M
mwic
Guest
Lots of good stuff in here, Fairwinds. I’ll probably break my responses into a few posts.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
its a length of time that balances private interests with public benefit. where you put the fulcrum is a matter of policy, guided by constitutional privileges.Lots of good stuff in here, Fairwinds. I’ll probably break my responses into a few posts.
This is what establishes that the US is supposed to be a World B. i.e.:
Creative works are not property, but are treated as (metaphorically) similar-to-property for a period of time. The length of time is calibrated to that value that most benefits the public.
but still subject to civil law, penalties, forfeitures, damages.US v LaMacchia made this explicit, clarifying that copyright infringement is not theft, and therefore that noncommercial copying was not criminal.
those are good points, but recall that not all trespasses, even intentional ones, are criminal.This necessitated (from the point of view of World C) the No Electronic Theft Act, establishing criminal penalties even in the absence of commercial gain. Think “FBI Warning”
Note: if unauthorized copying were theft, there would have been no reason to pass the NET Act, because the existing criminal theft statutes would suffice.
the disney copyrights on its movies are due to expire sometime, before which time it will successfully lobby congress for another extension. but this isn’t of particular importance, they’re just movies. and as someone else has pointed out, they’re all still available for viewing. they just don’t fall into the public domain. you just can’t make a Micky Mouse cartoon. any harm to the public in extending those copyrights is trivial compared to, e.g., a drug patent. these have to expire in a shorter time so that other companies can manufacture and market the drug at a lower cost (no research investment to recoup). moreover.Yes, the success of these efforts indicates that we’re actually a World-C society.
I’m curious what you mean by “fortunately, disney is an entertainment company”. It seems that you think – along with Rete and thewanderer – that entertainment is not a basic human need, and therefore the term is (per LilyM) “a matter of prudential judgment”.
sure, you could add or withdraw things (or people) from the definition of property. property is better understood as a bundle of rights:right to own, right to possess the tangible or intangible; the right to do this temporarily or permanently; rights that can be revoked, rights to sell or not sell, rights held with other people. specific kinds of property requires specific definitions, rather than the popular image of a Ford, or bottle of wine. I suspect the OP is struggling with this.Only in casual conversation. Even if it were legally codified as property, the underlying ethics of it would not change. Africans were “considered property” for a long time too.
and there’s nothing new about intangible or conditional property rights. I could sell you my accounts recoverable or make you heir to my estate provided that you outlive my beagle.
I suggest to you that there are competing interests, companies who want to extend the protected time, the public advocates who want to contract that protection. the best world view is one that balances the two – again, where the fulcrum fall depends on factors like, how important is the product, how difficult is it to produce, many fact and ethics based issues.But I find that people often advance World A principles (“the fruits of one’s labor”) or World B principles (“a matter of prudential judgment”) without realizing they are defending a World C system.
good conversation, well thought out points.
R
Rete
Guest
Property is not a bundle of rights. It is an object to which we recognize natural rights associated with an owner. Information is not an object. It lacks the same properties of physical objects which necessitate property rights in the first place. So it’s obviously not property.
The sin involved would be to deny a person a fair wage or salary. Except copyrights are hardly the only way society can compensate artists. And in the case of research and patents on life-saving medications, it’s intrinsically evil to maintain the current system.
If what you say is true about property being nothing more than a bundle of rights, then we were morally wrong to end the institution of slavery, since those people were legally the property of American citizens, and that property was stolen from them. But we don’t think that because we refuse to recognize the idea that a human being is property of any one other than God. The reason they truly are not property is that they too lack the fundamental traits of actual property.
You know you are stretching the word property beyond recognition when your definition entails fundamentally immoral behavior, such as creating an artificial scarcity in life-saving medications for profit. It’s easy to focus on music because it’s a luxury item. But you can well see the evil in it when you look at any piece of information which is critical to human life and safety.
The sin involved would be to deny a person a fair wage or salary. Except copyrights are hardly the only way society can compensate artists. And in the case of research and patents on life-saving medications, it’s intrinsically evil to maintain the current system.
If what you say is true about property being nothing more than a bundle of rights, then we were morally wrong to end the institution of slavery, since those people were legally the property of American citizens, and that property was stolen from them. But we don’t think that because we refuse to recognize the idea that a human being is property of any one other than God. The reason they truly are not property is that they too lack the fundamental traits of actual property.
