Why public domain

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by gmw

I realised there was a blindingly obvious response...

Disney.

Treating copyright as property (as the law currently does) seems to have been working for them. And since pretty much everyone has heard of Mickey Mouse, it seems the legal protections - even if they are after the fact - are working to a sufficient extent that Disney is still in business. It turns out that just because others are aware of the idea or work does not mean they feel they can get away with trying to exploit that idea or work. Wow, imagine that, and we didn't even have to kill them.

Isn't Disney sufficient proof that copyright law does in fact protect IP? All arguments to the contrary would seem to be bundles of cereal stalks tied together in a bipedal shape.

Counter example....

China.

Copyright works because most people are law-abiding citizens and have been brought up to at least try to do the morally "right" thing to do. Add to that that yes, most people don't think they could "get away with" infringing the copyright on Disney stuff. Ergo, most people don't infringe copyright. That's a good thing.

Now, if you want to actually address my actual point though, let's discuss what happens when the copyright runs out. (assuming it ever does which is looking increasingly unlikely)

Anyone who wants to use Mikey Mouse will be legally allowed to do so. That's because copyright doesn't protect the "idea" of Mikey Mouse. It grants a limited time protection to the work done to create the specific character of Mikey Mouse.

If one wants to argue that that work should be protected in perpetuity then I think they should be able to give a rational argument as to why that should be but a builder should not be given the same protection for the work they do.

Have at it...

[gmw]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

[...] I just don't understand your claim that copyright is the IP itself.

I could be on shaky ground here. But consider that these days copyright comes into existence at the time the work is created, and the copyright cannot be transferred to another work. The two aspects (thing and rights) are effectively inseparable. Consider, too, that it is copyright that effectively gives the work potential value as a property in legal and economic terms.

Without the legal rights you run into the problems cited in that Jessica Dickinson article. An intellectual thing without rights is non-rival and non-excludable. But with those rights, the intellectual thing becomes rival and excludable (which is pretty much the point) and so potentially valuable as an exploitable asset.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

[...] Now, if you want to actually address my actual point though, let's discuss what happens when the copyright runs out. (assuming it ever does which is looking increasingly unlikely)

You lost me. When did this become your point? I don't recall you mentioning when copyright runs out ... but then we've both talked a lot , so I might have missed it.

I have not been arguing in favour of eternal copyright. I think publish + 70 sounds pretty reasonable to all concerned, maybe publish + 50. Not that it matters, the constraints of the Berne Convention mean we are unlikely to see any change below what exists now, however many impassioned discussions happen on MR.

While I am not a fan of perpetual copyright, but I do have some sympathy for what tubemonkey suggested: life + renewal every x years. That would seem to resolve some of the issues surrounding eternal copyright, but ...

Eternity is a long time. The potential for building complications of copyrighted material dependent on copyrighted material strike me as horrendously messy.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by gmw

I could be on shaky ground here. But consider that these days copyright comes into existence at the time the work is created, and the copyright cannot be transferred to another work. The two aspects (thing and rights) are effectively inseparable. Consider, too, that it is copyright that effectively gives the work potential value as a property in legal and economic terms.

Without the legal rights you run into the problems cited in that Jessica Dickinson article. An intellectual thing without rights is non-rival and non-excludable. But with those rights, the intellectual thing becomes rival and excludable (which is pretty much the point) and so potentially valuable as an exploitable asset.

It seems this is more an issue of terminology then. Or to put it another way, I think we may agree on this point but are expressing it differently and that is causing my confusion.

Originally Posted by gmw

You lost me. When did this become your point? I don't recall you mentioning when copyright runs out ... but then we've both talked a lot , so I might have missed it.

And perhaps once again I have expressed myself inaccurately.

My point is and always has been, IP and PP are different. So long as I have that rock in my hand I have the possibility of denying it to anyone else. The only thing giving me any rights over my IP is the law. Currently, under the law, copyright runs out. You gave the example of Disney to show copyright works. How will Disney stop anyone from using anything it has under copyright when that copyright protection runs out?

So yes, copyright works and is good and should be in place and all the rest. However, it is a legal concept under the law and that is it. Work protected by copyright is very different to physical property.

Originally Posted by gmw

I have not been arguing in favour of eternal copyright.

No, you have not. Which, to be completely honest, is why I am so surprised you are finding minutia to disagree with me on.

