Sherlock Holmes ruled to be (mostly) in the public domain

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Funny. That's exactly what people who freely want to copy say.

Not really, those people take away other individuals' rights. And unlike creators of copyrighted works, they haven't contributed to the process.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The right belonged to society first, and it was taken from society for a limited amount of time as it was decided that this would be in the interest of society.

As I pointed out, that was not really the origin of copyright -- but only the latest implementations of it in western society. Originally it was about the crown, the printer/publisher, and the author.

What is this magical being society anyway, but a collection of individuals who joined together to better their individual lives? The main function of society is to protect its members' rights, and that includes creators. And how is it right that society choose to favor some rights and bestows them in perpetuity and others are just being "granted on a temporary basis" (how benevolent). Creators are being shortchanged --- their rights are only worth protecting because it is in the interest of society.

[TechniSol]

If nothing else, one must admire the relative hubris level in our attempting to pin down concerns that have been struggled with for centuries, in a fleeting, yet possibly timeless, online forum.

There are always at least two sides to every story involving at least one other entity. The creator of IP obviously believes their brain sweat has worth and prefers protection, or at least the hope of having grounds to file suit.(which is very far from the concept of protection) The notion of allowing someone "protection" under the law allows them time to exact profit from their idea or actual invention -most would agree this is fair compensation for their effort. Why shouldn't it apply equally to specific fictional characters, situations or settings not found in our conventional reality?

I think we have the right ideas, but perhaps we need to wise up and limit protection to the conceivable lifespan of the creator and let it go at that. I'd add a "put your money where your mouth is" clause and make the system of arbitration pay for itself concerning derivative works. If you really think your work is being infringed, put up or shut up, or settle without the courts intervening and be done with it -at a predetermined fixed percentage based on which media is being used to express the new work.

On IP expressed as a process or invention find a way to keep it to yourself, or let anyone smart enough to figure out how you did it to license the concept at a predetermined percentage based on the percentage of the device based on the IP and it's relative importance to the success or function of the new device. This would still encourage competition to beat the reuse fees. The practical problem then becomes determining just how basic a concept is patentable. I'd not wish to design in a world where concepts like the lever, fulcrum, inclined plane, etc are patentable any more than I'd like to write in a world where Mickey Mouse blankets all fictional mice... Further, simply buying any piece of technology in a physical form should place the onus on the seller as applies to who must pay the fiddler, the reseller or integrator should be covered.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

As I pointed out, that was not really the origin of copyright -- but only the latest implementations of it in western society. Originally it was about the crown, the printer/publisher, and the author.

What is this magical being society anyway, but a collection of individuals who joined together to better their individual lives? The main function of society is to protect its members' rights, and that includes creators. And how is it right that society choose to favor some rights and bestows them in perpetuity and others are just being "granted on a temporary basis" (how benevolent). Creators are being shortchanged --- their rights are only worth protecting because it is in the interest of society.

Any author has the ability to protect their work by not publishing it. However if an author wants to make money from society from their work, they trade it for money, and the work belongs to society.

But authors don't trade to society directly (in most cases) they trade with publishers.

Copyright doesn't benefit the authors, it benefits the publishers. By granting copyright to authors it means that publishers compete less, and by extending copyright the the number of titles that have copyright protection is increased, which lowers the trade value.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Any author has the ability to protect their work by not publishing it. However if an author wants to make money from society from their work, they trade it for money, and the work belongs to society.

But authors don't trade to society directly (in most cases) they trade with publishers.

Copyright doesn't benefit the authors, it benefits the publishers. By granting copyright to authors it means that publishers compete less, and by extending copyright the the number of titles that have copyright protection is increased, which lowers the trade value.

I don't understand what you are saying here at all.
Do publishers have some innate right when they own the copyright that authors who own the copyright do not have?

Helen

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I don't understand what you are saying here at all.
Do publishers have some innate right when they own the copyright that authors who own the copyright do not have?

Helen

Mostly they do. It is the corporation concept. Corporations are based on the concept that they should exist forever, Therefore, they view ownership differently. They expect it to last forever...

