# An Honest Discussion on the Relationship between Plagiarism and Piracy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-honest-discussion-on-the-relationship-between-plagiarism-and-piracy/556802 "2010-10-11T17:49:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-honest-discussion-on-the-relationship-between-plagiarism-and-piracy/556802/41 "2010-10-13T23:39:39Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > To keep to my Disney example, take the movies Robin Hood and The Sword in the Stone. Both movies were reinterpretations of existing stories. Those stories are in the free domain. The characters are part of our social heritage, just as Biblical stories and Homer are. If the original stories were under copyright, Disney would need the holders permission to use the story and character just as I would need Disney’s to make a new version of Steamboat Willie. But you don’t need Disney’s permission to make a story about a plucky riverboat pilot and his bullying boss. It’s only a problem if you want to use Mickey Mouse. Disney had to license the rights to Tarzan, Winnie the Pooh, and Mary Poppins. The fact that those IP’s weren’t in the public domain didn’t prevent derivative works from being made. And, in fact, one could argue that the creative leverage the original copyright holders had over how Disney used their properties improved the quality of the work. Would the Lord of the Rings movies have been better if the estate of J. R. R. Tolkien had had no say in the quality of the work? The estate at least has some interest in preserving the long-term value of the IP, not cashing in on a quick buck. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-honest-discussion-on-the-relationship-between-plagiarism-and-piracy/556802/42 "2010-10-13T23:59:54Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > Interestingly, it’s been quite a long time since I was involved in an argument in which the conclusions depended so much and so explicitly on the axioms. I would say that you’re trying to construct a set of axioms that will eliminate intellectual property on principle without considering the ramifications if those axioms were extended to other types of property. > [@](#): > > Granted, the phrase “_possession is 9/10 of the law_” is hackneyed and doesn’t really serve as an argument, but just as clearly, it holds both a recognizable meaning and some level of validity. Okay, “\*entirely \*decoupled” was hyperbole. It is possible to legally acquire property through squatting, for example. But, in order for that to happen the ownership of the property must be in doubt, or the owner must ignore the actions of the squatter for a significant period of time. Possession is not \*necessary \*for ownership, but possession can turn into ownership (for some types of property) if the actual owner fails to exert his ownership rights for long enough. I actually do think some sort of “adverse possession” law for copyright would be a welcome addition. If you’re not using an IP (or ignore infringement for long enough) it lapses into the public domain and becomes fair game. That’s why I think it would be worthwhile to require continual reregistration (with a fee) for all copyrights after an initial grace period. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-honest-discussion-on-the-relationship-between-plagiarism-and-piracy/556802/43 "2010-10-14T14:09:43Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > [@DrCube](#): > > > > _Real_ property rights don’t expire. > > Only because that’s how the law is written. You’re arguing in a circle. You’re using the present law to justify the present law: Intellectual property is different because intellectual property rights expire. Therefore intellectual property rights should expire. QED! My point is that we as a society have already decided that information is different from regular property. If you want to argue that it should be treated the same, go for it, but it will take an argument, because it is not the default. Specifically the “It’s mine, hands off!”, argument against infringement is what I’m trying to dispel. It is a powerful emotional argument that makes people think of their home or car and how important they feel it is to defend it. But it assumes an equivalence between _real_ property and intellectual property that is not (yet) there. > [@](#): > > We’re already so awash in new movies, art, music, literature, and games that its hardly possible to keep up with even the best new works. So it doesn’t look to me like the current copyright system is having a massive chilling effect on the incentive of artists to create. Amazing new cartoons are still being made even though Mickey Mouse is under copyright. It makes a difference, for example, to DJs trying to make new music by mixing and sampling old records. Or artists who primarily make collages. Or writers reworking old stories in a new way, as with fan fiction. The work of editing, translating, abridging, annotating, and compilation all add value to art and society and yet are shut off to those who aren’t rich enough to buy rights from the originator. There is a whole lot of creative copyright violations out there, where copyright demonstrably stifles creativity. How many different writers added to the King Arthur myths? Were they all derivative plagiarists? And yet if I try to add to the Mickey Mouse cannon, or reinterpret Doogie Houser as a drunken adult being sued for malpractice, or make Pac-man into a first person shooter, I’m a criminal. That’s not even getting into the fact that new art is influenced by old art. An ‘idea’ may not be copyrightable as you say, but the flow of information is what creates ideas and “the expression of an idea” as art in the first place. It is hypocritical for artists who are influenced by the information and art all around them, most of which is free to them (either public domain or for example on the radio, tv, a friends stereo, etc.), to not return that favor to the public. I like the trend we are seeing lately where musicians at least are recognizing that the reason copyright worked in the past was because information was hard to get at, and bits needed packaging in the form of atoms to be valuable at all. Now the bits of information they produce are essentially free based on supply and demand and the ridiculous ease in transporting that information, regardless of copyright laws. So instead of fighting progress, they look back to the days where information was always tied up in valuable packages and make money that way. For example, releasing an album out for free in digital form, but selling a collector’s edition vinyl with art and posters and color booklets to the hardcore fans with more disposable income. And a live showing of the music is the most valuable package at all. I’m not saying that’s the solution that will work for all the arts, but that a forward thinking approach like that is much better than a bunch of reactionary lawsuits. And what do you know, music is essentially free to anyone who wants it via bit torrent and the like. And that doesn’t seem to a chilling effect on the music scene at all. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-honest-discussion-on-the-relationship-between-plagiarism-and-piracy/556802/44 "2010-10-14T14:57:51Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > I would say that you’re trying to construct a set of axioms that will eliminate intellectual property on principle without considering the ramifications if those axioms were extended to other types of property. Well, yeah, of course you would. Would you be reassured if I said I wasn’t? Really and truly, I’m not. At any rate, I have no desire to “eliminate intellectual property”. Nor have I implied that; to be explicit, I see a huge difference between advocating “elimination” and just recognizing IP as a legal fiction. The fact that you say that leads me to believe you wildly overestimate my aims, and yet wildly underestimate my understanding of the issues. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-honest-discussion-on-the-relationship-between-plagiarism-and-piracy/556802/45 "2010-10-14T15:16:33Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > > > I would say that you’re trying to construct a set of axioms that will eliminate intellectual property on principle without considering the ramifications if those axioms were extended to other types of property. > > Well, yeah, of course you would. Would you be reassured if I said I wasn’t? Really and truly, I’m not. > > At any rate, I have no desire to “eliminate intellectual property”. Nor have I implied that; to be explicit, I see a huge difference between advocating “elimination” and just recognizing IP as a legal fiction. The fact that you say that leads me to believe you wildly overestimate my aims, and yet wildly underestimate my understanding of the issues. The point I think you’re trying to make, DS, is that IP is a different kind of “legal fiction” than regular property. Or at least that’s the point I would try to make. While both kinds of property are legal fiction to a certain extent, regular property is advantageous for its own sake. While intellectual property is only advantageous as far as it promotes the arts and sciences in our society. > [@US Constitution](#): > > Congress shall have Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. The word “property” isn’t even used there. “To promote the progress…” and “for limited times…” are there for a reason. There are no such stipulations on “regular” property. The “right” to intellectual property is only granted for a limited time in order to incentivize creation. The right to material private property is much more fundamental. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-honest-discussion-on-the-relationship-between-plagiarism-and-piracy/556802.md?page=2)