The Fall of Gondolin

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Why have copyright in the first place?

To allow the person who creates something of value to profit from it. Why have patents? Why have property deeds?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Copyright and patents are explicitly a limited time government granted monopoly in the US Constitution and thus should not be considered as personal property under US law. ...

Forget the copyright then. Call it theft if someone takes what you've written and profits from your work — if that makes it easier. Why should something someone writes be less protected than something someone paints (for example)? Both are valuable because of the artistic merit involved. It's not like a writer is copyrighting random words.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Forget the copyright then. Call it theft if someone takes what you've written and profits from your work — if that makes it easier. Why should something someone writes be less protected than something someone paints (for example)? Both are valuable because of the artistic merit involved. It's not like a writer is copyrighting random words.

If you want perpetual copyright, then you should pay the price. Taxation. You have to pay an annual tax on it, whether or not you earn any money off of it. Just like real property.

Don't pay, you lose it to the state. . .

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If you want perpetual copyright, then you should pay the price. Taxation. You have to pay an annual tax on it, whether or not you earn any money off of it. Just like real property.

Don't pay, you lose it to the state. . .

Don't writers already pay taxes for the sale of their books? Not quite following you here.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I've never been able to quite figure this out. If a man creates something that makes people money (has value), why shouldn't he be able to pass that valuable property on to his heirs? If a man creates a profitable corporation, should his family be forced to give it away fifty years after his death?

So should all the author's works that are in the PD be back under copyright? That would be quite an undertaking since some books are well over 1000 yrs old. Not to mention that having works go out of copyright makes them more available as more publishers can then publish the work than just that one that originally published it. And those works no doubt have stimulated the creativity of those who wrote new books after them. Take "Dracula" as an example. How many new works about vampires have there been since then? Not just books either but radio dramatizations, movies, etc. Ask yourself "How many of those works would have been written had Dracula not gone out of copyright?"

[crich70]

Originally Posted by rcentros

To allow the person who creates something of value to profit from it. Why have patents? Why have property deeds?

I would point out that patents also expire. Property deeds are for proving that you own a piece of land. Even owning property doesn't mean you can't lose it though. There is eminent domain.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Forget the copyright then. Call it theft if someone takes what you've written and profits from your work — if that makes it easier. Why should something someone writes be less protected than something someone paints (for example)? Both are valuable because of the artistic merit involved. It's not like a writer is copyrighting random words.

Should I be paid forever for programs that I write? Should a carpenter be paid every time someone sits in a chair he made? How about jokes, shouldn't the comedian who first told a joke be paid every time anyone tells that joke? Why should only a small subset of creators be protected? That's the flaw in assuming that copyright is some sort of natural right. The vast majority of creative work is not protected.

Copyright is purely an artificial mechanism for encouraging a subset of artists. It's a bargain between the state and the artist basically saying for a limited time, the state will keep people from copying a work without the artist permission. There is no natural right involved. For most of recorded history, copyright did not exist and the idea that an artist should be able to control who made copies of his work was not even considered.

Copyright violation is not thief, no matter how you may feel about it. It's a civil, not criminal.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Copyright violation is not thief, no matter how you may feel about it. It's a civil, not criminal.

With the exception of art forgery maybe? When you try to pass of a copy as created by original artist.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Don't writers already pay taxes for the sale of their books? Not quite following you here.

Totally missed the point. You pay taxes on income from real property, but you also pay property taxes on the same property, whether or not you earn any income from it. The property value is appraised, and then you are taxed on the <value> of the property, not it's income.

Ask any homeowner in a place with property taxes. . .

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

With the exception of art forgery maybe? When you try to pass of a copy as created by original artist.

But then you are not being charged with copyright violation, but rather a different crime. Most times art forgery isn't a copyright violation at all since the work is no longer copyrighted.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

But then you are not being charged with copyright violation, but rather a different crime. Most times art forgery isn't a copyright violation at all since the work is no longer copyrighted.

Normally yes. Thomas Kinkade springs to mind - he is just recently deceased to have his works still under copyright. The old old masters wouldn't qualify.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Normally yes. Thomas Kinkade springs to mind - he is just recently deceased to have his works still under copyright. The old old masters wouldn't qualify.

He was also only just born in 1958 so even if copyright hadn't been extended his work (created after 1923) would be under copyright because it isn't yet 50 or more yrs old. I mean he'd have been only about 12 yrs old when I was born.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Should I be paid forever for programs that I write? Should a carpenter be paid every time someone sits in a chair he made? ...

Uh ... if I buy a chair I can sit in it as often as I want. If I buy a book, I can read it as often as I want. When I buy the chair, I pay the person or company who built the chair. When I buy a book, I pay the person who wrote the book. I pay for something they created. Still not following you here.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Uh ... if I buy a chair I can sit in it as often as I want. If I buy a book, I can read it as often as I want. When I buy the chair, I pay the person or company who built the chair. When I buy a book, I pay the person who wrote the book. I pay for something they created. Still not following you here.

But does the carpenter get paid every time someone wants to build a chair that looks like his chair? Does the carpenter get to refuse to allow anyone else to build a chair that looks like his chair? An author's manuscript is his personal property. The copyright of the words in that manuscript are not.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

But does the carpenter get paid every time someone wants to build a chair that looks like his chair? Does the carpenter get to refuse to allow anyone else to build a chair that looks like his chair? An author's manuscript is his personal property. The copyright of the words in that manuscript are not.

I'm not a crank on this subject and don't plan to go on forever with it ... but this seems like a specious argument to me. Words are not random. By creating a character and story, the writer has produced something unique. Not only should he own (and be able to sell) his own UNIQUE production but he should have the right to control how his creation is used by others — and he should have the ability to pass his production (his creation) down to his children.

As for building a chair that can't be copied... Manufacturers can patent specific designs that can't be copied. Or make smartphones that can't be copied. (Try to manufacture an iePhone — the "e" is silent — sometime and see how far this "free to copy" concept takes you). Every unique character and story is automatically specific. I just think a writer should have the right to his or her own work. It wasn't written by the "Collective," it was written by one person. That person should control what they produce.