Well, well, well, it's come down to this: Michigan J. Blogger vs. thCL over Intellectual Property of all things.
I read theCL's posts and came up with a few conclusions.
First: He likes using 100 words when 10 will suffice.
Second: He kept his focus on music because that's where the most controversy comes on this subject.
Third: He should stay away from Christianity in arguments because the Bible clearly states that God allows governments to exist and we need to follow that authority. For example, when David took over as King of Israel, he had the man executed who killed the former king, Saul, because he violated God's will. And Saul was a horrible king. There are also many examples of respecting authority in the Bible - when that authority is righteous - but that is another post for another time.
Back to theCL. I like his wheel and fire examples.
First, the wheel. If I were to invent some mode of transportation that was more efficient than the wheel, I should be able to patent it. No one says a person cannot buy the item from me. If I go through the effort of inventing something, where is the fairness in letting someone else steal that idea and make money from it.
TheCL says record companies are stealing from the artists. Wouldn't someone stealing my idea and profiting from it be the same thing?
What the CL forgot to mention in his post was that he told me as the owner of the CD, he should be allowed to burn copies and sell them as long it was clear he was burning them so the customer wouldn't be misinformed.
If the big, evil record companies are taking advantage of the little artists, then why is stealing someone's music and selling it with no cut to the artist not the same thing?
Also, no one told ANY musical act they had to sign on with a record label. They can go out and make their own CDs, burn millions of copies, distribute them all over the world, create ad campaigns, make T-shirts, arrange media tours all the while spending millions of dollars in the HOPE the CD sells. The record companies do that all time. They take the risk so they should get some of the profits.
I know there have been record companies that make more than their fair share of an artist's work, but if the artist feels like they have been taken advantage of, they do not have to resign with that company.
As for Kid Rock, he says file sharing is ok now when he is a millionaire,but would he have said that when he was a struggling musician and needed the money? I think Kid Forgot that the record label marketed him so people actually want to hear his music.
As for fire. Fire is a natural occurence so no one can patent fire. If you come up with a mechanism that creates fire efficiently, you can patent that idea and you should be able to profit from it.
If you go by theCL's logic, no one should be able to profit from natural things so why should we be able to own land? Just because someone got to beachfront property before me should not allow them to own it. I should be able to walk into someone's backyard and set up a tent and live there. After all, according to theCL, who can "own" anything?
Actually, I am being sarcastic. TheCL's point is intellectual property is not a tangible thing and thereforeit can't owned. Well, there is a difference between an idea and the creation of one's imagination.
Stan Lee created Spirder-Man when he was an employee of Marvel Comics. According to his agreement with his employer, any character Lee created was property of Marvel. He agreed to specific compensation for those characters. If he didn't like it, then he could have quit and started his comic book company.
As for Marvel, it invested in Stan Lee with a salary and benefits, an office, liability, other employees, a printing facility, a distribution network and a millions of other costs.
Marvel invested a lot into Spider-Man and should be able to control how the character is used. TheCL told me anyone should be able to make a Spider-Man movie or comic because it is an idea and no one can own an idea.
How is that fair to the people who put up the front money to see if Spider-Man would be a success?
If theCL had his way, creativity would be stymied because people would fear their ideas would be hijacked by people with more money.
Take Kid Rock for example. Say a company paid out millions to have Kid Rock impersonators travel the country and sing all his songs and perform the exact stage show he does. Let's say the average ticket price for the impersonators are half of the original. Times are tough, so more people go to the fake show. That would cost the real Kid Rock millions. According to theCL, that would be ok because Kid Rock is a creation of Robert Ritchie, therefore no one can "own" Kid Rock so anyone can perform as Kid Rock.
See. That makes no sense.
According to theCL's argument, his web site www.the-classic-liberal.com and this one, www.michigan-blogger.com, could be copied everyday and posted somewhere else in the same fashion and that would be ok.
Also, according to theCL, there could be 50 movies a year released about Harry Potter by whomever wants to make one. Who cares if that costs JK Rowling money? She's wealthy enough.
Sure sounds like Communism to me. Everyone shares the wealth. Is that what President Obama and Vice President Biden keep blabbing on about?
I understand the argument against Intellectual Property is usually based on record companies. There has been a history of big companies taking advantage of musicians.
However, with the Internet distributing music now, those companies will have to improve their business practices to stay alive.
There is nothing wrong with an artist, musician, film maker or writer keeping control over what they create. Having laws to protect that property is not any more fascist than laws protecting your personal property from being stolen. And, if someone doesn't want a big company sharing in the profits of some piece of Intellectual Property, they don't have to sign a contract agreeing to do so.
This argument reminds me of when Chris Webber complained the University of Michigan was making money off his No. 4 jerseys. He said he should be entitled to some of that money. I disagree, he accepted a full-ride scholarship worth a couple hundred thousand dollars to play there. If he didn't want to go to college, no one was forcing him. He could have tried to head straight to the NBA or go into some other line of work. Or, if he felt he was being taken advantage of, he could have skipped his scholarship, not played basketball and paid for an education out of his own pocket like most everyone else.
If you agree to the rules heading into a situation, you can't complain later.
Jeez.. I can't say theCL is longwinded anymore, look at the size of this post.
Here are some differences between ideas that shouldn't be copyrighted or patented and creations that should have protection under the law:
Idea: Restaurants. Creation: McDonald's
Idea: Department stores. Creation: K-Mart.
Idea: Automobile: Creation: Ford Focus.
Idea: Lawnmower. Creation: Toro.
Dave Thomas created the fast-food franchise, Wendy's. There were other burger places around when he started but he CREATED Wendy's. And no one should be able to open a Wendy's without the company's permission.
Ultimately, creating Mickey Mouse is just as tangible an assest as building a house. And the both deserve protection under the law.
