Political Theory

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

Anonymous Coward — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:04:24 GMT

leonidia:
You completely misunderstand my argument. I'm not arguing in favor of monopoly rights.

What exactly do you think copyright is if not a monopoly right?

I just restated the argument to get to the root issue y'all were dancing around.

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

leonidia — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:49:18 GMT

You completely misunderstand my argument. I'm not arguing in favor of monopoly rights.

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

Anonymous Coward — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:02:23 GMT

leonidia:
If I copy right a book and you copy it without my permission, you have invaded my property and I have every right to take it back. If the only means available are to take your paper and ink, then I may do so.

The only 'right' that has been invaded is the contractual terms of the 'copyright'. You still own your property, the story in question, and nothing is stopping you from enjoying full use of that property.

Why don't you just say it how it is? The only thing that has been taken from you is monopoly production rights for this particular story and by competing with you you are being deprived of rent seeking opportunities. You still have the ability to produce and sell as many books as the market will demand but you can no longer set whatever price you wish because you have to compete against other market actors who might be able to undercut you and take away your market share.

That is the one and only reason copyright exists, to give an individual monopoly rights over a non-physical 'property' where it is impossible to exert normal physical property rights. With physical property there is no question that the rightful owner has exclusive rights to determine how it is used(or not used) but with a non-physical 'property' these limits have to be imposed artificially.

What is the difference between a painting or book and a (currently) un-copyrightable mathematical formula, according to your theory they should equally be 'property'? You can copyright Cat in the Hat but Einstein was unable to copyright any of his work.

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

Anonymous Coward — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:17:26 GMT

leonidia:
Well. I assume Shakespeare had to put his plays into written form before they were produced on stage. If he did, and he sold them to the producer under a contract in which Shakespeare maintained the copy right, then no one else would have that right. If he didn't, anyone else could, and sell them under their own copy right.

Well, you're right about the written part but back in Shakespeare's day there was no such thing as copyright and he somehow managed to make a living and some of the most highly regarded works in the English language. People 'stole' from Shakespeare and he 'stole' from others, that's just how thing worked back then.

leonidia:
If I paint the Mona Lisa, and I sell it to someone else under a contract in which I retain the copy right, no one else would be able to copy it or reproduce it.

No, the person you sold it to and agreed to the contractual terms wouldn't be able to sell copies. A consensual contract between two individuals can not impose limits on others that are not privy to the agreement if you wish to have a free society.

Now if you had every person who might ever possibly see the painting agree to the no copying terms you would have an argument but if you ever displayed it without first placing this restriction on the act of viewing the artwork then you just lost 'copyright' forever.

Oh, there also wasn't any sort of copyright laws when the Mona Lisa was painted yet it was produced by a prolific artist. In fact, the majority of human history was devoid of copyright restrictions but writers, musicians and artists still managed to produce great works. That's the true fallacy of the whole copyright argument.

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

Inquisitor — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:29:34 GMT

JonBostwick:
No way. If I buy a printer, I own it. I don't care what implied contracts the manufacturer tried to create, I can fill it with whatever brand of ink cartidge I want.

I don't see why not. What you own is a bundle of rights, to dispose of the property in a variety of ways. The owner could sell you all but one and remain owner of that one mode of disposition. This is how covenants would operate, after all. Why is such a contract not valid?

I hate to repeat myself, but it seems you are purposefully ignoring, what about people who never bought the book? If I borrow a book from a library or find it in the street, I have no obligation to not copy it, right?

Why would I ignore it? I agree, this is a problem with this form of copyright (to be clear, in enforcing it; it is not a conceptual problem.) I was just highlighting that it is not the same as ownership over an idea.

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

leonidia — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:11:51 GMT

I agree contracts are only enforceable in terms of property rights.

I agree that ideas are not property, but I maintain that the pattern of letters on the page are. As are the pattern of strokes of a paintbrush or the form of a sculpture etc.

What's the difference?

An idea exists only in one's mind. It is not concrete. It is not visible or audible. It cannot be sensed in any way except by the person in whose head it resides. I can't know exactly what's in your head, and you can't know exactly what's in mine. You literally cannot copy what's in my head even if you want to. And if you independently have a similar idea to me, I can't prevent you from having that idea because to do so would invade your property right in your body. If I think of an idea, and at a later stage, you think of a similar thing, I can't come to you and say "that's my idea, I own it, you can't have it". And even if I say to you "I have an idea which I'm willing to put into your head provided you agree that it remains my property" such a contract would be invalid because I can't know what now resides in your head even after I've told you. It's almost certainly not the same thing I gave to you in the first place. It has now become your idea and is no longer mine.

However, when I represent my idea in physical form it becomes something different. An idea has many different expressions or instantiations. I can describe the idea in any number of ways. But the particular pattern that I use is unique. It is, in a sense, concrete. It can be seen or heard or touched or felt. If I write "War and Peace" it is the singular expression of my idea, but it is not the idea itself. You might have a similar idea for a novel, but you almost certainly cannot arrive at "War and Peace" independently. If the pattern of letters that you have in your possession is exactly the same as mine, it can only have come from me. So if what I create is unique, and if I can convey it to you in such a way that what you receive from me (and now have in your possession) is exactly the same thing that I created, surely we can say, if you and I both agree, that my creation remains my property.

But what happens if you or someone else does create "War and Peace" independently? Well then I say "Good for you. It's yours".

