Issue: Intellectual Property Rights: Copyrights

[IrrigatedPancake]

This is a perspective on copyright that I have never heard argued coherently:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6283435552434112856&q=history+economics+duration%3Along&hl=en

I don't think it is well known that creators make most of their money, most of the time from performances, with a few "super star" and "block buster" exceptions. Also, I did not know anything about the history of copyrighting that this guy discusses.

I don't know where Ron Paul stands on this, but I think this perspective is one that deserves to be placed before legislators on the same level as the arguments of copyright lobbiests.

[Bradley in DC]

Among libertarians, there are many different views on some of these issues.

[IrrigatedPancake]

I always wondered exactly why I had to pay so much for a recording of a singer performing a song one time.

[Brandybuck]

Copyright covers more than just music. But even if it did, there's a lot of musicians who don't like live performances. And even more songwriters who aren't musicians. Music performance is an unsufficient base from which to analyze copyrights. And even if you do manage to get copyrights abolished, that does nothing to prevent DRM technologies.

Copyrights are not natural, they are a creation of the state. But properly limited, they can be damned useful. (Just like police and court system). But our current system of intellectual property is out of control. Copyright lengths are excessive, and patents are handed out for anything.

Everyone has a different opinion, but mine is to abolish most of the DMCA, limit copyright terms to twenty five years, expand some areas of fair use, restrict patents to material inventions, and put the burden of proof on the I.P. holders to demonstrate violation.

[foofighter20x]

The idea behind a copyright is to reward creative people for the thought and labor they put into their creative works by giving them the exclusive right to their work for a limited time.

Were there no rights like this, how would inventors make money from their inventions? People could just copy it and not pay him anything for the effort he put into his invention.

Same with scientists who make breakthroughs in their respective fields that make application of that science more efficient.

These people, these innovators, not just authors, song writers, or musicians, put a great deal of their personal time and resources into these efforts when they create. Why should they not get compensated for their work?

If you literally build a better mousetrap, shouldn't you get paid for the time and effort you put into the research, design, manufacture, trial and error, and patent application?

Copyright laws ensure creators and innovators at least get some compensation for their work for a limited time. I do agree that the limits have gotten rather out of hand lately, but that doesn't mean they should be done away with all together.

[constituent14]

Actually, you should be compensated for making, marketing and delivering that mouse-trap in the most cost-effect, consumer friendly fashion. Did that inventor come up with the whole mouse-trap concept or just improve upon an old one? 20 bucks says it is just an improvement of older designs. Nothing is created in a vacuum, and no one person's greed should be protected by everyone else's money so that those who subsidize the protection are prevented from also benefiting from it, and the opportunity to improve upon it.

And they are compensated for their work, by the respect and admiration of the community that surrounds them. Why does it all have to boil down to dollars are the reward? Most musicians make the music for the music, not the money. Those who make it for the money are just corporate stooges anyway, certainly not the Thomas Edisons of the world. The concept that profit motive alone is the driving force behind invention and creativity is just absolutely absurd. These forces are usually motivated by a desire to leave a better world than one found, by a desire to improve the lot of further generations. Profit motive is driven by the selfish desire to possess more, to be more, to lord ones' self over those less fortunate low-born peasants not capable of (or not desirious of) turning all they touch to gold, or measuring their wealth in terms of dollar bills.

Copyright is a scam.

[Give me liberty]

Copyright is a scam.


I Fully agree
btw youtube has begun to delete almost every anime episode on youtube,

they will delete every anime episode by the claim of its so called Copyright.

heres a video on what i am talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROHNkN4i8Hg

[Man from La Mancha]

Would not something you create be considered property?


.

[Brandybuck]

Would not something you create be considered property?
If it's material property, then yes. But intellectual property is a different matter. I can hold a CD in my hand, but I cannot hold a song in my hand. Property is something I can put boundaries around. Boxes, fences, locks. But how do you put a fence around a song? The traditional solution has been the power of government and copyright laws. I don't need the government to defend my material property, all I need is a strong lock and a shotgun. But those are useless to prevent someone three thousand miles away from playing your song against your wishes.

Hence, copyrights. It is an artifical non-natural government created right, but it is a useful and convenient fiction.

[Matt Collins]

Profit motive is driven by the selfish desire to possess more, to be more, to lord ones' self over those less fortunate low-born peasants not capable of (or not desirious of) turning all they touch to gold, or measuring their wealth in terms of dollar bills.

Copyright is a scam.

I desire to make lots of money, SERIOUS amounts of money, and I'm taking steps to do that too. But it will be at no one's coerced expense, I will not "lord myself over the less-fortunate" and I have no desire to really be over top of anyone else. My reasoning for wanting a pile of wealth is so that that one day I won't have to work. And when I don't have to work I can do things I want to do, not be burdened down, or become a burden to others. I can volunteer a lot more, and I can make generous contributions to causes that I support, including to libertarian ideas. I think you'll find that the majority of the wealthy in this country have similar aspirations and desires. Perhaps you should read a couple of books - The Millionare Mind, and The Millionare Next Door. At least one of them is on http://books.google.com/

And copyright in its current form today is very much a farce, but again that's due to large and over expansive government.

[cjhowe]

This is a perspective on copyright that I have never heard argued coherently:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6283435552434112856&q=history+economics+duration%3Along&hl=en


I love the frame at 54:41

"Copyright 2006
Google, Inc

All rights reserved"

[constituent14]

on song... look at a piano sometime, tell me how many individual keys (black and white) there are in each octave... n/m it is 12. 12 notes, billions of people, millions of songs... there's nothing new under the sun.

[LeFou]

Would not something you create be considered property?.

It could be argued that something you create *ex *nihilo would be entirely yours. As a product of your (and only your) creativity, you would have a right to control its use.

The problem, of course, is that no human has ever created anything from nothing.

[angelatc]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, once it gets played on public ariwaves then it should be public domain. Maybe some caveat about using it in commercials and movies, but the rest of it is silliness.

In the very least, the copyrights should die with the author.

[constituent]

bump.

[Matt Collins]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, once it gets played on public ariwaves then it should be public domain. Maybe some caveat about using it in commercials and movies, but the rest of it is silliness.

In the very least, the copyrights should die with the author.
Well the idea is that if someone uses your art to make money (a radio station), then they should have to share some of that with you the original artist.

[constituent]

How does FAIR USE apply here?

[Matt Collins]

How does FAIR USE apply here?Fair use is a defense, and it depends on the context and the nature of the work in question... etc... Give me a more specific question about fair use and I'll try to answer it.

[constituent]

Ok, if some communication is sent into my home via sight, sound, whatever... do I, or why don't I, have the right to use that in my home when I desire... or can I / can't I use that information and distribute that information to educate others, preserve as evidence (like convenient store cameras.. if songs have these rights, why don't people?), use to illustrate some other point... whatever.

And why can't I copyright myself? patent myself? particularly in these times of genetic engineering and things of that nature.... really... why can't I copyright myself? why can't I sue for the unlawful reproduction,distribution of myself, my image, my DNA, etc.?

So anyway... that's kinda what I'm wondering about. I oppose all patent and copyright authority claimed by anyone... talk about an enemy of the free market.

[Matt Collins]

Ok, if some communication is sent into my home via sight, sound, whatever... do I, or why don't I, have the right to use that in my home when I desire... or can I / can't I use that information and distribute that information to educate others, preserve as evidence (like convenient store cameras.. if songs have these rights, why don't people?), use to illustrate some other point... whatever.

And why can't I copyright myself? patent myself? particularly in these times of genetic engineering and things of that nature.... really... why can't I copyright myself? why can't I sue for the unlawful reproduction,distribution of myself, my image, my DNA, etc.?

So anyway... that's kinda what I'm wondering about. I oppose all patent and copyright authority claimed by anyone... talk about an enemy of the free market.

First off realize that patents, trademarks, and copyrights are built into the Constitution, so they are actually one of the few legal things the Federal Government does. Also notice that the works themselves don't have rights, but the authors of the creative works are granted rights by the government. This is one of the few exceptions of where the government actually DOES grant rights.

You are allowed to 'timeshift' media for personal use. In other words, you can record something off the radio, TIVO something, or use a VCR so that you can play it back later. You are not allowed however to distribute that (or any) copyrighted material beyond 'friends and family'. 'Friends and family' is vague and what qualifies is determined by how well you make your argument to the judge.

Now, if it is for educational purposes, again it will depend on what a judge will and won't buy as an argument for 'educational purposes'. Also the amount and substantiality of the work that is used will determine if the judge will buy the fair use defense. If you use more than the minimum necessary then you will probably be found liable for infringement.

Copyrights are only for works of art and something is instantly copyrighted at the moment that it is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. To qualify for copyright you must fix an idea into a tangible medium of expression with a minimal degree of creativity.

A patent is for a process, an invention, something novel, a formula, a protocol, and must be unique and new. A trademark is a logo, slogan, image, sound, etc that is used in commerce to promote a brand or a company.


Hopefully that clears things up, but I realize it might have just created more questions than it answered ;-)

[constituent]

It did... that's how you know it's a good answer.

I'll get back to you on it.