Major website shutdown by US govt without trial

[elasto]

Also worth noting that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 27, lists right to intellectual property as an inherent human right:

"(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."

I don't think anyone here would disagree with that as a sound principle. I think a ten year copyright term would achieve that without too much downside for society either. Lifetime + 70 years (or whatever it's at now) is going too far is all we're saying.

[yoni45]

I don't think anyone here would disagree with that as a sound principle. I think a ten year copyright term would achieve that without too much downside for society either. Lifetime + 70 years (or whatever it's at now) is going too far is all we're saying.

Malice clearly just (and previously) disagreed with that.

[Ghostbear]

Malice clearly just (and previously) disagreed with that.

No they didn't. They said it isn't a fundemental right (which isn't the same as saying it's not a good idea) and that we've missed the point of maximized social benefit. The second part being the point that many of us are trying to focus on.

[yoni45]

No they didn't. They said it isn't a fundemental right...

Yes, and as I noted, the document listed it as a fundamental (or 'inherent') right...

[Ghostbear]

Yes, and as I noted, the document listed it as fundamental (or 'inherent') right...

I noticed, but that's not what you were saying that Malice disagreed on.
Elasto says: "No one here is saying copyright is a bad idea"
You said: "Malice said that."
then I said: "Malice did not say that."

And now you're pointing out that Malice said something as proof that they did say that, when the something they said is a completely different idea! That Malice doesn't view it as an inherent right is a separate point, completely irrelevant from if we think copyright is a good idea. And it's even more irrelevant of if we think current copyright laws are a good idea. This is a pointless shift in the discussion.

No one here (and that includes Princess Marzipan, if you read their posts properly) is asking for the removal of all copyright forever and ever. So don't build a strawman of our arguments based around that fact. We are saying that copyright terms are too long. I don't care if copyright is an inherent right for this debate, because I am not arguing for the removal of copyright!

[yurell]

Isn't it nice that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights assumes the author is male with its choice of pronouns? >.>

[yoni45]

I noticed, but that's not what you were saying that Malice disagreed on.
Elasto says: "No one here is saying copyright is a bad idea"
You said: "Malice said that."
then I said: "Malice did not say that."

And now you're pointing out that Malice said something as proof that they did say that, when the something they said is a completely different idea! That Malice doesn't view it as an inherent right is a separate point, completely irrelevant from if we think copyright is a good idea. And it's even more irrelevant of if we think current copyright laws are a good idea. This is a pointless shift in the discussion.

No one here (and that includes Princess Marzipan, if you read their posts properly) is asking for the removal of all copyright forever and ever. So don't build a strawman of our arguments based around that fact. We are saying that copyright terms are too long. I don't care if copyright is an inherent right for this debate, because I am not arguing for the removal of copyright!

Whatinthewo...

Alright, let me make clear what I meant:

Malice: IP is not a fundamental right.
Me: We went down this avenue before, and moreover, UDHR clearly cites it as a fundamental right.
Elasto: No one here disagrees with that as a sound principle ['that' in this case, was interpreted by me as IP being a fundamental right, since 'that' was what was the point of my words that were quoted].
Me: Malice just disagreed with that.

---------------------

Moreover, nothing that I've said in the last few posts had anything to do with anyone removing all copyright. My argument in the recent posts has simply been that a specific reason is a very poor reason for limiting copyright at all.

---------------------

Edit: For the record, I'm pretty sure that: "...I've argued that we can pretty much do away with copyright..." means precisely that one has argued that copyright can be done away with completely.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that was your interpretation as well when you replied to that with: "While I agree that copyright is being abused by a few groups these days, and that most of the laws on it are effectively completely broken, I don't think the solution is to do away with it..."

[yoni45]

Isn't it nice that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights assumes the author is male with its choice of pronouns? >.>

Welcome to the 1940's... =)

[Ghostbear]

I am hesitant to call something broken if it seems to work anyway, because that relies on a counterfactual non-broken situation that is hard to be sure of.

I know this was a whole page ago, and I've posted a bunch of things since this, but I didn't address this in the detail I wanted to. I don't find this a compelling argument against trying to fix copyright laws, because many other things that are also clearly broken can still be apparently functional. Going straight to another form of IP, just look at patents. Just about everyone agrees that patent laws (again, at least in the US) are broken. Companies are patenting the most broad things, we have patent trolls, we have companies like Microsoft or IBM with so many patents that they can drown out the competition if they choose to. The system still appears functional however, because all of the big companies have effectively made a giant circle of gentlemen's agreements not to fuck with each other over minor patent disputes. So things still get invented and patented, giving the appearance of working anyway. That doesn't change that it is very much broken.

Isn't it nice that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights assumes the author is male with its choice of pronouns? >.>

Much as I hate it, it is technically the correct form in the English language. I use "they" to indicate singular gender-neutral, which is also valid English, though lots of people really dislike it. It would be nice if a document such as that would take the time to say "he or she" however.

