Why public domain

[gmw]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

And yet when you use a term, then it comes with all the connotations associated by the general public even if it might have different connotations when used as a term of art within the community of finance and accounting. In other industries such as entertainment, property might mean someone under contract and have absolutely nothing to do with actual ownership.

Which is why I have repeatedly made it clear, and made it clear that I made it clear, what sense of the word I was using. Anyway, you can easily see why someone under contract is referred to as property - the derivation seems obvious and supportive of the idea that property means a thing owned.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That's why there is a saying in the world of debate, if I can define the terms, I win the debate. This is, of course, the purpose of the term Intellectual Property, it's an attempt to win the debate and it's done a pretty good job of that.

And that gives you permission to make it up as you go? I have given multiple sources demonstrating the common use of property to include intangibles and you have give me ... <crickets chirping in the dark>

Originally Posted by pwalker8

A more proper term might be limited ownership, i.e. you have the right to use or dispose of something within a small subset of normal ownership rights, which is why I keep using the lease example since it is a more correct analogy for copyright than property. Copyright is more correctly understood by understanding the history of copyright and why copyright originally began.

So, like Richard Stallman, you want to present the argument: the other side are making up definitions to sell their agenda. The real meaning of the word is <something else>, which is in no way us making up definitions to sell our agenda.

Yeah, right. You are, whether it's fair or right or not, facing the already established use of the term, and the already established treatment (in financial circles) of copyright as property. I don't find the conspiracy theory explanation for property very convincing, I'm much more inclined to believe the word was a natural fit given all the existing intangible property that was being deal with.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Copyright was originally an attempt by the various monarchies to control the flow of information following the printing press. Authorship had nothing to do with copyrights at that time. It wasn't until 1710 that copyright was associated with the author.

There is a very explicit quid pro quo in copyright law. This quid pro quo, or social contract if you will, is included in the Statute of Anne in 1710 as well as the US Constitution, says to encourage "learned men to compose and write useful books", they got a finite right to copy and recopy those works. Since the primary purpose was to make useful books available, that copyright was of a very limited term (14 years) and then went into the public domain, thus ensuring access to the work for all. Of course, given the speed of travel now verses back then, an equivalent period now be much shorter, not the much, much longer period we have now.

The idea of copyright as an author's property is a very new idea, relatively speaking, and begun with Victor Hugo's rent seeking venture in the Berne Convention.

And yet it is not copyright from 1710 nor 1886 that we are discussing. It is copyright as it is today and how we'd like to change it.

And, according to Wikipedia, if the argument about the word "property" fails then even Richard Stallman seems inclined to agree with Leebase: "if copyright were a natural right nothing could justify terminating this right after a certain period of time".

Although the key problem in there is "natural right" - which we all know copyright is not. It's a made up thing. But you have to be really careful here - what makes real estate property a natural right? Absolutely nothing. Not that many centuries ago you had no right to own land unless you were the monarch.

[leebase]

Intellectual property is as made up as real estate property. No more so, no less so.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by leebase

Or...I can lobby for change in Copyright law. Laws can be changed as we’ve already witnessed with the extensions to copyright.

Yes you can. And you have big business on your side. I have no doubt your viewpoint will prevail in the long run.

I don't think you will like the outcome though.

Originally Posted by leebase

I’m all for those who wish to participate in the “information is free” movement. As a choice the creator gets to make.

And I'm all for those who create under the current laws accepting those laws. One such law is, yep, your creation gets "stolen" from you and given to the public.

In the future, if the laws are changed, then so be it. Currently, if a creator doesn't like it, don't create. I'm sure the world will not cry itself to sleep at the loss of another entitled artist who doesn't want to play by the current rules.

Originally Posted by leebase

I just draw the line at “Leebase's bank account belongs to society”....and see no reason why Steven Kings property should be any different than mine.

Except Steven King's property doesn't include his creative works. Society owns those, and we have chosen to give him a time limited right to control that work. If he doesn't like those rules, he's free to choose not to share his creations with the world.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by leebase

Intellectual property is as made up as real estate property. No more so, no less so.

A nice thought but surely no one is as silly as to actually believe that, are they?

[leebase]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

A nice thought but surely no one is as silly as to actually believe that, are they?

You think not? Ever heard of nationalization? Eminent domain? In the US, the natives didn’t have the consent of ownership of land. The Europeans came over and changed that. In Cuba Castro nationalized many industries, turning private property into public property.

