Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Chris Sonnack Date : Thu Sep 22 2005 07:45 pm niklasb@microsoft.com writes: > For you, it seems to be an axiom that creative works are a form of > property (i.e. IP) and can therefore be owned. However, others start > with different axioms. I agree that is the heart of this discussion! What I find utterly unconvincing is the logic behind the perception that I may not own what I create. And I disagree that it's an axiom, because it is logically supportable, not a matter of faith. The question is whether others AGREE with the line of logic. >> And tell me, why do you believe I may not own the fruits of my labor? > > It depends on whether the fruits of your labor are something which > can be owned. Obviously if you build something tangible like a chair > then you own it -- unless you're working for hire, in which case > your employer owns it. We agree on this, of course. > At least some intangibles can also be owned. If you create a company, > then you own that company. The thing you own in this case is a legal > entity. Indeed. And an important part of this is the understanding that one *can* own intangibles that are the results of their own effort. > On the other hand, perhaps you labor for world peace. If against > all odds you were successfull, would you "own" the resulting peace? Interesting that we suddenly jump from very common mundane examples to something preposterous. Hard to find examples, is it? :-) Nevertheless, given the preposterousness of the idea, why wouldn't I own some aspect of the work I did to achieve world peace? Other than that the idea probably offends, I mean? My work, my property. Why is my company ownable, but my world peace is not? Doesn't that seem a very shaky dividing line to you? TANGIBLE results of my labor are *clearly* my property, SOME intangible results of my labor are also clearly my property (and hence it is NOT true that intangibles cannot be property)..... But for some reason, after all that consistancy.... sometimes it's not? That is usually a sign that the analysis is off the mark. > More modestly, suppose you labor to bring about a reconcilation > between estranged spouses. Now if you're a professional counselor > they may pay you for your labors, but if so you're merely being > paid to provide a service. In no case do you "own" the fruit of > your labor -- i.e., the resulting reconciliation. If I write a piece of music that makes you cry, you're suggesting I own your tears. Your *response* to my work is yours and yours alone. The music, however, I do own. As a counselor, I do not own the results achieved by someone else-- I did not force them to reconcile. If they, pigheadedly, refuse to reconcile, nor do I own that reaction. What I DO own is my technique, my method, my approach, any books I write, any magazine articles I write..... etc. (And now it should be clear why I could only own a fraction of the world peace--because it would involve billions of other reactions.) > Clearly some intangibles can be owned while others cannot, and > the deciding factor is not whether the intangible resulted from > someone's labor. No, it seems to me--as detailed above--that it certainly is. My work, my property. Seems a very simple equation. > Now suppose you write a novel. It seems to me important to > distinguish between two things: the novel itself and a corresponding > legal entity which is the copyright on that novel. Why? > What you own as the author is the copyright. No, I own the fruits of my labor--the novel itself. The copyright PROTECTS my work from thieves who would steal it. If all those thieves didn't exist, and everyone respected my rights as author, there would be no *need* for copyright protection. And I would still own my novel. > To see that these are different things, consider that the novel > may be copied any number of times but there is still only one > copyright and one copyright owner. If I make 50 chairs, there's 50 chairs and one owner. Me. If I hire workers to make 5000 chairs, still one owner. Me. > Consider also that the novel may in theory live forever but the > copyright eventually expires. A legal process designed to protect authors from thieves. Copyright is approximately based on author's lifetime or a fair time for recompensation. > This would be very irregular if you actually owned the novel > itself because ordinary property rights do not expire in this > way, but there is nothing odd about a legal entity like a > copyright having a finite lifetime. So? Copyright is a *legal* entity for protecting authors. When it comes to legal entities, there's all sorts of weird things. > Copyright does not follow automatically from the notion that you > own the product of your work. The product of an author's work is an > intangible of a sort which (like world peace) cannot itself be owned. I'm sorry, these are just statements of your opinion. I'm not seeing any kind of convincing argument here. > Copyright exists as a matter of law because it serves a social good > by allowing creators to profit from their efforts. By protecting them from thieves, yes. > None of this is to say that copyright (or patent) infringement is OK. > It is both legally and morally wrong, and those who argue otherwise > are often just rationalizing their own self-serving behavior. However, > it is not the same thing as theft. I would say it is more akin to > trespassing. The trespasser improperly uses someone's land without > permission, and the infringer improperly uses someone's copyright > without permission. Interesting that, after all your attempts to deny that my novel is a form of property you compare copyright violation to an explicit *property* violation! Maybe you need to rethink this a little? (-: And, we would appear to agree that, in either case, it's legal violation of my rights as *owner*. -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .