3 ms·

By that logic we should get rid of property, since the property holder has a monopoly on the property. I would put "(i.e. opposite of a free market)" sarcastica

By that logic we should get rid of property, since the property holder has a monopoly on the property. I would put "(i.e. opposite of a free market)" sarcastically, but I'm being serious. Go read an economics text book on the definition of a free market, and while you are at it, what properties they have (muh freedom is not even a primary one) that make us want them so much, and what the requirements are (natural monopolies are a problem, but copyright and property are not monopolies; run-away patents are though) to have them. The person you are replying to is wrong, the free market is what allows for corrections that are starting to happen (e.g. cheaper better books, student groups publishing their own books, etc.) it's just that Sweden has a free market with better conditions than many free markets in the U.S. so they get faster reactions in their prices. But you are wrong in a worse way, you don't even understand what you are advocating for. Edit: To expand on the copyright is property argument. Copyright allows you to own the result of your work. If someone happens to make something very very similar without ever seeing your copyrighted work, they have the copyright to their work, and you to yours. Like property you only have that which is yours (e.g. if I built a house on my land that looks exactly like my neighbors, I still own my property and the house; but if I took their house and put it on my property I wouldn't); this is why certain techniques like Clean Room development allow companies to build very similar products that are all protected by copyrights assigned to each company. The problem you have is with patents which allow the patent holder to claim all work done that matches the patent (even if the patent holder never actually made something that matched the patent; which is especially absurd).

Nullabillity 9y ago
> e.g. if I built a house on my land that looks exactly like my neighbors, I still own my property and the house; but if I took their house and put it on my property I wouldn't Uhm, no, that's exactly what copyright prevents (or tries to, anyhow).
- elviejo 9y ago
  Again that is the difference between parents and copyrights. With a patent you can't make a copy. With copyrights you can't claim you made something. For example if I see a dress in a magazine I can make one, what I cannot claim is that it is Dolce and Gabbana...
  - kbutler 9y ago
    > if I see a dress in a magazine I can make one, what I cannot claim is that it is Dolce and Gabbana That's actually trademark, which is distinct from copyright or patent. And notably, clothing designs are not copyrightable, because they are "useful articles", not just creative expressions. https://www.copyright.gov/register/va-useful.html https://www.copyright.gov/register/va-useful.html Patent: Practical invention, prevents sale even of independent re-invention. 17-20 years. Copyright: Tangible expression of original authorship, prevents duplication and derivation except for fair use, common stereotypes, etc. Does not prohibit independent re-invention, does not prevent re-use of ideas, just the expression. Has grown to progressively longer term (currently life + 70) Trademark: Prevents false claims of source of product, even of "confusingly" similar designs. Includes "trade dress" (packaging/presentation). Valid as long as the trademark is used. Design patent: hybrid - prevents duplication of ornamental design of a functional product, so it is like copyright, but has a duration similar to patent - 14-15 years.
- SolarNet 9y ago
  Again, you are thinking patents or trademarks. My house may look the same, but it's been built by different people, different electricians, on different land. It probably has a different internal structure, different materials, and slightly different external marks, because it was rebuilt from the ground up. Copyright would apply if I used the exact same blueprints, but if I hired an architect to make blueprints with the same external design as another house that would be similar to clean room design and not a violation of copyright. Like how Google can make a copy of the Java API (they only got hit for having the same implementation written by the guy who wrote the version oracle had copyrighten in the first place). In the analogy it would be theft if I took your house, put it on my land, and claimed it was mine. And that's what it is to commit criminal copyright violation (e.g. you distribute copies for profit, claiming you own it). Yes in the digital world copies don't deprive the other of anything tangible, but like stealing a house, it does deprive them of the work that was invested to build that expression in the first place.
Mikhail_Edoshin 9y ago
An important distinction between physical and intellectual property is that physical is naturally exclusive, while intellectual is not. If I use a house for something, you cannot use it for something else without disturbing me. On the other hand my using some technology does not prevent anyone else from doing the same. (Although I may prefer to have an exclusive right for obvious reasons.) Maybe it could be a good idea to somehow recognize intellectual property as property but end that exclusive part. E.g. for books make publishing agreements public offers instead of private contracts. Just a wild idea, of course :)
- SolarNet 9y ago
  > On the other hand my using some technology does not prevent anyone else from doing the same. Yes, however, for the same reason people can own summer homes they don't use for half a year and retain that exclusivity - even though it wouldn't disturb the people - is because they worked for that. They built it, or paid someone who did. We allow people to enforce their exclusive rights on property even when it wouldn't disturb them to let others use it. Similarly, if I spend a billion dollars building a piece of technology, I should be able to own that. And decide who gets to use it, even if giving it away to everyone wouldn't disturb me. If someone else built their own version of my software (like building their own summer home) they could give theirs away for free (open source) or sell it. But if they broke into my summer home, rented it out, and then left everything exactly the way it was, that's still illegal because they profited from my property, my work. If you believe in private property (rather than say personal property, which would allow you to own a house exclusive to other people, but not to own multiple properties and only use one at a time) it's hypocritical to not believe in some form of copyright (unless you are advocating for feudalism, where work does not count as value, and the owners of the land or tools worked get the products of the labor by default).

