How long should copyrights last?

[D'kian]

The part that isn't contained in her essay is that this is not a contextless absolute. This is why a simple-minded "I wrote it, therefore I own it" principle is false. When you are hired as a professional, salaried writer, working for some company, then you do not own the essays that you create as their employee. The company does. At no point did you own the essay.

It also depends on the specific contract you draw up with your employer. News articles, which make up the bulk f magazine and newspaper publishing, are highly perishable. But editorials and non-news articles may not be (it depends on the specific content).

Columnists in some areas, notably science, often collect their published essays in books. Of course, columnists are already above the usual cut of writers. Therefore they're more likely to work freelance or to obtain advantageous contracts.

TV and movie writers, on the other hand, are contractually entitled to residuals for their work, beyond whatever else they may get paid. I don't know whether movie writers get paid residuals, the rumors of "creative accounting" revolving around movies are legendary. I do know TV writers do get residuals whenever their work is re-run, which happens very often even for minor works.

[BrassDragon]

The part that isn't contained in her essay is that this is not a contextless absolute. This is why a simple-minded "I wrote it, therefore I own it" principle is false.

This may be true, but your example of someone who is hired to write something doesn't prove your point, because you have a contract there saying the terms are different. I wouldn't say you own my house, even for a little bit, if I hired you to build it. Like you said, I'll have to get the essay and read it again, but I'm skeptical.

No, in fact what that asserts is that because it is not feasible, intellectual property ought not to exist in perpetuity.

Good point. What I mean is that in order to justify the above, you'd have to show that it is not feasible. Is there a reason exercising intellectual property into perpetuity is not feasible? (If you want me to shut up and read the damn essay now, you don't have to answer that, obviously, haha)

[JMeganSnow]

Is there a reason exercising intellectual property into perpetuity is not feasible?

Yes, because we'd be still be paying the heirs of the man that invented the wheel for HIS work if we tried to do this, and his heirs are random people that may never have done anything whatsoever in their entire lives! Why do they deserve to benefit endlessly from his moment of genius?

Really do read the essay, it's very clarifying.

[DavidOdden]

It also depends on the specific contract you draw up with your employer.

Right: so in fact, my contract with the university states that my writings are my own property (which is probably a way of them saving lawyer money on nickle and dime works). This is because I am not hired to write for the university. If I were hired specifically to write agitprog for them, it would be so indicated. The contract doesn't actually have to say one way or the other; what is required is that the intent be clear. So if the contract or other applicable document says "Your job is to write poetry to be read in gym classes every Friday", that's a clear enough statement that you are hired for the purpose of writing for the boss, that the boss has the right to the poetry.

[DavidOdden]

(If you want me to shut up and read the damn essay now, you don't have to answer that, obviously, haha)

I wouldn't say that, but if you want to shut up and read the essay, I won't complain. I assume you don't actually think that "bringing issues" into the discussion is bad, and that it actually is a good thing to understand why certain rights exist, rather than relying on a handful of incorrect, automatic slogans.

[BrassDragon]

I wouldn't say that, but if you want to shut up and read the essay, I won't complain. I assume you don't actually think that "bringing issues" into the discussion is bad, and that it actually is a good thing to understand why certain rights exist, rather than relying on a handful of incorrect, automatic slogans.

That's a good assumption to make, because I wasn't the one who took issue with "issues."

[IAmMetaphysical]

Yes, because we'd be still be paying the heirs of the man that invented the wheel for HIS work if we tried to do this, and his heirs are random people that may never have done anything whatsoever in their entire lives! Why do they deserve to benefit endlessly from his moment of genius?

Rights do not rest on the fact that people should be rewarded for their effort, and the fact that there are heirs who profit off the work of others does not negate the existence of these rights. When I produce something I have the RIGHT to give it to anyone I want, whether they deserve it or not. It is my right as PRODUCER, not their right as heir. The same goes for amounts of money inherited, it is my right as the producer of the fortune to do with it what I please even if this includes letting generations of my descendants leech off my virtue and not have to work a day in their lives.

Second point and what I think is the main flaw in Rand's reasoning in that essay:

...because we'd be still be paying the heirs of the man that invented the wheel for HIS work if we tried to do this...

This problem is solved when you realize that "the wheel" is not patentable. "The wheel" is a discovery, NOT an invention. A certain type of wheel, or design of tread or spoke design is an invention, but the concept of "something circular which rotates and on an axel allows for locomotion" is a scientific discovery open to any mind who chooses to look and think. You don't have to pay anyone to be able to use your mind; a discovery is the first step in the process of using your mind practically. For the same reason you can not patent "car" but you can patent "lexus," "ford thunderbird," "VW Beetle," etc. You can not copyright "novel" but you can copyright the specific novel that you wrote, that for without your specific mind, it would not exist, it is your novel. The principle here is that your right to your property is the right to the product of your thinking. Along with this right is the acceptance of every other human of having the same right to excercise their minds and use the products of their thinking. A discovery such as "novel" or even "car" is not the product of a specific thought process, i.e. those concepts are wide enough to be able to include the products of many minds, the products of individual thought applied to a discovery, which they all could make. Discovery is fundamentally a reaction to reality; an observance; (literally) a taking of the cover off of reality; a revealing. Discovery therefore is more based in reality and is available to all who wish to simply look. No one can own a discovery, but you own what you do with one. You own the car you make, or the novel you write, or the factory you build, and you owe nothing(materially) to those who discovered that an assembly line will produce things faster and cheaper, to those who discovered that stringing scenes along a plotline will create suspense and drama, or those that discovered that you can harness explosions and make them power a wagon. Discovery is knowledge of reality, which is open to all. Products are the application of thought to knowledge and are rightfully the property of those that did the thinking.

[BrassDragon]

I completely agree with IAmMetaphysical. The kinds of things that should be copyrightable/patentable wouldn't hurt a soul if they were still privately held generations later (unlike, say, the wheel). They are creations, not discoveries. A creation is a product of the mind; thus, property. A discovery reveals a metaphysical property of the world; anyone can discover them and if they do, or if you tell them about it, there's no denying their right to use it. These two groups are mutually exclusive.

[DavidOdden]

When I produce something I have the RIGHT to give it to anyone I want, whether they deserve it or not. It is my right as PRODUCER, not their right as heir.

No problem with that, here. I'm wondering though how you apply that to IP -- or indeed whether you think this does have an import for IP.

A certain type of wheel, or design of tread or spoke design is an invention, but the concept of "something circular which rotates and on an axel allows for locomotion" is a scientific discovery open to any mind who chooses to look and think.

Do you endorse Kendall's perpetual, highly-specific patent proposal? I'm still working on it, so I consider it to be a real starter in a field full of non-starters as far as alternative IP proposals go.

You own the car you make, or the novel you write, or the factory you build

If you literally mean what you said, you just repudiated the concept of intellectual property, so I wonder if that was your plan. If you build a car, existent number 7843463123, then you own 7843463123 but not a metaphysically distinct but conceptually identical car 68423023. You can own a new novel that starts "The light was ebbing, and Eddie Willers could not distinguish the face of the bum". IP involves generalizing over instances -- it is essentially the equivalent of "conceptual property". BTW, Kendall if you're out there, this is the core of my reservation about your proposal, and I assume you see the potential problems.

So the $64 question is, do you repudiate the notion of intellectual property?

[BrassDragon]

If you literally mean what you said, you just repudiated the concept of intellectual property, so I wonder if that was your plan. If you build a car, existent number 7843463123, then you own 7843463123 but not a metaphysically distinct but conceptually identical car 68423023. You can own a new novel that starts "The light was ebbing, and Eddie Willers could not distinguish the face of the bum". IP involves generalizing over instances -- it is essentially the equivalent of "conceptual property". BTW, Kendall if you're out there, this is the core of my reservation about your proposal, and I assume you see the potential problems.

So the $64 question is, do you repudiate the notion of intellectual property?

I think you're taking his quote out of context.

[IAmMetaphysical]

So the $64 question is, do you repudiate the notion of intellectual property?

No, I don't. I do not mean that when you build a particular lexus, you own only that particular lexus. If you design the model car that is lexus, you own that design, but you do not own the concept of "car." For the same reason Rand owns that sentence you quoted but not the words within them, so one could start a novel by saying "The light was ebbing, and the effect on the surrounding buildings was so that they appeared to him as mountains--mountains not shaped by nature, but by man."

Notice how these words are used by Rand in different parts of the novel, but not in this order. She owns her order and, if I had not just posted this on a web forum, I would own the right to the above sentence. The reason I don't is because as someone pointed out before in regards to working under contract, I have posted it to David Veksler's property and it is his to do with what he wants.

[DavidOdden]

I think you're taking his quote out of context.

No, I'm not. The context is on the same page. I don't understand his position, and rather than make stuff up, I thought I'd ask, with some pointers to potential pitfalls of having the wrong answer. I cannot perform a non-contradictory integration on the words, so I'm asking for some assistance from the author.

