Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Intellectual Property

Rate this topic


KateTheCapitalist
 Share

Recommended Posts

Intellectual property is fully compatible with Objectivism, because a creator owns the product he makes, not the idea of that product. For instance, the idea of a novel about 'thinkers going on strike' cannot be owned, just as you can't own the idea of a spear. However, once you create a product based on that idea, the product is yours, just as the spear you created is yours. In this sense, Atlas Shrugged is a scarce resource because there's only one (1) Atlas Shrugged in the whole wide world. The novel as such is independent from its possible forms (print, digital, audiobook), which is why royalties are split between the writer and publisher. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Intellectual property is fully compatible with Objectivism, because a creator owns the product he makes, not the idea of that product. For instance, the idea of a novel about 'thinkers going on strike' cannot be owned, just as you can't own the idea of a spear. However, once you create a product based on that idea, the product is yours, just as the spear you created is yours. In this sense, Atlas Shrugged is a scarce resource because there's only one (1) Atlas Shrugged in the whole wide world. The novel as such is independent from its possible forms (print, digital, audiobook), which is why royalties are split between the writer and publisher. 

yes you own the physical property not the idea
so making copies of atlas shrugged without getting appoved for copyright is justified you dont own an idea you own property physical thing not a concept or story or otherwise 
if you make a movie and I pirate it I did no wrong I stole nothing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A product is something you build out of various materials, e.g. you create a dress from silk, and you create a novel from concepts/ideas. In the latter case, you sell your construction, not the building material (concepts). When you buy Atlas Shrugged, you don't just own the paper and ink; you also own the right to access the story, just as you can buy the right to use a venue or museum without gaining full ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

A product is something you build out of various materials, e.g. you create a dress from silk, and you create a novel from concepts/ideas. In the latter case, you sell your construction, not the building material (concepts). When you buy Atlas Shrugged, you don't just own the paper and ink; you also own the right to access the story, just as you can buy the right to use a venue or museum without gaining full ownership.

You cant own a story you can own the paper and ink but a story is a concept its not material its not homesteadable its an idea you can not own a copyright on a story anyone can reproduce that story with their own property and be doing no wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2023 at 8:20 PM, KateTheCapitalist said:

no there is not if voting worked they would make it illegal im not going to let my rights be trampled on by the ignorant majority the only solution is dissociation and radical change 

Well, voting does still seem to work in America.  Although...

Quote

If you see my profile English isnt my first language im originally from China 

Maybe it doesn't in China; I'm not sure.  But ni hao xiao ren!  :P


In either case it's not entirely relevant to the socio-ethical point about IP rights.
 

22 hours ago, KateTheCapitalist said:

My critique of the whole thing is you cant own an idea or a product of your mind you cant [homestead] it and its not scarce so its not property and thus claiming so is irrational

Exactly.  In her essay about the ownership status of radio waves Rand specifically stated that the fact that such radio waves are finite is the exact reason why they should be considered a form of property.  An idea is not scarce or finite; it can be duplicated into as many different minds as you want without pulling it back out of a single one.

 

@DavidOdden might have a point about thinking about IP more like trespassing than theft.  I'm not sure if this fully fixes the problem (since land is also a finite resource) but it certainly is a much better analogy than literal theft.

 

To steal an idea is a bit like stealing air.  Sure; it's a grammatically correct English phrase, but since neither air nor ideas are scarce it's weird to think of them as something which can be stolen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Well, voting does still seem to work in America.  Although...

Quote

it does not if it does the Union would rightfully not exist anymore 
even so democracy is a horrible system of governence and is simply tyranny of the majority 
 

 

26 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

@DavidOdden might have a point about thinking about IP more like trespassing than theft.  I'm not sure if this fully fixes the problem (since land is also a finite resource) but it certainly is a much better analogy than literal theft.

 

its not tresspassing either there is no conflict of scarcity in copying
ive already established you cant own IP therefore IP shouldnt exist 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

For instance, the idea of a novel about 'thinkers going on strike' cannot be owned, just as you can't own the idea of a spear. However, once you create a product based on that idea, the product is yours, just as the spear you created is yours. In this sense, Atlas Shrugged is a scarce resource because there's only one (1) Atlas Shrugged in the whole wide world. The novel as such is independent from its possible forms (print, digital, audiobook), which is why royalties are split between the writer and publisher. 

