5 ms·

If we get rid of copyright, does that mean that if I then write a book, that someone else can print and sell copies and can keep all the profits? How is that e

If we get rid of copyright, does that mean that if I then write a book, that someone else can print and sell copies and can keep all the profits? How is that even remotely fair?

monort 11y ago
How is it fair to threaten with violence for printing characters on your own property?
- williamcotton 11y ago
  Who said anything about violence? Enforcement is a completely separate thing to consider. What about Voluntary Collective Licensing? Spotify is basically doing this right now. People pay $10/month and then it is (in a incredibly inefficient and dangerously opaque manner) distributed to the rights holders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Collective_Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Collective_Licensing
  - monort 11y ago
    Copyright without enforcement is identical to no copyright. Copyright with enforcement means using violence against someone who only prints some copyrighted characters. Spotify model is good, but Patreon model where customer decides how much to pay is better.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Nobody is being threatened with violence, any more than every contract dispute is a blood feud. Please stop with the victimology and whining about being 'on your own property' while simultaneously denying the right of other people to assert any kind of property interest in their own work product - because if you think it's OK to copy my stuff, then why can't I walk into your home and lounge around on the furniture, use your shower, and so on?
kiba 11y ago
Yup. Same thing happens to open source software. Yet, programmers write open source software, and some even make money from open source software, however indirectly.
- hk__2 11y ago
  Yep. All my programs are under the MIT licence, which allows you to use them in your own programs, sell them, and keep all the profits for you.
  - cwp 11y ago
    Mine too. And companies have done that. It's great.
- sosborn 11y ago
  > Yet, programmers write open source software Which is great, because they had the choice to do that. Whomever is doing the creating should be the one to make the choice.
geofft 11y ago
If I publish a research paper, while people can't print and sell copies, they can use the information in the paper to do further research, both profiting from papers and from any commercial ventures that may be founded on those papers. Is that fair? Should there be a researchright? (Patents don't cover this, as at least under modern patent law, they only cover inventions, not ideas.)
- mtgx 11y ago
  Are you using government grants to do that research? Because then clearly the result of the research is a benefit to the society that's also been paid by the society. You shouldn't get to reap all the rewards yourself.
  - geofft 11y ago
    Sometimes, sometimes not. Lots of interesting papers in CS, for instance, come out of private companies. Maybe they would be more willing to publish and get peer review if they knew that competitors couldn't implement the same algorithms.
Drakim 11y ago
Treating ideas the same as physical possessions can give some pretty odd results, when you think about it past your own immediate gain. Somebody else came up with the idea that you can put letters on paper. Another person came up with the idea that you can put paper together in a collection to form a book. Why are you stealing these ideas, making money and keeping the profits? The only reason this isn't an issue for you right now is because these ideas were created up a long time ago, and the ideas have become "public goods" that anybody may use. But what if you could inherit intellectual property in the family just like physical property? After all, if a farm can be kept in the family for hundreds of years, why not an intellectual piece of real estate? What sort of free society would say "okay, after you have created a good, you may keep it for 70 years and then it belongs to the public"? And yet we do this for intellectual property, and I suspect, the truth is, because we don't really truly believe it's real property. And I'm very happy for that.

If we get rid of copyright, does that mean that if I then write a book, that someone else can print and sell copies and can keep all the profits? How is that even remotely fair?

monort 11y ago

How is it fair to threaten with violence for printing characters on your own property?

williamcotton 11y ago
Who said anything about violence? Enforcement is a completely separate thing to consider. What about Voluntary Collective Licensing? Spotify is basically doing this right now. People pay $10/month and then it is (in a incredibly inefficient and dangerously opaque manner) distributed to the rights holders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Collective_Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Collective_Licensing
- monort 11y ago
  Copyright without enforcement is identical to no copyright. Copyright with enforcement means using violence against someone who only prints some copyrighted characters. Spotify model is good, but Patreon model where customer decides how much to pay is better.
anigbrowl 11y ago
Nobody is being threatened with violence, any more than every contract dispute is a blood feud. Please stop with the victimology and whining about being 'on your own property' while simultaneously denying the right of other people to assert any kind of property interest in their own work product - because if you think it's OK to copy my stuff, then why can't I walk into your home and lounge around on the furniture, use your shower, and so on?

kiba 11y ago

Yup. Same thing happens to open source software. Yet, programmers write open source software, and some even make money from open source software, however indirectly.

hk__2 11y ago
Yep. All my programs are under the MIT licence, which allows you to use them in your own programs, sell them, and keep all the profits for you.
- cwp 11y ago
  Mine too. And companies have done that. It's great.
sosborn 11y ago
> Yet, programmers write open source software Which is great, because they had the choice to do that. Whomever is doing the creating should be the one to make the choice.

geofft 11y ago

If I publish a research paper, while people can't print and sell copies, they can use the information in the paper to do further research, both profiting from papers and from any commercial ventures that may be founded on those papers. Is that fair? Should there be a researchright? (Patents don't cover this, as at least under modern patent law, they only cover inventions, not ideas.)

mtgx 11y ago
Are you using government grants to do that research? Because then clearly the result of the research is a benefit to the society that's also been paid by the society. You shouldn't get to reap all the rewards yourself.
- geofft 11y ago
  Sometimes, sometimes not. Lots of interesting papers in CS, for instance, come out of private companies. Maybe they would be more willing to publish and get peer review if they knew that competitors couldn't implement the same algorithms.

Drakim 11y ago

Treating ideas the same as physical possessions can give some pretty odd results, when you think about it past your own immediate gain. Somebody else came up with the idea that you can put letters on paper. Another person came up with the idea that you can put paper together in a collection to form a book. Why are you stealing these ideas, making money and keeping the profits? The only reason this isn't an issue for you right now is because these ideas were created up a long time ago, and the ideas have become "public goods" that anybody may use. But what if you could inherit intellectual property in the family just like physical property? After all, if a farm can be kept in the family for hundreds of years, why not an intellectual piece of real estate? What sort of free society would say "okay, after you have created a good, you may keep it for 70 years and then it belongs to the public"? And yet we do this for intellectual property, and I suspect, the truth is, because we don't really truly believe it's real property. And I'm very happy for that.