Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
Absolutely agree.
And as social constructs they can be made any way society wants. The same, different, whatever.
So I'd still be interested in any rational argument that supports treating intellectual property rights the same as physical property rights.
That argument should address why they should be treated the same when IP is clearly different to PP. That argument should also state whether the person presenting that argument supports the right of anyone to copy intellectual property just as they are allowed to copy physical property. If not, then that argument should also address why not.
|
I’ve already given my thoughts on this...over and over...previously in the thread. I stopped because even I do eventually cease repeating myself.
There are differences between PP and IP of course. Else we wouldn’t have two different terms. But the “property” part is the same and thus I see no reason, for fiction, that there is a time limit to ownership. It’s an opinion, not an interpretation of any given actual law.
I limit this continuation of ownership to those active economic IP. Abandoned fiction should fall into the public domain. Ongoing economic properties should remain with the rights holder.
The public has no more claim on Mickey Mouse than they do over somebodies family farm that’s been handed down for generations.
This is different than patents because there is only so many ways to make Aspirin. Giving a time limited patent after which point all of society gets to benefit allows progress.
I see no such valid time limitation for fiction. There are endless ways to create a story.