Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1542652" data-attributes="member: 2013">Not quite... an idea itself has no "value" in monetary terms because the idea can spread at no cost to the originator himself.  In other words, it's worthless to try to assign a monetary value to that which is ephemeral and that which I can give to you without impoverishing myself by the loss of it.The work required to translate from "abstract, ephemeral concept" to "communicable medium" by which the idea can be shared is where the value lies.  In other words, it's not the idea of "boy meets girl" that has value, but rather the time and effort you spend in transcribing the story about "boy meets girl" to paper, cd, or other tangible medium that has value.  The value is not bound up in the work itself, but rather in the effort that created it.I must have come across badly then.  The effort and time take to type are where most of the value lies (the physical cost of the paper it's printed on or the plastic CD it's recorded on make up some cost as well).In other words, the idea itself for "your kewl prestige class" is worth squat.  The effort you spend organizing words - and that set of words - that communicate your idea is where the value lies.  The EXPRESSION of the idea - and the effort spent crafting that expression - is what's important.--The Sigil"He who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me." (Thomas Jefferson)Intellectual work by its very nature belongs to the public, as the purpose of society is to enrich its members.  If I share an idea with you, you are enriched, and I am not impoverished.  Thus, sharing ideas allows all to be enriched and impoverishes none.  Furthermore, once thought of, an idea is very difficult to "un-think."The purpose of copyright is to ensure that you enrich the public by adding your idea to the common pool.  However, if you do the work of writing it down, drawing it, etc., and get nothing in return, you have no reason to do so.  You should expect to enrich yourself by hoarding your idea (since once you share it, you have no control over where it goes), in which case the idea goes with you to the grave and all of society is poorer for its loss.To this end, the public proposes to grant you a time period to profit from your work and cleverness in exchange for you enriching all.  This is copyright.This sounds very much like what Thomas Babington MacAulay concluded.  I've quoted him before and you can google him if you wish.  His argument, in a nutshell, is this:1 - We need ideas and "IP" works contributed to society.2 - Nobody can afford to/will do the work required to achieve #1 without some sort of reward.3 - We can either reward IP creators using private parties, in which case they are beholden to the interests of the rich, or we can tax society as a whole.4 - Taxing society as a whole gives us the greatest freedom in producing ideas as there are no "special interests" that direct the creation of ideas.5 - To tax society as a whole, we create a monopoly called copyright.6 - Monopolies are always evil and serve only to unjustly drive up the prices of that which is monopolized.7 - Given #2, #4, and #6 above, the optimal solution is a short copyright, as it uses a necessary evil of monopoly to bring about a great good of IP creation.8 - Doubling a copyright term doubles the "evil" of the monopoly by doubling its duration but does NOT double the amount of good received by the public; in fact, it can be argued that it does nothing or even DECREASES the good received by the public.9 - Copyright must hit the "sweet spot" where the evil of the monopoly generates enough revenue to justly reward the creators, but then immediately pass into the public domain.10 - Macauley didn't like booksellers (media giants) who buy copyrights from artists "in their distress" for what amounts to pennies on the eventual dollar.I'm running low on time, but is that good enough for you?Copyrights are a tax of the nastiest kind - monopolies - that should be considered a necessary evil for the creation of IP and should last just long enough that the "evil" done does not offset the good of creation.My opinion: Copyright terms as they currently exist currently do WAY too much evil and have offset completely the good of creation.--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification