Sherlock Holmes ruled to be (mostly) in the public domain

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Short version: You can't claim "intellectual property" is like regular property. It is a grant by society of certain monopoly rights to encourage innovation. Would an infinitely long monopoly encourage more innovation? No, so it is pointless as it flies in the face of the whole purpose of intellectual property rights.

Sure you can. Laws are artificial constructs created and supported by society. They remain in force as long as society allows it. If society wishes to do a 180 and reverse themselves, they're free to do so. Just because society deems something so, doesn't make it the only "correct" way to do it.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by latepaul

The second is the idea that because they are both fruits of a person's labour that physical and intellectual property are the same. Clearly this is not true. Physical property has characteristics that intellectual property does not. You can lock your possessions away. They can only be in one place at a time and usually only used by one (or a few) people at a time. Possession of a physical object means something different to possession of an idea or the expression of an idea. It follows therefore that the laws we enact need to reflect those differences even if our aim is to make the outcomes similar (point one) - and the jury's very much out on whether this is our collective aim.

"Clearly this is not true."

It's only not true because society deems it that way. It could just as easily be the opposite.

And just because the characteristics are different; by no means does that automatically mean that ownership of one form of property should cease after an artificial time period and that of another form of property should not.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

"Clearly this is not true."

It's only not true because society deems it that way. It could just as easily be the opposite.

The "not true" was referring to the types of property being the same (as opposed to how society confers and maintains ownership rights). In that context I can't see how it's not not true given that they quite simply are different kinds of things.

And just because the characteristics are different; by no means does that automatically mean that ownership of one form of property should cease after an artificial time period and that of another form of property should not.

The point of my post was to separate out this question from the idea that both types of property are the same. However on this question I think that the very fact that intellectual property is different means we need to have different laws, even if we want to produce the same effects. And once we do that we open the possibility that they can be treated differently and that raises the question of whether they should. Hence the debate.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Sure you can. Laws are artificial constructs created and supported by society. They remain in force as long as society allows it. If society wishes to do a 180 and reverse themselves, they're free to do so. Just because society deems something so, doesn't make it the only "correct" way to do it.

I agree, the laws as they are don't support what you would like to be true about intellectual property, which I think we agree on and this could be changed. But you haven't provided any compelling reason for this change, which is what I was hoping for. Yes,

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Not all ideas are equal. A talking animated mouse in and of itself should not be allowed to be copyrighted where it prohibits anyone else from creating a talking animated mouse. But, a specific talking animated mouse with its own traits should be allowed. There's plenty of room for any number of copyrighted mice; whether it's Mickey Mouse, Mighty Mouse, Pixie and Dixie, or Pinky and the Brain. Copyrighted Mickey didn't prevent any of these other mice from being created.

I disagree, for the reasons I've already said above. It's useful for creators to be able to remix old stories and characters and it benefits society at large. A large number of Disney classics are based on public domain works (Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, etc.), and our culture is better when new creators can innovate on old ideas and expressions.

And again, letting someone lock up an expression or an idea forever hurts society in a more subtle way - it encourages creators to rest on their laurels rather than create new works.

Any way you look at, the idea of patents rights or copyright that never expires makes no sense. It flies in the face of the purpose of ip rights, and benefits no one.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Not all ideas are equal. A talking animated mouse in and of itself should not be allowed to be copyrighted where it prohibits anyone else from creating a talking animated mouse. But, a specific talking animated mouse with its own traits should be allowed. There's plenty of room for any number of copyrighted mice; whether it's Mickey Mouse, Mighty Mouse, Pixie and Dixie, or Pinky and the Brain. Copyrighted Mickey didn't prevent any of these other mice from being created.

You forgot Jerry of the Tom & Jerry cartoons & Fievel (An American Tail). I agree with you about different mice cartoon characters though. Each has something that makes them unique and therefore copyrightable as such.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

"Clearly this is not true."

It's only not true because society deems it that way. It could just as easily be the opposite.

And just because the characteristics are different; by no means does that automatically mean that ownership of one form of property should cease after an artificial time period and that of another form of property should not.

It doesn't automatically mean that, but it makes sense in this case. And again, you're making the fundamental error by thinking IP rights are property. They're not, they're fundamentally different than property. Could they be in the future? Sure, but in the future an all powerful AI could also subjugate the human race, so what? They're not property now, in the reality in which most of us live.

Granting ownership forever of a piece of land is as artificial as anything else. As you say, laws are artificial, so we could as a society determine that all land reverts to the government after 10 years. Does it make sense to do that? No, but it also doesn't make sense to grant a monopoly on an idea or expression forever.

All you're doing is confusing the analogy that "IP is like property" with "IP is property". Its like Romeo saying that Julliet is the sun, but actually believing that she is literally the sun.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I agree, the laws as they are don't support what you would like to be true about intellectual property, which I think we agree on and this could be changed. But you haven't provided any compelling reason for this change, which is what I was hoping for. Yes,

The only compelling reason I need is that it's my property; not society's. It doesn't have to serve a greater good in order to gain protection. Protecting the property of individuals is reason enough. But if they feel the need to engage in legalized theft, then so be it. Not a thing I can do as an individual to prevent it.

I disagree, for the reasons I've already said above. It's useful for creators to be able to remix old stories and characters and it benefits society at large. A large number of Disney classics are based on public domain works (Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, etc.), and our culture is better when new creators can innovate on old ideas and expressions.

Disney doesn't rely solely on public domain. They've created their own works and purchased the rights of other works to create their media. If Mickey never makes it to PD, society is no worse off.

What's really at stake here is money. Third parties are chomping at the bit to get their hands on Disney's catalog so they can turn around and repackage it for a profit; with no attempt made to create a derivative work.

And again, letting someone lock up an expression or an idea forever hurts society in a more subtle way - it encourages creators to rest on their laurels rather than create new works. m

Any way you look at, the idea of patents rights or copyright that never expires makes no sense. It flies in the face of the purpose of ip rights, and benefits no one.

"an expression or an idea" - that needs specific defining in order to comment. Basically, my stance is that ideas are free for the taking; implementation is another matter and something possibly worth protecting.

The free market is a wonderful place. If someone has something you want; buy it. Not sure what the Doyle estate was charging, but they clearly had no problem with derivative works; just as long as the rights were purchased. If you're not satisfied with the terms or the seller refuses to sell, then create your own product.

[Greg Anos]

"We offer low prices by cheating the other fellow and passing the saving on to you..."

Tubemonkey, if you believe in perpetual I.P., then there can be no public domain. What is now public domain would have to be owned by someone (probably the government) and back royalties would have to be paid, and ongoing royalties paid to the owner, in perpetuity.

Otherwise, you're just cheating one set of corpses to the benefit of another set...

[hardcastle]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The only compelling reason I need is that it's my property; not society's. It doesn't have to serve a greater good in order to gain protection. Protecting the property of individuals is reason enough. But if they feel the need to engage in legalized theft, then so be it. Not a thing I can do as an individual to prevent it.

But it isn't your property. Ideas cannot be property. We make this law framework to pretend that ideas can become like property (meaning they are owned by one person alone). However, laws trying to accomplish something do not make it so, no matter how close they come. One could argue that any business model that hinges on monopolizing a mental concept or execution thereof is increasingly broken when that monopolization can no longer be enforced due to the rise of piracy and the ineffectiveness of DRM and other tools.

Furthermore, protecting the property of individuals is not necessarily a globally acknowledged goal, imaginary property or not. This is a greater philosophical argument that I would not so readily assume is already won.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Disney doesn't rely solely on public domain. They've created their own works and purchased the rights of other works to create their media. If Mickey never makes it to PD, society is no worse off.

What's really at stake here is money. Third parties are chomping at the bit to get their hands on Disney's catalog so they can turn around and repackage it for a profit; with no attempt made to create a derivative work.

Disney does not rely on public domain alone, but they very heavily draw from older stories while profiting from products created by the company nearly a century ago. Why should Disney be allowed to profit from their unchanged works they made back in 1930? I see no difference between them and the chomping-at-the-bit third parties. The difference is largely academic. Nobody alive at Disney actually authored those cartoons.

Money isn't the only thing at stake. Culture is also. Obvious and embedded ideas in our global culture aren't really owned by anyone, and attempting to control or profit from that phenomenon strikes me as evil and malignant.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The free market is a wonderful place. If someone has something you want; buy it. Not sure what the Doyle estate was charging, but they clearly had no problem with derivative works; just as long as the rights were purchased. If you're not satisfied with the terms or the seller refuses to sell, then create your own product.

Oh, yes, go create something new, but don't forget that if you create something too close to a copyrighted work you will be sued or charged with a criminal offense. And don't forget that some artists agree that creativity is largely remixing already created ideas. You better make sure you do a good enough job hiding your inspirations, or you'll find yourself accountable to incredibly powerful monopolies who demand even more money on top of their earned profit.

A world where we must ask permission before expressing ideas created long before us is a terrible world to be in. In this light, the creative world looks like a rapidly shrinking canvas for new artists, who must dodge already created works like ancient but still deadly mines buried among the hard road to creating a new piece of art.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

"We offer low prices by cheating the other fellow and passing the saving on to you..."

Tubemonkey, if you believe in perpetual I.P., then there can be no public domain. What is now public domain would have to be owned by someone (probably the government) and back royalties would have to be paid, and ongoing royalties paid to the owner, in perpetuity.

Otherwise, you're just cheating one set of corpses to the benefit of another set...

The "problem" is that, apart from corporate-owned works, it soon becomes impossible to determine who it is that deserves to be paid royalties for older works. The only clear path is to not republish and let the old work die in obscurity. That helps those producing new works control the market, but is against old works and culture in general.

I have to say that I have strong, mixed feelings about tubemonkey's opinion. On the one hand, I hate the loss to our general culture. On the other, I have a malicious joy in foreseeing the burial of the works of those individual authors who thought they would have generations-long control of their flourishing "IP" via permanent copyright. Here's a hint for those in the latter camp: if long copyrights are currently helping kill your competition from past works, so will they also help kill your works when the time comes.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by rkomar

The "problem" is that, apart from corporate-owned works, it soon becomes impossible to determine who it is that deserves to be paid royalties for older works. The only clear path is to not republish and let the old work die in obscurity. That helps those producing new works control the market, but is against old works and culture in general.

I have to say that I have strong, mixed feelings about tubemonkey's opinion. On the one hand, I hate the loss to our general culture. On the other, I have a malicious joy in foreseeing the burial of the works of those individual authors who thought they would have generations-long control of their flourishing "IP" via permanent copyright. Here's a hint for those in the latter camp: if long copyrights are currently helping kill your competition from past works, so will they also help kill your works when the time comes.

My works are so magnificent that they shall live eternally. I am too crotchety to ever die. So it's a perfect confluence. Otherwise, I wouldn't see the point of eternal copyright. I don't think there are many people worrying about how to provide for their descendants in perpetuity. The ties diminish into insignificance after a few generations.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by crich70

There is a difference I think between the two. A written work such as a novel is finished when it is published. Sequels can be written but the 1st book is considered complete once it is a published work. An invention on the other hand such as say the electric light isn't necessarily a finished product. It is possible that improvements may be made to make the bulb more efficient. The initial idea of an electric light likewise can be discovered or worked out only by one person, but if someone can make a more efficient one or one that works by a different method then it would be a new thing in some respects.

Originally Posted by crich70

I just meant that a piece of fiction is finished when it's written, edited and published unlike with an invention which can be improved upon usually. I do agree that ideas can't be patented though & that the same idea can be used in different stories. For example the idea of star crossed lovers from two different groups whose romance is doomed to tragedy. One plot idea two different stories (i.e. "Romeo and Juliet" & "West Side Story." One had two families in Verona Italy feuding and the other two Juvenile gangs feuding in New York City, but both used the same plot. But West Side Story and Romeo & Juliet aren't the same story. They have similarities but everyone knows that they are different tales. If you had Romeo working for Juliet's family in the big city it wouldn't be Shakespeare's play any more (IMO). It might be close, but if too much is changed it isn't what he wrote any longer.

I would be more likely to call "Romeo and Juliet" and "West Side Story" the same story than light bulbs that work by different methods the same invention.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Yep; if you don't renew the copyright, your book becomes public domain. If you don't pay your property taxes, your house becomes public domain (ie; eviction, followed by auction).

That's not public domain.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The only compelling reason I need is that it's my property; not society's. It doesn't have to serve a greater good in order to gain protection.

Copyright only exists because it was considered to be for the greater good.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Copyright only exists because it was considered to be for the greater good.

The earliest forms of copyright protected individual works as a favor by rulers for services rendered (or, in some cases, to protect the profits of those rulers from the sale of the books). The aspect "for the greater good" only came centuries later.

I must agree to some extent with Tubemonkey. Although unlimited copyright makes no sense, this general attitude "if it is good for society scr** the rights of the individual" is very disturbing. People should not be required to unilaterally and involuntarily make additional sacrifices for society over and above what everybody else has to. If they do so by their own free will, great. But by force?

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

...People should not be required to unilaterally and involuntarily make additional sacrifices for society over and above what everybody else has to. If they do so by their own free will, great. But by force?

Funny. That's exactly what people who freely want to copy say.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The earliest forms of copyright protected individual works as a favor by rulers for services rendered (or, in some cases, to protect the profits of those rulers from the sale of the books). The aspect "for the greater good" only came centuries later.

I must agree to some extent with Tubemonkey. Although unlimited copyright makes no sense, this general attitude "if it is good for society scr** the rights of the individual" is very disturbing. People should not be required to unilaterally and involuntarily make additional sacrifices for society over and above what everybody else has to. If they do so by their own free will, great. But by force?

The right belonged to society first, and it was taken from society for a limited amount of time as it was decided that this would be in the interest of society.