I'm glad you think so but thats not what i said. However a house is property and it goes into the argument of inheritance and rights of ownership and how long you have the right to own something whether physical or intellectual after you die.
How exactly do you own anything, be it real property or intellectual property, after you die?
"I buy a house? In 30 years do i still own it? What if its a factory or farm." - wicked cool
Since the above was part of a post about how intellectual property is right and I was wrong:
Yes. Yes, it was what you said.
For your information: Intellectual property laws do not touch on whether you own your house or not. There are other property laws for that. No possible change in terms or conditions of intellectual property laws would have any sort of effect on whether you could keep owning your house.
Maybe i did need to clarify what i said but the whole argument is "public domain" and rights of property .
If King were to die the "rights belong to his estate" for X # of years.
"For your information: Intellectual property laws do not touch on whether you own your house or not. There are other property laws for that. No possible change in terms or conditions of intellectual property laws would have any sort of effect on whether you could keep owning your house."-Once again i'm aware of the different laws and once again they are similiar
In fact Intellectual rights which include patents etc have been compared to personal property rights in the past. See activists including Richard Stallman and Lawrence Lessig, etc. on their aruments on comparing it to land or autos-
So take that for making fun as the analogy has been done many times (probably by people smarter than me in front of courts)
If i were to predict the future i bet big corporations such as Disney will force legislation/laws to be files that extend these rights
Well, it behooves us all to try to stop participating in arguments that can't bring anything of worth. Feel free to talk, wicked cool. I won't talk to you.
If i were to predict the future i bet big corporations such as Disney will force legislation/laws to be files that extend these rights
Not much of a prediction, considering that it's already happened at least once.
Wow. I make a statement and that statement is turned against me. I prove that in fact the comparison has been made before and one says i wont talk to you? Not sure what i did to deserve that but whatever and Brian argues not much of a prediction (probably correct). I'm arguing in favor of copyright protections? I'm lumping in well recognized name brands and also personal property to defend King and Tolkien etc.
I disagree with Lessigs assertion that the young generation shouldnt have to recognize patent/copyright and shouldnt pay a legal price for illegaling copying/downloading songs or whatever.
I would argue that Disney should be able to hold onto the rights of Mickey Mouse for as long as its in existance and not on when Walt died.
This woman who copied the Mystara map or setting by accident or on purpose should pay a price for her actions and the books should be pulled and corrected.
I can't speak for Sissyl, though I can surmise that the lack of desire to debate this with you stems from a shared frustration to continue using real property as an analogy for intellectual property - and really, the phrase "intellectual property" contributes to the whole mess in the first place.
Lessig's view on copyright is certainly one extreme end of things, and seems a position forged from frustration at the current situation: the other extreme end, being what amounts to an essentially unlimited term and the industry that has sprung up around figuring out how to maintain and prolong that term so that they can profit off of licensing content and from enforcement activities (like attempting to charge little old ladies $20,000 per tune), rather than actually, y'know, creating new stuff to profit from.
Lessig's is a position that allows room for negotiation and compromise to a less extreme goal.
Why would you argue that Disney should retain these rights in perpetuity? How does Disney cease to exist? When it gets purchased by another company? When it changes it's name? Considering that copyright was enacted to benefit the public, what possible benefit could such an unlimited term have to the public?
Further, why should Disney (or anyone) continue to receive retroactive extensions to works already created when they obviously had no issue creating many of these works under earlier terms that were far shorter?
So, simply because of the timing of when you came up with or published an idea, you (and your descendants) should be able to exclude anyone else from ever using that same idea?
Yeah, makes perfect sense.
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
|
Yes, it makes perfect sense to me as a proponent of individual rights. It sounds odd to you, I imagine, but you arguing the opposite makes no sense to me (not true; socialist logic is almost undefeatable--I nonetheless disagree). It's a failure of logic on my part, I freely admit.
I feel like it's the Cold War and we're really in some freaky Star Trek episode intimating the subtle (and not so) differences between the US and the USSR.
Love the TJ quote (he's a personal hero), by the way; and as I understand his basic philosophical leanings, Jefferson would probably have been opposed to the ownership of anything conceptual or non-physical, and much of his published thoughts on ownership are in essence 'if it's physically mine (like a pair of shoes), then you can't just come and take it willy-nilly'. But I think he would be genuinely surprised by the Digital Era; the again, maybe not. Nonetheless, he never held any kind of hands-off-to-everyone else copyrights, and freely shared his engineering and architectural plans. I think it's a symptom of the modern era that people want to get rich off their inventions (physical or conceptual, real or digital); in better days (my opinion) people wanted massive props for their work, but the props were good enough.
Again, based on the time stamps, her response appears to be the first response to Bruce's comments:
Sure, but on THIS side of the Pacific the timestamps tell a different story, the first "Hey lady" post was popped on around 10pm, and by the time she got her notice and replied (the next morning) there had already been others starting with the slings and arrows, including negging her Amazon entries. It was in less than an hour after her "Sorry wut?" post that the wolves set in and went to town... that indicates to me that RATHER THAN someone quietly tapping another person on the shoulder and 'Hey lady, this is a problem' that the people involved had already spilled the tale, made sure plenty knew abut it, and went around looking for a bit of trouble.
It was a lynch mob from the get go.
By the time she got the first message, it looks pretty cut and dried that people hadn't actually waited on her response for a green light to get to the witch burning.
Once again, all just based on a popcorn munching outsiders view and what the timestamps say happened.
Similarly, why did the guy OPENLY POST the message on her Facebook page, rather than IM her? unless he was looking for a grandstand for his posse.
Sure, but on THIS side of the Pacific the timestamps tell a different story, the first "Hey lady" post was popped on around 10pm, and by the time she got her notice and replied (the next morning) there had already been others starting with the slings and arrows, including negging her Amazon entries.
So you're saying that time stamps on your end show comments between Bruce Heard's first post, and her reply? Care to screen cap and email to the address in my profile, because, well, I going to have to see it to believe it.
Similarly, why did the guy OPENLY POST the message on her Facebook page, rather than IM her? unless he was looking for a grandstand for his posse.
Who cares? He's not in the wrong, she is.
He politely posted, WAITED NEARLY ELEVEN HOURS FOR HER RESPONSE (and I don't see ANY other posts before her first response - from anyone), and THEN things mildly started to go downhill once she started denying the accusations.
I'd like to add: Heard may not have had the option to post a private message to her - depending on her settings, the "Message" feature on her profile may automatically post a comment to the timeline, rather than a private message. Facebook does this quite often, and I've experienced this behavior on pages that I've "liked" before.
Note: Facebook is not showing comments in chronological order - you need to look at the time stamps.
Another fun FB "feature".
(In calm dulcet tones because I think we are on the same page that she brought this on herself and we agree she was in the wrong and are otherwise generally in agreement)
Who cares? He's not in the wrong, she is.
A great way to justify the bad behaviour festival - 'SHE started it!', frankly I don't care either because the circus was entertaining. I'd just expect a little bit better from some of the so called professionals who are connecting their names to this whole debacle.
He politely posted, WAITED NEARLY ELEVEN HOURS FOR HER RESPONSE (and I don't see ANY other posts before her first response - from anyone), and THEN things mildly started to go downhill once she started denying the accusations.
That's what happens when you leave a message on someones Facebook fan page after 10pm yeah? You really think people sit there at 4am checking their small fan page for comments so they can immediatly reply?
A post left after 10pm got a reply around 9am the next day... you think this is an unreasonable amount of time for someone to notice and reply?
Wow bro, harsh expectations.
11 whole hours, the Nerdrage must have climbed to over 9000 in that time!
If you don't see any posts before that then head back to the Fbook page and have a closer look at the time stamps. Similarly, the Amazon stuff was already under attack by that stage, so yeah not quite.
Now I'm not defending her, I don't care frankly, she did the wrong thing and that's that, but I do point out that there are more dignified ways of doing things that don't involve descending like a pack of wild baboons, and leave professional reputations unsullied.
Note: Facebook is not showing comments in chronological order - you need to look at the time stamps.
Another fun FB "feature".
Yeah I know, I don't like that changed feature, can make things hard to follow at times.
Clearly though, the troops had been readied elsewhere and were poised waiting which tells me that there had clearly been some very public 'conversations' well before the author posted on her page - they were obviously all cued up on his open post.
That's what I think he did wrong.
A great way to justify the bad behaviour festival - 'SHE started it!', frankly I don't care either because the circus was entertaining. I'd just expect a little bit better from some of the so called professionals who are connecting their names to this whole debacle.
Perhaps it's time to alter your expectations.
That's what happens when you leave a message on someones Facebook fan page after 10pm yeah? You really think people sit there at 4am checking their small fan page for comments so they can immediatly reply?
A post left after 10pm got a reply around 9am the next day... you think this is an unreasonable amount of time for someone to notice and reply?
Wow bro, harsh expectations.11 whole hours, the Nerdrage must have climbed to over 9000 in that time!
I don't think the delay in response is unreasonable, given the time differences.
But, above, you claimed that people were posting negative comments before she had a chance to reply, and that's what I'm addressing:
Sure, but on THIS side of the Pacific the timestamps tell a different story, the first "Hey lady" post was popped on around 10pm, and by the time she got her notice and replied (the next morning) there had already been others starting with the slings and arrows, including negging her Amazon entries.
That bold part? That's what I'm calling you on. That bold part there is utter hogwash. NOBODY posted ANYTHING to her page, other than the initial post from Heard, UNTIL she replied to him.
I can't comment on the Amazon entries, I haven't looked at time stamps there.
If you don't see any posts before that then head back to the Fbook page and have a closer look at the time stamps.
I have. They don't exist. If you think they do, again, I challenge you to screen cap them and send them to me. The time stamps bear me out.
Similarly, the Amazon stuff was already under attack by that stage, so yeah not quite.
As mentioned, I haven't looked at that - but really, I don't care. I have no sympathy. Honestly, I have less sympathy for the comments at the Amazon site, because that's where she's selling the stuff, and, call me crazy, but I kinda think people have a right to know that what they're considering buying is plagiarized.
Now I'm not defending her, I don't care frankly, she did the wrong thing and that's that, but I do point out that there are more dignified ways of doing things that don't involve descending like a pack of wild baboons, and leave professional reputations unsullied.
And I'm pointing out that, contrary to your claims, the "more dignified ways of doing things" happened - had she fessed up instead of outright lying about the matter, the comments you have an issue with would likely not have happened - there would have been no reason for it.
Clearly though, the troops had been readied elsewhere and were poised waiting which tells me that there had clearly been some very public 'conversations' well before the author posted on her page - they were obviously all cued up on his open post.
That's what I think he did wrong.
This was actually brought to his attention on G+ by someone who bought the novels, thinking they were licensed Mystara books. There was discussion about it, amongst his friends and followers.
I fail to see how it's "wrong" to openly discuss what she's done - she openly published novels with plagiarized content, she openly accepted money for stuff that wasn't hers to sell, and even now, she openly continues to defend her infringement.
And we've barely even talked about the artwork infringement yet - stuff by Clyde Caldwell, Jeff Easley, or Andrew Hou.
Her work contains a direct rip of art by Caldwell and Easley, and the goblin on the cover of one of her works is nothing more than Hou's dice-carrying goblin ran through a Photoshop filter.
She defends that as (I paraphrase) "Well, *I* didn't do it, I contracted that out!" - as if that gives her a free pass. Not "Thank you for providing me links showing that this artwork likely did not belong to the person who sold it to me, I will immediately pull this until I have a chance to research more."
Because of her manner of defense, she deserves no consideration. Regardless of my opinion on copyright reform, the fact of the matter is, that at least for now, all of that work ISN'T in the public domain, the rights to it belong to someone else, and she's waving the middle finger to the people that created the work and own the rights (not necessarily the same people).
She continues to promote the books on Twitter, in between defending her assumed right to infringe upon the various works.
Yeah, forgive me if I'm going to look FAR more charitably at the folks on the other side of the debate from her.
I don't think the delay in response is unreasonable, given the time differences.
And yet you made a point of saying "WAITED NEARLY ELEVEN HOURS FOR HER RESPONSE" - your quote, not mine.
I can't comment on the Amazon entries, I haven't looked at time stamps there.
Sadly the ones that kicked it off (an Unholy encounter, the one with the stolen 'skeleton kicking in a door') are gone because the page was pulled. Now people are entitled to go ahead and do that, sure, it was entertaining reading, but lets not dignify it with justifications.