My entire post was in relation to and directed at those supporting the concept of copyright being extended in perpetuity. The only arguement I have seen put forward for that idea is that the government does not take your physical property after a certain time and make it "public domain" therefore the government should not do so with IP. That argument is non-sensical for two reasons;
1: Because IP and PP are different and therefore not only should be treated differently under the law but actually need to be treated differently. And
2: Because copyright doesn't even protect IP, it gives a right to control the output of ones work for a limited period of time. So if one wants to compare copyright with other rights, one should reasonably compare copyright to worker's rights.

Originally Posted by gmw

I think publish + 70 sounds pretty reasonable to all concerned, maybe publish + 50. Not that it matters, the constraints of the Berne Convention mean we are unlikely to see any change below what exists now, however many impassioned discussions happen on MR.

I have no problem with Life + a limited time such as 50 or 70 years. I agree that we will not see a reduction in copyright length. If anything I think corporations will continue to buy politicians and eventually ensure there is no public domain.

Originally Posted by gmw

While I am not a fan of perpetual copyright, but I do have some sympathy for what tubemonkey suggested: life + renewal every x years. That would seem to resolve some of the issues surrounding eternal copyright, but ...

Eternity is a long time. The potential for building complications of copyrighted material dependent on copyrighted material strike me as horrendously messy.

I have zero sympathy for the idea of eternal copyright.

All current creators draw extensively on what has been created before them. To now suggest no one into the future should have that same right is nothing more than, to quote leebase, "an attitude of gimme, gimme, gimme".

Furthermore, I can not comprehend why an author should be compensated for their work over and over for all eternity if other workers are not afforded the same right.

If any proponents of eternal copyright can actually come up with a rational and cogent argument why the two situations should be treated differently I'd sincerely be interested in reading it.

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I find it hard to take seriously anyone who puts forward the argument that intellectual property is anything like Physical property and therefore should be treated the same.

Let's take a look...

You have an idea, which, if you want to make money from it (which is really what copyright is about after all), you put out into the world. How do you actually stop anyone from "stealing" it and taking that idea and doing absolutely anything they want with it? The answer is, you can't. It simply isn't possible.

You own a house. How do you stop anyone from stealing it or doing absolutely anything they want with it? You get a shot gun and shoot anyone you suspect may want to do so. (which, incidentally, is exactly what a large percentage of the population of the USA plans to do should the situation arise)

So it is clear IP and PP are not at all comparable. Those who put forward that argument show either
A: an ignorance so profound there is no point discussing the issue with them. This I find very difficult to believe but the possibility can not be discarded out of hand. Or;
B: an inability to form a cogent and rational argument to support their view that copyright should extend forever and so resort to a false equivalency so profound as to render it laughable.

Even if, out of some sort of intellectual deficiency, we accept the false equivalency, another issue arises for those wanting copyright to extend forever. It appears proponents of such, believe Copyright protects the value of the idea that the author (for simplicity read "author" as inclusive of any other producer of creative work in any other medium) has had. Or, to put it another way, it protects the value of the IP. This is not so. Copyright protects the ability to make money from the specific work an author does to craft that idea into a specific format. No work to put the idea down in concrete form then no protection.

I think that point to be self-evident, however if any disagree, please feel free to argue otherwise.

That point is important because proponents of the copyright forever argument have stated that so long as the work has value then the author should be compensated in perpetuity.

So if we should compensate an author and his/her heirs in perpetuity so long as we find value in their work, should we not also pay a builder and his/her heirs in perpetuity so long as the house they built us still has value?

If not, why not?

The only answer I can see is because paying a builder once has always been the way it has been, and we as a society have accepted that paying a builder once for a service rendered (work) is payment enough. Even though that work has value to us for many years, even generations.

Now, that being the case, why should we as a society decide that the work of an author should be paid for in perpetuity over and over?

What cogent rational argument can be made that the two situations should be treated differently? Or are you going to argue we should commence paying everyone in perpetuity for the work they do?

When I read this, I thought good, but, then I thought about it and there is a fairly major problem with your builder analogy.

Firstly, you are correct, if I get a builder to build me a house, I don't keep paying the builder once I have it. But, if I buy a book, I don't keep paying the author once I have it. I only pay the author if I want another copy of the book. Just as if I wanted another "copy" of the house I would have to pay the builder for it. In both cases, I am paying for the materials involved, the labour involved in assembling the materials and for the use of the "design" (architectural for one, and the list of words and order for the other). Once that is done, I have the right to do what I want with the physical thing I thing I paid for, but, don't have the right to copy them to produce another just like it.