Alright, let me make clear what I meant:

Malice: IP is not a fundamental right.
Me: We went down this avenue before, and moreover, UDHR clearly cites it as a fundamental right.
Elasto: No one here disagrees with that as a sound principle ['that' in this case, was interpreted by me as IP being a fundamental right, since 'that' was what was the point of my words that were quoted].
Me: Malice just disagreed with that.

Except that isn't what Elasto said; read their whole post. They were saying no one disagrees with the idea behind the declaration (allowing the person some protection of their intellectual works). Because no one here has disagreed with that. Malice said they don't feel it's an inherent right, which is, again, separate.

Moreover, nothing that I've said in the last few posts had anything to do with anyone removing all copyright. My argument in the recent posts has simply been that a specific reason is a very poor reason for limiting copyright at all.

And what about when that specific reason is that copyright law is no longer fulfilling its intended purpose? That seems like a good reason to limit it then.

[yoni45]

Except that isn't what Elasto said...

Elasto used an ambiguous pronoun ('that'). What followed wasn't relevant to my point -- I commented on his reply within the context that was relevant to my point.

Either way, if that wasn't clear then it should be now.

Moreover, nothing that I've said in the last few posts had anything to do with anyone removing all copyright. My argument in the recent posts has simply been that a specific reason is a very poor reason for limiting copyright at all.

And what about when that specific reason is that copyright law is no longer fulfilling its intended purpose? That seems like a good reason to limit it then.

That specific reason was not the one that I was referring to, so it's hardly relevant to my point.

Although when it comes to 'intended purpose' -- a separate point altogether -- that's where the whole 'inherent right' comes in: so as to show that this so-called 'intended purpose' is a very narrow interpretation of the motives behind copyright law. Alongside the intended purpose cited, there is also (or should be) the intended purpose of protecting something that at least some consider a fundamental human right.

[LaserGuy]

Although when it comes to 'intended purpose' -- a separate point altogether -- that's where the whole 'inherent right' comes in: so as to show that this so-called 'intended purpose' is a very narrow interpretation of the motives behind copyright law. Alongside the intended purpose cited, there is also (or should be) the intended purpose of protecting something that at least some consider a fundamental human right.

Incidentally, in the very same article that you quoted, we have:

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

This would seem to suggest that there is a definite balance of rights that we can apply here, namely that if copyright laws (or other similarly applicable laws) grow sufficiently strong, it may infringe on 27 (1) above. Fortunately, I think there's a pretty broad space where both of these rights can both be sufficiently protected.

[yoni45]

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

This would seem to suggest that there is a definite balance of rights that we can apply here, namely that if copyright laws (or other similarly applicable laws) grow sufficiently strong, it may infringe on 27 (1) above. Fortunately, I think there's a pretty broad space where both of these rights can both be sufficiently protected.

Agreed entirely... ^_^

[Ghostbear]

Elasto used an ambiguous pronoun ('that'). What followed wasn't relevant to my point -- I commented on his reply within the context that was relevant to my point.

Either way, if that wasn't clear then it should be now.

If it's all confusion over the word usage that's fine (and Elasto will be able to swoop in and declare one of us a moron).

Although when it comes to 'intended purpose' -- a separate point altogether -- that's where the whole 'inherent right' comes in: so as to show that this so-called 'intended purpose' is a very narrow interpretation of the motives behind copyright law. Alongside the intended purpose cited, there is also (or should be) the intended purpose of protecting something that at least some consider a fundamental human right.

And it still is protected, under every idea I have suggested. That purpose of protecting someone's works is not lost, and I do think it is useful, even if the original reason for protecting it was solely to accomplish the first purpose. The balance of those purposes has completely shifted into being completely unreasonable however. Life +70 years is insane, as is 95 years for commissioned work. We need to shift that balance back, several notches, for copyright law to be truly functional for society and content creators. I think somewhere in the 30-50 year range is reasonable, someone else said 10 years, maybe you think 70 years. The point is, the amount of protection offered vs. the benefit to society offered has just fallen down completely in favor of protection, with little to no consideration for society. We should fix that by lowering the length back down.

This would seem to suggest that there is a definite balance of rights that we can apply here, namely that if copyright laws (or other similarly applicable laws) grow sufficiently strong, it may infringe on 27 (1) above. Fortunately, I think there's a pretty broad space where both of these rights can both be sufficiently protected.

Agreed entirely... ^_^

That's all I've been arguing for! Why are we disagreeing?

[elasto]

Agreed entirely... ^_^

I wondered if you were just being nitpicky and now I know it!

Yes, the UNHRD says people have a right to IP but there are plenty of times society has make difficult decisions to balance individual human rights with the greater good.

I thought I was being quite specific with my language but I see now I wasn't. For the record, when I said "I don't think anyone here would disagree with that as a sound principle" I meant noone would disagree with the concept of 'copyright existing and being enforced as per the UNHRD' as a sound principle. Personally I have a problem with raising it to a level of a human right because that carries with it all sorts of unhelpful baggage. But, so long as we recognise that society has a duty to balance one person's rights with everyone's (Eminent Domain would be an obvious example) it's fine to use such language.

Personally I think a ten year term both sufficiently protects a person's 'human right' to exploit their creation in a monopolistic way and balances that with the concept of free flow of information being a public good (which, personally I believe to be a superior human right - but one which is temporarily suspended - again for the greater good.)

[Malice]

(I'm a male, by the way. I mean, come on, do I need more Batman stuff here?)

Anyway, yes, I believe ownership of intellectual property is not an inherent right, but one which society should grant and protect in a limited capacity to fuel the creation of culture and provide for increased competition in the marketplace.

That latter point isn't touched on often in these discussions, but I think it's actually a really good argument for why we should shorten the copyright periods. Right now copyright for new works lasts 70 years after the death of the author, or 95 years after corporate publication. That doesn't just encourage new works; it makes them an extremely stable long-term investment. After all, nothing is going to remain unprofitable for that length of time. In 100 years' time, Waterworld will have made its money back. Build entire industries around extremely stable long-term investments, and you're going to get what we have now: a few deathless corporations, with no taste for risk working off of franchise materials and creating very little original IP, dominating the entertainment industry.

Marvel and DC, for instance, are never going out of business, because they can skate forever on properties created 80 years ago--there's no incentive at all for them to innovate either within an IP (because nobody can make their own, competing Batman comic) or without it (because why invent a new superhero when you can keep selling Batman?). Yet culture is inarguably harmed by having an entire medium dominated by the decrepit portfolios of only two companies.

If, on the other hand, you shortened the copyright period to allow for a healthy public domain, the entertainment conglomerates would be forced to innovate or get eaten by competitors. Basically, without some element of risk, the free market stagnates, and infinite copyright removes too much risk from the equation. More risk, while still retaining some duration of protection, will improve society and encourage the production of more and better culture.

[yoni45]

That's all I've been arguing for! Why are we disagreeing?

I think you might have misunderstood the nuance of my position (over the last few posts anyway): it was that I don't think the specific reason of "creators won't wanna make things once they strike it rich" is a good reason to limit copyright.

There may be other good reasons (i.e. 70 years is seemingly ridiculously wrong), but simply that the above isn't one of them.

[Ghostbear]

I think you might have misunderstood the nuance of my position (over the last few posts anyway): it was that I don't think the specific reason of "creators won't wanna make things once they strike it rich" is a good reason to limit copyright.

There may be other good reasons (i.e. 70 years is seemingly ridiculously wrong), but simply that the above isn't one of them.

I never meant to make that reason one of the central points of what I was arguing. If it appeared so, then I apologize for not being clear. I had meant it as sort of a "hey, this is another way it's broken to, look how we could probably get even more utility out of it by doing this too!", and not "The fact that we could get this result is the main, or one of the main, reasons why this is a good idea".

I do think your criticism misses that the "other good reason", as you stated it- Life+70 years / 95 years is way too long- misses that one of the reasons it's too long is because of the former point. That's not the only reason for it of course (works should enter the public domain earlier for the benefit of the public, for one), and it's probably not even one of the primary reasons, but it is one of them, and I (obviously, since I spent so much time on it) feel it was worth mentioning. Especially because it points out the, for lack of a better word, hypocrisy of the current copyright setup.

[yoni45]

I never meant to make that reason one of the central points of what I was arguing. If it appeared so, then I apologize for not being clear. I had meant it as sort of a "hey, this is another way it's broken to, look how we could probably get even more utility out of it by doing this too!", and not "The fact that we could get this result is the main, or one of the main, reasons why this is a good idea"...

Right, and my point is that the merit of other reasons notwithstanding, that is not a good reason.

I see the right to control that which you labored to create to be a fundamental human right (and at least the UDHR agrees with me on that point, so it's not like this is some arbitrarily unreasonable position held by me).

With that in mind, I don't see the idea of "we can get them to make MORE stuff for us" as anything near solid grounds to infringe upon said human right. They don't owe you additional works. You do owe them non-infringement of that right. In this particular reasoning, there's no conflict of rights.

---------

Separately -- from the arguments presented, it almost seems like loosening up the derivative work allowances (the lack of which seems ridiculous as far as I'm concerned) would address much of the problem.

[Ghostbear]

Right, and my point is that the merit of other reasons notwithstanding, that is not a good reason.

I see the right to control that which you labored to create to be a fundamental human right (and at least the UDHR agrees with me on that point, so it's not like this is some arbitrarily unreasonable position held by me).