It wasn't done in a classy manner at all - had the author gone directly to her in the first instance, privately, and allowed her to back out gracefully, privately, then that would have been top points for class.
That isn't what happened though - because his first post was public. Now there MIGHT have been a situation where Fic readers had already sniffed out the blatant copying, got mad, and contacted the original author and that is how he found out - and the angry mob knew he was off to front her over it so they were waiting of their own accord to come in swinging after seeing his open post, but really, classy is a quiet word in private - show her his examples he says are ripped off (which they ultimately did AFTER she replied) and do it that way.
Or start throwing rocks and provide a circus for bystanders, and be tarred with the grognardia nerdrage brush.
As I say, use the Sheldon Cooper or Comic Book guy voice when reading the posts, its a scream.
I really liked the forensic analysis guy, talk about taking it ultra seriously, he was my favourite.
Ha you Ninja'd me! :p
I reckon the blatantly stolen Goblin was probably traced, it seems to have less teeth, and the earring looks a little squared off.
Seems her works are all down now, off Amazon etc, so she has pulled them.
I don't think the delay in response is unreasonable, given the time differences.And yet you made a point of saying "WAITED NEARLY ELEVEN HOURS FOR HER RESPONSE" - your quote, not mine.
Yes, my quote. My emphasis.
The point of that quote was to illustrate that, in that eleven hour window, not a single person posted anything. Heard made his initial post. No "angry grognards" full of "nerdrage" or on a "witch hunt" were in there, posting after Heard's comment - nothing until after she made her first post claiming "oh, it's just coincidence that I came up with the totally original locations of the Principalities of Glantri and the Grand Duchy of Karameikos, teehee!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say, though, I almost wish there had been a Spelljammer by the name of the Princess Ark in her novels.
It would have been interesting to see if Heard would have maintained the same level of calm in addressing the situation...
LOL ok that would have been funny stuff :)
Anyhow, I don't debate she didn't have it all coming to her, I do believe she may well have gone back to her old D&D notes and happily stole the content she thought was her DM's, not really realising that it wasn't his or her work she was pillaging but rather someone elses and in this case the someone else wasn't a long forgotten DM but rather a well known and current author.
Either way, it was still naughty naughty stuff, it is a lose lose for her.
Ripping off the art, on the other hand, now that was pretty blatant!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it makes perfect sense to me as a proponent of individual rights. It sounds odd to you, I imagine, but you arguing the opposite makes no sense to me (not true; socialist logic is almost undefeatable--I nonetheless disagree). It's a failure of logic on my part, I freely admit.I feel like it's the Cold War and we're really in some freaky Star Trek episode intimating the subtle (and not so) differences between the US and the USSR.
Love the TJ quote (he's a personal hero), by the way; and as I understand his basic philosophical leanings, Jefferson would probably have been opposed to the ownership of anything conceptual or non-physical, and much of his published thoughts on ownership are in essence 'if it's physically mine (like a pair of shoes), then you can't just come and take it willy-nilly'. But I think he would be genuinely surprised by the Digital Era; the again, maybe not. Nonetheless, he never held any kind of hands-off-to-everyone else copyrights, and freely shared his engineering and architectural plans. I think it's a symptom of the modern era that people want to get rich off their inventions (physical or conceptual, real or digital); in better days (my opinion) people wanted massive props for their work, but the props were good enough.
Earlier in the thread I had wondered if I lived in the Peoples Republic of America myself :D
A lot of people understand physical property law. it's easy to understand and is upheld by traditional western beliefs / values. They find plagiarism distasteful (although way too many students try it). They don't understand the historical origin of intellectual property rights though. When Jefferson talked about property and ideas he was in a pre-industrial intellectual frame. The spread of ideas was highly valued. Information and inventions were not valued the same way physical property was, nor did they have the same monetary value. As the industrial revolution wound up it became obvious that invention, not just the physical item but the concept itself, was valuable. If other people could just copy what you made from your idea it devalued the item you had invented and hence the idea itself. This type of intellectual theft helped spread the industrial revolution but it became obvious it discouraged invention and innovation and represented a threat to progress (and the public good derived from it). Patent was developed to protect that value in invention / ideas and encourage further invention. At the same time it recognized that the public good had to be figured into it as well, hence the time limit on patents. It is a compromise between individual rights and the public good. It allows you to profit from invention, and encourages more invention, but allows others to, later, utilize and build on that invention.
As an aside, if the public good requires you're physical property the government can exercise "eminent domain" and take your property, at fair market value, regardless of whether you want to sell it or not. Still. it's harder to take traditional physical property as opposed to intellectual property. In part because of traditional ideas of property, in part because there is a lesser chance that seizure of it is in the "public good".
Given the value attributed to invention, the recognition of the value of other ideas, that do not involve a physical product, is not surprising. Considerable amounts of money can be made by selling literature for example. If anyone can copy your work and sell it or "improve" on it and sell it you gain nothing from the labor of creation. Others gain the benefit without the labor involved. Copyright is a recognition of the value of this labor and of the individuals rights to benefit from their work. The longer periods of protection inherent in copyright favor the creator / their heirs. This reflects the fact that the public good is not, for the most part, damaged by individual rights to literature to the extent it might be by an invention, the extended control of which could lead to material loss to society as a whole. Eventually society does gain free access to / use of the material when copyright expires.
In short property rights, of all kinds, have to balance the rights of the individual against the rights of society. In the U.S. physical property is the most secure (and the least likely to damage the public good) with various types of intellectual property less protected (and more likely to infringe on the public good). It all comes down to a compromise of individual rights and the public good. Different societies / cultures set that value and it certainly shifts over time.
I feel like I just gave a lecture. And I'm on vacation. This type of stuff is supposed to wait until fall.
Copyright is a recognition of the value of this labor and of the individuals rights to benefit from their work.
That's not under dispute.
The longer periods of protection inherent in copyright favor the creator / their heirs.
But it's not "inherent" - these longer periods keeps getting tacked onto, at behest of big money.
This reflects the fact that the public good is not, for the most part, damaged by individual rights to literature to the extent it might be by an invention, the extended control of which could lead to material loss to society as a whole.
Except, it IS damaged by extreme terms, because work eventually gets lost. There are no provisions to expedite termination on orphaned works, and there are no provisions of archival to prevent loss of works due to time.
