View Single Post
Old 02-04-2010, 08:42 PM   #364
nekokami
fruminous edugeek
nekokami ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.nekokami ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.nekokami ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.nekokami ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.nekokami ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.nekokami ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.nekokami ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.nekokami ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.nekokami ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.nekokami ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.nekokami ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
nekokami's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,745
Karma: 551260
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northeast US
Device: iPad, eBw 1150
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc View Post
I think that aspect is exactly where copyright and patent protection came from. This issue as we all know is in changes brought about by digital media and the ease of making perfect copies. The problem is how we manage it and move forward in evolving that laws.

I don't have a better term or metaphor at this point, but my belief is that the product of creativity -- the book or artwork (this same discussion is relevant to digital artwork) etc. is conceptually (and rights-wise) no different than a printed book or painted image.

There is some overlap with photography in that an image is captured on a negative and then can be "reprinted" many times. If we move this in to the digital photography realm then the image file can (as above with other digital media) be copied flawlessly...
I think the original laws about copyright (again, going back to the Statute of Anne) were designed to protect authors, inventors, etc., but didn't necessarily draw the analogy to "intellectual property." I believe that's a more modern construct, and a problematic one.

I realize there are people out there (some on this board) who really, honestly believe that when they write a story or paint an image or what have you, it's their own creation, entirely, and they owe none of it to anyone else. In my considered opinion, that notion is false. I don't think any of us create in a vacuum, and we all owe some of our work to other influences around us. That's why I believe it's important to have an expiration to copyright terms, so others can continue to build on whatever we create, just as we have done before them.

This definitely runs counter to the concept of ideas being property, however. That's why I say we need a different metaphor. Perhaps ideas and creations are more like children-- we have a certain amount of control over them until they mature, and then they go out into the world to make their own way. At no time do we every really "own" them-- rather, we have custody and responsibility for them for a limited time.
nekokami is offline   Reply With Quote