Say, hypothetically, that I am the creator of a song, book, video game or whatever. One day, for purely selfish reasons that I don't need others to understand, I decide that I no longer want to offer my creation to others. Do I forfeit any and all rights over something that I personally produced; that I invented, designed, fabricated and brought into existence; just because I once offered it to others?
I know that the law takes a more social look at the issue. After a while creative works enter the public domain and copyright is no longer recognized. The timeline varies and has been extended. I think right now it is the life of the author plus 75 years or something like that because of copyrights held by corporations rather than individuals.
I don't know what the "right" length of time is. And for classics that have outlived the life of the creator and are "culturally significant" there is a broader discussion to be had.
Beyond that scenario, the principal that I come at this from is that I, as a creator, rightfully recognize and defend my own rights to the things that I pour a significant portion of myself and life into. I made it, it's mine and therefore others can GTFO even if they disagree with me.
Bill Waterson, of Calvin & Hobbes fame, had a similar view. In rare interviews he stated that the only audience he ever cared about was his wife. If he could make her laugh with the comics, that was all that mattered. Since retiring the comic he has held on to those rights very tightly. He has allowed a few reprints but otherwise does not license out the property much at all. He doesn't want any more Calvin & Hobbes works to be created. Agree or disagree, I recognize that as his right as the creator. You or I did not create Calvin & Hobbes, he did. It's his.
The reason copyright exists is not really to benefit the creators. That's just a means to an end. The purpose is to encourage the creation of the works for the public good, which is why copyright is supposed to be for a limited term and then it becomes public domain.
It's a business deal of sorts: we allow the copyright holder to have unusual and potent legal power for a limited time, in exchange for the work becoming public property when that time ends.
Beyond that scenario, the principal that I come at this from is that I, as a creator, rightfully recognize and defend my own rights to the things that I pour a significant portion of myself and life into
Does data deserve special rights in the first place? If I make a table and sell it I don't get to control whether the buyer sells it to someone else or lets someone else look at it and make their own identical table. Same for, say, a biscuit recipe. You might say there's a qualitative difference between those things and, for example, a book or a movie, but that difference only exists because we can't communicate our memories to each other. What if we could? I don't think what is morally right or wrong should depend on a technological inconvenience.
Data doesn't deserve rights, individual human beings do.
This isn't about the ability to resell something that you bought and paid for. It's about exploiting the efforts of others for personal gain.
> If I make a table and sell it I don't get to control whether the buyer sells it to someone else or lets someone else look at it and make their own identical table.
The first half of that sentence is true, the second half is not so cut and dry.
If the design of the table is your invention, which is to say that you identified and solved problems intrinsic with that table design, you provided the artistic and aesthetic creativity that went into its look, you prototyped it, maybe you built small scale versions before moving on to the full thing, you poured years of your time, effort and money into bringing it into existence - you can apply for a patent in order to protect your investment and your creation.
If we're not talking about a table but instead an artistic creation, that's when copyright applies.
I'm a magician, and magic has an interesting history with respects to IP law. Back in the vaudeville days, stage illusionists would commonly protect their illusions through patents. And the business was cut-throat. Magicians would steal from others like crazy. Also a patent only protects a mechanical invention for a period of time. So if one magician did the exact same trick but using a different method, there is no infringement on a patent. Teller, from Penn & Teller, took what was at the time an uncommon position with respects to his works. He observed that his "inventions" were more appropriately considered theatrical works and sought to protect them under copyright law instead of patent law. For decades this was only theoretical until someone started selling a method for one of his tricks. It's worth noting that the method was different from Teller's method, but the routine, the trick, the structure was the same. Teller sued him for copyright infringement and won.
You are free to disagree with me that ideas ARE real (we can measure their effects on the physical world) and that anyone that wants to profit from the intellectual and laborious efforts of another without consent or due compensation to the creator is a parasite and a mooch. But that's the world-view that I subscribe to.
I see that creator's right as existing if you never release your works to the public in the first place.
If you want to benefit from the temporary state-enforced monopoly on your works, you must submit to what the state/society determines are the fair conditions in exchange for said monopoly.
Exactly this. Copyright is restricting the rights of others (specifically speech rights). It is counter to the common-sense stance that whatever you literally put into the domain of the public is public domain.
We've decided that limiting others rights for a temporary period was an acceptable price in order to encourage the creation of new works.
All of this was explicitly and energetically debated when copyright laws were being considered at all in the first place.
Under the original copyright act of 1790 the last Calvin and hobbes would be entering the public domain at the end of this year. That seems about right to me.
> Do I forfeit any and all rights over something that I personally produced; that I invented, designed, fabricated and brought into existence; just because I once offered it to others?
Nothing wrong with choosing not to engage in business. The problem arises when you want to stop people with the force of the government who want to plug the hole you've created.
Say, hypothetically, that I am the creator of a song, book, video game or whatever. One day, for purely selfish reasons that I don't need others to understand, I decide that I no longer want to offer my creation to others. Do I forfeit any and all rights over something that I personally produced; that I invented, designed, fabricated and brought into existence; just because I once offered it to others?
I know that the law takes a more social look at the issue. After a while creative works enter the public domain and copyright is no longer recognized. The timeline varies and has been extended. I think right now it is the life of the author plus 75 years or something like that because of copyrights held by corporations rather than individuals.
I don't know what the "right" length of time is. And for classics that have outlived the life of the creator and are "culturally significant" there is a broader discussion to be had.
Beyond that scenario, the principal that I come at this from is that I, as a creator, rightfully recognize and defend my own rights to the things that I pour a significant portion of myself and life into. I made it, it's mine and therefore others can GTFO even if they disagree with me.
Bill Waterson, of Calvin & Hobbes fame, had a similar view. In rare interviews he stated that the only audience he ever cared about was his wife. If he could make her laugh with the comics, that was all that mattered. Since retiring the comic he has held on to those rights very tightly. He has allowed a few reprints but otherwise does not license out the property much at all. He doesn't want any more Calvin & Hobbes works to be created. Agree or disagree, I recognize that as his right as the creator. You or I did not create Calvin & Hobbes, he did. It's his.