He created it. He didn’t just write it down.
No matter - it’s a legal right, not a moral one. It’s designed to encourage ideas, and it works great. You just don’t seem to get that concept.
Why would anyone charge money when they intend to give something away for free? That’s silly. A creator is not required to charge money. Lots of copyrighted works are given away free. Those you can read.
Thanks.
But I still don’t think he gets it.
Corporations control our governemnt and the courts. Whatever makes them money will be the law of the land.
If it’s a discovery in natural science, and I’m a high school science teacher, do I have to get your permission to teach it to my students?
It’s not that I don’t get it. I just disagree with you.
When it comes right down to it, I don’t believe that one person really creates something. Everything is built off of something else, usually countless things.
Even if someone was a sole creator of something why should that justify exclusive control? I’m looking for a concrete positive reason, not just the circular logic of “because I created it.” You haven’t given me anything like that yet.
Above you said “The work is a creation of my time and effort.” Perhaps this is your positive reason. I disagree that this is enough to justify exclusive control over copying.
Let’s say you spend a lot of time and effort creating perfect photographed prints of the paintings of Whistler. Perfect framing, perfect color reproduction, everything. You sell the prints to a museum but you do not transfer any rights to them. They make millions of copies and sell them all over the world. Copyright law gives you no recourse. Should it? You put in so much time and effort to make those photographed prints perfect. But copyright law says that since you added no expressive content to the public domain work, you enjoy no exclusive rights. But what about the time and effort you put in?
So you’d be OK with no new medicines being developed, for anyone, ever?
Because otherwise it won’t get created. The absolute best of it, anyway.
Look, you talk about people who “create” for the pure joy of it, the people who would create the same stuff even if they weren’t paid. These people exist. They are hobbyists. Amateurs. Their output is simply not as good as what the professionals do. Never. Period.
Creation of a great thing is hard. It takes time - enormous amounts of it. To create the thing. To revise it. To practice, study, research, fucking work to make yourself more skilled and your product more polished. Depending on the artform, there may also be financial, material costs (for equipment or supplies or whatever). To make good art you have to make it, at least partly, your job. Without copyright, you can’t.
Strawman
Facts cannot be copyrighted, but an original copyrightable usage of said facts can.
So I write a paper proving Venus once had a moon. Can you teach that fact? Of course. Can you copy my article without permission to give to your students? No.
Because you discount everything that speaks against your point.
-
You start. Why should a creator lose all control over the distribution of their work. You have still never justified why information should be free for everyone other than the justification that it does not deprive the creator of the usage of their copy. We constantly point out that intellectual property is different than tangible property so your analogy fails.
-
MsRobyn actually gave you an example of where a copyright violation deprived her of use of her own creation so even if I grant you your analogy, her example alone is enough to show you that it was theft.
-
By you unilaterally deciding to copy my work, you are stealing from me the opportunity to profit from my work even if you do not profit yourself from it. While you may not consider it stealing if you do not profit, it still deprives to owner of something tangible (revenue). Even if I choose to provide copies free of charge, that is my decision and not yours.
-
Your idea that sythesizing information is not creation is ludicrous. What you are saying is that a chef did not create a souffle because the eggs, chocolate, etc. were provided to him and he merely put them together.
-
I’m still waiting to hear your justification of why someone who had no part in creating the information should be able to control it. You’re neighbor is away for a week so can you use his car while he is gone provided you refill the gas? You’re not depriving him of use of his property. This has as must validity as your analogy that copyright violation is not theft.
-
The information as copyrighted would not exist without me and it would exist without you. That is a fundamental difference that gives me the power and not you.
And cost even if minimal is not free. I had to pay for phone calls to Washington DC and Pennsylvania and a licensing fee to NY Times for usage of a picture. I spent money on postage. Total cost: maybe $25
But that is still $25 more than HoldenCaufield spent on (not) writing the paper.
Great point.
Along with plenty of other inventions that require expensive R&D to develop, which nobody will invest in if they can’t get a return.
You’ve got to be kidding.
I don’t think the facts support the assertions that there wouldn’t be enough creativity or innovation without patent and copyright. I’m sorry, but I won’t take that on faith without some evidence. If you know of some studies that support your case, I’d love to see them.
First of all, the reason I keep asking you for justification, is because I think that when there is a law that takes freedom from some (e.g., freedom of speech), and puts control in others (e.g., copyright holders), then it is on those that support the law to give the justification.
But if you want a positive justification for why the creator should “lose all control over the distribution of their work,” then it’s still along the lines of what I’ve been saying. I think the world would be better off. I think plenty of great creative works would still be created, content would be cheaper for consumers, and people would be more free to build off previously-created content when creating new works. Also, allowing more freedom of speech and action is a significant good that should not be minimized.
I recognize that (1) some artists would make less money (note that most artists don’t make much money at all under the current scheme), and (2) some artists would feel bad when others profit from their works and/or others make works derivative from their own (note that this also happens in the current scheme when artists sell their rights, often for less than they should, to those that would go against the artist’s wishes). I also grant that publishers and others that make money directly off copyright would be likely be much worse off; this is a harm worth considering. However, I think these harms are far outweighed by the goods listed above.
(If you read/respond to nothing else in my long-ass post, please take a look at the above few paragraphs.)