Eventually society does gain free access to / use of the material when copyright expires.
Not if we keep extending it.
Copyright is a recognition of the value of this labor and of the individuals rights to benefit from their work.
That's not under dispute.
I didn't think it was. You obviously know it. The dispute seems more about time protected rather than whether or not it should be. There were some other posters who seemed a bit fuzzier on the reasons and background.
The longer periods of protection inherent in copyright favor the creator / their heirs.
But it's not "inherent" - these longer periods keeps getting tacked onto, at behest of big money.
Inherent in the current duration of copyright v. patent. It's societies current view on it, and I know that has changed (and probably will again).
This reflects the fact that the public good is not, for the most part, damaged by individual rights to literature to the extent it might be by an invention, the extended control of which could lead to material loss to society as a whole.
Except, it IS damaged by extreme terms, because work eventually gets lost. There are no provisions to expedite termination on orphaned works, and there are no provisions of archival to prevent loss of works due to time.
Extreme is a matter of opinion. That's part of the valuation of IP. How much is extreme v. inadequate is the question. And everybody has a different opinion on it. The current law is where it is presently set. I'm sure it will go up and down over time.
Eventually society does gain free access to / use of the material when copyright expires.
Not if we keep extending it.
That's an unlikely choice. It may go up or down but it won't be forever. The factors that effect the current time frame will change, and so will the lengths of protection.
Both patent and copyright laws are currently subject to abuse without reference to the lengths of protection. President Obama has instructed the USPTO to tighten up and modernize the issuance of patents for example. They issue far too many for far too little reason. We'll see how it goes.
It has been an unlikely choice for ages. And yet, every time the previous extension is about to run out, a new extension is worked out. NO new works have entered the public domain since 1928 due to term expiry. That works out to THREE GENERATIONS, going on four. It should be added that the US has signed a law into effect that the government can take works from the public domain and regrant it to someone, if it were ever to actually happen.
In other words, it is not as reasonable as you claim. And that part about allowing time for the heirs is pure bullshit, just a way for big companies to justify terms that are beyond extreme.
As was said... IP law was a concept of the industrial society, and thus valued the copyrightable concepts less than patents. Thing is... We are not in the industrial age anymore. To further the problem, IP law is international. It is far more difficult for any country to change it than changing physical property laws. This means that Japan, Sweden and America who are deep in the service economy share the SAME original treaties on IP as Somalia, Lesotho and (I think) Yemen. In all likelihood, different countries have a pressing need for DIFFERENT styles of IP law, considering much that was written above.
Now, the truly ugly part is not this. It is that copyright is used to keep american government data from people in court cases, it is that there is an entire sector of publicly-supported extortion is built on it in the form of the RIAA business (Your IP has been used for copyright infringement, pay us several thousand dollars or see us in court, but dropping the case if someone actually mounts a legal defense) destroying people indiscriminately (they do this to people without computers, dead people, two-year old children...), it is companies buying up patents to make money as patent trolls without using the patents... The list of utterly despicable malfeasance is staggering. Given that, and given that extreme terms guarantee the profitability of this... There are many better ways, and they need to be considered.
It has been an unlikely choice for ages. And yet, every time the previous extension is about to run out, a new extension is worked out. NO new works have entered the public domain since 1928 due to term expiry. That works out to THREE GENERATIONS, going on four. It should be added that the US has signed a law into effect that the government can take works from the public domain and regrant it to someone, if it were ever to actually happen.
In other words, it is not as reasonable as you claim. And that part about allowing time for the heirs is pure b&*@&*@!, just a way for big companies to justify terms that are beyond extreme.
As was said... IP law was a concept of the industrial society, and thus valued the copyrightable concepts less than patents. Thing is... We are not in the industrial age anymore. To further the problem, IP law is international. It is far more difficult for any country to change it than changing physical property laws. This means that Japan, Sweden and America who are deep in the service economy share the SAME original treaties on IP as Somalia, Lesotho and (I think) Yemen. In all likelihood, different countries have a pressing need for DIFFERENT styles of IP law, considering much that was written above.
Now, the truly ugly part is not this. It is that copyright is used to keep american government data from people in court cases, it is that there is an entire sector of publicly-supported extortion is built on it in the form of the RIAA business (Your IP has been used for copyright infringement, pay us several thousand dollars or see us in court, but dropping the case if someone actually mounts a legal defense) destroying people indiscriminately (they do this to people without computers, dead people, two-year old children...), it is companies buying up patents to make money as patent trolls without using the patents... The list of utterly despicable malfeasance is staggering. Given that, and given that extreme terms guarantee the profitability of this... There are many better...
Like I said above the abuse of the system is another topic. You may disagree with the periods of protection, and that's fine. Using the RIAA as an example of why their is a problem with copyright law is like using a blackmailer as an example of problems in criminal law.
The industrial age / revolution hasn't ended yet. If everybody starts producing their own goods or buying from some small local shop (i.e. 3D printers) you might have a point. Not so much right now (or for the immediate future). The increasing efficiency of industry and the rise of consumer spending in the industrial economy have altered the landscape a bit.
The "information age" is here, but the economy is still totally dependent on industry. Computers have enhanced the efficiency of the system, they haven't eliminated it. The fact that the law is international is why it works at all. With the increasing importance of international trade it can't be otherwise.
Patent trolling is another abuse of the law, one the USPTO has recently been directed to look into and deal with it (by presidential directive). People abuse all types of laws. Contract law is the single largest component of federal civil court cases for example.
There are a number of items that should be entering the public domain soon (i.e. Burroughs Barsoom - 2020 I believe, etc.). We'll see if it happens or not. If those extensions / changes keep pushing forward you might have grounds for a complaint. Might. The owners of those rights might disagree, and they are not all huge evil corporations.
In the United States the law protects the property rights of the individual. And corporations are technically / legally individuals (which is why they can be sued in court for example). The internet has made it very easy to violate peoples property rights. Very easy. And still wrong. The internet has decreased peoples respect for IP. The reaction to that has been increased attempts to protect it by various means some of which are distasteful and of questionable legality (i.e. RIAA). It's going to be interesting to see how it turns out.
*edit* And btw, copyright law can not keep government data from anybody. Privacy laws can. Laws protecting secrecy can. Not copyright.