Why Atlas Shrugged but not the idea of a novel about 'thinkers going on strike'?

 

Ideas are hierarchical, with some being more abstract and some being more concrete.  I've heard it said that more abstract ideas (like "a novel about thinkers going on strike") cannot be owned but the concrete ones (like Atlas Shrugged) can but to this day I have yet to hear any clear delineation of where the line between them belongs, let alone any reasons for it.
Furthermore, earlier in this very conversation @RationalEgoist also said that the idea of a spear cannot be owned:

Quote

you simply can't own the idea of a spear (although you can own the specific type of spear which your company manufactures), so in a free society the government could not confiscate it from you, nor could a company claim sole monopoly on its production in a court of law. 

However, when I substituted a Tesla for a spear nobody seemed to have any issue with the analogy.

What, in principle, is the difference between a Tesla and a spear?  One of these products is much more complex than the other, certainly, but they are both manmade products which someone, at some time, originally had to invent.  Is it that a spear can be tipped with various different materials for the spearhead and still remain a spear?  I'm fairly certain that certain components of a Tesla could be substituted for slightly different components and still remain a Tesla.  Even if one omitted the big "T" logo on the front it would still be a Tesla.  Why can the concept of a Tesla be owned and not the idea of a spear?  Where is the dividing line and why?

 

These are questions which do not arise in the case of literal theft.  If you steal MY Tesla or MY spear then you have stolen that physical object from me, and there are no further questions about exactly what constitutes the object that I own.  Even in the case of trespassing (which @DavidOdden suggested might be a better analogy) such questions do not arise; if I know the physical boundaries of the land which I own then the only questions are whether you crossed those boundaries and whether I'd given you permission to do so.
 

It seems obvious to me that even if Rand was right about IP (which I don't believe she was) it is, at the very least, a thoroughly underdeveloped aspect of the philosophy.

 

9 hours ago, KateTheCapitalist said:

You cant own a story[.  You] can own the paper and ink but a story is a concept[, it's] not material[, it's] not homesteadable[, it's] an idea[.  You] can not own a copyright on a story[.  Anyone] can reproduce that story with their own property and be doing no wrong[.]

Let me ask you this, though.

 

If someone makes a movie and you pirate it, I agree that you've done nothing morally wrong.  But if it's a great movie; if it makes you cry and changes your life, shouldn't you find a way to give something (whatever you can afford, even if it's just a "thank you") to the people who made it?  If I copied someone else's spear out of my own materials I agree that I have not stolen anything from them.  But if that spear allows me to feed my family through the winter then I'd certainly want to share whatever I could with them, and thank them for giving me such a wonderful idea.

10 minutes ago, KateTheCapitalist said:

[It's] not tresspassing either there is no conflict of scarcity in copying
[I've] already established you cant own IP therefore IP [shouldn't] exist 

But I do think it is much closer to trespassing than theft.  That isn't to say that it's real and valid (I still don't believe that it is) but thinking of it that way does solve some of the many problems that arise from thinking of it as theft.

 

You haven't established that you can't own IP.  I agree with you but nothing you've said thus far has objectively established it.

If I were to try to actually establish that I'd begin by outlining what property is and why it matters, and how scarcity is the key feature of any valid conception of property.  If scarcity were the defining characteristic of property then we'd be right, but those who agree with IP here will immediately start poking holes in that idea (holes which would have to be considered and thoughtfully dealt with before you could claim to have "established" anything).

You haven't done that yet.  You've flatly stated that IP isn't real, picked up on the fact that what you're trying to talk about is "scarcity" and are now claiming to have established something.

 

I'm sorry, but this is not a simple or straightforward issue.  You're going to have to explain the reasoning behind your point and be ready to give one hundred million well-thought-out defenses of it if you want to convince anybody of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Harrison Danneskjold 

Why no copyright/patent in the spear age? Money had not been devised yet, among other things. Quick search on "when did copyright start".

On May 31, 1790, the first copyright law is enacted under the new United States Constitution. The new law is relatively limited in scope, protecting books, maps, and charts for only 14 years. These works were registered in the United States District Courts.

https://www.copyright.gov/history/#:~:text=On May 31%2C 1790%2C the,the United States District Courts.