It’s all a social construct...and subject to change

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by leebase

You think not? Ever heard of nationalization? Eminent domain? In the US, the natives didn’t have the consent of ownership of land. The Europeans came over and changed that. In Cuba Castro nationalized many industries, turning private property into public property.

It’s all a social construct...and subject to change

Of course it's subject to change but that's an entirely different thing to being made up.

But then I suspect that is self evident, if a little inconvenient to present discussions.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

Asked and answered. When you buy a house....it’s yours. The money in your bank account is yours. Your boat is yours. The gold coins are yours.

If you start a company it’s yours. It’s not like Coca Cola becomes society's after a number of years. You can make a carbonated beverage....but you can’t make Coke.

You can write a story but you can’t write a Harry Potter book.

If you want to make money from Disney...buy shares in the company. If you work for Disney your wages don’t time out. What you are paid is yours forever...and when you die, your kids' forever...until they die and then it goes to their heirs. All the while that money can earn interest. Or...if you bought Disney stock, might earn dividends as well as accrue in value.

Contracts can change who owns the IP from creative effort....but the IP exists either way and shouldn’t evaporate any more than your fields will evaporate.

No, it's not answered. When a carpenter makes a chair, the chair may or may not be his, depending on if he is self employed or not. The right to keep anyone else from making copies of that chair certainly is not his. When an author writes a manuscript, the right to sell that manuscript to whomever he can is his. The right to keep anyone else from copying that book once it's released to the public isn't his. Rather the public, in the form of the government, grants him a limited time monopoly on making copies of that book.

You keep using the same assertions. Disney should own the rights to Snow White and the Seven Dwarves forever because you say they should. Someone who want to either make copies of the movie or make a sequel to the movie is stealing from Disney because you say they are stealing from Disney. It's no more persuasive than the CEO of Disney declaring that anyone who doesn't watch commercials while watching the Disney Channel is stealing from Disney. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. Your assertion isn't even coherent since you seem to think that Disney using public domain stories as the basis to make movies is good. Anyone else using Disney movies as the basis of movies or books is bad. So, apparently some animals are more equal than others.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by gmw

Which is why I have repeatedly made it clear, and made it clear that I made it clear, what sense of the word I was using. Anyway, you can easily see why someone under contract is referred to as property - the derivation seems obvious and supportive of the idea that property means a thing owned.



And that gives you permission to make it up as you go? I have given multiple sources demonstrating the common use of property to include intangibles and you have give me ... <crickets chirping in the dark>



So, like Richard Stallman, you want to present the argument: the other side are making up definitions to sell their agenda. The real meaning of the word is <something else>, which is in no way us making up definitions to sell our agenda.

Yeah, right. You are, whether it's fair or right or not, facing the already established use of the term, and the already established treatment (in financial circles) of copyright as property. I don't find the conspiracy theory explanation for property very convincing, I'm much more inclined to believe the word was a natural fit given all the existing intangible property that was being deal with.



And yet it is not copyright from 1710 nor 1886 that we are discussing. It is copyright as it is today and how we'd like to change it.

And, according to Wikipedia, if the argument about the word "property" fails then even Richard Stallman seems inclined to agree with Leebase: "if copyright were a natural right nothing could justify terminating this right after a certain period of time".

Although the key problem in there is "natural right" - which we all know copyright is not. It's a made up thing. But you have to be really careful here - what makes real estate property a natural right? Absolutely nothing. Not that many centuries ago you had no right to own land unless you were the monarch.

No idea what Richard Stallman has to do with anything or why you are bringing him up. My point is that you are using a term of art in a situation that it doesn't apply. We aren't talking finances here. You are the one who is trying to redefine the term for rhetorical purposes. I'm simply pointing out that calling something property when it isn't, doesn't make it property. It's a government granted monopoly, not property.

Not sure what natural rights has to do with anything. The term natural rights is a debating point and was coined as a counter to the divine right of kings to rule. Of course, the natural rights that Thomas Jefferson invoked in the Declaration of Independence was Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Locke said it was Life, Liberty and Property. As far as I know, the right to hold a copyright forever and a day is not something that has been asserted as a natural right. Heck, Locke died before the Statute of Anne. Copyright granted to authors didn't exist when he was writing.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No idea what Richard Stallman has to do with anything or why you are bringing him up. My point is that you are using a term of art in a situation that it doesn't apply. We aren't talking finances here. You are the one who is trying to redefine the term for rhetorical purposes. I'm simply pointing out that calling something property when it isn't, doesn't make it property. It's a government granted monopoly, not property. [...]

