45 ms·

I believe the bargain is correct or swayed to the user because people want it for free. the creator should have the sole right to set the terms of use and tran

I believe the bargain is correct or swayed to the user because people want it for free. the creator should have the sole right to set the terms of use and transfer the terms. It is his property.

wtallis 12y ago
Creators can demand whatever terms they want - and they do, as anyone who's read an EULA knows. But creators shouldn't have unrestricted ability to use the public courts to enforce terms that the general public has no interest in aiding the enforcement of.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  If artists want to control their creations forever, they can lock their stuff up in a vault and be cremated with them. If they want to be immortalized as a contributor to the common culture, they will have to relinquish control sooner or later. Otherwise, your creation loses relevance and fades away. Extant copies deteriorate. Collectors lose interest. Your work moves from the paragraph body to the footnotes. Artwork requires a continuous investment of creative energy, otherwise it is replaced by the work of other artists. Museums keep works on display, and encourage patrons to enjoy them as frequently as they are able. Corporations produce series sequels and souvenir merchandise. Artists cross-license their work to creators that work in different media, such as book authors optioning movie rights to film studios. Works in the public domain get remixed into more contemporary works. Characters like Captain Nemo, Dorothy Gale, and Alice (in Wonderland) will never die because anyone who cares to do so can refresh and update their image in the zeitgeist. Take the Norse deity Thor. Would the typical person outside of the Germanic and Scandinavian countries know anything about him if he were not included in non-original stories and artworks, like jewelry, altar carvings, and the eddas? Would anyone care if Marvel did not adopt him into its comic pantheon? Will he enjoy being a woman as much as his adopted brother? The common culture evolves continuously. The laws are in place to encourage participation by folks who would not otherwise be able to expend the effort without compensation. They are not there to wall everything off and put locked gates everywhere. At some point, we need to be able to remember our childhood without paying someone a licensing fee.
  - throwaway1592 12y ago
    If they want to be immortalized as a contributor to the common culture, they will have to relinquish control sooner or later. This doesn't make sense to me. You can allow people to consume your work but not replicate it or consume it for free. The philanthropic nature of the artist is different than his creative ability. copyright contains ownership, control, consumption, usage. It should be for the creator to determine.
vidarh 12y ago
It is not property. That is the entire point of copyright law: That property law does not apply to something intangible. You can not steal something without depriving the owner of use. As such, copyright law established an artificial, temporary monopoly which from the outset it was acknowledged was separate from ownership. And unlike property law, which is frequently (though not universally) seen as codifying "natural" rights to ownership and use, with copyright the bargain is explicit: The copyright holder is granted restrictions on the rights that would otherwise be held by the public as an incentive to contribute to benefit society as a whole. There is no inherent right for a creator of a work to expect society to limit the spread of information for their benefit. To grant copyright, society is limiting our freedom of expression to conjure out of thin air a commercial monopoly. To argue that the bargain is fair is one thing, but confusing copyright with property is something else entirely. > the creator should have the sole right to set the terms of use and transfer the terms. The creator does not have the sole right to set the terms of use and transfer under any jurisdiction today. If you argue for that, you argue for a regime so restrictive that we have never seen its like. What you are implying is even far stricter than what applies to actual property. For example, almost all countries have some system of compulsory licensing. All countries I'm aware of have expiring copyright terms (moves to try to perpetually extend the stated duration notwithstanding). All have exceptions of certain types of copying. All puts limits as to the extent which the creator of a work may limit (even contractually) usage, even in cases where the creator explicitly avoids selling copies and instead merely licenses or leases instances of the work. (E.g. very few jurisdictions would allow the creator of a work to limit use by race or gender). It is up to society to set these restrictions because these rights only exist because of the intervention of society in the first place. If a creator does not accept the bargain with wider society, they are free to never release their work. We are not obliged to support rent seeking - the bargain must be balanced accordingly to make up for the self imposed restrictions on freedom of expression that it creates.

