Why public domain

[Philippe D.]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Because it's their work, not yours. You have no right to it.

How about granddad's gold pocket watch? He dies and passes it on to his heirs for them to enjoy. Then 70 years after he dies, you're forced to give it to a museum for the rest of society to enjoy. Does that sound fair?

This is the same flawed argument whenever comparing intellectual property and physical property.

In the case of your granddad's watch, one cannot put it into a museum without depriving you (or whoever inherited it) of it.

In the case of a litterary work (or, really, any intellectual property), you lose nothing if it is reproduced. So the law has another goal than just protecting your property.

Yes, producing such and such book is work, and the law is there to protect whoever put their work into it - for a time, to ensure that they are properly compensated for it. But there is no reason why it should ensure an eternal, transferrable right to compensation. In the case of scientific or technological discoveries, there is even good reason for it not to: the inventor gets a protection that for some time so that they don't rely on secret to prevent copies (so that the discovery is not lost if the inventor dies), but at some point the discovery becomes common property of society as a whole, because it must benefit everybody at some point.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Shakespeare didn't write for the love of it, it was his job.
He earned his living from putting on plays.

Believe it or not you can make a living doing what you love.
Apache

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Because it's their work, not yours. You have no right to it.

Yes, I have no right to the manuscript that they created, just like I have no right to your grandad's pocket watch.

But I have every right to make a copy of the manuscript, or a copy of the pocket watch. Once copyright in the work has expired.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Philippe D.

This is the same flawed argument whenever comparing intellectual property and physical property.

Copyright as now written is flawed. The only reason there's such a huge distinction over ownership between intellectual and physical property is because a bunch of people got together and passed laws saying it was so. There's nothing inherently correct about such a distinction. It can just as easily be undone.

In the case of your granddad's watch, one cannot put it into a museum without depriving you (or whoever inherited it) of it.

Wrong. You've had 70 years since his death to enjoy it. Now it's society's turn. You can always get a copy of the watch if you want something to look at. Of course, the copy no longer has any value since it's not the original. But then, it was never your watch to begin with. It belonged to granddad and society allowed you 70 years to exclusively enjoy its fine craftsmanship. Now it's society's turn.

In the case of a litterary work (or, really, any intellectual property), you lose nothing if it is reproduced. So the law has another goal than just protecting your property.

Sure I do. Since I no longer control the original, I can't sell it and make a profit. It no longer has any intrinsic value. What fool is gonna pay me $9.99 for the ebook when Amazon is selling it for free?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Yes, I have no right to the manuscript that they created, just like I have no right to your grandad's pocket watch.

The original manuscript is nothing more than a file on my computer. It has no value.

The original pocket watch still has value and can be sold.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The original manuscript is nothing more than a file on my computer. It has no value.

The original pocket watch still has value and can be sold.

What does value have to do with whether you own something or not?

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Copyright is a flawed proposition.

Let's cancel it, then. Rescind the concept of copyright. Take away the protection that we currently provide. Let's see how that benefits creators and their widows and orphans. Then, once that sinks in, let's see what they're willing to do to get it back. See what bargain they're willing to accept.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

What does value have to do with whether you own something or not?

Nothing.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Let's cancel it, then. Rescind the concept of copyright. Take away the protection that we currently provide. Let's see how that benefits creators and their widows and orphans. Then, once that sinks in, let's see what they're willing to do to get it back. See what bargain they're willing to accept.

The "let's toss the baby out with the bathwater" argument

Society doesn't make that same contract with physical property. Society protects your right to ownership without demanding that you relinquish control of it after a set amount of time. So why should intellectual property be any different?

[Apache]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Copyright as now written is flawed. The only reason there's such a huge distinction over ownership between intellectual and physical property is because a bunch of people got together and passed laws saying it was so. There's nothing inherently correct about such a distinction. It can just as easily be undone.

I would say that most if not all of the laws that we have were made by a bunch of people getting together to decide what was right and what was wrong.
Apache

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Apache

I would say that most if not all of the laws that we have were made by a bunch of people getting together to decide what was right and what was wrong.
Apache

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

And therein lies the problem. Copyright is a flawed proposition. Who says society needs to benefit from the artistic works of others?



Because it's their work, not yours. You have no right to it.

How about granddad's gold pocket watch? He dies and passes it on to his heirs for them to enjoy. Then 70 years after he dies, you're forced to give it to a museum for the rest of society to enjoy. Does that sound fair?

How about confiscating the original paintings of famous painters that are in the hands of private collectors and giving them to museums for the rest of society to enjoy?

How does the saying go, if the facts aren't in your favor, emotionally pound on the table? I write code for a living, but I don't expect people to keep giving me money for eternity for code that I write. I'm still waiting for some sort of rational other than "because I say so".

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The "let's toss the baby out with the bathwater" argument

Society doesn't make that same contract with physical property. Society protects your right to ownership without demanding that you relinquish control of it after a set amount of time. So why should intellectual property be any different?

And I've explained why physical property is different. Calling something property doesn't make it actual property any more than calling a steer a bull means he can sire calves. Copyright isn't property, it's a government granted monopoly. In theory at least, governments pass laws that benefit society as a whole. In the US, copyright is enshrined in the Constitution. However, it's enshrined as a limited time monopoly not as property.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

How does the saying go, if the facts aren't in your favor, emotionally pound on the table? I write code for a living, but I don't expect people to keep giving me money for eternity for code that I write. I'm still waiting for some sort of rational other than "because I say so".

The current copyright laws are also "because I say so".

We're at an impasse.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The current copyright laws are also "because I say so".

Fortunately they are because someone else than you says so.