You know you are stretching the word property beyond recognition when your definition entails fundamentally immoral behavior, such as creating an artificial scarcity in life-saving medications for profit. It’s easy to focus on music because it’s a luxury item. But you can well see the evil in it when you look at any piece of information which is critical to human life and safety.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
ipse dixit, he says.Property is not a bundle of rights. It is an object to which we recognize natural rights associated with an owner. Information is not an object. It lacks the same properties of physical objects which necessitate property rights in the first place. So it’s obviously not property.
its a fantasy to think a pharma company will develop drugs for free.The sin involved would be to deny a person a fair wage or salary. Except copyrights are hardly the only way society can compensate artists. And in the case of research and patents on life-saving medications, it’s intrinsically evil to maintain the current system.
being compensated for copyrighted work is how I make a living. (one way). feel free to read my novels at the library, or buy them, but don’t steal them. sabe?
none of that makes sense. you’re just asserting stuff without source or explanation. “property as a bundle of rights” is an image appearing repeatedly in legal literature for hundreds of years. and, like it or not, human beings were property at one time. in some places, they still are.If what you say is true about property being nothing more than a bundle of rights, then we were morally wrong to end the institution of slavery, since those people were legally the property of American citizens, and that property was stolen from them. But we don’t think that because we refuse to recognize the idea that a human being is property of any one other than God. The reason they truly are not property is that they too lack the fundamental traits of actual property.
I’m not doing the stretching and its not my definition. why would anyone invest risk capital in any product not even guaranteed to work or make the market without being able to profit from it? who do you think pays for R&D? is profit the Evil Word here? without a profit motive and a protected period to exploit it, there won’t be life saving meds. it costs about a billion dollars to bring a drug to market*. if that billion dollars plus profit isn’t earned back in a protected market by sales or licensing rights, its** not** going to be spent and it won’t be earned back if competitors can sit back and poach the developer company’s work. is it more intrinsically good to impose economic penalties and prevent lifesaving meds from coming to market?You know you are stretching the word property beyond recognition when your definition entails fundamentally immoral behavior, such as creating an artificial scarcity in life-saving medications for profit. It’s easy to focus on music because it’s a luxury item. But you can well see the evil in it when you look at any piece of information which is critical to human life and safety.
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development citing ^ Adams, Christopher Paul; Brantner, Van Vu (February 2010). “Spending on new drug development”. Health Economics 19 (2): 130–141. doi:10.1002/hec.1454. PMID 19247981.
L
LilyM
Guest
Only because most people don’t have the talent or go through the training and effort (usually involvong heaps of rejection and doing it tough along the way) required to even make one piece of art or write one song or book that would turn any sort of profit.Most people are not able to do this by working for 1 year and profiting off of that work for 150 years
Most people don’t have the wherewithal to look for and successfully extract oil, gold or diamonds from the ground either. Yet people do, through their talent and industry, make enough profits from a single strike or find of such such resources to bequeath fortunes to their descendants.
Are you begrudging them simply because you don’t have the talent or industry to do the same? Because success is almost never a matter of luck.
M
mwic
Guest
I merely pointed out that the industry in question is the only one where people seem to feel that a few months’ work merits over a century of income.Only because most people don’t have the talent or go through the training and effort (usually involvong heaps of rejection and doing it tough along the way) required … Are you begrudging them simply because you don’t have the talent or industry to do the same? Because success is almost never a matter of luck.
In a centrally-planned economy, a person or committee decides who deserves how much income, based on how hard or impressive her work is. Many who discuss this issue argue (without realizing it) for that sort of setup, for example when they say
"… the work the person put into making it, such as a book or song, and the profits that they should be able to make from them… "
There isn’t anything inherently bad about this argument – I’m only surprised sometimes to hear people making it who do not otherwise consider themselves socialists.
M
mwic
Guest
As to drugs that already exist: I think that it’s immoral to deny someone a life-saving med because she cannot pay for it.who do you think pays for R&D? is profit the Evil Word here? without a profit motive and a protected period to exploit it, there won’t be life saving meds. it costs about a billion dollars to bring a drug to market*.
But the other question – how to pay for R&D – isn’t really that hard. But first let’s bring some balance to the conversation:
citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=7065A simpler measure – also derived from data provided by the industry – suggests that after-tax R&D costs ranged from $57 million to $71 million for the average new drug brought to market in the 1990s, including failures. (See Section II)
IBIDThe industry fought, and won, a nine-year legal battle to keep congressional investigators from the General Accounting Office from seeing the industry’s complete R&D records. (See Section IV) Congress can subpoena the records but has failed to do so. That might owe to the fact that in 1999-2000 the drug industry spent $262 million on federal lobbying
But to get back on topic:
Picture this: A $10 billion line-item in the federal government’s budget for research and development of life-saving medications. The budget wouldn’t even notice this.According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995
The drugs would never be patented; manufacturers could therefore make and sell them very cheaply.
