". I say it should be renamed "Why Intellectual Property Is Different FROM Real Property".

    Sorry. I couldn't let it go.
    • GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1If you use from then it should be 'Why IP differs from real property'.
  • CaptainStone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3IP - what a term. Makes me think of a two year old who is learning to pee in a toilet. Goes to his parents proudly and claims, " I pee, I pee, I pee in big bowl."

    Copyright holders need to be reminded once something is published to the public, that work is no longer their property. End of story. The only thing they own is the privilege (not to be confused with a right) to reproduce copies. Maybe the term should be renamed copy-privilege.

    I would like to see terms reset to the original 14 years plus one renewal. If they forget to renew, tough!
    • noisician, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1i agree... let's go back to some lesser patent & copyright terms

      but how can this ever happen? all the money sits with corporations who only want to extend terms

      is there any group/movement pushing for reducing terms?
  • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Why it's different???

    It's an IDEA.... not PHYSICAL PROPERTY
  • alphonseragusa, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I really have to agree with the article.

    If you think about it - if I sell you a gallon of milk, I have no right to tell you what to do with it. You are free to water it down, give it to your cats, whatever. If I said "You must drink it, and anyone you give a glass of milf to owes me $0.35", that's insane.

    Now if I sell you a CD I made, I do have the right to tell you when, where and how to play it. God forbid you make a copy - I will put you in jail!
    • ahhell, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4A glass of milf would be worth WAY more than $0.35.
    • sonnysavage, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Where can I find a glass of MILF?

      edit: ahhell beat me to it...
  • Krigan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Copyright holders have far more rights than property owners. For example it is lawful to buy a chair or a table from a manufacturer, copy it, and sell the copies, but it is not lawful to do so if the work is copyrighted. Manufacturers and other property owners have less rights than record labels and other copyright holders.

    Any copyright holder claiming to receive more rights because of the similarity between "property" and "intellectual property" is always conveniently forgiving he has MORE rights than property owners.
    • GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4That's the crux of the issue though. Property deals with the individual items. IP deals with the rights to create such items. It is not about property but the right to create and distribute property. This is another reason why it is a monopoly and not property. It is also why comparisons to property are meaningless.

      The only argument they have is that the labels are similar. If I relabelled 'Sex with Jessica Alba' as 'Alba air' then under this argument I should ask why I don't have an endless free supply of 'Alba air' like I do normal air. Air has nothing to do with sex with Jessica Alba, state granted monopolies have little to do with property.
    • GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3My apologies to Ms. Alba for using her in such a crude analogy. Now where's my free Alba air.
  • masterofNone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2halperin is a twisted little shill. he's fallen from ABC political director to Time. i predict a continued downward trajectory for his career.
  • djempirical, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@Krigan -- the funny thing about your chair argument is that if you copy the chair's design you could be infringing on their IP rights. :)
  • infiniphonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I have my own music and film IP to look after.
    I don't think copyrights should last forever.
    Should my son own my works after i die? I would like for him to.
    It cuts both ways.
    • masterofNone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2then you should work on dying as soon as possible.

      do the kid a favor.
    • masterofNone, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4sorry that was meant as a joke...
      but when i saw it in black and white it looked harsh and troll-ish

      better your kid has you than your IP.
    • mousky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1With or without copyrights, there is nothing preventing you son from owning your IP after your death. Just because copyright and patents expire, does not mean that ownership of the original IP expires. Tylenol and Aspirin are two example of products that available in generic form, yet they are still manufactured McNeil and Bayer, respectively.
  • catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"different from"

    /grammar police
  • diggbot7, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Digital technology is inherently socialist. Our attempts to extend capitalism beyond its historical bounds are apt to become increasingly artificial and problematic, and the push toward "permanent" copyright is simply another example of this trend.
    • SecondGuesser, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1The pro-IP/copyright crowd has no objection to someone giving away their works, or using a method like GPL. But the anti-IP/copyright crowd seems to think that it is fair and right to determine in advance, and codify with law, what a person chooses to do with their works.

