[rsp1984]

It gets even crazier when compared to other IP law:

Engineer makes an invention: Write 30-Page patent application. Multi-year patenting process with USPTO, pay 1000s of $ if DIY, 10x that if using an IP law firm. Multiply by 4x if going international. With luck, patent gets issued 3 years later. It protects you for 25 years, but only if you have deep pockets for an IP lawsuit in case someone does copy you -- and with uncertain outcome.

Artist releases a song: automatically enjoys 100+ years of protection, even for minor samples, hooks, melodic elements. Lawsuits are easily won as long as you can prove you are the copyright holder.

I have my theories about how we ended up in this state of affairs but no jurist with a sliver of common sense can seriously claim that this is fine.

[Borealid]

I think it's worth mentioning that with a patent, nobody else is allowed to use the patented idea. This holds even if they have never heard of you before, and were entirely unaware your patent (or your version of the patented concept) existed. You are granted a monopoly.

With a copyright, people are allowed to do anything similar to you, so long as they do not derive their work from yours. Someone unaware of your work cannot infringe your copyright. You do not have a monopoly on anything, you are just protected against someone deriving their work from yours directly.

This difference probably factors into how easy it is to win a lawsuit: for a copyright infringement, you need to show they made a copy. You wouldn't be bringing suit in the first place if there were substantial doubt in that area. It also factors into how easy it should be to get a patent vs a copyright: a patent closes off much, much, MUCH more idea-space than a copyright.

[falcor84]

> With a copyright, people are allowed to do anything similar to you, so long as they do not derive their work from yours.

That is patently false for music - a songwriter's claim today that they never heard a slightly similar hook from 40 years ago generally doesn't hold in court.

[nwallin]

> With a copyright, people are allowed to do anything similar to you, so long as they do not derive their work from yours.

John C. Fogerty famously got sued by John C. Fogerty for sounding too similar to John C. Fogerty.

https://blogs.law.gwu.edu/mcir/case/fantasy-v-fogerty/

[BobaFloutist]

Also, patents are for frankly more important things. It's a much bigger deal if life-saving medicine or a more efficient car are locked out for 100 years than Winnie the Pooh wearing pants.

[bonoboTP]

Copyright and patents are very different things. Lumping them under the disingenuous umbrella term "IP" only serves to muddle the waters and create FUD. They are not property rights.

It's best to criticize each precisely and surgically. Know the terms, know the rules, the exceptions, etc. Know the history, know the original purpose of these laws. That kind of broader knowledge in broader society is what can help. The big corps are interested in having a vague blurry idea around "IP" that just makes you scared and think "wouldn't download a car" and has a chilling effect of thinking that all "that stuff" is electrified and better not touch it, and that it's just natural that there's "intellectual property" and it's just minor details whether it's copyright or patents or trademarks or whatever else. Property rights are ancient. By associating copyright with that, they make it seem that it's also just as fundamental and civilization-grounding as private property, when most of intellectual history had no such concept. Derivative works, tweaking ideas, splicing them in new ways was just normal.

A related disingenuous propaganda term is "content consumption", again creating the association between e.g. reading a book or listening to a song on the one hand and eating food, or using up soap or fuel on the other.

See also:

https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-of-intellectual-property-is-...

https://www.niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/LT...

https://conversableeconomist.com/2013/03/29/is-intellectual-...

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html

[jalapenos]

What? Copyright and patents are exactly the same thing. Making "you copied me!" actionable at a court of law, by statute, when before that there was no such legal fiction of "intellectual property" or any other exclusive rights to reproduce a thing.

[stevage]

And clothing designer...there is no copyright, suck it up.

[JdeBP]

Outwith the U.S.A. there is a thing called a design right that applies to that.

In the U.K., the design right took its initial form in 1787 and applied to printed patterns on fabrics; so it has been on point for clothing design for over 230 years. (-:

[jalapenos]

Indeed. Good example where value comes from. It's all the same crap, but since you've seen My Crap worn by Anne Hathaway a couple of times in ads at the airport, I can charge 10x price.

[gentooflux]

They get a certain amount of mileage out of trademark, though not the same level of protection to be sure

[nirv]

That's an interesting point that I'd never considered before. Thank you for sharing it.

[jalapenos]

Classic case of how democracy isn't, in practice, majority rule.

If you put this demented situation to a vote, it'd lose 9-to-1.

Frankly the whole concept of copyright is absolutely stupid though, the equivalent of escalating schoolyard "stop copying me!" to actionable at a court of law. But since when did something being absolutely frothing at the mouth retarded stop it being an entrenched part of the world we live in.