5 ms·

If you create something, it belongs to you. I guess somebody didn't learn this lesson in kindergarten, and still wants to whine and complain in an effort to ef

by javert 14y ago

If you create something, it belongs to you. I guess somebody didn't learn this lesson in kindergarten, and still wants to whine and complain in an effort to effectively nationalize what is rightfully private property.

imichael 14y ago
I suppose you begin to learn what is ethical and what isn't in kindergarten. What's legal is an entirely different matter. Copyright is just a government regulation.
CamperBob2 14y ago
"Hey, wait, get your own dirt." -- God. "Hey, wait, get your own ideas." -- Society.
- minopret 14y ago
  In theory it's the distinctive manner of expressing ideas that is protected. We know that in practice it's complicated.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    Point being, Fitzgerald did not, and could not, do his work in a vacuum. Copyright has to be a limited bargain, or else it amounts to cultural theft.
crabasa 14y ago
I'm not sure what you were taught in school, but there are massive differences between physical property and intellectual property. The very notion of intellectual property, the assignment of rights and their enforcement by governments is quite new: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law
pfranz 14y ago
The original purpose of IP laws are an agreement with society that the author would get a temporary monopoly (including legal protection) in exchange donating it society after a reasonable amount of time. The alternative is keeping it a trade secret, which can restrict what you can do with your idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
VictorHugo 14y ago
I believe you to be using my private property without permission.
- javert 14y ago
  That's actually pretty funny. If there were owners of VH's IP who were opposed to this kind of casual use, I'd have no problem using a different handle. Unless the name is also generic French name, I'm not sure if it is or not.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    You should look up Andrew Joseph Galambos (who changed his name from Joseph Andrew Galambos as to not infringe on his father's "property"), I'm sure you'll like his thoughts on the issue. Meanwhile, I leave you this: http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
kristopolous 14y ago
Why should MY tax dollars be used to enforce YOUR copyright? If you want to protect it, go hire your own police and build your own courts; stop using mine.
- javert 14y ago
  I pay taxes, too. In an ideal society, I wouldn't be opposed to those seeking copyright enforcement paying the costs, although the costs would presumably eventually be passed on to the infringers. We will never see such a society in our lifetimes, though, so it's a somewhat moot point.
stellar678 14y ago
That is a very simplistic take on the issue at hand. Most people will agree that a limited-scope copyright makes sense as a way to incentivize production of creative works. But there is nothing inherent or "rightfully" private property about things you create - it's a right granted by governments in order to promote creative behavior that is seen as good for society at large. The 20th and 21st centuries have seen giant entertainment industries lobbying for an ever-expanding copyright term. (Some people say endless, because it has expanded faster than time has passed.) In addition, they have successfully created a cultural belief that physical property and intellectual property should be treated the same despite the fact that they are inherently different. (When I take your wallet you no longer have it, but when I take your ideas we both have them.) If anything, the 20th century saw a massive effort to privatize our shared public culture as it was created. You can make the argument that we are better off as a result of this privatization, but it's simply incorrect to frame this as people trying to nationalize what is inherently private property.
gte910h 14y ago
No, that's not true. In the US, we've chosen to give you a time limited monopoly to commercially develop many types of art you express, but in no way is it naturally yours. We are allowed to copy the ever living hell out of it for a large number of reasons from the second it's made.
derleth 14y ago
"That's my hole, boy. What the fuck is your dirt doing in my hole? Get your fucking dirt out of my hole right fucking now!" Anyone can claim ownership of anything. Doesn't make it so.
Aloisius 14y ago
Show me a truly original creative work and I'll side with you, but since nearly every creative work is derivative in one form or another, it is important to have a large public domain to draw "inspiration" from.
- sethrin 14y ago
  I wrote an opera in a language I made up, using a scale and chords of my own invention, which obviously can only be played on instrumentation that I have devised. It's very nice, but now I need to find some viewers who have been kept in sensory deprivation their entire lives in order to truly detach my work from cultural context. Whenever that happens I am sure I will sell many tickets. No creative work has value unless it is substantially derivative.
fchollet 14y ago
In parent's profile: obligatory Ayn Rand-related quote...
bgilroy26 14y ago
As I am always reminding the neighborhood kindergarteners: One day you will die and on that day you will lose everything you have.
Zigurd 14y ago
In the US, the federal constitution was written from the point of view that you have rights, and that the government has enumerated powers. Except for one thing: limited term monopolies. That right is granted by the government. It's not considered a natural right. One of these rights is not like the others. One of these rights is not the same. Can you guess which right...?
- javert 14y ago
  I don't look to the Constitution to determine what is right and wrong.
noonespecial 14y ago
I suspect this "Fitzgerald" fellow copied every single one of those words in his "book" from the dictionary. None of it belongs to him. "Belonging to" is just what we agree on together for a short time. In the end, everyone dies and no one gets to keep anything.
- kristopolous 14y ago
  I know this isn't a very HN thing to do, but ... relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIN4tC5Zwx0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIN4tC5Zwx0
  - noonespecial 14y ago
    I was trying to remember where I'd seen that and just couldn't put my finger on it. And there it is! thanks.
bediger4000 14y ago
Under that theory, how do we (society) handle duplicate invention? It happens a lot more than you might think: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160 Also, consider KMP string matching algorithm. Who owns that idea?
- GFischer 14y ago
  Duplicate inventions happen all the time: Mendeleev (Mendeleyev) spent part of his life re-discovering and re-inventing stuff... because most of the inventions and discoveries took time to spread to his native Russia. And Mendeleev's own Periodic Table was re-discovered :) by Lothar Meyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_periodic_table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_periodic_table
darkarmani 14y ago
> what is rightfully private property If it was private then no one would have the ability to copy it. If you keep your works private, you get infinite copyright.
- skore 14y ago
  That's the most insightful answer to the nonsense spouted by the Randist above. If you care so much about your "private property", keep it entirely to yourself. That's maximum "security". 'But wait', says the "owner" - 'I want to make money off of it!' Ah! Well, you're saying you want to introduce it to society? You want to have something of that societal construct of "money" in return for your private property? 'Yes, I worked very hard for this and it should be obvious that I deserve to be rewarded!' And of course you should! So, let's see, you really did something great there, here is a thing for you: "Copyright Protection". We like your work so much, that we want you to be the only one in control of making profit from it for a long time. 'But I want more!' Alright, actually, we want you to be that person as long as you live. 'But I want more!' What, you mean more than... for life? Sheesh, alright, just because it's you: Society will extend it for you for decades after you have died. 'But I want more!' Sheesh, alright, let's say we add some mucky legal stuff where you can name rights-holders who can "protect" your copyrights far beyond those limits, proportional to how much money you put into it. 'But I want more!' Wait a second - what more do you want? 'I want forever. I also want all the money. For me and mine and myself.' Well, turns out, you're just a mortal like all the other humans that make up the society that you are so happy to profit from in blissfully ignorant entitlement and so unwilling to give back to in return. Should have kept it to yourself.
belorn 14y ago
Copyright is not private property. Its a state granted privilege of exclusivity which prevent everyone except the author to exercise their rights of private property of books, paintings and other works of art or information.

