# Let's talk about intellectual property rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 30, 2020, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862 "2020-11-30T22:44:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/81 "2020-12-02T18:45:53Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > We shouldn’t be willing to give up a single masterpiece to get rid of tons of dreck. > [@MrDibble](#): > > That argument only works if any consumer can _reliably_ sift dreck from great, and I don’t think they can. The bad drives out the good. So long as the work exists, it is a benefit to humanity. It might be widely distributed today, or it might be discovered a year or five years or a hundred years later. Regardless, the system is successful. Copyright isn’t about benefitting any particular individual by handing em a copy of a great work. It’s about the general benefit to society rendered by the mere existence of the work. With modern distributive and search technologies, we can be even more assured that greatness is likely to rise to the top eventually, even if it’s not initially commercially successful. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/82 "2020-12-02T18:47:39Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > You’re saying that trade secrets are protected intellectual property. That’s not correct. That’s a little bit too much of a nitpick. Trade secrets are generally included in discussions of intellectual property as a type of intellectual property protection. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/83 "2020-12-02T18:55:37Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > So long as the work exists, it is a benefit to humanity. Sure. And all the overwhelming masses of dreck is a net deficit, acting to actively dumb people down. > [@Acsenray](#): > > With modern distributive and search technologies, we can be even more assured that greatness is likely to rise to the top eventually, even if it’s not initially commercially successful. I’m not convinced. Not everything is preserved, especially the great stuff created outside studio systems. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/84 "2020-12-02T18:57:38Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Sure. And all the overwhelming masses of dreck is a net deficit No, it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/85 "2020-12-02T19:01:01Z")
You may not believe people are influenced by their entertainment consumption (and i’m including modern news media in that). We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/86 "2020-12-02T20:35:52Z")
You seem to have a bone to pick with modern culture/art/entertainment, which, sure, I understand, there’s a lot of crap out there. But it’s not at all clear to me that it’s related to intellectual property rights. News media, for example, receives very little benefit from intellectual property laws. News is by its nature ephemeral and has _very_ little exploitable value after a very short time period. Yellow journalism (or worse) is a problem, but as far as I can tell it’s a problem totally unconnected from what this thread is about. > [@MrDibble](#): > > That argument only works if any consumer can _reliably_ sift dreck from great, and I don’t think they can. The bad drives out the good. This seems just plain wrong to me. Methods of artistic filtration and critique have improved _much_ faster than content production has. Your argument is like saying that the internet is bad because people can put up shoddy webpages. But we have _fantastic_ tools for finding the good ones. Not everyone uses those tools, they’re not perfect, and of course not everyone values the same things you do in art. But none of those effects are large enough to support the point you’re trying to make. As long as you don’t approach art by, like, trying to watch all the youtube videos in alphabetical order or read all the books by ISBN, you are simply _wrong_ that you can’t reliably sift dreck from great. Can you honestly not find a single art reviewer out there whose tastes match yours to follow? ---
**Author:** ![carrps](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carrps/32/2957_2.png) [@carrps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carrps)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/87 "2020-12-02T20:56:56Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > . I hate _Titanic_ , but I accept that it’s very likely that decades from now, that might be considered one of the greatest works of film. As for sorting dreck from “art,” I think this prediction is likely to fail. Oh, it might be praised for technological aspects, but not much more than that. Isn’t it already pretty much a joke outside a narrow range? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/88 "2020-12-02T20:58:43Z")
Nope, in fact it’s receiving a positive re-evaluation of sorts among a lot of movie critics. ---
**Author:** ![carrps](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carrps/32/2957_2.png) [@carrps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carrps)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/89 "2020-12-02T21:08:59Z")
Seriously??? Who? I know if I come across it while channel-surfing I’ll only stay to laugh. Of course, one of my best friend’s grandmothers was a Titanic survivor, so I know a bit more real world stuff about it. And the movie ridiculously trivialized it for me. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/90 "2020-12-02T21:13:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’ll define intellectual property as having a right to own an idea and have exclusive control over its use. Questions about this premise? Under your definition: Does JK Rowling have executive control over stories about a bullied kid that finds out he’s a wizard? Does Rose-Acuff or Hank Williams Sr.'s heirs have exclusive control over song/stories/paintings/etc. about someone tormented about cheating on their partner? Should Xerox have had exclusive control [over GUIs and computer mice](https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html)? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/91 "2020-12-02T21:16:24Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Should Xerox have had exclusive control [over GUIs and computer mice](https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html)? Someone theoretically could have obtained patent protection on the ideas for GUIs and computer mice, provided they had met the requirements (novelty, usefulness, non-obviousness). ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/92 "2020-12-02T21:20:55Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Can you honestly not find a single art reviewer out there whose tastes match yours to follow? Of course. Or a whole handful. But that’s still only scratching the surface of all the content produced. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/93 "2020-12-02T21:41:06Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Of course. Or a whole handful. But that’s still only scratching the surface of all the content produced. But what does that matter for the argument you’re making? No mortal is ever going to do more than scratch the surface of all content produced. If you can find art that is meaningful and moving and powerful, and so can lots of other people, seems like the system is working pretty well. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/94 "2020-12-02T22:17:31Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Under your definition: > Does JK Rowling have executive control over stories about a bullied kid that finds out he’s a wizard? > Does Rose-Acuff or Hank Williams Sr.'s heirs have exclusive control over song/stories/paintings/etc. about someone tormented about cheating on their partner? > Should Xerox have had exclusive control [over GUIs and computer mice](https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html)? No. I feel our legal system has generally done a good job in setting the narrowness of the ideas that are owned. So Rowling, for example, can own _Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone_ but not the general plot of a bullied young boy finding out he has magic powers. (Which is lucky for her because if it was possible to own that plot, Neil Gaiman would own it.) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/95 "2020-12-02T22:29:25Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I feel our legal system has generally done a good job in setting the narrowness of the ideas that are owned. Your point would be clearer if you said that the legal system has said that “ideas” cannot be protected under copyright law. Let’s look, for example, at the current U.S. copyright statute, the Copyright Act of 1976: > **§102 · Subject matter of copyright: In general** > (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: > (1) literary works; > (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; > (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; > (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; > (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; > (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; > (7) sound recordings; and > (8) architectural works. > (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any **_idea_, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery** , regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/96 "2020-12-02T22:34:01Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > > > [@Acsenray](#): > > > > > > Remember, copyright interests are treated as being economic goods. They are designed to be licensed, sold, etc. Thus, whatever number of years in the future that the creator might forego after death can be monetized in the present. > > > > This commodification of a copyright seems to me to be another good argument for a fixed period rather than one based on the author’s lifetime. It makes what’s being sold a known quantity. And why should a copyright be affected by when somebody who no longer owns it dies? > > I’m no expert on copyright, but are you confusing copyright with publishing rights? Isn’t it more typical for an author/creator (unless they’re doing “work for hire”) to retailn the copyright but sell/transfer publishing rights? To give a citation, these are the rights that the Copyright Act confers to a copyright owner. A copyright owner can sell or license any or some or all of these rights and retain ownership, or can sell es entire ownership interest. > **§106 · Exclusive rights in copyrighted works** > Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: > (1) to **reproduce** the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; > (2) to prepare **derivative works** based upon the copyrighted work; > (3) to **distribute** copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; > (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to **perform** the copyrighted work publicly; > (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to **display** the copyrighted work publicly; and > (6) in the case of sound recordings, to **perform** the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/97 "2020-12-02T22:47:38Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Your point would be clearer if you said that the legal system has said that “ideas” cannot be protected under copyright law. Are you still arguing about terminology? Why? J.K. Rowling wasn’t walking down the street one day and found a book series lying in the street for her to claim. It wasn’t something that somebody else gave her and she wrote down. The Harry Potter book series was something that Rowling created in her mind. There’s a common term for something you create in your mind. It’s called an idea. I could perhaps use the term “work of authorship” instead of idea in this discussion. But it would look ridiculous. And, more importantly, I am seeking a discussion of the broad category of ownership of ideas and that includes ideas that aren’t covered by the term work of authorship. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/98 "2020-12-02T22:59:43Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > [@Acsenray](#): > > > > Your point would be clearer if you said that the legal system has said that “ideas” cannot be protected under copyright law. > > Are you still arguing about terminology? Why? > > J.K. Rowling wasn’t walking down the street one day and found a book series lying in the street for her to claim. It wasn’t something that somebody else gave her and she wrote down. The Harry Potter book series was something that Rowling created in her mind. > > There’s a common term for something you create in your mind. It’s called an idea. Yes, that’s exactly right. But at the point that it existed solely in her mind and was an idea _it was not protected by copyright law. **At all.** _ It did not earn copyright protection _until she wrote it down_, that is, _until she converted that idea from an idea to expression_, and only that expression, not her idea, is protected. If she had stopped on the street, grabbed someone by the collar, and told em her idea, that person would have been free to write it down emself, exactly as Rowling had told em. E could have freely copied every bit of that idea, because Rowling had not yet created something that copyright law protects–a work of expression fixed in a perceivable medium. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2020, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/99 "2020-12-02T23:02:07Z")
I started this thread because I didn’t want to take another thread off topic. So could you extend me the same courtesy. If you want to discuss legal terminology, please start a new thread on that topic. ---
**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:** [December 2, 2020, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862/100 "2020-12-02T23:55:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Are you still arguing about terminology? Why? > … > There’s a common term for something you create in your mind. It’s called an idea. IMHO, you’ve been getting a lot of pushback on your terminology because, in many people’s minds, there’s a huge and important distinction between _ideas_ and the creative works that are generated from those ideas. This has been discussed in several threads, such as this one: > [@You've got a story idea, but you can't write....](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youve-got-a-story-idea-but-you-cant-write/9424): > > What do you do if you’ve come up with an interesting idea for a story, but you couldn’t write your out of a paper bag?? > [@You've got a story idea, but you can't write....](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youve-got-a-story-idea-but-you-cant-write/9424/3): > > Most authors can’t go to a party without someone coming up to them and saying “I got this great idea for a book. Why don’t you write it and we’ll split the profits?” Polite writers say “No, thanks.” Impolite writers laugh. > > Many people think the idea for a story is the most important part. It’s not. Anyone can come up with an idea that could make a good story, but the matter of execution is something else entirely. A writer has no trouble coming up with ideas and doesn’t need help. It’s the writing skill that turns the idea into a story, and the idea is only about 2% of that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-intellectual-property-rights/926862.md?page=6)