Why public domain

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Greg Anos

This sounds like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The real issue is how cheap and readily available the ability to manufacture information currently is.

What happens when the people currently trying to exactly mimic $1,000 bottles of wine for $20 succeed?

I'm not talking about passing it off as the real McCoy, but in a bottle proudly stating that the contents is exactly the same as that $1,000 bottle of wine.

When does IP end and PP begin? Think about a world of Star Trek-like replicators. What rights should the original creators of a physical product?

This is the real question.

The Star Trek thing is pretty easy: they have no money so the rights (to physical property or intellectual property) become a redundancy. IP has only been defined as such in order to encourage more IP by supporting exploitation. With no money to use as incentive, they will have to find some other means. Reputation, perhaps? This phaser was brought to you by ....

The problem with trying to mimic a $1000 bottle of wine is that it is self defeating. Typically a significant proportion of the price of a $1000 bottle of wine comes from its rarity value. If it is no longer rare the price will drop and your $20 wine will be a mimic of a $20 bottle of wine.

And yes, being cheap to reproduce is a real and relevant difference between IP and most other sorts of property (tangible and non-tangible) - for now, anyway. IP can be consumed without being used up. In theory this lack of scarcity should prevent it from being treated as a property, but in practice it hasn't turned out that way - or not so far.

It's rather circular, but I think IP is able to be treated as a property because it has been treated as property. Originally this was partly supported by the fact that reproduction of IP met with scarce resources (paper and time etc.), but having established itself as property IP is not moving over just because we found cheaper ways to reproduce it.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by gmw

In my view, the reasons you give for IP and PP not being the same (physicality, builder analogies and so on), are distractions. As such they clutter the debate unnecessarily, and obscure the real reasons why we should consider treating IP differently - not because we must, but because there are genuinely useful reasons for doing so.

Wow.

I address the argument that "IP is the same as PP and should be treated the same" by trying to show how IP and PP are actually quite different and therefore it would be unworkable to treat them the same.

You respond repeatedly suggesting and implying (if not specifically stating) that I am wrong and being extreme.

Now it seems you actually agree they should be treated differently but you just don't like my arguments trying to explain how they are actually different.

Holy F***ing cow this has been an entire waste of time!

Why didn't you simply state "does it really matter if they are the same? There are useful reasons to treat them differently." To which I would have replied "totally agree with you, I was just trying to show they are not the same and it is non-nonsensical to treat them the same because of that."

And for the record, perhaps one of those genuinely useful reasons for treating them differently is because treating them the same would cause complications and result in an unworkable and not very positive outcome for all concerned! Which I have stated numerous times.

[leebase]

Let it be noted - all property rights are a social construct. And across societies and time have been treated quite differently.

The qualities of IP are no more or less intrinsic than any other type of property.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by gmw

I think we've had this discussion before . Property has a specific meaning (a thing or things in owned) in legal and commercial circumstances. Non-tangible "rights" of many sorts have been treated as property (traded, subleased, used as collateral) for centuries before IP. Defining IP as having rights makes it property, no conspiracy required, just centuries of experience.

The discussion I responded to was not about Property rights in general.

IP = Intellectual Property

PP =Physical property.

Yes both are property.

The argument was that IP (Intellectual property) rights should be treated the same as PP (Physical property) rights.

To quote...

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Intellectual property rights should be treated in the same manner as physical property rights.

It wasn't me who initially used physical objects such as money, houses, restaurants, farm land, the list goes on, to make this point.

To address that argument it is necessary to address whether Intellectual property is the same as Physical property.

Let's go with that shall we......

Disregarding "copyright", which is an added set of laws pertaining to what can and can not be done with IP, lets look at Physical Property law.

The law states I can not steal your house from you. You have the physical property right to own that house, pass it down to whoever you like, etc. However, the law has nothing to say about copying your physical property and I can do so to my hearts content. I can exactly duplicate your house and make it my own. I can build multiple exact copies and sell them to anyone I like.