I assumed you would be familiar with Richard Stallman's arguments since they are pretty much identical to yours - right down to saying "its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion". See Wikipedia on Intellectual Property: Criticisms.

What do you think the government granted monopoly is about if not business/financial?

The OED says of monopoly: "Exclusive possession of the trade in some article of merchandise". See that "trade" in there? You know, trade as in business, as in buy and sell stuff, generally with money. That's why the financial definitions are central to this argument, because this has always been about money. (Of course, you may prefer to make up your own definition, since you don't seem to like any of the ones I've been giving. )

I am not calling copyright "property" on a whim, and I have proved that I am not making this up. Other than a few dissenters noted in the criticisms link above, it is common to refer to copyright and other rights as property, most especially in financial circles. It common enough that even general dictionary definitions at least allow for such intangibles.

[leebase]

If you make a unique chair....you trade mark it or patent it. Nobody else gets to make YOUR kind of chair. One could, of course, sell the rights to the patent or trademark.

Patents expire like copyright. Trademarks do not...if they are kept active by the holder. It is this latter model that is most appropriate for fiction.

Someone invents a Lay-z-Boy chair and patents the mechanism and trademarks the name and perhaps even the looks. Seeing the design, somebody else invents a “reclining chair” using a different mechanism. They patent their method as well. But there are only going to be so many ways to design a reclining chair and thus time limited patents make sense.

But even when the patent for the original Lay-Z-Boy chair expires...you can’t violate the Trademark. You can make a recliner using the mechanism, but you can’t make and sell Lay-Z-Boys.

There is no limit to fiction. Copyrights for fiction should therefore be more like Trademarks.

If you make a chair it is your chair. It doesn’t time out. If you sell the chair....the new owner gets it. And his ownership never times out. The money he paid you for the chair is yours forever...it doesn’t time out.

A copyright for fiction shouldn’t time out either.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by gmw

I assumed you would be familiar with Richard Stallman's arguments since they are pretty much identical to yours - right down to saying "its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion". See Wikipedia on Intellectual Property: Criticisms.

What do you think the government granted monopoly is about if not business/financial?

The OED says of monopoly: "Exclusive possession of the trade in some article of merchandise". See that "trade" in there? You know, trade as in business, as in buy and sell stuff, generally with money. That's why the financial definitions are central to this argument, because this has always been about money. (Of course, you may prefer to make up your own definition, since you don't seem to like any of the ones I've been giving. )

I am not calling copyright "property" on a whim, and I have proved that I am not making this up. Other than a few dissenters noted in the criticisms link above, it is common to refer to copyright and other rights as property, most especially in financial circles. It common enough that even general dictionary definitions at least allow for such intangibles.

By your definition, copyright is property. But what kind of property?

A wasting asset.

The world is full of property that are are wasting assets. A mortgage is a wasting asset - to the person who lent the money. Leases are wasting assets. Labor contracts are wasting assets.

Anything agreed to by two parties that has a time period embedded in it, and can be traded in any shape, form, or fashion, are wasting assets.

Why is the concept of a wasting asset so hard to get across here?

[leebase]

Nobody is having a hard time understanding what is...we are discussing “what should be”. Currently, copyrights are wasting assets like patents. I’m arguing in favor that they should be like Trademarks with no time limit...one must merely be actively using/defending the Trademark.

Leases and mortgages are financial instruments to allow folks to leverage future payments in purchasing time limited use of a property when you don’t have he funds to buy the property outright. But the underlying property itself, the home or car, is not a wasting property.

More comparable would be the 50 years Year of Jubilee described in the Bible. Nobody owned the property, it belonged to God and was distributed to the tribes. Every 50 years, the property reverts back to the original family/tribe.

When you sold your property, you were selling the number of crops remaining until he next Jubilee when the ownership would revert back. Evidence that even real estate has be given time limits.

Since we have established that all concepts of property are in flux - what is today’s justification that copyright for fiction should be time limited when your home doesn’t just revert to society ownership after a certain number of years?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by gmw

I assumed you would be familiar with Richard Stallman's arguments since they are pretty much identical to yours - right down to saying "its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion". See Wikipedia on Intellectual Property: Criticisms.

What do you think the government granted monopoly is about if not business/financial?

The OED says of monopoly: "Exclusive possession of the trade in some article of merchandise". See that "trade" in there? You know, trade as in business, as in buy and sell stuff, generally with money. That's why the financial definitions are central to this argument, because this has always been about money. (Of course, you may prefer to make up your own definition, since you don't seem to like any of the ones I've been giving. )

I am not calling copyright "property" on a whim, and I have proved that I am not making this up. Other than a few dissenters noted in the criticisms link above, it is common to refer to copyright and other rights as property, most especially in financial circles. It common enough that even general dictionary definitions at least allow for such intangibles.

Oh, I know who he is, Gnu software and copyleft, but his ideas are certainly not what I am advocating. If he's making the same point about terminology, then it's because the point is one that's been around for a very long time. Various words have connotations in addition to the technical definitions. The words you use can draw an emotional response from the audience.

You are trying to expand the definition of finance to include everything. A term of art is used by an industry. Copyright might be about making sure authors get paid, but it's not about the financial industry.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

If you make a unique chair....you trade mark it or patent it. Nobody else gets to make YOUR kind of chair. One could, of course, sell the rights to the patent or trademark.

Patents expire like copyright. Trademarks do not...if they are kept active by the holder. It is this latter model that is most appropriate for fiction.

Someone invents a Lay-z-Boy chair and patents the mechanism and trademarks the name and perhaps even the looks. Seeing the design, somebody else invents a “reclining chair” using a different mechanism. They patent their method as well. But there are only going to be so many ways to design a reclining chair and thus time limited patents make sense.

But even when the patent for the original Lay-Z-Boy chair expires...you can’t violate the Trademark. You can make a recliner using the mechanism, but you can’t make and sell Lay-Z-Boys.

There is no limit to fiction. Copyrights for fiction should therefore be more like Trademarks.

If you make a chair it is your chair. It doesn’t time out. If you sell the chair....the new owner gets it. And his ownership never times out. The money he paid you for the chair is yours forever...it doesn’t time out.

A copyright for fiction shouldn’t time out either.

Except you can't patent a chair unless there is something novel about it. Some authors do trademark characters, though there is a fair amount of debate as to how likely it is to hold up in an actual court case.

It seems that your whole argument comes down to the catch phrase "There is no limit to fiction", which is a bit of a non sequitur. Copyright doesn't distinguish between fiction and nonfiction. It's also only true if one used the strict definition of copyright, i.e. the right to copy, rather than consider derivative works, which is really what we are discussing.

As I've point out before, the copyright owners sued the creators of Battlestar Galactica because it was "too similar". The 9th court agreed, pointing to things like
"(1) The central conflict of each story is a war between the galaxy's democratic and totalitarian forces."

and
"(5) The heroine is imprisoned by the totalitarian forces."

Twentieth Century-Fox Film v MCA, INC. (1983)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=1&oi=scholarr

Yea, not exactly a case where the other party just filed off some id numbers. By that standard, there seems to be no limit on how wide of a net the copyright can cast.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by leebase

Nobody is having a hard time understanding what is...we are discussing “what should be”. Currently, copyrights are wasting assets like patents. I’m arguing in favor that they should be like Trademarks with no time limit...one must merely be actively using/defending the Trademark.

Leases and mortgages are financial instruments to allow folks to leverage future payments in purchasing time limited use of a property when you don’t have he funds to buy the property outright. But the underlying property itself, the home or car, is not a wasting property.

More comparable would be the 50 years Year of Jubilee described in the Bible. Nobody owned the property, it belonged to God and was distributed to the tribes. Every 50 years, the property reverts back to the original family/tribe.

When you sold your property, you were selling the number of crops remaining until he next Jubilee when the ownership would revert back. Evidence that even real estate has be given time limits.

Since we have established that all concepts of property are in flux - what is today’s justification that copyright for fiction should be time limited when your home doesn’t just revert to society ownership after a certain number of years?

Every wasting asset is created from nothing. Only when both parties exist and agree to terms - including time - does a wasting asset get created.

It is no different for patents and copyrights. The terms are defined for any creator to agree to - or not.

There is no perpetual property. What you think of as perpetual property is only property rights agreed to by a society, but only as long as that society exits, or thinks it should. Read history. Where are the Roman land titles? Property owned by the Confederacy? The property rights of Jews under the Nazis? The property rights under the Bolsheviks?

Property rights only exist to the extent they can be defended, whether it be via a court of law, or a gun.

The justification for term-limited copyright and patent is that those terms are the only term the current society is willing to defend.

(As to trademarks, actively using/defending makes them non-perpetual. Once the use stops, so does the trademark.)