If those extensions / changes keep pushing forward you might have grounds for a complaint.
So none of the previous extensions, like the last one, changing it from 56 years to life + 70, none of those give us any grounds for a complaint?
The owners of those rights might disagree, and they are not all huge evil corporations.
No, not all, but certainly the money buying the politicians (i.e. the actual ability to affect the situation) is.
The internet has made it very easy to violate peoples property rights. Very easy. And still wrong. The internet has decreased peoples respect for IP.
As has the disrespect for the public good by supporters of copyright extensions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If those extensions / changes keep pushing forward you might have grounds for a complaint.
So none of the previous extensions, like the last one, changing it from 56 years to life + 70, none of those give us any grounds for a complaint?
Not for me. For you, obviously.
The owners of those rights might disagree, and they are not all huge evil corporations.
No, not all, but certainly the money buying the politicians (i.e. the actual ability to affect the situation) is.
Really? You think, in a country like the U.S. with a press as invasive and aggressive as ours that they are "buying politicians"? Publishers and authors? And no one has uncovered this illegal activity and ratted them out to the press or the prosecutors? Money may buy you access in the current political set up, it is unlikely to buy you anything beyond a chance to make your case. I'm sure the large copyright holders have done their best to make the case for extensions but if there wasn't a decent argument for it, then it wouldn't fly (I am not saying there is not a counter argument btw and I'm sure it is being made as well).
The internet has made it very easy to violate peoples property rights. Very easy. And still wrong. The internet has decreased peoples respect for IP.
As has the disrespect for the public good by supporters of copyright extensions.
Most of us are content to buy and read books. To borrow them from libraries or friends. The idea that the failure to make literary works freely available is doing huge damage to the public good is... I think unfounded. If there were no libraries, no loans, no schools making this material freely available and the prices of new and used books were high you *might* have a better point. As for the overwhelming importance of one specific work out of thousands, I don't see it. I have my favorites, but what any one book can inspire, another can. We are blessed with a vast amount of literature, growing every year and while most of it is average (no bad thing btw) there are plenty of great works.
Obviously we have different opinions on this. And to each, their own.
If there were no libraries, no loans, no schools making this material freely available and the prices of new and used books were high you *might* have a better point.
Textbooks, perhaps?
They're not freely available. The prices of new books are astronomical. The prices of used books are still ridiculous, and the publishers are in collusion with the schools to push out new editions frequently enough to eliminate the feasibility of used books.
I'm not EVEN a copyright abolitionist, but if there was ever a reason to strip copyright protections, that's one right there.
Really, though, if you're going to use the argument for preserving the perverted copyright terms of "the public good isn't really benefited by shorter terms so that works are placed in the public domain sooner" or "well, these works really aren't that important" then, really, since the whole intent and purpose of copyright is to benefit the public good, then it seems that those self-same works that don't benefit the public good or aren't overwhelmingly important enough shouldn't be entitled to copyright.
No benefit? No copyright.
And I think that'd be a great overhaul to copyright - the creator can either determine that their work isn't worthy of copyright, or they can determine that their work would provide a benefit to the public, and elect to be protected for a reasonable term of 20 or 28 years.
And you know what else would be great? Since the government is going to go to such great lengths to protect copyright, what with the armed raids and all, it seems that copyright should now also require active registration, and that registration should also carry a fee to help support the protection and enforcement activities. After all, since the public good doesn't benefit, then the public dollar shouldn't be used to protect your copyrighted work. Maybe something like a base registration fee of $1000.00 per work (peanuts to larger content entities, and for the little guy? Well, it shows that they actually have some faith in the quality of their work), and a percentage of the profits from the work - that way, the more popular a work, the more needing of enforcement of it's copyright, so the more that work helps to support itself. We could even bill the copyright holder for any costs of enforcement that exceed the registration fee or profit-sharing. Down the road, we can legislate higher registration fees and higher percentages of profit-sharing. And then later, we can do it again. And again.
Patents have to be registered, for a fee, and the argument has already been posited and supported that works protected by patent serve a far greater public good than literature.
Seems only fair. Why should MY tax dollars help to support the monopoly on YOUR creation? There's no direct benefit to me, there's no benefit to the public good.
Maybe we CAN agree on something!
|
The state is goes to such great lengths to enforce a law...really not surprising. Having people pay a fee (besides their tax) to be protected by a law is a really bad idea.
Just one question: Why should you be entitled to copy/download or even distribute any work of fiction I wrote without my consense (free or paid for)? (The question obviously only goes for works whose creators still live).
The state is goes to such great lengths to enforce a law...really not surprising. Having people pay a fee (besides their tax) to be protected by a law is a really bad idea.
Why should people then pay a fee for patent registration?
Why aren't people who invent something that's actually useful and beneficial to the public (not my argument, but the argument that has been proposed) entitled to the same level of protection for their work?
Infringing a patent isn't a criminal act. Infringing a copyright is.
Patent infringers aren't raided by law enforcement. Copyright infringers are.
Just one question: Why should you be entitled to copy/download or even distribute any work of fiction I wrote without my consense (free or paid for)? (The question obviously only goes for works whose creators still live).
Why shouldn't I then be entitled to receive compensation for the Whoppers and fries that I prepared and served 18 years ago?
Minimum wage keeps going up. Why aren't I retroactively compensated for wages I didn't receive?
Why should you receive protections for your labors when the majority of other people don't?
If you can answer those questions, then perhaps you can apply those answers to why someone should receive copyright in perpetuity, or receive retroactive extensions to copyright.
I almost feel like I'm reading some Marxist version of "Who's on First"...
Not at all. I just don't think you should be entitled to special protections, especially when you're not creating anything of importance or value to the public.
You certainly shouldn't receive protections greater than those of patent holders, who actually are creating something of importance and value, and who have their work stripped from them after a mere 20 years.
If those extensions / changes keep pushing forward you might have grounds for a complaint.
So none of the previous extensions, like the last one, changing it from 56 years to life + 70, none of those give us any grounds for a complaint?
Not for me. For you, obviously.
The owners of those rights might disagree, and they are not all huge evil corporations.
No, not all, but certainly the money buying the politicians (i.e. the actual ability to affect the situation) is.
