Public Domain

[ZodWallop]

All of this arguing against public domain and failure to understand how stories and works of art are a value society reminds me of the Star Trek: TNG episode Darmok, where the Enterprise encounter a race of aliens who communicate through metaphors and allegory. Without knowing the stories the allegories relate to, there can be no communication.

"His eyes closed" indeed.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by leebase

Premise....copyright is a good thing. Without that premise, nothing else works.

Copyright never stops being a good thing in the same way that money never stops being a good thing. If people are still interested in 1000 over Disney's movies today....it will only be because Disney has kept them relevant. Society is not owed Disney's money. Society is benefited by Disney creating content.

It is Disney's ongoing efforts that are making it's copyrights valuable and relevant in the first place.

Few people would know anything about The Little Mermaid...if Disney hadn't made the movie. Then incorporated the characters in a theme park, and a line of toys and other merchandise. Disney deserves to be able to keep building up this value the way Rockefeller got to keep all of his oil profits.

The reason for a limit on patents and non-fictional copyrights is obvious so that society can benefit by the building on. Society has no pressing need to have Disney build on The Little Mermaid in the first pace, nor of somebody taking that value for themselves now. Anybody can create their own story.

Except that you don't give a reason for copyright being a good thing, you just assume it is. It isn't a good thing, in and of itself - it's only good because of the impact it has. I would argue that copyrights are inherently bad. They create friction where none is needed. The only redeeming quality of copyright is that it keeps creators from being robbed of the fruit of their labors the second after they create it. And our society has deemed that important enough to protect.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

Except that you don't give a reason for copyright being a good thing, you just assume it is. It isn't a good thing, in and of itself - it's only good because of the impact it has. I would argue that copyrights are inherently bad. They create friction where none is needed. The only redeeming quality of copyright is that it keeps creators from being robbed of the fruit of their labors the second after they create it. And our society has deemed that important enough to protect.

Copyright was a hot button item for Ben Franklin because as a newspaper publisher, he would write various columns under different pseudonyms to fill out his paper. Since the columns were fairly witty and well received, other publishers would immediately copy the columns and print them in their papers.


You make the traditional argument for copyright. The alternate argument that Lee makes, i.e. that copyright is the same a real property and should be eternal, is one that is rarely voiced, but quite a few artists seem to feel that way.

Interestingly, Victor Hugo the father of the Berne Accords, also was a strong supporter of public domain and felt that works should go into public domain on the death of the author.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

All of this arguing against public domain and failure to understand how stories and works of art are a value society reminds me of the Star Trek: TNG episode Darmok, where the Enterprise encounter a race of aliens who communicate through metaphors and allegory. Without knowing the stories the allegories relate to, there can be no communication.

"His eyes closed" indeed.

I remember that one from back in the day... always wondered how their children learned the stories since they didn't actually tell the stories....

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Look in the mobileread library. The first one was The Case Of The Golden Coprolite.

Good writing not included. . .

Thanks - I'll have to look that up next time I'm in the mood to read something light

[leebase]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

Except that you don't give a reason for copyright being a good thing, you just assume it is. It isn't a good thing, in and of itself - it's only good because of the impact it has. I would argue that copyrights are inherently bad. They create friction where none is needed. The only redeeming quality of copyright is that it keeps creators from being robbed of the fruit of their labors the second after they create it. And our society has deemed that important enough to protect.

Exactly. The arguments against perpetual copyright for fiction is the same against any copyright. Which is a different discussion.

That you think it's robbery "1 second after creation", what makes 2 seconds any different? 3? Forever?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I remember that one from back in the day... always wondered how their children learned the stories since they didn't actually tell the stories....

Yeah, I thought of that too. The Wikipedia article also asks how you would ask someone to hand you a Phillip's head screwdriver. But like the half black/half white aliens in Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, you just have to roll with it.

[leebase]

Ok, I tell you this. At the death of anybody, all of their assets are dissolved and given to the government. No? Why not? Yes? You b@stard

Why should the work of an artist be given to public domain and not the work of an investment banker or ship builder, cattleman or land baron.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by leebase

That you think it's robbery "1 second after creation", what makes 2 seconds any different? 3? Forever?

Copyright for a limited time is a good thing. Eternal copyright is not, for reasons already discussed in this thread.

The argument is only over where to set the dividing line.

[leebase]

Argued, but not settled. There has yet to be a cogent argument against fiction as property like any other property.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by leebase

Argued, but not settled. There has yet to be a cogent argument against fiction as property like any other property.

Then tax it like any other property. Let the government seize it if the taxes aren't paid. Or is that too difficult. . .

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Then tax it like any other property. Let the government seize it if the taxes aren't paid. Or is that too difficult. . .

I mentioned this in another thread but several years ago I'd listened to part of a talk given by Bill Gates's father and how Sr. and Jr. support a 100% inheritance tax. In that scenario if you don't want the government to suck up all your money and property when you die then you can protect it from that by making a will specifying that it goes to non-profits.

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Copyright for a limited time is a good thing. Eternal copyright is not, for reasons already discussed in this thread.

The argument is only over where to set the dividing line.

But his argument is that when following your logic that if someone inherits money that they can only use it for a limited time and then after N years they have to give it up.

In other words, that a copyright is property and should be treated no differently than tangible property like real estate, stocks, cash in the bank, etc. I don't agree with that argument, for all of the reasons given against it. But if you use the narrow Libertarian interpretation it does make sense from their perspective.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by lumpynose

But his argument is that when following your logic that if someone inherits money that they can only use it for a limited time and then after N years they have to give it up.

In other words, that a copyright is property and should be treated no differently than tangible property like real estate, stocks, cash in the bank, etc. I don't agree with that argument, for all of the reasons given against it. But if you use the narrow Libertarian interpretation it does make sense from their perspective.

I disregard that argument.

The constitution says "[the United States Congress shall have power] 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."

The only argument to me is how long that time is.

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I disregard that argument.

And fortunately as has the vast majority of society.