People also ask:

Why was copyright originally created?

 

The law was meant to provide an incentive to authors, artists, and scientists to create original works by providing creators with a monopoly

https://www.arl.org/copyright-timeline/

The copyright timeline provides an overview of several milestone changes. 

From almost the inception of this country, copyright and patents law may have provided the fuel for the rocket explosion of what was possible to man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kate and Harrison, whether you build a skyscraper or a novel, the same kind of labor is involved: molding a material (such as clay or words) into a fixed, concrete 'thing'. It doesn't matter whether the thing is made out of cement, water, mental concepts, or spirit-energy.

'Thinkers going on strike' is not a novel, it's an abstraction whose generality allows for a seemingly infinite number of possible concrete implementations (novels), differing in lenght, style, characters, setting, mood, core message and so on. This is why Atlas is a concrete product, not merely a 'complex idea'.

With this in mind, we discover the difference between reproducing and distributing an artwork. The only way to 'reproduce' a movie, for example, is to rent out the same studio, call back all of the actors for an encore-performance, repeat the exact same camerawork and so on; distributing the result of that process is a different issue. Just like any product, the owner is the one who chooses whether to distribute it, pass ownership to someone else, or nuke it.

Edited by KyaryPamyu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

@Harrison Danneskjold 

Why no copyright/patent in the spear age? Money had not been devised yet, among other things. Quick search on "when did copyright start".

On May 31, 1790, the first copyright law is enacted under the new United States Constitution. The new law is relatively limited in scope, protecting books, maps, and charts for only 14 years. These works were registered in the United States District Courts.

https://www.copyright.gov/history/#:~:text=On May 31%2C 1790%2C the,the United States District Courts.

Yes, but we're trying to dig down past the level of laws to the ethical principles on which are the foundation of such laws.  When @KateTheCapitalistsaid:

On 1/18/2023 at 1:00 AM, KateTheCapitalist said:

if you make a movie and I pirate it I did no wrong I stole nothing 

I think she had precisely the right terminology.

 

In the kind of prehistoric societies where the spear was first invented, murder was also extremely widespread (I think something upwards of 10% of deaths seem to be because of homicide) and presumably the concept of law, itself, had not been invented yet.  Nonetheless, if murder is objectively immoral then it was also immoral in the paleolithic age.

"Rights" are the bridge between the moral and the legal.  To say that I have a "right to dispose of my own idea" is not only to say that the law ought to protect that right but also that it is morally wrong to infringe on it.  If that's true then, just like murder was already immoral in prehistory, it also would've been immoral to infringe on the IP rights of whomever invented the spear (unless there is some alternative reason why such a concept cannot be owned).

17 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

'Thinkers going on strike' is not a novel, it's an abstraction whose generality allows for a seemingly infinite number of possible concrete implementations (novels), differing in lenght, style, characters, setting, mood, core message and so on. This is why Atlas is a concrete product, not merely a 'complex idea'.

Is Atlas Shrugged a concrete?

 

My copy of Atlas Shrugged is a concrete.  I can touch it, pick it up, drop it, read it or burn it; it's a physical object which I own.  The story of Atlas Shrugged is an abstraction which includes every concrete copy of the book, regardless of where in the world they are or what condition they're in.  The story of Atlas Shrugged is less abstract and more specific than 'thinkers going on strike' but they are both abstractions.

 

If Atlas Shrugged were a concrete (as my copy of it is) then there would be no issue here and we also wouldn't call it "intellectual property"; it would just be plain old "property".

 

17 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

With this in mind, we discover the difference between reproducing and distributing an artwork. The only way to 'reproduce' a movie, for example, is to rent out the same studio, call back all of the actors for an encore-performance, repeat the exact same camerawork and so on; distributing the result of that process is a different issue. Just like any product, the owner is the one who chooses whether to distribute it, pass ownership to someone else, or nuke it.

So ... Would it not be IP theft to rent out the same studio where they shot Atlas Shrugged: Part 2 (the objectively best part 😜), call back all the actors involved, repeat all the same performances and camerawork to recreate a shot-for-shot copy of the original without the permission of the IP owners involved?  If I were to copy out the entire text of Atlas Shrugged word-for-word into a notebook and give it to a friend for free (without giving a dime to Rand's estate) would that constitute a legitimate reproduction of Atlas Shrugged?  Or would it just be piracy with extra steps?

 

91856471_SlaverywithExtraSteps.jpg.4a374bef182153404eba3aa093ae6c7e.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2023 at 12:19 PM, DavidOdden said:

When a person trespasses on my tangible property, there is no theft (permanent deprivation). The discussion should look at the similarity between trespass to land or chattels, and trespass of intellectual property. I think the parallelism (identified by Rand) between claiming and maintaining a claim to lands and goods qua property that were not previously owned because the person recognizes their value applies equally to the concrete expression of an idea, and that’s where the discussion should be focused.

23 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

These are questions which do not arise in the case of literal theft.  If you steal MY Tesla or MY spear then you have stolen that physical object from me, and there are no further questions about exactly what constitutes the object that I own.  Even in the case of trespassing (which @DavidOdden suggested might be a better analogy) such questions do not arise; if I know the physical boundaries of the land which I own then the only questions are whether you crossed those boundaries and whether I'd given you permission to do so.

Yes, trespassing is a much better analogy for IP than theft.  Just as I said that the only questions in a case of trespass are whether you entered the physical boundaries of my land and whether you'd been given permission to do so, in any particular case of alleged IP infringement the questions are precisely what the IP in question extends to and whether or not its use was permitted.

Saying that you cannot own a spear is sort of similar to saying that you cannot buy up all of the land surrounding someone else's property and prohibit them from entering your land; it's a claim about which kinds of things can be owned in the first place and what that ownership means.

 

I still haven't heard a good reason why the concept of a Tesla can be owned but the concept of a spear cannot be, but thinking of it as trespassing is already proving to be much more helpful than thinking of it as literal theft.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"—stand on an empty stretch of soil in a wilderness unexplored by men and ask yourself what manner of survival you would achieve and how long you would last if you refused to think, with no one around to teach you the motions, or, if you chose to think, how much your mind would be able to discover—" freebie(?) to chew upon in Objectivism Online

What are those ideas worth to you that you might otherwise have to acquire them for yourself? A manner of survival is an ethical basis. A code of values accepted by choice. Does the fact that there are 2000+ years of discoveries and innovations surrounding just about every man woman and child on the planet absolve all of any sense of gratefulness? To accept such a code of morality is an act of choice. To disregard that code of ethics is permissible providing no rights are violated.in the process. Objectivism is a philosophy for living on earth. And Piekoff pointed out in a Q&A to the outburst "Revolution now!" in the lecture series on "Objective Communication", it comes down to education or quit. In terms of education, the martial arts maxim oft cited is, "when the pupil is ready, the teacher doth appear."

Those that want their stories, Teslas, and spears must pay the contextually relevant price. The excerpt I cited, hopefully under fair use, is part of a larger body of work. To profit from that larger body of work is not something that comes from plunking down money on a booksellers counter for a paper and ink copy, an audiobook version, or even searchable electronic file. 

Edited by dream_weaver
added (?) after freebie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

If I were to copy out the entire text of Atlas Shrugged word-for-word into a notebook and give it to a friend for free (without giving a dime to Rand's estate) would that constitute a legitimate reproduction of Atlas Shrugged? 

You would be duplicating the source material for distribution, not reprising the creation of the source material. By contrast, two different performances of a play or song are treated as two distinct source materials, e.g. two different performances of Hamlet. Copying Atlas Shrugged by hand produces a duplicate of the source material, which involves costs on your part (time and money); this is why book publishers also get paid. It's a division of labor: one person produces the text, the other produces the physical book. It's also possible for a writer to self-publish, in which case he's compensated for both kinds of labor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me paraphrase Kyary’s claim, changing “movie” into “novel” –

“The only way to 'reproduce' a book is to rent out the same studio, get the same typewriter and paper, supporting cups of coffee and whatever discussion surrounded the production of the movie, send it to the same publisher in the same envelope and so on”.

Clearly (hopefully there is no disagreement), something has gone wrong in the fundamental identification.

Another way to reproduce a movie (i.e. there is more than one way to preproduce a work) is to take the existing physical object (let’s be modern! an mp4 file on a fancy movie-editing computer), and drag-and-drop it onto multiple thumb drives. Let’s forget AS the movie, focus on AS the novel. Ayn Rand initially wrote said novel, and submitted it to a publisher who, after some paperwork where she gave them permission to reproduce and distribute copies in exchange for money (her means of survival), proceeded to line up rows of type, fired up the printing presses, and so on, selling the physical results. Sure there’s a movie based on the book, let’s not lose sight of the basic property right that is copyright.

The difference between reproducing and distributing is that when you distribute, you must first reproduce, unless you distribute the sole manuscript copy submitted by Rand. In ordinary English, “distribute” presupposes multiple copies – it presupposes reproduction.

There is a valid latent objection regarding the idea / expression divide in this thread. To first reiterate the Objectivist claim: it’s the concrete expression that is to be protected by law as property, not the idea. To then reiterate what copyright law says, it’s the concrete expression that is protected as property, not the idea. However, the courts have not been particularly useful (consistent) in their rulings, in articulating what the distinction is between ideas and expression. And Congress has been even worse in expressing the relevant distinction.

Copyright law says that only the creator of a work has the right to copy or distribute a work, or to authorize others to do so (also, that this right is distinguished after a certain period of time). It seems to me that step 1 is affirming or denying that principle. Detail questions about “copying ideas” and trivial changes in the copying process are pointless, if the fundamental proprety principle itself is is dispute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DavidOdden said:

Let me paraphrase Kyary’s claim, changing “movie” into “novel” –

The shift from movie to novel doesn't work. I outlined the reason in my previous post: two different performances of a movie are, in fact, two distinct source materials, i.e. two different movies following the same plan. By 'source material', I mean precisely what is duplicated when you copy and paste an .mp4 file. I knew this confusion would pop up, so let me paraphrase that part by changing "movie" into "novel": to reproduce the novel (reproduce as in re-create, not duplicate), you must engage in an entirely new and fresh creative act, which could not produce the exact same novel any more than a performance of Beethoven's 5th Symphony can be identical to any other performance.

When 'reproducing' is taken to mean duplicating a source material into a new object, some people ignore the issue of whether they own the material which is to be duplicated. You own something when you make it yourself, or when you acquire it; this ownership gives you the right to produce and distribute copies of it. People use the word 'production' when referring to making a specific pair of headphones like the Sennheiser HD650, but use the word 'reproduction' when they mean that a source material is copied into multiple mediums: CD, digital file, vinyl, phonograph cylinder and so on. The problem is that some conflate the first case with the latter.

Edited by KyaryPamyu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

Clearly (hopefully there is no disagreement), something has gone wrong in the fundamental identification.

Clearly (hopefully there is no disagreement), this is an asinine way of pointing out a disagreement or confusion. Did you really think that, in a discussion about whether copying files is okay, someone would pop up and say that 'actually, copying files is impossible, you've gotta film the whole movie again'? Another day on OO.com, I guess.

Quote

...proceeded to line up rows of type, fired up the printing presses, and so on, selling the physical results.

I thought the difference between performance arts and literature is obvious, but apparently not.

Here's a short musical piece performed by two people, to illustrate how the exact same construction of pitches can be rendered in strikingly different ways. True reproduction, as distinguished from duplication, is a creative act in and of itself. Therefore, in the example below you have both examples simultaneously: reproduction as creation, and reproduction as duplication via digital means.

One and two.

Edited by KyaryPamyu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Did you really think that, in a discussion about whether copying files is okay, someone would pop up and say that 'actually, copying files is impossible, you've gotta film the whole movie again'?

I think the point is that Harrison made an absurd claim, that the only way to reproduce a movie is to do literally exactly everything the same way without any difference all the way down to the paper itself. If this were true, then reproduction would be impossible until we invent replicators. The most charitable interpretation I have is that Harrison is only talking about one sense of the word reproduce, but using that sense of the word as an argument against a different sense of that word (same word, different concept). 

From my discussions about IP, here, and watching it elsewhere, there usually is a fundamental distinction about what a copy even is. One side in one way or another insist that only the exact physical arrangement of molecules in particular can be owned and actually even re-created, otherwise it is a close imitation at best. And another side will say that is not the physical arrangement that matters (in which case the only legal question is about the boundary like land) but the particular form of an idea put into a physical arrangement (in which case the only legal question is about the boundary of an idea). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:
7 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Did you really think that, in a discussion about whether copying files is okay, someone would pop up and say that 'actually, copying files is impossible, you've gotta film the whole movie again'?