[DavidOdden]

For the same reason Rand owns that sentence you quoted but not the words within them,

I guess this might have fallen flat by me not saying what I did. Open your copy of AS and see what the first sentence actually says. Under one version of the concept IP, Rand does not own that sentence; under another, she does. Which version is correct? (I favor the "she does" theory). I am looking for a clearer principle regarding what exactly she or any other IP owner owns. So by your principles, would Rand really own that sentence as well (and why)?

She owns her order and, if I had not just posted this on a web forum, I would own the right to the above sentence.

I believe that you are mistaken, in the "if I had not" restriction.

The reason I don't is because as someone pointed out before in regards to working under contract, I have posted it to David Veksler's property and it is his to do with what he wants.

Well, he can clearly delete it, or replace your type face with something in pink, but AFAIK you still hold the copyright. There is no implicit or explicit assignment of copyright here, and in fact is you look here, you will see that the forum does even say that you retain copyright (nobody reads the EULA, it seems).

[IAmMetaphysical]

Ok, so the agreement I have with David is that I own the copyright, that's a contract. I don't deny the ability to form contracts. I assumed and I was wrong

Isn't the first sentence: Who is John Galt?

(I've lent my copy of AS to a friend) I didn't think you were making a point about cutting out the first line of AS and then its yours. Is that what your point was?

The actual wording of the sentence is unimportant. Because the clear principle is that a writer of a novel owns the plotline, characters, events, and specific dialogue and descriptions in the novel because that is what a novelist is creating; a novel, not sentences. She doesn't own the words and in the case of ambiguous sentences like "he turned toward the door" she doesn't own them either. She owns the character of Eddie Willers (not necessarily the name of that character but the essence of him, the facts that make him him) so I took your sentence as an instance pertaining to that. And no, you can't just change the names of the characters and it will be a new novel, you would have to change the events that take place as well. In the case of writing a story about Juan Goolt and Daria Teagrit and Hank Roardoon calling a strike in an auto factory because Juan invented a new seat cushion and didn't want to share it would be an instance of parody and a new, admittedly second-handed and immoral, work. But it should not be illegal. Ayn rand's work is not being stolen because Ayn Rand's product is Atlas Shrugged as a whole entity of which the individual products are the plot, the characters, the non-ambiguous passages, etc. So for example: you could take this sentence from the Fountainhead(since I haven't lent that out): "He left and walked home through the warm spring night." You can use this because any character in almost any context(such as spring, and night)can walk, and you have the right to describe YOUR character doing this action.

[DavidOdden]

Isn't the first sentence: Who is John Galt?

Ugh, yes. I meant the second sentence. "The light was ebbing, and Eddie Willers could not distinguish the bum's face." I offered a sentence that was extremely close to Rand's second sentence.

The actual wording of the sentence is unimportant.

The problem is that this can be applied to wheels as well -- the actual material from which the wheel is constructed is unimportant.

I'm not a literature person, so I don't know how "plotline" is defined. Suppose Cheryl Taggart had lived to the end, then that would be a different plotline. If I rewrite AS that way, is this now my property and not Rand's? More importantly, why not, and why not in a way that distinguishes my modified version of AS from the wheel patent.

In the case of writing a story about Juan Goolt and Daria Teagrit and Hank Roardoon calling a strike in an auto factory because Juan invented a new seat cushion and didn't want to share it would be an instance of parody and a new, admittedly second-handed and immoral, work. But it should not be illegal.

Interestingly, that does describe the law, and yet if I construct a modified, non-parody version of AS as described above, that would be infringement.

What I'm most interested in is seeing how to distinguish wheel patents and versions of AS, if they can be distinguished.

[IAmMetaphysical]

The problem is that this can be applied to wheels as well -- the actual material from which the wheel is constructed is unimportant.

This is exactly my point. I am not saying that one can patent "rubber wheel" but not "wheel." What one can patent is "goodyear size xx." Intellectual property would be the design of that specific wheel, not the fact you chose to make it out of rubber, the same would go for choosing to write in english (incidentally, the language of the elves in The Lord of the Rings would be the property of J.R.R. Tolkein.)

Suppose Cheryl Taggart had lived to the end, then that would be a different plotline.

Cheryl Taggart is Ayn Rand's property(well I guess Leonard Peikoff's). So are a number of other events in that novel, which you would have to change as well.

What I'm most interested in is seeing how to distinguish wheel patents and versions of AS, if they can be distinguished.

I have not fully formulated this is my own mind but I will try:

The things that one can patent involve those things which are of a specific product of the thinking one has performed and made somewhat into a material expression (novels, blueprints, designs, etc.) Without material expression, one can not prove that one came up with the design first.

