4 ms·

"They were given the copyright only with the limitation that it would expire someday. You have the argument backwards." Maybe not, if it's something I invent o

"They were given the copyright only with the limitation that it would expire someday. You have the argument backwards." Maybe not, if it's something I invent or write, why does someone have to give me rights over it? They shouldn't take them instead... "shall not." I understand how the constitution is written but

darkarmani 14y ago
> why does someone have to give me rights over it? They don't have to give you rights over it. You already get all of the natural rights associated with it. What you don't get is the additional right to prevent other people from using it or copying it until a government gives you that right. Restricting other people is an artificial construct and that is enforced by the government. This is artificial scarcity unlike property rights where ownership naturally deprives someone else of the property. Ideally, the government only grants you a limited (time) monopoly in exchange for incentivizing people to create. If we aren't going to get anything in exchange, why should we grant you additional rights?
- OGinparadise 14y ago
  "What you don't get is the additional right to prevent other people from using it or copying it until a government gives you that right." If you can copy my code /book or whatnot what rights do I have? Almost none. If there was no government, I could kill you for it to maybe scare others. > "This is artificial scarcity unlike property rights where ownership naturally deprives someone else of the property." Can I use your house while you are away? On the nightstand, I'll leave $5 or whatever the wear and tear might be for the night. Or "clone" Coca Cola? They can keep theirs
  - itsybitsycoder 14y ago
    You absolutely can clone Coca Cola, if you can figure out the recipe. Unless you violate an NDA doing so, there'd be nothing illegal about it.
  - darkarmani 14y ago
    > Can I use your house while you are away? On the nightstand, I'll leave $5 or whatever the wear and tear might be for the night. Ah, see?--"while i am away". Possession of tangible items deprives someone else the use of it. There is no such natural limitation on ideas or expression of ideas. It requires additional government "interference" before ideas and expression are made to be scarce. > If you can copy my code /book or whatnot what rights do I have? Exactly! Additional rights are granted by the government, not taken away. You possess the original copy. Why would you assume to have an additional rights? If you don't want people to copy it, don't let them see it.
    - OGinparadise 14y ago
      Ah, see?--"while i am away". Possession of tangible items deprives someone else the use of it. There is no such natural limitation on ideas or expression of ideas. It requires additional government "interference" before ideas and expression are made to be scarce. You are not using your home anyway and I was gonna pay the wear and tear. Better for the public good, hell, maybe I get some great ideas while I sit on Bill Gates' porch ;) "Possession of tangible items deprives someone else the use of it." If no one can legally copy my book (or my grandfather's book) I had a better chance of making money from it; if it's free fewer people will buy a copy (we can all agree to that.) If the government says that now I no longer have copyright, how aren't I deprived of something? Some people leave homes, estates, gold coins, stocks, others leave books or songs. Roy Disney's family is a live and well, and so is Disney Inc, and to me it seems unfair to them to lose Mickey Mouse
      - darkarmani 14y ago
        > If no one can legally copy my book (or my grandfather's book) I had a better chance of making money from it; if it's free fewer people will buy a copy (we can all agree to that.) Of course. But if you want to base fairness on your chances to make money, just ask the government to force people to give you money instead of this convoluted IP situation. > If the government says that now I no longer have copyright, how aren't I deprived of something? I'm not sure how you can say you are deprived of something because they "only" gave you a 90 year copyright. It's like saying someone deprived you of money because they only gave you a million dollars not an infinite supply.
kbolino 14y ago
Maybe not, if it's something I invent or write, why does someone have to give me rights over it? You do not control the neurons in other people's brains. If you share an idea, it is as much theirs as yours. If someone produces something based upon that idea, you cannot rightly take it from them because the thing itself was never yours. There is no way to enforce IP without undermining physical property rights. They shouldn't take them instead... "shall not." Sidestepping the issue of espionage, nobody is "taking" anything from you. In virtually all of the cases that attract attention, IP was intentionally shared. If you publish a book, you can't rightly turn around and yell at someone for reading it. Futhermore, producing a copy of a work does not deprive any of its existing possessors. I understand how the constitution is written It's the why that matters. You are looking at this from the perspective that IP rights are negative rights (= freedoms), when they are clearly not. When you recognize that IP rights are positive rights (= privileges), then you will see that the authors of the Constitution were being generous in affording this protection, which in the "life, liberty, [physical] property" framework you would otherwise not have. It is better to think that you do not "own" IP, but rather hold it in trust for the public, and in the interim, you get to reap some benefit as recompense for your creative contribution.

