Patents and Copyrights
Submitted by Wayne on Mon, 2007-06-18 08:13.
Law
Patents and copyrights may have been commonplace in the 18th century, but they seem to have outlived their usefulness in the 21st. Do we really need them today? Actors, for example, couldn't command obscene 20 million dollar salaries if copyrights didn't exist. Movie stars would be just ordinary people again. Publishing would certainly be a quite different industry. Of course, fraud is still immoral even without copyright or patent laws, so attributing plagiarized work inaccurately would still be criminal. I am beginning to think it may be quite possible to live without patents and copyrights.
What do you think? Should I remove the copyright and trademark information in TuscanyCircle's footer? What about my upcoming books? Should I refrain from copyrighting them even informally?
Trackback URL for this post:
http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/648
Thanks
Submitted by Wayne on Wed, 2007-12-26 20:29.
Due to the overwhelming feedback I've received on this topic </sarcasm>, I've chosen to remove the copyright and trademark notices on TuscanyCircle.
Trademarks okay
Submitted by Wayne on Thu, 2008-11-06 11:20.
I've reconsidered my stance on trademarks and servicemarks. These seem to be more like identities than copyrights, and abuse of them is akin to identify theft (i.e., fraud).
Copyrights and patents, though, still seem unnecessary and stifling to creativity and innovation.
Would keep copyright
Submitted by Charla on Thu, 2008-11-06 22:08.
I have a friend* that posts on myspace and copyrights every one of her blog entries (actually she does it on facebook as well) because she's planning on writing a book and I think her blogs will become the substance of her work. I would assume that she's copyrighting everything so that others cannot steal what she's written and write their own book before she finishes hers.
I don't understand how copyrighting your blog can stifle creativity and innovation.
*If anyone's interested, she's a very encouraging Christian (love her!) and just recently disclosed her bipolar diagnosis. I'd be happy to send you the link to her page if you PM/email me.
Research Intellectual Property
Submitted by Wayne on Fri, 2008-11-07 08:16.
Some of what Vox has to say about copyrights and intellectual property in general:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/02/mailvox-ip...
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/03/ip-and-inn...
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/12/illustrati...
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-gover...
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/12/catching-o...
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/11/ebooks-and...
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/02/of-copyrig...
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/02/copyright-...
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/02/copyright-...
Here are the critical elements for me:
1. Copyrights stifle and punish creativity far more than they encourage or protect it.
2. Copyrights require the force of government, always a red flag--no, always dangerous and stupid.
3. What government can grant, it can take away. No, that's not quite accurate. This is: what government grants, it takes away.
4. IP is not real property by any natural, common sense understanding. As such, the square peg has to be really smashed to fit into the round hole.
IP
I suppose it boils down to the idea of intellectual property. Can it be owned just as more tangible material is owned? If owned, then ownership must be protected. Or is intellectual property, once it's in the public domain, no longer able to be owned? Is this akin to publishing a secret such that it's no longer a secret at all?