Nullabillity 9y ago

> e.g. if I built a house on my land that looks exactly like my neighbors, I still own my property and the house; but if I took their house and put it on my property I wouldn't Uhm, no, that's exactly what copyright prevents (or tries to, anyhow).

elviejo 9y ago
Again that is the difference between parents and copyrights. With a patent you can't make a copy. With copyrights you can't claim you made something. For example if I see a dress in a magazine I can make one, what I cannot claim is that it is Dolce and Gabbana...
- kbutler 9y ago
  > if I see a dress in a magazine I can make one, what I cannot claim is that it is Dolce and Gabbana That's actually trademark, which is distinct from copyright or patent. And notably, clothing designs are not copyrightable, because they are "useful articles", not just creative expressions. https://www.copyright.gov/register/va-useful.html https://www.copyright.gov/register/va-useful.html Patent: Practical invention, prevents sale even of independent re-invention. 17-20 years. Copyright: Tangible expression of original authorship, prevents duplication and derivation except for fair use, common stereotypes, etc. Does not prohibit independent re-invention, does not prevent re-use of ideas, just the expression. Has grown to progressively longer term (currently life + 70) Trademark: Prevents false claims of source of product, even of "confusingly" similar designs. Includes "trade dress" (packaging/presentation). Valid as long as the trademark is used. Design patent: hybrid - prevents duplication of ornamental design of a functional product, so it is like copyright, but has a duration similar to patent - 14-15 years.
SolarNet 9y ago
Again, you are thinking patents or trademarks. My house may look the same, but it's been built by different people, different electricians, on different land. It probably has a different internal structure, different materials, and slightly different external marks, because it was rebuilt from the ground up. Copyright would apply if I used the exact same blueprints, but if I hired an architect to make blueprints with the same external design as another house that would be similar to clean room design and not a violation of copyright. Like how Google can make a copy of the Java API (they only got hit for having the same implementation written by the guy who wrote the version oracle had copyrighten in the first place). In the analogy it would be theft if I took your house, put it on my land, and claimed it was mine. And that's what it is to commit criminal copyright violation (e.g. you distribute copies for profit, claiming you own it). Yes in the digital world copies don't deprive the other of anything tangible, but like stealing a house, it does deprive them of the work that was invested to build that expression in the first place.

Mikhail_Edoshin 9y ago

An important distinction between physical and intellectual property is that physical is naturally exclusive, while intellectual is not. If I use a house for something, you cannot use it for something else without disturbing me. On the other hand my using some technology does not prevent anyone else from doing the same. (Although I may prefer to have an exclusive right for obvious reasons.) Maybe it could be a good idea to somehow recognize intellectual property as property but end that exclusive part. E.g. for books make publishing agreements public offers instead of private contracts. Just a wild idea, of course :)

SolarNet 9y ago
> On the other hand my using some technology does not prevent anyone else from doing the same. Yes, however, for the same reason people can own summer homes they don't use for half a year and retain that exclusivity - even though it wouldn't disturb the people - is because they worked for that. They built it, or paid someone who did. We allow people to enforce their exclusive rights on property even when it wouldn't disturb them to let others use it. Similarly, if I spend a billion dollars building a piece of technology, I should be able to own that. And decide who gets to use it, even if giving it away to everyone wouldn't disturb me. If someone else built their own version of my software (like building their own summer home) they could give theirs away for free (open source) or sell it. But if they broke into my summer home, rented it out, and then left everything exactly the way it was, that's still illegal because they profited from my property, my work. If you believe in private property (rather than say personal property, which would allow you to own a house exclusive to other people, but not to own multiple properties and only use one at a time) it's hypocritical to not believe in some form of copyright (unless you are advocating for feudalism, where work does not count as value, and the owners of the land or tools worked get the products of the labor by default).