They have mainly to do with being recognized as the author of a work no matter who owns the rights.
If you're the author of the work, then later assignments will not matter even sans moral rights. It's a fact that you are the author and you can say so.
If you're not the author of the work, but merely the implementor of it (as in the case of works made for hire, where the law defines the author as the employer, etc.) then it still doesn't matter to simply state the fact that you created the work for the author.
Regarding portfolios, I have no idea where you're getting that from. It's not in VARA in the US. It's not in Art. 6bis of the Berne Convention. I'd be surprised to find that anyplace has a specific right to reproduce or publicly display or perform works for one's portfolio without infringing merely for being the original artist or hand behind it.
It's nevertheless likely a fair use, so okay already. Seems like too narrow a category to warrant a statutory exception, however. But I might be willing to accept such an exception provided that it was just yet another one like the others, and as far as we went with special treatment for authors.
Really if authors are so concerned about this, they should have these things put in their contracts. I don't think authors are stupid. I think they're capable people that can take care of themselves. If they're happy signing away so much copyright that they couldn't use their work in their portfolio then who am I to call them stupid for doing so? Let's respect freedom of contract for the most part. (Though for the sake of disclosure I will say that I think we need to limit EULAs as they're pretty abusive as to a much larger segment of society)
an all-rights contract
Incidentally, do you mean an assignment or a commissioned work made for hire or both? There are some differences in the present law, though I'm actually all for ditching revocations and enlarging the availability of works made for hire. It simplifies things and again lets people contract more freely.
I fail to see how this prevents copyright holders from using works as they see fit
Your ideas generally don't, however, they don't seem to track moral rights as some places have set forth to date. The moral rights we actually see in legislation do, however.
Works in the public domain are still attributed to their authors.
No reason that they have to be, however. I don't think that people should be actively defrauded. But attributing authors is really just for the convenience of audiences, so that they know who the author is for their own purposes. It's not really any different than knowing the year something was created. It matters to some, but not to others.
They impair users and copyright holders by preventing them from using their copies of works as they see fit.
They degrade artists by treating them in a paternalistic manner; if they are concerned with their reputation, they're surely able to guard it themselves. We don't have these sorts of rights anywhere else, so why should we have them here? What's special about artists? Why don't you trust them?
They don't fit into our utilitarian model of copyright either. The reason we have copyrights at all, and the reason they have whatever scope we set for them (barring corruption, mistakes, etc.) is to serve the public's equal interests in seeing works created and having works unrestricted. Artists are entirely secondary to the equation. Moral rights try to draw upon some idiotic notion that copyright is a natural right when in fact it is artificial. It couldn't be natural anyway, when it is the opposite of the obviously natural freedom of speech that the author must employ in creation, and that others employ in infringement, alteration, etc.
No, it's authors and science. And in 1789, when that clause was written, science meant something like general knowledge. So yeah, a pretty picture is perfectly within the bounds of copyrightable subject matter.
The useful arts are the subject matter of patents. Useful arts are useful technical knowledge. The idea of an art being a kind of skill area is still common in the patent field (e.g. persons having ordinary skill in the art) and even in some idioms in common use, such as 'state of the art technology.'
No, you're confusing two different terms. Without getting into the specific details, if a work is created by an author normally, it lasts for their life + 70 years. But if it is a work for hire, it lasts for the shorter of 120 years from creation or 95 years from first publication.
This used to be a lot easier: upon first publication of the work, there was no copyright unless one had been specifically registered. Then the term was a flat period of time for everyone, and shorter than the current term lengths too.
Ooh, that is a subtle and correct point that most people miss. Sounds like you've been reading the CCC case. Kudos to you.
But remember that there is a middle ground too -- creative data presented as objective fact. A good example can be seen in the Nash v. CBS case, where an author tried to claim rights in a theory that John Dillinger didn't die in '34. His theory may or may not be true, but by claiming that it was a fact, he put himself into the world of objective facts. Plus of course, if he's right, then it is unprotectable; if he's wrong, it's still more of an idea than an expression. The decision there suffers a bit for predating Feist, but it's basically good.
I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me the problem copyright gets into in a digital age is not about the copies themselves, but rather the simultaneous usage.
That's an interesting idea, but that would be radically different than how we have been doing things. Traditionally copyright has dealt with creating and distributing copies and some public performances or displays. It's not really about usage so much.
My point is that what is "ordinary equipment" is changing all the time.
So? Courts are perfectly capable of taking that into account. Check out the 110(5) homestyle exception sometime.
it does so by creating derivative works!
No it doesn't. The legal definition of a derivative work (see sections 101-103) is not the same as what a lot of people think it means. A derivative is more like adapting something to a different medium, non-slavishly and meeting the requirements of 102. Like making a movie based on a book.
I agree that it's silly. Basically, a copy is made if the work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. This occurs whenever the work's "embodiment in a copy or phonorecord... is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration."
The courts generally have agreed that putting something in RAM counts because you can read it back out again. Speakers probably wouldn't count, not so much for a logical reason but because judges probably wouldn't feel that they do. It's very imprecise; I welcome suggestions for a better definition.
You might be interested in some of Prof. Litman's writings where she too complains about this sort of thing as being far too broad in this day and age.
But also note that since fair use would continue to apply, and perhaps some degree of estoppel, even if playing a CD with ordinary equipment were considered reproduction, you'd probably be okay in the end. Plus, who'd bother to bring that case? You don't get to go to federal court and just ask theoretical questions. You'd have to be sued, and it seems unlikely anyone would sue you merely for listening to a CD, as distinguished from some of the other things we've discussed of late.
Does anyone have a constitutional problem with this statement?
Well, it's not all that accurate. It'd be better to say that their interpretation of the law becomes strongly binding. (later courts can go against it, but ultimately this'll result in the S.Ct. overturning, or affirming and changing their interpretation)
I for one am forced to agree with the poster that in fact the Supreme Court's decisions have, in effect (if not in practice also) basically made laws.
Well, there is a federal common law. But I think what you're actually talking about is not the Court making law but interpreting the Constitution, which is a higher law than any mere statute to come out of Congress. If the Constitution says Congress can't do something, then tough for Congress. The role of determining what the Constitution says chiefly falls to the courts. Courts normally interpret laws, so that's not a far leap for them. And since Congress can't be trusted with that power (since they'd always rubberstamp whatever they did), nor can the Executive (who has a similar problem), why would it not fall to the branch that does this same kind of work already?
