On 07/12/09 16:26, somebody wrote:
> I don't disregard your concerns, but similar objections could be raised for
> inheritance of private property. That one can inherit property or land or
> goods means we end up in a situation where *everything* is owned, but that

	The analogy isn't valid (with respect to what Warp was saying). It's 
not a problem with land because there's still a lot of land out there. 
Ditto for physical products: The raw resources needed to make them are 
available in plentiful supply.

	Warp was talking about an extreme scenario where it would be very hard 
to come up with something new, because it'll almost certainly be similar 
to *something* from the past 2 thousand years, and all of it would be 
copyrighted.

> doesn't stiffle economic growth. We can certainly flourish as a society
> where Smoke on Water is copyrighted. Why would it then be any more

	You're saying it'll work out if it'll become illegal for me to combine 
H2 and O2 to get water without paying a licensing fee? Where burning 
wood for heat would be illegal unless I pay a licensing fee for the 
smoke that is produced?

	I think you're confusing ownership with copyright.

> disasterous if Marriage of Figaro were currently copyrighted as well? I

	What if the Marriage of Figaro were made not available for the next 500 
years?

> It would, if anything, encourage more original or contemporary works. On a
> practical matter, licence fees for older works would naturally decline in
> time anyway, and many would voluntarily be donated to public domain. As for

	By individuals, possibly. We're seeing copyright owned by corporations. 
Unlike humans, they have no incentive to donate to the public domain, 
and are quite happy on holding on to the copyright indefinitely. I 
already gave examples in another post.


-- 
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright 
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little 
sign of breaking down in the near future.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 07/12/09 16:22, somebody wrote:
> That, may be, but there's always the very real possibility that a handful of
> people who lived and died centuries ago may not have laid down the best and
> only feasible set of thoughts and laws, however godlike we may think of
> them.
	
	Always a possibility, but let me put it this way: If that's not the 
reason, then I don't see a single good reason for having copyright.

>> To get to my point, when the copyright period is too long, then the
>> incentive to promote the arts is greatly reduced. If you have lifetime
>> copyright, then the person who produced a piece of art has a lot less
>> incentive to produce more pieces of art.
>
> I don't buy that. It's like saying that if the government does not take away
> factories of a wealthy businessman after so many years and force him to
> start from scratch, he will have no more incentive to work or innovate. Yes,
> some people will stop working when they reach a certain financial security,
> and some won't, but that's something you have to let individuals decide. I
> don't see "witholding" (yes, the term is loaded if you don't believe
> copyright should be a natural right) such security from the creative sector
> is a good means to encourage continued output.

	As you say, it all boils down to whether we consider copyright a 
natural right. As I said, the only reason I see for it is to promote the 
production of artwork, not to allow people to profit financially from 
it. The latter is merely an incentive.

	Your analogy is not good. The person physically owns the factory. He 
does not, however, prevent others from building factories to produce 
similar products, unless there is a patent violation. And patents 
expire. After patent expiry, I could build a factory that produces the 
exact same product, in exactly the same manner, as long as I don't 
pretend to be the same brand (copyright kicks in here).

	When it comes to something like a book, having copyright over the 
characters and story indefinitely is preventing others from producing 
anything similar.

	Copyright is thus granting even more powers to the author than the 
factory owner gets.

	Furthermore, if the factory owner shuts down his factory, and didn't 
have a patent (or it expired), he's not preventing others from making 
the product. Copyright, though, does just that.

	Your analogy fails in another subtle manner. If they take away the 
factory, he loses a source of funding. If an author loses copyright, he 
can _still_ continue to make a profit off of his own product. He can 
continue to sell his book. Granted, it's not likely people will buy it 
(especially with today's digital media) after copyright expiry, but if 
his books were still in stores at this period, he will continue to make 
money due to their sales. Taking away the factory is immediately cutting 
the owner off.

	There are many reasons physical ownership is considered a human right - 
I'll merely point out that this is almost never disagreed upon. The 
reason is not primarily related to making money, BTW.

	For the creator of a piece of art, copyright serves *only* for profit 
motives (from _his_ perspective). That's why few people really care that 
much about intellectual property as opposed to physical, and that's also 
probably why copyright is a recent phenomenon.

> The flipside of your argument is that time limited copyright encourages a
> series of mediocre works or sequels (now that you mention Star Trek and the
> like) instead of magnum opuses. For if the "milking" period regularly
> expires, it makes more economic sense for the artist to do the former. I

	That doesn't make sense. We're already getting mediocre works and 
sequels *with* copyright, and partially because of copyright.

