Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Staffan" data-source="post: 6547838" data-attributes="member: 907">The thing about so-called "intellectual property" is that it really isn't. Property, that is. It's a state-granted monopoly that lets you control the copying and distribution of information. I'm mostly going to discuss copyright below, but there are quite a few problems with the other kind of information monopolies as well (patents and trademarks).If I have a pizza, that's one pizza. If I share the pizza with a friend, we each have half a pizza (or 2/3 and 1/3, or whatever way we choose to share it with one another). But let's say I instead have a movie, and share it with a friend. Then we both have a movie, and are both the richer for it - there are even synergistic effects of sharing it, where I now can discuss my experience watching the movie with my friend. So when information is shared, everyone is richer, at least in the short term. Information is not a scarce resource the way physical property is.But.When a good has infinite supply, the price drops to zero. That provides very little incentive for people to make more of that kind of good, because they'll be investing time and money into it for no return. There would still be art created even without copyright (evidence: the whole frickin' Internet), but there would be little room for professionalism in the field, and particular forms of art that require big investments (e.g. large-scale movies) would probably vanish. So, in order to provide an incentive for the creation of art, the state gives the creator a monopoly on control of that art.At the same time, a lot of art - some would say all art - is based on art that has come before. Look at all the wonderful versions of Shakespeare plays that have been produced over the years, including things like West Side Story and Ran. Or for that matter the Bard himself, who "borrowed" liberally from the tales that were popular in his day. Or look at Disney's adaptions of various fairy tales into movies. Or all the adaptions of Sherlock Holmes - both as portrayed by Robert Downey Jr, Benedict Cumberbatch, Jonny Lee Miller, or for that matter Hugh Laurie (House). Or, to use lighter fare, a myriad of videos on Youtube where people combine music from one source with video from another, and create something awesome from the combination. So, clearly, there is value in allowing people to base works of art on other works of art, without involving the original creator. What if we got to see as many takes on the character of Spider-Man as on Sherlock Holmes?There's also the issue that copyright is a limitation on rights I naturally ought to have when I purchase a copy of a work of art. If I buy a set of carpentry tools, for example, the creator of those tools doesn't get to tell me that I can only use those tools to build things for my own personal use. If I use them to build a table, I can sell that table. If I use them to build a house, I can sell that house (or at least charge for my work in building the house). But if I buy a DVD, the creator of that DVD does get to tell me that I can't show the contents in a movie theatre. That is a clear limitation on my property rights as owner of that DVD.So, there are numerous competing interests at work here. The best way to go would, in my opinion, be the one that gives us the most and the best art while providing the least limitation regarding property rights. So, to focus on part of the issue: how long should copyright last for? Would artists and corporations be less willing to invest in the creation of art if they only got to enjoy the economic fruits of that investment for ten years? Twenty? Personally, I think the number of books and movies that are made today but would not be made with a copyright period lasting for 10-20 years is vanishingly small.</blockquote>

Verification