You can't steal an idea, I have to buy the shoe because it is the product that he made or paid for, if I made or payed for a show I would be the only one with that shoe. An idea is much different If you sing a song and I hear it I know own a copy of that song, and I should be able to do whatever I want with my copy and for you to stop me and tell me I must pay you for the song you thought of is wrong.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
So you're saying that if you make a shoe you should get paid for it. But if you create a song, a work of art or an invention you should get nothing for it.
And you think that's fair?
you realize that a lot of songs are no patented it's just who ever likes the imitator over the creator? Here check this out
Songs are not actually patented. You can't acquire a patent on a song.
Instead they're copyrighted. The criteria for acquiring the copyright of a song is the first person to publish or make it known publicly has claim to the copyright and can therefore claim a fee or royalty from those who exploit it commercially.
And like patents a copyright holder cannot stop anyone from exploiting it unless that refuse to pay the royalty.
It's all about VALUE. A shoe has value. (If no one designed or made any shoes we'd all be walking barefoot) A song has value (If no one wrote or composed any songs we would have no music) A work of art has value (If no one created them we'd have no art) An invention has value (again if no one created them we'd be living pre stone age)
The value of anything can be measured by how much it is desired by humanity (demand) and it's availability(supply)
To be continues
Yes an INVENTION has value because it is physical the IDEA of an invention has 0 value. I can say oh id like to go to the moon that means nothing unless I actually do it make sense?
You couldn't even begin to make a physical invention without having the IDEA first.
In fact the INVENTION "IS" the IDEA.
When you apply for a patent you submit the IDEA in documented form. You don't submit a physical version of it.
In fact you don't even need to have, or ever have had a physical version of it.
Even after you've been granted the patent there is still no requirement that you or anyone else ever produce a physical embodiment of it.
So it's the IDEA that the patent system recognises as having value not the physical version of it. After all, anyone can make a physical version of it once they have the blueprint.
The patent means you can stop anyone from creating your idea which is wrong and immoral just because someone said hmm cars could run on gas does not mean they have a right to physically stop people from making a car run on gas and selling it.
You're right. You, or anyone saying "cars could run in gas" doesn't give you any rights that you didn't already have.
First of all cause everyone already knows that. This is what's known a "prior art".
You can't get a patent on something unless it's "Novel" i.e. not already known to those who would know such of things i.e. not "prior art" e.g. if it was some kind of a clock it would have to be unknown to the people who make, sell or work with clocks and the likes.
An second: you would have to have been granted a patent (which is a long and expensive process. Like a long court trial in which you've as much chance of loosing as winning) and if you loose you've wasted an awful lot if time and money for nothing.
And also, say if it wasn't known that cars could run on gas, You couldn't just ask the patent office to grant you a patent on a car that runs on gas. You'd have to clearly document exactly how this car runs on gas, including drawings (blueprints)that any car engineer could understand and reproduce in physical form.
If I create a song and can sing it well I probably will get paid for it, but if someone else sings the same song better then they should be able to be paid as well. A shoe is a real object it's not a thought, two people can have the same Idea if someone starts a retail store should they be allowed to patent that idea a charge everyone a fee for starting retail stores because he thought of the idea? no way, but he can charge for a retail property that he built or bought so yes that is obviously fair and moral
So lets say I'm living in a gutter cause I can't get a job because of my skin colour (blue).
I write the words and music of a song I just created. I can't sing 'cause I'm deaf and dumb.
A passer by who happens to be a singer copies it down and goes straight to a studio and records it. The next week it's released on CD and goes straight to the top of the charts all over the world.
Now I begin to see an hear (even though I'm deaf..lol) most of the passers by singing it and dancing to it, I see the "singer" pass by in a stretch Limo but he ignores me.
I'm feeling really hungry now since I haven't had anything to eat for days. I ask some of these people who are singing and dancing to my song for some food or money to buy some, but they say get lost you blue piece of sh*t and so I die of starvation.
What do you think of that story. It might sound unlikely but I'm sure that similar stories happen all the time.
What could the blue man have done differently so he could at least get some compensation for adding so much happiness to the World by creating this song?
so you think you should be compensated for people knowing words that you knew first? If I sing happy birthday dear whoever should I have to compensate the creator if he demanded it?
No one's going to charge you or anyone else for singing any song. But if you use the song for commercial gain the copyright holder of the song can demand a share of the profits you derive from it.
Thats horrible so if I sing happy birthday to someone for money or any song I should I have to give the guy who thought of it money? the words are not the valuable thing the person who says those words in a certain way makes it have value.
Song copyright used to be limited to 50 or 70 years (I think). So Happy Birthday should now be public property but as far as I know in the US that were discussing extending it to indefinitely. I don't if they passed a law or not.
I wouldn't agree with that law (even though I'm a song writer) but think it should be reduced to say 5 or at most ten years.
Copyright is not meant to stop singing or playing songs at parties, clubs etc. but mainly to stop big players like record companies, music publishers and other large corporations like radio and TV stations, film studios etc. from taking peoples songs and making millions on them and not paying the writers anything.
On your second point about the words I agree 100%