MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

PKFFW · 10-23-2019, 03:10 AM

I find it hard to take seriously anyone who puts forward the argument that intellectual property is anything like Physical property and therefore should be treated the same.

Let's take a look...

You have an idea, which, if you want to make money from it (which is really what copyright is about after all), you put out into the world. How do you actually stop anyone from "stealing" it and taking that idea and doing absolutely anything they want with it? The answer is, you can't. It simply isn't possible.

You own a house. How do you stop anyone from stealing it or doing absolutely anything they want with it? You get a shot gun and shoot anyone you suspect may want to do so. (which, incidentally, is exactly what a large percentage of the population of the USA plans to do should the situation arise)

So it is clear IP and PP are not at all comparable. Those who put forward that argument show either
A: an ignorance so profound there is no point discussing the issue with them. This I find very difficult to believe but the possibility can not be discarded out of hand. Or;
B: an inability to form a cogent and rational argument to support their view that copyright should extend forever and so resort to a false equivalency so profound as to render it laughable.

Even if, out of some sort of intellectual deficiency, we accept the false equivalency, another issue arises for those wanting copyright to extend forever. It appears proponents of such, believe Copyright protects the value of the idea that the author (for simplicity read "author" as inclusive of any other producer of creative work in any other medium) has had. Or, to put it another way, it protects the value of the IP. This is not so. Copyright protects the ability to make money from the specific work an author does to craft that idea into a specific format. No work to put the idea down in concrete form then no protection.

I think that point to be self-evident, however if any disagree, please feel free to argue otherwise.

That point is important because proponents of the copyright forever argument have stated that so long as the work has value then the author should be compensated in perpetuity.

So if we should compensate an author and his/her heirs in perpetuity so long as we find value in their work, should we not also pay a builder and his/her heirs in perpetuity so long as the house they built us still has value?

If not, why not?

The only answer I can see is because paying a builder once has always been the way it has been, and we as a society have accepted that paying a builder once for a service rendered (work) is payment enough. Even though that work has value to us for many years, even generations.

Now, that being the case, why should we as a society decide that the work of an author should be paid for in perpetuity over and over?

What cogent rational argument can be made that the two situations should be treated differently? Or are you going to argue we should commence paying everyone in perpetuity for the work they do?

10-23-2019, 03:10 AM	#227
PKFFW Wizard Posts: 3,791 Karma: 33500000 Join Date: Dec 2008 Device: BeBook, Sony PRS-T1, Kobo H2O	I find it hard to take seriously anyone who puts forward the argument that intellectual property is anything like Physical property and therefore should be treated the same. Let's take a look... You have an idea, which, if you want to make money from it (which is really what copyright is about after all), you put out into the world. How do you actually stop anyone from "stealing" it and taking that idea and doing absolutely anything they want with it? The answer is, you can't. It simply isn't possible. You own a house. How do you stop anyone from stealing it or doing absolutely anything they want with it? You get a shot gun and shoot anyone you suspect may want to do so. (which, incidentally, is exactly what a large percentage of the population of the USA plans to do should the situation arise) So it is clear IP and PP are not at all comparable. Those who put forward that argument show either A: an ignorance so profound there is no point discussing the issue with them. This I find very difficult to believe but the possibility can not be discarded out of hand. Or; B: an inability to form a cogent and rational argument to support their view that copyright should extend forever and so resort to a false equivalency so profound as to render it laughable. Even if, out of some sort of intellectual deficiency, we accept the false equivalency, another issue arises for those wanting copyright to extend forever. It appears proponents of such, believe Copyright protects the value of the idea that the author (for simplicity read "author" as inclusive of any other producer of creative work in any other medium) has had. Or, to put it another way, it protects the value of the IP. This is not so. Copyright protects the ability to make money from the specific work an author does to craft that idea into a specific format. No work to put the idea down in concrete form then no protection. I think that point to be self-evident, however if any disagree, please feel free to argue otherwise. That point is important because proponents of the copyright forever argument have stated that so long as the work has value then the author should be compensated in perpetuity. So if we should compensate an author and his/her heirs in perpetuity so long as we find value in their work, should we not also pay a builder and his/her heirs in perpetuity so long as the house they built us still has value? If not, why not? The only answer I can see is because paying a builder once has always been the way it has been, and we as a society have accepted that paying a builder once for a service rendered (work) is payment enough. Even though that work has value to us for many years, even generations. Now, that being the case, why should we as a society decide that the work of an author should be paid for in perpetuity over and over? What cogent rational argument can be made that the two situations should be treated differently? Or are you going to argue we should commence paying everyone in perpetuity for the work they do?