Why public domain

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Many vampire stories acknowledge that the book about Dracula exists

Which is the THIRD Victorian book about Vampires.
Also earlier in ancient Celtic stories (predate East European and Norse Legend).
Bram Stoker was Irish. So while given a East / Central European background he certainly knew the two earlier Victorian works and Irish stories.

There is very little new since Gilgamesh!

Copyright is vital. DRM is totally the wrong way to protect it. DRM is immoral.
Copyright must be time limited. Maybe life +20 is too short, but life +75 is to suit Corporations, not creators.

[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?

[Thasaidon]

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.

.....................

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?

I take my hat off to you.

You have put cogently into words, ideas that I have had bouncing round my head (think can of marbles), but have been unable to marshal effectively.

[barryem]

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.

It's a very different thing to say that principles concerning personal property could also work with intellectual property than it is to say that they're the same thing. Therefore that profoundly ignorant person might actually have a cogent and rational argument.

The usual terminology for offering an argument against a modified version of someone else's argument is "straw man argument. Even though I'm profoundly ignorant and unable to form a cogent and rational argument I do know that. And since I was one of those who suggested that those things physical and intellectual property have in common might be useful in this discussion I'm glad I made you laugh.

I have my opinions on copyright and they're pretty strongly held but I do realize that they're just opinions. I'm willing to accept that intelligent people can and do disagree with me. I've seen much honest thought on both sides of this discussion. And a bit of chicanery here and there as well.

Barry

[gmw]

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. [...]

PKFFW, there are a few issues in your explanation in terms of getting the right words for the right rights. Copyright doesn't protect ideas, that's what patents do (within certain constraints), copyright only protects the expression of an idea. It's a subtle but important difference (two people may well have the same idea, but it is much less likely that two people will express an idea in the same way).

The relative merits of different IP require different arguments, but at their core they do all come back to what you were saying: the ability/right to exploit (make money from) the IP. (You may actually be required to exploit your IP if you want legal protection for it - see patents.) Whether, and for how long, you have a moral right to exploit particular IP is arguable (as we see here regularly), but as you point out, the ability exploit IP means putting it out where you can no longer protect it, which is where the law steps in. And the law is/was/should-be mainly interested the public good: enough protection to encourage people to actively exploit IP, but not so much that people can use it to impeded progress.


But you go too far when you say "it is clear IP and PP are not at all comparable." Underlining mine, to show the point of argument. Just because IP and PP are not identical does not mean they are not at all comparable. They have various points of comparison, the most obvious and relevant being value: what can I sell it for? (Or the intimately related: how much money can I make by exploiting this asset?)

Also, your analogy between copyright and a home is not ideal, since most people don't try to exploit their home. Farm land would work better. But someone may come along with more and bigger shotguns and force you to give up your land. The fact is that even PP requires the rule of law to be upheld if we don't simply want to revert to survival of the fittest where PP is only a matter of what you have the strength to hang on to.

So part of the value of any property is the expectation that your right to it is protected: thus the value of PP, just as with IP, is partly based in law. Yes, there are differences between IP and PP, particularly in the ways that rights can be enforced, but there are definite similarities too. (To argue otherwise would ... see your own post for matching extremist rhetoric. )

Despite some of the implications of your post, I don't imagine you are really arguing copyright should not exist, just as very few people (not bound by corporate self-interest) argue that copyright should extend forever. These extremes are like the extremes of "not at all comparable" versus "identical" - neither of which is sustainable.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by barryem

It's a very different thing to say that principles concerning personal property could also work with intellectual property than it is to say that they're the same thing. Therefore that profoundly ignorant person might actually have a cogent and rational argument.

The usual terminology for offering an argument against a modified version of someone else's argument is "straw man argument. Even though I'm profoundly ignorant and unable to form a cogent and rational argument I do know that. And since I was one of those who suggested that those things physical and intellectual property have in common might be useful in this discussion I'm glad I made you laugh.

No strawman.

There are those in this thread who have suggested that IP and PP should be treated the same. That is what I find hard to take seriously. IP and PP having things in common that might be useful in the discussion is an entirely different proposition to IP and PP being treated the same. They are different and absolutely can not be treated the same. It simply isn't possible to do so.

