From: Tom McCormack (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Oct 14 2010 - 19:48:40 PDT
I realize intellectual property is part of contemporary law. What I was
asking (in problably a less than perfectly articulate way) was what your
justification for intellectual property law is? It seems like a lot of
people think it's to ensure a natural right that producers have. As I was
saying earlier, in the US this a relatively new idea. This isn't why these
laws were put in place - they were put in place to encourage the creation
things, not protect natural rights.
And certainly objects contain ideas, no? As in, artistic products have
aspects that can be borrowed even without mechanical/technological
reproduction.
-Tom
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Anna Biller <email suppressed>wrote:
> One might at least ask that words retain the meanings they have in common
> usage. "Objects" are not ideas, although in a philosophical sense one might
> argue that ideas can be objects. Some people were using the word "ownership"
> in such as way as to suggest that the issue was whether people have a right
> to own their own thoughts and experiences, rather than the issue being who
> has the right to exhibit and exploit things that other people make. And yes,
> creative ownership is something that exists in law.
>
>
> On Oct 14, 2010, at 6:43 PM, Tom McCormack wrote:
>
> Anna Biller,
>
>
> Objects can be owned by people, but objects are also ideas. Mickey Mouse
> exists on a thousand objects, but can also be reproduced without access to
> those objects. The subject of a Titian painting – same deal. You could
> always steal content. You’re right that the Internet does exaggerate the
> inherently reproducible nature of things, though, and that’s worth pointing
> out - in fact, it seems like it’s a major point. I felt like you were
> implying my tone was oppressive and coercive, but I’m not sure pointing to
> the way things are and saying we need to find a way to deal with it is
> either of those things. Certainly not every artist has to “want” the current
> state of things (altho, I think there are aspects worth celebrating), but it
> might be psychologically healthy to “accept” it.
>
>
> I’m confused by your last line: “And yes, there is such a thing as
> ‘creative ownership.’” Are you making that claim in a legal context? In a
> philosophical or moral one? I’m just looking for clarification. What do you
> consider ownership to be more generally? Is it a natural, inherent right we
> have to certain things? What things? I’ll offer up this Thomas Jefferson
> quote:
>
>
> “If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
> exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea,
> which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to
> himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession
> of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar
> character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other
> possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives
> instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at
> mine, receives light without darkening me.”
>
>
> Jefferson was talking specifically about inventions, which are usually
> objects, but always ideas too.
>
>
> -Tom
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Fred Camper <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>> I heard a talk by copyright lawyer Lawrence Lessig that's quote a propos
>> here.
>>
>> When he saw that the copyright to Mickey Mouse et al. was going to get
>> extended yet again, he made a proposal: to get an extension the owner
>> would have to register and pay a reasonable fee. His point is that the
>> fee would be immaterial to Disney and companies like it, but that
>> there are millions of objects out there, and this would include the
>> old newsreels and instructional films beloved of found footage users,
>> for which the copyright owner cannot even be located, or doesn't care
>> and wouldn't register, and that most such things could then become
>> public domain. The mad dog right wing corporate whores who are our US
>> congresspeople would not buy it.
>>
>> Unfortunately the mad dog Bush right wingers on the Supreme Court
>> ignore the "original intent" of the Constitution that they say they
>> follow when it comes to the rights of corporations. It's a pretty good
>> guess that the framers' idea of "limited" times for copyrights did NOT
>> extend to 95 years!
>>
>> By the way, I don't exactly think of myself as a "leftie" either. It
>> just simply isn't rational to make copyrights this long, and it's
>> contrary to the intent of the framers, who never intended them to
>> support grandchildren.
>>
>> An interesting fact: if you are a publication who wants to run Martin
>> Luther King's famous "I have a dream" speech, you have to pay
>> thousands of dollars to his estate. Thus the speech is not reproduced
>> as often as it might be otherwise. WHAT???
>>
>> Fred Camper
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks