>> Your creative labor has intrinsic value.
>
> You are correct. But copyright is an artificial means of increasing
> the value of my labor. WIthout a system of copyright, my labor would
> likely have far less value, as there would be no way to ascertain what
> is fair and what is not, other than whatever agreement I come to with
> another person. Copyright thus artificially inflates that value in
> limited ways for a limited time, though the major players in this
> arena are seeking to extend copyright permanently. Hence, the
> argument that we are heading down a dangerous road.
I disagree.
The copyright system is a methodology that a civilized
society has voluntarily created to provide a structure
within which individuals may defend their rightful claims
to compensation for the product of their creative labors.
Every successful society has laws and regulations because
fallen man cannot resist devolving into anarchy, and then
into totalitarianism, without such structures.
This is a Biblical construct, and proposition that
civilization may exist outside of structure is non-Biblical
fantasy that fails to recognize the realities of the fallen
nature of man.
> Then you misunderstand the nature of copyright. Copyright (and
> patents, too) is founded on the principle that we do not own ideas,
> but need a way to encourage people to be more productive. Extending
> the time limitations has the effect of discouraging this very
> productivity that the time limitation was designed to encourage.
I do not agree. See above.
> Patents fit the bill here as well. When Bell invented the telephone,
> there was an Italian who beat him to the draw, but was too poor to be
> able to afford the patent fee. The Thus, we can have the same idea at
> the same time. In that case, who owns the idea? No one "owns " the
> idea. That is silly. However, granting rights of ownership via a
> system of copyrights and patents goes a long way towards increasing
> productivity. However, there have always been limits on the rights of
> the "owners", as a benefit to the whole society. If It is socialist,
> is part of the American experience.
It is socialist to infer, which may or may not have been
the intent of some of the posts here but is the meaning
of the words used, that exercising ones right to control
how others use the products of ones creative labors is
somehow equivalent to greed or is otherwise bad.
> Additionally, the extension of time limits over the past 30 years or
> so has dramatically reduced the amount of material in the public
> domain, from which people are free to draw. This partly how our
> culture has been built over the last two hundred + years. Indeed, in
> most cultures, there was no concept of copyright. Thus, people have
> long borrowed ideas from each other. Consider the black churches in
> America. I thought re-mixing music was something new back in the
> 1980's. Yet, attending a predominantly black Baptist church for
> several years taught me otherwise.
So long as the authors have not asserted their right to
restrict the product of their creative labors then such
"mixing" is fine.
There are court cases that have documented the legitimate
decision of civilized societies to cause those who intend
to profit from the creative labors of others to provide
compensation for such use.
I would argue that greed includes those who steal the
product of the creative labors of others to enhance or
even make possible their own products from which they
profit and either fail to recognize the true source or
fail to compensate the source as they line their own
pockets.
> Culturally, blacks just about wouldn't have a culture if they didn't
> borrow (or "steal" as some would have it) ideas from each other.
> Today, many black spirituals incorporate portions of the great hymns
> in re-mixed fashion. Additionally, some of the newer music includes
> portions of those hymns - mostly in the public domain. The first
> verse of "Love Lifted Me" is beautifully incorporated into an awesome
> song that can be heard in many black congregations and gospel radio
> stations. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea.
As I stated previously, it is only stealing (in a legal sense)
*if* the prior rightful owner of the product of his creative
labor asserted legitimate limits upon subsequent use. If no
such claim had been made then it was impossible for it to be
stealing (in a legal sense).
It is, however, at best terribly impolite and misrepresentative
for the subsequent users to pretend that their work was
original.
In that case they were both greedy if they profited from
the product of the creative labor of another, and liars who
misrepresented whose work it really was.
> It almost makes me wonder if Stallman and Torvalds, who recognized he
> was "standing on the shoulders of giants", didn't also study the
> musical culture of Black Americans. Come to think of it, Doc Watson
> learned African rythms and set them to gaelic tunes as part of his
> contribution to Bluegrass music. We learn from each other, and it
> does not always cost in terms of a financial investment. Free
> software licenses ensure the continuity of this kind of exchange.
> Non-free software hinders it by making it more difficult to carry on.
I have not asserted anything to the contrary.
*Voluntary* submission of the product of ones creative labor
to the free software community is a wonderful thing so long
as it is not coerced.
>> Compulsion to gift, social or legal, is improper.
>
> I am not so much concerned with trying to compell people to give,
> although I sure would love to convince a few more that doing so is,
> paradoxically, in their best interest. My real concern here is that
> the American system of copyrights and patents has always limited the
> "rights" of the holders in order to benefit the larger society. It
> was determined that copyrights and patents should be limited so that
> others could - at some point - have access to the materials and
> technologies in question. That, of course, meant that the
> copyright/patent holder had to start working on their next project
> before too long.
I see several reasons to set deadlines on copyrights and patents:
to prevent the legal hoarding of ideas thus preventing them from
benefiting society, either out of profit motive based on a
competing product, a bad attitude, or the death, disinterest,
or incapacity of the copyright or patent owner.
The opposite case is true as well. One invests considerable
time and energy and gifts in the development of a idea into
something practical at great personal and often familial
sacrifice. The reason for so doing is to generate income
from which to feed and clothe and shelter ones self and
ones family.