With different versions of AS you are using the specific product of a specific mind without that mind's permission. The characters, the plot, the events in the book, the certain non-ambiguous formulations from Galt's speech are the product of a specific mind and for the most part are unique. Saying "his head hurt" is not unique and not specific. Saying: "Charlotte Denson's head ached from the blow of Hannigan's cane. The thumping sting ringing in her skull, and the warmth of the hearth at her feet gave her a feeling that God was sarcastic and cruel. Only a prick could want to remind me of fire at a moment like this, she thought." Is unique and specific.

This is the best way I know of illustrating what I am getting at, but I haven't fully formulated an argument per se, except for what I wrote a few posts above about discovery and invention. For the most part, it boils down to this: you can't prevent other people from excercising their minds, which means that you can't patent a way of doing something. You have the right to protect the specific products of your mind, but you can't disallow others from using theirs and creating their own products, even if their products are inspired by one of yours, if you have discovered a new way of doing things, e.g. pulling something along with wheels.

[JASKN]

I have been reading through the various threads on property rights, and I would like to state a couple points I take issue with.

First, I do not dispute the necessary societal right to one's property or the immorality of taking another's property (including his own person) against his will or terms of use. But this notion is only crystal clear to me when talking about actual, physical property. It is obvious I shouldn't be permitted to steal a bicycle or lawn ornament, or to refuse to pay for construction work or surgery.

A man's mind was required in making or identifying the property, but I can still point to these and say, "Things." Making the jump to intellectual property, however, is where the confusion begins for me, and as essential as I can make it currently, it is because I can't stop myself from learning, nor do I think I should even try. To take the famous wheel example, I couldn't observe it in action and not immediately understand that a wheel couldn't be applicable in a million different ways to make my life better. So why should the original person who thought, "Wheel," get the credit, when all the work in thinking about derivatives (or even a replica as good as I could make it) would be by myself, not to mention the work in creating them? And again, I can't will myself to forget the better way to do things.

I reread Rand's essay in CUI, and I can't understand how an idea, any idea, can belong exclusively to one person if he chooses share it with someone else. It is in my interest to use my mind and knowledge in the best way possible, and it is impossible to stop observing and learning!

Any insight?

[BrassDragon]

So why should the original person who thought, "Wheel," get the credit...

They shouldn't, because the wheel is an application of metaphysical discoveries about the world.

I can't understand how an idea, any idea, can belong exclusively to one person if he chooses share it with someone else

If that person created something that did not already exist in reality. Example: the characters in a novel.

Even though this is a repetition of what I've said less concisely before, I hope it is either helpful to you, or that your response is helpful to me.

[aequalsa]

They shouldn't, because the wheel is an application of metaphysical discoveries about the world.

I am a bit fuzzy on the differentiation. I can see how roundness is a metaphysical existent, but I haven't seen any naturally occuring wheels. So what makes wheels different from motors or hard drives? Also if I were to breed a new type of high yield corn, would that be a discovery(of a new gene combination) or an invention?

[BrassDragon]

I am a bit fuzzy on the differentiation. I can see how roundness is a metaphysical existent, but I haven't seen any naturally occuring wheels. So what makes wheels different from motors or hard drives? Also if I were to breed a new type of high yield corn, would that be a discovery(of a new gene combination) or an invention?

None of those seem to me to be intellectual property. Nothing is produced or created; it wouldn't be moral to legally prevent people from using knowledge about the world or applying that knowledge. You can always try to keep the knowledge secret.

Discoveries about reality are not property, any more than discovering a novel tucked away in a library makes it your property. Creating something genuinely new that wasn't part of reality before (the specifics of a novel, like the characters, for example) is intellectual property.

[DavidOdden]

Making the jump to intellectual property, however, is where the confusion begins for me, and as essential as I can make it currently, it is because I can't stop myself from learning, nor do I think I should even try.

Frankly, I think that you can't learn much about IP by trying to derive everything from the wheel.

The claim embodied in the concept "intellectual property" is not that you must stop learning or thinking, it is a specific and limited claim about what you may do with that knowledge. So when a drug company discovers how to create a drug preventing a kind of cancer, that is a discovery of great value, and that discover is the result of their substantial mental and physical effort. IP law says that you may not freely copy their product for some number of years, which means that you need to pay the creator for the right to that thing that he created. But it does not say you cannot scrutinize the drug and use its structure and effect to make a new discovery, one that can be made your property.