	It's funny how in other contexts, you keep insisting on free markets. 
Do likewise here: Let copyright expire, and let the market make the best 
product derived from the previous product. Why get in the way? The 
entity that previously owned the copyright is not prevented from making 
money.


-- 
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright 
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little 
sign of breaking down in the near future.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> In other words, all the data they offered was their own original creation.

I think that would count as a derivative work, just like writing a Star Trek 
novel wouldn't be "100% your own work."  But yeah, I'd be happy if you lost 
your copyright on anything you're not selling.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     To get to my point, when the copyright period is too long, then the 
> incentive to promote the arts is greatly reduced. If you have lifetime 
> copyright, then the person who produced a piece of art has a lot less 
> incentive to produce more pieces of art.

I think you might be ignoring the part where copyright pays for the work you 
already did.

Consider a computer program like Windows, or a mainstream movie, that 
requires hundreds of people working for years to write. One of the uses of 
copyright is to recover that money, because nobody would pay the full cost 
for the first copy.

>     Take Star Trek. It almost disappeared. The series were all dead, and 
> no movie had been made for what, 8 years?

I don't think 8 years is a long time.

>     In other words, the burden is on you to explain why they should be 
> allowed to benefit from it. Specifically, why do you even think there 
> should be copyright?

So that one piece of information that costs a great deal to be developed can 
have the cost of developing it recovered by spreading that cost amongst many 
buyers.

Now, once your cost is recovered, along with a reasonable profit (including 
a reasonable "interest-like" profit for risking the development in the first 
place), it would make sense to terminate that specific copyright. But it's 
hard to codify how much money you can make from an idea, so a limited period 
in which to regain your profits seems to be an OK alternative. Altho a "as 
long as you can make money on it" seems OK to me too, as long as you *do* 
make money on it.  Having it available continuously for sale would seem like 
it would satisfy the enrichment of culture to me.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     Always a possibility, but let me put it this way: If that's not the 
> reason, then I don't see a single good reason for having copyright.

To let people develop information products at all?  If copying is trivial, 
you either have to charge your entire development cost for the first copy, 
or you have to only produce works where the buyers are willing to fund you 
before you finish it (i.e., pre-production sales).

Note too that the whole "free software" movement goes belly-up if there 
aren't copyrights that let the authors control what happens with their works.

>     Your analogy is not good. The person physically owns the factory. He 
> does not, however, prevent others from building factories to produce 
> similar products,

Neither does copyright. Your Pheonix BIOS proves the point. Copyright only 
prevents copying, not independent invention.

> pretend to be the same brand (copyright kicks in here).

That would actually be trademarks in the USA.  And trademarks expire if you 
don't continuously trade under them, so that satisfies me. :-)

>     When it comes to something like a book, having copyright over the 
> characters and story indefinitely is preventing others from producing 
> anything similar.

There's definitely a gray area there.

>     For the creator of a piece of art, copyright serves *only* for 
> profit motives (from _his_ perspective). That's why few people really 
> care that much about intellectual property as opposed to physical, and 
> that's also probably why copyright is a recent phenomenon.

Copyright is a recent phenomenon because copying is a recent phenomenon. 
When it takes almost as much work to make a copy as it does to create it 
fresh, there's not a whole lot of need for copyright.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 07/12/09 18:08, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> To get to my point, when the copyright period is too long, then the
>> incentive to promote the arts is greatly reduced. If you have lifetime
>> copyright, then the person who produced a piece of art has a lot less
>> incentive to produce more pieces of art.
>
> I think you might be ignoring the part where copyright pays for the work
> you already did.
>
> Consider a computer program like Windows, or a mainstream movie, that
> requires hundreds of people working for years to write. One of the uses
> of copyright is to recover that money, because nobody would pay the full
> cost for the first copy.

	Well, which is why I'm not advocating eradicating copyright, but merely 
limiting it. How many movies or pieces of software do you know of that 
took over 20 years to produce a profit?

	I guess I'm missing the point you were making.

>> Take Star Trek. It almost disappeared. The series were all dead, and
>> no movie had been made for what, 8 years?
>
> I don't think 8 years is a long time.

	In an absolute sense, no. But given the usual cycle for Star Trek 
movies, and given the end of all the series, it was worrisome.

	Not saying copyright should be that short - just pointing out the real 
concern that Star Trek would die, and copyright would prevent it from 
being resurrected.

>> In other words, the burden is on you to explain why they should be
>> allowed to benefit from it. Specifically, why do you even think there
>> should be copyright?
>
> So that one piece of information that costs a great deal to be developed
> can have the cost of developing it recovered by spreading that cost
> amongst many buyers.

	Yes, but that's a short term reason. The bigger and main reason is to 
benefit society and further the discipline.

	Put another way, what you say makes sense for products like software 
that has lots of utility. But movies? There's no obvious reason that 
society needs movies. However, society does like them and provides a 
means (copyright) for making such movies in a practical manner.

	I'm all cool with that. I just can't go from there to 80+ years of 
copyright. If ever someone wanted to create something that society would 
benefit from that *would* take that long to recover the costs, then I 
wouldn't oppose it.

> Now, once your cost is recovered, along with a reasonable profit
> (including a reasonable "interest-like" profit for risking the
> development in the first place), it would make sense to terminate that
 > specific copyright.

	No arguments there.

> specific copyright. But it's hard to codify how much money you can make
> from an idea, so a limited period in which to regain your profits seems
> to be an OK alternative. Altho a "as long as you can make money on it"
> seems OK to me too, as long as you *do* make money on it. Having it
> available continuously for sale would seem like it would satisfy the
> enrichment of culture to me.

	I could probably settle for "as long as you make money on it".

	Actually, I take that back. I could settle for "as long as the product 
remains available and people benefit from it". The money thing will 
follow. I could also settle for "whichever comes last". If they haven't 
made enough out of it in 20 years, but are still selling it, then extend 
it until they stop. If they make heaps of it in the first 5 years, then 
they stop selling, I'd still give them the extra 15 years, but no more.

	However, if we'll have that, we need to codify a sane criterion for 
what constitutes the amount of money or "product remaining available for 
society". It'd be different for a piece of software compared to a movie. 
That may be quite challenging.

-- 
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright 
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little 
sign of breaking down in the near future.

Post a reply to this message

On 07/12/09 18:15, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Always a possibility, but let me put it this way: If that's not the
>> reason, then I don't see a single good reason for having copyright.
>
> To let people develop information products at all? If copying is

	But that does serve the reason provided, which somebody was suggesting 
need not be the main reason.

>> Your analogy is not good. The person physically owns the factory. He
>> does not, however, prevent others from building factories to produce
>> similar products,
>
> Neither does copyright. Your Pheonix BIOS proves the point. Copyright
> only prevents copying, not independent invention.

	In terms of stories, copyright prevents me from producing stories that 
are too similar. There's no equivalent in the world of factories, 
barring patents.

>> pretend to be the same brand (copyright kicks in here).
>
> That would actually be trademarks in the USA. And trademarks expire if
> you don't continuously trade under them, so that satisfies me. :-)

	OK - Didn't know that.

>> For the creator of a piece of art, copyright serves *only* for profit
>> motives (from _his_ perspective). That's why few people really care
>> that much about intellectual property as opposed to physical, and
>> that's also probably why copyright is a recent phenomenon.
>
> Copyright is a recent phenomenon because copying is a recent phenomenon.
> When it takes almost as much work to make a copy as it does to create it
> fresh, there's not a whole lot of need for copyright.

	Granted, the ease of copying was a big factor, but what about song 
lyrics? A thousand years ago, I create a song, which is easily copied 
(lyrics and tune). I don't know if there was a notion of copyright for 
those things back then (haven't looked).

-- 
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright 
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little 
sign of breaking down in the near future.

Post a reply to this message

On 07/12/09 18:35, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> I could probably settle for "as long as you make money on it".
>
> Actually, I take that back. I could settle for "as long as the product
> remains available and people benefit from it". The money thing will

	Oh, I'll add that changing the criterion from money to "society 
benefiting" would protect software under free licenses. Making money the 
criterion would cause problems for free software.

	

-- 
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright 
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little 
sign of breaking down in the near future.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     But that does serve the reason provided, which somebody was suggesting need not
be the main reason.

Sure. I was just pointing out that it's not necessarily encouraging the
*next* piece of art. It could very well be encouraging the piece of art you
just paid for, that would not have been started without copyright.

>> Neither does copyright. Your Pheonix BIOS proves the point. Copyright
>> only prevents copying, not independent invention.
> 
>     In terms of stories, copyright prevents me from producing stories 
> that are too similar. 

No, it doesn't. That's the point of the Phoenx BIOS example. It doesn't
prevent you from making similar stories. It prevents you from copying
someone else's stories too closely.

If you wrote a superman story never having heard of superman, you wouldn't
be violating copyright.

> barring patents.

Patents are worse. You can be prevented from practicing your invention (in
the US at least) even if you never heard of the other guy's invention.

