[Leaplist] Patent reform vs terminating Intellectual Property laws [was Re: FYI, evidence of realities of IP]

[Bill Anderson]

On Tuesday 23 January 2007 15:02, Kyle Gonzales wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 09:12 -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 January 2007 08:50, Kyle Gonzales wrote:
> > > There has been this terrible mixing of postings here.
> > >
> > > The patent system has its issues, and needs reform.  Even the companies
> > > with huge patent portfolios, who have something to protect here, agree
> > > with this.
> > >
> > > Throwing out all intellectual property laws, however, is only in the
> > > best interest of those who want something for nothing.  People also
> > > need to remember that those intellectual property laws protect Linux
> > > source code from being taken and made closed-source.
> > >
> > > Copying without consent isn't stealing to thieves.  People creating
> > > those things find it differently. Then again, those who want to destroy
> > > the rights of others always find a way to justify it.
> >
> > Copying is not stealing under any rational definition. Copyright
> > infringement it may be (depending on situation), but stealing it is not.
> > To steal means to take something that belongs to someone. If I look over
> > our shoulder on an exam in class and copy your answers, what have I
> > *taken* from you? Nothing.
>
> I sounds to me like you are trying to get around the idea of that being
> "theft" by redefining thievery.  

No, in fact the opposite. Do you still have your content, your answers in this 
case? Or did I take your answer sheet away from you. Try looking up the word 
before telling me I am redefining it.

Here, allow me to assist you:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=theft
and
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/steal

Does it say *anything* about copying? Anything at all? No, it does not. Each 
and every historical use of the term prior to the fearmongering of the last 
several years is limited to tangible property. Property:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=property

Can you answer the question posed or are you simply interested in ad hominem 
attacks instead of logic? What property was taken in the above cheating 
example? What wealth did you create in filling out those answers? After all, 
you did nothing but mark down answers. Answers already provided to you.

> Some people would say that you cannot 
> "own" anything because it came from the Earth, which belongs to us all.
> Those people are crackpots too.
Yes they are IMO. However, your broad brush to tar anyone you don't understand 
is a crackpot-like action. Rather than answer the question and argue a case 
on merits you resort to insult. This strongly hints that you have no argument 
of merit.

> What right do you have to tell me that I have no control over the things
> that I create?  

Are you not aware that the very design of Copyright, Patent, and even 
Trademark are specifically designed to limit what people can do with 
their "creations"? 

Think differently? No problem, right an alternative, non-parody story set in 
the Star Wars realms WITHOUT permission from George Lucas et al.. What will 
happen? They won't get your work (if you get a decent judge anyway); but 
guess what, you won't be able to publish it. This is a common result for 
so-called  "derivative works" of literature.

For those who play role playing games such as D20, D&D etc., look at the world 
setting and "derivative works". I can write adventures set in any campaign 
setting. but unless I get approval from the authorities that be, I can't 
release it. I can not profit from *my* work.

This is precisely the opposite of the intended affect of copyright and it is 
also a demonstration of stifling of creative works for the common good, not 
to mention doing exactly what you are claiming is bad above.


> Why are you advocating restricting my freedom over 
> controlling that which is mine?  

See above. The current system of Copyrights and Patents provides exactly the 
thing you claim to be against.

> Why exactly are you advocating removing 
> that freedom from others?

I've not advocated anything here, so your strawman makes a nice mellow 
roasting source for at least a few minutes.

I have pointed out the history of copyright and of patent law in not just US 
but UK legal history, if needs be I can carry it out further but it would be 
best that those whoa re genuinely interested in the matter (as opposed to 
attacking people and calling them crackpots) do the research themselves It is 
far more satisfying and thorough to do so. 

I've also shown explicitly how  fact that copyrights and patents are in fact a 
tool to prevent people form doing things "with things they create" - that is 
their design intent after all. I've even expanded a few more examples here 
that show the problem in it's more insidious form.

Yet I've made no proposals here on how to resolve it. Not yet. The system you 
are defending and appear to be advocating prevents me from taking an 
imaginary setting and writing alternative stories, adventures, material. All 
this effort would add to the net wealth of the community, but is specifically 
prohibited in the US system as implemented. Of that there is no doubt, and 
plenty of evidence.

Perhaps it should be you explaining why you think it right to prevent me from 
taking an inspiration from a movie and writing a different story set in the 
same universe as the inspiration simply because Lucas (possibly) conceived 
the original universe (very lightly and loosely I might add). Why should 
Lucas profit from *my* independent effort.

Perhaps you should explain why independent discoveries should not merit the 
same rights.  I know of very talented writers who've had very good stories 
set in various other universes that can not get them to print or film because 
of the current system. Not just nobodies, either. Ever hear of the movie "The 
Core"? Yeah, he's one of the thousands that has been stifled by this effect 
I've been describing. So yes, he has the resources and talent to make good 
movies (I've seen more of his material), stories that never get made because 
of the onerous licensing regulations sitting around copyright.

How exactly are we better off by this stifling of creative expression?

if you go by nothing more than the literal text of the constitution the 
purpose of patents and copyright are to advance the arts and sciences. It 
says nothing abut providing life-long monopolies. Advancement and creation of 
wealth exists solely by building on what was before (even "failed" ideas,  
methods and stories). By preventing this from occurring you will be left with 
people who have two choices: stagnation and violating the rules.

A justice system is based on reparation of harm. A system that seeks to make 
examples or criminals is not a justice system but a vengeance system. Did you 
know copyright infringement is not illegal? It is a civil matter. Remember 
that bit about private law? Civil matters are the closest thing next to 
contracts we have today for private law. But remember, all parties must agree 
to be bound and then act accordingly in private law.

Did you know that under US copyright laws anything to be protected by 
copyright is supposed to be registered with the Library of Congress (IIRC) 
AND a copy MUST be provided (whether those seeking copyright protection do so 
or not is not relevant to the requirement's existence)? Why is this? 
1) All copyright was supposed to become public domain after a *short* period 
of time.
2) This provided a means to preserve history
3) It was the text that was protected, NOT the ideas expressed therein. Again, 
examine the historical record and you'll see this backed up quite strongly.

And one final issue with your assertion: Copyright and patent rights are 
created rights, they are not natural. They are the creation of a government 
structure, and as such you suffer all the whims they choose to perpetrate as 
a result. For the British it was censorship. Only today are we starting to 
see what price we have paid for our version.


Cheers,
Bill