It's called pirating for a reason.  Pirates are cool - so obviously pirating is cool and completely acceptable in any moral framework.  The only notable caveat to this policy is the case of the ass pirate, which we can suitably ignore.

So, you expect us to take morality lessons from Lucavi? Surely you jest!

Quote from: GeofYour earlier assertion was actually that people deserve control over what is done with that work.  This entails control over the right of others to produce and control their own original work.  As I argued earlier with HinterWelt, originality is not necessarily obvious, and it certainly isn't absolute.  [...]

What becomes really difficult when dealing with property rights over ideas is drawing the divisions between different ideas.  Where you draw these boundaries determines what will be treated as original and what will be treated as derivative.  

You are confusing, as you did when talking to Hinterwelt, ideas, which are protected by no law, and the particular expression of an idea, which is protected by patent and copyright.

When you make that distinction, then things become clearer, it becomes easier to see what is "a derivative work" and what is "an original work". Of course there are grey areas, and for this there need be no universal rule, since we have courts to decide these things. No-one can make any general rule dividing derivative from original in the abstract, any more than we can make a rule dividing murder from manslaughter, or fraud from deception, and so on. These are things which must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

As well as the derivative/original expression of an idea distinction, there are other issues, such as "doctrine of merger", where if there are only so many ways to express a particular idea, then they're not protected. No-one can claim copyright over, "once upon a time..." or "the end" or "then play proceeds clockwise around the table" because there are only a few ways of expressing those same ideas. Nor can anyone claim copyright over historical characters they describe, only the text they use to describe them.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou are confusing, as you did when talking to Hinterwelt, ideas, which are protected by no law, and the particular expression of an idea, which is protected by patent and copyright.

When you make that distinction, then things become clearer, it becomes easier to see what is "a derivative work" and what is "an original work"

I am not confusing them - the distinction is already confused.  It breaks down most obviously in the case non-written work.  What are the ideas of a symphony?  Of a sunset captured on film?  In these cases, the expression appears to be the idea.  Otherwise, there just doesn't seem to be much idea there at all (or the idea is commonplace) - in which case I might ask what the "original" creative content is, and why it is deserving of special treatment (compared to say, a ditch).  You may be able to separate some ideas from expression, but you certainly can't separate all - or even most - of them.

Once a work has been created, meanings are built up around it:  the significance of certain music in our lives, images that mean something, scents that trigger memories.  These meanings are built up individually, but also collectively by the culture.  But virtually all of these them are linked to the expression, not to an abstract idea distinct from it.  Expressions comprise vocabulary.  To say, "you can use the idea but not the expression", is like saying you can use the idea of a word but not the word itself.  How am I to convey "terrorism", "liberty", "cocksucker" (I've been watching Deadwood) without using the words themselves?

If we do not allow creators of musical or visual works to build upon expressions that have gone before, do we allow them to build upon anything at all?  Control over expression is control over allusion.  Equally, since meanings created by those who experience a work are tied to the expression, exclusive control over that expression becomes exclusive control over those ideas also.

Yes, the law recognizes a division between idea and expression, and they have defined it well enough for their puproses.  But it's an artificial division.  It strengthens some links between ideas, but it breaks apart others.  And while it allows some wiggle room - a few notes of music here (perhaps), a similar (but not too similar) image there, a quote - it rules out a universe of derivative works (again, like the examples I cited earlier).

You and I could divide a river along a boundary:  say this part is mine, and that part is yours.  The division would be very clear - no question about it.  We could even say, these are two different kinds of river:  source and delta.  And yet the division would be artificial.  If I diverted the river upstream, or threw in refuse, your delta might not be a delta anymore.  And the regime that encouraged us to divide the river thus could accurately be described as one that ignored the reality of the river, and one which encouraged the abuse of the resource.

