Neither. A copyright literally gives a holder the exclusive “right” to make “copies” of their intellectual property and the right to claim creative ownership.
The original argument was that authors should be seen as the owners of their works, and that ownership is a basic human right. Some of the historical arguments:
"The stationers petitioned Parliament for new censorship legislation, and when that failed they argued that authors had a natural and inherent right of ownership in what they wrote (knowing there was little an author could do with such rights other than sign them over to a publisher).[3] This argument persuaded the Parliament and in 1710 the first Copyright Act (8 Anne, c. 19) was enacted."
> Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be any asset, including an object, land or real estate, intellectual property, or until the nineteenth century, human beings. ....
> Intellectual property (IP) refers to a legal entitlement which sometimes attaches to the expressed form of an idea, or to some other intangible subject matter. This legal entitlement generally enables its holder to exercise exclusive rights of use ...
> This idea of ownership must be constrained from the views of absolute ownership to a right to use the good within its expected scope of use.[3] Ownership goes beyond the basic notions of property rights to this idea of viewing the ability to own as one of the most basic human rights.
In answer to your question, the concept of "rights", like "fundamental human rights", is a human construct, just like "nations". We believe they exist only because we choose to believe they exist. As such, these concepts can be seen as effective propoganda.
> The original argument was that authors should be seen as the owners of their works
Sure, but to debunk it the question arises:
What “copy” has to do with their work? How it magically
becomes part of ownership?
It’s a copy by definition, and it stays so as long as it’s not claimed otherwise by someone else, isn’t it?
If someone else claims to be the new owner of it and now it’s his original work, then yes, we have attempt to steal ownership,
but otherwise it’s a copy! What it has to do with the ownership? The link between those seems to be missing.
> and that ownership is a basic human right.
Again what a copy has to do with the ownership?
Copy is maid by someone else. How controlling what others can think or do with certain ideas can be seen as a ‘basic human right’?
Again, "ownership" and "rights" are human constructs, meaning that it means what we agree upon that it means.
That meaning is embedded in tradition, culture, legal systems, etc. You'll note that all of these are human constructs too.
For example, if you "own" land, what does that mean? Can you keep the public from entering? In most places, yes. For example, if someone enters your undeveloped land to go hiking, you may ask the police to force them to leave.
But in some countries, members of the public have a "freedom to roam" some types of lands for certain activities - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam . Thus, "ownership" of land clearly has cultural traditions.
> If someone else claims to be the new owner of it and now it’s his original work, then yes, we have attempt to steal ownership, but otherwise it’s a copy! What it has to do with the ownership?
There are multiple ownerships here. One is the ownership of a physical copy of a book still under copyright. In that case, at least under US law, I own that book. If someone takes it from me, then I may ask the police or court system to help in its return.
That ownership gives me an otherwise unrestricted right to re-sell that book as in the US, selling does not make a copy, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine . Indeed, I may rent the use of that book to others, and the copyright owner may not prevent that.
However, under US law, the book may contain text and images whose copyright I don't control. Should I make a copy, then the copyright holder may ask the police or court system to help.
Compare this to how most software is distributed. You don't actually "buy" a piece of software, you buy a license to use the software, and that license may be withdrawn for reasons which are otherwise not permitted under US law. Furthermore, with a few exceptions, US law prohibits the rental of software.
> How controlling what others can think or do with certain ideas can be seen as a ‘basic human right’?
How is controlling what others can do with certain property be seen as a '‘basic human right’?
That is, what is your definition of a "right", why is ownership not a right, and why can't we decide that creator may have the limited ability to control how others may make copies of a work, and describe that through the term "copyright".
All you've said so far is that you don't like it, but your arguments have been vague about why. I really think the missing steps in your understanding is that the missing "magic" is simply "because we decided it's that way", and that "culture" is intrinsically self-perpetuating propaganda. One way to perpetuate a complex idea is to make it be internally (mostly) self-consistent, and couple it with cultural and/or economic benefits that most people think are worthwhile.
You’ve covered many interesting aspects related to the current situation with ‘copyright’ and it’s current perception. I would not argue with that because you’ve done it very well. It describes what we have at the moment more or less.
Yet one thing is missing: the connection between ownership and copy! The link is not there. Those are different things while by some ‘magic’ reasons are used interchangeably. I suspect there are no justified reasons for that, I didn’t see so far and I think there is a price to pay for the ‘magic’ in definitions.
> All you've said so far is that you don't like it, but your arguments have been vague about why.
Actually I didn’t. It’s not about me liking it or not. It’s about missing the very “why” in definition itself in the first place which usually leads to abuses. It seems there is a flaw in definition that I can spot and I merely pointing out at it.