Further, I also stated I found the idea that one could be so profoundly ignorant to not understand that they are different to be a difficult idea to believe itself.

Originally Posted by barryem

I have my opinions on copyright and they're pretty strongly held but I do realize that they're just opinions. I'm willing to accept that intelligent people can and do disagree with me. I've seen much honest thought on both sides of this discussion. And a bit of chicanery here and there as well.

Barry

I'm glad you have found honest thought on both sides. So have I.

What I haven't seen is any rational argument as to why IP should be treated the same as PP. Particularly when copyright isn't even about protecting an idea but about protecting the right to make money from the work done to express that idea in a specific format. If anything, copyright should be treated the same as any other work protections.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by gmw

PKFFW, there are a few issues in your explanation in terms of getting the right words for the right rights. Copyright doesn't protect ideas, that's what patents do (within certain constraints), copyright only protects the expression of an idea. It's a subtle but important difference (two people may well have the same idea, but it is much less likely that two people will express an idea in the same way).

This thread is about copyright and so I confined my comments to that.

I think I made the distinction as to what copyright protects in my post. Copyright doesn't protect an idea, it protects the right to make money from the work the creator did in expressing that idea in a specific format.

Originally Posted by gmw

But you go too far when you say "it is clear IP and PP are not at all comparable." Underlining mine, to show the point of argument. Just because IP and PP are not identical does not mean they are not at all comparable. They have various points of comparison, the most obvious and relevant being value: what can I sell it for? (Or the intimately related: how much money can I make by exploiting this asset?)

Ok I admit using the words "not at all comparable" is too explicit. Of course anything can be compared with anything at all.

A better way of phrasing it would have been...
"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."

Originally Posted by gmw

Also, your analogy between copyright and a home is not ideal, since most people don't try to exploit their home. Farm land would work better. But someone may come along with more and bigger shotguns and force you to give up your land. The fact is that even PP requires the rule of law to be upheld if we don't simply want to revert to survival of the fittest where PP is only a matter of what you have the strength to hang on to.

As Copyright doesn't protect IP it would be an inappropriate comparison to compare IP with only that PP that people attempt to exploit for monetary gain. Hence why my comparison was between IP and PP only. Not between the ability to exploit IP or PP.

Further, laws don't actually stop anyone from doing anything. Laws state what is allowed to be done and what is the punishment for doing something that is not allowed. However, words on a piece of paper and titled "LAW" don't stop people doing things.

The point of the comparison is that it is possible that PP can be protected through strength of arms and what not. Someone has the biggest guns or the biggest army etc. IP can not be protected at all. Someone can steal your idea and do whatever they want with it and you will not even know it until it has already happened.

Originally Posted by gmw

So part of the value of any property is the expectation that your right to it is protected: thus the value of PP, just as with IP, is partly based in law. Yes, there are differences between IP and PP, particularly in the ways that rights can be enforced, but there are definite similarities too. (To argue otherwise would ... see your own post for matching extremist rhetoric. )

Yes, granted, to express it as "not at all comparable" was too much. Anything at all can be compared to anything at all. Chalk and cheese, apples and oranges, colour and sound. I would have thought my meaning was clear by context but obviously not. You are absolutely right that I mis-posted by using the words "not at all comparable".

I still contest that to suggest they should be treated the same by law is simply not possible to do and have any sort of usable outcome.

Originally Posted by gmw

Despite some of the implications of your post, I don't imagine you are really arguing copyright should not exist, just as very few people (not bound by corporate self-interest) argue that copyright should extend forever. These extremes are like the extremes of "not at all comparable" versus "identical" - neither of which is sustainable.

No I'm not suggesting it should not exist.

However, yes, at least two posters in this thread, have stated they are of the opinion copyright should extend in perpetuity.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

[...] A better way of phrasing it would have been...
"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."

As Copyright doesn't protect IP it would be an inappropriate comparison to compare IP with only that PP that people attempt to exploit for monetary gain. Hence why my comparison was between IP and PP only. Not between the ability to exploit IP or PP.

Copyright doesn't protect IP because it is the IP. Copyright is what you can buy or sell or licence.

It is the law that defines what is property, and indirectly suggests its value (because law limits what you can do with your property). At one stage it was possible for people to be property! Arguing what is workable under law is a bit pointless, because the law made the definition in the first place. (You think you own the land on which your house sits, but that's only true within the constraints defined by law.)

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. Changing the law can change what is property, or can change what property is worth.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

The point of the comparison is that it is possible that PP can be protected through strength of arms and what not. Someone has the biggest guns or the biggest army etc. IP can not be protected at all. Someone can steal your idea and do whatever they want with it and you will not even know it until it has already happened.

If you want to limit your conversation to copyright you must stop using phrases like "steal your idea".

Protecting ideas is very difficult, of course, but I can certainly protect copyright by strength of arms. I simply storm your house and burn all copies of the work you are not entitled to have, and take recompense for your theft in whatever form I like, because I have strength of arms.

Laws are used to protect property, they don't care much whether it's IP or PP. (Of course differences exist in the way the laws can be enforced.) When we say the law protects property it is indeed partly by the threat of strength of arms, because generally the government has the strongest arms in the area, although few will put them to the test.


Your distinction about protecting PP by force of arms is attractive, but it doesn't really hold up because I can choose to protect anything I like by force of arms - even ideas. That would be a worry because it is possible for two people to have the same idea, so I might invade a neighbouring country for having stolen our idea, when in fact they might have come up with it independently.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by gmw

Copyright doesn't protect IP because it is the IP. Copyright is what you can buy or sell or licence.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Copyright is nothing more than the legal title for the idea that you have a monopoly on the right to monetize in any way you like the work you did to express an idea in a specific form.

For example, copyright legally protects the right of JK Rowling to monetize the Harry Potter series but it is not the Harry Potter series itself.

Originally Posted by gmw

It is the law that defines what is property, and indirectly suggests its value (because law limits what you can do with your property). At one stage it was possible for people to be property! Arguing what is workable under law is a bit pointless, because the law made the definition in the first place. (You think you own the land on which your house sits, but that's only true within the constraints defined by law.)

If I have a rock in my hand and I don't want you to have it, it doesn't matter what the law says that rock is or what its value is. It is possible that I can stop you from taking that rock. (whether or not I achieve that end is beside the point, it is possible for me to attempt to do so)

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. Changing the law can change what is property, or can change what property is worth.

If I have an idea in my mind and I express it to you, it doesn't matter what the law says that idea is or what its value is. It is not actually possible for me to stop you from taking that idea and doing whatever you want with it. You could take that idea and do whatever you want with it without me even knowing you had done so until after you did so. Therefore it is only possible that I could seek revenge on you for doing so by, for example, killing you.

Changing the law doesn't change that.

Originally Posted by gmw

If you want to limit your conversation to copyright you must stop using phrases like "steal your idea".

I chose the word "steal" specifically to highlight the fact that idea's are not the same as physical objects and therefore should not be treated the same. I guess I was being too subtle.

Originally Posted by gmw

Protecting ideas is very difficult, of course, but I can certainly protect copyright by strength of arms. I simply storm your house and burn all copies of the work you are not entitled to have, and take recompense for your theft in whatever form I like, because I have strength of arms.

In this example you have not actually stopped me from anything. You have punished me after the fact for having done so. That is a distinct difference.

Originally Posted by gmw

Laws are used to protect property, they don't care much whether it's IP or PP. (Of course differences exist in the way the laws can be enforced.) When we say the law protects property it is indeed partly by the threat of strength of arms, because generally the government has the strongest arms in the area, although few will put them to the test.

Yes laws are used to protect property. Never claimed otherwise.

Laws are in fact the only thing that give you some very limited protection for IP. That is not the case with physical property and that's a very important distinction.

Originally Posted by gmw

Your distinction about protecting PP by force of arms is attractive, but it doesn't really hold up because I can choose to protect anything I like by force of arms - even ideas. That would be a worry because it is possible for two people to have the same idea, so I might invade a neighbouring country for having stolen our idea, when in fact they might have come up with it independently.

You can't physically protect your idea via force of arms. At least not unless you are willing to kill every other person on Earth so as to ensure no one "steals" it. All you can do is either
A: never express the idea. In this instance you stop anyone from "stealing" the idea but you still don't stop them from coming up with the same idea. Or;
B: punish those you think "stole" your idea after the fact.