The only thing stopping me is "copyright" law. Nothing in physical property rights law prevents me from doing the above.

So lets treat intellectual property the same as physical property. Lets do away with copyright law and put it all under physical property law.

Now I can not steal the intellectual property that makes up the Harry Potter books from JK Rowling, and she can pass that down to whomever she likes but I can legally copy the Harry Potter books and sell as many copies as I like.

Are we all happy?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by leebase

Let it be noted - all property rights are a social construct. And across societies and time have been treated quite differently.

The qualities of IP are no more or less intrinsic than any other type of property.

Absolutely agree.

And as social constructs they can be made any way society wants. The same, different, whatever.

So I'd still be interested in any rational argument that supports treating intellectual property rights the same as physical property rights.

That argument should address why they should be treated the same when IP is clearly different to PP. That argument should also state whether the person presenting that argument supports the right of anyone to copy intellectual property just as they are allowed to copy physical property. If not, then that argument should also address why not.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Wow. [...]

I don't get where your sense of surprise is coming from. Two days ago I said and you acknowledged:

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.

I don't actually agree that it is minutia. If you use the wrong reasons for deciding that IP should be treated differently then there is a good chance any solution offered will be inappropriate ... which I suppose means you might still be right about part of it: if you try and build a solution based on those incorrect assumptions it probably will be unworkable.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Timboli

You've lost me. The same what? And why?
And you make it sound like Copyright is set in concrete, when we know it varies from country to country and can even change over time etc.

How did you lose me? You said early works and later works of the same author should have different terms for copyright, because the early works, decades earlier, are sooner no longer making money. And I said both needs to be treated the same. No matter if the one is decades older than the other.

For example GRRM. He writes his first book when he is young, and it takes him literally decades until he finishes the series. You cannot have the first book expiring before the last is even written. It should receive the same life+whatever copyright. The whatever will depend on where in the world you are looking if you want different terms in different countries.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by gmw

I don't get where your sense of surprise is coming from. Two days ago I said and you acknowledged:



I don't actually agree that it is minutia. If you use the wrong reasons for deciding that IP should be treated differently then there is a good chance any solution offered will be inappropriate ... which I suppose means you might still be right about part of it: if you try and build a solution based on those incorrect assumptions it probably will be unworkable.

ETA: I am surprised because now it seems you don't actually believe I am incorrect, you simply think my points to address the argument I was responding to are not important. You certainly seem to imply that you think IP and PP are actually different or at the very least it doesn't matter if they are or not. Furthermore, you actually agree with my assertion that they should be treated differently. Neither of which points you made prior to the post to which I replied with the above quoted post.

I am surprised you would spend so much time implying and suggesting that I am wrong and being extreme when you don't actually believe that to be the case. I am surprised you would seemingly wish to waste both your time and my own arguing back and forth about something which it now appears you agree with totally but simply for different reasons. I'm surprised you wouldn't simply start by stating "I agree they are different but don't think it matters. I agree they should be treated differently but for different reasons to you and here are those reasons...."

END EDIT.

Firstly, I suggest you refer to my most recent posts if you are interested. I believe I was responding to a different argument than what you think. Ergo, your responses about why I am wrong and extreme are not relevant because they do not relate to what I was actually addressing and discussing.

However, if you are still interested and have a clear understanding of the argument I was actually addressing and if you wish to do so,

Please list any incorrect assumptions I made.

IP is actually different to PP. That's not an assumption, that is fact.
Therefore, IP rights should not be treated the same as PP rights. That is not an assumption it is an assertion.

So, if you are interested, enlighten me as to which assumptions I even actually made in my argument and, if I actually made any, why they are wrong.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

ETA: I am surprised because now it seems you don't actually believe I am incorrect, you simply think my points to address the argument I was responding to are not important. You certainly seem to imply that you think IP and PP are actually different or at the very least it doesn't matter if they are or not. Furthermore, you actually agree with my assertion that they should be treated differently. Neither of which points you made prior to the post to which I replied with the above quoted post.[...]

I thought the argument you presented was worse than not important, it was - as a I said - an unwarranted distraction from the real reasons.

As for "Neither of which points you made", I offer the following examples (enclosed in spoiler tags so others don't have to suffer the repetition)...

Spoiler:

Originally Posted by gmw

[...] Just because IP and PP are not identical does not mean they are not at all comparable. [...]

I actually thought "not identical" fairly clearly indicated that I think there are differences. That was my first post on this thread.

Originally Posted by gmw

[...] Land isn't the same thing as water, isn't the same thing as farm produce and isn't the same thing as copyright. They can all be property, but they all have their own peculiarities and so differences in the way they are treated under law. [...]

And there I was admitting that many different types of property are different and treated differently under law. Second post on this thread. Is that not clear?

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. [...]

And here I was explaining that your arguments were distractions and irrelevant (ie. "irrelevant" means they don't matter).

Originally Posted by gmw

[...] 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. [...]

And there I state quite flatly that I have no quarrel with different IP being treated differently from each other etc. Hello?

Originally Posted by gmw

[...] 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. [...]

And another statement that I don't believe we should treat copyright the same as physical property.

All those were taken from before the offending post.

I think we should call it quits. We seem to be going backwards rather than forwards.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by gmw

I thought the argument you presented was worse than not important, it was - as a I said - an unwarranted distraction from the real reasons.

The unwarranted distraction remark only came very recently.

Sorry for not using spoilers for the rest, I could not work out how to separate each of your comments, reply to them and wrap it all in spoilers.

Originally Posted by gmw

As for "Neither of which points you made", I offer the following examples (enclosed in spoiler tags so others don't have to suffer the repetition)...

I actually thought "not identical" fairly clearly indicated that I think there are differences. That was my first post on this thread.

So you agree that there are differences but imply and suggest I am wrong if I claim they are not the same. Makes sense....NOT.

Originally Posted by gmw

And there I was admitting that many different types of property are different and treated differently under law. Second post on this thread. Is that not clear?

So you agree that there are many different types of property that are treated differently under the law but imply and suggest I am wrong if I claim IP and PP should not be treated the same under the law. Makes sense....NOT.

Originally Posted by gmw

And here I was explaining that your arguments were distractions and irrelevant (ie. "irrelevant" means they don't matter).

Yes, I'll give you this one. I must have missed the fact that your only point was my arguments were distractions and irrelevant in amongst all the bits that had nothing to do with this point but instead were about how my position was "extreme" and not in the middle ground and my analogies were wrong, etc, etc, etc.

Originally Posted by gmw

And there I state quite flatly that I have no quarrel with different IP being treated differently from each other etc. Hello?

And another statement that I don't believe we should treat copyright the same as physical property.

All those were taken from before the offending post.

And yes I will admit to not remembering these either.

So, I take it back, you did make it clear you agree IP and PP should be treated differently.

The rest I stand by. Could have all been avoided had you concentrated on making your point rather than trying to tell me why I was wrong and my arguments are irrelevant.

I would agree my arguments and analogies would be a distraction and would be irrelevant if no one had actually made the argument that IP rights and PP rights should be treated the same.

You see, to address that argument it is actually quite relevant to firstly determine if IP and PP are actually the same. If IP and PP are the same then it makes eminent sense to treat them the same. It only makes sense to treat IP and PP differently if they are in fact different things.

You jumped in and decided I was wrong, and my arguments a distraction and irrelevant and it was vitally important you informed me why that is so because you had no idea what I was actually responding to and discussing.

Originally Posted by gmw

I think we should call it quits. We seem to be going backwards rather than forwards.

That tends to happen when a poster spends more time and energy trying to convince another poster their thoughts and opinions are irrelevant and wrong than they do in simply trying to first actually understand what the poster was responding to and discussing in the first place and in making their own point clear to begin with.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

[...]And yes I will admit to not remembering these either.[...]

