.
| Hearsay: |
Cory Doctorow, everyone’s favourite bespectacled mine-fighter, on the term “intellectual property”.
Does it matter what we call it? Property, after all, is a useful, well-understood concept in law and custom, the kind of thing that a punter can get his head around without too much thinking.
That’s entirely true – and it’s exactly why the phrase “intellectual property” is, at root, a dangerous euphemism that leads us to all sorts of faulty reasoning about knowledge. Faulty ideas about knowledge are troublesome at the best of times, but they’re deadly to any country trying to make a transition to a “knowledge economy”.
Fundamentally, the stuff we call “intellectual property” is just knowledge – ideas, words, tunes, blueprints, identifiers, secrets, databases. This stuff is similar to property in some ways: it can be valuable, and sometimes you need to invest a lot of money and labour into its development to realise that value.
January 2006
December
2005
November
2005
October
2005
September
2005
August
2005
July
2005
June
2005
May
2005
April
2005
March
2005
February
2005
January
2005
December
2004
November
2004
October
2004
September
2004
August
2004
July
2004
June
2004
May
2004
April
2004
March
2004
February
2004
January
2004
December
2003
November
2003
October
2003
September
2003
August
2003
Bookninja © Copyright
The opinions expressed on this site are those of individual participants
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the site owners,
organizers, or other participants.
[powered by WordPress.]
February 25th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Speaking of intellectual property, Altitude Publishing is giving an interesting demonstration of the concept these days. Many of us unlucky enough to count ourselves among Altitude authors have not been paid any royalties for two years or more, which is bad enough. Now we are informed our contracts have been sold to two other publishers, James Lorimer and Heritage House. It has been difficult to get any information directly from any of the parties, but when one of our number decided to reject this modern version of slave trading and tried to recover his files from Friesen Printers, the better to find a publisher of his own choice, he got a very interesting form letter:
Re: Disruptions at Altitude Publishing
If is unfortunate that the Altitude Publishing business disruptions have affected you.
We have been informed in writing by Altitude Publishing that it has sold the rights to all of its publications to Heritage House of Surrey, B.C. and to James Lorimer and Company, of Halifax, N.S.
These rights include the right to reprint using the existing files and other pre-press materials that we have on file. Although it owes back royalties to a number
of authors, Altitude informs us that it is not insolvent and that the authors have no legal ground to have the contracts for the publication of their books reversed or rescinded. According to Altitude Publishing, the fact that its authors may be owed back royalties does not, according to the contract, trigger a reversal of rights.
Please direct all reprint requests to Heritage House and to James Lorimer and Company who have sole and exclusive rights to reprint all Altitude titles.
If you cannot make contact with either of these companies, please let us know and we will assist you where we can.
We know that these disruptions are frustrating and we want to work with you to get your books back in print.
Sincerely,
Doug Symington
Sales Manager
Friesen Printers
It is very interesting to know that Altitude is not insolvent, given that they owe some over 20 grand and make no sign of paying it. It is true that the contract does not say that it becomes null and void if the publisher fails to pay for over two years, but it does say that the publisher will pay on a regular schedule and it is a strange concept of contract law where a party feels free to brak a major provision and still considert the contract in force. What say you, maestro? What does it matyter what you call your intellectual property if it can be ripped out of your hands without compensation and then sold off in such fashion?
February 26th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
When a mind creates something that never before existed, and which is a value to others, then it is a *value*, even if not to you. What right does anyone have to obtain that value in exchange for nothing? If it were a meal by a trained Chef, should the chef not ask a price that includes, not just the ingredients, but his intelligence or genius in putting them together in a fashion you value?
Would you cheat him of the value he adds to those ingredients that you are not prepared to add yourself? That is the essence of Copyright. Reward the creator by paying his price. You are not forced to pay that price, so do so by your own judgment, or do not. Do not demand that he provide his value for nothing, nor steal it. Either approach undermines the very value he provides and detracts from the benevolent and munificent world in which you live.
Respect copyright; it ensures the values you most enjoy will grow in availability and ensure that your own creations reward you to the extent that others believe you deserve.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:20 am
What about derivative works? That’s where there’s a lot of questions in copyright right now. If Disney’s allowed to use The Grimm’s stories, why can we create derivative works of Disney’s stories?