Absent a copyright and patent system another could come
along and steal the idea and the inventor be left with
an empty effort and wasted sacrifice.
> Again, I am not talking about an obligation to gift. I am talking
> about maintaining a balance that our systems have always maintained,
> up until the last 30 or so years.
The words that several have posted here functionally
make the argument that failure to gift is selfish and
greedy and bad and wrong.
I am unaware of any significant change in copyright
or patent law other than some pressures to clean up
the process some.
> I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing a legal philosophy, not an
> economic philosophy.
They cannot be separated. Economic philosophy is a
sub-set of political philosophy, or perhaps better
stated a given economic philosophy may only flourish
or even be permitted expression under certain political
philosophical systems and not others.
> This is one of my big gripes about
> pro-proprietary proponents. They always resort to the capitalism vs
> communism framework because they cannot seem to get their head around
> the fact that something intangible cannot be fully equal to something
> tangible. Nor can they seem to get their head around the fact that
> our socio-economic-political system, being driven in no small part by
> the interests of "big business", is leading us away from the balance
> that our system has always sought to maintain. So they cannot help
> but resort to the old, capitalism vs communism routine.
I do not believe that this is correct, see above.
So-called free market capitalism was illegal under
communist regimes, certainly it was considered evil
according to Marx and others.
We can chatter on as do eggheads in university
bubbles but in the real world we have to recognize
the interconnectedness of political and religious
and economic systems.
> There was a legitimate authority. It is called the Law. It is the
> American Copyright system, as it was originally devised - or at least
> much closer to that.
I am not sure then as to what we are debating.
Again, I am unaware of any major changes in the USA
copyright and patent law system other than some efforts
to clean it up some.
>> This is just not clear thinking from "Free Culture".
>>
> You should read the book before making such a statement. It is rather
> informative. The story of the Causby couple is rather eye-opening in
> this regard. Their rights had to be balanced against the rights of
> the government (and the general public, for that matter). I'll leave
> it for you to explore.
There has always been a principle of "greater good",
such as the proper use of eminent domain.
That such has been improperly applied in some cases
is not an argument against but merely an argument
for greater clarity and perhaps the removal of those
who so abuse.
> It is too correct. If you understood that the original intent of
> copyright was to balance the "rights" of the copyright holders against
> those of the general public, then you would know our system is
> weighting the scales more and more on the side of the holders, and
> leaving the general public hanging in the wind. Congress has been
> changing the system to favor the holders, over against the public.
> Congress must maintain the balance.
Unless significant health or safety crises are involved
no one (individual or individuals expressing such a claim
through the government) has any right to the product of
my creative labors. Anyone who claims otherwise is promoting
a philosophy at odds with the essence of the historical
American system.
>> Each could have easily gone to the prior "owner" and
>> requested permission to use the product of his creative
>> labor rather than just appropriate it without asking
>> and use it for personal gain -- that surely meets the
>> definition of theft.
>>
> Again, you misunderstand the copyright system.
I understand the case presented and it was to that
I responded. If they used an improper case study
to illustrate their point that is their error.
> This refers to the idea that a copyright holder's "rights" are above
> those of the general public.
They always have been so, with rare exception.
> Any basis for this view in American Law
> is surely most recent, for it has never been upheld before. Again,
> the balance comes to view. Your rights must be balanced against
> mine/the public's. Just as Americans run the risk of becoming
> apathetic regarding our Constitutional freedoms in the light of 9-11,
> we also run the risk of accepting further erosion of our freedoms
> under copyright. Thus, to me, it is un-American to give up my
> freedom, either way.
I am *less* free because the legal system enforces my
right to exercise control of the use of the products
of my creative labors?
There has to be a missing step in the flow of the
argument.
> I do not suggest - nor have I ever - that people *must* give away
> those things for which they hold copyrights or patents. I do suggest
> that people - Americans, anyway - must recognize that copyright is a
> balancing act, and that the public does too have rights to what a
> person has created. Balancing those rights is the context in which
> the FSF has, from the beginning, cast the debate. Others have come
> along and turned it into something else.
But where is the evidence that significant abuse
has occurred?
If anything it seems to have become more difficult
to extract health and safety-related products of
ones creative labors rather than less so.
Even in the case of eminent domain taking the
flood of abuses has prompted a flood of state
restrictions (local governments are non-existent
in the Constitution).
> I do hope this helps to offer clarity to my side of the discussion.
From my perspective the problems are in the area
of predatory monopolistic practices by the likes
of Bill Gates and others. This is a matter of
enforcing the law, and if necessary of clarifying
the law.
False advertising and restraint of trade are
certainly relevant to much of what troubles
the marketplace.
I see little in law and regulation that gets in the
way of folks who freely choose to donate the products
of their creative labors from continuing to do so.
Therefore I remain puzzled as to the genesis of the
debate unless it flows from some much-heralded
recent dubious claims to copyright and patent
claims by goldbrickers.
Again, such is fairly easily resolved via some
minor tweaks to the copyright and patent laws.
IMHO, YMMV ...
--
Respectfully ... dmc
---------------------------------------------
Home page: http://bibleseven.com
Biblical Christianity is Jesus
plus nothing = everything!
/\ /\
?(~~~{ @ @ } Sent from
( * Puppy Linux
( ) http://www.goosee.com/puppy
~~~~~~~~~
/ / / /
--------------------------------------------