Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Chris Sonnack Date : Fri Sep 23 2005 09:11 pm niklasb@microsoft.com writes: >> Indeed. And an important part of this is the understanding that one >> *can* own intangibles that are the results of their own effort. > > Agreed, although I would point out that all we have shown so far as > that at least *some* intangibles can be owned. Which means that one cannot appeal to intangibility alone. It also means a big part of the issue is determining the rule that separates some intangibles from others. >>> 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? :-) > > The preposterousness of the example is the point: while some > intangibles can be owned, others cannot. But its preposterousness puts it into an unreal realm, so I don't know that one can draw valid conclusions from 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. > > Your notion of "my work, my property" would indeed imply this. The very > absurdity of the idea suggests that the distinction between "ownable" > and "non-ownable" intangibles must lie elsewhere. To make this useful, you'd have to explain exactly what it was that I did to create world peace. Maybe it was something I could own. Hey, maybe I invented Soma (Huxley's Soma)! >> Why is my company ownable, but my world peace is not? > > Because the company is a legal entity which, as a matter of law, can > be owned. > > Similarly, patents and copyrights are legal entities, granted by the > government to authors and inventors, which can be owned. Why does the law recognize that I MAY own these things. > World peace is not a legal entity can cannot be owned. But I might own the formula to Soma. As we discussed with regard to the marriage councilor, I agree I cannot own the *effects* of my work, but I still maintain that I own my work. If I wrote a book so powerful it engendered world peace, wouldn't I own the book? > For that matter, an idea is not a legal entity and cannot be owned, > no matter how hard you might have thought to come up with the idea. Actually, in Hollywood (and other places) that's not exactly true. A "treatment", which is little more than a bare idea, is copyrighted and (often) valuable property. But then Hollywood is really all about ideas. > Nor can mere ideas be copyrighted or patented. An idea expressed as a written document can be copyrighted. An idea expressed as an invention can be patented. > All this means is there must be something which distinguishes "ownable" > intangibles from "non-ownable" ones. Agreed. > I submit that the "ownable" intangibles are legal entities which are > explicitly defined by law. All other intangibles are "non-ownable" > by default. What the law says goes? I guess I'm interested in why the law would recognize some intangibles and not others. What's that dividing line? >> 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 matter of law, you don't own anything unless the music is > written down or recorded in some tangible form. At that point, a > copyright is automatically granted by the federal government. You > then own -- not the music itself -- but the copyright on that music, Effectively the same thing, isn't it? And the law is one thing, the rightfulness of the situation is another. Most of the activity in this thread concerns the rightness of the situation. >> 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. > > How do you account for the fact that an idea, which might be > entirely your own labor, cannot be copyrighted or patented? I think ideas *can* be copyrighted and patented--certainly in some forms. > [...snip of legal definition...] > are specifically enumerated in law. They do not follow from some > general rule that work necessarily confers ownership. That's the law right now, I agree. I am also arguing from the point of view of what I believe. Perhaps an expansion helps: I believe that any *significant* creative work is the property of the creator and that that creater gets to determine how the work is used. I believe that as an artist and as a programmer. (Or maybe I believe that BECAUSE I'm an artist and a programmer. :-) >>> 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. > > Yes, but if buy a copy of your book I own my copy. All you own is > the exclusive right to make more copies, i.e., the copyright. But don't I own that right BECAUSE I created the novel? Don't I own that right BECAUSE I'm the legally recognized owner? >> Copyright is approximately based on author's lifetime or a fair >> time for recompensation. > > Yes, because copyrights are special legal entitites which exist to > serve the social purpose of encouraging authorship. Right, because it's so easy to steal an author's work. > Yes, and this legal entity exists because it is *granted* by the > government -- not as a result of some natural law that labor > confers ownership. I submit that copyright recognizes ownership of a work. >>> 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. > > I'm describing how copyright works in our legal framework. You're also, I think, describing what you believe lies behind copyright. Why doesn't copyright follow from the notion of ownership? What else is could it be based on? > You're describing your own theory of property based on your intuition > that labor ought to confer ownership. Okay, but the counter-intuition--that my creative work is NOT mine seems counter-logical. What I'm not finding anywhere in this thread is logic supporting that idea. >>> 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. > > By temporarily conferring exclusive rights so as to give the author > an advantage over free riders who would otherwise be able to reap > the benefits from the work without sharing in the initial investment. Same thing, yes? And WHY does the law feel that right is important? >> And, we would appear to agree that, in either case, it's legal violation >> of my rights as *owner*. > > Sure on a practical level I think we agree. My only argument is that > the basic principles underlying intellectual property law are different > than you suppose. I'm not certain that's the case, but I can't claim expertise in the ins and outs of copyright law. > Anyway, it's been fun. :-) Agreed! And educational. -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .