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: 1594102" data-attributes="member: 2013">Fascinating discussion.I think the problem is we're using the same words to apply to different things.When I think of "idea" - especially in the context of copyright law - I think of an "abstract concept" independent of all else - including the brain that might comprehend it.  Any particular "abstract concept" might not have been conceived of yet, and therefore is nowhere found as an ordered state in the brain.  As an example, I would submit to you that under my definition of "idea," the "idea" that we describe as "the theory of relativity" existed as such in 2,000,000 B.C.  The abstract concept exists independent of all expression.  However, the first time that idea was discovered (not created) was by Einstein some 2,001,900-ish years later.IOW, "idea-space" exists independent of all else and humans discover (not create) ideas.True, and you begin splitting hairs here.  However, I would argue that in this case, the ordering of which you speak - and the energy/time required to do so is the fixing of the idea in a medium - the human neural network.  However, since the human brain is not recognized as a sufficiently communicable medium to allow others to comprehend the idea (by arranging their own neural networks) across both time and space, fixing it in that medium is not worthy of making the idea subject to copyright... in the same way that speaking an idea fixes the idea in the medium of sound waves (carried by air) but absent a sound recording device, a sound wave in air is not a sufficiently communicable medium to allow others to comprehend the idea across both time and space in significant quantities (because the sound wave can only travel so far and only persists for a very short amount of time before dispersal).So if you wish to split hairs, there is where you are rewarded for your efforts with a copyright... by fixing the idea in a medium sufficient to render the comprehension of that idea by others across a significant amount of time and/or space.As a reminder, we're talking about compensating someone for their ideas.  If I am to compensate you, I must receive a benefit.  You thinking an idea benefits me not at all until that idea is fixed in a medium that allows me to perceive it.  In other words, when you conceive an idea in your brain, that may have some form of value to you, but it can have no value to others and if they cannot receive value from you, they have no reason to give you something of value (money, copyright, etc.).Ideas and expression are entwined, I will grant you that; however, as I mentioned, I believe "idea-space" exists independent of human thought, perception, and comprehension.  I believe humans do not and cannot "create" ideas, we can only discover them.Maybe that's a strange philosophical stance, but there it is.--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification