Duration of copyright poll.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

You are still confused between copyright and property right.

No. I recognize your distinction. I simply consider the copyright property while the rights last. Property implies ownership and control of something, and while you hold the rights, you have both.

Once the copyright lapses, it ceases to be property.
______
Dennis

[axel77]

As all of the "abolish supporters" (or whatever this position is called, (rlauzon, Format C) are just ignoring posts that don't fit into their concept, I'm withdrawing with this from this discussion, this way it makes no sense this way...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

No. I recognize your distinction. I simply consider the copyright property while the rights last. Property implies ownership and control of something, and while you hold the rights, you have both.

Once the copyright lapses, it ceases to be property.
______
Dennis

And the issue at hand is when should that copyright lapse....

While it exists, it can be treated as property, ever though technically it's not. But how long should it exist? Remember, this monopoly was granted for the public's long term benefit, not to provide a social welfare policy for creators and their families. (Or to immortal corporations...)

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And the issue at hand is when should that copyright lapse....

Precisely.

While it exists, it can be treated as property, ever though technically it's not.

Yes, and while you can debate whether it is technically property, it can be treated as such while it exists, which is why I refer to it as property. As mentioned, property implies ownership and control, and copyright grants both to the rights holder for the duration of the copyright.

But how long should it exist? Remember, this monopoly was granted for the public's long term benefit, not to provide a social welfare policy for creators and their families. (Or to immortal corporations...)

I'm in favor of a shorter rather than a longer term. I'd like Life+25 years. I can live with Life+50 years. I'm opposed to greater lengths.

The greater lengths being pushed for largely are for the benefit of "immortal corporations", and wind up affecting individuals as a side effect.
______
Dennis

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

No. I recognize your distinction. I simply consider the copyright property while the rights last. Property implies ownership and control of something, and while you hold the rights, you have both.

And how, exactly, is it possible to own an idea?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

And how, exactly, is it possible to own an idea?

It likely isn't, long term. But it's possible to be granted legal ownership short term, which it what copyright and patents do.

While they technically may not be property, they can be treated as such while the rights last. And what this thread is discussing is how long the rights should last.

And since the concept of property is a social construct, just like copyrights and patents, it is theoretically possible that one could someday own an idea in perpetuity, simply because the applicable laws defining the rights would be changed so that the rights didn't expire after a defined period.

I would like that as little as you would, but that doesn't make it impossible.
______
Dennis

[axel77]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

And how, exactly, is it possible to own an idea?

How exactly is it possible to own a cow? Property is an socially enforced exclusion of options of acting. When I "own" a cow, your option to milk it is excluded. When I own an apartment, everyone else is exculded to enter it, except at my allowness.

So whats so different to copyright? Of course you can copy texts just as you can milk that cow that I used to cater for. However there are social rules that exclude you to do so. Therefor in principle it are the same principles at work. I know, that "ideas" are not "used up" like a cow, that can only be milked once in a day, and yes this makes a subtle difference, but it does not change the principle idea at work as it is.

Copyright is not a "new" idea, in fact its just that the ideas of property rights used by say a few thousand years (aprox. beginning with the neolithic age) were extended to intangible things. If this was a good idea or not, can be discussed at least it is compatible to the way the rest of our society works, and at least so far it can be said, *in principle* copyright is the "extension" of the idea of property.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

It likely isn't, long term. But it's possible to be granted legal ownership short term, which it what copyright and patents do.

I think you need to read up on copyrights and patents.

Copyright and patents have never granted ownership over the idea. They have only granted limited control over use of the idea for a limited time.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

And how, exactly, is it possible to own an idea?

You can't... However, you can own (for a measured period) a particular implementation of an idea. That's where copyright/patent comes in. Anybody can write a trip to the moon book, for no cost and at no hindrance, but the particular string of words that make up, say ,Rocket Ship Galileo, are owned via copyright. And you can't use that string of words without permission legally...

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by axel77

So whats so different to copyright?

The difference is far bigger than you make it out to be.

If I take your cow, you no longer have that cow. If you take your cow back, I no longer have your cow.

However, if I read your book, you still have your story, but now I have it as well. I cannot "unread" the story.

It has nothing to do with "social rules". It has everything to do with the difference between an idea and a physical object.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

The difference is far bigger than you make it out to be.

I've already written:

I know, that "ideas" are not "used up" like a cow, that can only be milked once in a day, and yes this makes a subtle difference, but it does not change the principle idea at work as it is.

So don't say I'm not aware of this.

If I take your cow, you no longer have that cow. If you take your cow back, I no longer have your cow.

However, if I read your book, you still have your story, but now I have it as well. I cannot "unread" the story.

It has nothing to do with "social rules". It has everything to do with the difference between an idea and a physical object.

No, physical objects don't have anymore any "property" inscribed into them, than an ideas. All this things (classic property right, copyrights, patent rights, etc) are social "ideas", generated by our society how to organise our society. That an idea has no attrition in use doesn't change the fact you can socially be excluded to use it. You cant say its "natural" that things are properties, but its completly "unnatural" that non-things are properties.

When there are social rules that exclude you in the use, it is property. And thus yes, property *does* work with ideas, with texts, and so on. Altough we might not like it, it *is* possible.

I guess the philosophers would call this a "naturalistic false conclusion" that is principle everything that says, its in the "nature" of X that X is ... How is it in "the nature of physical things" that they can be owned, but not "in the nature of ideas" that they can't?

You can argue what makes more sense for society, and even with physical things this has been discussed in the past a lot. Take for example marxism that doesn't want property rights for tools of production... Or how much can you "own" a animal after all? Or how far does ownership go for things of great cultural value (famous paintings) ?

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by axel77

So don't say I'm not aware of this.

OK. I won't say it.

Originally Posted by axel77

No, physical objects don't have anymore any "property" inscribed into them, than an ideas.

Take a toy away from a child and you'll see that property rights are pretty basic and far from being the social constructs that you make them out to be.

While current property laws may be "social ideas". The concept of ownership is a basic part of being human. Heck, many animals understand the concept (try to take a bone from a dog and see what I mean).

[axel77]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

While current property laws may be "social ideas". The concept of ownership is a basic part of being human. Heck, many animals understand the concept (try to take a bone from a dog and see what I mean).

First this in fact wrong. I think I mentioned it already even in this thread, if there is one essential thing that anthropology discovered / taught us, is that many """primitive""" societies (or native societies or how you call them politically correct), they don't know of the concept of property at all!

That a child whines if you take him away the toy, does not tell you he knows what property is. That he had property of the toy, or actually you had it first place, but parents lend their property to kids... He knows just he is unhappy when he cant have it near it. However kids are *very* fast in picking up the idea of property, that is what being human is. Humans are so flexible "animals", they can learn every society in the early ages. A baby taken from a village 10.000 years ago, could become a normal industrial citizen, and vice versa.

Second, insisting on the "natural false conclusion" is not the way to go. Dogs might have been trained property because they follow humans for thousands of years. Who knows what a human "natural" is? Do you things "god" "designed" us in a way, so he wanted somethings to be part of property, while others are not?

And what do you think dogs would do if they could write texts? Sorry, but this idea is just so funny :-)

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by axel77

First this in fact wrong. I think I mentioned it already even in this thread, if there is one essential thing that anthropology discovered / taught us, is that many """primitive""" societies (or native societies or how you call them politically correct), they don't know of the concept of property at all!

When people live together in groups, there must be agreement on what constitutes acceptable behavior for the smooth functioning of the society. We call the agreement "customs", and the written down versions "laws".

Because it's generally not possible to be completely self sufficient as an individual, people band together in groups to have enough people to do the necessary work and to allow people to specialize in particular activities the group needs performed. An economic system is simply the methods a particular society has evolved to insure that goods are produced and distributed, and services are performed to keep the society functional. One of the challenges of any economy is motivating the members to work hard and achieve sufficient production.

They don't have to look anything like our system. In the south pacific, for example, there was the "big man" culture. Members of the society that practiced it competed to be the "big man", and the goal is not how much you could accumulate, but how much you could give away. Individuals drove family and friends to produce as much as possible, and then threw an enormous party where the fruits of the labor would be distributed to all. The one throwing the biggest party, and giving away the most gifts, became the Big Man for the year, the highest status possible in that society. But meanwhile, as a side effect, members of the society worked hard to produce, and the entire society benefited, which is why the custom evolved and was practiced.

I think they had a rather different idea of property than the one we use.

And property requires relative abundance to become important. Ursula Leguin's _The Dispossessed_ took place in part on the planet Arras, where the inhabitants practiced a form of anarchic communism. No surprise: Arres was a marginal environment, and there was just about enough to go around. It simply wasn't possible to be significantly better off than your neighbor in material terms.

We encourage production by trying to insure the producer sees a personal benefit from producing, but that's not the only way it can be done.
______
Dennis

[axel77]

DMcCunney, exactly!

I was thinking before of what Durkheim differented societies by "mechanic" and "organic" solidarity. The organic ones are the ones we live in and know well, the mechanic ones, the "older" ones that are built on equality of the society members instead of interdependence. I just remember out of the head, but a tribe which backbone of their economy consits of all mens of the tribe going on big hunts together, there doesn't make property any sense at all.