MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

spellbanisher · 03-21-2011, 06:25 PM

I think this is a good article as to why the laws we apply to physical property should not be the same as the laws we apply to digital property:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/958

Here is an excerpt (actually, it is about half the article).

"Real property is scarce and rivalrous: it cannot be created anew, and only a limited number of people can occupy and use a space at any one time. Copyrighted works are neither scarce nor rivalrous: books are created anew, by specific authors, and can be read by five million people as easily as by five dozen, depriving none of them, nor the author, of the ability to use the work.

These aspects make very real differences. Helprin’s analogy calls up the mental image of a landowner’s descendents being kicked off of the land 70 years after the owner’s death. Of course, that’s not how real property works. The landowner has rights in the land because she bought it from someone or inherited it—she didn’t create it. When she passes it on to her descendants, they become the new owners with as many rights in it as she had, since they as well acquired this bit of limited, rivalrous resource in much the same way as she did. But compare this to Helprin’s books going to the public domain (some 90-100 years from now). By contrast, Helprin’s descendants own the right to the works only insofar as he had a right to them in the first place—as their creator. They aren’t the authors, the people who made the work exist. Nor, should someone else decide to publish or adapt a novel, are they deprived of the right to do the same.

This is not a mere recitation of “the state giveth, and the state taketh away.” Copyright requires that a work have been published: ideas and their expression are only valuable in their transmission, whereas physical property, whether land or objects, can have inherent value. Thus, a whole different set of public issues are at stake here, including fundamental precepts of culture and free speech.

Unlike land or chattels, words are free for use and infinite, and so are their combinations. Copyright law, in order to incentivize and occasionally enrich authors, restricts some uses of words—restricts speech!—so that authors may profit. Restriction of speech is a drastic step to take, and we (and I) take it gladly—for a limited time.

Copyrighted works are distributed and used by people; they become part of our selves and our minds and our culture. Revisiting, adapting, and rewriting these works allows us to explore and examine the works and ourselves in ways that criticism alone cannot.

Copyright is not an end in itself, unlike life and liberty. From a very basic standpoint, we can see how physical property is necessary to support life, and how ownership of that physical property (my food, my shelter) is essential to liberty. Copyright, on the other hand, could be abolished without loss of life or liberty. "

03-21-2011, 06:25 PM	#29
spellbanisher Guru Posts: 826 Karma: 6566849 Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Bay Area Device: kindle keyboard, kindle fire hd, S4, Nook hd+	I think this is a good article as to why the laws we apply to physical property should not be the same as the laws we apply to digital property: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/958 Here is an excerpt (actually, it is about half the article). "Real property is scarce and rivalrous: it cannot be created anew, and only a limited number of people can occupy and use a space at any one time. Copyrighted works are neither scarce nor rivalrous: books are created anew, by specific authors, and can be read by five million people as easily as by five dozen, depriving none of them, nor the author, of the ability to use the work. These aspects make very real differences. Helprin’s analogy calls up the mental image of a landowner’s descendents being kicked off of the land 70 years after the owner’s death. Of course, that’s not how real property works. The landowner has rights in the land because she bought it from someone or inherited it—she didn’t create it. When she passes it on to her descendants, they become the new owners with as many rights in it as she had, since they as well acquired this bit of limited, rivalrous resource in much the same way as she did. But compare this to Helprin’s books going to the public domain (some 90-100 years from now). By contrast, Helprin’s descendants own the right to the works only insofar as he had a right to them in the first place—as their creator. They aren’t the authors, the people who made the work exist. Nor, should someone else decide to publish or adapt a novel, are they deprived of the right to do the same. This is not a mere recitation of “the state giveth, and the state taketh away.” Copyright requires that a work have been published: ideas and their expression are only valuable in their transmission, whereas physical property, whether land or objects, can have inherent value. Thus, a whole different set of public issues are at stake here, including fundamental precepts of culture and free speech. Unlike land or chattels, words are free for use and infinite, and so are their combinations. Copyright law, in order to incentivize and occasionally enrich authors, restricts some uses of words—restricts speech!—so that authors may profit. Restriction of speech is a drastic step to take, and we (and I) take it gladly—for a limited time. Copyrighted works are distributed and used by people; they become part of our selves and our minds and our culture. Revisiting, adapting, and rewriting these works allows us to explore and examine the works and ourselves in ways that criticism alone cannot. Copyright is not an end in itself, unlike life and liberty. From a very basic standpoint, we can see how physical property is necessary to support life, and how ownership of that physical property (my food, my shelter) is essential to liberty. Copyright, on the other hand, could be abolished without loss of life or liberty. " Last edited by spellbanisher; 03-21-2011 at 07:36 PM.