Zolgar: Creative works may not be developed in a vacuum, but regardless, the creator of them SHOULD have ownership of them.
You keep asserting this, but offer next to nothing in the way of any argument to support your assertion. A lie repeated does not make a truth, and an assertion repeated does not make an argument. If you're having trouble figuring out where to start, I'll give you a bit of a hint. When you say that creators should have control over their creations, what you are really doing is asking society to, through the force of government, control what other people can do with ideas and information they come into possession of. If you're going to ask society to restrict peoples' freedoms in such a way you need to make a strong case for why doing so provides a net benefit to society as a whole. So far you have not done so.
Zolgar: Why exactly should the fact that culture inspires our creativity mean that we shouldn't own what we create? What you're basically saying is "nothing is new, artists are just putting a different spin on it." Well, pray tell, how does that make it not new?
You do own what your create, right up to the point where you share it with someone else. At that point you now both own that creation, and can freely share it with other people. What you are actually demanding is not simply ownership, but control over what others may do with ideas and information they come into possession of. To take the original issue to the point of absurdity, think of it in terms of quid pro quo: if creative works should be fully controlled by their owners and their owners compensated for every use, then when someone takes bits of pieces from numerous works to create a new work shouldn't they have to compensate the owners of all those works they drew from? Considering how much culture we immerse ourselves in daily, the costs would add up pretty quick. Now, naturally this is completely absurd, but is what ultimately flows from the claim creators have some kind of intrinsic right to control and profit from their creations. This is to serve not as any kind of justification for creators not having control of their works once released to the public (this requires no justification, as it is simply an inherent property of ideas and information), but rather serves only to highlight the hypocritical selfishness of the belief that one should have an intrinsic right to control what others can do with ideas and information that one was the source of.
Zolgar: Copyrights really exist so that.. say you write a book and publish it, copyright laws give you some measure of protection from someone taking your book and re-publishing it under their own name.
Sigh. If you're going to make claims about the purpose of copyright law it would behoove you to actually understand the basis of the relevant laws you're talking about. Since you live in the US like me, the purpose of copyright laws is clearly spelled out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the constitution:
"
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Copyright law, as it exists in the US, is to promote the progress of the arts and sciences, so if you're going to come at the matter from a legal perspective then you should be prepare to phrase all of your arguments in the context of this purpose.
Zolgar: Guy writes a book, publishes it. It sorta sells a little bit, picks up a little by the end of his 10 year ownership, the name of the book is getting out there and people are looking for it.
Well, as soon as the writer's copyright expires, someone else snatches up the book, gives it a once over and re-publishes it in their own name.
Now they're raking in the money because the book was just starting to get popular, and the average person will either fail to notice it's a different author, or not care. Leaving the original author with nothing, and no legal action to pursue against the vulture.
If you're going to continue this argument you should learn at least the basics of copyright, and at the very least learn to distinguish between copyright and accreditation (two completely different things). While someone would be free to start republishing the book and collecting money from it, they'd still have to credit the original author with the book's creation (there are laws and legal remedies surrounding accreditation that are separate from copyright). The original author would still be free to continue selling their book, and could easily make it clear which copies they were selling so that people could ensure their money went to the actual author (this distinction could be easily enforced through trademark law).
I should point out at this point that pretty much this exact process occurs in my own industry with generic drugs. Once the patent on the drug expires several generic versions of a drug will make it to market in one or two years. The company that held the patent has typically recouped their investment (plus quite a bit) by that time, but still continues to sell their drug and get a revenue stream from it (although a reduced one from when the patent was in effect). The major results are 1) the prices of the original drug and the generics become much lower because the market actually becomes competitive and 2) other companies start looking to build off of and improve upon the original drug to create new and better drugs (while the patent was still in effect there's a risk of being sued once such a drug moves into development). This whole process allows the company that made the drug make enough money to make it worth their time, allows the public access to cheaper products after the patent runs out, and allows other companies to engage in further invention based off of the initial invention. Want to tell me why there's an issue with any of this, or why the situation with copyright is somehow fundamentally different? Oh, and in case you're curious patents last for 20 years from the filing date, which is typically around year 3 or 4 of the 8-10 year research and development process.
Zolgar: The same could happen to anyone. Including musicians, who would also no longer be able to perform their music live, because someone else had the copyright to it.
Once copyrights fall into the public domain the work contained in them cannot be copyrighted again. Please better inform yourself before making any further baseless statements.
Zolgar: The laws could use refining, I do not deny it. But the refining you're proposing is what we call a "knee jerk" reaction. Taking something that is way too far in one direction, and instead flinging it in the opposite direction.
The knee-jerk reaction would be completely doing away with copyright. What I proposed earlier is what I consider to be a good balance that allows copyright to provide maximum benefit to society as a whole.
Zolgar: Of course, what REALLY needs a refining is society. We shouldn't even have NEED for copyright laws.
In the words of James Madison, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Yet we have government because it is a practical necessity. Likewise, we have copyright for
practical purposes, and it's important to never lose sight of what those purposes are, and continually evaluate the state of copyright law in terms of to what extent it is working towards or against those purposes.
Zolgar: Oh, and food for thought:
Could it actually be that the copyright laws actually encourage artists to think further and further outside of the box?
Could it perhaps be that if copyrights expired so soon, all that would ever be done, is the same things that were successful, over and over?
I'd go ahead and file your first statement under "duh" as encouraging creators to create is exactly why copyright was instituted. But once copyright laws become too long they actually starting becoming harmful towards this purpose. There is less incentive for creators to create new works if they can just sit back and collect payments on what they had previously created 10-20 years earlier. Additionally, as more and more of our culture gets locked down under copyright people trying to create new things run a greater and greater risk of finding someone at their door saying "Hey, that was my idea! Pay me!" Both of these issues have already been occurring for some time.
Zolgar: You're going to tell me I'm wrong. I know you are, so don't even bother.
But here's the simple fact. You can't prove that the way I see it is wrong, any more than I can prove that the way you see it is wrong. As we are just arguing view points.
I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, as I typically don't believe in such absolute statements. I will tell you (and indeed, already have told you) in which cases I disagree with you, and just why I disagree with you. Also, it's not my intention to "prove" any point to you. I engage in these kinds of discussions purely because I enjoy it; any other reason I'd consider a waste of my time.
Zolgar: Now, if you could stop treating me like a selfish 5 year old for having a slightly more literal view of 'intellectual property', we can get along fine.
When I am presented with a view that, as argued, basically boils down to "people should have to pay me" it's only a natural result that I consider such a view selfish and childish. I don't see why this should bother you, as I'm nothing more than some random schmo on the internet to you, but if for some reason it does then maybe you should take a closer look at your views and try to understand just why I view them as I do.
