Re: [ARSCLIST] land--was: Letter on British Copyright Term Extension

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

See end...this is NOT my "final answer!"...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Miller" <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On Thu, 18 May 2006, Russ Hamm wrote:
> > Mike Csontos wrote:
> > That being said, I would argue that intellectual property is
qualitatively
> > different from real property (land). You don't purchase it from the last
in
> > a line of entities emanating from that original act of claiming or
theft.
> > It's something created from one's own effort and cleverness, and as such
> > should properly belong to the creator. The issues arise when the creator
> > passes away. The creation, if worthy, will have a lasting value. To whom
> > does this belong? The concept of public domain should exercise a
powerful
> > claim when the creation is a part of the public's cultural heritage.
> I believe one can go further...is there any original thought? Should John
> Adams sue Richard Danielpour when Danielpour borrows gestures from the
> music of Adams.
>
> It was about 20 years ago I wrote TV Guide a letter. I suggested that they
> put their listings online and provide keyword searching. We now have such
a
> system available from several suppliers. So, was I the first to think of
it?
> Probably not, but who knows. Should I have copyrighted my "idea." But my
> idea was not anything other than using available technology to
> facilitate the use of information. So, at what point does an "idea" become
> intellectual property.
>
> It seems to me that the notion of intellectual property and patent might
very
> well have reached the point where they should be merged. For me, if we are
to
> think of intellectual property as an object and, more and more, invention
> has become ideas, why do we make a distinction and I wonder, how can we.
> I really don't know and would like to know what others might think.
>
> I just encountered www.intelproplaw.com  I found it most telling in an odd
> way...it features a daily calendar of Intellectual Property
> Events..remember when the "Weather Channel" seemed liked an odd
> notion...How about an "Intellectual Property Channel" a 24 hour channel
> which will give you the most recent news on the subject...I recall a
> parody in Mad Magazine...following on the lead of the "Weather Channel"
> they had a "Time Channel." No, it wasn't one of those things which said,
> "on this date in history," basically it was just about watching time go
> by...
>
Side comments:

1) Ideas become "intellectual property" when they are "published" in any
form...that is, put in a book or similar document, recorded in the form
of sound, put in image form (still or moving)...but somehow made available
to the public or a segment thereof. Note that this includes making it/them
available via the "World Wide Web" (you often see copyright notices on web
pages for this reason!). Merely thinking of something, or even mentioning
it in a conversation, doesn't make it "intellectual property," since it
doesn't yet have any tangible form. I'm not sure if lecturing on the
subject of your idea makes it "i.p."...but if someone films or otherwise
records the contents of your speech then it becomes such (and a whole
passel of lawyers get expensive work deciding whether it is your property
or that of the party who recorded it...or, for that matter, if he/she/it
had any right to make the recording to begin with!).

2) There actually IS a "Time Channel"...at least on radio, and has been
since radio was very young. In fact, many countries have them. In the
USA, the station(s) has the call letters of WWV (there is a WWVH in Hawaii
for those who can't receive WWV). It broadcasts a super-accurate time
signal on the exact frequencies of 5,000,000, 10,000,000 and 20,000,000
Hertz. The service also has a web presence, which I use to set my watch!

Steven C. Barr