The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

Absolute tosh - multinational companies do far worse, far more often and don't give a fuck what the anyone says - and why? BECAUSE THEY CAN AND BECAUSE IT'S PROFITABLE.

They do far worse, far more often, because they are protected by governments.

And you're doing the "I can't win this argument so I'll shift the goalposts" thing again - we're talking about IP rights.

Yes, we are. As I said, something in the mind is not property, only government legislation makes it so. If you keep an idea in your mind and don't tell anyone about it, that's your right. Once you tell somebody, or sell your idea, it cannot be exclusively yours any more.

If someone copies your story, or expands upon it, then what has been stolen from you? Nothing. You still have the idea, it's not like it's been sucked out of your head. One might argue, then, that it's your extra income that's been stolen - but that makes no sense either because it implies that other people's money belongs to you, that you have a right to it.

It's like saying one shop is stealing customers from another, as if customers can be owned.

[Funt Solo]

If someone copies your story ... then what has been stolen from you? Nothing.

Everything. The intellectual property has been stolen.  You're advocating that people should be slaves to other, stronger people. You're arguing in favor of slavery. (Which makes sense, because as a non-voter, you're giving your country's management over freely to others and giving up any say you might have in the process. So, in some fashion, you want to be led and desire to have no say. You wish to be a slave.)

[The Legendary Shark]

Industries will adapt. This idea that all companies are evil rapists is pure paranoia.

One, probably don't use the R word in this context. Completely inappropriate. Two, adapt in what sense?

One, the context was in raping ideas, as I suspect you well know. Two, adapt in the sense of looking after their creatives as valuable resources. What would it profit any publishing company to deter the creators of original works? That would lead to them only being able to employ third-rate hacks (like me ).

The publishing industry needs top flight creators of original works. Let's say Uncle Pat decides to write an original James Bond story, for example, for 2000AD. That would bring in new readers, James Bond fans, who might then stay for the other stories. Rebellion might decide to reprint classic Dan Dare strips, or seminal comic works from history, to fill the Megazine floppies - a treat for regulars and a draw for new readers.

Once Uncle Pat's James Bond series has finished, Rebellion could still collect it into a GN and then have two choices, to pay Uncle Pat or to not pay him. Which option would make more sense if they want to keep him on board? Another company might want to collect the parts into a GN themselves and face the same question. They could photocopy the Progs and do it that way, without paying a penny, or they could pay for access to the original artwork (which is property and can therefore be kept under lock and key forever, if needs must) and maybe a foreword by the creators.

It's not like the ability to copy existing works is suddenly going to make everybody want to buy them. Some of the greatest literary works in history are available to be published by anyone, but that hasn't put Plato or Homer into the Top Ten Bestseller charts.

Speaking of Homer, if IP had existed in his time, we probably wouldn't have The Iliad or The Odyssey today. As I understand it, Homer presented his stories orally and it's only because some "criminal" wrote down what he said (using their own materials and time) that we can still enjoy them, centuries later.

[IndigoPrime]

In this rosy future, Rebellion doesn't exist, because all the IP it relies on has been co-opted by much larger companies with colossal budgets. Most of the creators are no longer creating, because there are no guaranteed income streams. After all, there's no IP law, and so anyone can use anything and copy everything. Turns out, people won't buy stuff when everything is freely available and there's no law against anything that isn't a physical object.

or they could pay for access to the original artwork (which is property and can therefore be kept under lock and key forever, if needs must)

Most artwork is now digital, which means there's no physical product. Under your rules, on what basis do these have any rights whatsoever?

Speaking of Homer, if IP had existed in his time, we probably wouldn't have The Iliad or The Odyssey today. As I understand it, Homer presented his stories orally and it's only because some "criminal" wrote down what he said (using their own materials and time) that we can still enjoy them, centuries later.

The world may have changed a little bit since then. (Also, I am not blind to the benefits of a certain amount of illegality. One of the reasons many 8-bit games are extant is because people cracked them in the 1980s. But then that's more an argument for fair-use law than the wholesale eradication of IP law.)

[The Legendary Shark]

If someone copies your story ... then what has been stolen from you? Nothing.

Everything. The intellectual property has been stolen.  You're advocating that people should be slaves to other, stronger people. You're arguing in favor of slavery. (Which makes sense, because as a non-voter, you're giving your country's management over freely to others and giving up any say you might have in the process. So, in some fashion, you want to be led and desire to have no say. You wish to be a slave.)

I can only assume you haven't been paying attention. Ideas. Cannot. Be. Property. Property is any tangible, scarce resource. Ideas are intangible and practically infinite.

Theft can only happen with a limited resource. If I steal your car, that's theft because I've deprived you of something real. If you could just snap your fingers and magick up another car, then me stealing your car wouldn't be theft because you could create an infinite number of cars at no cost - but you can't (or, if you can, could you magick me up an Aston Martin, please?), so stealing your car deprives you of it. If, on the other hand, you tell me about your technique for tweaking your car's fuel system to increase efficiency and I use your idea to tweak my own fuel system, that isn't theft because you still have your idea. But if you write your idea down in a notebook and I steal the notebook, then I've only deprived you of your notebook and can be prosecuted for that. I haven't stolen your idea, your intellectual property, because it's still in your head.

