3 ms·

" Like back when we only had physical things it made sense. There was a physical limitation. Now we are trying to apply the same concept in a very different wor

by neaden 6y ago

" Like back when we only had physical things it made sense. There was a physical limitation. Now we are trying to apply the same concept in a very different world. I just think that doesn’t hold and we should just have a new definition." I don't think is true historically though. The idea of copyright for books is that another publisher can't start printing copies of a book someone else wrote and start selling them. This doesn't involve physically taking any of the author's property, and indeed they probably had to buy a copy first before they could make their own copies. I don't see how what the IA is fundamentally different from this, and it seem pretty clear that copyright law was created to stop this sort of thing.

jancsika 6y ago
> The idea of copyright for books is that another publisher can't start printing copies of a book someone else wrote and start selling them. But with the historical conceptual constraint that: a) it costs enough to make copies that a physical publishing industry is necessary to produce copies of books at scale b) it is unthinkable that copies may be made for $0 c) were it somehow thinkable that a person could magically receive a book from a neighbor with the neighbor never losing their own copy, the free transfer of copies clearly trumps any benefits or incentives federal copyright may have. Lucky for us Jefferson saw in human ideas the same novel properties that we take for granted with digital data, and he wrote explicitly about his priorities regarding those novel properties: "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation." So the one relevant historical commentary I know from the time is clearly on the side of the person you're responding to. You can't apply the same copyright logic to non-physical things (or more broadly, things for which a recipient can receive a thing without the giver having lost one). And if you try, then free distribution outweighs exclusive rights.
- jawns 6y ago
  Suppose "c" were true. I invest considerable time, effort, and (possibly) talent to produce a creative work -- let's say a novel. My neighbor purchases my novel and then makes a free copy available to anyone who wants one. Naturally, getting it for free is better than having to pay for it, and so everyone who wants a copy gets theirs for free from my neighbor. And so I sell a total of one copy -- then my book effectively ends up in the public domain. Does it make financial sense for me to write novels under this system? Absolutely not! Creators become disincentivized from producing creative works. The public good suffers as a result. Jefferson's point was that in most cases, Person A's sharing of an idea with Person B doesn't take away anything from Person A. If I know how to tie a necktie and you don't, my teaching you how to tie a necktie doesn't deprive me of that knowledge. It just puts more knowledge into the world, which is a good thing. But there are certainly cases where this is not true. If I run a business and I freely share all my trade secrets with my direct competitor, and they use that knowledge to drive me out of business, that's bad, and it's not what Jefferson is talking about. Similarly, if I'm a creator and depend on sales of my creative works to make a living, giving away all my creative works for free means I've not only screwed myself over, but also I can't continue to produce more creative works, which deprives the public of their benefit. That's why "c" doesn't appear plainly true to me. Copyright is meant to advance the arts and sciences by giving creators a mechanism to be compensated for their efforts for a period of time, while also protecting the public interest by limiting that period of time. Both of those considerations need to be balanced.

by neaden 6y ago

jancsika 6y ago

> The idea of copyright for books is that another publisher can't start printing copies of a book someone else wrote and start selling them. But with the historical conceptual constraint that: a) it costs enough to make copies that a physical publishing industry is necessary to produce copies of books at scale b) it is unthinkable that copies may be made for $0 c) were it somehow thinkable that a person could magically receive a book from a neighbor with the neighbor never losing their own copy, the free transfer of copies clearly trumps any benefits or incentives federal copyright may have. Lucky for us Jefferson saw in human ideas the same novel properties that we take for granted with digital data, and he wrote explicitly about his priorities regarding those novel properties: "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation." So the one relevant historical commentary I know from the time is clearly on the side of the person you're responding to. You can't apply the same copyright logic to non-physical things (or more broadly, things for which a recipient can receive a thing without the giver having lost one). And if you try, then free distribution outweighs exclusive rights.

jawns 6y ago
Suppose "c" were true. I invest considerable time, effort, and (possibly) talent to produce a creative work -- let's say a novel. My neighbor purchases my novel and then makes a free copy available to anyone who wants one. Naturally, getting it for free is better than having to pay for it, and so everyone who wants a copy gets theirs for free from my neighbor. And so I sell a total of one copy -- then my book effectively ends up in the public domain. Does it make financial sense for me to write novels under this system? Absolutely not! Creators become disincentivized from producing creative works. The public good suffers as a result. Jefferson's point was that in most cases, Person A's sharing of an idea with Person B doesn't take away anything from Person A. If I know how to tie a necktie and you don't, my teaching you how to tie a necktie doesn't deprive me of that knowledge. It just puts more knowledge into the world, which is a good thing. But there are certainly cases where this is not true. If I run a business and I freely share all my trade secrets with my direct competitor, and they use that knowledge to drive me out of business, that's bad, and it's not what Jefferson is talking about. Similarly, if I'm a creator and depend on sales of my creative works to make a living, giving away all my creative works for free means I've not only screwed myself over, but also I can't continue to produce more creative works, which deprives the public of their benefit. That's why "c" doesn't appear plainly true to me. Copyright is meant to advance the arts and sciences by giving creators a mechanism to be compensated for their efforts for a period of time, while also protecting the public interest by limiting that period of time. Both of those considerations need to be balanced.