Copyright and Intellectual Property (Blog)

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by John Prophet

One way that I like to approach this, is from an individualist standpoint (actually, that’s how I tend to approach everything).

...

Steve obviously creates content in order to help others, but if I create something solely for my own benefit, then isn’t it wrong, by any standard, to steal or otherwise take my creations and ideas out of my hands, and to put them into those of others?

No. Only by your standard and standpoint, and those of others who agree with you.

Originally Posted by John Prophet

I still think it’s just a better overall policy to do what you can to protect your own corn.

Actually, it seems to be a better policy to make it so that people want to give you money for any of your corn. It's decidedly progress-impeding to spend more time building up the castle walls than actually having something worthwhile to sell tomorrow.

Defense is not a winning strategy unless you're at the top. And in content production, there is no top. Well, maybe the Beatles.

[The Wise Turtle]

Originally Posted by John Prophet

I believe that where you and I part ways, is whether you should try to control or be proactive about how things turn out. I sense some complacency in your attitude, which I cannot agree with. Although, I might be wrong, it sounds like you’re saying (in general, not just about copyright laws) that you should just sit back and let what will happen, happen....

If you’re not proactive about your existence and protecting yourself, then you’re putting yourself at the mercy of others, who will choose to wield whatever power they can (like me, for instance; that thought should be motivation enough, lol). I still think it’s just a better overall policy to do what you can to protect your own corn.

I believe that it's completely impossible to "just sit back and let what will happen happen" since as long as you are alive, you are making choices and affecting things. Life is change, by it's very definition. All I'm proposing is that you'll be a lot more successful if you operate with reality, rather than fight reality with "should" and "shouldn't" beliefs.

I'm proposing that you act with the goal of being as healthy as possible, rather than acting with the goal of being not-unhealthy. Know what I mean? Instead of spending all your time avoiding what you don't want, spend your time seeking what you do want.

Personally, I hope that the changes that I'm making to the world, simply by being alive, are adding wonderful stuff to the world (for me and everyone else), and I know that I have a very difficult time doing that if I'm constantly worried that someone might take something that I think they shouldn't have, and constantly trying to "protect" my stuff. If nothing else, that stress makes me unhealthy! I mean what's the point of having stuff in your life if you're always stressed out and not able to enjoy having it?

My plan is to enjoy the beautiful and useful things I've got right now (and that's a lot!), enjoy the pursuit (and periodic attainment) of more beautiful and useful things, create new beautiful and useful things to share with others who I care about, and not worry about the rest.

But if that doesn't work for you, and you are quite happy with the plan of proactively protecting your stuff, then that's great. As long as you're happy, I'm happy.

-Turtle
glad that the tomatoes, beans, corn, lettuce, and avocado were willing to share the fruits (heh) of their labor with me so that I could enjoy the delicious chili nachos that I just ate, and I'm also glad that they didn't ask for anything in return (since I'm not exactly sure how I might go about compensating a tomato plant for it's services...)

[John Prophet]

OK, I think there was some misunderstanding about my last post. I wasn’t suggesting that I’m obsessed with protecting my stuff. And I do agree that creating is at least as important as protecting what you have. That last sentence was merely a metaphor to reaffirm my point that, if given the choice, I’m pro copyright laws, as opposed to anti copyright laws. I realize how that may not have come out the way I intended. I apologize.

[John Prophet]

Originally Posted by CannibalSmith

Flawed analogy.

I think I just realized the essence of the problem. Which is: it is impossible to distinguish a deliberate copy from a coincidentally identical pattern.

Audiovisual data, and all other data are patterns that we create. It is not ethical to copy someone else's pattern. It is ethical to create an identical pattern from scratch. Because it is unknowable if a certain pattern is a copy, a completely fair solution is not possible.

Although you are technically correct, copyright laws are about as fair as they can be. The possibility of creating a data pattern (assuming, of course, that this is a relatively well thought out or complex data pattern, which any work of value should be) that is identical to someone else’s is statistically insignificant. So, my “corn” analogy is correct, considering the fact that corn is all very similar in appearance and properties. It’s not the hypothetical corn which is being copyrighted, it’s my corn ( the product that I grew ). And that is the real point.