So with ideas.  The legal separation between idea and expression, between original and derivative, between author and audience - these are artificial.  This is not necessarily to say we should do away with copyright or property rights over land through which rivers run.  But we should recognize that these divisions change creativity, they change art, and - like the river - they change their environment, and we should take care that these changes are more for the better than for the worse.  In my opinion, the effect on derivative works and the durability of the exclusive categories created (most significantly perhaps between artists with rights - mostly corporate, and those without - mostly individuals) is currently damaging to art and to freedom.

Quote from: dansebieIf your goal is to alienate customers, I'd say DRM does plenty right!

Didn't Steve Jackson say something like: "We won't use DRM because the l33t goobs will break it anyway and it annoys the honest customers." ?

Quote from: GeofI am not confusing them - the distinction is already confused.  [...]

Yes, the law recognizes a division between idea and expression, and they have defined it well enough for their puproses.  But it's an artificial division.  

And that's good enough for me. Almost all divisions in law, morality and society are artificial, there's no question of that. The question we have to ask is not "is the distinction real or artificial?" but "is it reasonable?" or "does it give us the social results we want?"

For example, the distinctions in law between manslaughter and murder, between assault and battery and grevious bodily harm, between freedom of speech and freedom of worship, these are all artificial distinctions. But they are reasonable distinctions, and properly used, give us the results that we want - that people are punished more severely for some acts than others, that people can both speak and worship as they please without interference from the state or other people, and so on.

The law is artificial. It's something we put on top of society to try to bind it together. The distinctions the law makes will then of course be artificial, but so what? Are they reasonable? Do they give us the results we want?

And again, these sorts of things, deciding where the lines lie, are what we have courts for. So that people can join common sense with reason. Common sense cannot be expressed in general rules and regulations, in fine distinctions; but reason can be. So we join the two with memory (in common law) and imagination (for empathy). These four then together give us okay decisions. Mistakes will be made, and that's what courts of appeal are for.

I think that in game sessions, you Geof must be an annoying rules lawyer. The GM like the judge or jury must make common sense rulings in the spirit of the whole thing, with a particular goal (usually for the gamers, "fun", for the judge & jury, "justice") in mind. These rulings won't be perfect, and someone can always try to point to the rules and complain they're not complete enough, or that they're artificial. But that is just being a cocksmock. There will never be One Final Word on everything. There'll always be a back-and-forth and requirement for judgment, for common sense combined with reason, imagination and memory, with some particular goal in mind.

The particular goal of copyright and patent law is to encourage people to produce original works which will perhaps make society and human lives better. The best way that's been found to do this is to give the creator of the work control over what is done with it. This control is not absolute or for all time, but has exceptions - fair use, after a time it enters public domain, the public good (life-saving medicines), etc - but some sort of control must exist.

Just as people are encouraged to care for a space of land or a house if they own it, compared to some public space or something they never paid for, so too will people be encouraged to create original works if they're going to have some control over what's done with them. Just as people are upset if something they own is handled without permission, or if their private affairs are poked into and publicised, so too are people upset if something they created is published without permission, or altered in some way and messed about with.

Again, these rights of property, privacy and copyright/patent are not absolute, and may be impinged on for the public good. It's a question of balance, and again no perfect rules can be made about this, our reason is not alone enough, but we must combine it with common sense, imagination and memory, while keeping our end goal in mind.

It's not really that complicated.

Quote from: WilAnd, personally, artists and writers should create and make it available for others' enjoyment because they want to. If an artist is concerned that they are not getting every single penny from sale of their effort, they may want to reconsider their artistic endeavor. The idea that writers, artists, etc. should get wealthy off of their work is a very, very recent one.

Everyone has to make a living somehow. And very few artists are wealthy.

Sure, some great art is produced by amateurs. But a lot of talented people do not have the time, energy, or resources to create quality art in their spare time between holding down a day job, raising a family, etc. Drive those professionals out of any field - music, painting, film, RPGs, and you'll have a greatly diminished volume and quality of art.

Take a look at your favourite pieces of music, writing, or games. How much of it was produced by people who were only doing it part-time as a hobby?

Quote from: MetrivusIt's called pirating for a reason.  Pirates are cool - so obviously pirating is cool and completely acceptable in any moral framework.  The only notable caveat to this policy is the case of the ass pirate, which we can suitably ignore.

Hey dude.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe particular goal of copyright and patent law is to encourage people to produce original works which will perhaps make society and human lives better. The best way that's been found to do this is to give the creator of the work control over what is done with it. This control is not absolute or for all time, but has exceptions - fair use, after a time it enters public domain, the public good (life-saving medicines), etc - but some sort of control must exist.

I would dispute here the angle of must.  Copyright law is not a must -- there are many societies which have done without it entirely, and they are not without art, music, and original thought.  It is not a requirement for a functional society, unlike many other structures.  

I would also dispute the claim that we have found a "best way" to handle copyright.  Just because something is the current law doesn't mean that it is inherently the best way to do things -- this applies for anything.  One can't simply say "That's the way we do it now, therefore it's the best".  I happen to think that the current laws (particularly American, but many others as well) are thoroughly messed up.  There are a lot of things in the world that are not the "best" just because we happen to do things that way.  

Quote from: Kyle AaronJust as people are upset if something they own is handled without permission, or if their private affairs are poked into and publicised, so too are people upset if something they created is published without permission, or altered in some way and messed about with.

Again, these rights of property, privacy and copyright/patent are not absolute, and may be impinged on for the public good.

I would sort of agree, but I see it in the reverse.  The rights of people to do or say what they want to are primary -- and the infringement of them via copyright/patent is an imposition intended for the public good.  And there are many people who disagree and do without copyright and even deliberately release their works from its usual restrictions via various copyleft options or public domain (like academia).

Quote from: jhkimI would also dispute the claim that we have found a "best way" to handle copyright.

In Kyle's defense, he claimed it was the best way to encourage people to create - not the best way to handle copyright.  

Quote from: jhkimI would sort of agree, but I see it in the reverse.  The rights of people to do or say what they want to are primary -- and the infringement of them via copyright/patent is an imposition intended for the public good.  And there are many people who disagree and do without copyright and even deliberately release their works from its usual restrictions via various copyleft options or public domain (like academia).

Looking at it in reverse is an interesting use of rights.  Incorrect, but interesting.

And the last part is one of the arguments that drive me crazy.  It's an argument for copyright (and don't even get me started on how academcis don't count as they are publishing for profit - tenure).  If everyone is required to create without copyright than no individual who creates has the opportunity to control the creation.  With copyright in place, at least those who want to ignore it can, while those who wish others to respect the value of the work have a mechanism to do so. This is the best of both worlds.

Do I think copyright law, particularly American copyright law is sacrosanct?  Hardly. But several arguments get conflated and the extreme positions are taken up - hey, this sounds familiar.  To have a problem with, say, fair use or the length of copyright is not the same as ditching the concept of the-expression-of-an-idea-as-property-to-encourage-creation.

Quote from: James J SkachIn Kyle's defense, he claimed it was the best way to encourage people to create - not the best way to handle copyright.

Since the purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create, what exactly is it doing "best"?  

Quote from: James J SkachDo I think copyright law, particularly American copyright law is sacrosanct?  Hardly. But several arguments get conflated and the extreme positions are taken up - hey, this sounds familiar.  To have a problem with, say, fair use or the length of copyright is not the same as ditching the concept of the-expression-of-an-idea-as-property-to-encourage-creation.

Eh?  I explicitly said that I accepted the idea of laws to encourage original creation by discouraging copying.  

What I take issue with is the idea that it is a moral right to control your ideas or expressions once they hit other people -- and that it should be treated as property to be bought and sold.  This is particularly so because intellectual property law goes beyond just identical copying of files.  Fictional characters can be copyrighted, like Sam Spade or Mickey Mouse, and look-alike characters can be sued as violation.  Patents are used to assert control over ideas like "One click shopping" or even tapping cards in a TCG.  

Morally, people should get appropriate credit and reward for their work.  However, yes, I would question the specific concept of property ownership of specific expression as done in books and movies.  I am more comfortable with the rules for song writers, for example -- where a songwriter must be given credit and royalties, but cannot control who is allowed to play their song.

Quote from: jhkimSince the purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create, what exactly is it doing "best"?

My point was he's talking about the best way to encourage people, in general, and that it was to allow the creator to have control over what is done with it. I don't think he's saying the current copyright law is the best way to provide the creator control.  You'd have to ask Kyle, but he's pointed out in various posts that it's a balance of individual and society and that it's perfectly fine to adjust that as is needed. That makes me think he's not saying the incarnation of copyright is best, but that the concept of copyright, in general, is the best way to encourage people. Again - Kyle will explain himself better than I can.

Quote from: jhkimEh?  I explicitly said that I accepted the idea of laws to encourage original creation by discouraging copying.

Really? I'm not being snarky, I'm really asking.  Because I don't see any other posts in this thread that remotely resemble you explicitly saying that.  Given the number of threads on this subject, both here and in other forums, I could see the confusion.  But if you said it in this thread, I'm either missing it, or we have different definitions of "explicitly said." I'm just trying to find out which it is.

Quote from: jhkimWhat I take issue with is the idea that it is a moral right to control your ideas or expressions once they hit other people -- and that it should be treated as property to be bought and sold.

This is interesting to me.  Why do you believe laws that discourage copying encourage original creation?  My assumption is because to the creator, and to the people that want to consume the original work, there is some value. This means that any original idea as an intrinsic value. That value may be 0 (as most of my ideas seem to be), or it may be 1 billion US dollars.  How is that decided? By the market – wherein the idea is bought and/or sold.

Nowhere in that process is the creator able to control the idea itself when it hits other people.  Other people are free to take that idea and expand on it in any way they see fit.  If they come up with another idea sufficiently different from the first to be considered original, that individual's idea is now subject to the same process.  If it's not sufficiently different, the creation isn't original and, therefore, is not subject to the same protections – someone's already claimed that protection for that idea.

There are many ways to encourage original creation; copyright is just one. I've seen bandied about (though I'm not one to follow this subject that closely) the idea of going to the patronage system again – getting someone to pay the creator up front.  I think there's someone doing that now in a public way to show how the idea would work (like I said, I don't get into this as much as my brother so I'm working off a sketchy memory of links and discussions). The point is that all of them stem from the concept that the idea has value. When you start with the concept that an idea has value the moral rights and the buying and selling flow rather easily.

Quote from: jhkimThis is particularly so because intellectual property law goes beyond just identical copying of files.  Fictional characters can be copyrighted, like Sam Spade or Mickey Mouse, and look-alike characters can be sued as violation.

This is because the look-alikes can be used to dilute the value of a given property and reduce the ability of the creator to reap the benefits of creation – the point of protecting it in the first place. I'm always fascinated by the Weird Al products.  I've heard it said that he doesn't have to get permission.  Anyone know what part of the law allows him to do that?  Is it because it's a parody?

Quote from: jhkimPatents are used to assert control over ideas like "One click shopping" or even tapping cards in a TCG.

Ack.  Patents.  Not the same animal at all. The shit that's patented is unreal. OK, I'm just bitter because an idea I had was patented...I admit it.

Quote from: jhkimMorally, people should get appropriate credit and reward for their work.  However, yes, I would question the specific concept of property ownership of specific expression as done in books and movies.  I am more comfortable with the rules for song writers, for example -- where a songwriter must be given credit and royalties, but cannot control who is allowed to play their song.

An author can't determine who can own his book, can he? He can't control who reads it, can he? A producer/director/actor can't stop people from watching a legally purchased movie, can they? I'm not sure I understand the distinction you've drawn here.

Quote from: James J SkachBecause I don't see any other posts in this thread that remotely resemble you explicitly saying that.  Given the number of threads on this subject, both here and in other forums, I could see the confusion.  But if you said it in this thread, I'm either missing it, or we have different definitions of "explicitly said." I'm just trying to find out which it is.

Oops.  I only had one post on this thread about it, and I realize I had shortened it from what I originally wrote and removed the explicit statement.  (I have stated it explicitly on other forums, but you might not have seen that.)  Anyway, yes, I do believe that laws to encourage original creation are in principle OK.  

Quote from: James J SkachThis is interesting to me.  Why do you believe laws that discourage copying encourage original creation?  My assumption is because to the creator, and to the people that want to consume the original work, there is some value. This means that any original idea as an intrinsic value. That value may be 0 (as most of my ideas seem to be), or it may be 1 billion US dollars.  How is that decided? By the market – wherein the idea is bought and/or sold.

Eh?  There are many things that make the world a better place.  Being polite and helpful to other people rather than a jerk has value.  Making my home nice improves not just my home's value, but the value of the neighborhood.  There are many things that make the world a better place that we do not reward by giving people control over what other people can do or say.  If I'm nice to you, that has value, but I don't then demand payment for doing so.  

For example, teaching has value.  By transmitting ideas to students, I am giving to them and benefitting not only them -- but anyone else who benefits from their increased knowledge.  If a student goes on to do great things, their teachers should often be given some credit.  However, we do not have contracts such that teachers get a fraction of whatever someone makes in a field.  They are paid for what they do.  

Now we can imagine a society which different -- where in taking a class, you would commonly sign over a tiny percentage of whatever you make in that field to your teacher.  Teachers would then profit by how well their students actually do, and would be motivated to teach better.  

There are all sorts of ownerships that we could potentially grant to people, restricting our lives more and more.  However, there is also value for a society where people don't actually have to deal with increasingly regulated activity.  

Quote from: James J SkachNowhere in that process is the creator able to control the idea itself when it hits other people.  Other people are free to take that idea and expand on it in any way they see fit.  If they come up with another idea sufficiently different from the first to be considered original, that individual's idea is now subject to the same process.

Right.  You don't control the idea -- you just control what other people can do.  If another person does anything with the idea -- regardless of whether he profits by it -- he is potentially open to being sued.  i.e. So if I read a book, am inspired by it, and write a similar book -- I am open to being sued.  

Quote from: James J SkachThis is because the look-alikes can be used to dilute the value of a given property and reduce the ability of the creator to reap the benefits of creation – the point of protecting it in the first place. I'm always fascinated by the Weird Al products.  I've heard it said that he doesn't have to get permission.  Anyone know what part of the law allows him to do that?  Is it because it's a parody?

That falls under "Fair Use" in copywrite.  Transformative works like parodies are considered fair use in some cases under the law.  Fair use is also what allows people to write reviews of books that include quotations, or captured images from movies without permission.  It also allows libraries to make archives of books, and others.  

The thing is that there are many things besides infringe-able look-alikes that can decrease the value of a property.  If my house next door is an eyesore, that can decrease the value of your property.  That doesn't give you rights over my house or allow you to sue me for infringement.  If my film company releases three big sci-fi movies in the spring before your summer sci-fi blockbuster, your film may do less well.  People's actions constantly have impacts on others and their ability to profit.  

Quote from: James J SkachAck.  Patents.  Not the same animal at all. The shit that's patented is unreal. OK, I'm just bitter because an idea I had was patented...I admit it.

It's not the same thing, but it is a very similar thing resting on the same principles.  All of the arguments you make for copyright apply in the same manner to patents.  i.e. They encourage people to come up with original ideas, and reward people with control.  

Quote from: James J SkachAn author can't determine who can own his book, can he? He can't control who reads it, can he? A producer/director/actor can't stop people from watching a legally purchased movie, can they? I'm not sure I understand the distinction you've drawn here.

An author can control who prints his book and reaps profit from selling that book.  A songwriter cannot control who performs his song and reaps profit from the concert and/or recording.