>I really think the missing steps in your understanding is that the missing "magic" is simply "because we decided it's that way",
While there are could be missing steps in my understanding. I suspect there are missing steps in definition itself or understanding by those who invented the term. (let’s not suggest something worse: intentional deceiving ). The idea itself does not appear as too complex but rather made complex to hide the obvious flaw in it.
> That is, what is your definition of a "right", why is ownership not a right, and why can't we decide that creator may have the limited ability to control how others may make copies of a work, and describe that through the term "copyright".
We cam explain many things by saying: “Because it is historically so or culturally accepted”. I am questioning the reasons behind it, because we cannot just define that gravity is not there and say it’s a cultural thing to define, and meanwhile we’ll just ignore it. There are consequences to that and some of the consequences of ‘copyright’ we already observe. Youtubers for instance complain about oppression and abusing them and not only them. So I am questioning is there something ‘real’ behind ‘copyright’ and is it worth protecting like ‘a saint cow’ with enormous efforts. Should we kill creativity of individuals in society just for the sake of something that doesn’t even have a proper logic behind it.
Is there something ‘real’ behind either one, and if so, what? What is the "proper logic" that gets me arrested should I hike on unimproved private lands in the US, but not in Finland?
> and is it worth protecting like ‘a saint cow’ with enormous efforts.
There are many arguments on many sides about this topic. See the arguments concerning Sci-Hub for just one nexus. Or the arguments to the US Library of Congress for what should be excluded from certain parts of copyright protection. Or the arguments for the right-to-repair. Or the discussions about copyright legislation.
One of the arguments for copyright-as-a-concept is that it encourages "creativity of individuals in society".
One of the arguments against copyright-as-it's-currently-implement is that it discourages that creativity.
I can't tell from what you've written if you are arguing the former or the latter of these two, or perhaps something else entirely.
All of the different meanings and connotations of "right" come from Germanic and earlier Indo-European words referring to straightness or directness. That includes the meanings about legal rights (which is the sense used in the term "copyright"), meanings about correctness or propriety, and meanings about the direction opposite left, among others.
Most of this family of meanings is also found in other European languages, like with German "recht" and French "droit".
In the legal sense you can oppose English "crooked" (literally, not straight) and French "tort" (same meaning), both of which refer to kinds of legal impropriety.
8 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 34.4 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166...
"The stationers petitioned Parliament for new censorship legislation, and when that failed they argued that authors had a natural and inherent right of ownership in what they wrote (knowing there was little an author could do with such rights other than sign them over to a publisher).[3] This argument persuaded the Parliament and in 1710 the first Copyright Act (8 Anne, c. 19) was enacted."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
> "A Bill for the Encouragement of Learning and for Securing the Property of Copies of Books to the rightful Owners thereof"
What is ownership? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership
> Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be any asset, including an object, land or real estate, intellectual property, or until the nineteenth century, human beings. ....
> Intellectual property (IP) refers to a legal entitlement which sometimes attaches to the expressed form of an idea, or to some other intangible subject matter. This legal entitlement generally enables its holder to exercise exclusive rights of use ...
Lastly, ownership is seen as a basic human right. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights_(economics) :
> This idea of ownership must be constrained from the views of absolute ownership to a right to use the good within its expected scope of use.[3] Ownership goes beyond the basic notions of property rights to this idea of viewing the ability to own as one of the most basic human rights.
I imagine you also have difficulties with "property right", "water right", and "transit rights" (for the last see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air#Transit_ri... ).
In answer to your question, the concept of "rights", like "fundamental human rights", is a human construct, just like "nations". We believe they exist only because we choose to believe they exist. As such, these concepts can be seen as effective propoganda.
Sure, but to debunk it the question arises: What “copy” has to do with their work? How it magically becomes part of ownership?
It’s a copy by definition, and it stays so as long as it’s not claimed otherwise by someone else, isn’t it?
If someone else claims to be the new owner of it and now it’s his original work, then yes, we have attempt to steal ownership, but otherwise it’s a copy! What it has to do with the ownership? The link between those seems to be missing.
> and that ownership is a basic human right.
Again what a copy has to do with the ownership? Copy is maid by someone else. How controlling what others can think or do with certain ideas can be seen as a ‘basic human right’?
That meaning is embedded in tradition, culture, legal systems, etc. You'll note that all of these are human constructs too.
For example, if you "own" land, what does that mean? Can you keep the public from entering? In most places, yes. For example, if someone enters your undeveloped land to go hiking, you may ask the police to force them to leave.
But in some countries, members of the public have a "freedom to roam" some types of lands for certain activities - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam . Thus, "ownership" of land clearly has cultural traditions.
