I first got into considering copyright law by way of knitting blogs, and discussions of pattern sharing. (Many, many flame wars.) “Common as Air; revoluton, art, and ownership”, by Lewis Hyde, is a discussion of intellectual property and the ways history and geography have created to consider the products of the mind.
Hyde quotes Thomas Jefferson as saying,” The field of knowledge is the common property of mankind.” (And oh, do I want to fling that at some teapartier, some day.) Of course, the idea of “commons,” appearing in places like Creative Commons, is discussed. A mention is made of the World Trade Organization persuading Saudi Arabia to reform their views regarding bootlegging, which is traced back to Islamic law, in which a thief who stole a book was considered to only steal the paper and ink, because the ideas were not tangible property.
I think Susie has mentioned the fierce competition and industrial spying in the fashion world, and how it has invigorated the field. Talking about reworked plot lines, Ursula K. LeGuin said something like, “We all stand on the shoulders of giants,” leading us to consider Jung’s archetypes. Steve Job’s retirement will probably prompt some discussion of who owns what, and why. Like I said, I’ve only started the book, but it looks like a thorough review of a complicated subject. I hope it at least touches on the power of money and how the drive to get money has influenced the consideration of ideas. I’m looking forward to getting deeper into this book.
Fascinating discussion, esp. questions as to whether ideas are tangible or intangible, standing on the shoulders of giants/whether there’s anything actually new under the sun, and whether or not the only thing that makes something proprietary in capitalist society v. shared property society is whether or not you have an IP attorney. The discussion gets very interesting when the Fourth Amendment is introduced. “Guarding against unreasonable searches, arrests and seizures of property.” That seems almost axiomatic/foundational. If you can’t get to the ideas without hacking someone’s harddrive, home or head, it ain’t yours. Otherwise, why would people follow other specific people around unless they had interest/value in their ideas and capacity for trend setting/mavenry? Oh and kudos to the Europeans for telling a certain agro giant that patenting nature would not be permitted. Doesn’t get the world back all those farmers from India though, does it?
P.S. Another interesting thread: South Park’s Imaginationland (bombing the imagination to protect ourselves from it) occurring side by side with proliferation of (expensive, complicated) IP mechanisms. Discuss.
Ah, so it continues to be a good read. Thanks.
I used to be a book publishing copyright specialist in another life. Almost all of the people who like to complain about what they call “so-called copyright laws” have never written a book-length work, or tried to make a living from writing. Their only perspective is the inconvenience of not being able to appropriate other peoples’ work without permission.
The misunderstanding of U.S. Copyright law can take on enormous proportions, as when google tried to digitize and publish every book they could get their hands on, regardless of payment or permission, on (very bad) advice of counsel.
On the other hand, U.S. Corporations also misunderstand copyright when they try to assert copyright to ideas, much as they can (and legitimately do) with patents. You cannot copyright an idea, only an original expression. That field is as filled with incompetents as the paper hangers who came up with the idea of creating MERS around the notion that filing mortgage deeds with the county clerk is optional.