Quote:
Originally Posted by tubemonkey
I'm well aware that I'm in a very tiny minority on these issues and that things won't go the way I want. So at this point in time, I'm content to get extensions on copyright and the entertainment provided by patent fights.
|
I'm just trying to understand why you want what you claim to want. Your argument seems to just be that "intellectual property is property, because it has the word 'property' in the name!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubemonkey
Because Disney created Mickey. It belongs to Disney. It's their property.
A forever renewable monopoly on Mickey Mouse doesn't stifle creativity in the least. Are people incapable of creating other animated animals?
|
This seems to be the crux of your argument.
No one can "own" an idea or an expression of an idea. Statute grants a temporary monopoly to encourage creation; this monopoly right is different than the ownership of a physical good, and it's over-simplistic to try and equate the two.
And it does limit creativity. Yes, people can and do create other things, but each copyright ties a creator's hand just a tiny bit, and in reality we're dealing with millions of copyrights. Right now, people can't take Micky Mouse and remix the character in interesting ways or tell new stories with him in new ways. Look at all of the wonderful works that have built on Alice and wonderland, the Wizard of Oz or the works of Shakespeare. This was only possible because works entered the public domain.
Perpetual copyright or patents would also stifle innovation in a more subtle way: by encouraging creators and inventors to rest on their laurels, secure in the knowledge that they can reap the rewards of their work (even if it's a relatively minor work) forever rather than having to go to the trouble of creating something new. They would also be encouraged to divert resources from creating new works to policing their old works to make sure no one was violating their copyrights or patents.
Short version: You can't claim "intellectual property" is like regular property. It is a grant by society of certain monopoly rights to encourage innovation. Would an infinitely long monopoly encourage more innovation? No, so it is pointless as it flies in the face of the whole purpose of intellectual property rights.