[pricechild]

> It essentially means if you create something, it’s not yours unless you are actively selling it?

What is inherently wrong with this?

Why should someone own an idea, just because they had the idea first? I think most people would agree with paying people for their work, and the benefits to society of providing some protections.

But this whole discussion is around where to draw that line and you seem to be starting from "ultimate control by originator" wheras others would perhaps start at "ultimate gift to society"?

[nkrisc]

We’re not talking about ideas, we’re talking about creative works.

We could do it any way we want, but I don’t see the problem with not selling something.

I have created creative works. Should I be forced to sell them or lose the rights to do so exclusively in the future when I see fit?

[Scion9066]

At least in the US, having intellectual property interests isn't about authors having control over every aspect of their works in a moral sense but the public benefiting from the investment in and creation of new works through a limited-time monopoly (from the constitution): "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

If you aren't selling them or otherwise making them available to the public, why should the public/government give you any extra control over them in the legal system?

[ToValueFunfetti]

Let's say you're Pablo Picasso and you have a sketchbook from your early years. You get very successful and suddenly the public wants to see your sketchbook. You want to sell the book, but the law says you don't own the rights because you didn't sell it X years ago. So you just keep it, and the public doesn't benefit.

Alternatively, the law compels you to give it away. Little Bobby Picasso, your five-year-old, brings home some stick figures that they drew in kindergarten. In order to be compliant with the law, you now have to give that drawing to the public after X years, along with thousands of others. Presumably also the photos you took of Bobby's first day of school, the song you made up in the shower that morning, and the bedtime story you improvised that night, as they are creative works as well.

[Scion9066]

In the Picasso example, if the you weren't selling your sketches before, then the potential copyright rights were likely not the incentive needed to create the work in the first place, practicing your craft was. Also, just because you don't have a copyright doesn't mean you can't sell it. In this use it or lose it hypothetical system of copyright, it just means that you can't prevent others from using and building off that work. I'll also note that even actual modern copyright treats unpublished works differently than published ones. In the context of the article about live-service games, your sketchbook example would be more like an unpublished game like 0x10c. I'll agree that there might be reasons to still treat published works differently than unpublished ones.

In your second example, again it would be about extra exclusivity rights you get from copyright, not anything you necessarily need to do for every slightly creative act you're involved in. If you were never going to assert copyright on those, why should there need to be copyright protections provided by the public?

In general, the way I was mainly thinking of this kind of potential requirement was for things that have already been distributed to the public but then no longer supported/sold. I see things being made part of the culture by being released but then becoming totally unavailable to be one of the worst things that can happen to creative works when we now have the technology and capability to preserve everything.

[PoignardAzur]

I don't think that's unreasonable. If you don't want to make your creative work available, you shouldn't get to have access to the state's violence to prevent anyone else from making it available.

Copyright is an inherently coercive concept. That coercion should come with responsibilities, or else (current situation) it's just another rent for corporations to extract.

[dragonwriter]

> Copyright is an inherently coercive concept.

Copyright is no more “an inherently coercive concept” than is every other form of property.

[PoignardAzur]

No, it's more coercive. If I own a bagpack, that means people can't break into my house and beat me up to get my bagpack. If I own a song, that means I can stop anyone else in the world from publicly singing the song at my leisure. One is much more coercive than the other.

[yetihehe]

Maybe, but property is typically an item, which you can't easily copy. Copyright is for items which are easily copied. So, it not the same. If you download a car it's different than stealing it, because original owner of car still has the car.

[pricechild]

> We’re not talking about ideas, we’re talking about creative works.

I'm not sure I understand a distinction between "ideas" and "creative works"?

[nkrisc]

There’s a big difference between “ideas” and a written book, a filmed movie, a recorded album, a painted picture, and so on.

[liamN]

idea is the concept, whereas creative work is the implementation of that concept.