# Copyright Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 27, 2015, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031 "2015-01-27T18:06:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/61 "2015-01-29T23:26:59Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That conceptual error lies behind everything you say and it’s why you’ve gotten every statement you’ve made wrong. I would say the exact opposite, and it’s clear we aren’t going to resolve this here, so I’ll just leave it be. I will say this. If someone builds a house on the other side of the country, it doesn’t affect me the slightest bit. It’s not possible for me to violate the law as long as I don’t get near the place. But if I legally purchase a book and think it’s pretty cool and make a photocopy for a friend, then I have broken the law. Somehow, even though I have had zero interaction with the property owner, and only interacted with property that I own, I am now on the hook for copyright infringement. Physical property may be unlimited in time but it is limited in space. Copyright is unlimited in space and only barely limited in time. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/62 "2015-01-29T23:55:41Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > So why should creators get special treatment? The answer is clear: creative works are highly front-loaded compared to other jobs. You don’t get paid anything until the work is finished, and once that happens the work is trivially duplicated by anyone. > > Plenty of people, historically, managed to make a living this way in spite of the disadvantages. It’s my impression that, historically, it’s been quite rare for anyone to make a living from writing in a society without any copyright protection. (And that’s even before modern technology that makes copying and distributing so much easier.) Can anyone confirm or deny? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/63 "2015-01-30T00:22:02Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > It’s my impression that, historically, it’s been quite rare for anyone to make a living from writing in a society without any copyright protection. (And that’s even before modern technology that makes copying and distributing so much easier.) Can anyone confirm or deny? Patronage in the arts was common. As was simply being paid for performances instead of works. In fact, lots of musicians today make more money from their performances than from sales of their works, in spite of “competition” from cover bands. They would do almost as well without copyright at all. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/64 "2015-01-30T00:59:35Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Patronage in the arts was common. As was simply being paid for performances instead of works. In fact, lots of musicians today make more money from their performances than from sales of their works, in spite of “competition” from cover bands. They would do almost as well without copyright at all. The ease of copying music has driven down both sales and prices for music, so to some extent we’re there. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/65 "2015-01-30T01:32:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The ease of copying music has driven down both sales and prices for music, so to some extent we’re there. True enough. Technology made copyright enforcement in this arena virtually impossible. The RIAA and others tried, but all they did was anger the public by suing random people, enact utterly stupid laws like the DMCA, and drive people away from sales by using ineffective and buggy copy protection. They seem to have given up on this strategy and instead mostly chosen to sell DRM free media for a fairly low price. It took them over a decade to get a clue but it did eventually happen. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/66 "2015-01-30T03:32:26Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Patronage in the arts was common. As was simply being paid for performances instead of works. In fact, lots of musicians today make more money from their performances than from sales of their works, in spite of “competition” from cover bands. They would do almost as well without copyright at all. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > True enough. Technology made copyright enforcement in this arena virtually impossible. The RIAA and others tried, but all they did was anger the public by suing random people, enact utterly stupid laws like the DMCA, and drive people away from sales by using ineffective and buggy copy protection. They seem to have given up on this strategy and instead mostly chosen to sell DRM free media for a fairly low price. It took them over a decade to get a clue but it did eventually happen. All the major online sellers of music, from iTunes to Spotify, work on the ancient model of making creative works available for a fee and paying royalties to the artists for licensing it. Much the same as book publishing has worked for the last century. The old ways are the best ways. That would seem to be the exact opposite of what you intended to say in these comments. Perhaps you should, indeed, leave it be. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/67 "2015-01-30T04:11:59Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Much the same as book publishing has worked for the last century. The old ways are the best ways. I don’t consider a century to be old. Patronage has been around for millenia, so maybe you don’t want to be arguing that older is better. Anyway, my comments to **Voyager** were a side note to the discussion. Industry feared new technologies, and lobbied to get the DMCA enacted as a preventative measure–specifically, to give legal force to Digital Rights Management schemes. They immediately started exercising and abusing their new powers. In particular, there was a strong chilling effect on security research after Dmitry Sklyarov (not even an American citizen) was arrested and sued for demonstrating that Adobe’s copy protection was weak and exploitable (he was cleared of charges, but much of the damage was done). In the end, most of this backfired: consumers largely rejected DRM schemes, and these schemes had zero effect on piracy in the first place (DRM itself rests on an an untenable premise: that a consumer is both allowed and not allowed to decrypt a creative work). Again, it merely angered consumers. As such, digital music sales today are largely DRM free. Hopefully you can see why I am skeptical of unlimited expansion of both the scope of copyright and the powers used to enforce it. The DMCA had a direct negative impact on my industry and in the end did not even benefit copyright holders. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/68 "2015-01-30T04:27:24Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Why shouldn’t a part of my purchase money go to Tolstoy’s heirs just as it goes to Hemingway or Fitzgeralds’s heirs? I can’t come up with a coherent argument against it. Can you provide one? That’s a serious question. I think a coherent argument can be made. I have my physical property for as long as the physical thing lasts. Any positive intervention by the state to take that property would have to involve deciding the difficult question of who is to have it if/when my rights in it expire. Contrastingly, my IP exists only for as long as the state says it does and once the state chooses to stop recognising that IP there is no question of who then gets my IP since it just doesn’t exist. So unlike physical property the state can neatly stop enforcing IP after a certain point without raising messy issues. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/69 "2015-01-30T04:40:27Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > This is not theft, because theft involves depriving an individual of the thing which is stolen. That’s not possible with information. This is much repeated amongst the anti-copyright crowd, indeed it rises to the level of something they appear to consider reflexively self evident. But it’s actually total bollocks, based on a complete misunderstanding of _what copyright is_. Fundamental to your (and many, many others’) misunderstanding appears to be a wrongheaded notion that copyright is a right to somehow “have” a work, such that if one merely takes a copy of a work, the copyright owner is not deprived of anything since they still “have” the work, even after one has copied it. Actually, copyright is (simplified) an _exclusive_ right to copy a work. If others copy that work then I am deprived of my exclusive right in every meaningful sense. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/70 "2015-01-30T04:42:17Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > So unlike physical property the state can neatly stop enforcing IP after a certain point without raising messy issues. It raises another question as well. As you say, IP requires positive enforcement by the state or else it simply ceases to exist. This enforcement has a cost. These costs would grow without bound with an indefinite copyright. They could be paid for with a property tax. **Exapno Mapcase** likes to bring up comparisons to a house, which are usually subject to an annual property tax based on the assessed value. We could do the same with copyrights. I _might_ be onboard with unlimited copyright if it were subject to a similar property tax. It would also neatly solve the problem of abandoned works. If the tax is unpaid, ownership is transferred to the state, which can do what it likes with it (such as classifying it as public domain). ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/71 "2015-01-30T04:52:53Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Actually, copyright is (simplified) an _exclusive_ right to copy a work. If others copy that work then I am deprived of my exclusive right in every meaningful sense. Your argument is circular. Unlike physical property, there is no natural notion of exclusivity for information. That is virtually _the definition_ of information: that stuff which can be extracted from a physical medium without altering the medium. For copyright to exist, we first have to invent the notion of exclusivity for information. Only once we’ve done that can we talk about “stealing” that exclusivity. It is, like money, an entirely fictional concept. It may be a useful fiction as long as everyone goes along with it, but it falls apart utterly as soon as the state (or whoever) stops recognizing it. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/72 "2015-01-30T05:07:18Z")
No my argument is not circular it is simply based on copyright law as it stands. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/73 "2015-01-30T05:13:28Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > This enforcement has a cost. These costs would grow without bound with an indefinite copyright. This is simplistic because you are considering the costs to the state of enforcement without considering the taxes collected by the state on all economic activity. If a thousand years from now the state is still occasionally having to pay judges and bailiffs to enforce the copyrights concerning Mickey Mouse, a thousand years from now the state will also be collecting various taxes on the economic activity that making Mickey Mouse works promotes. There is no more need for a specific tax in this respect than there is a need for a tax on any other business which promotes economic activity while occasionally needing to resort to the state to enforce the laws that allow that business to function. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/74 "2015-01-30T05:23:08Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > No my argument is not circular it is simply based on copyright law as it stands. Well, ok. Since I don’t support copyright law as it stands, I don’t see how your claim is applicable. To repeat, I do in fact support copyright in some form. Exclusivity is a useful fiction, and I think we’ve benefitted overall from its existence–we’ve gotten more creative works than we otherwise would have. But supporting some form of it does not automatically imply supporting the current form or unlimited future expansion. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/75 "2015-01-30T05:45:45Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Well, ok. Since I don’t support copyright law as it stands, I don’t see how your claim is applicable. It was applicable because you were discussing the relationship between theft and IP and I assumed (quite understandably) that you were discussing this in the context of IP as it exists and is currently understood. If you were in fact discussing some other form of IP which does not and never has existed in respect of which your theft comment would have been valid, then perhaps you should have made that clear. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/76 "2015-01-30T06:26:35Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > It was applicable because you were discussing the relationship between theft and IP and I assumed (quite understandably) that you were discussing this in the context of IP as it exists and is currently understood. Actually, I was discussing the philosophical underpinnings of intellectual property, and thought it was clear that _theft_ referred to _information_ and not something like _exclusive control over information_. No matter, at any rate. To be honest, I prefer to avoid words like “steal” and “theft” in these discussions because they have wildly divergent meanings depending on which side of the fence one is on. Very little productive discussion can come of that. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/77 "2015-01-30T06:47:15Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I think a coherent argument can be made. > > I have my physical property for as long as the physical thing lasts. Any positive intervention by the state to take that property would have to involve deciding the difficult question of who is to have it if/when my rights in it expire. > > Contrastingly, my IP exists only for as long as the state says it does and once the state chooses to stop recognising that IP there is no question of who then gets my IP since it just doesn’t exist. > > So unlike physical property the state can neatly stop enforcing IP after a certain point without raising messy issues. This demonstrates that there are no issues with not enforcing copyright at some point, but doesn’t really give a good reason why we make that choice. I think there are benefits and disadvantages of enforcing copyright at any point in a life’s work. Just after it is published the benefits are great, since that is the only way to ensure that the artist gets compensated, even though it increases the price of the work. Years after the artists’ death I think we can make an argument that the benefit of making many works widely available - including ones which arre not best sellers and famous - outweighs the usually small loss to the heirs. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/78 "2015-01-30T07:20:08Z")
The burden of proof is on the proposition that X is true, existent, and/or of utility to society. In this case, the burden of proof is on defenders of intellectual property to prove that ideas can even be property, and owned; or that society benefits from the pretense that they can more than it suffers. The true believers in intellectual property have stated in this thread that the ownership of ideas should be a postulate; that ownership is a function of creation. I say, not proven. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/79 "2015-01-30T07:37:46Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > As for the “intellectual property is unnatural” argument. Well, you could say the same thing about financial instruments like stock options or commodity futures. These exist as property because we define them as such, just as dollar bills exist as money because we define them as such. Strangely I never hear opponents of copyright arguing that we should also do away with financial derivatives, or have their worth evaporate after some arbitrary period of time … . Only because most opponents of present IP law (whether opposed to “intellectual property” as a concept or something else) are not particularly conversant in arcane financial instruments. That is, after all, a different subject. There are various kinds of socialists who would love to see some kinds of derivatives outlawed (as scams) and others subject to forced depreciation as a matter of law. It’s just a different issue. I would have to say there is, as it happens, some overlap between those finance reformists and the anti-IP crowd, inasmuch as I myself am broadly sympathetic to both of those positions. > [@CJ\_F](#): > > The reason many authors don’t ever want to see slash fiction based on their works is that this may preempt their own work. :dubious: That would explain Anne Rice, I suppose. (Hint: “Fanfic” and “slash” are not mutually inclusive.) > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Imagine being told that after x years you’d have to start working for free to benefit everyone and the alternative is to never work at all. You’d be laughed off the Internet. A limited copyright term is certainly not telling you that your _future work_ is for free. You’re not helping your case with this incoherence. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031/80 "2015-01-30T08:41:39Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Actually, I was discussing the philosophical underpinnings of intellectual property, and thought it was clear that _theft_ referred to _information_ and not something like _exclusive control over information_. Actually your paragraph was: > [@](#): > > Intellectual property is a human invention. There’s no natural or intuitive sense in which it exists. No model in normal human behavior in how such property “should” work. On the contrary: it directly opposes human nature, in which information of all kinds is freely disseminated. This is not theft, because theft involves depriving an individual of the thing which is stolen. That’s not possible with information. When someone starts throwing around “natural” as a justification for their position it is seldom anything other than a contentless means of attempting to shore up one’s personal views as to what is and isn’t of merit. IP is about as “natural” as the internet we are communicating over, but I doubt you think that de-legitimises the latter in any sense. To say that it opposes human nature to place restrictions on dissemination of information is nonsense. On the contrary even children understand (and use) the power of maintaining information differentials. I should think that commercial use of information differentials started from the moment some humanoid ape showed another humanoid ape how to make a stone tool in return for having fleas picked off him. What is actually a very recent development is for it to become commonplace for there to be mass rapid receipt of extremely hard-won information, without contact, acknowledgement or quid pro quo passing between the person who won that information and the recipients of that information. > [@Voyager](#): > > This demonstrates that there are no issues with not enforcing copyright at some point, but doesn’t really give a good reason why we make that choice. > I think there are benefits and disadvantages of enforcing copyright at any point in a life’s work. Just after it is published the benefits are great, since that is the only way to ensure that the artist gets compensated, even though it increases the price of the work. Years after the artists’ death I think we can make an argument that the benefit of making many works widely available - including ones which arre not best sellers and famous - outweighs the usually small loss to the heirs. Agreed. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > The burden of proof is on the proposition that X is true, existent, and/or of utility to society. In this case, the burden of proof is on defenders of intellectual property to prove that ideas can even be property, and owned; or that society benefits from the pretense that they can more than it suffers. > > The true believers in intellectual property have stated in this thread that the ownership of ideas should be a postulate; that ownership is a function of creation. I say, not proven. This is pointless sophistry. If the government has decided that it is going utilise the state apparatus to achieve certain things in certain situations for certain people (ie enforce certain "rights), then that is that. The categorisation or characterisation of those rights and those circumstances is a purely academic exercise. Whether one calls the bundle of rights “property” or “ownership” or “splagurkin” is neither here nor there. Statutes are like software. If software says “x = potato” then for the purposes of that statute, x = potato. If that software, operating on the basis that x = potato, causes a certain result, then that result occurs. Whether “x = potato” is “proven” is completely irrelevant. As a result of certain words written down in certain places we call statutes, if I write a book and you copy my book and sell it I can do certain things which will result in the government removing from you a certain amount of the medium of exchange and passing it to me. By force if necessary. When the bailiffs are bashing your door in, why don’t you tell them that ideas can’t be property or owned, or that ownership is not a function of creation? The only value in your post is your recognition that it is a question of utility. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/711031.md?page=5)