With that in mind, I don't see the idea of "we can get them to make MORE stuff for us" as anything near solid grounds to infringe upon said human right. They don't owe you additional works. You do owe them non-infringement of that right. In this particular reasoning, there's no conflict of rights.

I think you and I are framing it in separate ways. I'm not saying "we should lower the copyright because we can get them to produce more works". I'm saying, "we should lower the copyright because it's broken, and here's one illustration of why". Shortening the length of someone's control over that property would not violate or infringe upon that right, regardless of if people agree it is fundamental (tangent: I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it a fundamental right, but I do think it is generally a wise thing to do). Yes, it would result in more works, and I do think that is a good thing, but that's not my reasoning for mentioning it. It's because copyright is supposed to encourage more works*, and yet, the exceedingly long time frame of copyright now discourages works. It's defeating one of the principle reasons we have copyright, and pointing out that flaw is worthwhile.

[yoni45]

I think you and I are framing it in separate ways. I'm not saying "we should lower the copyright because we can get them to produce more works". I'm saying, "we should lower the copyright because it's broken, and here's one illustration of why"...

Right, except I don't see that as being broken (and really, "we should lower it because it's broken", whereby "broken" is defined in part as "they don't produce as many works", is effectively saying that "we should lower the copyright because we can get them to produce more works"). If you consider encouraging more work to be the sole grounds for copyright, then yeah -- that would indeed be an issue. But if you're establishing it as a fundamental right to your own work, then that's not really a problem, because within that context copyright isn't really expected to encourage creative works in the first place, but to simply protect one's rights over their intellectual efforts.

Shortening the length of control over intellectual property does infringe upon the right to control over work that you created, pretty much by definition. I don't really think that's deniable, since by shortening that length you have less than full control over it.

The question is more-so is it a reasonable infringement? And sure -- it very much can be. But the grounds for it being reasonable should not be that it limits creative output from that individual, as that individual owes no creative output to society.

[Ghostbear]

Right, except I don't see that as being broken (and really, "we should lower it because it's broken", whereby "broken" is defined in part as "they don't produce as many works", is effectively saying that "we should lower the copyright because we can get them to produce more works").

This I disagree with, specifically because that definition is only in part. There are other ways that it is broken, and this one is not the dominant reason. It's only an illustration of, in part, how it is broken.

If you consider encouraging more work to be the sole grounds for copyright, then yeah -- that would indeed be an issue. But if you're establishing it as a fundamental right to your own work, then that's not really a problem, because within that context copyright isn't really expected to encourage creative works in the first place, but to simply protect one's rights over their intellectual efforts.

Shortening the length of control over intellectual property does infringe upon the right to control over work that you created, pretty much by definition. I don't really think that's deniable, since by shortening that length you have less than full control over it.

The question is more-so is it a reasonable infringement? And sure -- it very much can be. But the grounds for it being reasonable should not be that it limits creative output from that individual, as that individual owes no creative output to society.

I don't think it counts as an violation of that right, fundamental or not, because the right only states "protection". There is no call for permanent protection, or absolute protection, or protection of any specific level or length. Now, in a general sense, "protection" would probably be best interpreted in the absolute sense, but in this case we have the context of the previous sentence:

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Which very clearly would call for that protection to not be absolute, to not be iron clad, and to not be permanent. The basis of my argument has never been that we'd be able to get more works out of creative people. It's partly an illustration of how it's broken (copyright was made to encourage works, and now it actively discourages certain people from creating works), and partly a happy side effect of fixing things. I think it'd be a wonderful side effect, but it's not the sole or principal reason I've wanted the terms shortened, and is not where my argument is grounded.

[Panonadin]

I admit, I've skimmed a lot of the 14 paragraph posts and read all of the 3 paragraph or less ones but I still don't see the issue with copyright in it's current form.

It seems, and just barely that you disagree with it because it causes the owners work to be protected too long? Too long by what standard?

[yoni45]

Right, except I don't see that as being broken (and really, "we should lower it because it's broken", whereby "broken" is defined in part as "they don't produce as many works", is effectively saying that "we should lower the copyright because we can get them to produce more works").

This I disagree with, specifically because that definition is only in part. There are other ways that it is broken, and this one is not the dominant reason. It's only an illustration of, in part, how it is broken.

I never said it was anything more than in part. If something is broken, then it generally follows that that's an impetus to fix it. If it shouldn't be fixed, then it's probably not broken.

My point was that even in part, that's not evidence of it being broken, since the benefits of copyright towards work creation are not the sole reason grounds of copyright protection (and as far as I'm concerned are incidental, but that's a different argument altogether).

I don't think it counts as an violation of that right, fundamental or not, because the right only states "protection". There is no call for permanent protection, or absolute protection, or protection of any specific level or length. Now, in a general sense, "protection" would probably be best interpreted in the absolute sense, but in this case we have the context of the previous sentence...