[aequalsa]

None of those seem to me to be intellectual property. Nothing is produced or created; it wouldn't be moral to legally prevent people from using knowledge about the world or applying that knowledge. You can always try to keep the knowledge secret.

Discoveries about reality are not property, any more than discovering a novel tucked away in a library makes it your property. Creating something genuinely new that wasn't part of reality before (the specifics of a novel, like the characters, for example) is intellectual property.

Wait, so roundness, wheels, motors, hard drives, or high yield corn are all discoveries and should not be patentable?

[JASKN]

Frankly, I think that you can't learn much about IP by trying to derive everything from the wheel. [...] IP law says that you may not freely copy their product for some number of years [...]. But it does not say you cannot scrutinize the drug and use its structure and effect to make a new discovery, one that can be made your property.

I understand that it takes a lot of mental effort to make a lot of value outside of one's mind, so I would like to understand a way to reward a man for doing that. My problem with IP may be that there is no clear way of doing that. At what point do the new products I create from scrutinizing the first become my own? How close can they be to the first, and who decides that? At what point should I feel guilty for not paying royalties? And is the reason to set an (as far as I can see at this point) arbitrary claim of 25 or 50 years after life for a copyright just to set a time, so that everyone can work around that time? That is, as far as I can see, it could rightfully be any time, as long as everyone agrees.

[DavidOdden]

At what point do the new products I create from scrutinizing the first become my own?

One answer is "in 25 years, no matter what". Another is "If it is not the patented (protected) item". The second hinges on the requirement that patents be pretty specific, thus you can't patent "any handheld computer-pointing device" (mouse), it has to be a specific design. An optical mouse would not have much similarity to a ball-and-roller mouse, and certainly would not be an infringing invention. By inspecting a mechanical mouse, you might think "if I just put a laser here...", and you have your new invention. However, that's basically a very tough technical question. The central requirement for patent is novelty and non-obviousness; I'd have to read up on infringement cases to see how cut and dried it is that you may vs. may not do X.

At what point should I feel guilty for not paying royalties?

Never feel guilty. Always consult a lawyer, 'cuz I'll sue you to smithereens if you infringe on my patent. I'll just be sullen if you think of a gadget that I could have just as easily thought up.

And is the reason to set an (as far as I can see at this point) arbitrary claim of 25 or 50 years after life for a copyright just to set a time, so that everyone can work around that time?

The rationale that was used, when the time was set, was based on the best resolution of two goals. First, it was recognised that since an artist makes his living off of his creations and he may only have one really great one in his life, the rewards for his creation should last the creator's lifetime. But second, it would suck to write a fabulous best-seller where you and your family would be set for life, and then get mowed down by a runaway horse the next day (well, the death part would such, independently) with your family getting no royalties. Thus the system gives an ordinary lifetime's worth of royalties at the minimum. I don't think it's the best expression of the underlying idea, which I think is correct, but they didn't ask me.

In the realm of copyright infringement and written works, the issue is the simplest. The law says "don't copy", so if you copy, you pay. I don't understand why some people hold that "fan-fiction" is technically copyright violation, since as far as I can see, it isn't, but this may mean that the courts have expanded copyright to include generic plot ideas (such as outer-space roaming sapient warrior cats).

[D'kian]

In the realm of copyright infringement and written works, the issue is the simplest. The law says "don't copy", so if you copy, you pay. I don't understand why some people hold that "fan-fiction" is technically copyright violation, since as far as I can see, it isn't, but this may mean that the courts have expanded copyright to include generic plot ideas (such as outer-space roaming sapient warrior cats).

A specific character or a specific type of character is as copyrighted as the novel, story, play or movie as a whole. Therefore I can write a story invovling sapient warrior cats, as long as I don't call them Kzinti, and as long as they are different enough from the Kzin. I mean, if I had these warriors screaming and leaping, living in The Patriarchy, creating telepaths addicted to plant extracts, etc etc, I'm clearly stealing Niven's particular aliens; even if I call none of them Speaker To Animals or Chmee. Likewise, I can have a story containing the love between a businesswoman and an engineer, but not if I portray them too much like Dagny Taggart and John Galt.

Fanfic is often done for publication, but not for payment, fanzines usually don't pay (they're done for fun) and neither do fan sites. Now, if I were to write about a Kzinti crewman in a Starfleet vessel, I assume I'd be violating two different copyrights. Or suppose I wrote a short story about Roark and Dominique in Galt's Gulch?

I don't think fan fiction hurts sales at all. But I can see why an author wouldn't like his characters, settings, back stories, etc toyed with. Some authors let their fans have fun with their creations, others do not.