Quote from: jhkimI would dispute here the angle of must.  Copyright law is not a must -- there are many societies which have done without it entirely, and they are not without art, music, and original thought.  It is not a requirement for a functional society, unlike many other structures.  

That's true. But then, neither is electricity or running water or alcohol or meat. But we like to have those things. There's "a functional society" and then there's "the society we most want to live in." The society I want to live in has a few basic rights - to free speech, free worship, privacy and the related freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and to property. Now, those rights should not be unlimited. For example, if someone is trying to stab me with a kitchen knife, my right to life is more important than his right to property, so I can take the knife off him. We have to balance them against each-other, keeping in mind our goal of a society which best allows for and promotes human happiness and fulfilment.

I think that to say that societies have had no copyright and patent laws, and yet still had art and inventions, is like saying that even in a dictatorship, the leader must take account of public opinion. It's true, but it misses the point - that free speech and so on promote the expression of public opinion, and encourage the will of the people to be followed. Sometimes dictatorships will have no free speech and yet represent the public will better than a democracy with free speech but leaders ignoring the people. But in general, the places with free speech will have more representative leaders. The free speech encourages that. It doesn't ensure it, and its absence doesn't entirely prevent it, but it does encourage it.

Likewise, countries without copyright/patent laws have had art and inventions aplenty, and those with them have been intellectual deserts. Nonetheless, in general coyright/patent protections have encouraged diversity of ideas and expression, and inventions which better humanity. The absence of such laws does not mean nothing will be written, drawn or invented, nor does the presence of such laws ensure that lots will be, but the laws encourage it.

Quote from: JhkimI would also dispute the claim that we have found a "best way" to handle copyright.  Just because something is the current law doesn't mean that it is inherently the best way to do things -- this applies for anything.  One can't simply say "That's the way we do it now, therefore it's the best".  I happen to think that the current laws (particularly American, but many others as well) are thoroughly messed up.  

I'm talking about needing copyright/patents in general, you're confusing that with the particular laws we or you have today. Those are different things. I think the ideas of copyright and patents are good ones, and is necessary. Yes, people will create things without those principles - but I think it helps encourage them.

So, the general principle of copyright/patents is "the best way" I was referring to. The particular laws we have - plainly they're fucked. To say that the principle of copyright is wrong because Disney wants to extend it out till the heat death of the universe is like saying that the principle of free speech is wrong because a Klansman put a twelve-foot tall burning cross on some black family's front lawn. Any freedoms and rights will have people try to abuse them. This is why we don't just elect one legislature, have it write the laws then close it down forever, but instead are constantly electing new ones who come up with new laws; this is why we have courts to decide cases, and so on and so forth. We begin with a principle and a goal, and then adjust things as we go.

Are the particular laws we have good? In large part, no. Is the principle that people should have control over their original works good? Yes.

Quote from: jhkimAnd there are many people who disagree and do without copyright and even deliberately release their works from its usual restrictions via various copyleft options or public domain (like academia).

Certainly. But they have that choice - and I never said they shouldn't have that choice. Likewise, I have a right to privacy but will sometimes choose to let someone in my home; I have a right to property but will sometimes choose to give charity, and so on. And my rights to privacy and property are not unlimited, we impose on them for the public good, so that a fireman does not have to knock before entering if he sees smoke, I am taxed for projects for the public, and so on.

I'm glad that Kyle appears to have shifted from an absolute ethical claim to a practical one - though I believe there are ethical arguments to be made, particularly ones against copyright as it exists.  If he believes that the right to control should take priority over the freedom to create, that's his choice.

But there is significant evidence that copyright (and patents) do not, in fact, achieve their goal of encouraging creativity of works (though the actual benefits of creativity are far broader than the products that result).  I will therefore focus only on Kyle's claim that,

Quote from: Kyle Aaronin general coyright/patent protections have encouraged diversity of ideas and expression, and inventions which better humanity.

