Anarchy

[Doktor Howl]

Copyright law is a bad law. 

Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.

I'm not opposed to copyright for 15 years,  Even for the life of the original creator, when that original creator is a mere mortal human.  Copyright for an indefinite and apparently eternal period however is not a good idea. (I know there is still an official limit, but every time Mickey Mouse is in danger of expiring they extend it)  

When you own your house for 15 years, squatters should be able to live in the closets legally.

[BabylonHoruv]

I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil?  

Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting the responsibility of running their own lives responsibly.

Yes, because its my personal responsibility to make sure that the Chinese fishing companies don't kill every fish in American waters.

Somali Pirates FTW

Wait.  Are you suggesting that the Somali pirates are actually brave freedom fighters, opposing Chinese fishing fleets?

I guess the ones that attacked that French yacht just got carried away.

Stopping Chinese and Indian fishing boats from overfishing their waters was their original stated purpose for pirating (that and stopping them dumping toxic waste in Somali waters).  I'm not saying they stuck to their mission, turned out pirating was a lot easier and more profitable and Somalians don't really eat that much fish anyways, it was fished for economic reasons (someone took "teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" literally in the case of Somalia a few decades back)

Like just about everyone the pirates are a mixture of good and bad.  I'm just pointing to an attempted Anarchist model for keeping the Chinese from taking all the fish.

[AFK]

Why is it a bad thing that Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain?  Who does that hurt?  I mean, besides uncreative plagiarist copycats?  

[BabylonHoruv]

Copyright law is a bad law. 

Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.

I'm not opposed to copyright for 15 years,  Even for the life of the original creator, when that original creator is a mere mortal human.  Copyright for an indefinite and apparently eternal period however is not a good idea. (I know there is still an official limit, but every time Mickey Mouse is in danger of expiring they extend it)  

When you own your house for 15 years, squatters should be able to live in the closets legally.

Yes, and police should get involved to defend their access rights to pathways to and from those closets.

Physical objects and intellectual property are different.  I have no problem with patent law, why not treat Copyright the same way?

[Doktor Howl]

Stopping Chinese and Indian fishing boats from overfishing their waters was their original stated purpose for pirating (that and stopping them dumping toxic waste in Somali waters).  I'm not saying they stuck to their mission, turned out pirating was a lot easier and more profitable and Somalians don't really eat that much fish anyways, it was fished for economic reasons (someone took "teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" literally in the case of Somalia a few decades back)

Like just about everyone the pirates are a mixture of good and bad.  I'm just pointing to an attempted Anarchist model for keeping the Chinese from taking all the fish.

Yeah, and what a great model.  Attacking all those container ships is a great example of anarchist models to stop overfishing.

[Doktor Howl]

Physical objects and intellectual property are different. 

In what way?  Intellectual property is easier to steal...That's the only difference I see.

[BabylonHoruv]

Why is it a bad thing that Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain?  Who does that hurt?  I mean, besides uncreative plagiarist copycats?  

Most creative ideas are the result, not of purely original thought, but of remixing ideas which are already a part of the collective consciousness.  Mickey mouse, in specific, is only a small loss to the collective consciousness.  Although he has been remixed repeatedly, it just happens to be illegal.  There is some great art that has incorporated Mickey in illegal ways (well, technically legal, Satire is protected speech, but there have been people successfully sued over it, Disney is just too busy with other things to sue everyone who uses Mickey satirically)  A much greater loss are all the other things which have been copywritten since Mickey was created, the vast majority of which is not in print and not available.  So long as copyright continues to be extended none of it is going to be made freely available by projects like the Internet Audio Archive.

[Doktor Howl]

Most creative ideas are the result, not of purely original thought, but of remixing ideas which are already a part of the collective consciousness.

That's not creativity, it's being derivative.  Please link me to where Rudyard Kipling was just remixing other peoples' poetry.  Thanks.

[Don Coyote]

So you know what I am going to do?
I am going to copy le Morte d'Arthur, but change everyone's name, and then sell it under the title "King Bob and his group of Badasses" And slap a copyright it on it.

[Cramulus]

Why is it a bad thing that Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain?  Who does that hurt?  I mean, besides uncreative plagiarist copycats?  

Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, and our culture is richer for it.

to quote the Kopyleft notice at poee.co.uk:

Copyright laws were originally created to ensure that creators benefited
from their works, but current laws favor publishers and corporations, not
the individual artist.

Public domain allows works to become integral parts of other works – Alice
in Wonderland is a good example. It has been borrowed from by thousands of
artists for thousands of reasons, and because of this, the story has lived
on and grown with us to the point of becoming archetypical. This is not
possible with works that are still under copyright for obvious reasons.

In the information age, our cultural heritage has gone global.
Scheherazade's work is almost as much a part of our cultural heritage as
Shakespeare and Carroll. Innovations and enhancements on all of their works
enrich the scope and power of the original to inform our global culture and
provide a familiar framework for the innovator to work within.

For Eris' sake, even weather data is under strict copyright – the National
Weather Service is limited on what weather data it is allowed to provide free
on its website, since the private sector owns pieces of the information.

I find it especially disappointing that the company that has benefited most
from information in the public domain is leading the fight to keep their
versions of those public domain works under strict copyright. Creators should
certainly profit from their works, but when the creator and their spouse are
dead, what right does a corporation have to the intellectual property,
especially for such an extended amount of time? Obviously, the answer to this
is that they have the right of political influence and graft in the form of
campaign contributions.

[BabylonHoruv]

Physical objects and intellectual property are different. 

In what way?  Intellectual property is easier to steal...That's the only difference I see.

Intellectual property is easier to replicate.  It is also much harder to qualify.  Unlike a house, which can be handed down to someone exclusively upon death, an idea can only be made exclusive by force of law.  Using that force of law can be useful to spur intellectual creation, but when it is extended indefinitely it does not spur it, instead it stifles it.

[Doktor Howl]

Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, and our culture is richer for it.

Well, obviously, that's grounds for eliminating intellectual property.  Because what the world needs is yet another "translation/adaptation" of A Midsummer Night's Dream, instead of something original.

With any luck at all, they'll start doing a sitcom based on Romeo and Juliet.

[Doktor Howl]

Intellectual property is easier to replicate.

To steal, you mean.

[Doktor Howl]

Physical objects and intellectual property are different. 

In what way?  Intellectual property is easier to steal...That's the only difference I see.

Intellectual property is easier to replicate.  It is also much harder to qualify.  Unlike a house, which can be handed down to someone exclusively upon death, an idea can only be made exclusive by force of law.  Using that force of law can be useful to spur intellectual creation, but when it is extended indefinitely it does not spur it, instead it stifles it.

Also, your evidence that creativity has ended or declined since 1790?  Thanks.

[AFK]

Why is it a bad thing that Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain?  Who does that hurt?  I mean, besides uncreative plagiarist copycats?  

Most creative ideas are the result, not of purely original thought, but of remixing ideas which are already a part of the collective consciousness.

I don't agree with that at all.  Speaking as a musician, I am certainly influenced by other musical artists I like, but my creations are from my head.  I'm not "remixing" anything.  

A much greater loss are all the other things which have been copywritten since Mickey was created, the vast majority of which is not in print and not available.  So long as copyright continues to be extended none of it is going to be made freely available by projects like the Internet Audio Archive.

So?  We don't have any inherent rights to hear or see those creations.