darkarmani 14y ago

> why does someone have to give me rights over it? They don't have to give you rights over it. You already get all of the natural rights associated with it. What you don't get is the additional right to prevent other people from using it or copying it until a government gives you that right. Restricting other people is an artificial construct and that is enforced by the government. This is artificial scarcity unlike property rights where ownership naturally deprives someone else of the property. Ideally, the government only grants you a limited (time) monopoly in exchange for incentivizing people to create. If we aren't going to get anything in exchange, why should we grant you additional rights?

OGinparadise 14y ago
"What you don't get is the additional right to prevent other people from using it or copying it until a government gives you that right." If you can copy my code /book or whatnot what rights do I have? Almost none. If there was no government, I could kill you for it to maybe scare others. > "This is artificial scarcity unlike property rights where ownership naturally deprives someone else of the property." Can I use your house while you are away? On the nightstand, I'll leave $5 or whatever the wear and tear might be for the night. Or "clone" Coca Cola? They can keep theirs
- itsybitsycoder 14y ago
  You absolutely can clone Coca Cola, if you can figure out the recipe. Unless you violate an NDA doing so, there'd be nothing illegal about it.
- darkarmani 14y ago
  > Can I use your house while you are away? On the nightstand, I'll leave $5 or whatever the wear and tear might be for the night. Ah, see?--"while i am away". Possession of tangible items deprives someone else the use of it. There is no such natural limitation on ideas or expression of ideas. It requires additional government "interference" before ideas and expression are made to be scarce. > If you can copy my code /book or whatnot what rights do I have? Exactly! Additional rights are granted by the government, not taken away. You possess the original copy. Why would you assume to have an additional rights? If you don't want people to copy it, don't let them see it.
  - OGinparadise 14y ago
    Ah, see?--"while i am away". Possession of tangible items deprives someone else the use of it. There is no such natural limitation on ideas or expression of ideas. It requires additional government "interference" before ideas and expression are made to be scarce. You are not using your home anyway and I was gonna pay the wear and tear. Better for the public good, hell, maybe I get some great ideas while I sit on Bill Gates' porch ;) "Possession of tangible items deprives someone else the use of it." If no one can legally copy my book (or my grandfather's book) I had a better chance of making money from it; if it's free fewer people will buy a copy (we can all agree to that.) If the government says that now I no longer have copyright, how aren't I deprived of something? Some people leave homes, estates, gold coins, stocks, others leave books or songs. Roy Disney's family is a live and well, and so is Disney Inc, and to me it seems unfair to them to lose Mickey Mouse
    - darkarmani 14y ago
      > If no one can legally copy my book (or my grandfather's book) I had a better chance of making money from it; if it's free fewer people will buy a copy (we can all agree to that.) Of course. But if you want to base fairness on your chances to make money, just ask the government to force people to give you money instead of this convoluted IP situation. > If the government says that now I no longer have copyright, how aren't I deprived of something? I'm not sure how you can say you are deprived of something because they "only" gave you a 90 year copyright. It's like saying someone deprived you of money because they only gave you a million dollars not an infinite supply.

kbolino 14y ago

Maybe not, if it's something I invent or write, why does someone have to give me rights over it? You do not control the neurons in other people's brains. If you share an idea, it is as much theirs as yours. If someone produces something based upon that idea, you cannot rightly take it from them because the thing itself was never yours. There is no way to enforce IP without undermining physical property rights. They shouldn't take them instead... "shall not." Sidestepping the issue of espionage, nobody is "taking" anything from you. In virtually all of the cases that attract attention, IP was intentionally shared. If you publish a book, you can't rightly turn around and yell at someone for reading it. Futhermore, producing a copy of a work does not deprive any of its existing possessors. I understand how the constitution is written It's the why that matters. You are looking at this from the perspective that IP rights are negative rights (= freedoms), when they are clearly not. When you recognize that IP rights are positive rights (= privileges), then you will see that the authors of the Constitution were being generous in affording this protection, which in the "life, liberty, [physical] property" framework you would otherwise not have. It is better to think that you do not "own" IP, but rather hold it in trust for the public, and in the interim, you get to reap some benefit as recompense for your creative contribution.