Do we not give absolute property rights to 'cultural' physical objects? The prior statement can be interpreted in numerous ways. As you said, however, the general interpretation is an absolute one -- anything less is an infringement, but it may still be a reasonable infringement.

[Ghostbear]

I admit, I've skimmed a lot of the 14 paragraph posts and read all of the 3 paragraph or less ones but I still don't see the issue with copyright in it's current form.

It seems, and just barely that you disagree with it because it causes the owners work to be protected too long? Too long by what standard?

To save myself time since I'm about to go to bed, I think this earlier post of mine makes my case well enough for a first dive.

I never said it was anything more than in part.

I was actually using the "in part" in direct reference to you saying it, sorry if that caused some confusion. I probably should have italicized it or something. My bad.

If something is broken, then it generally follows that that's an impetus to fix it. If it shouldn't be fixed, then it's probably not broken.

My point was that even in part, that's not evidence of it being broken, since the benefits of copyright towards work creation are not the sole reason grounds of copyright protection (and as far as I'm concerned are incidental, but that's a different argument altogether).

Even if we take copyright as having that dual purpose (which I don't specifically disagree with, but don't want to give full agreement on either at the moment), if copyright fails to meet one of its principal goals, that is evidence of it being broken.

Do we not give absolute property rights to 'cultural' physical objects? The prior statement can be interpreted in numerous ways. As you said, however, the general interpretation is an absolute one -- anything less is an infringement, but it may still be a reasonable infringement.

If we take the definition of protection to be absolute, the the protection would necessitate the violation of the prior sentence, as people would no longer have the right to "freely participate in the cultural life of the community,"- someone could take their cultural production and put it under lock and key indefinitely, preventing the free participation.

[LaserGuy]

Do we not give absolute property rights to 'cultural' physical objects? The prior statement can be interpreted in numerous ways. As you said, however, the general interpretation is an absolute one -- anything less is an infringement, but it may still be a reasonable infringement.

Well, I guess that depends. If you make a physical work, you can do whatever you want with it. But the moment you sell it to someone else, you lose all control over it. If you paint a painting and sell it to me, I can deface it, burn it, copy it, or whatever. Your absolute property right only persists as long as you maintain physical possession.

[Dauric]

Do we not give absolute property rights to 'cultural' physical objects? The prior statement can be interpreted in numerous ways. As you said, however, the general interpretation is an absolute one -- anything less is an infringement, but it may still be a reasonable infringement.

Well, I guess that depends. If you make a physical work, you can do whatever you want with it. But the moment you sell it to someone else, you lose all control over it. If you paint a painting and sell it to me, I can deface it, burn it, copy it, or whatever. Your absolute property right only persists as long as you maintain physical possession.

One can sell or otherwise transfer copyright as well, then the copyright is the property of the new owner, and the new owner can do with that IP as they please at that point as well.

[Malice]

I admit, I've skimmed a lot of the 14 paragraph posts and read all of the 3 paragraph or less ones but I still don't see the issue with copyright in it's current form.

It seems, and just barely that you disagree with it because it causes the owners work to be protected too long? Too long by what standard?

Copyright cannot solely be about protecting a creator's right to determine the distribution of their creative output; if it were, copyright duration would be infinite (or from another perspective, cease immediately upon the death of the author). Instead, copyright durations were created as limited, and although they have been extended over the years they remain limited.

This strongly suggests that there is a goal behind that limitation, and the goal would appear to be the creation of a public domain. It suggests that the people consider a public domain to be of value; it follows definitionally that a larger public domain is of greater value. Assuming copyright duration stays the same, the only way to encourage a larger public domain is to encourage the creation of more cultural works. If you're still with me, the first (and not unreasonable, I think) conclusion is one of the reasons for copyright protections is to encourage the creation of culture.

The question then becomes: are the current protections and (particularly) durations maximizing the creation of culture? Obviously if there were zero protections, artists would be discouraged from creating works; if there were infinite protections (and thereby infinite profit), artists would tend to stop creating after one large success whose infinite protection would set them up for life. The appropriate measure lies somewhere in the middle.

I and others have argued that the copyright duration is too long because it has increased profits and lowered risks to the point where artists are discouraged from creating further cultural works. In addition, the legislation lengthening copyright duration has been applied retroactively; this has frozen the public domain in (I believe) 1923, when the vast majority of artists from that time period and the decades following are no longer producing cultural works, which means that neither their rights nor their encouragement provide a reason to deny the public the ability to freely experience (and remix) works first published over 70 years ago.

[yoni45]

Even if we take copyright as having that dual purpose (which I don't specifically disagree with, but don't want to give full agreement on either at the moment), if copyright fails to meet one of its principal goals, that is evidence of it being broken...