I believe the bargain is correct or swayed to the user because people want it for free. the creator should have the sole right to set the terms of use and transfer the terms. It is his property.

wtallis 12y ago

Creators can demand whatever terms they want - and they do, as anyone who's read an EULA knows. But creators shouldn't have unrestricted ability to use the public courts to enforce terms that the general public has no interest in aiding the enforcement of.

logfromblammo 12y ago
If artists want to control their creations forever, they can lock their stuff up in a vault and be cremated with them. If they want to be immortalized as a contributor to the common culture, they will have to relinquish control sooner or later. Otherwise, your creation loses relevance and fades away. Extant copies deteriorate. Collectors lose interest. Your work moves from the paragraph body to the footnotes. Artwork requires a continuous investment of creative energy, otherwise it is replaced by the work of other artists. Museums keep works on display, and encourage patrons to enjoy them as frequently as they are able. Corporations produce series sequels and souvenir merchandise. Artists cross-license their work to creators that work in different media, such as book authors optioning movie rights to film studios. Works in the public domain get remixed into more contemporary works. Characters like Captain Nemo, Dorothy Gale, and Alice (in Wonderland) will never die because anyone who cares to do so can refresh and update their image in the zeitgeist. Take the Norse deity Thor. Would the typical person outside of the Germanic and Scandinavian countries know anything about him if he were not included in non-original stories and artworks, like jewelry, altar carvings, and the eddas? Would anyone care if Marvel did not adopt him into its comic pantheon? Will he enjoy being a woman as much as his adopted brother? The common culture evolves continuously. The laws are in place to encourage participation by folks who would not otherwise be able to expend the effort without compensation. They are not there to wall everything off and put locked gates everywhere. At some point, we need to be able to remember our childhood without paying someone a licensing fee.
- throwaway1592 12y ago
  If they want to be immortalized as a contributor to the common culture, they will have to relinquish control sooner or later. This doesn't make sense to me. You can allow people to consume your work but not replicate it or consume it for free. The philanthropic nature of the artist is different than his creative ability. copyright contains ownership, control, consumption, usage. It should be for the creator to determine.

vidarh 12y ago

It is not property. That is the entire point of copyright law: That property law does not apply to something intangible. You can not steal something without depriving the owner of use. As such, copyright law established an artificial, temporary monopoly which from the outset it was acknowledged was separate from ownership. And unlike property law, which is frequently (though not universally) seen as codifying "natural" rights to ownership and use, with copyright the bargain is explicit: The copyright holder is granted restrictions on the rights that would otherwise be held by the public as an incentive to contribute to benefit society as a whole. There is no inherent right for a creator of a work to expect society to limit the spread of information for their benefit. To grant copyright, society is limiting our freedom of expression to conjure out of thin air a commercial monopoly. To argue that the bargain is fair is one thing, but confusing copyright with property is something else entirely. > the creator should have the sole right to set the terms of use and transfer the terms. The creator does not have the sole right to set the terms of use and transfer under any jurisdiction today. If you argue for that, you argue for a regime so restrictive that we have never seen its like. What you are implying is even far stricter than what applies to actual property. For example, almost all countries have some system of compulsory licensing. All countries I'm aware of have expiring copyright terms (moves to try to perpetually extend the stated duration notwithstanding). All have exceptions of certain types of copying. All puts limits as to the extent which the creator of a work may limit (even contractually) usage, even in cases where the creator explicitly avoids selling copies and instead merely licenses or leases instances of the work. (E.g. very few jurisdictions would allow the creator of a work to limit use by race or gender). It is up to society to set these restrictions because these rights only exist because of the intervention of society in the first place. If a creator does not accept the bargain with wider society, they are free to never release their work. We are not obliged to support rent seeking - the bargain must be balanced accordingly to make up for the self imposed restrictions on freedom of expression that it creates.