4 ms·

Copyright is different in many respects from ownership of tangible assets. You and I can both read the works of Shakespeare at the same time (with millions of o

Copyright is different in many respects from ownership of tangible assets. You and I can both read the works of Shakespeare at the same time (with millions of other people) with no conflicts, but only so many people can 'use' a house at the same time. The original point of copyright was to encourage creators to create (if their creations could be immediately 'used' for free by others, they would have much less reason to create in the first place). It has little public value otherwise.

toasterlovin 8y ago
What I'm saying is that property rights (tangible or intangible) are not strictly about public value, regardless of the arguments used to originally justify copyright laws. Try applying your reasoning to a trademark. If you have two companies using the same trademark to create identical products, there is no affect on the value to the public. But there is a huge change to the value of the person or company that originally started using that trademark. And the reason we restrict the use of that trademark is because the originator put a bunch of effort into making it valuable and we recognize that this effort should result in some kind of ownership because that is what's fair.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  > Try applying your reasoning to a trademark. But I'm not making any argument about trademarks, or physical property ownership. My arguments are about copyright, and I'm not very interested in conflating copyright with trademarks and patents and ownership of land &c. > because that is what's fair This is where it gets tricky of course. What's fair, exactly, and to whom? (Again, though, I'm not interested in talking about trademarks.)
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    I think flat out refusing to accept arguments by analogy is not arguing in good faith (I mean, you didn't even provide a reason for why trademarks are not a good analogy, you just refuse to even consider the line of argument). But whatever. Why do others have the right to derive enjoyment or economic benefit from the works of creators?
    - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      Because trademarks are not governed by the same set of laws, and are pretty different in purpose. You not being able sell sweet fizzy drinks using Coca-Cola branding is at least as much for the benefit of consumers (so they don't buy non-Coca-Cola drink when they want Coca-Cola) as it is for the Coca-Cola company. A trademark is really a very different thing than say a novel or a film or a piece of music or even a piece of software. The only way in which copyright and trademarks are really relatable is under the vague, squishy and not-very-useful umbrella of 'intellectual property'. I think it's fair for me to say that when I am talking about creators of novels and films etc. and copyright limits w.r.t. encouraging/discouraging creators from creating I shouldn't have to talk about trademarks, which have very little to do with the sort of creation I'm talking about.
      - toasterlovin 8y ago
        Thank you for pointing out the consumer protection aspect of trademark, I did not have that in mind when I made that comparison (I had in mind the aspect of trademark that benefits the holder, which I think actually has a lot in common with copyright, but I’ll not belabor an irrelevancy). So if I am understanding you correctly, your stance is that the creator of some copyrightable work has no inherent right to control the use of that work? And you think that the only reason they should be allowed to control the use of their work is to incentivize creation of new works, not because they deserve a share of the value created by the use of their work (a song used in an advertisement, for example)? To be clear, I’m asking for your opinion as a judge of moral issues, not for the legal theory behind copyright.
        _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
        I suppose I don't think that copyright law is the right place to legislate morality. > your stance is that the creator of some copyrightable work has no inherent right to control the use of that work? And you think that the only reason they should be allowed to control the use of their work is to incentivize creation of new works, not because they deserve a share of the value created by the use of their work (a song used in an advertisement, for example)? No, in general I think that people have a right to a share of the value created by their work (copyrightable and otherwise). But in practice this is often not what happens, even with copyright. Your example of a song used in an ad: generally the advertiser would just purchase the rights to the song outright, and so the creator wouldn't necessarily really get anything like a 'share' of the value created by use of their work, but just a flat fee.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  Copyrights are strictly about public value. There is no legal basis for copyright to exist in the US except to promote the creation of more works.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    That that is the particular legal basis for copyright does not preclude copyright having a moral element as well. I think people would widely agree that it is only fair for the creator of a work to have some exclusive claim to its use for some amount of time. My original comment did get some upvotes, for whatever that’s worth.

toasterlovin 8y ago

What I'm saying is that property rights (tangible or intangible) are not strictly about public value, regardless of the arguments used to originally justify copyright laws. Try applying your reasoning to a trademark. If you have two companies using the same trademark to create identical products, there is no affect on the value to the public. But there is a huge change to the value of the person or company that originally started using that trademark. And the reason we restrict the use of that trademark is because the originator put a bunch of effort into making it valuable and we recognize that this effort should result in some kind of ownership because that is what's fair.

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
> Try applying your reasoning to a trademark. But I'm not making any argument about trademarks, or physical property ownership. My arguments are about copyright, and I'm not very interested in conflating copyright with trademarks and patents and ownership of land &c. > because that is what's fair This is where it gets tricky of course. What's fair, exactly, and to whom? (Again, though, I'm not interested in talking about trademarks.)
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  I think flat out refusing to accept arguments by analogy is not arguing in good faith (I mean, you didn't even provide a reason for why trademarks are not a good analogy, you just refuse to even consider the line of argument). But whatever. Why do others have the right to derive enjoyment or economic benefit from the works of creators?
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    Because trademarks are not governed by the same set of laws, and are pretty different in purpose. You not being able sell sweet fizzy drinks using Coca-Cola branding is at least as much for the benefit of consumers (so they don't buy non-Coca-Cola drink when they want Coca-Cola) as it is for the Coca-Cola company. A trademark is really a very different thing than say a novel or a film or a piece of music or even a piece of software. The only way in which copyright and trademarks are really relatable is under the vague, squishy and not-very-useful umbrella of 'intellectual property'. I think it's fair for me to say that when I am talking about creators of novels and films etc. and copyright limits w.r.t. encouraging/discouraging creators from creating I shouldn't have to talk about trademarks, which have very little to do with the sort of creation I'm talking about.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      Thank you for pointing out the consumer protection aspect of trademark, I did not have that in mind when I made that comparison (I had in mind the aspect of trademark that benefits the holder, which I think actually has a lot in common with copyright, but I’ll not belabor an irrelevancy). So if I am understanding you correctly, your stance is that the creator of some copyrightable work has no inherent right to control the use of that work? And you think that the only reason they should be allowed to control the use of their work is to incentivize creation of new works, not because they deserve a share of the value created by the use of their work (a song used in an advertisement, for example)? To be clear, I’m asking for your opinion as a judge of moral issues, not for the legal theory behind copyright.
      - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
        I suppose I don't think that copyright law is the right place to legislate morality. > your stance is that the creator of some copyrightable work has no inherent right to control the use of that work? And you think that the only reason they should be allowed to control the use of their work is to incentivize creation of new works, not because they deserve a share of the value created by the use of their work (a song used in an advertisement, for example)? No, in general I think that people have a right to a share of the value created by their work (copyrightable and otherwise). But in practice this is often not what happens, even with copyright. Your example of a song used in an ad: generally the advertiser would just purchase the rights to the song outright, and so the creator wouldn't necessarily really get anything like a 'share' of the value created by use of their work, but just a flat fee.
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
Copyrights are strictly about public value. There is no legal basis for copyright to exist in the US except to promote the creation of more works.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  That that is the particular legal basis for copyright does not preclude copyright having a moral element as well. I think people would widely agree that it is only fair for the creator of a work to have some exclusive claim to its use for some amount of time. My original comment did get some upvotes, for whatever that’s worth.