The right to copy

[swansont]

But a copy is something that someone else created.

 

I think it's generally accepted that copying is a different skill-set than creation. While there are certainly examples where copying is labor-intensive and requires skill, but in many cases — especially these days — copying is often trivially easy. I don't equate a few mouse clicks with a "creative act"

 

I think that you will find that copying is an intrinsic part of learning and human behavior. Look up mirror neurons. We copy, mimick, and model people's actions, behaviors, emotions, thinking processes, all as part of learning and life in general. It should be no surprise that we want to copy people's discoveries and creations.

 

"Wanting to" does not mean "have a right to"

 

There is no intrinsic right not to be copied. However, our government has decided to temporarily grant exclusive rights to authors and inventors as a way to encourage them to write and invent, and share their work with us. Copyright is more like a contract than a right.

 

No, it's not intrinsic. It stems from a congressional power. As long as congress deems it so, the right exists in the US.

 

It's not though; if they want to have the ability to put records into stores, then they need to sign a deal with a publisher, who forbids this kind of behaviour. We've only seen the smallest and the largest (Radiohead being the obvious example) persuing this method of distribution for a reason.

 

But you're confusing the (IMO flawed) economic system with the underlying right. You don't have to sign a record deal to create music, though at one time you were forced to by the prevailing economic conditions if you wanted to make a good living at it.

 

The publisher is still free to make copies available for free. What is required is convincing them that this will be to their economic benefit. Most have resisted thus far, because they are dinosaurs with brains the size of a walnut.

 

————

 

I'm a part-time cartoonist. I come up with an idea and I put it down on paper, which takes some effort and some (quantity is debatable) amount of creative talent. Why don't I have the right to choose who sees it? If I give someone a copy, why can't I have an implicit agreement that they will not pass along another copy, unless I have given them permission?

[Mr Skeptic]

"Wanting to" does not mean "have a right to"

 

I worded that poorly. In showing how important copying behaviors were to all aspects of life, I meant to compare it more to something like breathing. Copying is how we learn to speak, among other things. Since we have the right to free speech/expression, one would also consider such copying (learning to speak) to be part of that right. In some cases, copyright also would restrict certain speech. So I think that we have an intrinsic right to copy -- though I also understand the desire not to be copied too closely (which might also be considered a right), and that the law limits our rights to copy in a few very specific ways to encourage creative work.

 

No, it's not intrinsic. It stems from a congressional power. As long as congress deems it so, the right exists in the US.

 

Basically, that was my main point. That copyright is not an intrinsic right, but a right that the government temporarily grants exclusive right to. If there were an intrinsic right not to get copied, copying any of eg Shakespeare's works would be wrong, or would at least require paying royalties forevermore. Such would be incredibly impractical, and would stifle creativity.

 

The publisher is still free to make copies available for free. What is required is convincing them that this will be to their economic benefit. Most have resisted thus far, because they are dinosaurs with brains the size of a walnut.

 

I think it is more because they understand that they have become obsolete and that if the internet becomes the primary distribution medium, competition and the elimination of nearly all their profits will not be far behind.

 

I'm a part-time cartoonist. I come up with an idea and I put it down on paper, which takes some effort and some (quantity is debatable) amount of creative talent. Why don't I have the right to choose who sees it? If I give someone a copy, why can't I have an implicit agreement that they will not pass along another copy, unless I have given them permission?

 

What if you had to track down every artist who first discovered the drawing techniques that you use to make your cartoons and pay them some royalties?

[swansont]

I think it is more because they understand that they have become obsolete and that if the internet becomes the primary distribution medium, competition and the elimination of nearly all their profits will not be far behind.

 

Actually, from an interview I read recently, it seems that these people are pretty clueless when it comes to distribution technology and its implications. Their mindset is still somewhere in the 1960's, when they siezed control of the industry.

 

What if you had to track down every artist who first discovered the drawing techniques that you use to make your cartoons and pay them some royalties?

 

Techniques are not copyrightable, only specific expressions of ideas.

[Mr Skeptic]

Techniques are not copyrightable, only specific expressions of ideas.