by javert 14y ago

imichael 14y ago

I suppose you begin to learn what is ethical and what isn't in kindergarten. What's legal is an entirely different matter. Copyright is just a government regulation.

CamperBob2 14y ago

"Hey, wait, get your own dirt." -- God. "Hey, wait, get your own ideas." -- Society.

minopret 14y ago
In theory it's the distinctive manner of expressing ideas that is protected. We know that in practice it's complicated.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  Point being, Fitzgerald did not, and could not, do his work in a vacuum. Copyright has to be a limited bargain, or else it amounts to cultural theft.

crabasa 14y ago

I'm not sure what you were taught in school, but there are massive differences between physical property and intellectual property. The very notion of intellectual property, the assignment of rights and their enforcement by governments is quite new: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law

pfranz 14y ago

The original purpose of IP laws are an agreement with society that the author would get a temporary monopoly (including legal protection) in exchange donating it society after a reasonable amount of time. The alternative is keeping it a trade secret, which can restrict what you can do with your idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

VictorHugo 14y ago

I believe you to be using my private property without permission.

javert 14y ago
That's actually pretty funny. If there were owners of VH's IP who were opposed to this kind of casual use, I'd have no problem using a different handle. Unless the name is also generic French name, I'm not sure if it is or not.
- icebraining 14y ago
  You should look up Andrew Joseph Galambos (who changed his name from Joseph Andrew Galambos as to not infringe on his father's "property"), I'm sure you'll like his thoughts on the issue. Meanwhile, I leave you this: http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

kristopolous 14y ago

Why should MY tax dollars be used to enforce YOUR copyright? If you want to protect it, go hire your own police and build your own courts; stop using mine.

javert 14y ago
I pay taxes, too. In an ideal society, I wouldn't be opposed to those seeking copyright enforcement paying the costs, although the costs would presumably eventually be passed on to the infringers. We will never see such a society in our lifetimes, though, so it's a somewhat moot point.

stellar678 14y ago

That is a very simplistic take on the issue at hand. Most people will agree that a limited-scope copyright makes sense as a way to incentivize production of creative works. But there is nothing inherent or "rightfully" private property about things you create - it's a right granted by governments in order to promote creative behavior that is seen as good for society at large. The 20th and 21st centuries have seen giant entertainment industries lobbying for an ever-expanding copyright term. (Some people say endless, because it has expanded faster than time has passed.) In addition, they have successfully created a cultural belief that physical property and intellectual property should be treated the same despite the fact that they are inherently different. (When I take your wallet you no longer have it, but when I take your ideas we both have them.) If anything, the 20th century saw a massive effort to privatize our shared public culture as it was created. You can make the argument that we are better off as a result of this privatization, but it's simply incorrect to frame this as people trying to nationalize what is inherently private property.

gte910h 14y ago

No, that's not true. In the US, we've chosen to give you a time limited monopoly to commercially develop many types of art you express, but in no way is it naturally yours. We are allowed to copy the ever living hell out of it for a large number of reasons from the second it's made.

derleth 14y ago

"That's my hole, boy. What the fuck is your dirt doing in my hole? Get your fucking dirt out of my hole right fucking now!" Anyone can claim ownership of anything. Doesn't make it so.

Aloisius 14y ago

Show me a truly original creative work and I'll side with you, but since nearly every creative work is derivative in one form or another, it is important to have a large public domain to draw "inspiration" from.

sethrin 14y ago
I wrote an opera in a language I made up, using a scale and chords of my own invention, which obviously can only be played on instrumentation that I have devised. It's very nice, but now I need to find some viewers who have been kept in sensory deprivation their entire lives in order to truly detach my work from cultural context. Whenever that happens I am sure I will sell many tickets. No creative work has value unless it is substantially derivative.

fchollet 14y ago

In parent's profile: obligatory Ayn Rand-related quote...

bgilroy26 14y ago

As I am always reminding the neighborhood kindergarteners: One day you will die and on that day you will lose everything you have.

Zigurd 14y ago

In the US, the federal constitution was written from the point of view that you have rights, and that the government has enumerated powers. Except for one thing: limited term monopolies. That right is granted by the government. It's not considered a natural right. One of these rights is not like the others. One of these rights is not the same. Can you guess which right...?

javert 14y ago
I don't look to the Constitution to determine what is right and wrong.

noonespecial 14y ago

I suspect this "Fitzgerald" fellow copied every single one of those words in his "book" from the dictionary. None of it belongs to him. "Belonging to" is just what we agree on together for a short time. In the end, everyone dies and no one gets to keep anything.

kristopolous 14y ago
I know this isn't a very HN thing to do, but ... relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIN4tC5Zwx0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIN4tC5Zwx0
- noonespecial 14y ago
  I was trying to remember where I'd seen that and just couldn't put my finger on it. And there it is! thanks.

bediger4000 14y ago

Under that theory, how do we (society) handle duplicate invention? It happens a lot more than you might think: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160 Also, consider KMP string matching algorithm. Who owns that idea?

GFischer 14y ago
Duplicate inventions happen all the time: Mendeleev (Mendeleyev) spent part of his life re-discovering and re-inventing stuff... because most of the inventions and discoveries took time to spread to his native Russia. And Mendeleev's own Periodic Table was re-discovered :) by Lothar Meyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_periodic_table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_periodic_table

darkarmani 14y ago

> what is rightfully private property If it was private then no one would have the ability to copy it. If you keep your works private, you get infinite copyright.

skore 14y ago
That's the most insightful answer to the nonsense spouted by the Randist above. If you care so much about your "private property", keep it entirely to yourself. That's maximum "security". 'But wait', says the "owner" - 'I want to make money off of it!' Ah! Well, you're saying you want to introduce it to society? You want to have something of that societal construct of "money" in return for your private property? 'Yes, I worked very hard for this and it should be obvious that I deserve to be rewarded!' And of course you should! So, let's see, you really did something great there, here is a thing for you: "Copyright Protection". We like your work so much, that we want you to be the only one in control of making profit from it for a long time. 'But I want more!' Alright, actually, we want you to be that person as long as you live. 'But I want more!' What, you mean more than... for life? Sheesh, alright, just because it's you: Society will extend it for you for decades after you have died. 'But I want more!' Sheesh, alright, let's say we add some mucky legal stuff where you can name rights-holders who can "protect" your copyrights far beyond those limits, proportional to how much money you put into it. 'But I want more!' Wait a second - what more do you want? 'I want forever. I also want all the money. For me and mine and myself.' Well, turns out, you're just a mortal like all the other humans that make up the society that you are so happy to profit from in blissfully ignorant entitlement and so unwilling to give back to in return. Should have kept it to yourself.

belorn 14y ago

Copyright is not private property. Its a state granted privilege of exclusivity which prevent everyone except the author to exercise their rights of private property of books, paintings and other works of art or information.