4 ms·

The whole concept of IP is absurd, and there are many absurd consequences you can derive from it. But there are degrees of absurdity, it's one thing to do that

by ajuc 7y ago

The whole concept of IP is absurd, and there are many absurd consequences you can derive from it. But there are degrees of absurdity, it's one thing to do that when there's 26^100000 possible combinations, it's another when there's just 12^100 (and if you only care about melody it's overestimation, most songs will use much smaller subset of that).

paulddraper 7y ago
> just 12^100 At the risk of getting stuck in a loop: "No rhythms, no meter, no tempo, melodies are longer than 12 notes, it's diatonic, single octave, no concept of underlying harmony" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22441366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22441366
- ajuc 7y ago
  I was overestimating, I even mentioned it. > and if you only care about melody it's overestimation And they did it that way because courts don't worry about the exact tempo, meter and rhythm when ruling on plagiarism. There was a guy trying to copyright A CHORD :)
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    > exact tempo, meter and rhythm That much is true. > a guy trying to copyright A CHORD IIRC he failed miserably. A better example would be the (until recently) coprighted song "Happy Birthday." [1] [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/happy-birthday-copyright-suit-settled-n477671 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/happy-birthda...
shadowgovt 7y ago
It's not like this absurdity was unknown to the framers of copyright. Thomas Jefferson, writing regarding patents, wrote "other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society..." And yet, they persist (and in the modern era, proliferate) because it's generally agreed society derives benefit from paying people for their purely-idea creative work. ... but that doesn't mean copyright and patent aren't a perpetual battle against the "natural" arrangement of idea, and absurdities are extremely possible when the law is misinterpreted or mis-structured.
- JadeNB 7y ago
  > And yet, they persist (and in the modern era, proliferate) because it's generally agreed society derives benefit from paying people for their purely-idea creative work. Who "generally agree"s on this? The existence of laws doesn't indicate the mood of society.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    > The existence of laws doesn't indicate the mood of society. But if laws are proliferating and regularizing instead of standing still or being abolished, and one assumes that elected representatives are acting on the will of the people, it probably does. There's lots of controversy over how to improve copyright / patent law, but not very many people in governments in the EU, US, China, Japan, Australia, &c are talking seriously about just burning the whole copyright / patent system to the ground. At least a subset of the countries in the groups listed are generally understood to have representative governments.
    - JadeNB 7y ago
      > one assumes that elected representatives are acting on the will of the people Yeah, that's the assumption I take issue with.
    - Retric 7y ago
      Representative governments are well known for supporting powerful groups over the collective benefit of society. Just look at any of those countries tax codes and you will find a multitude of special exceptions. Patents are of limited duration because the tradeoffs of unlimited patents are so horrific. If we accept a billion dollar drug must enter the public domain, clearly copyright should also be limited just as it was proposed in the US constitution. However, because a tiny minority has a huge benefit and society does not really notice the difference you get the modern mess of unending copyright.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        "A tiny minority has a huge benefit and society does not really notice the difference" seems like a utilitarian argument that the system is working as intended; there is net positive benefit.

by ajuc 7y ago

paulddraper 7y ago

> just 12^100 At the risk of getting stuck in a loop: "No rhythms, no meter, no tempo, melodies are longer than 12 notes, it's diatonic, single octave, no concept of underlying harmony" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22441366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22441366

ajuc 7y ago
I was overestimating, I even mentioned it. > and if you only care about melody it's overestimation And they did it that way because courts don't worry about the exact tempo, meter and rhythm when ruling on plagiarism. There was a guy trying to copyright A CHORD :)
- paulddraper 7y ago
  > exact tempo, meter and rhythm That much is true. > a guy trying to copyright A CHORD IIRC he failed miserably. A better example would be the (until recently) coprighted song "Happy Birthday." [1] [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/happy-birthday-copyright-suit-settled-n477671 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/happy-birthda...

shadowgovt 7y ago

It's not like this absurdity was unknown to the framers of copyright. Thomas Jefferson, writing regarding patents, wrote "other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society..." And yet, they persist (and in the modern era, proliferate) because it's generally agreed society derives benefit from paying people for their purely-idea creative work. ... but that doesn't mean copyright and patent aren't a perpetual battle against the "natural" arrangement of idea, and absurdities are extremely possible when the law is misinterpreted or mis-structured.

JadeNB 7y ago
> And yet, they persist (and in the modern era, proliferate) because it's generally agreed society derives benefit from paying people for their purely-idea creative work. Who "generally agree"s on this? The existence of laws doesn't indicate the mood of society.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  > The existence of laws doesn't indicate the mood of society. But if laws are proliferating and regularizing instead of standing still or being abolished, and one assumes that elected representatives are acting on the will of the people, it probably does. There's lots of controversy over how to improve copyright / patent law, but not very many people in governments in the EU, US, China, Japan, Australia, &c are talking seriously about just burning the whole copyright / patent system to the ground. At least a subset of the countries in the groups listed are generally understood to have representative governments.
  - JadeNB 7y ago
    > one assumes that elected representatives are acting on the will of the people Yeah, that's the assumption I take issue with.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Representative governments are well known for supporting powerful groups over the collective benefit of society. Just look at any of those countries tax codes and you will find a multitude of special exceptions. Patents are of limited duration because the tradeoffs of unlimited patents are so horrific. If we accept a billion dollar drug must enter the public domain, clearly copyright should also be limited just as it was proposed in the US constitution. However, because a tiny minority has a huge benefit and society does not really notice the difference you get the modern mess of unending copyright.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      "A tiny minority has a huge benefit and society does not really notice the difference" seems like a utilitarian argument that the system is working as intended; there is net positive benefit.