I’d like to point something out to everyone out there who seems to dislike these laws. Steve said in his Copyright and Intellectual Property blog post “In fact, for the most part I consider the anti-copyright fanatics rather juvenile and intellectually immature. Too often their utopian language is merely a hollow shell around the desire to get something for nothing”. I couldn't agree more.

There is something socially parasitic about the idea of being anti-copyright, and for anyone doing a blog, having these beliefs raises some serious questions about the value of your content. You can come up with as many abstract, philosophical justifications you like (it wouldn't be difficult to modify those justifications into rationales for anything; if you really think about it, a dictator could use almost identical, personal justifications, when thinking about committing genocide). Philosophy can be warped and contorted, but human motivations don’t lie. So ask yourself, do you disagree with copyright laws because you know, deep down, that you will never benefit from them and that having them around only impedes you in getting free stuff? Asking yourself these sorts of questions is essential to personal development and improvement.

I’ll just assume that any negative feedback that I receive from this post, means that I’m closer to the mark then some might like.

[gberardi]

Originally Posted by John Prophet

Although you are technically correct, copyright laws are about as fair as they can be.

So ask yourself, do you disagree with copyright laws because you know, deep down, that you will never benefit from them and that having them around only impedes you in getting free stuff? Asking yourself these sorts of questions is essential to personal development and improvement.

I’ll just assume that any negative feedback that I receive from this post, means that I’m closer to the mark then some might like.

Actually, copyright law, at least in the United States, is supposed to be time-limited. The idea is that you can create something, get some legal protections to allow yourself to earn something for it, and then it goes into the public domain so that more works can be created based upon your initial work.

Today, copyright law is still limited, but it might as well be forever since the terms are now long enough to last longer than the life of the person who created the work. Disney is always used as an example since Walt Disney pretty much built his entire company out of using public domain works to create new works. Fairy tales were turned into motion pictures and theme parks and books and television shows. Today, however, you are not allowed to base your works off of the works of Disney, even though the first such works were made many decades ago.

Oh, we have fair use, but it isn't the same. I also found this video on YouTube which uses fair use to explain fair use and copyright law. YouTube - A Fair(y) Use Tale

I disagree with the current copyright laws because I find that I can't benefit from them the way that we were intended to benefit from them. It isn't that I want something for nothing. It is that I feel that creators from 50 or 100 years ago had a better ability to build upon someone's work than I do on those same creator's works today. Why should they get such a long monopoly while reaping the fruits of the past? Who are they that they get such a one-sided advantage over culture?

Also, negative feedback on my post may mean that I am off the mark. I'll accept that as a possibility. B-)

[Keith]

Originally Posted by John Prophet

Although you are technically correct, copyright laws are about as fair as they can be. The possibility of creating a data pattern (assuming, of course, that this is a relatively well thought out or complex data pattern, which any work of value should be) that is identical to someone else’s is statistically insignificant.

The odds of someone independently reinventing an entire book or song are statistically insignificant. The odds are much, much higher of someone independently reinventing a word, turn of phrase or particular guitar riff.

There are only so many ways to put words, or musical notes, together and millions of people doing it for a living. Reinvention is a serious concern.

[XeutonMojukai]

But musical notes are only as good as the skill and quality in which they are played.

A C7 chord on a Hammond organ sounds different than it will coming out of a different amp, let alone using a Steinway, or a Stradivarius...

And is this Stradivarius played by Yo-Yo Ma, or a player from the 1956 album your parents have, who still was good but wasn't as popular?

Just the same, a blog from Steve will sound different to the reader when written by myself.

Is it the fact that my context is different? Or is it the way my hypothetical blog looks? Is it a different font? Or is it something else?

Yes.

~ David

Edit: Just so you all know, I'm only playing Devil's advocate.