 

Exactly. Which is another example of how the right to copy seems to be considered more important than the right not to be copied -- except in a few specific cases such as copyright and patents where the government has granted exclusive rights to someone for a while.

[bascule]

This video explains the situation nicely:

 

[Fred56]

OK, just for the hell of it, you all realise that the word "copyright" is a compounded word?

It's made up of two different, independent morphemes: copy, and right, i.e. the right of copy, or the right to claim copy, which implies the right to copy (especially if you're the 'original' owner). So what does "own" mean?

[Klaynos]

Fred56, you do realise that the word copy has more than one meaning? And if you use the second meaning it completly contradicts your argument?

[iNow]

This video explains the situation nicely:

 

 

That certainly pushes the envelop of "fair" use.

[doG]

So what does "own" mean?

 

See Copyright Ownership and Transfer. For the purposes of copyright law it's spelled out in the law itself.

[Fred56]

the word copy has more than one meaning

You do realise that you have said this and not substantiated it? (like with the different meanings you're talking about)

For the purposes of copyright law it's spelled out in the law itself.

You think you're maybe able to tell anyone what you think it means? (instead of what the law says or some link, I mean)

[iNow]

OK, just for the hell of it, you all realise that the word "copyright" is a compounded word?

It's made up of two different, independent morphemes: copy, and right, i.e. the right of copy, or the right to claim copy, which implies the right to copy (especially if you're the 'original' owner). So what does "own" mean?

 

See Copyright Ownership and Transfer. For the purposes of copyright law it's spelled out in the law itself.

 

You think you're maybe able to tell anyone what you think it means? (instead of what the law says or some link, I mean)

 

That's rather irrelevant to the point of this thread about the law regarding copyright.

[doG]

You think you're maybe able to tell anyone what you think it means? (instead of what the law says or some link, I mean)

 

Sure. I think whomever creates the work, or whomever they transfer ownership to, owns the work. Happy now?

[D H]

OK, just for the hell of it, you all realise that the word "copyright" is a compounded word?

It's made up of two different, independent morphemes: copy, and right, i.e. the right of copy, or the right to claim copy, which implies the right to copy (especially if you're the 'original' owner).

 

Please. A semantic appeal, and a bad one at that? The word "copyright" does not in any way mean that you have the right to copy anything you wish. It means that the creator of some thing has rights over all copies of that thing.

 

Now I know you are trolling.

[Fred56]

The word "copyright" does not in any way mean that you have the right to copy anything you wish. It means that the creator of some thing has rights over all copies of that thing.

That's one definition of copyright, there's another, according to Klaynos, who has claimed that the word copy has (at least) two meanings. So since he seems to be unwilling to substantiate this, does anyone else want to try?

And you have just wasted your effort supplying this definition, because doG has said all we need to do is follow a link he posted.

(this is an appeal for semantics --meanings of words, right?-- where are the ones I asked for, and why is asking someone to substantiate a claim such a big deal all of a sudden? you guys have just posted responses saying you see no need to substantiate. Does this mean I can say whatever I want too? Any unsubstantiated claim at all?)

[iNow]

you guys have just posted responses saying you see no need to substantiate. Does this mean I can say whatever I want too? Any unsubstantiated claim at all?)

 

Why are you asking permission? This is what you have been doing already for the past several weeks.

[Fred56]

OK How's this? There is only one definition of the word 'copy', but this morpheme represents a noun and a verb. Otherwise it derives from the same Latin root, and means the same thing. It does not have multiple meanings.

The right to copy (verb) is afforded to the original owner of any work. This is otherwise known as copyright (noun), or the right to own the or any copy (noun).

Yes, No? Don't give a toss?

(back under the bridge I go then)

[doG]

And you have just wasted your effort supplying this definition, because doG has said all we need to do is follow a link he posted.

 

What else? Should we ignore the definition given by the law and just make one up? What the point in the law beginning with the definitions it intends to be used? Do you really think you can just make a silly word game out of the law?