This is actually a fair point. There's a bit of cognitive dissonance on my part here, but I think this distinction should set things straight:

I don't see copyright as having the overall purpose of encouraging creative work, but more-so as protection of their rights so as not to discourage the creators from unfair exploitation of their work. I mean, we don't artificially restrict prices on physical artistic works because the artist might not feel like doing anything else after making an immensely successful work. Nor is this considered to be any sort of 'failure' of physical property laws.

I see little reason that intellectual property should be treated differently.

If we take the definition of protection to be absolute, the the protection would necessitate the violation of the prior sentence, as people would no longer have the right to "freely participate in the cultural life of the community,"- someone could take their cultural production and put it under lock and key indefinitely, preventing the free participation...

Yes, and that's where conflicting rights come into effect...

Well, I guess that depends. If you make a physical work, you can do whatever you want with it. But the moment you sell it to someone else, you lose all control over it. If you paint a painting and sell it to me, I can deface it, burn it, copy it, or whatever. Your absolute property right only persists as long as you maintain physical possession.

It's actually so long as you maintain legal possession, but the same thing applies to intellectual property?

[yoni45]

Copyright cannot solely be about protecting a creator's right to determine the distribution of their creative output; if it were, copyright duration would be infinite (or from another perspective, cease immediately upon the death of the author)...

This doesn't follow -- Copyright can solely be about protecting a creator's right to determine the distribution of their creative output, even while society can recognize that there may be practical issues with unrestricted protection of such work.

(For example, even though property was sold as anything above the land and as such should receive protection as such, it was eventually found that such rights to property have to be infringed in order to allow for air traffic to function)

[Malice]

Copyright cannot solely be about protecting a creator's right to determine the distribution of their creative output; if it were, copyright duration would be infinite (or from another perspective, cease immediately upon the death of the author)...

This doesn't follow -- Copyright can solely be about protecting a creator's right to determine the distribution of their creative output, even while society can recognize that there may be practical issues with unrestricted protection of such work.

(For example, even though property was sold as anything above the land and as such should receive protection as such, it was eventually found that such rights to property have to be infringed in order to allow for air traffic to function)

But there is a difference between the way physical and intellectual property is treated, because of those limitations in duration--it's not as though I cease to own my car or my furniture after x number of years. You're acknowledging the logic of my argument ("there may be practical issues with unrestricted protection") while refusing to engage with the patent conclusion--that the "practical issue" involved is the establishment of a public domain. If that's not the practical issue, what is?

[yoni45]

Copyright cannot solely be about protecting a creator's right to determine the distribution of their creative output; if it were, copyright duration would be infinite (or from another perspective, cease immediately upon the death of the author)...

This doesn't follow -- Copyright can solely be about protecting a creator's right to determine the distribution of their creative output, even while society can recognize that there may be practical issues with unrestricted protection of such work.

(For example, even though property was sold as anything above the land and as such should receive protection as such, it was eventually found that such rights to property have to be infringed in order to allow for air traffic to function)

But there is a difference between the way physical and intellectual property is treated, because of those limitations in duration--it's not as though I cease to own my car or my furniture after x number of years. You're acknowledging the logic of my argument ("there may be practical issues with unrestricted protection") while refusing to engage with the patent conclusion--that the "practical issue" involved is the establishment of a public domain. If that's not the practical issue, what is?

This isn't about what the practical issues are or are not. It's simply about whether "copyright can solely be about protecting a creator's right to determine the distribution of their creative output", given that copyright is restricted.

And my point is that it can solely be about protecting a creator's right to determine the distribution of their creative output, even if it's restricted, because while 'ideally' it wouldn't be restricted, a society can recognize practical issues with an 'ideal' solution even while maintaining the original motive.

[Dauric]

The thing is that the absolute length of the copyright is really a side issue. The problem is the fuzzy areas with "Fair Use". One example: Abandonware.

There's lots of media out there that you can't access because someone holds copyright on it, but they haven't done anything with that IP in decades. An absolute change of the copyright length would effect those artists still using their IP to create derivative works and wouldn't satisfactorily address the issue of properties that either the holding company went bankrupt, or some studio bought out the original owner but they're just sitting on the IP and not doing anything with it.

[LaserGuy]

The thing is that the absolute length of the copyright is really a side issue. The problem is the fuzzy areas with "Fair Use". One example: Abandonware.

There's lots of media out there that you can't access because someone holds copyright on it, but they haven't done anything with that IP in decades. An absolute change of the copyright length would effect those artists still using their IP to create derivative works and wouldn't satisfactorily address the issue of properties that either the holding company went bankrupt, or some studio bought out the original owner but they're just sitting on the IP and not doing anything with it.

In digital media, there's also the related issue of technology becoming obsolete. The first computer programs won't enter the public domain until sometime around 2050, and will almost certainly be utterly unusable on any computer available at the time--assuming that whatever storage media are holding those IP are still usable.

[Dauric]

The thing is that the absolute length of the copyright is really a side issue. The problem is the fuzzy areas with "Fair Use". One example: Abandonware.

There's lots of media out there that you can't access because someone holds copyright on it, but they haven't done anything with that IP in decades. An absolute change of the copyright length would effect those artists still using their IP to create derivative works and wouldn't satisfactorily address the issue of properties that either the holding company went bankrupt, or some studio bought out the original owner but they're just sitting on the IP and not doing anything with it.

In digital media, there's also the related issue of technology becoming obsolete. The first computer programs won't enter the public domain until sometime around 2050, and will almost certainly be utterly unusable on any computer available at the time--assuming that whatever storage media are holding those IP are still usable.

Actually media degradation is a big issue in every media. There's a number of film preservation societies out there trying to digitize old films before the reels of film decompose, but the hardest part of the projects turns out tracking down the copyright holders and getting their permission without the holders asking these nonprofits for obscene (relatively, for a nonprofit) amounts of money.

[Malice]

Copyright cannot solely be about protecting a creator's right to determine the distribution of their creative output; if it were, copyright duration would be infinite (or from another perspective, cease immediately upon the death of the author)...

This doesn't follow -- Copyright can solely be about protecting a creator's right to determine the distribution of their creative output, even while society can recognize that there may be practical issues with unrestricted protection of such work.

(For example, even though property was sold as anything above the land and as such should receive protection as such, it was eventually found that such rights to property have to be infringed in order to allow for air traffic to function)

But there is a difference between the way physical and intellectual property is treated, because of those limitations in duration--it's not as though I cease to own my car or my furniture after x number of years. You're acknowledging the logic of my argument ("there may be practical issues with unrestricted protection") while refusing to engage with the patent conclusion--that the "practical issue" involved is the establishment of a public domain. If that's not the practical issue, what is?

This isn't about what the practical issues are or are not. It's simply about whether "copyright can solely be about protecting a creator's right to determine the distribution of their creative output", given that copyright is restricted.

And my point is that it can solely be about protecting a creator's right to determine the distribution of their creative output, even if it's restricted, because while 'ideally' it wouldn't be restricted, a society can recognize practical issues with an 'ideal' solution even while maintaining the original motive.

In hypothetical land, sure. In reality, there are no practical issues preventing us from instituting unlimited copyrights to match unlimited physical property rights. If I'm wrong, please tell me.

[yoni45]

In hypothetical land, sure. In reality, there are no practical issues preventing us from instituting unlimited copyrights to match unlimited physical property rights. If I'm wrong, please tell me.

You're wrong on both counts:

Physical property rights are not unlimited. Real estate, for example, hasn't been unlimited since aviation came along and required an adjustment on the altitude limitations of 'owned property'. Unlimited intellectual property rights are also practically problematic in that intellectual property often can become so ingrained into public use that restricting it would significantly cripple civilized society.

[Ghostbear]

I don't see copyright as having the overall purpose of encouraging creative work, but more-so as protection of their rights so as not to discourage the creators from unfair exploitation of their work.

To me, this indicates that we each place far more importance on one aspect of copyright. I won't deny that there is some benefit to allowing people to have some control over their creations, but even that was done with the intention of encouraging works.

I mean, we don't artificially restrict prices on physical artistic works because the artist might not feel like doing anything else after making an immensely successful work. Nor is this considered to be any sort of 'failure' of physical property laws.

I see little reason that intellectual property should be treated differently.

Intellectual property has the difference that it can be just as ingrained in people that do not own it. If I have a physical artistic work and own it, then it is inherently mine, as I can relatively effortlessly deny it to others. An intellectual work can be yours, but you would have no capability to fully deny it to others. There is nothing stopping everyone I know from watching Star Wars, legally, without any permission from Lucas. For a physical work, that is completely possible and feasible. Hell, most cultural works are ingrained, to some extent, in people who have never actually "consumed" (for lack of a better word) them. Intellectual and physical properties are going to be fundamentally different because of the manner in which people interact with them, because exclusivity applies to them very differently (physical properties give absolute exclusivity, while intellectual give, in brief, exclusivity of reproduction). They aren't the same, and they should be treated very differently.

Yes, and that's where conflicting rights come into effect...

I don't think it's conflicting rights. The first sentence and the second sentence are intended to be taken together in context to get the full meaning. Either taken individually would imply an absolute protection or right, while taken together they each provide limitations on the other. You have the right to some protection of your work, but not so absolute that it prevents the public from having culture. Individuals have to the right to participation in culture, but not so strongly that people have zero rights to their works. The sentences are clearly meant to be taken together, and when done so it is very clear that the protection is not meant to be an absolute one. In which case, protections of various limitations would all satisfy the second sentence.

