# When is Copyright Infrigement OK? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 3, 2006, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315 "2006-06-03T21:13:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**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:** [June 13, 2006, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/81 "2006-06-13T05:06:00Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I agree with the creator keeping copyright until his death. But it’s not an issue of return for me, it’s an issue of moral rights on one’s own creation. I’m not sure I agree, although I can certainly respect the opinion. As I said in my first post, way back, the issue to me isn’t abolishment of copyright but the amount of time it should last and reasons for granting it. My point about 20 years was simply to use his own argument against his professed opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/82 "2006-06-13T05:20:32Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > We’re not talking about physical property either, which is what the term “theft” entails. Merriam-Webster: > [@](#): > > **theft** > **a :** the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it **b :** an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property > > **property** > **2 a :** something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate **b :** the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP **c :** something to which a person or business has a legal title ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/83 "2006-06-13T05:30:01Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property Uh huh. You realize that the “taking” involved in embezzlement and burglary is taking something _away_ from its owner, right? There is no such “taking” in copyright infringement. ---
**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:** [June 13, 2006, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/84 "2006-06-13T05:34:50Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Merriam-Webster: You’ll note, of course, that the definitions on which you rely require “felonious” and “legal” to work. Rather circular when discussing reform of said laws. But let’s look more closely: a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it theft: 1. It’s circular due to “felonious”. 2. The work in concrete form is personal property. If you steal my book, such that I no longer have a book, that’s theft. If you copy that book, you’ve infringed copyright, not stolen the book. b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property Again, circular. property: 2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate see: **theft** , def. a. b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP Besides “ownership” being a legal concept, something that can be copied cannot be exclusive. That requires physical substance. see **theft** , def. a c : something to which a person or business has a legal title Again, circular. It’s awfully nice to be able to use legality in defense of itself. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/85 "2006-06-13T05:43:46Z")
Crying “circular” isn’t going to get you anywhere in court when you’re there for stealing intellectual property. ---
**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:** [June 13, 2006, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/86 "2006-06-13T05:59:53Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Crying “circular” isn’t going to get you anywhere in court when you’re there for stealing intellectual property. And I’m not advocating breaking the law. I’ve certainly not taken on Abbie Hoffman’s mantle\*; the argument is about justifying / reforming copyright law. That’s why there’s been mention of “moral” earlier, asking opinions on whether it was coincident with “legal”. \*Let me explain, since the quote above makes me think you might not get it. Read the following slowly if you need to: Abbie Hoffman wrote a book called “Steal This Book”. Get it? His title was kinda witty, in a post-modern, counter-culture kinda way. And I was being oh so clever by referencing that, because I was rejecting the anti-establishment leanings while punning on “stealing” and furthermore subtly bringing up the point that copying isn’t stealing. It’s copyright infringement. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/87 "2006-06-13T06:06:28Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Crying “circular” isn’t going to get you anywhere in court when you’re there for stealing intellectual property. I don’t suppose you have a cite for a case of someone being found guilty of “stealing intellectual property”, do you? I’ve heard of copyright infringement, but never that. In fact, in _Dowling v. United States_, the Supreme Court declared that infringement “does not easily equate” with stealing, and therefore that the various laws about stolen property don’t apply to illegally made copies. Let me remind you, no one here is claiming that copyright infringement is legal. ---
**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:** [June 13, 2006, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/88 "2006-06-13T06:16:54Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > while punning on “stealing” and furthermore subtly bringing up the point that copying isn’t stealing. I suppose, since not only was that last post a little bit nasty, but also because I’m now in fear of **Walloon** ’s pre-eminence with a dictionary, I should pre-emptively point out my misuse of “punning”. A better (though still not great) phrasing would’ve been: “while playing on his use of “stealing” to subtly…”. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/89 "2006-06-13T08:16:51Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > therefore that the various laws about stolen property don’t apply to illegally made copies The creative work is what is being stolen, not copies of it. Illegally made copies of a work devalue its worth. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/90 "2006-06-13T11:07:57Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > The creative work is what is being stolen, not copies of it. Illegally made copies of a work devalue its worth. And calling something “stealing” when nothing is actually being taken away devalues the word. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/91 "2006-06-13T14:38:55Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Yes, as long as you give proper credit and as long as you’re not breaking any contract we made beforehand. I knew before I started writing it that it’d be impossible to keep people from making copies; complaining about your copying would be as futile as complaining about the tide washing away my sand castle. I thought nobody in this thread was advocating the complete elimination of copyright, but it sure sounds like that’s what you’re pushing. > [@Mr2001](#): > > It’s reasonable to call that an idea too. A book contains a sequence of words, and what is a sequence but an abstract concept, and what is that but an idea? Whatever you call it–an idea, a sequence, a chunk of information, a majestic assembly of verbiage–it can’t be taken away by copying. You’re the one trying to be specific about legal terminology when we use the word “stealing.” You can’t have it both ways. Ideas very specifically are _not_ protected by copyright. It doesn’t work that way. The actual _work_ is protected by copyright. > [@Mr2001](#): > > Then perhaps there are too many books being produced today. And you are the one to determine which ones should be published? Feh. You clearly have no respect whatsoever for writers, artists, and musicians, and you don’t see anything wrong with taking their work without paying for it. I think people should be paid for what they produce. We seem to have no common ground for future discussion, and it’s rather pointless to continue. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/92 "2006-06-13T16:48:44Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Human societies worked quite well and for a long time without any copyright or patent laws, while theft has always been a no-no. Human society also lived for thousands of years without driver’s licenses. After the printing press was invented in the late 15th century, and the mass production of books and other printing became practical, the concept of copyright soon developed in common law. Yes, long before the first copyright statute was passed in England in 1709, copyright had existed in English common law since [1518](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright#Movable_type). ---
**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:** [June 13, 2006, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/93 "2006-06-13T18:09:25Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Then perhaps there are too many books being produced today. So you agree that elimination of copyright will reduce the number of new works being created? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/94 "2006-06-13T23:34:29Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > I thought nobody in this thread was advocating the complete elimination of copyright, but it sure sounds like that’s what you’re pushing. I guess you missed **Pochacco** ’s mention of me on the first page, before I even posted to this thread. > [@](#): > > You can’t have it both ways. Ideas very specifically are _not_ protected by copyright. It doesn’t work that way. The actual _work_ is protected by copyright. Whatever. Can you explain the difference between an “idea” and an intangible work? > [@](#): > > And you are the one to determine which ones should be published? Feh. No, I imagine the publishers will do that. > [@](#): > > You clearly have no respect whatsoever for writers, artists, and musicians, and you don’t see anything wrong with taking their work without paying for it. Oh, please. Just because I think their business model needs changing doesn’t mean I don’t respect them. Someone makes this accusation in every one of these threads, and it’s ridiculous. It’s like a child pouting to his parents, “If you loved me, you’d let me eat ice cream for breakfast!” Respect doesn’t mean giving in to every demand. > [@](#): > > I think people should be paid for what they produce. And so do I! If you’ve gotten the impression that I don’t, you’re mistaken. I just think they should be paid for their work in such a way that doesn’t require limiting what everyone else can do at home with their CD burners, photocopiers, and internet connections. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/95 "2006-06-13T23:37:26Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > So you agree that elimination of copyright will reduce the number of new works being created? To the extent that the current publishers/advances/royalties business model is causing works to be created that don’t actually have the market to support their production, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/96 "2006-06-14T00:08:09Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Whatever. Can you explain the difference between an “idea” and an intangible work? It’s quite clear in the law. To sum up, though, an idea is intangible. It’s a description or a concept. There’s nothing concrete to it. A copyrightable work isn’t intangible. It’s actual words and/or notes. If I decide I’m going to write a book (or song) about marsupials conquering the world. That’s an idea. I can’t protect it. You’re free to write your own book (or song) about marsupials conquering the world. Once I’ve actually _written_ it, it’s no longer just an idea, and while you’re still free to use the idea, you can’t use my words (or notes). ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/97 "2006-06-14T00:43:45Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > A copyrightable work isn’t intangible. It’s actual words and/or notes. That’s a funny definition of “intangible” you’ve got there. The words themselves are intangible! You can’t touch a word, you can only touch the piece of paper a word is written on. There is no limit to the number of words that can be written, while there is a limit to the number of pieces of paper that can be made. And of course, as a writer you (usually) don’t create words anyway, you arrange words that already exist. You create a sequence of words. If you’re going to claim a sequence is a tangible thing, you’ll be robbing the word of all meaning. > [@](#): > > If I decide I’m going to write a book (or song) about marsupials conquering the world. That’s an idea. I can’t protect it. You’re free to write your own book (or song) about marsupials conquering the world. Once I’ve actually _written_ it, it’s no longer just an idea, and while you’re still free to use the idea, you can’t use my words (or notes). In some cases, though, ideas _are_ covered. Characters and settings, for example, are not “actual words”, but the fictional people and places described by those words. I may be able to write my own book about a space adventurer fighting an evil empire, but I can’t call him Luke Skywalker and set it a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away - unless I’m writing a parody. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/98 "2006-06-14T18:08:44Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > The words themselves are intangible! A book is a tangible thing. You’re picking on that one word, though, and ignoring the main point I was making (which seems to be your modus operandus in this thread). A specific sequence of words, forming a book, story, poem, lyrics, or similar structure, is a copyrightable entity. An idea, which may form the basis of a book (or whatever) is not. Witness the recent lawsuit by the authors of _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_ against Dan Brown. There are lots of things you can’t copyright, including facts. It’s the _arrangement of words_ that are copyrightable. > [@Mr2001](#): > > I may be able to write my own book about a space adventurer fighting an evil empire, but I can’t call him Luke Skywalker and set it a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away - unless I’m writing a parody. The character of Luke Skywalker is trademarked. That’s different. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/99 "2006-06-15T01:47:08Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > A book is a tangible thing. You’re picking on that one word, though, and ignoring the main point I was making (which seems to be your modus operandus in this thread). I think you mean _modus operandi_, and I’m sorry you’ve arrived at that mistaken belief. Of course a book is tangible. It’s made of paper, ink, glue, etc. You can put it in your pocket, preventing someone else from reading it. You can set it on fire and then it will be gone. But the book itself, the tangible thing, is not what’s copyrighted. > [@](#): > > A specific sequence of words, forming a book, story, poem, lyrics, or similar structure, is a copyrightable entity. An idea, which may form the basis of a book (or whatever) is not. It just seems silly to me to distinguish between “a specific sequence” and “an idea”, when both are abstract concepts, although I don’t doubt that there is such a distinction in copyright law - there are many silly things in there. I’m thinking of a specific sequence right now. It exists only in my mind. How is it not an idea? > [@](#): > > The character of Luke Skywalker is trademarked. That’s different. Trademark isn’t the only thing at play there. For another example, look at _The Wind Done Gone_, which used the setting and characters of _Gone With The Wind_ and only managed to escape an infringement claim because it was written as a parody. (_[Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suntrust_v._Houghton_Mifflin)_) Try writing a sequel or prequel to any existing work whose characters aren’t trademarked, and see how far you get before you’re slapped with a lawsuit. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/100 "2006-06-15T11:06:33Z")
Let me start my renewed participation in this thread by doing the OP the courtesy of answering his questions: 1/ If copyright laws became harmful to society at large, should they be reformed or abolished or are they morally necessary no matter what the public consensus (much like anti-segregation laws)? Probably yes, although I have some difficulty with the idea of artists immediately and entirely losing any control at all over their creations. I know **Yosemite** would say they are a moral necessity. The moral necessity of copyright is not my thang, so leave my answer at yes, for the purpose of the debate. 2/ And, if they are not morally necessary, what would it take for you to be convinced they should be reformed/abolished? Feel free to provide concrete, detailed examples to illustrate your viewpoint. Reformed? Impossible to answer unless you say what way you suggest it be reformed. Any complex area of law needs tweaks every now and again to deal with societal and other developments, and copyright perhaps more so than most, given that it meshes with technology that is of course changing fast. If by reform you mean shortening copyright periods, well, how long is a piece of string? I would say only this: broadly, investment in something is proportional to return. If you don’t give much return, you don’t get much investment. A longer lasting piece of property is worth more than one that will become valueless quicker. Undoubtedly, some period is too long for copyright, and some period too short [Shrug] Abolished? What it would take is for me to be convinced that there is an alternative way of providing sufficient incentive to stimulate the world’s current massive and highly useful output of valuable information with less problems than copyright. I have participated in endless debates on the subject, with in particular Mr2001 but others also, in which those on the other side of the debate have singularly failed to come up with any such alternative. Frankly, many of those who participate on the anti- side of the debate seem to me to be annoyed by certain aspects of copyright but too used to the benefit copyright brings to appreciate it. > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > I’ve read the threads you to which you refer earlier; in every case that I can remember, the main point of contention was indeed the time frame. The pro-copyright side presents a parody of the anti-copyright position, ignoring the fact that no one (again, to my memory) argues for the complete abolishment of copyright. Related was the foundational purpose of copyright – a money-making vehicle vs. societal enhancement. But, in my view, that debate falls out of the time frame argument, as a person who might argue for abolishment of copyright is also arguing that the current copyright structure is societally detrimental. The threads I have participated in on this subject have concerned (a) whether copyright should be abolished per Mr 2001 mostly and (b) whether copyright infringement is morally or functionally the equivalent of theft. I have never debated length of copyright in my life, and I don’t recall it being anything more than (at most) one element (amongst several) of any thread I’ve participated in. It has _never_ been the main disagreement. If you think the contrary, give me links and cites. > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > I’d say there’s merit in the idea that renting a movie fulfills that obligation – if it’s up for rental, it is because the author/artist has already made a contract and gotten paid. This is one of the most naive, ignorant statements I have ever witnessed in the interminable debates on copyright on these boards. And given the standard of business acumen and experience displayed by many participants, that’s really saying something. I suppose if you built a house on stilts so you could get good views, you’d take away the stilts after you’d got the top floor up, on the basis that they’d already done their job, would you? Jeebus. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Sure, they do. They prevent collagists and samplers from doing their work free from restraint. Let me get this straight. Because a very limited category of artists whose work is so derivative that it infringes the copyrights of others can’t carry out their work without paying the original artist, copyright “harms writers and artists and such”. Never mind that for perhaps 95% of “writers and artists and such” the law of copyright is why they can earn a frickin’ living. There’s an entire woods here, Evil Captor. If you stopped pressing your face up to one particular tree, you might see it. > [@](#): > > Writers and artists are for the most part absolutely crappy businesspeople. They’re famous for signing away their rights and getting into bad deal. Even ignoring the point that this is an argument to authority, you’ve definitely picked the wrong authorities. Artists and writers (who actually earn a living writing and making art) who participate in these threads say that they are in favour of copyright because without it they would get no return on their works. Your response is that we shouldn’t listen to them because artists are crappy business people who (get this) are _famous for signing their rights away_. So we are to ignore those posters who are in fact artists and who in fact have not signed their rights away and who in fact rely on copyright to earn a living, because they belong to some stereotypical class of persons who are known to do what these persons abjectly have not done. Where the hell do I start? > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > And bear in mind that overly broad copyright laws can actually work against the preservation of works of art. > > In the days before videocassette recorders became common, film studios often sat on top of huge archives of old films. Because there was little prospect of making substantial profits from those films, there was often little effort made to properly preserve them; and yet, the studios jealously guarded their copyrights and sometimes went to great lengths to harass private film collectors who often did a much better job of archiving and preserving their copies than did the studios. I understand that in some cases, the studios even called in the FBI to investigate collectors. [etc etc] Firstly, your anecdote has the smell of UL to me. Cite pls. Secondly, your anecdote doesn’t significantly support your conclusion. Essentially, the anecdote illustrates that the studios didn’t realise that their archival material would have future value. It seems very doubtful that mistake would be made today. Knowledge that this archival stuff now has or maybe will have future value means that studios preserve this sort of thing assiduously. > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > There are untold numbers of works out of print, out of production, that could be refreshed and re-released in today’s market. Take Wombat’s books. In 100 years, they will still be under copyright. Probably owned by the estate of one of his decendants who doesn’t even know they exist. Those works will disappear, never to be seen again. How is this beneficial to society, or to Wombat himself? So you are saying that in 100 years there will be people who want Wombat’s books who would (if there were no copyright) go to the effort of republishing them, but who would (if there were copyright) be put off entirely if they had to find Wombat’s descendants and ask them if they minded receiving some royalties? Doesn’t sound like they were very keen in the first place. I think you’re exaggerating. > [@](#): > > How are artists hurt? If we apply today’s laws back to the early part of the century, how many of Disney’s products would have never been created because of copyright? I don’t know. How many? Cite? What’s your reasoning process? > [@clairobscur](#): > > Dysney could produce something originally precisely because he was allowed to plunder the work of long-dead former authors. But nowadays, nobody can do the same and plunder disney’s work to create something new. Which artist is this law protecting exactly? I don’t count Disney’s stockholders as “artists”. The thousands of artists that work at Disney or are funded by Disney because Disney is a wealthy company. > [@Mr2001](#): > > Exactly. It always seems that copyright supporters want artists and authors to get guarantees and benefits that no one else gets. and > [@Mr2001](#): > > No one is forcing you (meaning artists and authors as a group) to gamble instead of taking the same guaranteed-but-modest pay as the construction worker. and > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > I’m not trying to be a dick here, but you know the risk/reward before you get into it. > > [snip] > > You’re arguing that, for some reason, writing a book should absolve you of having to recognize the risks associated with becoming a writer, that you should get special laws for your support. Huh? And > [@Mr2001](#): > > That’s why I’m not blaming any particular author, but authors as a whole. This arrangement exists because everyone accepts it. If they would band together to demand a better payment structure, publishers would be forced to give it to them. I don’t think they will, though - I think they _like_ to gamble, to think that they might become millionaires if their books take off. It’s really very simple. If the value of copyright is highly dependant upon whether or not the author of a work dies at this or that time, investing in IP is more risky. Which means less of it will be made. Which is a bad thing. The suggestion that copyright owners are asking for unusual privilege is arrant nonsense. Name me one other area in which the owner of property loses their rights because the person who constructed the property died. The only unusual thing is that intellectual property is a form of property that expires at all. > [@Mr2001](#): > > And calling something “stealing” when nothing is actually being taken away devalues the word. And blythly saying “nothing has been taken away” when what has been taken away has been explained to you over and over and over and over again devalues the standard of these boards and your credibility. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315.md?page=6)