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

Bostwick — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:56:17 GMT

But we still have gone no where. As I've said contracts are only enforcible in terms of poperty rights, if you can not own intangibles then your contracts about "copy right" are not valid.

I dont think you've addressed why a pattern of words is property.

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

leonidia — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:46:16 GMT

JonBostwick:
So if you sell the Mona Lisa to Bob, I can't take a picture of it? Why?

Because if I sell the Mona Lisa to Bob under a copy right contract, Bob doesn't own the Mona Lisa in its entirety. I own part of it. I control the right to copy that particular picture as a result of having that property right in it. If you go to Bob's house and see it hanging on Bob's wall, Bob doesn't have the right to let you take a picture of it, unless you ask me first.

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

Bostwick — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:44:00 GMT

leonidia:
JonBostwick:
You are saying that youcan own a story because you can own an image. But an image and a story are both IP. One can't prove the validity of the other.
So if you sell the Mona Lisa to Bob, I can't take a picture of it? Why?

I'm saying I can contractually prevent you from copying the pattern of letters on the page that I sell to you, and I can contractually prevent you from copying the strokes of a paintbrush that I sell to you, and I can contractually prevent you from copying a machine I sell to you. The pattern of letters and the strokes of the brush both happen to be images, but I'm not trying to prove the validity of one with the other.

But you sold it to Bob, not me.

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

leonidia — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:38:12 GMT

JonBostwick:
You are saying that youcan own a story because you can own an image. But an image and a story are both IP. One can't prove the validity of the other.
So if you sell the Mona Lisa to Bob, I can't take a picture of it? Why?

I'm saying I can contractually prevent you from copying the pattern of letters on the page that I sell to you, and I can contractually prevent you from copying the strokes of a paintbrush that I sell to you, and I can contractually prevent you from copying a machine I sell to you. The pattern of letters and the strokes of the brush both happen to be images, but I'm not trying to prove the validity of one with the other.

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

leonidia — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:28:28 GMT

JonBostwick:
Without your agreement everyone has the "right" to copy the book, so what you are doing is more correctly forbidding the purchaser from certain acts.I believe you are claiming that the story was not abandoned, only the book, so I can only homestead the book. However, what if I refuse to acknowledge your ownership of the story? If I create copies of the story, do you then own the phsyical books? What are my legal liabilities?

Without an initial copy right contract, anyone can "copy right" it for themselves. In this instance, such a copy right would be practically useless since other copies would already be in circulation, and a copy right can only apply to the particular book that is sold, not to others that already exist. So in practical terms a copy right is only effective if it applies to the first book that's sold, in which case all copies printed without permission are invasions of the original copy right.

If I copy right a book and you copy it without my permission, you have invaded my property and I have every right to take it back. If the only means available are to take your paper and ink, then I may do so.

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

Bostwick — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:14:47 GMT

leonidia:
JonBostwick:
But really what you are doing is claiming your literature copyright is valid because image copyrights are valid. Circular logic. If I paint the Mona Lisa, I do not posses ownership rights over any copies that others create.
Please explain your circular logic argument. If I paint the Mona Lisa, and I sell it to someone else under a contract in which I retain the copy right, no one else would be able to copy it or reproduce it.

You are saying that youcan own a story because you can own an image. But an image and a story are both IP. One can't prove the validity of the other.

So if you sell the Mona Lisa to Bob, I can't take a picture of it? Why?

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

Bostwick — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:10:42 GMT

leonidia:
The part I own is the right to copy and distribute it.

Without your agreement everyone has the "right" to copy the book, so what you are doing is more correctly forbidding the purchaser from certain acts.I believe you are claiming that the story was not abandoned, only the book, so I can only homestead the book. However, what if I refuse to acknowledge your ownership of the story? If I create copies of the story, do you then own the phsyical books? What are my legal liabilities?

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

leonidia — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:10:13 GMT

JonBostwick:
Would the first person to publish his plays in book form own the copy right on Sharespeare's works?

Well. I assume Shakespeare had to put his plays into written form before they were produced on stage. If he did, and he sold them to the producer under a contract in which Shakespeare maintained the copy right, then no one else would have that right. If he didn't, anyone else could, and sell them under their own copy right.

JonBostwick:
But really what you are doing is claiming your literature copyright is valid because image copyrights are valid. Circular logic. If I paint the Mona Lisa, I do not posses ownership rights over any copies that others create.

Please explain your circular logic argument. If I paint the Mona Lisa, and I sell it to someone else under a contract in which I retain the copy right, no one else would be able to copy it or reproduce it.

Re: An Alternative to Copyright

leonidia — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:46:20 GMT

JonBostwick:
You claim to have ownership of the story because of your contract with the purchaser, but then you claim that a third party is forced to accept that it is your property even though he has never agreed to it.
The park bench scenario begs the question, why is the story your property? Why can I not reproduce it?

I retain part ownership of the book. The part I own is the right to copy and distribute it. This is my property right in the book. You agreed to it when you bought the book (that particular book). If you happen to leave it on a park bench and someone else finds it, I'm still a part owner of that book, and they don't get my property just because you left it there.

Let's say we own a car together, and you leave it by the side of the road with the keys in the ignition with a sign that says "free car". You may not mind if someone takes the car, but I do. I'm still a part owner. And the person who takes it has to recognize that I'm still a part owner, even if he didn't know it when he took it.