[KnightExemplar]

I mean, we don't artificially restrict prices on physical artistic works because the artist might not feel like doing anything else after making an immensely successful work. Nor is this considered to be any sort of 'failure' of physical property laws.

I see little reason that intellectual property should be treated differently.

Intellectual property has the difference that it can be just as ingrained in people that do not own it. If I have a physical artistic work and own it, then it is inherently mine, as I can relatively effortlessly deny it to others. An intellectual work can be yours, but you would have no capability to fully deny it to others. There is nothing stopping everyone I know from watching Star Wars, legally, without any permission from Lucas. For a physical work, that is completely possible and feasible. Hell, most cultural works are ingrained, to some extent, in people who have never actually "consumed" (for lack of a better word) them. Intellectual and physical properties are going to be fundamentally different because of the manner in which people interact with them, because exclusivity applies to them very differently (physical properties give absolute exclusivity, while intellectual give, in brief, exclusivity of reproduction). They aren't the same, and they should be treated very differently.

Ghostbear, your argument fails in the face of DRM. For example, it is now impossible to share a game (outside of hacking the game) between Steam accounts. If Intel's new "Insider" technology becomes mainstream (are you using an i3, i5, or i7? Congratulations, your computer is now "Insider" ready)... then Media DRM will be protected at the CPU level. If Lucas decides to release Star Wars Special DRM edition with new special footage available only on the Intel DRM package... then he would be able to stop people from watching Star Wars.

(Ignoring the Analog loophole of course. But people tend to like the original footage, and not severely downgraded versions of the movie)

When you make arguments that rely on the state of technology and the status quo of distribution... then it can become obsolete.

[Ghostbear]

Ghostbear, your argument fails in the face of DRM. For example, it is now impossible to share a game (outside of hacking the game) between Steam accounts. If Intel's new "Insider" technology becomes mainstream (are you using an i3, i5, or i7? Congratulations, your computer is now "Insider" ready)... then Media DRM will be protected at the CPU level. If Lucas decides to release Star Wars Special DRM edition with new special footage available only on the Intel DRM package... then he would be able to stop people from watching Star Wars.

(Ignoring the Analog loophole of course. But people tend to like the original footage, and not severely downgraded versions of the movie)

When you make arguments that rely on the state of technology and the status quo of distribution... then it can become obsolete.

No, those don't change it, for the specific loopholes you brushed aside. You can crack a game, you can use the analog loophole, you can even legally bypass those restrictions (ever loaned a book to a friend?), and that does matter. One limitation is an inherent physical property- you automatically have exclusivity for a unique, tangible object- and the other is a legal property- there is nothing inherent about an idea that permits exclusivity unless you willfully opt not to share it with others. They can attempt to artificially create restrictions, but the fact that those restrictions are not a natural property of the medium does matter.

[KnightExemplar]

Ghostbear, your argument fails in the face of DRM. For example, it is now impossible to share a game (outside of hacking the game) between Steam accounts. If Intel's new "Insider" technology becomes mainstream (are you using an i3, i5, or i7? Congratulations, your computer is now "Insider" ready)... then Media DRM will be protected at the CPU level. If Lucas decides to release Star Wars Special DRM edition with new special footage available only on the Intel DRM package... then he would be able to stop people from watching Star Wars.

(Ignoring the Analog loophole of course. But people tend to like the original footage, and not severely downgraded versions of the movie)

When you make arguments that rely on the state of technology and the status quo of distribution... then it can become obsolete.

No, those don't change it, for the specific loopholes you brushed aside. You can crack a game, you can use the analog loophole, you can even legally bypass those restrictions (ever loaned a book to a friend?), and that does matter. One limitation is an inherent physical property- you automatically have exclusivity for a unique, tangible object- and the other is a legal property- there is nothing inherent about an idea that permits exclusivity unless you willfully opt not to share it with others. They can attempt to artificially create restrictions, but the fact that those restrictions are not a natural property of the medium does matter.

But your argument is entirely reliant on the current status quo of computers and the current state of technology.

Even then, DRM for software at least is moving forward much stronger. Lets say that at the chip level, a game is signed and encrypted with public / private key encryption, and Intel makes an agreement only to run digitally signed games that match a trust chain. (Basically, Secure Boot, except its applied to DRM for games). Because its currently impossible to forge a SHA512 Signature. Since you can't change the signature, you won't be able to change the code. Without being able to patch the code, you won't be able to "crack" the game. If the Game then uses a typical DRM scheme in addition (Ex: registered logins), it would be impossible to change the code to remove it.

Do your morals suddenly change if / when this becomes the state of technology? What about hypothetical future technology which can address the analog loophole? (Ex: There aren't any cameras that can capture 3D yet. Encrypted HDMI isn't hacked at that level either. So if the software problem was solved, then 3D Movies would probably be protected from the analog loophole)