First, let me note that I am not arguing that these systems should be abolished, for two reasons.  One:  I haven't seen sufficient evidence to convince me either way;  I suspect both systems are valuable when structured correctly - though unsure such a structure is politically likely or possible.  Two:  It doesn't matter:  copyright and patent law aren't going away, so talk of abolition does nothing to improve the situation.

From recent news items:

An essay in Harpers explained the evolution of American music (surely one of the most dynamic areas of culture) in an environment free from control over derivative works:

QuoteJonathan Lethem traced the origins of American pop to the "open source" culture of blues and jazz and noted that recording techniques, which allowed for literal duplication of sounds, have steadily enhanced the artful cribbing pop's innovators employ.  "As examples accumulate," Lethem writes, "it becomes apparent that appropriation, mimicry, quotation, allusion, and sublimated collaboration consist of a kind of sine qua non of the creative act, cutting across all forms and genres in the realm of cultural production."

The U.S. congress is considering implementing monopoly laws for fashion designs, despite the documented success of the current open regime.  From a study published last year:

QuoteThe fashion cycle is driven faster, in other words, by widespread design copying, because copying erodes the positional [ed: or "status-conferring"] qualities of fashion goods. Designers in turn respond to this obsolescence with new designs. In short, piracy paradoxically benefits designers by inducing more rapid turnover and additional sales... What was elite quickly becomes mass.

A study of U.S. patents from 1976 to 1999 found that under the current regime their costs exceed their benefits.  (The report's authors specifically cite problems with defining boundaries.)  They also state that it is very difficult to tell whether patents are beneficial in principle.

A U.K. study found economic evidence for reducing the 50 year term of copyrights, but failed to make that recommendation because it was not politically prudent.  One wonders whether a report in a more open political atmosphere would be able to make even stricter recommendations.

More relevant quotes I've come across lately:

Mark Lemley, in the paper I cited previously explains that comparisons a focus on free riding - i.e. the ability of infringers to benefit from their infringement - is inappropriate for copyright:

Quote"Free riding" encompasses both conduct that simply  captures consumer surplus or other uncompensated positive externalities and conduct that  reduces the return to the intellectual property owner to such an extent that it cannot cover its  costs.

He concludes that IP is only like property, and comparisons with other forms of property are misleading - that in fact,

Quoteintellectual property is a form of government subsidy, designed to influence  supply in the market away from the competitive norm just as support from the National  Endowment of the Arts, the National Institutes of Health, or crop supports to farmers are.

A recent book by Lior Zemer argues,

Quotesince copyright works enjoy profit from significant public contribution, they should not be privately owned, but considered to be a joint enterprise, made real by both the public and author. . . . every copyright work depends on and is reflective of the author's exposure to externalities such as language, culture and the various social events and processes that occur in the public domain, therefore copyright works should not be regarded as exclusive private property.

It is, after all, a recent phenomenon.  Marshall McLuhan writes in The Gutenburg Galaxy (published in 1962), "until printing, the reader or consumer was literally involved as producer."  He describes how university students would individually write their own texts;  this was considered a fundamental part of learning.  He quotes H.J. Chaytor:

Quoteassociation with printed matter has changed our views of literary art and style, has introduced ideas concerning originality and literary property of which the age of manuscript knew little or nothing . . . To copy and circulate another man's book might be regarded as a meritorious action in the age of manuscript; in the age of print, such action results in law suits and damages

He explains that playwrights in Shakespeare's day looked down upon printing - Ben Johnson, for example, was ridiculed.  Medieval students did not see books as the product of an author, but of a tradition.  In Spain in the middle ages, he quotes Stephen Gilman:  "the reader is more important than the writer."  It was the reader's reaction to the work that mattered:  "To feel books as a living, animate, communicable, and inciting reality" (quoting Americo Castro).

But I will leave the last word to Pablo Picasso:

QuoteTo copy others is necessary, to copy oneself – what a shame!