It's easy to miss or lose track when both posters are as verbose as we can be. Such is life. I keep promising myself I'm not going to get involved in another one of these discussions, but I never seem to learn.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by gmw

It's easy to miss or lose track when both posters are as verbose as we can be. Such is life. I keep promising myself I'm not going to get involved in another one of these discussions, but I never seem to learn.

This I can whole heartedly agree with.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by gmw

I think we've had this discussion before . Property has a specific meaning (a thing or things in owned) in legal and commercial circumstances. Non-tangible "rights" of many sorts have been treated as property (traded, subleased, used as collateral) for centuries before IP. Defining IP as having rights makes it property, no conspiracy required, just centuries of experience.

That's fairly misleading. The non-tangible "rights", were the rights to develop tangible objects, i.e. mining right, watering rights and the like. It's pretty hard to come up with something non tangible that was actually used as collateral prior to modern times.

Government granted monopolies have been around for a long, long time as well. They have never been treated as property because, what the crown can grant, the crown can take away. The most famous monopoly was the British East India Company which was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in 1600 and lasted until 1874. It's monopoly was removed in 1858 following the Indian rebellion of 1857. So, it lasted about as long as a modern copyright! (I joke, I joke, it lasted twice as long as a modern copyright).

[leebase]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Absolutely agree.

And as social constructs they can be made any way society wants. The same, different, whatever.

So I'd still be interested in any rational argument that supports treating intellectual property rights the same as physical property rights.

That argument should address why they should be treated the same when IP is clearly different to PP. That argument should also state whether the person presenting that argument supports the right of anyone to copy intellectual property just as they are allowed to copy physical property. If not, then that argument should also address why not.

I’ve already given my thoughts on this...over and over...previously in the thread. I stopped because even I do eventually cease repeating myself.

There are differences between PP and IP of course. Else we wouldn’t have two different terms. But the “property” part is the same and thus I see no reason, for fiction, that there is a time limit to ownership. It’s an opinion, not an interpretation of any given actual law.

I limit this continuation of ownership to those active economic IP. Abandoned fiction should fall into the public domain. Ongoing economic properties should remain with the rights holder.

The public has no more claim on Mickey Mouse than they do over somebodies family farm that’s been handed down for generations.

This is different than patents because there is only so many ways to make Aspirin. Giving a time limited patent after which point all of society gets to benefit allows progress.

I see no such valid time limitation for fiction. There are endless ways to create a story.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That's fairly misleading. The non-tangible "rights", were the rights to develop tangible objects, i.e. mining right, watering rights and the like. It's pretty hard to come up with something non tangible that was actually used as collateral prior to modern times. [...]

My OED offers the following pre-Statute of Anne quotes for collateral (sense 5. Law):

*** 1534 Act 26 Hen. VIII, c. 3 §21 Any colaterall writing or suertie made for such pension. ***1552 Huloet, Collateral bonde, satisdatio. ***1570 Act 13 Eliz. c. 8 §3 Contracts and Assurances, collateral or other. ***1574 tr. Littleton's Tenures 132 a, Called collaterall warrantie. In so much that hee yt made the warrantie is collaterall to the title of the tenementes. ***1607 J. Cowell Interpr. s.v., To bee subject to the feeding of the Kings Deere, is collaterall to the soyle within the Forest. ***1623 in New Shaks. Soc. Trans. (1885) 505 Collaterall Covenauntes bondes and assurances so to bee made.

Although I must admit when I wrote that last post I was thinking of less formal use of the concept ("he's good for it" sort of thing).

Of course, you are right that those types of rights are underwritten by tangible things, but once you introduce rights in place of the real thing thing you begin to introduce interesting complications. eg: if everyone wants their irrigation water at the same time (which is quite common) then you run into capacity issues. This sort of thing gets people playing fast and loose with timing and other details and we end up with something akin to Pratchett's "pork futures" (well, not really, but hopefully you get what I mean).

I see those early rights not as the same thing as IP rights, but as a necessary lead up to the possibilities of intangibles.