First, you've confused copyright and patent. Yeah, they're both examples of "intellectual property", but they're not interchangeable, at least not under current or foreseeable law. As far as I know, the two ideas (and sets of laws) developed separately.
Note that patents do deal with ideas but copyrights explicitly do not. Copyright protects expression of an idea -- you can copyright a short story, a novel, a play, or a movie, but you can't copyright the plot, so if I think I can write it better I'm allowed to try. So you're already trying to argue against copyright reform by describing patent law. I'm afraid you have some homework to do. (I suggest starting with introductory layman-education materials from the U.S. government, then Google for "copyright myths", and round it out with Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity" (http://free-culture.org/) by Lawrence Lessig.
Note also that there is a significant gap between "go ahead and copy this" and endorsing plagiarism -- even now, if you were to file Moore's name off and replace it with your own, he'd still be pretty pissed, and since he has not given up his copyright he could land on you with lawyers paid for with that money he's already earned. (Important distinction: giving permission to make copies is one of the powers inherent in owning a copyright; exercising that right does not undo the copyright.)
Finally, there are several positions to be taken in favour of copyright reform that fall well short of wanting to do away with intellectual property altogether! A patent lasts what, seventeen years? A copyright used to last fourteen years and were extendable to another fourteen ... how long do they last now, and does the current term actually fit with your patent analogy? (Note also the pattern of changes to copyright law -- we currently have a finite term specified in the law, but the next time Mickey Mouse gets near his copyright expiration date, it'll be extended again, so unless someone does manage to rein things in, we'll essentially have perpetual copyright on anything created since the Mouse.
Anyhow, get clear on the concepts and definitions involved first, and then we can sit down to properly argue about htis stuff. If you're conflating plagiarism and copyright infringement or confusing patents and copyrights, your opinions are ill-informed and premature. It should take you a day or two to come up to speed on the basics (though it might take a bit more reading to get all the ramifications, and a Whole Lot Longer if you wanted to become an IP lawyer).
In any case, I strongly recommend Lessig's book for background (even if you wind up disagreeing with him). And the story anniemal referred to, which I think is called "Melancholy Elephants".
I will look in to the book... it is the fair thing to do. But in general think the system is ok. I am opppose to life time or eternal anythings (at least government wise). Those aspects need to be removed. Purhaps even time limits on thing would by just fine with me. But their should be protections for peoples work and yes even ideas.
Out of curiosity, when you say, "in general [...] the system is okay," are you including the DMCA in the okay part?
I'm not an absolutist on this issue -- I find it hard to let go of the idea of having some protections, some notion of IP, but also see the value of sharing. I think returning to more reasonable durations for copyright and undoing some of the recent, bizarre, big-media-power-grab restrictions on what you can do with your single, legally purchased copy of a work, would go a long way toward fixing the system.
(no subject)
Note that patents do deal with ideas but copyrights explicitly do not. Copyright protects expression of an idea -- you can copyright a short story, a novel, a play, or a movie, but you can't copyright the plot, so if I think I can write it better I'm allowed to try. So you're already trying to argue against copyright reform by describing patent law. I'm afraid you have some homework to do. (I suggest starting with introductory layman-education materials from the U.S. government, then Google for "copyright myths", and round it out with Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity" (http://free-culture.org/) by Lawrence Lessig.
Note also that there is a significant gap between "go ahead and copy this" and endorsing plagiarism -- even now, if you were to file Moore's name off and replace it with your own, he'd still be pretty pissed, and since he has not given up his copyright he could land on you with lawyers paid for with that money he's already earned. (Important distinction: giving permission to make copies is one of the powers inherent in owning a copyright; exercising that right does not undo the copyright.)
Finally, there are several positions to be taken in favour of copyright reform that fall well short of wanting to do away with intellectual property altogether! A patent lasts what, seventeen years? A copyright used to last fourteen years and were extendable to another fourteen ... how long do they last now, and does the current term actually fit with your patent analogy? (Note also the pattern of changes to copyright law -- we currently have a finite term specified in the law, but the next time Mickey Mouse gets near his copyright expiration date, it'll be extended again, so unless someone does manage to rein things in, we'll essentially have perpetual copyright on anything created since the Mouse.
Anyhow, get clear on the concepts and definitions involved first, and then we can sit down to properly argue about htis stuff. If you're conflating plagiarism and copyright infringement or confusing patents and copyrights, your opinions are ill-informed and premature. It should take you a day or two to come up to speed on the basics (though it might take a bit more reading to get all the ramifications, and a Whole Lot Longer if you wanted to become an IP lawyer).
In any case, I strongly recommend Lessig's book for background (even if you wind up disagreeing with him). And the story
(no subject)
(no subject)
I'm not an absolutist on this issue -- I find it hard to let go of the idea of having some protections, some notion of IP, but also see the value of sharing. I think returning to more reasonable durations for copyright and undoing some of the recent, bizarre, big-media-power-grab restrictions on what you can do with your single, legally purchased copy of a work, would go a long way toward fixing the system.
(no subject)