This would fund somewhere between 10 and 50 new drugs each year.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
mwic, excellent issues that deserve a detailed response and, of course, I disagree with everything you’ve said especially the first comment, since it would be the depths of fiscal irresponsibility to give to any one any lifesaving medical treatment thought necessary. however, I’ll be shutting down for the holiday, indeed to deal with the very issues that brought me here with so much time to kill.As to drugs that already exist: I think that it’s immoral to deny someone a life-saving med because she cannot pay for it.
But the other question – how to pay for R&D – isn’t really that hard. But first let’s bring some balance to the conversation:
citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=7065
IBID
But to get back on topic:
Picture this: A $10 billion line-item in the federal government’s budget for research and development of life-saving medications. The budget wouldn’t even notice this.
The drugs would never be patented; manufacturers could therefore make and sell them very cheaply.
This would fund somewhere between 10 and 50 new drugs each year.
so I’ll address them when I return.
E
edwest2
Guest
My company works with some of the finest copyright lawyers in the country. We’ve been involved in litigation. I’ve filled out copyright forms. We have contacts in Hollywood and publishing, including the comic book industry.you don’t see the problem with what? the walt disney company doesn’t want warner brothers making mickey mouse mouse cartoons. do you know what a copyright does or what public domain is?
Public domain seems unproductive.
Peace,
Ed
L
LilyM
Guest
Which industry is that? Arts and music? Why do you say it is the only industry? IP law applies to many other industries as well, you know. The inventor of the Post-It Note, for example, didn’t take a long time to perfect that particular invention, but nonetheless for all I know has reaped significant rewards.I merely pointed out that the industry in question is the only one where people seem to feel that a few months’ work merits over a century of income.
In a centrally-planned economy, a person or committee decides who deserves how much income, based on how hard or impressive her work is. Many who discuss this issue argue (without realizing it) for that sort of setup, for example when they say
"… the work the person put into making it, such as a book or song, and the profits that they should be able to make from them… "
There isn’t anything inherently bad about this argument – I’m only surprised sometimes to hear people making it who do not otherwise consider themselves socialists.
I would consider forcing the providers of non-essential goods like music to charge low prices to be far more socialistic than allowing them to reap what rewards the market will allow.
Artificially low prices for such items, which is what you are advocating, are merely the flip side of the artificially high prices (due to government regulation setting artificially high minimum wages for example) that are currently strangling many industries in many parts of the world, and which I commonly see decried as socialistic.
M
mwic
Guest
This is a common myth about copyright, in fact it made the famous list of three myths published by Derek Khanna (hardly a socialist) last year:I would consider forcing the providers of non-essential goods like music to charge low prices to be far more socialistic than allowing them to reap what rewards the market will allow.
Artificially low prices for such items, which is what you are advocating…
The Republican Study Commission report debunked three myths that have justified our current system of effectively indefinite copyright and the destruction of any future public domain:
1. The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content.
2. Copyright is free market capitalism at work.
3. The current copyright legal regime leads to the greatest innovation and productivity.
What your point depends on is the (World A) argument that these works (to to restrict the scope of the argument, let’s say books, music, and software) are property and governmental “protection” of copyright is just like governmental protection of your bike from theft.
But if they aren’t property (and in worlds B-D they aren’t) then there’s nothing “artificial” about a low price. You can obtain public-domain or freely-licensed works at their marginal cost, which is around a hundredth of a penny.(See note) Low prices for these are a result of free markets gravitating toward marginal cost.
Copyrighted works are sold for many thousands of times their marginal cost because “producers of content are entitled to a guaranteed, government instituted, government subsidized content-monopoly” (RSC reprot)
Note: Invariably someone interjects here with a point about the fixed (not marginal) costs of producing music. This introduces an important – but separate – subject: how to fund the production of these works. For now, I’ll just say copyright isn’t the only way to do so.