I am disturbed by the idea that judges base their decisions in a case, not on laws themselves but on other judges decisions!
Actually they do both. An unfounded precedent won't hold up later. But generally following precedent grants stability; you know that a case will likely come out a particular way because prior cases with the same or sufficiently similar issues have too. I can't see how a judiciary could function without reference to precedent.
I feel that the lines of separation of powers between the courts and congress have been eroded and that the courts in today's United States have the real power in government.
That seems like a fairly dumb statement in this, the post-Lockner era. The courts are generally pretty favorable to Congress.
many judges that are elected run w/ no opposition so they cannot be removed by vote.
That's at the state level -- Art. III judges are appointed for life. No one cares much about Art. I judges.
It's volume. By percentage it's pretty average. Someone put together a scorecard of this for 2003 here and while there's not enough data given only the one year, it's pretty clear that the main thing is that so damn many 9th Cir. cases go up. Way more than from anyplace else.
Basically, the 9th Cir. is too big. It needs to be split into a 9th and 12th, just like we split the old 5th into the current 5th and the 11th. (Hell, you might even be able to split it three ways)
But by the same measure, there is no blanket rule making it illegal, and that is more important.
Well, there sort of is. The blanket law would be 17 USC 106(1) -- reproducing the work (by means of a VCR or what have you) is infringing. Fair use may or may not apply, yes, but there's absolutely a prima face case for infringement.
It's kind of like murder. Murder is illegal. But there are various exceptions that may arise -- self defense or defense of others, insanity and involuntary intoxication, etc.
So while there is always the possibility that something that's otherwise infringing might be legal, it's somewhat fair to say that it's not.
in the general case people have a good idea what is fair and what is blatant disregard for copyright.
I agree to an extent. But there's a lot of misconceptions about copyright too. I'd like to partly bring copyright back in line with people's expectations, but to also make it more clear with regards to other aspects of it what the reality is.
There is no "up", and P2P makes that all the more clear.
Basically the terms in this context mean to send (upload) or to recieve (download).
If anything, upload/download only convey who initiated the transfer. If I have something on my computer and you want it, me sending it to you is an "upload" while you requesting it from me is a "download".
No, not really. If you simply make it available to my request for a download by means of an automated system on your end, that's good enough to qualify as an upload.
But really we may be clouding the issue by inserting these bits of jargon. What's at issue is whether distribution and reproduction occur, and if so, to whom liability attaches.
Regardless, a simple transfer is neither an obvious form of distribution or infringement, since we know absolutely nothing about how the systems are connected or what their purpose is.
Well, you can't transfer data between computers. Only reproduce it. So it's really very clear that doing nearly anything with a computer involves reproduction. (see the MAI and Intellectual Reserve cases) If it's authorized etc., then of course there's no issue. But if not, someone's liable for it, most likely.
The truth is, something has to be made unlawful before you can make an exception for what is lawful.
Yes. 106(1) makes ALL unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted works unlawful unless there is some applicable exception. There are a few, but not a lot, and they're not all that broad.
So I think the preoccupation with "lawfully" complete shifts the focus from the question of whether or not the original law is a good one.
Well, I don't mean to do that. I'm very much in favor of constantly vetting the laws for whether they're good, accomplishing their purpose, etc. But most of this discussion has been about the current law, not proposals for something new. Like it or lump it, some things are pretty clearly lawful or unlawful now.
Still, they should get the treatment of innocent until proven guilty, instead of your default "infringement" angle.
Okay, we will presume them to not be guilty. But so what? Copyright cases are actually really easy civilly and criminally. If you ever face one, you're probably going to lose if you fight it. Well, unless it's rather unusual. But most of the ones we're seeing are clear-cut music, software, and video pirating. No sweat for the prosecutor or plaintiff.
I recall a case where some company was shut down because they provided mp3s on a network jukebox, so you could access the music you owned from wherever, provided you demonstrated ownership of the CD.
I think you're talking about UMG v. MP3.com.
It is not at all clear to me the me playing my music at a friend's house is infringement.
If you reproduce it (e.g. into a computer's RAM) then it is, barring any applicable exception such as fa
Yes, yes. To be more accurate, there is no blanket rule indicating that the fair use defense to copyright infringement applies for any specific set of circumstances. It's always available, but you have to work at it and demonstrate anew that your specific putative fair use was in fact an actual fair use. The mere fact that similar uses were fair might help, but it's never determinative.
I agree with you regarding your general point. I was paraphrasing, since sometimes it's convenient to discuss issues assuming some various premises, rather than setting everything up from first principles every time.
Wrong. An "upload" is just a copy.
I didn't talk about an upload as a noun. I talked about uploading as a verb.
The act of uploading is a form of distribution, also an action. And it's an infringing one, all else being equal.
I can copy for the purposes of backup.
That depends. You can reproduce copies for backup purposes lawfully where it doesn't infringe copyright. This means you can lawfully backup public domain works, works to which you hold applicable copyright, works you are authorized to backup, and works you can lawfully backup under some exception to copyright. There is no universal backup exception. There is a limited one in 17 USC 117, a limited one in 17 USC 1008, and that's it, unless you have some other special circumstances (e.g. you're a public library).
Those two only cover a narrow range of works, and not all forms of backup may qualify. The only place in the current law to find a way to lawfully backup the copyrighted works of others without authorization is fair use. But it only applies when your specific circumstances regarding the backup are fair. They may not be fair in some circumstances. As always with fair use, we've got to examine the circumstances carefully to find out whether fair use applies or not.
I am not willfully doing anything wrong if someone else gains access to those copies.
Willfulness is a term of art, you know, and only rarely relevant for copyright. Civil copyright is basically a matter of strict liability; what you intended, and whether you acted in good faith is basically irrelevant. It is important for criminal liability.
Just putting materials on a server that happens to be publicly accessible might not be willful. Recklessness perhaps, but that's a lower standard.
OTOH, if you were willfully blind to the public accessibility of the materials and it was highly likely that they'd be publicly accessible, or you knew they were, or if you intended public access of the materials, then we've satisfied the willfulness requirement.
I don't think it's difficult to argue that P2P users generally act willfully. Perhaps some honestly don't, but I'd guess that the ones in this case knew precisely what the deal was.
Even that person may not being doing anything wrong if they have otherwise secured the right to copy the same material.
Also true. But terribly unlikely.
If everyone has the right to a copy, it's all a big stupid pissing match over the particulars of how access is or isn't "allowed".
You've gone off on a tangent. Fair use is ONLY available as a defense where the conduct is infringing but for the purported fair use.
So by definition, you can only even try to rely on the fair use of another where neither you nor he have acted lawfully otherwise. He infringed, but had a good fair use claim; you infringed, don't have a good fair use claim, and have to rely on his. Courts won't let that fly. You have to have your own fair use claim, for what you did.
The case I like for this is Princeton Univ. Press v. Mich. Document Svcs., 99 F.3d 1381, 1386 (6th Cir. 1996):
It is true that the use to which the materials are put by the students who purchase the coursepacks is noncommercial in nature. But the use of the materials by the studen
Slashdot is rife with complete mistatements of fact offered up as gospel truth. Some of these I recognize because I happen to be familiar with the subject matter. No doubt that a lot of other misinformation gets by me because I don't know enough about it.
Frankly, while I'm willing to post my two cents worth, there's nothing special about me that makes me a reliably trustworthy source. I don't mean to say that I lie here or that I'm careless, but rather that there's no good way for people to tell whether I'm posting accurate information or someone contrary is instead merely on the basis of our posts, usually.
The best thing to do is to refer to source materials that are likely accurate. For example, I try to cite to statutes and cases to support my points; people can consult the material I've referenced and confirm what I've said for themselves. At the very least, I try to show rationales, rather than just flatly stating that something is fact.
I know that the above poster is wrong, and this can either be ascribed to malice -- that he's intentionally posting untrue statements -- or ignorance, which IME is more common around here. It doesn't bother me when people don't know something. No one's omniscient. It doesn't bother me greatly when people don't even have a desire to learn about something; people have their interests and priorities and likes, and some things will just be outside of that. But it does bug me when people are so reckless in not checking the veracity of their statements that they effectively lie, likely further spreading their misstatements to people who'll believe them. That bothers me something fierce.
Perhaps I've overreacted, but I don't know. He wasn't willing to even think about the point he replied to me with after I had already addressed it once. He stuck to his guns, but he was wrong, and careful thought or better yet investigation probably would've revealed that to him. I try to stay level headed and rely simply on convincing arguments and facts, but his sort of behavior gets to me.
What I mean is that when you trespass onto land, the fact that the owner still owns the land is not disputed. Hell, he can even still be in possession of the land whilst you trespass.
But he has a right to decide whether or not people can be on his land, and by ignoring that (by trespassing) you infringe on his right to keep you out.
A copyright is a right to prevent other people from doing things with regards to certain works. When you do those things anyway, you infringe on the copyright holder's right to exclude you from those things.
Land need not be exclusively in the control of one person at a time. If I have a vacant lot, I can be there and you can be there at the same time, but you're still trespassing.
This is generally different from personal property, which usually is in the control of one person at a time. We cannot both drive the same car simultaneously.
Creative works are entirely nonrivalrous. It's impossible, basically, for one person to be able to control a work. The worst anyone can do is to ALSO have some influence on the work at the same time. Thus an infringer might make and sell copies of a work, but without preventing me from doing the same.
Really copyright and patent infringement are their own things. The best thing to do really is to not try to draw comparisons with other sorts of offenses or crimes. That's always far more confusing than illuminating in my experience.
So long as you're clear that you absolutely do not OWN the copy of the music on the CD.
True, but only because no one can own music. Music is unownable altogether.
If you own the CD, then you have lawful access to that music. To the extent the music is not copyrighted (both during and after the copyright term) you can do whatever you want with it as a consequence of your natural freedom of speech.
You do not own the music on the CD, not even the copy of the music on the CD.
A CD _is_ a copy. A copy is a tangible medium in which a work has been fixed. A work is an intangible creative product which may be fixed in multiple media simultaneously (and often is).
'Hotel California' is a work. There are millions of copies in which that work is fixed, typically in the form of LP, cassette, or CD. There is also a copyright pertaining to the work.
The work, the copyright, and the copies of the work are all distinct from one another and have different attributes.
You have purchased the right to do certain things with it, like listen to it, create backup copies, etc, but you not own it.
No, that's wrong. You have purchased the copy. No one can purchase the work, since the work cannot be owned. You did not purchase the copyright, presumably, though that's intangible and arguably can be owned (or at least approximates it closely enough for us here).
You can do literally anything in the world with the work provided you have access to it via a copy. For example, I can't reprint the lost plays of Shakespeare only because I don't have them in front of me. If I did, I could and would.
The law may restrict what you can do with the things you own. I can't drive over the speed limit lawfully, but I own my car. I can't build a paper mill on my land, but I own the land. I can't shoot you with my gun, but I own the gun.
The law is that for the duration of the copyright, the copyright holder can restrict some things that are done with the unownable work. Once the copyright expires he cannot restrict any longer. (likewise, since copyrights are limited in scope some things are never restricted by copyright)
The copyright does NOT apply to the right to listen to one's own copy of a musical work or sound recording. So long as you have mere access, you can do that. And you get access by buying a CD. As it happens, you could even get access through piracy. It is infringing to make a copy of a copyrighted work, but it is not infringing to merely listen to it. (listening whilst also making copies in the process is not mere listening, mind)
So that listening can't be held against you. It's legal, even if the copy you're using isn't.
Anyway, you might want to actually sit down and read the law someday. Right now you're very wrong. You've basically seen some glimpses of what the law is, and then proceeded to make up some fantasy about it to correspond to your preconceived notions about it or to lamely explain some things you've observed. It's like you've created a cargo cult of law. (also you generally don't have a right to backup copyrighted works; you got that wrong too)
Rather than continue to be ignorant and to confuse others, would you mind educating yourself?
Could of swore the American people can record something with a VCR/TiVo and happily watch it back.
Not necessarily. There's no blanket rule that says that that's allowed; each case has to stand on its own, based on the facts involved.
Surely the same thing applies to downloading it after watching it on TV a day or so before too.
Yep -- each one has to stand on its own. There's no blanket rule allowing this.
But uploading is distinct from downloading. It cannot borrow any possible justification from downloading -- it too has to stand on its own. And it basically can't.