>>> For the creator of a piece of art, copyright serves *only* for profit
>>> motives (from _his_ perspective).

Actually, I think the whole "moral copyright" shows this to be wrong. If I 
don't want my religious work modified to show support for abortion, I can 
use copyright to do that, for example.

>> Copyright is a recent phenomenon because copying is a recent phenomenon.
>> When it takes almost as much work to make a copy as it does to create it
>> fresh, there's not a whole lot of need for copyright.
> 
>     Granted, the ease of copying was a big factor, but what about song 
> lyrics? A thousand years ago, I create a song, which is easily copied 
> (lyrics and tune). I don't know if there was a notion of copyright for 
> those things back then (haven't looked).

I don't know. I imagine that since you needed performers (like a symphony or 
something) for anything more than a small gathering, perhaps it was more 
that performers would refuse to play an opera that the author didn't attend. 
  I must admit, however, that I know bupkiss about this.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a5a6311$1@news.povray.org...
> On 07/12/09 16:26, somebody wrote:

> > I don't disregard your concerns, but similar objections could be raised
for
> > inheritance of private property. That one can inherit property or land
or
> > goods means we end up in a situation where *everything* is owned, but
that

> The analogy isn't valid (with respect to what Warp was saying). It's
> not a problem with land because there's still a lot of land out there.

My guess would be that there are many, many more ideas out there than there
is acres of land. Do you think we have exhausted the human creativity and
more than we have exhausted land? That's a very depressing view.

> Ditto for physical products: The raw resources needed to make them are
> available in plentiful supply.

See above. I don't like at all the implication you make, that we have less
original art to invent than raw materials to mine.

> Warp was talking about an extreme scenario where it would be very hard
> to come up with something new, because it'll almost certainly be similar
> to *something* from the past 2 thousand years, and all of it would be
> copyrighted.

Whether it's music, visual arts, literature or other copyrightable material,
exceedingly few people nowadays copy or create art that's from 200 years
ago, let alone 2000 years ago, even if there's no copyright barrier. Hence
what you present is a nonexistent problem. It's not hard to come up with new
things. Every self respecting artist strives to separate themselves from the
pack anyway. And for the blatant copycats, all I can say is that it wouldn't
be a big loss for humanity if there were fewer copies of Michelangelo's
David ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_in_Buffalo.jpg ). BTW,
perpetual copyright doesn't mean that there should never be copies, but if
State of New York wished to erect a David statue, in all likelihood, all
they would need would be to get permission and maybe pay royalties, that's
it.

> > doesn't stiffle economic growth. We can certainly flourish as a society
> > where Smoke on Water is copyrighted. Why would it then be any more

> You're saying it'll work out if it'll become illegal for me to combine
> H2 and O2 to get water without paying a licensing fee? Where burning
> wood for heat would be illegal unless I pay a licensing fee for the
> smoke that is produced?
>
> I think you're confusing ownership with copyright.

I think you are confusing patents with copyright. Or else you missed the
reference.

> > disasterous if Marriage of Figaro were currently copyrighted as well? I

> What if the Marriage of Figaro were made not available for the next 500
> years?

What if Smoke on Water had not been available for the last 25 or so years?
It has always been Deep Purple's call to write the song and to release it?
What if they never wrote it? What if they wrote it and then threw it in the
trash bin?

What if the opera Marriage of Martinelli was never written (hint, it never
was, AFAIK). Are we as humanity poorer for it? Well, maybe, but it's absurd
to mourn that was not. I am sure there are countless excellent art that was
never created, as are many artworks that have been created but not released,
or lost at some point. That goes on with or without copyright. And if a
copyright holder choses to not avail his art at all, that's his call. But,
like above, that's a nonexistent problem in practice. People like income and
royalties. And if not, they like fame and recognition. And if not, they like
to share art for the sake of it. There are exceedingly few examples in
history where owners or creators of art completely refuse to share it. What
would the point of burying art for 500 years be?

> > It would, if anything, encourage more original or contemporary works. On
a
> > practical matter, licence fees for older works would naturally decline
in
> > time anyway, and many would voluntarily be donated to public domain. As
for

> By individuals, possibly. We're seeing copyright owned by corporations.
> Unlike humans, they have no incentive to donate to the public domain,
> and are quite happy on holding on to the copyright indefinitely. I
> already gave examples in another post.

Which is fine. For corporations, art that doesn't bring income is dead, so
they will not hoard and not release it. Do you see a music label buying
songs from artists and not releasing any of it for 500 years? If it doesn't
make business sense, it's not a realistic scenario to worry about.

Post a reply to this message