If you disagree feel free to explain how, without killing me immediately after expressing your idea to me, you could physically stop me from silently walking away and using that idea for whatever I want? I grant you that you could sue me in court but that wouldn't actually stop me unless I decided to comply. You could destroy anything I use your idea to create or you could do all sorts of things after the fact but none of that physically stops me from doing it in the first place. It only, possibly, redresses the issue after the fact.

[MarjaE]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

In this example you have not actually stopped me from anything. You have punished me after the fact for having done so. That is a distinct difference.

And it's a case where intellectual property claims would have created conflict, instead of helping resolve it.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Which is a problem.

Copyright is the name given to the set of rights defined in law. Those rights are valuable - by which I mean, they can be bought and sold, or licensed.

The protections are also defined in law, typically as penalties - much the same as with protections offered by law for any other property. The penalties imposed for copyright violation are separate to the rights provided by copyright itself. As is quite usual in law, the penalties tend to be imposed after a violation rather than as preventative measures. More below.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I chose the word "steal" specifically to highlight the fact that idea's are not the same as physical objects and therefore should not be treated the same. I guess I was being too subtle.

It wasn't "steal" I objected to, but "idea". You said earlier you were trying to confine yourself to copyright, but you keep bringing up the protection of ideas, which is not what copyright is about. Either admit you are talking about about something other than copyright, or correct your mistakes.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

[...]If you disagree feel free to explain how, without killing me immediately after expressing your idea to me, you could physically stop me from silently walking away and using that idea for whatever I want? I grant you that you could sue me in court but that wouldn't actually stop me unless I decided to comply. You could destroy anything I use your idea to create or you could do all sorts of things after the fact but none of that physically stops me from doing it in the first place. It only, possibly, redresses the issue after the fact.

If I bow to your insistence, now, that we include protecting forms of IP other than copyright, you would find that there are many mechanisms tried, with varying levels of success, to protect the ideas (electronic circuits embedded in material that destroys the circuit when tampered with .. and on and on and on).

And we might say exactly the same thing about PP. Locks have only varying degrees of success. Come to that, so do shotguns. You can only be awake for so long, and you have to avoid shooting yourself or your family (a big stumbling block for many), and when the time comes you have to be the first one to the trigger (defenders have to be right all the time, attackers only have to be right once). And, seriously, the community does not expect you to turn every minor property infringement into a life-and-death situation. Law is partly about avoiding such extremities.

Also, some physical property is complicated. The rights to irrigation water is one I've had some experience with lately: it's something not quite directly physical (you can't say this bucket of water is mine) but it is something few are likely to call intellectual (although understand the rights is definitely an intellectual exercise).

So the rights to property are defined by law with the anticipation that law will protect the rights it defines. Retrospectively, yes. So? The law doesn't stop someone walking past your apple stall and pinching an apple - it never has. And short of being the biggest person around, or being ready to blow someone's head off for an apple, preemptively preventing theft is often not possible - PP or IP. Protection, for the individual, has never been about constant vigilance and being the biggest and strongest, it's about depending on your community and the rights and protections (laws) it provides.


You seem to be presenting a strawman, a distinction that doesn't really exist in modern/western civilised existence. You present the difficulties of protecting IP as peculiarly special. The are special, but in the same manner that so many different sorts of property are special in their own way.

We have gotten so used to apparently owning physical property we've grown to think it is some inherent right. It's not. Both PP and IP are rights made available to us by the civilisation in which we live. They haven't always existed. IP is newer, and we're still coming to grips with it.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

[...] If you disagree feel free to explain how, without killing me immediately after expressing your idea to me, you could physically stop me from silently walking away and using that idea for whatever I want? I grant you that you could sue me in court but that wouldn't actually stop me unless I decided to comply. You could destroy anything I use your idea to create or you could do all sorts of things after the fact but none of that physically stops me from doing it in the first place. It only, possibly, redresses the issue after the fact.

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.

[Timboli]

I am a bit late to this conversation, but here goes. My apologies for covering any ground that has already been covered ... don't feel you have to respond if so.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

One of the running discussions that spans a number of threads is the idea of public domain and eternal copyright, i.e. the idea that copyright is a personal property right of the original author and is passed down to his or her heirs for eternity.