[hardcastle]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And how is it right that society choose to favor some rights and bestows them in perpetuity and others are just being "granted on a temporary basis" (how benevolent). Creators are being shortchanged --- their rights are only worth protecting because it is in the interest of society.

Most rights are only considered worth protecting due to their interest of many, many disparate individuals, not a nebulous blob we call "society". We can't look at this exclusively as "what benefits just one individual," because there is more than one individual in the world. All self-interest is created equal; the self-interest of the creator does not trump the consumer, and vice versa. The goal of debate such as these is to create a middle ground between each self-interest, or in some cases, side with self-interest supported by the most people (a simplified form of democracy).

Additionally, just because something is a "right" doesn't mean there aren't exceptions or rules to be followed. Physical property ownership being a monopolization of a place or object still has its obligations and limitations. Because the ownership of an idea is such an abstract concept and can have further ramifications, introducing further limitations can make the result more palatable to all parties. It's a trade off between the self-interests of many people. What you take I lose; how can we make this fair?

Is a time-based limitation the right way to go? Maybe not. But we can't really make a case when a very small but very powerful segment of the content creators effectively write the copyright laws themselves. This is not productive political parlay, that is a single self-interest wielding its power over a populace incapable of mounting any defense.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by hardcastle

Most rights are only considered worth protecting due to their interest of many, many disparate individuals, not a nebulous blob we call "society". We can't look at this exclusively as "what benefits just one individual," because there is more than one individual in the world. All self-interest is created equal; the self-interest of the creator does not trump the consumer, and vice versa. The goal of debate such as these is to create a middle ground between each self-interest, or in some cases, side with self-interest supported by the most people (a simplified form of democracy).

Additionally, just because something is a "right" doesn't mean there aren't exceptions or limitations. Physical property ownership being a monopolization of a place or object still has its obligations. Because the ownership of an idea is such an abstract concept and can have further ramifications, introducing further limitations can make the result more palatable to all parties. It's a trade off between the self-interests of many people. What you take I lose; how can we make this fair?

Is a time-based limitation the right way to go? Maybe not. But we can't really make a case when a very small segment but very powerful of the content creators effectively write the copyright laws themselves. This is not productive political parlay, that is a single self-interest wielding its power over a populace incapable of mounting any defense.

Zero sum thinking, such as you are expressing, negates the idea of creation. "What you take I lose", and other redistributionist concepts make no sense in the context of copyright or patent. The many have no right to forcibly take the fruits of any individual's labor. The idea of copyright and patent is to provide a means for the creator to profit from the work of many who make copies of their creations, who, in turn also profit from the sale of the copies. All the parties involved need to be compensated for their efforts, for their to be a product that can be consumed, and there needs to be those willing to purchase, at a price that supports the costs of production. If the government or other collective force of society tries to force any of the elements of production to work without compensation that each element finds acceptable, the product suffers. Consumers then see fewer and lessor quality products. Not to mention the unfairness of attempting to force a production from those unwilling to work for the mandated compensation.

An author can sell the rights to what is unique to his manuscript, that doesn't give him, or those he sold his book to, the right to any similar book that another author may produce. Not the right to copy it or the right to prevent its publication.

Luck;
Ken

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Mostly they do. It is the corporation concept. Corporations are based on the concept that they should exist forever, Therefore, they view ownership differently. They expect it to last forever...

And a corporation has the financial and/or political clout to back up their beliefs unlike the individual author. Of course I think the only way such rights could really go on forever would be if the author was to be able to live forever. Of course writer's (like everyone else) are still mortal. Moreover I don't think there can be a truly unique story idea. There are only so many plots and types of heroes & villains that can be used and re-used in new ways. For example "Wired Love" by Ella Cheever Thayer talks about using the telegraph to start a romance (between two operators). The modern equivalent would be something like cell phones or an online dating site. And of course now days it wouldn't be limited to a man/woman couple unlike when the Thayer book was written. Nothing is ever 'new' really, just recycled into a new package for a new generation of readers.

[hardcastle]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Zero sum thinking, such as you are expressing, negates the idea of creation. "What you take I lose", and other redistributionist concepts make no sense in the context of copyright or patent.

