[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by davidfor

When I read this, I thought good, but, then I thought about it and there is a fairly major problem with your builder analogy.

Firstly, you are correct, if I get a builder to build me a house, I don't keep paying the builder once I have it. But, if I buy a book, I don't keep paying the author once I have it. I only pay the author if I want another copy of the book. Just as if I wanted another "copy" of the house I would have to pay the builder for it. In both cases, I am paying for the materials involved, the labour involved in assembling the materials and for the use of the "design" (architectural for one, and the list of words and order for the other). Once that is done, I have the right to do what I want with the physical thing I thing I paid for, but, don't have the right to copy them to produce another just like it.

A good point.

However, the builder does not get any rights to the building after they complete their work. Even the architect doesn't. Anyone can build an identical house whenever they like. Anyone can take the design and modify it. You can renovate the house at any time you like. You can sell it to anyone you like and the builder doesn't have any say at all. You can even make money from it by renting out rooms if you want. Etc.

If an author should have some form of control over their work for all eternity why should an architect or builder not have some form of control over their work for all eternity?

Originally Posted by davidfor

This is of course a simplification of the situation, but, so was yours and completely ignored where the IP is.

Yes both are simplifications.

However, I did not ignore where IP is. My very point is that copyright doesn't protect IP. It protects the right of the creator to control the work they did in expressing that IP in a very specific format.

We don't pay an author to have an idea about a book. We don't protect that idea if the author never does any work to express that idea. We protect the right of the author to, in general, simplified and basic terms, make money from the work they have done.

Compare apples with apples. Compare copyright with worker's rights.

Originally Posted by davidfor

And for the record, I have absolutely no idea what should be done with copyright. I tend slightly towards perpetual copyright, but, that probably is unworkable in the long run. Of course, I'm not sure that the current rules are actually working as intended. That also means I haven't seen a really convincing argument that IP shouldn't be treated in the same way as IP.

I don't have any answer to how the public good and the private good should be balanced either. I do believe it is tilted way too far to the private good side. Understandable because humans naturally want to gain whatever they can for their endeavours and generally care little for the common good.

Originally Posted by davidfor

And, @PKFFW, do you really believe that people haven't gotten out a shotgun to defend their IP?

I never claimed to believe that people haven't gotten out a shotgun to defend their IP.

I claimed that short of executing someone preemptively there is no actual way in the real physical world that one could prevent the IP from being "stolen" to begin with. See China for proof. All one could reasonably do is punish after the fact those who do "steal" their IP.