.................................... etc

I guess I pretty much agree with most of what you said, except for (like leebase said) the notion that most books eventually become unavailable. That was certainly true of most books in the past, that require a print run. And much of it was down to economics, but not always .... seeming more like the whim of the publisher or owner, for a variety of reasons.

Ebooks mean a book need never really disappear from availability, though to be sure, games can still be played by the vested interests. Of course, that is a simplistic view, because copyright can impact in some circumstances, especially in regard to deals, and where there might not be a recipient anymore for any royalties due (i.e. it was only the author and they have died ... perhaps Copyright should account for such things, when no other vested interest exists, making such items public domain, without the long delay).

As an example of the situation with physical books. I can well remember when it was nigh impossible to get most Edgar Rice Burroughs novels, even though he consistently remained a popular author, long after his death. It was lucky for me, that I got most of them, before they were even hard to get second hand. It took me a few decades to get a few of them though, the most important of those for me, being 'The Rider' or 'HRH The Rider'. Of course, living in AUS, I did not have the access back then like an American had. Of course, when I finally got that book, Burroughs was old news to me, and I did not enjoy it as much as I would have back in the day, when immersed in his fandom.

I also have a few views on authors, especially where they have been selfish after luring us in and receiving great rewards. That's not to say I think they should ever not be compensated and not receive their due ... they should, always ... and certainly their immediate family too, at the very least. Still, I think there is some onus to the public, a reasonable expectation within reason. I think an author opts into that, when they decide to publish ... and really, no-one operates in a vacuum ... they have their influences and their dues to them too.

[Quoth]

Disney primarily makes money from recent works and new works. They in reality make little from the character debut in 1928 of Micky Mouse. They can certainly use the logo and stylised shape forever as a Trademark. Trademarks (and associated logos), Registered Designs (USA = Design Patent) and Patents are a totally different class of IP to copyright. Copyright and ordinary Patents should expire.

Copyright exists AUTOMATICALLY when a work is created. Trademarks (and associated logos) and Registered Designs (USA = Design Patent) quite reasonably should be forever, except the USPTO is broken. The US regular Patent system is broken too. However this thread is about copyright, not ALL IP.

Disney are huge lobbyist to increase the abuse of the reason for Copyright (recompense to the creators while they live, and later to the next generation, the estate).

Disney wants perpetual copyright which is wrong. The creators of their IP get little of the royalty. Extending to 50 years, then 75 and proposed 100 after the death of the creator is wrong and is an abuse. Who is benefiting?

Copyright to reward the creators and next generation, good. Copyright simply to enable mega corporations to control material of long dead artists and writers is wrong.

Disney have become a toxic empire hoovering up other people's IP. Not as toxic as Alphabet (Google who abuse everyone else's copyright), Facebook or Amazon. Culturally toxic. They want to own as much cultural IP of the 20th & 21st C as possible, forever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Disney_Company

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by gmw

Which is a problem.

Copyright is the name given to the set of rights defined in law. Those rights are valuable - by which I mean, they can be bought and sold, or licensed.

The protections are also defined in law, typically as penalties - much the same as with protections offered by law for any other property. The penalties imposed for copyright violation are separate to the rights provided by copyright itself. As is quite usual in law, the penalties tend to be imposed after a violation rather than as preventative measures. More below.

I agree copyright is the name given to a set of rights defined by law and that those rights are valuable.

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

Either it is the set of rights defined by law or it is the specific expression of your IP that those rights protect under the law. I just don't understand how copyright itself can be both.

Originally Posted by gmw

It wasn't "steal" I objected to, but "idea". You said earlier you were trying to confine yourself to copyright, but you keep bringing up the protection of ideas, which is not what copyright is about. Either admit you are talking about about something other than copyright, or correct your mistakes.

My initial point about "idea" was specifically that copyright does not protect the "idea" itself!! That is exactly what I was trying to get across and why I confined my topic to copyright in the first place!

Basically put, copyright protects the right to control the specific expression of an "idea" for a limited time. For example, it protects JK Rowlings right to control the specific expression of her "idea" that resulted in the Harry Potter series.