      I wrote a song today. Are you telling me that I have no right to sell that work to someone in perpetuity? On what basis do you claim that authority? It's not your work! You have no right to determine what I can or cannot do with that work.
  • teaguehopkins, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Helprin = pwned
  • mastermc99, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3It's really quite simple. If I "steal" real property, I have it now and you don't. If I "steal" intellectual property. We now both have it so I haven't really stolen anything at all.
    • enicholas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2So if a famous musician steals your song, starts selling it as their own, and goes multi-platinum while you're still performing in the subway for spare change... that's okay, because at least you both still have the song?
    • mastermc99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2That totally misses the point. While I tend to agree in limited copyrights/patents to encourage innovation the point of my comment merely was that real property exists and can be stolen by transference of possession whereas intellectual "property" can not be stolen but rather copied. One can not truly steal intellectual property.
    • uberneoconcert, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1i think it really hits part of the point hard. if you think of the musical example in new business terms, the person performing the song on the corner is the first mover, which is an "expensive" (time, money, energy) risk. the person who scoops up the song and makes it "worth it" to others to listen to only makes the idea work in a business sense and the writer still has a chance to make their own version better after hearing a different version. in business, making an idea better and profiting can be as simple as price/cost-cutting or marketing. in music, it could be just as easy. although i am sorry for people who do not have the best tools to protect things they may think are valuable, i question their level of effort to attain protection and am glad i have a terrific variety of songs to choose from for entertainment or to sing badly.
      • SecondGuesser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yes, but in your music scenario, the person making the music "better" wouldn't have been able to do so without the original creator's effort. The creator is entitled to any profits that the "betterer" makes. You see, you can own something you create. But you don't own something that you "make better".
    • vguard, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Intellectual Property is a legal fiction created to promote the sciences and arts. It was NEVER intended to be a perpetual "Toll Both".

  • Krigan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@GMorgan: My favourite example of similar names with far different meanings is "advocate" and "Devil's advocate".

    Oh yes, i also like Jessica Alba :-)
  • TKardinal, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2From the article:

    "The purpose of property is to better manage the allocation of scarce resources. Since the resource is limited and not everyone can have it, property rights and property law make complete sense for a civilized society, allowing those with rights to the property to buy, sell and exchange their property."

    This reflects a fundamental difference in the view of "property". Some, including the author, see property rights as a means to the end of allocation of resources. I, and many others, including the founders of the United States, disagree; the right to own property is a fundamental right of man. It is an end in itself, not a means to another end.

    I do not own my intellectual property (I like that term; it conveys the proper regard we should have for these things) as a means to the end of allocating resources. I own my intellectual property because I created it and therefore it is mine, mine to do with as I wish, to distribute as I wish, to share as I wish. Not as you wish. Further, I have the fundamental right to transfer that intellectual property to another person (record company) and all of my rights thereto.
  • ogleby, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Geddy Lee of Rush!!!

    Of salesmen?

    Of salesmen!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • filmbandit, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1 i find it interesting to listen to people not involved in creating IP talk about it as if it were a piece of furniture--as if it were something generated in a cubicle or on an assembly line.

    if i generate a piece of work that is IP and am not beholden to an employer or rep that has rights to any/all of my output, with a lawyer's help i am my own broker. there are many options i have to collect money on it. which method i choose may be better or worse. if i license the work it will revert to my ownership after a period -- i may not make as much money up front but then again i can sell the work again and again and so can my family after me. if i choose to forfeit all further rights to the material i might have a windfall depending how much demand there is for said work, but there again what happens with that work later on is no longer in my hands. someone could colorize my black and white masterpiece, they could turn it into the muppet babies, they could alter my recording so it sounds as though my daughter is singing a duet with me years after i've died. and i or my estate might be fine with all this if a mint was made in the process.

    As far as the question of why should someone get paid again and again on work that was generated years earlier. IP can remain relevant in and to a culture for centuries and i think an artist or estate should be able to be paid again and again on it. if my idea or presentation continues to have market value, hasn't become obsolete, and i choose to retain rights, i should be able to sell it again and again--but i also should have made those decisions that keeps the work in my hands.

    if someone is unhappy about the result of signing their creative work away to a publisher, label, studio etc. that was their own fault for not thinking all of it through.

  • AsylumAleikum, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Intellectual property is, indeed, different - it can be stolen with relative impunity.
    • masterofNone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1if you write a song and i like it and sing it to my kid... is that stealing your intellectual property? i don't think woodie guthrie was worried when "this land is your land" was sung by folksingers all over america. intellectual property is a myth. as soon as it comes out of your mouth or onto the page it's your gift to the world.

      get over it. take credit. get rich off it if you can... but don't expect anything but credit.
      • SecondGuesser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0No, because you're not profiting from singing it to your kid. It would be stealing if you sold the song to someone.

        You may be confused by the "happy birthday song" and the fact that restaurants can't sing it to people anymore. In that circumstance, the restaurant is, in fact, profiting from a service that has been enhanced by the works of others.

        Since your child is not paying you for the song, you have not stolen any intellectual property.
  • PjsPjs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'snt credit the original intellectual property?
  • bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If you had a magical box that could infinitely reproduce enough loaves and fishes to feed the world, would you use it, even if it was illegal to do so?
    • cliffski, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1you are equating feeding starving people with copying a britney spears album? get real. If it has a price, and you just take it without paying. that's theft, dress it up all you like.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.