I think the point is that Harrison made an absurd claim, that the only way to reproduce a movie is to do literally exactly everything the same way

Harrison was quoting a post of mine, where I distinguished between reproducing a movie by giving an encore performance, and distributing an already produced movie by selling replicas/duplicates of it. In any performance art, reproducing also has the important meaning of re-making an artwork, in addition to replicating or duplicating. Classical music is a prime example: a piece of music is recreated millions of times, with each new performance. No such 're-production' can occur for novels, where you're limited to the replication of the text. The closest a novelist can come to what an actor or musician does, is to rewrite the whole thing in a different way (as opposed to copying the previous version word-by-word).

When discussing intellectual property, it's crucial to note that copyright is a case-by-case scenario. If I record a one-minute film twice, following the same script and plan, I'm in posession of two distinct films. By contrast, if I have a digital copy and a print copy of a poem I wrote, I do not own two poems, only one.

Edited by KyaryPamyu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I think the point is that Harrison made an absurd claim, that the only way to reproduce a movie is to do literally exactly everything the same way without any difference all the way down to the paper itself. If this were true, then reproduction would be impossible until we invent replicators. The most charitable interpretation I have is that Harrison is only talking about one sense of the word reproduce, but using that sense of the word as an argument against a different sense of that word (same word, different concept).

17 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Clearly (hopefully there is no disagreement), this is an asinine way of pointing out a disagreement or confusion. Did you really think that, in a discussion about whether copying files is okay, someone would pop up and say that 'actually, copying files is impossible, you've gotta film the whole movie again'? Another day on OO.com, I guess.

Actually, I specifically said that the shot-for-shot recreation would be without the permission of the IP owners.  And I said that for a reason - because permission is the entirety of the difference between what makes "distribution" okay but piracy not okay.  We can transfer that to covers of old songs if you like.  Is it a violation of IP to cover a recently-composed song which somebody else wrote without their permission?  It may currently be legal (I'm not sure) but should it be legal to benefit from the mental labor of their composition without their permission?

22 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

You would be duplicating the source material for distribution, not reprising the creation of the source material. By contrast, two different performances of a play or song are treated as two distinct source materials, e.g. two different performances of Hamlet.

I won't ask if it's a violation of IP to perform Hamlet without permission.  Shakespeare has been dead for a while, now; so I know that's a moot point.

 

Would it be a violation of IP to recreate Squid Games without the permission of the authors?

 

11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I think the point is that Harrison made an absurd claim, that the only way to reproduce a movie is to do literally exactly everything the same way without any difference all the way down to the paper itself. If this were true, then reproduction would be impossible until we invent replicators. The most charitable interpretation I have is that Harrison is only talking about one sense of the word reproduce, but using that sense of the word as an argument against a different sense of that word (same word, different concept).

@KyaryPamyu said that creating a shot-for-shot copy of a movie was valid "reproduction" instead of "distribution" as a way to demonstrate the difference, and that "reproduction" is not a violation of IP.  I thought this was a pointless red herring (both false and also largely irrelevant to the question) which is why I asked in more detail if "reproduction" WITHOUT THE AUTHOR'S CONSENT truly doesn't constitute IP infringement.

 

You were the first one to mention replicators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Harrison was quoting a post of mine, where I distinguished between reproducing a movie by giving an encore performance, and distributing an already produced movie by selling replicas/duplicates of it.

My bad, I got mixed up on who said what. I think the message got lost in translation across posts. 

I still think what you said amounts to claiming that the only actual copies that could exist are perfect replications, in which case copying is impossible, in which case any alleged copy is actually a new creative act. The result is exactly what the anti-IP position is trying to say. Yes, with music, a new interpretation or rendition of a classical composition will be a unique creative act. I agree with you there. But there is also a degree in which the music really is being replicated and reproduced.

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I thought this was a pointless red herring (both false and also largely irrelevant to the question) which is why I asked in more detail if "reproduction" WITHOUT THE AUTHOR'S CONSENT truly doesn't constitute IP infringement.

Gotcha, I think your formulation here makes more sense about the actual question at stake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...