3 ms·

Another way to say that first part is that after a certain amount of time the government strips away your control over your own creation.

chgs 2y ago
Nobody is taking away your copy.
justinsaccount 2y ago
You say "your control" as if that current "certain amount of time" was not after you had already been dead for 70 years.
stubish 2y ago
Yes, the copyright laws setup in the 18th century and since are all about protecting creator rights. But the other half of the equation is consumer rights. Consumer rights tend to get trodden down in the name of profit, so we now have the situation where you have to pay rent on your own cultural heritage. Or can't even do that, when creators or censors have removed or altered media that helped form your adolescent mind.
justinclift 2y ago
Yes. Is contributing your creation to society - something you live in and benefit from - something you don't like?
hn_acker 2y ago
No, in the US the purpose of copyright is to incentivize creation of creative works for the long-term public benefit [1]. The rights to control what others do with your copyrighted works are a means to the end, a temporary price for future unexclusive public access. (The Copyright Clause gives Congress authority to pass copyright statutes, but the First Amendment theoretically "amends" the Copyright Clause and takes priority over any copyright statutes. In the US, fair use was a necessary common law measure made into statutory law to align copyright with the First Amendment.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
AndrewDucker 2y ago
You only have that control because of the government. Without the chunk of the legal system devoted to it you wouldn't have any control of your own creation at all.
- mnau 2y ago
  You can say the same thing about physical stuff. The whole ownership concept is a mental construct, enforced by our government.
  - chgs 2y ago
    If I take your physical thing away you are left without that thing. If I copy your thing you still have your thing. While property ownership and restrictions on being able to say or write something are both constructs governments apply, they are very different principals
    - mnau 2y ago
      Ultimately they rely on same principle: this is mine. I made this, it's product of my work. It's mine to do as I please. Government made laws to put this into practice. Edit: Ultimately, to say you don't protect IP in some reasonable form is to say only work that produces physical stuff has value and is worth protecting. That all thinking is not a work worth protecting. It's not like there weren't systems trying to make a different concept of material ownership. Communal ownership mean the thing is never yours in the first place. You never owned and thus it was never taken away. It mostly didn't work.

chgs 2y ago

Nobody is taking away your copy.

justinsaccount 2y ago

You say "your control" as if that current "certain amount of time" was not after you had already been dead for 70 years.

stubish 2y ago

Yes, the copyright laws setup in the 18th century and since are all about protecting creator rights. But the other half of the equation is consumer rights. Consumer rights tend to get trodden down in the name of profit, so we now have the situation where you have to pay rent on your own cultural heritage. Or can't even do that, when creators or censors have removed or altered media that helped form your adolescent mind.

justinclift 2y ago

Yes. Is contributing your creation to society - something you live in and benefit from - something you don't like?

hn_acker 2y ago

No, in the US the purpose of copyright is to incentivize creation of creative works for the long-term public benefit [1]. The rights to control what others do with your copyrighted works are a means to the end, a temporary price for future unexclusive public access. (The Copyright Clause gives Congress authority to pass copyright statutes, but the First Amendment theoretically "amends" the Copyright Clause and takes priority over any copyright statutes. In the US, fair use was a necessary common law measure made into statutory law to align copyright with the First Amendment.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

AndrewDucker 2y ago

You only have that control because of the government. Without the chunk of the legal system devoted to it you wouldn't have any control of your own creation at all.

mnau 2y ago
You can say the same thing about physical stuff. The whole ownership concept is a mental construct, enforced by our government.
- chgs 2y ago
  If I take your physical thing away you are left without that thing. If I copy your thing you still have your thing. While property ownership and restrictions on being able to say or write something are both constructs governments apply, they are very different principals
  - mnau 2y ago
    Ultimately they rely on same principle: this is mine. I made this, it's product of my work. It's mine to do as I please. Government made laws to put this into practice. Edit: Ultimately, to say you don't protect IP in some reasonable form is to say only work that produces physical stuff has value and is worth protecting. That all thinking is not a work worth protecting. It's not like there weren't systems trying to make a different concept of material ownership. Communal ownership mean the thing is never yours in the first place. You never owned and thus it was never taken away. It mostly didn't work.