4 ms·

Property, in the legal sense of the word, refers not to a particular scarce resource, but rather to a state-acknowledged bundle of exclusive rights that an indi

Property, in the legal sense of the word, refers not to a particular scarce resource, but rather to a state-acknowledged bundle of exclusive rights that an individual may be recognized to hold over said resource. State acknowledgement of real and personal property, <b>combined with the rule of law</b>, are the basis of the stability of, and therefore prosperity of, the so-called 'first world'. Trying to extend these metaphors to intellectual property, to build fences around knowledge, without seriously rethinking the fundamental differences between ideas and manifest things, quickly generates absurdity. Should every teacher that I've ever had be entitled to some portion of the value that I am able to create applying the ideas that they have imparted to me? Did they create those ideas in the first place? I believe people should be able to make a living from their work. That said, copyright is not an incorruptible shield-maiden descended from the heavens to defend creators. Copyright, among other things, makes legal interest portable. This has many upsides for the clever and the brave, but it also allows the naive and unwary to be fleeced, as the depressing nursing homes full of dirt-poor hit song writers could attest.

vannevar 14y ago
To elaborate, copyright has always been primarily for the economic benefit of distributors, and only rationalized as a benefit for creators. Tolerating the occasional absurdity was understandable when distribution was capital-intensive and economic incentives were needed, but now that distribution is nearly free, our expanding copyright law only serves to incentivize marketing, an activity of questionable social benefit that hardly needs encouragement.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Copyright has always been primarily for the economic benefit of distributors, and only rationalized as a benefit for creators This statement is sort of nonsense. Copyright has always been exploited by groups of people formed to exploit it. Yes. But its "purpose" is and was independent of such.[1] The problem is that these groups are now re-writing laws to entrench their business interests as public policy. The "purpose" needs to be seperated more clearly. (1)It is independent of "copyright" per se, as a strategy; and (2) it is independent of any particular implementation of that strategy via law or fiat. The point of noting these differences is that in order to solve these problems they need to be framed more pecisely and more clearly. That's not to say I agree or disagree with the direction you are proposing. And I think you are dimensionalizing the problem in useful ways and at the right level of abstraction. Notes ______________ [1] As a point of history, copyright predates the industrial revolution. And thus predates widespread organizing economic actors as corporations. Authors and independent professionals were in a much different position in society, and corporations were relatively few, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law
  - vannevar 14y ago
    Your Wikipedia reference begins with "The history of copyright law starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books." Not 'authors of books'. Printers. Why? Because printing books was expensive, and printers needed some assurance they were going to have a monopoly if they were going to invest the money. How is that in any way contradictory to my statement?
    - 001sky 14y ago
      and only rationalized as a benefit for creators The public policy goal is to spread knowledge. If the printing is a critical step, it needs to get done. You're conflating ends and means. It was eg the guttenburg bible that increased the spread of literacy and the use of vernacular language in european history, right? Ergo Dante: Inferno etc. In other words, this is constructive criticism. I'm not slighting your observations. The point is that the public policy goal which makes copyright "poltically correct", needs to be articulated clearly and benchmarked for performance. Even in your formulation, it is this what shields it from reform. That's the end [or not]. And so, then the question is: what means [x from the set X] do we pick? Well, we need to look at all the alternatives. The, its ends<=>means + some thought optimaztion or "natural selection" or whatever. Is a different framework.
      - 001sky 14y ago
        Its a fair question to ask: Since the original dynamics were set in place, we don't need to print books, since we don't need capital to distribute recordings, etc should we re-evaluate in light of this.

vannevar 14y ago

To elaborate, copyright has always been primarily for the economic benefit of distributors, and only rationalized as a benefit for creators. Tolerating the occasional absurdity was understandable when distribution was capital-intensive and economic incentives were needed, but now that distribution is nearly free, our expanding copyright law only serves to incentivize marketing, an activity of questionable social benefit that hardly needs encouragement.

001sky 14y ago
Copyright has always been primarily for the economic benefit of distributors, and only rationalized as a benefit for creators This statement is sort of nonsense. Copyright has always been exploited by groups of people formed to exploit it. Yes. But its "purpose" is and was independent of such.[1] The problem is that these groups are now re-writing laws to entrench their business interests as public policy. The "purpose" needs to be seperated more clearly. (1)It is independent of "copyright" per se, as a strategy; and (2) it is independent of any particular implementation of that strategy via law or fiat. The point of noting these differences is that in order to solve these problems they need to be framed more pecisely and more clearly. That's not to say I agree or disagree with the direction you are proposing. And I think you are dimensionalizing the problem in useful ways and at the right level of abstraction. Notes ______________ [1] As a point of history, copyright predates the industrial revolution. And thus predates widespread organizing economic actors as corporations. Authors and independent professionals were in a much different position in society, and corporations were relatively few, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law
- vannevar 14y ago
  Your Wikipedia reference begins with "The history of copyright law starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books." Not 'authors of books'. Printers. Why? Because printing books was expensive, and printers needed some assurance they were going to have a monopoly if they were going to invest the money. How is that in any way contradictory to my statement?
  - 001sky 14y ago
    and only rationalized as a benefit for creators The public policy goal is to spread knowledge. If the printing is a critical step, it needs to get done. You're conflating ends and means. It was eg the guttenburg bible that increased the spread of literacy and the use of vernacular language in european history, right? Ergo Dante: Inferno etc. In other words, this is constructive criticism. I'm not slighting your observations. The point is that the public policy goal which makes copyright "poltically correct", needs to be articulated clearly and benchmarked for performance. Even in your formulation, it is this what shields it from reform. That's the end [or not]. And so, then the question is: what means [x from the set X] do we pick? Well, we need to look at all the alternatives. The, its ends<=>means + some thought optimaztion or "natural selection" or whatever. Is a different framework.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      Its a fair question to ask: Since the original dynamics were set in place, we don't need to print books, since we don't need capital to distribute recordings, etc should we re-evaluate in light of this.