I don't agree. Creation doesn't happen in vacuum. If we argue that creation is a process that creates something from nothing, then we've changed the playing field entirely. But that's not the case. Creation is as much remix as it is innovation, if not more so. As much as some content creators like to argue that they are a self-sufficient island, they are influenced and pull from ideas in the public domain and popular culture as much as anyone else.

The many have no right to forcibly take the fruits of any individual's labor.

The two concepts in this sentence highlight a distinct disagreement:

1) The concept of "the many" as a single opposing and monolithic force is a non-existent entity. They are not "the many," they are many disparate and sometimes conflicting but still agreeing points of self-interest. This group wields no power beside pure numbers, which is the fuel behind majority rule.

2) The concept of "rights" is created and enforced under majority rule decisions, and as such are entirely flexible based on what the majority decides. Back in the 1800's, it was deemed a "right" for a white man to forcibly take the fruits of a black man's labor. Both legally and morally, your statement is transitory.

The idea of copyright and patent is to provide a means for the creator to profit from the work of many who make copies of their creations, who, in turn also profit from the sale of the copies. All the parties involved need to be compensated for their efforts, for their to be a product that can be consumed, and there needs to be those willing to purchase, at a price that supports the costs of production. If the government or other collective force of society tries to force any of the elements of production to work without compensation that each element finds acceptable, the product suffers.

I don't disagree with this at all. Though I will note that what some parties consider reasonable compensation may not be feasible in the market. Instead of reassessing that compensation demand, those parties instead use their clout to legalize and enforce that compensation.

An author can sell the rights to what is unique to his manuscript, that doesn't give him, or those he sold his book to, the right to any similar book that another author may produce.

Ignoring, of course, that if your creation is too close to another work, that you may be held accountable in many jurisdictions. This is despite my notes on creation at the top of this post. Another example of creator self-interest overpowering the voices of the rest of the populace.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Do publishers have some innate right when they own the copyright that authors who own the copyright do not have?

Helen

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Mostly they do. It is the corporation concept. Corporations are based on the concept that they should exist forever, Therefore, they view ownership differently. They expect it to last forever...

So you are saying that a view or a concept or an expectation is the same as a right?

Helen

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Zero sum thinking, such as you are expressing, negates the idea of creation. "What you take I lose", and other redistributionist concepts make no sense in the context of copyright or patent. The many have no right to forcibly take the fruits of any individual's labor.

The irony of this phrasing, as with the earlier comment it echoes, is that the individual who wants to exercise their right of copyright is essentially asking the many in the form of the state to use force to get others to comply to artificial restrictions. In a world without copyright it takes little or no force to copy the expression of an idea, but it does take force to stop people doing so.

Therefore it's entirely appropriate for the many to ask what, in exchange for the use of its collective might, they should get in return.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Not really, those people take away other individuals' rights. And unlike creators of copyrighted works, they haven't contributed to the process.

No, not really. They didn't have rights before copyright was established by statute; copyright is the giving up of some rights to a creator, in the hopes that creators will be more inclined to create. This is perfectly embodied in the copyright clause of the U.S. Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Again, all of this is just trying to equate copyright with property rights, which is incorrect in the law and overly simplistic. You and TubeMonkey or mistaking the analogies between intellectual property and tangible property as if it were the thing itself (essentially going from "IP is like property" to "IP is property"); it's like mistaking the map for the actual road.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

So you are saying that a view or a concept or an expectation is the same as a right?

Helen

Well, according to the corporations, yes.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I don't understand what you are saying here at all.
Do publishers have some innate right when they own the copyright that authors who own the copyright do not have?

Helen

I wasn't talking about the case when the publisher owns the copyright, but publishers do have an innate characteristic as they are the ones who make copies.

Copyright law gives temporary monopoly to the author but the author doesn't make copies, so publishers end up enjoying the temporary monopoly which is why I say that copyright benefits the publishers.

When copyright is extended it means that there are more works that publishers can have monopoly over, so the value of the work (i.e. how much a publisher is willing to pay the author) decreases so this hurts authors. This isn't immediately apparent if you think of it from the point of view of older works. Their authors had their works valued higher as copyright was shorter and there was less competition, and now simply get extra time to gather benefits. But the creation of new works will suffer.