This is of course a simplification of the situation, but, so was yours and completely ignored where the IP is.

And for the record, I have absolutely no idea what should be done with copyright. I tend slightly towards perpetual copyright, but, that probably is unworkable in the long run. Of course, I'm not sure that the current rules are actually working as intended. That also means I haven't seen a really convincing argument that IP shouldn't be treated in the same way as IP.

And, @PKFFW, do you really believe that people haven't gotten out a shotgun to defend their IP?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by davidfor

When I read this, I thought good, but, then I thought about it and there is a fairly major problem with your builder analogy.

Firstly, you are correct, if I get a builder to build me a house, I don't keep paying the builder once I have it. But, if I buy a book, I don't keep paying the author once I have it. I only pay the author if I want another copy of the book. Just as if I wanted another "copy" of the house I would have to pay the builder for it. In both cases, I am paying for the materials involved, the labour involved in assembling the materials and for the use of the "design" (architectural for one, and the list of words and order for the other). Once that is done, I have the right to do what I want with the physical thing I thing I paid for, but, don't have the right to copy them to produce another just like it.

A good point.

However, the builder does not get any rights to the building after they complete their work. Even the architect doesn't. Anyone can build an identical house whenever they like. Anyone can take the design and modify it. You can renovate the house at any time you like. You can sell it to anyone you like and the builder doesn't have any say at all. You can even make money from it by renting out rooms if you want. Etc.

If an author should have some form of control over their work for all eternity why should an architect or builder not have some form of control over their work for all eternity?

Originally Posted by davidfor

This is of course a simplification of the situation, but, so was yours and completely ignored where the IP is.

Yes both are simplifications.

However, I did not ignore where IP is. My very point is that copyright doesn't protect IP. It protects the right of the creator to control the work they did in expressing that IP in a very specific format.

We don't pay an author to have an idea about a book. We don't protect that idea if the author never does any work to express that idea. We protect the right of the author to, in general, simplified and basic terms, make money from the work they have done.

Compare apples with apples. Compare copyright with worker's rights.

Originally Posted by davidfor

And for the record, I have absolutely no idea what should be done with copyright. I tend slightly towards perpetual copyright, but, that probably is unworkable in the long run. Of course, I'm not sure that the current rules are actually working as intended. That also means I haven't seen a really convincing argument that IP shouldn't be treated in the same way as IP.

I don't have any answer to how the public good and the private good should be balanced either. I do believe it is tilted way too far to the private good side. Understandable because humans naturally want to gain whatever they can for their endeavours and generally care little for the common good.

Originally Posted by davidfor

And, @PKFFW, do you really believe that people haven't gotten out a shotgun to defend their IP?

I never claimed to believe that people haven't gotten out a shotgun to defend their IP.

I claimed that short of executing someone preemptively there is no actual way in the real physical world that one could prevent the IP from being "stolen" to begin with. See China for proof. All one could reasonably do is punish after the fact those who do "steal" their IP.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

[...]
No, you have not. Which, to be completely honest, is why I am so surprised you are finding minutia to disagree with me on.
[...]

Because I completely disagree with your assertion that IP and PP are dissimilar. The rights and remedies for both are defined by law and as a result they have lots in common. Yes, copyright only has those similarities because of copyright law, but that was the point of introducing the law.

There is no need for weird and wonderful arguments about protecting one or the other with guns or rocks, that stuff is just a distraction, and entirely irrelevant. The law as it exists now has been shown to work (not perfectly, perhaps, but it has been achieving the objectives it was designed to achieve). Claiming it is unworkable seems a very strange thing to do.

Perhaps some centuries ago the "rock in my hand" thing had some merit, but even then it's doubtful because at that time it probably belonged to the King whether you liked it or not.

[hildea]

There's an obvious reason to treat the work of an author and a furniture builder differently, and that's in how they get paid.

• I bake you a bread, build you a chair, mow your lawn, teach you how to knit -- I do a job for you, you pay me for it, I get enough from you to cover my expenses and get a decent wage. We're done.
• I hold a concert -- I do a job for a lot of people, all of them pay me a part of the total cost, and all together, I get enough to cover my expenses and have a decent wage. We're done.
• But: If I write a book, or make a computer game, or design a new type of chair, I need a lot of people to each pay a part of the total cost, the payments will be spread out over time (unlike the concert), and I'm vulnerable because someone else could copy my work in a fraction of the time I spent, sell it much cheaper, and rob me of the fruits of my labor. So we need laws and cultural norms to protect the creators' rights in these cases.