Only through the bizarre alchemy of government legislation can something you still possess and have unlimited access to (your fuel-tweaking idea) be classed as "stolen."

[JayzusB.Christ]

. Ideas. Cannot. Be. Property. Property is any tangible, scarce resource.

I haven't read this latest argument in detail, nor am I going to. A large part of my living involves creating art.  If someone started selling prints of my work, I'd consider them a thieving gobshite who is cheating me out a living. Putting extra full stops in your counterargument won't change that.  That's all I'm going to contribute here till the subject changes.

[The Legendary Shark]

...there are no guaranteed income streams.

I think this is the foundation of your argument, greed. You expect a creative to write a novel (for example) and then be allowed to live off it for ever. This does not apply to a plumber, who also has to use his intelligence, his training, his experience and his (yes, yes - or her) creativity to install a bathroom but only gets paid once. It's a corporate mindset, the mindset you so obviously despise, to earn as much money as possible for the minimum of effort.

[The Legendary Shark]

. Ideas. Cannot. Be. Property. Property is any tangible, scarce resource.

I haven't read this latest argument in detail, nor am I going to. A large part of my living involves creating art.  If someone started selling prints of my work, I'd consider them a thieving gobshite who is cheating me out a living. Putting extra full stops in your counterargument won't change that.  That's all I'm going to contribute here till the subject changes.

So sell your own prints and add extra value through signing them. Or make a deal to add extra value to the gobshite's prints by charging him (or her) for signing them.

[Funt Solo]

I can only assume you haven't been paying attention. Ideas. Cannot. Be. Property.

Now you're being patronizing and incorrect. IP laws exist: you can't deny it. Ergo, ideas literally are property. QED. Actual reality usurps your desired reality. Go ask a lawyer.

[IndigoPrime]

...there are no guaranteed income streams.

I think this is the foundation of your argument, greed. You expect a creative to write a novel (for example) and then be allowed to live off it for ever. This does not apply to a plumber, who also has to use his intelligence, his training, his experience and his (yes, yes - or her) creativity to install a bathroom but only gets paid once. It's a corporate mindset, the mindset you so obviously despise, to earn as much money as possible for the minimum of effort.

OK, I'm going to bow out here because the above is blinkered in thinking and pretty insulting. I'm not talking about people making a mint from royalties. I'm talking about editors and grips and staff writers and engineers and everyone else who will have no job because they won't exist. I'm talking about freelancers with regular work whose income streams will dry up. Most of the creative industry isn't people making fortunes – it's people getting by. And we Kong IP laws just ruins their chances for continuing to work. This isn't about greed. This is about the viability of the creative industry – an industry I've been deeply immersed in for nearly 20 years.

[The Legendary Shark]

Now you're being patronizing and incorrect. IP laws exist: you can't deny it. Ergo, ideas literally are property. QED. Actual reality usurps your desired reality. Go ask a lawyer.

That's a circular argument. IP exists because legislation says IP exists, just like God exists because the Bible says God exists.

[The Legendary Shark]

...there are no guaranteed income streams.

I think this is the foundation of your argument, greed. You expect a creative to write a novel (for example) and then be allowed to live off it for ever. This does not apply to a plumber, who also has to use his intelligence, his training, his experience and his (yes, yes - or her) creativity to install a bathroom but only gets paid once. It's a corporate mindset, the mindset you so obviously despise, to earn as much money as possible for the minimum of effort.

I'm talking about editors and grips and staff writers and engineers and everyone else who will have no job because they won't exist.

A company trading in reprints will need staff too, just like the purveyors of original works. That's more jobs, not fewer.

[Funt Solo]

IP exists...

Yes. That's what I've been saying all along. At last, we agree on something. *phew* As this is turning into a game of "last word", I'm going to excuse myself from responding further from this point of mutual agreement.

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

IP exists in order to incentivise creative individuals to continue to create things.

The problem is that it is abused. But that does not affect the underlying rationale or reality of it.

True, ideas as a thing cannot be protected. They cannot be property. Inherently, once communicated, they are in the wild (hmm... there's a future shock in that). IP law is, therefore, an artificial construct designed to creat and attribute value to them.

To that extent, they are property. But only because the law says that they are.

In fact, the alternative to most of the laws to which Shark objects, should they be scrapped, is anarchy. I disagree with a lot of posts here for that reason.

But that is not to say things should not be questioned or unchanged. The rules are good for all, but only if the rules are fair. The problem is that the rules are often rigged. But that does not mean they should be scrapped or sacrificed on the altar of principle.

[Dandontdare]

What would it profit any publishing company to deter the creators of original works?

They wouldn't need to deter or encourage as the creators would be powerless ...  they'd just wait till they create something and then steal it.

Once Uncle Pat's James Bond series has finished, Rebellion could still collect it into a GN and then have two choices, to pay Uncle Pat or to not pay him. Which option would make more sense if they want to keep him on board?

Why would they need to keep him 'on board' if they can just appropriate anything he produces, either for another publisher or self-published? Why would they invest in him at all by publishing it in the first place if they weren't going to have any exclusivity?


You write - how would you feel if one of your stories was published, became hugely successful, made into movies etc making millions for a bunch of talentless businessmen, and you received no money or recognition?