I never argued that copyright infringement doesn’t harm artists, or that some artists wouldn’t be significantly worse off in a world without copyright.
Again, I recognize that copyright infringement harms artists and a world without copyright would be significantly worse for some artists.
I am saying the chef is not the sole creator of the souffle. For example, he didn’t come up with the recipe for a souffle. And the inventor of the souffle was merely improving upon the recipe for cake (maybe?). Someone else entirely, years and years ago, decided to process cacao seeds to make chocolate. Someone else thought it was a good idea to take chicken eggs and put them in food. No, your chef is not the sole creator of that souffle.
Also, note that we don’t afford IP protection for the creative creation of food. E.g., the inventor of the souffle can’t sue the chef in your example for copying his souffle idea. I think this is a good thing.
First, see my answer to our (1) for why someone who had no part in creating information should be able to control his own personal property that is a copy of that information.
Second, I have never made the argument that because you don’t deprive the owner of the use of his property, that it is not theft. I don’t know if you are confusing me for someone else. (It’s coming in the next paragraph, though.)
Third, that’s actually not theft under the traditional definition, which requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property. That has historically been the justification for crimes against theft: we don’t want people permanently deprived of their personal property against their consent.
However, what you described is also against the law. For example, many states have specific laws against joyriding. The justification behind those laws is that the owner is likely to be deprived of some or all of the use of his personal property due to the joyriding (possibly through damage to the car, or it not being back in time for him to use it).
Those justifications don’t apply to laws against copyright infringement. If you are aware of justifications for laws against theft and the like, that would better apply to copyright infringement, please let me know.
That’s true. The information would not exist without you. But the fact that there is a “fundamental difference” isn’t a justification for the power. This is the circular “but I am the creator” reasoning I rejected above. Someone needs to explain why the “fundamental difference” should give rise to the extra power.
Also, do you have any thoughts on my Whistler hypothetical above? I think it helps show why the creating takes significant time and effort, and thus the creator deserves exclusive control rationale doesn’t hold water.
I find your argument for #1 contradictory. You refuse to accept the assertion (not mine but I certainly agree with it) that creativity will be stifled without copyright yet you expect us to accept you assertion that lack of copyright will not hurt and will even help the creative process. Why is the first assertion not a positive assertion but you opposite assertion is?
So to points #2 & 3 you admit copyright infringement can cause harm to creators but there should not be any laws against that? Don’t we have laws to prevent harm to people?
To point #5, you ignored MsRobyn’s story of a co-worker that “went joyriding” with her spots and deprived her of the ability to use them as she wanted.
To address your point of free information for all, I need a little clarification. Which of these would you consider appropriate in your information utopia?
- You copy another’s work for your profit. I sing a song in concert and you record it and sell it for $10/copy.
- You copy another’s work to avoid payment. I recorded a song and your friend has the CD. You copy the song to avoid paying for it on iTunes thus depriving me of income.
- You copy another’s work but no money is involved. I put a song on my website and it’s free but to download it, I ask for some demographic information (sex, age, etc.) to track my audience. Money is not the issue but I have a reason for controlling distribution (i.e. to gather data). You copy the song for a friend and he never visits my website.
On your Whistler question, they worked but did not produce anything original but mearly trransfered the medium (like recording a show from film to DVD). In other words, there was no creation involved. They should be paid for their work and hopefully it is fair for the amount of time, effort and materials they put into it but not hold the copyright.
If you’d like you can peruse some of the examples here (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm), particularly Chapter 2. Chapter 8 also has good examples. I think they make the case better than I could in short form here.
True. But, as I have discussed, the harms created by copyright law are greater than the harms to creators in the absence of copyright law. I can hurt someone by insulting them, but that’s not against the law because the harm of outlawing such speech is greater.
It’s not analogous at all. Say you invent the Corvette, and you sell me a copy of it. You intend to use yours to pick up girls. I use mine to run over puppies, ruining the image of the Corvette and your ability to use yours to pick up girls. There is no recourse in the law at all.
Another, less extreme example. MsRobyn created the spots during her work for her radio station. Under her contract, let’s say the copyright for anything she creates goes to the radio station. The radio station gives the other guy permission to make his “remix” that ruins the original purpose of the spots, and MsRobyn is totally frustrated in her purpose. She has no recourse in copyright law at all.
If you want to talk about laws that would give you or MsRobyn recourse, I’d be willing to discuss those, but copyright law seems like a bad fit. It would only solve the harm where there is infringement, and it seems like there wouldn’t be infringement in many cases where there is harm.
First, I’m not sure what an information utopia is. That may be outside the bounds of this discussion.
As for the rest, I think each and every one should be legal.
I just wanted to confirm that copyright is a reward for creation, and not just any time and effort.
So you should be able to take someone else’s creation - something you had no hand in creating - and not only not pay them for it but be able to sell it without their permission FOR YOUR PROFIT?
Wow! Just wow.
Is it really that surprising, given every word I’ve typed into this thread so far?
Give me your address AND the details of your invention that you’ve applied to patent.
If you don’t, you’re a hypocrite.
Your efforts to tangibly link IP infringement and actual theft while demanding Holden’s address so you can come and steal his things, asserting by implication that he doesn’t believe in any property rights at all, when he said nothing of the sort.
Really, I know a strawman can look pretty convincing all dressed up like that, but remember, you’re the one who dressed him. Go easy.