Life + (small amount of time) will be enough to protect the creators' wages, eternal copyright gives no advantages to society, and a lot of disadvantages that have been described in this thread.

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

A good point.

However, the builder does not get any rights to the building after they complete their work. Even the architect doesn't. Anyone can build an identical house whenever they like. Anyone can take the design and modify it.

You might want to do a search for "architectural copyright". Just because I paid for the house doesn't mean I have the right to copy the design.

You can renovate the house at any time you like. You can sell it to anyone you like and the builder doesn't have any say at all. You can even make money from it by renting out rooms if you want. Etc.

If an author should have some form of control over their work for all eternity why should an architect or builder not have some form of control over their work for all eternity?

And the author doesn't get any rights to the copy of the book I bought. I can sell my copy or change it however I want. If I want to rip a page out the last page of a mystery before lending to a friend, I can. Or blackout all the swear words. But, I can't take that copy and reproduce it and sell that. Just as I can't with the design of the house.

Yes both are simplifications.

However, I did not ignore where IP is. My very point is that copyright doesn't protect IP. It protects the right of the creator to control the work they did in expressing that IP in a very specific format.

Yes you did. There is IP involved in the house and someone did get paid to use it. Copyright is protecting the right to reproduce that IP.

We don't pay an author to have an idea about a book. We don't protect that idea if the author never does any work to express that idea. We protect the right of the author to, in general, simplified and basic terms, make money from the work they have done.

Compare apples with apples. Compare copyright with worker's rights.

Not sure what you are saying there. Workers make a deal ahead of time to get paid for the work they do. Authors are taking a risk and doing the work hoping they will get paid later. The difference is in the contracts/laws involved. The worker is being paid per piece or hour to do work probably based on someone else's IP (just like the builder). The writer is putting out their IP, why should they not be paid as long as it is considered valuable to someone?

[gmw]

Not sure if you were responding to my post, hildea, but I have no quarrel with the idea that various sorts of IP should be treated differently from each other, and differently to the various sorts of other property. The law has different provisions for different sorts of property, tangible and non-tangible, because the social objectives are different.

But treating them differently or the same is a deliberate choice. In feudal times land ownership remained with the monarch and fiefs would be granted to vassals giving them specific rights (trading rights, farming rights, hunting rights). Sounds familiar. Now we have land ownership defined in law, but eminent domain still exists. So all property has a lot in common, whatever our modern assumptions, we just choose to treat them differently.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by gmw

Because I completely disagree with your assertion that IP and PP are dissimilar.

I think it is self evident to anyone that IP is actually dissimilar to PP. I mean, they are not the same thing so they must be dissimilar to some degree. Quibble about the degree but to argue they are not dissimilar would be blatantly incorrect.

Originally Posted by gmw

The rights and remedies for both are defined by law and as a result they have lots in common. Yes, copyright only has those similarities because of copyright law, but that was the point of introducing the law.

They have very little in common. The only similarities they have are those defined by law to aid in conceptualisation.

Originally Posted by gmw

There is no need for weird and wonderful arguments about protecting one or the other with guns or rocks, that stuff is just a distraction, and entirely irrelevant. The law as it exists now has been shown to work (not perfectly, perhaps, but it has been achieving the objectives it was designed to achieve). Claiming it is unworkable seems a very strange thing to do.

Yep, already agreed that copyright law, generally speaking, works.

Nope, never claimed copyright law is unworkable.

What I did claim is that IP and PP are dissimilar, and therefore are not, and should not, be treated the same under the law. The fact they are not treated the same under the law is a simple fact anyone can confirm for themselves if they care to. Whether they should be treated the same is, I admit debatable. However, I do contend it would be unworkable to do so and would hazard a guess that fact is the single biggest factor in why IP was not simply added into the existing laws covering PP but instead had a whole new set of laws made up to deal with it.

Originally Posted by gmw

Perhaps some centuries ago the "rock in my hand" thing had some merit, but even then it's doubtful because at that time it probably belonged to the King whether you liked it or not.

If you honestly believe there is no difference between IP and PP then so be it. I don't know how to discuss the issue with someone who honestly believes that premise so I'll leave it there.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

[...] If you honestly believe there is no difference between IP and PP then so be it. I don't know how to discuss the issue with someone who honestly believes that premise so I'll leave it there.

This sort of extremism is where I came in. There are more than two choices, you know? It does not have to be one extreme or the other. Things can have some similarity without being identical and without being completely distinct. Is it so hard to see that such middle ground can exist?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by hildea

There's an obvious reason to treat the work of an author and a furniture builder differently, and that's in how they get paid.

• I bake you a bread, build you a chair, mow your lawn, teach you how to knit -- I do a job for you, you pay me for it, I get enough from you to cover my expenses and get a decent wage. We're done.
• I hold a concert -- I do a job for a lot of people, all of them pay me a part of the total cost, and all together, I get enough to cover my expenses and have a decent wage. We're done.
• But: If I write a book, or make a computer game, or design a new type of chair, I need a lot of people to each pay a part of the total cost, the payments will be spread out over time (unlike the concert), and I'm vulnerable because someone else could copy my work in a fraction of the time I spent, sell it much cheaper, and rob me of the fruits of my labor. So we need laws and cultural norms to protect the creators' rights in these cases.

Life + (small amount of time) will be enough to protect the creators' wages, eternal copyright gives no advantages to society, and a lot of disadvantages that have been described in this thread.

I agree there are reasons to treat payment for the work differently. I even agree that there are reasons to grant limited control over the work to the creator that stem directly from the issues you raise.

What I don't agree with is that the work of an author is such that they should be granted special rights to control their work in perpetuity.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by gmw

This sort of extremism is where I came it. There are more than two choices, you know? It does not have to be one extreme or the other. Things can have some similarity without being identical and without being completely distinct. Is it so hard to see that such middle ground can exist?

Firstly, I've already admitted I mis-wrote when I stated they were "not at all comparable."

Yes, they have similarities. Yes they can be compared if one wants to. However, I don't actually see how there are more than two choices in this particular case.

The only argument I have seen in this thread for the idea that copyright should last for eternity is that IP is the same as PP and therefore should be treated the same under the law.

My point in response to that is IP and PP are different and therefore should not be treated the same under the law. That's it. That's all. And the law seems to agree with me on that one since they invented a whole new category of law to deal with IP rather than just sticking it in with PP.

You seem to disagree with that simple premise. I don't mean to be rude but I honestly don't know what to say to that because it seems so obvious to me that IP and PP are actually different. No matter how similar someone believes them to be (which I still contend not much) it still seems obvious to me that anyone should recognise and understand that they are actually different.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by davidfor

You might want to do a search for "architectural copyright". Just because I paid for the house doesn't mean I have the right to copy the design.

Yes, you are correct. I admit to not knowing this since I have seen so many near identical houses in my time I made the incorrect assumption that architecture was not covered by copyright.

Originally Posted by davidfor

And the author doesn't get any rights to the copy of the book I bought. I can sell my copy or change it however I want. If I want to rip a page out the last page of a mystery before lending to a friend, I can. Or blackout all the swear words. But, I can't take that copy and reproduce it and sell that. Just as I can't with the design of the house.

Yes you did. There is IP involved in the house and someone did get paid to use it. Copyright is protecting the right to reproduce that IP.

Not sure what you are saying there. Workers make a deal ahead of time to get paid for the work they do. Authors are taking a risk and doing the work hoping they will get paid later. The difference is in the contracts/laws involved. The worker is being paid per piece or hour to do work probably based on someone else's IP (just like the builder). The writer is putting out their IP, why should they not be paid as long as it is considered valuable to someone?

Now we are getting somewhere.

Your points have given me a lot to think about so thank you. I'll respond further after thinking about it for a bit.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Firstly, I've already admitted I mis-wrote when I stated they were "not at all comparable."

You replaced that with: "Whilst, like anything at all, IP and PP can be compared to each other if one wishes to do so, IP and PP are so significantly different that to attempt to treat them the same under the law and have a workable and enforceable solution is simply not possible."

Which is close enough to meaning the same thing, don't you think?

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Yes, they have similarities. Yes they can be compared if one wants to. However, I don't actually see how there are more than two choices in this particular case.[...]

There, that wasn't so hard. The rest is just a matter of degree. I believe the similarities are such that it is a societal choice whether we treat copyright the same as a physical property and offer eternal copyright. I don't believe we should, but I don't see it as impossible.

I don't really expect you to agree, I was just hoping to show you that this middle ground existed, and I'm standing on it.