M
mwic
Guest
On a sidenote, this part of your comment reflects another common problem with arguments on this topic: the term “intellectual property” is used pretty indiscriminately to talk about issues arising from copyright, patent, plagiarism, trademark, trade secrets, and other subjects.Which industry is that? Arts and music? Why do you say it is the only industry? IP law applies to many other industries as well, you know. The inventor of the Post-It Note…
Each of these areas of law operate differently, address different problems, and apply different principles to solve them. I’ll be restricting myself to copyright, and in particular to the music, book, and software industries. This will hopefully keep the discussion focused.
C
CuriousInIL
Guest
Do you have support for this point? I am given to believe that patent rights can be traced back to the 1300s and that trademarks go back to the days of the Roman Empire.The concept did not exist until the 18th century.
M
mwic
Guest
perDo you have support for this point? I am given to believe that patent rights can be traced back to the 1300s and that trademarks go back to the days of the Roman Empire.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#History
It seems there have been intermittent patent-like occurrences all the way to 500 BC.
But the total number of existing patents appears to have been miniscule until 1850 or so.
E
edwest2
Guest
I don’t see the point of any of this. Copyright for books, music and movies works. The length is a non-issue as the law stands right now. Public domain has no useful function as far as I can tell.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
T
thewanderer
Guest
Why is trying to understand the principle behind determining a just length for a copyright a non-issue? Ed, what you are doing is trying to prevent discussion about important topics that are not yet very well-understood by the vast majority of people. Just because you don’t care to talk about it doesn’t mean you should try and shut down such conversations as though there is no merit to them.I don’t see the point of any of this. Copyright for books, music and movies works.** The length is a non-issue as the law stands right now**. Public domain has no useful function as far as I can tell.
Peace,
Ed
T
thewanderer
Guest
What about fair use? You cannot claim to have complete control over your works if others are by law given the right to use them under certain conditions, those of fair use. So no, even under current copyright law you do not have complete control over your copyrighted works.They do have complete control of their works. If I draw something, I own it. Period. If I sell it, I do not automatically give the new owner permission to make copies of it. If I look for “work for hire,” I get a ‘letter of understanding’ stating how much I will get paid and how the art will will be used. If I agree, I produce the art. If not, I look for work elsewhere.
Libraries were started by wealthy people as a service to the general public. In that same spirit, publishers allowed libraries to buy books from them so that they could loan out the books to people who either could not afford them or for researchers and students who would use limited parts of a book or magazine for a term paper, or a reviewer could quote a part for the purpose of reviewing the book. Fair use also applies to referencing a few lines from a published book for use in a new book as long as credit is given. However, lengthier quotes and the use of images would require written permission from the copyright holder who may agree only if certain conditions were met. Photos will usually have notations like, “Reprinted with permission of the John Smith collection photographic trust.” Text will have attributions like: “Reprinted with the permission of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.” Sometimes, a fee for reprinting a photo will have to be paid, which can vary by country and depending on the source.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
So, what’s the answer? This has been brought up before and it usually degenerates to scrap the whole system to no alternative solution. That’s what I’m driving at. The length of copyright is too long? OK. Give us a length and tell us why it’s correct. That would be adding to the discussion.Why is trying to understand the principle behind determining a just length for a copyright a non-issue? Ed, what you are doing is trying to prevent discussion about important topics that are not yet very well-understood by the vast majority of people. Just because you don’t care to talk about it doesn’t mean you should try and shut down such conversations as though there is no merit to them.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Sure I do. My company prints the following: “This page or pages can be copied for personal use.” I recently took a call from FedEx Office: “Hi. I’ve got a customer in the store that wants to photocopy one of your books.” The answer? “No.”What about fair use? You cannot claim to have complete control over your works if others are by law given the right to use them under certain conditions, those of fair use. So no, even under current copyright law you do not have complete control over your copyrighted works.
Fair Use in the case of Libraries is pretty cut and dry. This is Fair Use:
copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
That link is to the US Copyright Office site.
Peace,
Ed
T
thewanderer
Guest
My point was that people have the legal right to use copyrighted material within the limits of fair use. The owners of the copyright can not prevent them from using the copyrighted material within the limits of fair use. This means that there is a limit to the copyright owners power over the way their copyrighted material is used, which means they do not have complete power over it.Sure I do. My company prints the following: “This page or pages can be copied for personal use.” I recently took a call from FedEx Office: “Hi. I’ve got a customer in the store that wants to photocopy one of your books.” The answer? “No.”
Fair Use in the case of Libraries is pretty cut and dry. This is Fair Use:
copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
That link is to the US Copyright Office site.
Peace,
Ed
- Status
- Not open for further replies.