Yes, yes. I was using that as an example for a reductio ad absurdum of another poster's arguments. We mathematicians don't want them to be copyrightable, since haggling over rights would grind our profession to a halt. The problem is that the rest of culture works more like mathematics works than copyright maximalists want to admit (and if you doubt there really are copyright maximalists who are feeding the "information oligopoly" the Forbes author decries, look at the Fester, other fellow I'm quarreling with on this thread.)
Copyright is not for ideas or concepts, which can be expressed in different forms; just the expression.
I gather then, you, along with me, think that the suit which suppressed publication of The Wind Done Gone at the behest of the estate of Margaret Mitchell was wrongly decided. My main objection to the current state of copyright law is the suppression of derivative works -- though perpetual extension in the face of "for a limited term" and the really obnoxious removal of works from the public domain to retroactively put them under copyright (how does this serve the Constitutional purpose?) are also highly objectionable.
As for lifetime of the author plus x years, that wasn't the original idea. The original idea was 14 years, renewable at the request of the author for 14 years (copyright terms under the Law of Queen Anne).
...make your own sculpture from scratch - even if it’s the same figure...
Really? somehow doesn't work with cartoons of a famous mouse. Your own cartoon from scratch of the same figure still gets you sued by Disney Corp. Write rules for a fantasy RPG describing how one of H.P. Lovecraft's horrors should be simulated by the game-master, get sued by Lovecraft's estate for using the name, even though though doing this is plainly a transformational work (there's no competing RPG rulebook by Lovecraft that's being displaced from the market) and one which will arguably increase demand for the estate's holdings. Different expressions of the same idea, at least in the area of art and literature, are repeatedly suppressed by suits from rightsholders to earlier versions of the same idea, and seemingly some folks here at FR (Fester, this means you) think it should be even more that way than it already is.
Remember, I'm not arguing against copyright, I'm arguing for copyright as the Founders plainly meant it in historical context -- they were plainly thinking of the British Law of Queen Anne as a model for copyright, just as the thought of the Statute on Monopolies as a model for patents -- with robust fair-use allowances and passage into the public domain after "a limited term", since the stated Constitutional purpose of copyrights (and patents) is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
It's late where I am. Perhaps tomorrow I'll have a stab at marking up the current copyright law to give something closer to my ideal. Good night all.
Some folks are talented enough at copying to make a copy from scratch that is virtually indistinguishable from the original, copyrighted work.
Those would be copies.
If you authored a cartoon character, The_Reader_Davidbert, and used this trdbert in a comic strip that was wildly popular, then nationally syndicated in newspapers, and you authored numerous books which included the character and funny stories about his escapades in, oh, say internet forums, you might be financially successful at the endeavor.
Let’s say you did this, and wound up making man millions per year from your little trdbert empire.
Now, I come along, weasely little lazy guy that I am, and I - from scratch, mind you - author an exact copy of your trdbert cartoon character. I did this from scratch, but the images are so much the same that no one can tell them apart, your trdbert character and my, oh, I name him trdbertx, character.
I start publishing books, I take it to the web. I make some animated movies about trdbertx, where the script has trdbertx trashing trdbert, mocking, ridiculing. I get trdbertx into social media, spreading lies and disinformation about trdbert. I get some venture capital backing, and launch massive PR campaigns. My social media consultants start conspiracy theories that trdbertx was actually first, and trdbert is the ripoff.
Your trdbert empire starts to crumble. Most newspapers drop trdbert to pick up trdbertx. trdbertx’s sarcasm is so funny, even when you try to have trdbert cartoons mock trdbertx, no one really finds it appealing. It’s too little, too late. No more new book deals for trdbert.
trdbert sales plummet.
Out of desperation, you hire Archie Bunker’s lawyers, and take the matter all the way to the Supreme Court, losing at every turn.
The Supreme Court decision finally comes: trdbertx was created from scratch, so it is not infringing on the trdbert copyright.
The End.
[orchestra plays, lots of swooning violins, as my character sails off on his yacht to the Cayman Islands with his trophy wife]
[Harlot DontCara (my wife)]: We’ll never be hungry again...
[Klept Butler, my character (smoking a nice Havana), played by Clark Gable]: Frankly my dear...