> If someone else claims to be the new owner of it and now it’s his original work, then yes, we have attempt to steal ownership, but otherwise it’s a copy! What it has to do with the ownership?
There are multiple ownerships here. One is the ownership of a physical copy of a book still under copyright. In that case, at least under US law, I own that book. If someone takes it from me, then I may ask the police or court system to help in its return.
That ownership gives me an otherwise unrestricted right to re-sell that book as in the US, selling does not make a copy, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine . Indeed, I may rent the use of that book to others, and the copyright owner may not prevent that.
However, under US law, the book may contain text and images whose copyright I don't control. Should I make a copy, then the copyright holder may ask the police or court system to help.
Compare this to how most software is distributed. You don't actually "buy" a piece of software, you buy a license to use the software, and that license may be withdrawn for reasons which are otherwise not permitted under US law. Furthermore, with a few exceptions, US law prohibits the rental of software.
> How controlling what others can think or do with certain ideas can be seen as a ‘basic human right’?
How is controlling what others can do with certain property be seen as a '‘basic human right’?
That is, what is your definition of a "right", why is ownership not a right, and why can't we decide that creator may have the limited ability to control how others may make copies of a work, and describe that through the term "copyright".
All you've said so far is that you don't like it, but your arguments have been vague about why. I really think the missing steps in your understanding is that the missing "magic" is simply "because we decided it's that way", and that "culture" is intrinsically self-perpetuating propaganda. One way to perpetuate a complex idea is to make it be internally (mostly) self-consistent, and couple it with cultural and/or economic benefits that most people think are worthwhile.
> what others can think ... with certain ideas
In US legal system, ideas are different from the expression or manifestation of those ideas, and the copyright system only covers the latter. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin... .
Therefore, copyright does not control how you may think about ideas.
FWIW, patent rights give a much broader monopoly protection on "ideas".
Yet one thing is missing: the connection between ownership and copy! The link is not there. Those are different things while by some ‘magic’ reasons are used interchangeably. I suspect there are no justified reasons for that, I didn’t see so far and I think there is a price to pay for the ‘magic’ in definitions.
> All you've said so far is that you don't like it, but your arguments have been vague about why.
Actually I didn’t. It’s not about me liking it or not. It’s about missing the very “why” in definition itself in the first place which usually leads to abuses. It seems there is a flaw in definition that I can spot and I merely pointing out at it.
>I really think the missing steps in your understanding is that the missing "magic" is simply "because we decided it's that way",
While there are could be missing steps in my understanding. I suspect there are missing steps in definition itself or understanding by those who invented the term. (let’s not suggest something worse: intentional deceiving ). The idea itself does not appear as too complex but rather made complex to hide the obvious flaw in it.
> That is, what is your definition of a "right", why is ownership not a right, and why can't we decide that creator may have the limited ability to control how others may make copies of a work, and describe that through the term "copyright".
We cam explain many things by saying: “Because it is historically so or culturally accepted”. I am questioning the reasons behind it, because we cannot just define that gravity is not there and say it’s a cultural thing to define, and meanwhile we’ll just ignore it. There are consequences to that and some of the consequences of ‘copyright’ we already observe. Youtubers for instance complain about oppression and abusing them and not only them. So I am questioning is there something ‘real’ behind ‘copyright’ and is it worth protecting like ‘a saint cow’ with enormous efforts. Should we kill creativity of individuals in society just for the sake of something that doesn’t even have a proper logic behind it.
Is there something ‘real’ behind either one, and if so, what? What is the "proper logic" that gets me arrested should I hike on unimproved private lands in the US, but not in Finland?
> and is it worth protecting like ‘a saint cow’ with enormous efforts.
There are many arguments on many sides about this topic. See the arguments concerning Sci-Hub for just one nexus. Or the arguments to the US Library of Congress for what should be excluded from certain parts of copyright protection. Or the arguments for the right-to-repair. Or the discussions about copyright legislation.
One of the arguments for copyright-as-a-concept is that it encourages "creativity of individuals in society".
One of the arguments against copyright-as-it's-currently-implement is that it discourages that creativity.
I can't tell from what you've written if you are arguing the former or the latter of these two, or perhaps something else entirely.
All of the different meanings and connotations of "right" come from Germanic and earlier Indo-European words referring to straightness or directness. That includes the meanings about legal rights (which is the sense used in the term "copyright"), meanings about correctness or propriety, and meanings about the direction opposite left, among others.
Most of this family of meanings is also found in other European languages, like with German "recht" and French "droit".
In the legal sense you can oppose English "crooked" (literally, not straight) and French "tort" (same meaning), both of which refer to kinds of legal impropriety.