5 ms·

Neither. A copyright literally gives a holder the exclusive “right” to make “copies” of their intellectual property and the right to claim creative ownership.

by dvtrn 6y ago

lovelyviking 6y ago
So why it’s called “right” if it means ownership ?
- eesmith 6y ago
  The original argument was that authors should be seen as the owners of their works, and that ownership is a basic human right. Some of the historical arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166... "The stationers petitioned Parliament for new censorship legislation, and when that failed they argued that authors had a natural and inherent right of ownership in what they wrote (knowing there was little an author could do with such rights other than sign them over to a publisher).[3] This argument persuaded the Parliament and in 1710 the first Copyright Act (8 Anne, c. 19) was enacted." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne > "A Bill for the Encouragement of Learning and for Securing the Property of Copies of Books to the rightful Owners thereof" What is ownership? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership > Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be any asset, including an object, land or real estate, intellectual property, or until the nineteenth century, human beings. .... > Intellectual property (IP) refers to a legal entitlement which sometimes attaches to the expressed form of an idea, or to some other intangible subject matter. This legal entitlement generally enables its holder to exercise exclusive rights of use ... Lastly, ownership is seen as a basic human right. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights_(economics) : > This idea of ownership must be constrained from the views of absolute ownership to a right to use the good within its expected scope of use.[3] Ownership goes beyond the basic notions of property rights to this idea of viewing the ability to own as one of the most basic human rights. I imagine you also have difficulties with "property right", "water right", and "transit rights" (for the last see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air#Transit_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air#Transit_ri... ). In answer to your question, the concept of "rights", like "fundamental human rights", is a human construct, just like "nations". We believe they exist only because we choose to believe they exist. As such, these concepts can be seen as effective propoganda.
  - lovelyviking 6y ago
    > The original argument was that authors should be seen as the owners of their works Sure, but to debunk it the question arises: What “copy” has to do with their work? How it magically becomes part of ownership? It’s a copy by definition, and it stays so as long as it’s not claimed otherwise by someone else, isn’t it? If someone else claims to be the new owner of it and now it’s his original work, then yes, we have attempt to steal ownership, but otherwise it’s a copy! What it has to do with the ownership? The link between those seems to be missing. > and that ownership is a basic human right. Again what a copy has to do with the ownership? Copy is maid by someone else. How controlling what others can think or do with certain ideas can be seen as a ‘basic human right’?
    - eesmith 6y ago
      Again, "ownership" and "rights" are human constructs, meaning that it means what we agree upon that it means. That meaning is embedded in tradition, culture, legal systems, etc. You'll note that all of these are human constructs too. For example, if you "own" land, what does that mean? Can you keep the public from entering? In most places, yes. For example, if someone enters your undeveloped land to go hiking, you may ask the police to force them to leave. But in some countries, members of the public have a "freedom to roam" some types of lands for certain activities - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam . Thus, "ownership" of land clearly has cultural traditions. > If someone else claims to be the new owner of it and now it’s his original work, then yes, we have attempt to steal ownership, but otherwise it’s a copy! What it has to do with the ownership? There are multiple ownerships here. One is the ownership of a physical copy of a book still under copyright. In that case, at least under US law, I own that book. If someone takes it from me, then I may ask the police or court system to help in its return. That ownership gives me an otherwise unrestricted right to re-sell that book as in the US, selling does not make a copy, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine . Indeed, I may rent the use of that book to others, and the copyright owner may not prevent that. However, under US law, the book may contain text and images whose copyright I don't control. Should I make a copy, then the copyright holder may ask the police or court system to help. Compare this to how most software is distributed. You don't actually "buy" a piece of software, you buy a license to use the software, and that license may be withdrawn for reasons which are otherwise not permitted under US law. Furthermore, with a few exceptions, US law prohibits the rental of software. > How controlling what others can think or do with certain ideas can be seen as a ‘basic human right’? How is controlling what others can do with certain property be seen as a '‘basic human right’? That is, what is your definition of a "right", why is ownership not a right, and why can't we decide that creator may have the limited ability to control how others may make copies of a work, and describe that through the term "copyright". All you've said so far is that you don't like it, but your arguments have been vague about why. I really think the missing steps in your understanding is that the missing "magic" is simply "because we decided it's that way", and that "culture" is intrinsically self-perpetuating propaganda. One way to perpetuate a complex idea is to make it be internally (mostly) self-consistent, and couple it with cultural and/or economic benefits that most people think are worthwhile. > what others can think ... with certain ideas In US legal system, ideas are different from the expression or manifestation of those ideas, and the copyright system only covers the latter. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin... . Therefore, copyright does not control how you may think about ideas. FWIW, patent rights give a much broader monopoly protection on "ideas".

Neither. A copyright literally gives a holder the exclusive “right” to make “copies” of their intellectual property and the right to claim creative ownership.

by dvtrn 6y ago

Neither. A copyright literally gives a holder the exclusive “right” to make “copies” of their intellectual property and the right to claim creative ownership.

lovelyviking 6y ago

So why it’s called “right” if it means ownership ?

eesmith 6y ago
The original argument was that authors should be seen as the owners of their works, and that ownership is a basic human right. Some of the historical arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166... "The stationers petitioned Parliament for new censorship legislation, and when that failed they argued that authors had a natural and inherent right of ownership in what they wrote (knowing there was little an author could do with such rights other than sign them over to a publisher).[3] This argument persuaded the Parliament and in 1710 the first Copyright Act (8 Anne, c. 19) was enacted." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne > "A Bill for the Encouragement of Learning and for Securing the Property of Copies of Books to the rightful Owners thereof" What is ownership? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership > Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be any asset, including an object, land or real estate, intellectual property, or until the nineteenth century, human beings. .... > Intellectual property (IP) refers to a legal entitlement which sometimes attaches to the expressed form of an idea, or to some other intangible subject matter. This legal entitlement generally enables its holder to exercise exclusive rights of use ... Lastly, ownership is seen as a basic human right. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights_(economics) : > This idea of ownership must be constrained from the views of absolute ownership to a right to use the good within its expected scope of use.[3] Ownership goes beyond the basic notions of property rights to this idea of viewing the ability to own as one of the most basic human rights. I imagine you also have difficulties with "property right", "water right", and "transit rights" (for the last see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air#Transit_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air#Transit_ri... ). In answer to your question, the concept of "rights", like "fundamental human rights", is a human construct, just like "nations". We believe they exist only because we choose to believe they exist. As such, these concepts can be seen as effective propoganda.
- lovelyviking 6y ago
  > The original argument was that authors should be seen as the owners of their works Sure, but to debunk it the question arises: What “copy” has to do with their work? How it magically becomes part of ownership? It’s a copy by definition, and it stays so as long as it’s not claimed otherwise by someone else, isn’t it? If someone else claims to be the new owner of it and now it’s his original work, then yes, we have attempt to steal ownership, but otherwise it’s a copy! What it has to do with the ownership? The link between those seems to be missing. > and that ownership is a basic human right. Again what a copy has to do with the ownership? Copy is maid by someone else. How controlling what others can think or do with certain ideas can be seen as a ‘basic human right’?
  - eesmith 6y ago
    Again, "ownership" and "rights" are human constructs, meaning that it means what we agree upon that it means. That meaning is embedded in tradition, culture, legal systems, etc. You'll note that all of these are human constructs too. For example, if you "own" land, what does that mean? Can you keep the public from entering? In most places, yes. For example, if someone enters your undeveloped land to go hiking, you may ask the police to force them to leave. But in some countries, members of the public have a "freedom to roam" some types of lands for certain activities - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam . Thus, "ownership" of land clearly has cultural traditions. > If someone else claims to be the new owner of it and now it’s his original work, then yes, we have attempt to steal ownership, but otherwise it’s a copy! What it has to do with the ownership? There are multiple ownerships here. One is the ownership of a physical copy of a book still under copyright. In that case, at least under US law, I own that book. If someone takes it from me, then I may ask the police or court system to help in its return. That ownership gives me an otherwise unrestricted right to re-sell that book as in the US, selling does not make a copy, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine . Indeed, I may rent the use of that book to others, and the copyright owner may not prevent that. However, under US law, the book may contain text and images whose copyright I don't control. Should I make a copy, then the copyright holder may ask the police or court system to help. Compare this to how most software is distributed. You don't actually "buy" a piece of software, you buy a license to use the software, and that license may be withdrawn for reasons which are otherwise not permitted under US law. Furthermore, with a few exceptions, US law prohibits the rental of software. > How controlling what others can think or do with certain ideas can be seen as a ‘basic human right’? How is controlling what others can do with certain property be seen as a '‘basic human right’? That is, what is your definition of a "right", why is ownership not a right, and why can't we decide that creator may have the limited ability to control how others may make copies of a work, and describe that through the term "copyright". All you've said so far is that you don't like it, but your arguments have been vague about why. I really think the missing steps in your understanding is that the missing "magic" is simply "because we decided it's that way", and that "culture" is intrinsically self-perpetuating propaganda. One way to perpetuate a complex idea is to make it be internally (mostly) self-consistent, and couple it with cultural and/or economic benefits that most people think are worthwhile. > what others can think ... with certain ideas In US legal system, ideas are different from the expression or manifestation of those ideas, and the copyright system only covers the latter. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin... . Therefore, copyright does not control how you may think about ideas. FWIW, patent rights give a much broader monopoly protection on "ideas".