Really? You think, in a country like the U.S. with a press as invasive and aggressive as ours that they are "buying politicians"? Publishers and authors? And no one has uncovered this illegal activity and ratted them out to the press or the prosecutors? Money may buy you access in the current political set up, it is unlikely to buy you anything beyond a chance to make your case. I'm sure the large copyright holders have done their best to make the case for extensions but if there wasn't a decent argument for it, then it wouldn't fly (I am not saying there is not a counter argument btw and I'm sure it is being made as well).
Disney spent more than 1.5 million in 1997 alone to get copyright extended for the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Here is a CNN article on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo WWhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyy....
Well since that map is that of earth in a previous geological era, she might be able to use it.While the Mystara World Map as a whole was, that particular section, the "Known World," was not; it was based on nothing in particular. It was then retrofitted to the map-of-earth-in-a-previous-geological-era much later when they expanded the setting.
Not the country names though.
And she scrambled them all up badly!
These books did do one thing for me, though: I used to think "I'll be happy if anyone ever publishes *anything* Mystara-related again." Now I realize the error of my ways. No.
No. No. No. No. No.
|
The main issue with patents is that the patent office is so thoroughly overwhelmed that many things, especially in the realm of technology, are being granted patents that really should not be. This in turn has led to an ever increasing number of patent infringement cases being filed which in turn also stifles innovation as it instills a fear of infringement with a broadly worded patent.
And while patent infringement does not carry a criminal penalty, the civil penalties can be absolutely ridiculous.
As to copyright, I don't agree with the lifetime +70 years. The original intent behind copyright was that the individual would benefit from their creation for a decent amount of time but still have motivation to continue to produce works that would be of benefit.
Now, when the original rules for copyright in the US were created, the average life expectancy was shorter than it is now, so an extension to the original duration makes sense, BUT lifetime +70 years is counter to the original intent.
While the original duration was 14 years with a single extension of 14 years if the author was still living, I think running with a 56 year duration makes sense (double the original duration ... 28 years with an extension if the author is still alive at that time). If an author publishes their first work at the age of 25, they would retain copyright until they were 81 ... and any later works would expire later than that. Considering the average life expectancy in the US is currently around 79 years, this seems like a reasonable duration.
The main issue with patents is that the patent office is so thoroughly overwhelmed that many things, especially in the realm of technology, are being granted patents that really should not be.
Well SCOTUS at least nixed the patenting of genes. Patenting anything naturally-occurring is just absurd, whatever one's position on IP is. A discovery is different from an invention.
If there were no libraries, no loans, no schools making this material freely available and the prices of new and used books were high you *might* have a better point.Textbooks, perhaps?
They're not freely available. The prices of new books are astronomical. The prices of used books are still ridiculous, and the publishers are in collusion with the schools to push out new editions frequently enough to eliminate the feasibility of used books.
You don't have public libraries where you come from? Libraries charge fees where you are from (besides late fees)? Schools generally have libraries (and hopefully will not lose them to budget cuts). Paperbacks are 8-10 dollars, hard backs circa 25 dollars, used books about half that typically. And schools, in the middle of a massive budget crunch nation wide, want to collude with publishers to spend more money they don't have? I can understand publishers pushing new books. They need the money. Our library gives away old books to make room for new (when they can afford them).
I'm not EVEN a copyright abolitionist, but if there was ever a reason to strip copyright protections, that's one right there.Really, though, if you're going to use the argument for preserving the perverted copyright terms of "the public good isn't really benefited by shorter terms so that works are placed in the public domain sooner" or "well, these works really aren't that important" then, really, since the whole intent and purpose of copyright is to benefit the public good, then it seems that those self-same works that don't benefit the public good or aren't overwhelmingly important enough shouldn't be entitled to copyright.
No benefit? No copyright.
You are going down a strange path with this since you seem to believe they are overwhelmingly important to the public good. Putting quotations that aren't my words in a post is fairly annoying. You are drawing conclusions from what I'm saying and implying I said that. What you never "quote" is the fact that the terms of copyright have to balance the rights of the individual against the public good. That is my main point. You, and the public, aren't the only ones with an interest in this. Without the author you have nothing to gain access to.
And I think that'd be a great overhaul to copyright - the creator can either determine that their work isn't worthy of copyright, or they can determine that their work would provide a benefit to the public, and elect to be protected for a reasonable term of 20 or 28 years.
They can do that now. No one prevents an author from legally releasing their work to the public domain early. It's their call. Many of them want to eat however and maybe help their kids out.
And you know what else would be great? Since the government is going to go to such great lengths to protect copyright, what with the armed raids and all, it seems that copyright should now also require active registration, and that registration should also carry a fee to help support the protection and enforcement activities. After all, since the public good doesn't benefit, then the public dollar shouldn't be used to protect your copyrighted work. Maybe something like a base registration fee of $1000.00 per work (peanuts to larger content entities, and for the little guy? Well, it shows that they actually have some faith in the quality of their work), and a percentage of the profits from the work - that way, the more popular a work, the more needing of enforcement of it's copyright, so the more that work helps to support itself. We could even bill the copyright holder for any costs of enforcement that exceed the registration fee or profit-sharing. Down the road, we can legislate higher registration fees and higher percentages of profit-sharing. And then later, we can do it again. And again.Patents have to be registered, for a fee, and the argument has already been posited and supported that works protected by patent serve a far greater public good than literature.
Seems only fair. Why should MY tax dollars help to support the monopoly on YOUR creation? There's no direct benefit to me, there's no benefit to the public good.
Maybe we CAN agree on something!
Uh, we call those "fees" taxes and everybody pays them on "income" and "property". Or do you not pay your taxes? If somebody steels my physical goodies the police may raid them. It's their job. No extra "fees" required beyond my taxes. Unless you want a society where people pay fees, or protection really, just to get police protection. So why does your private property benefit me or the public good? Should they bother to protect it? Should you pay special fees beyond your taxes? Your arguments are getting a bit strained.
And no, I don't think we will agree. I believe in private property. I believe in individual rights. I believe those rights, including property rights, should prevail except where the public good demonstrably outweighs those rights.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there were no libraries, no loans, no schools making this material freely available and the prices of new and used books were high you *might* have a better point.Textbooks, perhaps?
They're not freely available. The prices of new books are astronomical. The prices of used books are still ridiculous, and the publishers are in collusion with the schools to push out new editions frequently enough to eliminate the feasibility of used books.
You don't have public libraries where you come from? Libraries charge fees where you are from (besides late fees)? Schools generally have libraries (and hopefully will not lose them to budget cuts). Paperbacks are 8-10 dollars, hard backs circa 25 dollars, used books about half that typically. And schools, in the middle of a massive budget crunch nation wide, want to collude with publishers to spend more money they don't have? I can understand publishers pushing new books. They need the money. Our library gives away old books to make room for new (when they can afford them).
Ummm ... textbooks for $25?? Where did you go to school? When I got my degree, my Organic Chemistry textbook was over $150, Molecular and Cellular Biology textbooks were over $100 each, the cheapest of my Anthropology textbooks was just under $90 ... and that was in the early 90's.
Ummm ... textbooks for $25?? Where did you go to school? When I got my degree, my Organic Chemistry textbook was over $150, Molecular and Cellular Biology textbooks were over $100 each, the cheapest of my Anthropology textbooks was just under $90 ... and that was in the early 90's.
Yeah, I'd love to see these mythical $25 textbooks.
The edition churn on textbooks these days is ridiculous, darn near an annual new edition release.
You are going down a strange path with this since you seem to believe they are overwhelmingly important to the public good. Putting quotations that aren't my words in a post is fairly annoying. You are drawing conclusions from what I'm saying and implying I said that. What you never "quote" is the fact that the terms of copyright have to balance the rights of the individual against the public good. That is my main point. You, and the public, aren't the only ones with an interest in this. Without the author you have nothing to gain access to.
That's why I didn't use quote tags and quote you, chief. Because you didn't say that.
I *do* believe that all works benefit the public good by being placed into the public domain.
The argument has been made to support the short term of patent vs. the long term of copyright because patents more directly benefit the public good, because such works have more value, importance and benefit. This argument has been made by multiple people.
What I'm countering with, then, is that if these works are more valuable, more important, more beneficial, then, logically, since copyrighted works aren't more valuable, more important or more beneficial, they're not deserving of protection.
So, I ask you: Which is it? Are works currently protected by copyright beneficial to the public good? Because if they are, then they deserve to be protected by copyright for a limited term, and then released. If they're not beneficial to the public good, or their benefit is difficult to ascertain (as has been suggested), then they shouldn't receive copyright protection, because the very intent of copyright is to encourage creation of new works FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD.
They can do that now. No one prevents an author from legally releasing their work to the public domain early. It's their call. Many of them want to eat however and maybe help their kids out.
Copyright isn't about "helping their kids out" - it's intent was to secure, for a LIMITED time, a limited monopoly, to the original creator, before a work was placed in the public domain. Not life. Not to the descendants.
Uh, we call those "fees" taxes and everybody pays them on "income" and "property". Or do you not pay your taxes? If somebody steels my physical goodies the police may raid them. It's their job. No extra "fees" required beyond my taxes. Unless you want a society where people pay fees, or protection really, just to get police protection. So why does your private property benefit me or the public good? Should they bother to protect it? Should you pay special fees beyond your taxes? Your arguments are getting a bit strained.
Strained? That would be your defense of a system of enforcement where the enforcement efforts and penalties far outweigh the supposed crime.
You're endorsing a system that attempts to penalize an infringer tens of thousands of dollars plus jail time for $10-$20 worth of music or movies that, the majority of the time, don't actually result in any loss to the supposed victim.
It's a protection racket.
And no, I don't think we will agree. I believe in private property. I believe in individual rights. I believe those rights, including property rights, should prevail except where the public good demonstrably outweighs those rights.
But that's just it - copyright ISN'T an individual right! It's a collective right of the people that's been twisted to the benefit of a select few!
The copyright clause starts off with this phrase:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
So, exactly how is progress being promoted here?
The full clause:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
I don't see anything about demonstrability here. Surely, there's no requirement that a patent be demonstrably beneficial to the public good before it's forfeiture into the public domain, so why should that test be applied to copyright?
If there were no libraries, no loans, no schools making this material freely available and the prices of new and used books were high you *might* have a better point.Textbooks, perhaps?
They're not freely available. The prices of new books are astronomical. The prices of used books are still ridiculous, and the publishers are in collusion with the schools to push out new editions frequently enough to eliminate the feasibility of used books.
You don't have public libraries where you come from? Libraries charge fees where you are from (besides late fees)? Schools generally have libraries (and hopefully will not lose them to budget cuts). Paperbacks are 8-10 dollars, hard backs circa 25 dollars, used books about half that typically. And schools, in the middle of a massive budget crunch nation wide, want to collude with publishers to spend more money they don't have? I can understand publishers pushing new books. They need the money. Our library gives away old books to make room for new (when they can afford them).
Ummm ... textbooks for $25?? Where did you go to school? When I got my degree, my Organic Chemistry textbook was over $150, Molecular and Cellular Biology textbooks were over $100 each, the cheapest of my Anthropology textbooks was just under $90 ... and that was in the early 90's.
I was posting about regular hard backs a la B&N. I teach and I have three children in college. I am more than aware of the costs of textbooks , monographs, etc. When I went to graduate school (1980s) the typical book price was $50 for anything substantial and my kids pay more than that for undergraduate books. My oldest is getting ready for graduate school. That should be... less than fun for my wallet. I whined about it at the time but it didn't keep me from graduate school. And I'm currently considering going back for another degree :)
You are going down a strange path with this since you seem to believe they are overwhelmingly important to the public good. Putting quotations that aren't my words in a post is fairly annoying. You are drawing conclusions from what I'm saying and implying I said that. What you never "quote" is the fact that the terms of copyright have to balance the rights of the individual against the public good. That is my main point. You, and the public, aren't the only ones with an interest in this. Without the author you have nothing to gain access to.
That's why I didn't use quote tags and quote you, chief. Because you didn't say that.
I *do* believe that all works benefit the public good by being placed into the public domain.
The argument has been made to support the short term of patent vs. the long term of copyright because patents more directly benefit the public good, because such works have more value, importance and benefit. This argument has been made by multiple people.
True (on the quotes) I just believe you are pushing my points farther out than I would go. I agree they do benefit the public good. I believe, as I've stated, that this has to be weighed against individual rights. The argument for less protection due to less value misses the point of why there is any limit to the protection. Copyright is "more" protected because it has less direct impact on the public good than patents. Reversing that, the public good is less in literature so the period of protection can be longer without severely impacting the public good.
What I'm countering with, then, is that if these works are more valuable, more important, more beneficial, then, logically, since copyrighted works aren't more valuable, more important or more beneficial, they're not deserving of protection.So, I ask you: Which is it? Are works currently protected by copyright beneficial to the public good? Because if they are, then they deserve to be protected by copyright for a limited term, and then released. If they're not beneficial to the public good, or their benefit is difficult to ascertain (as has been suggested), then they shouldn't receive copyright protection, because the very intent of copyright is to encourage creation of new works FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD.
Answered above. Copyrighted works are not protected for longer because they are more valuable; they are protected for longer because they have less of an impact on the public good. Therefore the rights of the individual copyright holder can be sustained longer without prejudicing the public good unduly.
They can do that now. No one prevents an author from legally releasing their work to the public domain early. It's their call. Many of them want to eat however and maybe help their kids out.
Copyright isn't about "helping their kids out" - it's intent was to secure, for a LIMITED time, a limited monopoly, to the original creator, before a work was placed in the public domain. Not life. Not to the descendants.
The monopoly is for a reason. So they could make a living. And take care of their kids. Stuff like that. It encouraged progress by making a career possible so that they will be able to do more. I'm fine with good authors being able to make a living and write more than if they had to keep their "day job". My kids are going to inherit the results of my career / life. I have no problem with other people having that chance. I do not believe I, nor any nebulous public, have the right to someone else's work within their lifetime or for any reasonable period afterwards. I do, in fact, think an authors work should benefit his descendants. It will, eventually, enter the public domain. And probably be reprinted as a B&N Classic for under 10 bucks if there is a market for it...
Uh, we call those "fees" taxes and everybody pays them on "income" and "property". Or do you not pay your taxes? If somebody steels my physical goodies the police may raid them. It's their job. No extra "fees" required beyond my taxes. Unless you want a society where people pay fees, or protection really, just to get police protection. So why does your private property benefit me or the public good? Should they bother to protect it? Should you pay special fees beyond your taxes? Your arguments are getting a bit strained.
Strained? That would be your defense of a system of enforcement where the enforcement efforts and penalties far outweigh the supposed crime.
You're endorsing a system that attempts to penalize an infringer tens of thousands of dollars plus jail time for $10-$20 worth of music or movies that, the majority of the time, don't actually result in any loss to the supposed victim.
It's a protection racket.
The penalties may or may not outweigh the crime. It will sometimes and it won't other times. You could argue that the penalties should be adjusted accordingly. That doesn't impact my argument. And the penalties are supposed to discourage the crime; too little and no one will take the crime seriously. There is also the matter of the damage done to the rights of the copyright holder. They may outweign any "profit" the infringer made. Somebody gets to pay the bill and the infringer is the one who volunteered by breaking the law.
And no, I don't think we will agree. I believe in private property. I believe in individual rights. I believe those rights, including property rights, should prevail except where the public good demonstrably outweighs those rights.
But that's just it - copyright ISN'T an individual right! It's a collective right of the people that's been twisted to the benefit of a select few!
The copyright clause starts off with this phrase:
Copyright wrote:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
So, exactly how is progress being promoted here?
*sigh* It protects the right of the individual against the many to encourage the individual to do more work. It will benefit the individual and the public at large. That's the idea.
The full clause:Copyright wrote:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
I don't see anything about demonstrability here. Surely, there's no requirement that a patent be demonstrably beneficial to the public good before it's forfeiture into the public domain, so why should that test be applied to copyright?
So, they did this to be... mean? Snotty? Evil capitalists? What? The reason has been discussed and written about extensively. It's like saying it isn't in the preamble to the Constitution. In fact a lot is not in what I like to call "black on parchment"; the Constitution as a whole is only just over 7,000 words. Back to your question; it's about individual rights v. the public good. There is no guarantee of the value of any protected IP. Or physical property for that matter. There is no way to judge how anything will be valued until it is published / used. There are tons of useless patents and tons of not so good copyright literary works. And lots of useless real estate. When the IP in questions protection expires I doubt anyone is going to worry too much. And the BLM runs herd on a lot of desert out my way. It may be useful some day...
The penalties may or may not outweigh the crime. It will sometimes and it won't other times. You could argue that the penalties should be adjusted accordingly. That doesn't impact my argument. And the penalties are supposed to discourage the crime; too little and no one will take the crime seriously. There is also the matter of the damage done to the rights of the copyright holder. They may outweign any "profit" the infringer made. Somebody gets to pay the bill and the infringer is the one who volunteered by breaking the law.
But it's not even supposed to be a crime! It was a civil matter, until corporate interests lobbied politicians to criminalize it (i.e. they bought off politicians).
You've got a problem with infringement? Then you should take it up in civil court.
The fact that copyright infringement was criminalized is one of the biggest abuses of copyright ever.
*sigh* It protects the right of the individual against the many to encourage the individual to do more work. It will benefit the individual and the public at large. That's the idea.
That's the intent, but it no longer encourages any such thing, because there's no incentive to create more when your original is protected by an effectively unlimited term.
It does NOT benefit the public at large, like it was intended to do, because now it only benefits the individual, which is the antithesis of providing that monopolistic protection in the first place.
So, they did this to be... mean? Snotty? Evil capitalists?
No, they (the founding fathers, the creators of copyright in the United States) put these limits in for a reason - so that people would see contemporary work enter the public domain. You can make the argument that people live longer now, but that still doesn't hold water - we live perhaps twice as long as we did when copyright was implemented, but copyright term has nearly quadrupled.
The idea that you should maintain a complete monopoly on an idea and the use thereof, on words on paper - or notes of music or whatever else is protected by copyright - for your entire life, and then be able to pass that monopoly on as an inheritance for nearly the life of that person, and hey, if big-money-interests can manage to pass another extension so my great-grandchildren also maintain that monopoly, that's great too - that's completely insane.
Coupled with the fact that you DON'T feel that equal protection should be granted to inventions, to physical creations for some arbitrary "well, my book is MINE, but that guy's invention? That should belong to the world, it could do some real good!" kind of reason?
Like, full-blown mental illness insane.