tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post2311851800455240714..comments2023-04-03T07:08:03.903-04:00Comments on ninetymilewind: "Silly Euphemism" or Stubborn Factchromeheadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08033332691491146650noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-34922280282415313972008-04-07T00:43:00.000-04:002008-04-07T00:43:00.000-04:00Great topic Craig,So what would Mr. Doctorow call ...Great topic Craig,<BR/><BR/>So what would Mr. Doctorow call what is known today as intellectual property? If an idea created by someone’s intellect is not “own able”, so to speak, then every novel, song, poem or scientific theory should be in the public domain. If I recite Emily Dickinson or quote Mark Twain, do I therefore own the words? Does it become mine simply because it can exist in a non-physical form? <BR/><BR/>A novel is just a bunch of words linked together to create a thought. A song is just the same use of words intertwined with a finite series of musical notes. Just because the medium is available to everyone, does that mean the use of words and music in specific combinations linked together in a unique fashion cannot be owned?<BR/><BR/>If I take steel and plastic and rubber and arrange them together in a unique way to make a car, it’s my property. I made the car from raw materials and therefore I own it. It’s my personal property - uniquely fabricated from my two hands (and my intellect too, by the way). If I take words and music and arrange them in a unique way to convey a concept with words and a melody, that’s my property too. I made up the story and melody from the raw materials (words and music) using my intellect and so I own it just like I would own the car I made.<BR/><BR/>I don’t see where Mr. Doctorow’s argument has merit.<BR/><BR/>Ed WilliamsEdWilliamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00954789180407295972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-37900002291898149442008-04-03T00:55:00.000-04:002008-04-03T00:55:00.000-04:00Thanks Craig.Lyric, melody, and rhythm; A song an...Thanks Craig.<BR/><BR/>Lyric, melody, and rhythm; A song and its performer... are probably the best example of synergy we can cite in real life. Brought together, they have the potential to dwarf the sum of their parts. <BR/><BR/>I'm amazed at the supernatural experience that can be brought on by the combining of 26 letters, 12 tones, and a heart.<BR/><BR/>An inspired composition or recording can never be collectively known. One who thinks so is probably not capable of knowing one individually, let-alone collectively.<BR/><BR/>In some ways, an mp3 file... the arrangement of bits held in place by magnetic charge, is closer to the nature of a composition than we think. <BR/><BR/>Compositions, for instance, are also hard to put in a box.Tim Wheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00411070860432450603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-2245939042752363522008-04-01T12:39:00.000-04:002008-04-01T12:39:00.000-04:00Thanks for tackling this article - Doctorow is a v...Thanks for tackling this article - Doctorow is a very vocal proponent for copyright "reform" and is tragically ill-informed on the subject. I read his article and got so hopping mad I couldn't elucidate where the wrongness began! Nice work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4775955554050052451.post-66294822125260987962008-03-31T21:48:00.000-04:002008-03-31T21:48:00.000-04:00The trouble with Doctorow's analysis is that he co...The trouble with Doctorow's analysis is that he confuses factual knowledge with artistic creation. Put simply, "intellectual property" applies to both artistic and inventive creation. We have patents for ideas or objects or processes; we have copyrights for artistic creations; allowing someone to simply take that "property" for their own purposes without compensating the creator or the owner, is like stealing the car or the guitar or the food. Just because someone can convert it to their own use doesn't make it "not property." "Intellectual property" is actually an excellent name for the fruits of that creative process. Once created, it is the "property" of the creator to distribute as he or she sees fit. Ownership and the rights of ownership are rightly conveyed to the creator or to the agent to whom that property is sold. <BR/><BR/>Our poems, our songs, our greeting cards, our ad jingles, are as much a product as a car or a piece of fruit. The nice thing is that this type of property can be consumed, yet not be "consumed" in the process.<BR/><BR/>Sometime you may want to comment on the other end of this process, though; the distortion of the fundamental copyright laws, intended to give authors and artists reasonable recompense, to a multi-lifetime monopoly on creative objects that should flow sooner into the public domain.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your continually stimulating exploration of the biz.<BR/><BR/>Tim McMullenTim McMullenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04840770464754311701noreply@blogger.com