[Klaynos]

OK How's this? There is only one definition of the word 'copy', but this morpheme represents a noun and a verb. Otherwise it derives from the same Latin root, and means the same thing. It does not have multiple meanings.

The right to copy (verb) is afforded to the original owner of any work. This is otherwise known as copyright (noun), or the right to own the or any copy (noun).

Yes, No? Don't give a toss?

(back under the bridge I go then)

 

My dictionary tells me that there are 18 possible different meanings, interesting....

 

And yes I didn't give it because I expect people to be able to use a dictionary.... one of the few things I do expect.

 

This appears to be a strawman argument though.

[Fred56]

My dictionary tells me that there are 18 possible different meanings

Mine doesn't.

This appears to be a strawman argument

Straw, unless it's damp, burns quite well (what sort of argument is this one?)

So what are these 18 semantically distinct versions of "copy" that you claim to be able to find in some dictionary, again? You made it up, right?

[Dak]

I suspect klaynos is reffering to 'copy' a la 'copywriter' [sic]. advertising copy, etc. someone who has rights of ownership to the copy, i.e. the body of text. copyright != right to copy.

 

even if not, as has allready been mentioned it's an ectymological falicy. what the word may or may not have originally meant is irrelivent.

 

[completely off topic]DoG: shouldn't that first 'whomever' have been 'whoever', as it was in the subjective?[/completely off topic]

[doG]

[completely off topic]DoG: shouldn't that first 'whomever' have been 'whoever', as it was in the subjective?[/completely off topic]

 

Yes, you are correct. I nominate you to be the Official SFN Grammar Checker

[Dak]

It would make up for the fact that i can't actually spell grama

[Fred56]

I think whomever creates the work, or whomever they transfer ownership to, owns the work.

What about the illegal copy of this work that I have? Or other people have?

 

What's to stop me copying some original artwork or document that you claim exclusive ownership to? What if I go to some art gallery and secretly photograph some artwork? Or send my robot (who looks exactly like an ordinary person, but has the ability to make a holographic 'copy'). I use what the robot brings back or transmits from the art gallery, to make an exact likeness of the original. Who owns it?

Should we ignore the definition given by the law and just make one up? What the point in the law beginning with the definitions it intends to be used?

OK, so there's this law says I'm "not allowed" to do it. But what's stopping me, apart from feelings of guilt, but let's say I overlook them because there's lots of financial profit to look forward to?

[doG]

What about the illegal copy of this work that I have? Or other people have?

 

The copyright owner still owns it. Possession does not mean ownership. That's why software companies license software.

 

What's to stop me copying some original artwork or document that you claim exclusive ownership to? What if I go to some art gallery and secretly photograph some artwork? Or send my robot (who looks exactly like an ordinary person, but has the ability to make a holographic 'copy'). I use what the robot brings back or transmits from the art gallery, to make an exact likeness of the original. Who owns it?

 

The copyright owner still owns it. The law spells it out clearly. I can only point out to you, I can't make you understand it though. That requires a certain ability to actually be able to comprehend what the law says and what it means.

 

OK, so there's this law says I'm "not allowed" to do it. But what's stopping me, apart from feelings of guilt, but let's say I overlook them because there's lots of financial profit to look forward to?

 

Nothing's stopping you. There's consequences if you get caught but if you don't then maybe you got something for free......along with the knowledge that you're a thief even if no one knows that but you.

[Fred56]

I can't make you understand it though.

Understand what? That I have an illegal copy? So what?

There's consequences if you get caught but if you don't then maybe you got something for free......along with the knowledge that you're a thief even if no one knows that but you.

Let's say I'm good at handling any feeling of remorse for my shameful act of ripping some artist off. I make myself feel a lot better when I sell the "original" for $10mil to some rich billionaire (who lives in the Bahamas).

IOW how many people do you seriously think are so weighed down by guilt that they would never, ever abuse copyright? Or who never break the "law"? The laws of copyright are becoming increasingly meaningless in today's world. So what should the governments of the world do? What do you think they can do? Why do you believe an inconsequential copyright law is the start and end of the issue?