Its not illegal to download, its illegal to distribute
They're both illegal; downloading is a form of reproduction, and reproduction is infringement per 17 USC 501, 106(1). Distribution is another kind of infringement per 106(3). This is not news: check out the Napster case (holding that uploaders and downloaders were each direct infringers), or the disturbing but well written Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry case in D. Utah.
How many "downloaders" have they gone after? How many uploaders/sharers?
That's a tactical decision; taking out uploaders puts pressure on downloaders who now have fewer opportunities to download. This is why they went after the networks before the users. It's just a matter of going after the head of the snake.
And I am so sick of hearing "its not stealing".
Maybe so, but it's not stealing. It's illegal, it's just not stealing. Is that so weird? Arson isn't stealing but it deprives the victim of something. Tresspassing isn't stealing, but it's not legal (and much more closely analagous to copyright infringement).
When you buy CDs you're buying the right to listen to a copy of the music in digital form.
That's not at all true. When you buy a CD, you buy the CD as a piece of personal property. You can do anything at all with it. The law may independently limit your freedom with it (e.g. you own your car but can't go 100mph in a school zone) but you still own it.
This is easily illustrated: if you buy a CD, and the work at some point enters the public domain, the scope of what you can lawfully do with it enlarges significantly, probably contrary to the desire of the former copyright holder. If you merely bought a right to listen, that wouldn't enlarge later.
Are you willing to listen to reason, or need I start pulling quotes from the courts that support my point.
IP. I'm not eligible to sit for the patent bar and my interest is copyright anyway, with some trademark to round things out. Grades just came in, and I'm doing pretty good. Maybe better once exams are available for review and challenge.
You might be interested in going for a JD at a school that also has an IP LLM program so that you can finish up faster than the 4 years it'd otherwise take, not counting the horror of the bar and patent bar and lengthy reviews needed for each. Instead it'd be more like 3.5, _maybe_ 3 if you took a heavy load and summer classes.
Yours is a stupid comment, but I'll respond to it anyway.
You're wrong. And lets dispense with the stupid-ass car analogy.
When you buy a book, you buy the book completely in the absence of any further valid agreement otherwise. You do NOT just buy a right to read the book. You buy the book and get the right to do anything with it as a piece of personal property: read it, don't read it, give it away, burn it, etc.
What you buy, basically, is the right to use the book in absolutely any way, however you see fit, the right to extend that use to others (or take it back, as you like), and the right to dispose of the book in any manner.
This is the same whether you buy a book, or a baseball bat, or pretty much anything else.
The most relevant thing you get is access. Access to the intangible, unownable work that is expressed within the book. That is, if you own the paperback, you can access it to read the story within. If you don't, then the owner can determine whether you get to read the book, handle it, etc. which may as a practical matter limit your access to the story it contains.
Independently of all this, there MAY also be a copyright. A copyright is a negative right; it is not a right to do things or to allow others to do things. It is a right only to prevent other people from doing things.
Additionally, there is only a very short list of things it pertains to: reading is not one of them. Thus while a copyright holder can prevent other people from reproducing a work, he cannot prevent other people from simply reading it.
Thus the copyright holder cannot grant other people the right to read, since a) he can't grant rights, only promise not to himself prohibit them from doing things, and b) he has no authority over reading to begin with. Only reproduction, distribution, etc. which may, but doesn't necessarily, confer some control over access to the books, as distinct from the copyrighted works within the books.
Now, this is only a right to prohibit others. That's important! It means that other people must derive their right to read -- aside from matters of access -- from another source. In fact, since the copyright is a right of prohibition, it means that the right to actually do those things, a right we have accepted can be temporarily curtailed, must likewise derive from a different source than the mere copyright holder.
Because when the copyright expires, this means that the copyright holder can no longer prohibit others from doing things. Now they can exercise the right that they had all along, and do things that would've been infringing had they been done before.
Since these things are identical to the things the copyright holder likely was doing (and remembering that the copyright never conferred on him the right to do those things, only to prohibit others (this shows up a lot where there are two authors and two copyrights, one controlling on the other)) the copyright holder must've gotten his right to do those things from the same source as the rest of us.
That source is God. The right of free speech (which encompasses both expressing and receiving speech) is where the right to read and the right to make copies etc. come from.
We limit this a bit in the pursuit of some of the goals of our society (c.f. libel laws, advertising regulations) but ultimately we let it go unconstrained.
There are many practical examples of this:
Mark Twain was a noted American author who was very much in favor of ever expanding if not perpetual copyright (since after all it would make him more money, and he was bad with money so he needed more). IMO he was kind of an asshole. He NEVER would have wanted anyone to read his books without paying per read, and NEVER would've wanted people to get to make copies of his books without paying handsomely for the privilege.
But his books are in the public domain; I can read and reproduce them at will, for free. If he or his estate had even the slightest right to prevent this, I assure you, they'd use it as much as possible. They don't, illustrating my point, and ultimately showing us all that you are (in legal terms) a doofus.
it follows from these that a man must have the right to the products of his mind
Quite wrong.
You appear to claim that no one can rightfully compel another person to do or not do something. A patent is nothing other than the right to compel other people to not do something (it is not a right to do something oneself, btw).
Patent rights are not natural rights inherent to man. They're artificial, created consensually by society to serve the interests of society, and are shaped in terms of their vesting, scope, and duration, in order to so serve.
If you deny that men can own their ideas, then you deny that men can survive by ideas, and you deny the right of man to survive at all.
I deny that people can own ideas, and in fact no patent law anywhere AFAIK protects ideas.
OTOH, I am happy to state that you're an idiot.
For an interesting view on the patent system by Thomas Jefferson who had a notable role in the formation of the US and our patent system, check out his letter of 1813 to one Isaac McPherson. You can find a copy here.
It has such highlights as this:
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. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Of course, I'm a copyright lawyer, not a patent lawyer, but they're the same with regards to these sorts of basic principles.
Slashdot Mirror
They have mainly to do with being recognized as the author of a work no matter who owns the rights.
If you're the author of the work, then later assignments will not matter even sans moral rights. It's a fact that you are the author and you can say so.
If you're not the author of the work, but merely the implementor of it (as in the case of works made for hire, where the law defines the author as the employer, etc.) then it still doesn't matter to simply state the fact that you created the work for the author.
Regarding portfolios, I have no idea where you're getting that from. It's not in VARA in the US. It's not in Art. 6bis of the Berne Convention. I'd be surprised to find that anyplace has a specific right to reproduce or publicly display or perform works for one's portfolio without infringing merely for being the original artist or hand behind it.
It's nevertheless likely a fair use, so okay already. Seems like too narrow a category to warrant a statutory exception, however. But I might be willing to accept such an exception provided that it was just yet another one like the others, and as far as we went with special treatment for authors.
Really if authors are so concerned about this, they should have these things put in their contracts. I don't think authors are stupid. I think they're capable people that can take care of themselves. If they're happy signing away so much copyright that they couldn't use their work in their portfolio then who am I to call them stupid for doing so? Let's respect freedom of contract for the most part. (Though for the sake of disclosure I will say that I think we need to limit EULAs as they're pretty abusive as to a much larger segment of society)
an all-rights contract
Incidentally, do you mean an assignment or a commissioned work made for hire or both? There are some differences in the present law, though I'm actually all for ditching revocations and enlarging the availability of works made for hire. It simplifies things and again lets people contract more freely.
I fail to see how this prevents copyright holders from using works as they see fit
Your ideas generally don't, however, they don't seem to track moral rights as some places have set forth to date. The moral rights we actually see in legislation do, however.
Works in the public domain are still attributed to their authors.
No reason that they have to be, however. I don't think that people should be actively defrauded. But attributing authors is really just for the convenience of audiences, so that they know who the author is for their own purposes. It's not really any different than knowing the year something was created. It matters to some, but not to others.
They impair users and copyright holders by preventing them from using their copies of works as they see fit.
They degrade artists by treating them in a paternalistic manner; if they are concerned with their reputation, they're surely able to guard it themselves. We don't have these sorts of rights anywhere else, so why should we have them here? What's special about artists? Why don't you trust them?
They don't fit into our utilitarian model of copyright either. The reason we have copyrights at all, and the reason they have whatever scope we set for them (barring corruption, mistakes, etc.) is to serve the public's equal interests in seeing works created and having works unrestricted. Artists are entirely secondary to the equation. Moral rights try to draw upon some idiotic notion that copyright is a natural right when in fact it is artificial. It couldn't be natural anyway, when it is the opposite of the obviously natural freedom of speech that the author must employ in creation, and that others employ in infringement, alteration, etc.
No, it's authors and science. And in 1789, when that clause was written, science meant something like general knowledge. So yeah, a pretty picture is perfectly within the bounds of copyrightable subject matter.
The useful arts are the subject matter of patents. Useful arts are useful technical knowledge. The idea of an art being a kind of skill area is still common in the patent field (e.g. persons having ordinary skill in the art) and even in some idioms in common use, such as 'state of the art technology.'
They're both bad. I'd rather have neither.
No, you're confusing two different terms. Without getting into the specific details, if a work is created by an author normally, it lasts for their life + 70 years. But if it is a work for hire, it lasts for the shorter of 120 years from creation or 95 years from first publication.
This used to be a lot easier: upon first publication of the work, there was no copyright unless one had been specifically registered. Then the term was a flat period of time for everyone, and shorter than the current term lengths too.
Ooh, that is a subtle and correct point that most people miss. Sounds like you've been reading the CCC case. Kudos to you.
But remember that there is a middle ground too -- creative data presented as objective fact. A good example can be seen in the Nash v. CBS case, where an author tried to claim rights in a theory that John Dillinger didn't die in '34. His theory may or may not be true, but by claiming that it was a fact, he put himself into the world of objective facts. Plus of course, if he's right, then it is unprotectable; if he's wrong, it's still more of an idea than an expression. The decision there suffers a bit for predating Feist, but it's basically good.
I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me the problem copyright gets into in a digital age is not about the copies themselves, but rather the simultaneous usage.
That's an interesting idea, but that would be radically different than how we have been doing things. Traditionally copyright has dealt with creating and distributing copies and some public performances or displays. It's not really about usage so much.
My point is that what is "ordinary equipment" is changing all the time.
So? Courts are perfectly capable of taking that into account. Check out the 110(5) homestyle exception sometime.
it does so by creating derivative works!
No it doesn't. The legal definition of a derivative work (see sections 101-103) is not the same as what a lot of people think it means. A derivative is more like adapting something to a different medium, non-slavishly and meeting the requirements of 102. Like making a movie based on a book.
What basis is there for such a claim (that "there needs to be a good reason")?
/.
Copyright is artifical. Surely all laws must have a good reason to exist, lest they infringe upon our freedoms unjustifiably.
Not every discussion needs to begin with first principles, especially not the sort to be found on
I agree, but it's a good idea to bear them in mind whenever we're thinking about problems with the current law and possible replacements.
When someone produces a speech, or writes a paper, few would argue that that someone shouldn't have some kind right of ownership on the work.
Why? What basis is there for such a claim? I don't necessarily disagree, but let's not treat it as a given. There needs to be a good reason.
By that measure any use is infringement.
... is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration."
I agree that it's silly. Basically, a copy is made if the work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. This occurs whenever the work's "embodiment in a copy or phonorecord
The courts generally have agreed that putting something in RAM counts because you can read it back out again. Speakers probably wouldn't count, not so much for a logical reason but because judges probably wouldn't feel that they do. It's very imprecise; I welcome suggestions for a better definition.
You might be interested in some of Prof. Litman's writings where she too complains about this sort of thing as being far too broad in this day and age.
But also note that since fair use would continue to apply, and perhaps some degree of estoppel, even if playing a CD with ordinary equipment were considered reproduction, you'd probably be okay in the end. Plus, who'd bother to bring that case? You don't get to go to federal court and just ask theoretical questions. You'd have to be sued, and it seems unlikely anyone would sue you merely for listening to a CD, as distinguished from some of the other things we've discussed of late.
What's the Moxie for? Punishment for not cracking the DRM?
Could be. Honestly, I'm not all that familiar with how many cases come into the 9th from its districts; I'm out in the 1st Cir.
Does anyone have a constitutional problem with this statement?
Well, it's not all that accurate. It'd be better to say that their interpretation of the law becomes strongly binding. (later courts can go against it, but ultimately this'll result in the S.Ct. overturning, or affirming and changing their interpretation)
I for one am forced to agree with the poster that in fact the Supreme Court's decisions have, in effect (if not in practice also) basically made laws.
Well, there is a federal common law. But I think what you're actually talking about is not the Court making law but interpreting the Constitution, which is a higher law than any mere statute to come out of Congress. If the Constitution says Congress can't do something, then tough for Congress. The role of determining what the Constitution says chiefly falls to the courts. Courts normally interpret laws, so that's not a far leap for them. And since Congress can't be trusted with that power (since they'd always rubberstamp whatever they did), nor can the Executive (who has a similar problem), why would it not fall to the branch that does this same kind of work already?
I am disturbed by the idea that judges base their decisions in a case, not on laws themselves but on other judges decisions!
Actually they do both. An unfounded precedent won't hold up later. But generally following precedent grants stability; you know that a case will likely come out a particular way because prior cases with the same or sufficiently similar issues have too. I can't see how a judiciary could function without reference to precedent.
I feel that the lines of separation of powers between the courts and congress have been eroded and that the courts in today's United States have the real power in government.
That seems like a fairly dumb statement in this, the post-Lockner era. The courts are generally pretty favorable to Congress.
many judges that are elected run w/ no opposition so they cannot be removed by vote.
That's at the state level -- Art. III judges are appointed for life. No one cares much about Art. I judges.
It's volume. By percentage it's pretty average. Someone put together a scorecard of this for 2003 here and while there's not enough data given only the one year, it's pretty clear that the main thing is that so damn many 9th Cir. cases go up. Way more than from anyplace else.
Basically, the 9th Cir. is too big. It needs to be split into a 9th and 12th, just like we split the old 5th into the current 5th and the 11th. (Hell, you might even be able to split it three ways)
But by the same measure, there is no blanket rule making it illegal, and that is more important.
Well, there sort of is. The blanket law would be 17 USC 106(1) -- reproducing the work (by means of a VCR or what have you) is infringing. Fair use may or may not apply, yes, but there's absolutely a prima face case for infringement.
It's kind of like murder. Murder is illegal. But there are various exceptions that may arise -- self defense or defense of others, insanity and involuntary intoxication, etc.
So while there is always the possibility that something that's otherwise infringing might be legal, it's somewhat fair to say that it's not.
in the general case people have a good idea what is fair and what is blatant disregard for copyright.
I agree to an extent. But there's a lot of misconceptions about copyright too. I'd like to partly bring copyright back in line with people's expectations, but to also make it more clear with regards to other aspects of it what the reality is.
There is no "up", and P2P makes that all the more clear.
Basically the terms in this context mean to send (upload) or to recieve (download).
If anything, upload/download only convey who initiated the transfer. If I have something on my computer and you want it, me sending it to you is an "upload" while you requesting it from me is a "download".
No, not really. If you simply make it available to my request for a download by means of an automated system on your end, that's good enough to qualify as an upload.
But really we may be clouding the issue by inserting these bits of jargon. What's at issue is whether distribution and reproduction occur, and if so, to whom liability attaches.
Regardless, a simple transfer is neither an obvious form of distribution or infringement, since we know absolutely nothing about how the systems are connected or what their purpose is.
Well, you can't transfer data between computers. Only reproduce it. So it's really very clear that doing nearly anything with a computer involves reproduction. (see the MAI and Intellectual Reserve cases) If it's authorized etc., then of course there's no issue. But if not, someone's liable for it, most likely.
The truth is, something has to be made unlawful before you can make an exception for what is lawful.
Yes. 106(1) makes ALL unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted works unlawful unless there is some applicable exception. There are a few, but not a lot, and they're not all that broad.
So I think the preoccupation with "lawfully" complete shifts the focus from the question of whether or not the original law is a good one.
Well, I don't mean to do that. I'm very much in favor of constantly vetting the laws for whether they're good, accomplishing their purpose, etc. But most of this discussion has been about the current law, not proposals for something new. Like it or lump it, some things are pretty clearly lawful or unlawful now.
Still, they should get the treatment of innocent until proven guilty, instead of your default "infringement" angle.
Okay, we will presume them to not be guilty. But so what? Copyright cases are actually really easy civilly and criminally. If you ever face one, you're probably going to lose if you fight it. Well, unless it's rather unusual. But most of the ones we're seeing are clear-cut music, software, and video pirating. No sweat for the prosecutor or plaintiff.
I recall a case where some company was shut down because they provided mp3s on a network jukebox, so you could access the music you owned from wherever, provided you demonstrated ownership of the CD.
I think you're talking about UMG v. MP3.com.
It is not at all clear to me the me playing my music at a friend's house is infringement.
If you reproduce it (e.g. into a computer's RAM) then it is, barring any applicable exception such as fa
Yes, yes. To be more accurate, there is no blanket rule indicating that the fair use defense to copyright infringement applies for any specific set of circumstances. It's always available, but you have to work at it and demonstrate anew that your specific putative fair use was in fact an actual fair use. The mere fact that similar uses were fair might help, but it's never determinative.
I agree with you regarding your general point. I was paraphrasing, since sometimes it's convenient to discuss issues assuming some various premises, rather than setting everything up from first principles every time.
Wrong. An "upload" is just a copy.
I didn't talk about an upload as a noun. I talked about uploading as a verb.
The act of uploading is a form of distribution, also an action. And it's an infringing one, all else being equal.
I can copy for the purposes of backup.
That depends. You can reproduce copies for backup purposes lawfully where it doesn't infringe copyright. This means you can lawfully backup public domain works, works to which you hold applicable copyright, works you are authorized to backup, and works you can lawfully backup under some exception to copyright. There is no universal backup exception. There is a limited one in 17 USC 117, a limited one in 17 USC 1008, and that's it, unless you have some other special circumstances (e.g. you're a public library).
Those two only cover a narrow range of works, and not all forms of backup may qualify. The only place in the current law to find a way to lawfully backup the copyrighted works of others without authorization is fair use. But it only applies when your specific circumstances regarding the backup are fair. They may not be fair in some circumstances. As always with fair use, we've got to examine the circumstances carefully to find out whether fair use applies or not.
I am not willfully doing anything wrong if someone else gains access to those copies.
Willfulness is a term of art, you know, and only rarely relevant for copyright. Civil copyright is basically a matter of strict liability; what you intended, and whether you acted in good faith is basically irrelevant. It is important for criminal liability.
Just putting materials on a server that happens to be publicly accessible might not be willful. Recklessness perhaps, but that's a lower standard.
OTOH, if you were willfully blind to the public accessibility of the materials and it was highly likely that they'd be publicly accessible, or you knew they were, or if you intended public access of the materials, then we've satisfied the willfulness requirement.
I don't think it's difficult to argue that P2P users generally act willfully. Perhaps some honestly don't, but I'd guess that the ones in this case knew precisely what the deal was.
Even that person may not being doing anything wrong if they have otherwise secured the right to copy the same material.
Also true. But terribly unlikely.
If everyone has the right to a copy, it's all a big stupid pissing match over the particulars of how access is or isn't "allowed".
You've gone off on a tangent. Fair use is ONLY available as a defense where the conduct is infringing but for the purported fair use.
So by definition, you can only even try to rely on the fair use of another where neither you nor he have acted lawfully otherwise. He infringed, but had a good fair use claim; you infringed, don't have a good fair use claim, and have to rely on his. Courts won't let that fly. You have to have your own fair use claim, for what you did.
The case I like for this is Princeton Univ. Press v. Mich. Document Svcs., 99 F.3d 1381, 1386 (6th Cir. 1996):
Of course it is.
Slashdot is rife with complete mistatements of fact offered up as gospel truth. Some of these I recognize because I happen to be familiar with the subject matter. No doubt that a lot of other misinformation gets by me because I don't know enough about it.
Frankly, while I'm willing to post my two cents worth, there's nothing special about me that makes me a reliably trustworthy source. I don't mean to say that I lie here or that I'm careless, but rather that there's no good way for people to tell whether I'm posting accurate information or someone contrary is instead merely on the basis of our posts, usually.
The best thing to do is to refer to source materials that are likely accurate. For example, I try to cite to statutes and cases to support my points; people can consult the material I've referenced and confirm what I've said for themselves. At the very least, I try to show rationales, rather than just flatly stating that something is fact.
I know that the above poster is wrong, and this can either be ascribed to malice -- that he's intentionally posting untrue statements -- or ignorance, which IME is more common around here. It doesn't bother me when people don't know something. No one's omniscient. It doesn't bother me greatly when people don't even have a desire to learn about something; people have their interests and priorities and likes, and some things will just be outside of that. But it does bug me when people are so reckless in not checking the veracity of their statements that they effectively lie, likely further spreading their misstatements to people who'll believe them. That bothers me something fierce.
Perhaps I've overreacted, but I don't know. He wasn't willing to even think about the point he replied to me with after I had already addressed it once. He stuck to his guns, but he was wrong, and careful thought or better yet investigation probably would've revealed that to him. I try to stay level headed and rely simply on convincing arguments and facts, but his sort of behavior gets to me.
No, not really.
What I mean is that when you trespass onto land, the fact that the owner still owns the land is not disputed. Hell, he can even still be in possession of the land whilst you trespass.
But he has a right to decide whether or not people can be on his land, and by ignoring that (by trespassing) you infringe on his right to keep you out.
A copyright is a right to prevent other people from doing things with regards to certain works. When you do those things anyway, you infringe on the copyright holder's right to exclude you from those things.
Land need not be exclusively in the control of one person at a time. If I have a vacant lot, I can be there and you can be there at the same time, but you're still trespassing.
This is generally different from personal property, which usually is in the control of one person at a time. We cannot both drive the same car simultaneously.
Creative works are entirely nonrivalrous. It's impossible, basically, for one person to be able to control a work. The worst anyone can do is to ALSO have some influence on the work at the same time. Thus an infringer might make and sell copies of a work, but without preventing me from doing the same.
Really copyright and patent infringement are their own things. The best thing to do really is to not try to draw comparisons with other sorts of offenses or crimes. That's always far more confusing than illuminating in my experience.
So long as you're clear that you absolutely do not OWN the copy of the music on the CD.
True, but only because no one can own music. Music is unownable altogether.
If you own the CD, then you have lawful access to that music. To the extent the music is not copyrighted (both during and after the copyright term) you can do whatever you want with it as a consequence of your natural freedom of speech.
You do not own the music on the CD, not even the copy of the music on the CD.
A CD _is_ a copy. A copy is a tangible medium in which a work has been fixed. A work is an intangible creative product which may be fixed in multiple media simultaneously (and often is).
'Hotel California' is a work. There are millions of copies in which that work is fixed, typically in the form of LP, cassette, or CD. There is also a copyright pertaining to the work.
The work, the copyright, and the copies of the work are all distinct from one another and have different attributes.
You have purchased the right to do certain things with it, like listen to it, create backup copies, etc, but you not own it.
No, that's wrong. You have purchased the copy. No one can purchase the work, since the work cannot be owned. You did not purchase the copyright, presumably, though that's intangible and arguably can be owned (or at least approximates it closely enough for us here).
You can do literally anything in the world with the work provided you have access to it via a copy. For example, I can't reprint the lost plays of Shakespeare only because I don't have them in front of me. If I did, I could and would.
The law may restrict what you can do with the things you own. I can't drive over the speed limit lawfully, but I own my car. I can't build a paper mill on my land, but I own the land. I can't shoot you with my gun, but I own the gun.
The law is that for the duration of the copyright, the copyright holder can restrict some things that are done with the unownable work. Once the copyright expires he cannot restrict any longer. (likewise, since copyrights are limited in scope some things are never restricted by copyright)
The copyright does NOT apply to the right to listen to one's own copy of a musical work or sound recording. So long as you have mere access, you can do that. And you get access by buying a CD. As it happens, you could even get access through piracy. It is infringing to make a copy of a copyrighted work, but it is not infringing to merely listen to it. (listening whilst also making copies in the process is not mere listening, mind)
So that listening can't be held against you. It's legal, even if the copy you're using isn't.
Anyway, you might want to actually sit down and read the law someday. Right now you're very wrong. You've basically seen some glimpses of what the law is, and then proceeded to make up some fantasy about it to correspond to your preconceived notions about it or to lamely explain some things you've observed. It's like you've created a cargo cult of law. (also you generally don't have a right to backup copyrighted works; you got that wrong too)
Rather than continue to be ignorant and to confuse others, would you mind educating yourself?
Could of swore the American people can record something with a VCR/TiVo and happily watch it back.
Not necessarily. There's no blanket rule that says that that's allowed; each case has to stand on its own, based on the facts involved.
Surely the same thing applies to downloading it after watching it on TV a day or so before too.
Yep -- each one has to stand on its own. There's no blanket rule allowing this.
But uploading is distinct from downloading. It cannot borrow any possible justification from downloading -- it too has to stand on its own. And it basically can't.
Its not illegal to download, its illegal to distribute
They're both illegal; downloading is a form of reproduction, and reproduction is infringement per 17 USC 501, 106(1). Distribution is another kind of infringement per 106(3). This is not news: check out the Napster case (holding that uploaders and downloaders were each direct infringers), or the disturbing but well written Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry case in D. Utah.
How many "downloaders" have they gone after? How many uploaders/sharers?
That's a tactical decision; taking out uploaders puts pressure on downloaders who now have fewer opportunities to download. This is why they went after the networks before the users. It's just a matter of going after the head of the snake.
And I am so sick of hearing "its not stealing".
Maybe so, but it's not stealing. It's illegal, it's just not stealing. Is that so weird? Arson isn't stealing but it deprives the victim of something. Tresspassing isn't stealing, but it's not legal (and much more closely analagous to copyright infringement).
When you buy CDs you're buying the right to listen to a copy of the music in digital form.
That's not at all true. When you buy a CD, you buy the CD as a piece of personal property. You can do anything at all with it. The law may independently limit your freedom with it (e.g. you own your car but can't go 100mph in a school zone) but you still own it.
This is easily illustrated: if you buy a CD, and the work at some point enters the public domain, the scope of what you can lawfully do with it enlarges significantly, probably contrary to the desire of the former copyright holder. If you merely bought a right to listen, that wouldn't enlarge later.
Are you willing to listen to reason, or need I start pulling quotes from the courts that support my point.
IP. I'm not eligible to sit for the patent bar and my interest is copyright anyway, with some trademark to round things out. Grades just came in, and I'm doing pretty good. Maybe better once exams are available for review and challenge.
You might be interested in going for a JD at a school that also has an IP LLM program so that you can finish up faster than the 4 years it'd otherwise take, not counting the horror of the bar and patent bar and lengthy reviews needed for each. Instead it'd be more like 3.5, _maybe_ 3 if you took a heavy load and summer classes.
As it happens, that's what I did. Now I'm getting my LL.M, and should be in the fight shortly, though still at a low level.
Yours is a stupid comment, but I'll respond to it anyway.
You're wrong. And lets dispense with the stupid-ass car analogy.
When you buy a book, you buy the book completely in the absence of any further valid agreement otherwise. You do NOT just buy a right to read the book. You buy the book and get the right to do anything with it as a piece of personal property: read it, don't read it, give it away, burn it, etc.
What you buy, basically, is the right to use the book in absolutely any way, however you see fit, the right to extend that use to others (or take it back, as you like), and the right to dispose of the book in any manner.
This is the same whether you buy a book, or a baseball bat, or pretty much anything else.
The most relevant thing you get is access. Access to the intangible, unownable work that is expressed within the book. That is, if you own the paperback, you can access it to read the story within. If you don't, then the owner can determine whether you get to read the book, handle it, etc. which may as a practical matter limit your access to the story it contains.
Independently of all this, there MAY also be a copyright. A copyright is a negative right; it is not a right to do things or to allow others to do things. It is a right only to prevent other people from doing things.
Additionally, there is only a very short list of things it pertains to: reading is not one of them. Thus while a copyright holder can prevent other people from reproducing a work, he cannot prevent other people from simply reading it.
Thus the copyright holder cannot grant other people the right to read, since a) he can't grant rights, only promise not to himself prohibit them from doing things, and b) he has no authority over reading to begin with. Only reproduction, distribution, etc. which may, but doesn't necessarily, confer some control over access to the books, as distinct from the copyrighted works within the books.
Now, this is only a right to prohibit others. That's important! It means that other people must derive their right to read -- aside from matters of access -- from another source. In fact, since the copyright is a right of prohibition, it means that the right to actually do those things, a right we have accepted can be temporarily curtailed, must likewise derive from a different source than the mere copyright holder.
Because when the copyright expires, this means that the copyright holder can no longer prohibit others from doing things. Now they can exercise the right that they had all along, and do things that would've been infringing had they been done before.
Since these things are identical to the things the copyright holder likely was doing (and remembering that the copyright never conferred on him the right to do those things, only to prohibit others (this shows up a lot where there are two authors and two copyrights, one controlling on the other)) the copyright holder must've gotten his right to do those things from the same source as the rest of us.
That source is God. The right of free speech (which encompasses both expressing and receiving speech) is where the right to read and the right to make copies etc. come from.
We limit this a bit in the pursuit of some of the goals of our society (c.f. libel laws, advertising regulations) but ultimately we let it go unconstrained.
There are many practical examples of this:
Mark Twain was a noted American author who was very much in favor of ever expanding if not perpetual copyright (since after all it would make him more money, and he was bad with money so he needed more). IMO he was kind of an asshole. He NEVER would have wanted anyone to read his books without paying per read, and NEVER would've wanted people to get to make copies of his books without paying handsomely for the privilege.
But his books are in the public domain; I can read and reproduce them at will, for free. If he or his estate had even the slightest right to prevent this, I assure you, they'd use it as much as possible. They don't, illustrating my point, and ultimately showing us all that you are (in legal terms) a doofus.
Quite wrong.
You appear to claim that no one can rightfully compel another person to do or not do something. A patent is nothing other than the right to compel other people to not do something (it is not a right to do something oneself, btw).
Patent rights are not natural rights inherent to man. They're artificial, created consensually by society to serve the interests of society, and are shaped in terms of their vesting, scope, and duration, in order to so serve.
If you deny that men can own their ideas, then you deny that men can survive by ideas, and you deny the right of man to survive at all.
I deny that people can own ideas, and in fact no patent law anywhere AFAIK protects ideas.
OTOH, I am happy to state that you're an idiot.
For an interesting view on the patent system by Thomas Jefferson who had a notable role in the formation of the US and our patent system, check out his letter of 1813 to one Isaac McPherson. You can find a copy here.
It has such highlights as this:
Of course, I'm a copyright lawyer, not a patent lawyer, but they're the same with regards to these sorts of basic principles.