I dislike when things don’t fit neatly into a category, like copyright. Why shouldn’t inventors get the credit, and the money, that comes with inventing stuff? Same thing goes for artists. Seems to be that most of the problems happen not because of an original copyright, but after the sale of a copyright to some big company. If a widow sells her husbands book rights to Big Company A to help her get by, is that any different than if she had sold her husbands car?

I wonder if instead of changing copyright laws, a new way of buying and selling copyrights could be established. I’m no expert in that area however, I have to leave that one up to the smart thinkers. Or the lawyers.

I am really glad that I don’t make a living through art or inventions.

Intellectual property being treated as physical property is both fair and not fair. If we compare living off of royalties from a song, to working in a “normal job, let’s say a doctor, things start to seem a little unfair. A musician wants to provide for his family, so he writes a song, it gets popular and earns that artist lots of money in royalties. Many years later the musician dies, his widow now collects his royalties, its almost as if that musician were still alive and earning money, well maybe not to his family… A doctor wants to provide for his family, works hard for many years, earns money for his family and dies many years later. When the doctor dies, that’s it, no more money being earned by the deceased. His family can invest his money but there is no new money coming in for the doctor. Is it fair for a dead ma to earn money? If we change the scenario to lets say a musicians royalties and a property investor, it may look a little different. Same basic story, musician makes music, earns royalties and eventually dies, only this tine his widow sells his music right to Large Company A, she sells her husbands property. Now Mr. Property Investor comes along, invests in property and dies, his widow sells his properties to make money, is there a big difference? I may have made that super confusing, and I may not totally grasp all the intricacies , but I hope the main point is coming across.

Copyright can be confusing, simply because there really isn’t anything like it. You can view it as property or not, but honestly it’s not 100% of either. I think viewing it as property makes it an easier concept to grasp, makes writing laws about it simpler and can help out those who are creative.

Short Story: I was reading Sterne’s “MP3” the other day, I began a new chapter and it started off talking about scientists performing experiments with “cat phones”, and my first reaction was, “Oh kitties talking to each other, how cute!”. Upon further reading though, these experimenters would remove most of the cats brains, hook them up to electrodes and watch how they reacted to sounds.

Not the same thing. Not at all.