Maybe I misunderstood.

Please express your beliefs clearly so that we are in no doubt.

Which do you consider more fundamental?

1) The free exchange and derivation of published works
2) A transferable monopoly over the exchange of, and derivation of new works from, the works that one publishes

Wow, bit of a stretch Crosbie. Feel free to claim your beliefs, but leave me free to express my own if I choose to.

I used to have a tee shirt that said “isms suck.” I don’t really wear it too much anymore because I like the one better that says “god save us from the true believers” better.

Evidently there are some artists who believe they have a fundamental right to exchange and build upon mankind’s cultural commonwealth.

And then there are some people who believe they have a fundamental right to prosecute, punish and imprison the above.

Bit of a problem really, eh?

It is clear to which group each of us considers they belong.

However, that is immaterial to our quest for a better comparator to the situation than slavery, and the god given right to own slaves that some people used to think they had.

“Jim, if you know of a better example where robber barons protect the serfdom they’ve become accustomed to, I’d be very grateful.

Slavery is the best analogy I can think of when it comes to the commercial exploitation of individuals’ suspension of liberty.”
–

Crosbie,

If you are saying that use of copyright to protect creative work is analogous in kind or degree to slavery, and that freedom to copy is a first principal fundamental right; well, all I can say is good luck in your quest. Really isn’t much more for me to say since I fundamentally disagree with both of those premises and doubt there is much common ground to be found.

Slavery is the best analogy I can think of when it comes to the commercial exploitation of individuals’ suspension of liberty.

Your Helprin analogy could be improved considerably…

We’d have to rewind to way before the US civil war, about the same time copyright was considered a good idea, when Helprin would be complaining about the statutory maximum period of indenture, that if his servants were his property, why shouldn’t his property rights be permanent? “Yes, ‘slaves’. That’ll do. Nice and permanent. Oh, and slaves’ children – they’re also mine.”

As for kulaks, well, that’s what you get when the geyser blows. The harder you clamp down upon people’ liberty, the greater the damage caused by the inevitable explosion. And yes, angry mobs aren’t the wisest of creatures, and nor are those who demand ownership of people’s liberty.

If people are exercising their liberty in flagrant violation of those who believe they own its suspension, then either abolish copyright or institute ever more draconian enforcement measures.

History tells us that we’ll adopt the latter approach.

The introduction of the GPL and CC allows the dangerous build up of pressure to be vented, by those who recognise a problem, to the extent to which they’re willing or able to surrender all or part of the public’s liberty that is otherwise suspended (for each of the works they own the copyright to). But, unfortunately this magnanimous manumission vents a mere hiss from a minor circuit. The main chamber remains unvented and the pressure gauge is well into the red zone and rising.

This time it’s global…

G8 Summit Declaration
“The benefits of innovation for economic growth and development are increasingly threatened by infringements of intellectual property rights worldwide. We therefore strongly reaffirm our commitment to combat piracy and counterfeiting. Trade in pirated and counterfeit goods threatens health, safety and security of consumers worldwide, particularly in poorer countries.”
http://tinyurl.com/2ebsde

Slavery is the best analogy I can think of when it comes to the commercial exploitation of individuals’ suspension of liberty.

Your Helprin analogy sucks. 😉

We’d have to rewind to way before the US civil war, about the same time copyright was considered a good idea, when Helprin would be complaining about the statutory maximum period of indenture, that if his servants were his property, why shouldn’t his property rights be permanent? “Yes, ‘slaves’. That’ll do. Nice and permanent. Oh, and slaves’ children – they’re also mine.”

As for kulaks, well, that’s what you get when the geyser blows. The harder you clamp down upon people’ liberty, the greater the damage caused by the inevitable explosion. And yes, angry mobs ain’t the wisest of creatures, and nor are those who demand ownership of people’s liberty.

If people are exercising their liberty in flagrant violation of those who believe they own its suspension, then either abolish copyright or institute ever more draconian enforcement measures.

History tells us that we’ll adopt the latter approach.

The introduction of the GPL and CC allows the dangerous build up of pressure to be vented, by those who recognise a problem, to the extent to which they’re willing or able to surrender all or part of the public’s liberty that is otherwise suspended (for each of the works they own the copyright to). But, unfortunately this magnanimous manumission vents a mere hiss from a minor circuit. The main chamber remains unvented and the pressure gauge is well into the red zone and rising.

This time it’s global…

G8 Summit Declaration
“The benefits of innovation for economic growth and development are increasingly threatened by infringements of intellectual property rights worldwide. We therefore strongly reaffirm our commitment to combat piracy and counterfeiting. Trade in pirated and counterfeit goods threatens health, safety and security of consumers worldwide, particularly in poorer countries.”
http://tinyurl.com/2ebsde

But since you brought it up (sort of), I don’t really think there is “an answer” where copyright is concerned. After all, we aren’t talking about gravitation or the speed of light here, we’re discussing made up human social systems; some better than others. I don’t think a first principal “answer” is going to reveal itself in the way an equation describing a physical phenomenon might. Best we can hope for is to hypothosize a good system, experiment a bit, fit the data empirically and come up with best guess solutions with at least reasonable theoretical underpinnings.

Even with that said, your comparison with slavery is valuable to reinforce why cultural context doesn’t always result in good laws. I agree, individuals can be very selfish in their views of their innate rights. On the other hand, so can societies; forced collectivation of the kulaks is a good example of the other extreme. Still, your point is well taken, but going to the extreme of slavery as an example when we are talking about copyright is a bit like killing a roach with a jack hammer don’t you think?

Besides, it is worth noting that law and cultural context had to change together to correct both of those extremes and as another example Turkey is still struggling to abide by the secularization of its laws when the social context in which they exist has lagged.

I would also argue that there is an important difference of type (as opposed to degree) between slavery and copyright. In our cultural context and time slavery is about as close to a first principal bad thing as you can get in a human system; I don’t think copyright or the lack of it is anywhere near as clear cut.

In other words, if Helprin woke up one day and said, “gee, why can’t I still own slaves?” and opined it in the New York Times, we can be pretty sure where the mass of our culture would come down on the question. But copyright is more abstract, less fundamental, and less likely to result in a clear consensus response to his opinion on it. Again, it is a question of systems where we can choose lots of answers; some better than others along a variety of dimensions (of course, that isn’t an absolute either, it’s just my opinion).

I can see no future or incentive for a system that relies upon suspending the public’s liberty to share or build upon published works in order that the author or their agent can sell members of the public their liberty back, or otherwise exploit their state enforced impotence.

The public are exercising their liberty. All that remains is for the legislature to be revised to reflect this truth.

Given this, the only possible incentive that can be claimed for copyright is its swag of litigious extortion.

The only people who’d call that ‘functioning as an incentive’ are those running off with the swag, i.e. lawyers enjoying their professional detachment from consideration of ethics.

I’d say the opposite, really. I suspect that there is some possible copyright system — though not necessarily the same as the current system — which would provide an incentive to authors to create and publish works which they otherwise would not, and where the cost to the public of providing that incentive is less than the benefit to the public of the product of that incentive. I don’t think that there is absolutely no possible copyright system that would provide a net public benefit.

So I think that you should probably argue that point. I’m well aware of other incentives for authors to create which have nothing to do with copyright, since after all, it’s not as though they stop working just because we have copyright. There’s no need for you to point them out to me.

Law has to account for all individuals – not just the one.

An author may have grown used to the idea of owning the transferable privilege of suspending the public’s liberty, but famliarity isn’t entitlement, and it does breed contempt.

Just as the slave owner may feel their ownership should be perpetual, and include their slaves’ progeny too, this regard for the slave owner as the only individual the law should concern itself with in regard to their property rights exhibits an unethical disregard for the other individual’s involved.

The author has no entitlement to the public’s liberty, nor should copyright law ever have been allowed to slip from monopolistic privileges over commercial printing companies, to the suspension of the liberty of individual members of the public.

But I suspect that 300 years ago the legislators were a little too comfortable with the commercial exploitation of human liberty (even for brief and limited times), and there weren’t very many people who had printers in those days…