[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Yes, you are correct. I admit to not knowing this since I have seen so many near identical houses in my time I made the incorrect assumption that architecture was not covered by copyright.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Your points have given me a lot to think about so thank you. I'll respond further after thinking about it for a bit.

Apologies for the length.

Firstly let me state that what is interesting about your post is that it made me think about my analogy and whether it works so thank you for that.

Also, I'd like to be clear that I acknowledge you have not made the argument that IP should be treated the same as PP and have in fact stated in a previous post that "[F]or the record, I have absolutely no idea what should be done with copyright." So I don't want you to interpret the following as my arguing with you or suggesting that I disagree with you about copyright etc.

You did state in the above quoted post "The writer is putting out their IP, why should they not be paid as long as it is considered valuable to someone?" and I'd like to address that in light of the "IP should be treated the same as PP argument."

Having thought about it some more, I would like to respond with the following.

To begin with, you are right, the house versus book analogy is inaccurate due to the single instatiation issue. A book and a building are each a single physical item purchased and thus rights for the use etc of that single physical instatiation are conferred to the purchaser.

I chose that analogy after a poster earlier in the thread argued that IP should be treated the same as PP and gave the example that the government does not repossess your house after a certain time, and so they shouldn't repossess IP. I did not think through the analogy adequately and should not have used it in the way that I did.

However, it strikes me that the house and architect copyright example still provide an interesting issue that may raise concerns for those suggesting IP should be treated the same as PP.

So here goes;

(Disregarding copyright law in this example and dealing solely with your physical house.)
If you own a house I can not physically take your house or any single part of your house to use as my own without depriving you of the house or part thereof. However, it is physically possible for me to copy your house or any part thereof for use as my own without depriving you of it. Furthermore, if I were a commercial builder, I could copy the entire design and build multiple houses and sell them to make money. In both cases you still have the use of the house and can go and sell that house or any part thereof to anyone you like.

Hence, the law states it is illegal for me to steal your house but not illegal to copy it.

So here is the first difference. It is physically possible for me to copy and use any part of an author's book without depriving them of the use of their book. They can still use it, edit it, modify it, and sell it to whomever they like. The only thing I have arguably deprived them of is the sale income they would have received had I purchased the book. If I were to make copies and sell them, I would of course deprive the author of further sale income. However, in both cases the author still has full use of the book and can modify, change, and sell the book to whomever is willing to buy it. I will call this loss of sale income "secondary deprivation" to distinguish it from the deprivation that would be caused if I stole your house. Due to this secondary deprivation the law does say I am not allowed to copy the authors book for my own use without first purchasing it or make copies and sell them to others.

The difference in type and level of deprivation alone I think shows that IP and PP are different and therefore should be treated differently.

However, on to my next point;

Now, imagine you have a house that you have paid an architect to design and is covered by copyright. The above still applies in that I am not allowed to steal your house, however, in addition, I am not legally allowed to copy the design. However, my (obviously, considering my previously admitted hasty assumption regarding architectural copyright) limited reading leads me to believe that it would be perfectly legal for me to take parts of the design to use in my own design.

For example, I might copy the exact size and internal lay out of the rooms. I might copy the way the roof is designed. I may copy the exact exterior wall cladding. I might copy the design and layout of the windows. All this would be perfectly legal so long as I made substantial changes to the overall design of the house such that it would be considered a different design.

Furthermore, if I were a commercial builder, I could even copy design elements of the architect's design and implement them into my buildings to enhance their value and thus use the architect's ideas to make more money for myself. Perfectly legal with the caveat that the totality of my building needs to be substantially different.

So when it comes to physical property, the exact design of the building can be copyrighted but not each individual part of the physical item. And if your house is not covered by copyright but is nothing more than your own physical property I can copy it exactly to my hearts content.

In this example, I would liken the architect's design and your own home to the specific word for word book an author wrote. I would liken the design elements that make up the overall design to be like characters and settings.

So to use JK Rowling and the Harry Potter series as the stalwart example, Rowling would have complete control over the specific word for word expression that is the Harry Potter books. If I wanted to print those books and sell them to make money I should have to pay her.

What if I wanted to take a character or setting and use that to write my own stories and books or make a movie etc so long as the end result of my work was substantially different to her books? It would seem that this should be totally fine if we are treating IP the same as PP.

So, for debate’s sake if one agrees that IP and PP are different and therefore need to be treated differently under the law (I realise no one currently responding will agree, hence the bold and italics, it's basically a rhetorical question following), it then needs to be asked what rational and cogent argument can be made for copyright being changed from the status quo to extending in perpetuity?