This is why it is legal to write about wizarding schools for kids (the basic "idea") but it is not legal to write about Harry Potter, boy wizard, attending Hogwarts school of wizardry etc etc which is the specific expression of that idea.

Had JK Rowling never written Harry Potter, she would have no copyright over Harry Potter, boy wizard, attending Hogwarts school of wizardry etc etc even if she had thought it out word for word in her head a million times.

Copyright does not protect the idea! It protects the specific expression of that idea in a specific form. In other words, it protects the work JK Rowling did, not the idea she had!

Others in this thread have suggested copyright should extend in perpetuity so long as there is value in that work. No one should be able to use the Harry Potter character ever unless they want to pay for it.

Let's compare like for like.

Copyright protects the work of the author. If it should last in perpetuity then why should a builder not be paid in perpetuity for a house they build so long as anyone finds value in that house?

Originally Posted by gmw

If I bow to your insistence, now, that we include protecting forms of IP other than copyright, you would find that there are many mechanisms tried, with varying levels of success, to protect the ideas (electronic circuits embedded in material that destroys the circuit when tampered with .. and on and on and on).

And we might say exactly the same thing about PP. Locks have only varying degrees of success. Come to that, so do shotguns. You can only be awake for so long, and you have to avoid shooting yourself or your family (a big stumbling block for many), and when the time comes you have to be the first one to the trigger (defenders have to be right all the time, attackers only have to be right once). And, seriously, the community does not expect you to turn every minor property infringement into a life-and-death situation. Law is partly about avoiding such extremities.

Also, some physical property is complicated. The rights to irrigation water is one I've had some experience with lately: it's something not quite directly physical (you can't say this bucket of water is mine) but it is something few are likely to call intellectual (although understand the rights is definitely an intellectual exercise).

The difference is that with physical objects you know if someone is attempting to steal that object and there is the possibility of preventing them. With an "idea" you don't even know if they are infringing your rights until after they have done so and therefore there is no possibility of preventing them doing so.

That again, goes back to my central point that copyright does not protect the idea the author has had. It only protects the work they have done to express that idea.

So let's compare like for like. Let's compare the protection a builder, garbage collector, plumber, etc have for the work they do with the protection an author has for the work they do.

Let's see if a rational argument can be made as to why an author should receive protection for that work forever and ever and ever but all the others should receive protection to ensure they receive a one time payment for the work they do.

Originally Posted by gmw

So the rights to property are defined by law with the anticipation that law will protect the rights it defines. Retrospectively, yes. So? The law doesn't stop someone walking past your apple stall and pinching an apple - it never has. And short of being the biggest person around, or being ready to blow someone's head off for an apple, preemptively preventing theft is often not possible - PP or IP. Protection, for the individual, has never been about constant vigilance and being the biggest and strongest, it's about depending on your community and the rights and protections (laws) it provides.

Yes, totally agree with everything you have said here and I've never suggested otherwise.

I've only ever suggested (or meant to suggest anyway) that it is possible to protect physical objects from being stolen and it is not possible to do the same with "ideas" and that this is why treating copyright the same under the law as property rights is unworkable.

Originally Posted by gmw

You seem to be presenting a strawman, a distinction that doesn't really exist in modern/western civilised existence. You present the difficulties of protecting IP as peculiarly special. The are special, but in the same manner that so many different sorts of property are special in their own way.

No strawman at all. They are different and that has always been my only point. I have never claimed protecting IP is peculiarly special, only that it is not actually possible to physically stop someone from taking your idea.

Originally Posted by gmw

We have gotten so used to apparently owning physical property we've grown to think it is some inherent right. It's not. Both PP and IP are rights made available to us by the civilisation in which we live. They haven't always existed. IP is newer, and we're still coming to grips with it.

I never claimed owning property is some sort of inherent right.

Totally agree with you that both PP and IP rights are rights made possible by the civilisation in which we live.

That doesn't change the fact that regardless of what the law states or civilisation does, there is the actual possibility that if I have a rock in my hand I can deny anyone else from taking it from me. Difficult? Certainly. Close to impossible? Yep, totally agree. But still the possibility.

There is no possibility that I can stop you from silently walking away with an idea I have expressed to you and doing what you like with it short of preemptively executing you.

That's why IP and PP are so different that it serves little purpose to compare them and treat them the same under the law.