Is copyright too long?

[JBeukema]

Well, you ask if my grandchildren "deserve" to own what I created. My question is, who deserves to own my creation MORE than my own family?

The rest of the world shouldn't have the wheel, internal combustion engines, or airbags without paying some random person who did nothing because someone who died 300, 200, or 70 years ago filed a scrap of paper?

Actually, all of those things would be patented, not copyrighted. Quite different. Furthermore, copyrights and patents don't prevent people from having those things. They merely prevent people other than the inventor - or his heirs - from PROFITING from the invention without paying him for its use. Are you suggesting that big corporations should be able to use some poor little inventor's work to make obscene amounts of money without having to pay for his labor?

I don't think some random great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandkid of some caveman should get a bit of Ford's money because the cars have wheels.

 

[2Parties]

O RLY? You realize of course, that without them, there's no reason for anyone not already in a massive corporation to research or develop any new technologies, right?

It's really not that simple as you make it out to be, and history has pointed a different direction. See this article on Germany and one of the effects no copyright laws had in the 19th century: No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion? - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Really interesting speech on IP, the history and origins of copyright and patents, and it's causes and effects.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWShFz4d2RY[/ame]

You do understand the profit motive, don't you? It's the reason we have the modern automobile, the mp3 player, and Blu-Ray technology.

What does that have to do with IP? I don't drive a car, listen to MP3s and watch HD movies because of government granted monopolies to the person who decided to register a certain technology with them. I drive a car, listen to MP3s and watch HD movies because I want to.

 

[2Parties]

and when 30,000 people sing your words back to you, i figure you deserve to get paid for them.

Absolutely you do. Which is why artists tour to make most of their income. People want to see them play live and will pay for the privilege. Many bands have in the past not allowed cameras and recording equipment into their concerts due to copying issues, and copyright. See the direction The Grateful Dead took, and you may think about it differently.

so should you because their creation is no different than the creation of anything else in which we have a proprietary interest. an architect derives inspiration from many places, too...

So why do you want to limit this with IP?

if you value creativity in society, then you have to value the creative people whose creativity is our soundtrack and who give us the literature that inspires us.

They are valued. People still pay to see bands live (even though they can download their albums for free). People still pay for original artwork (even though they can download images of it for free). People still go to theaters to watch movies (even though they can download it often before it's released in theaters for free). I've bought books from people that they themselves placed for free download online not just because I prefer books over digital, but because I choose to support the author.

 

[JBeukema]

Why does a company develop and market the MP3 player and HD movies?

The profit motive.

 

[2Parties]

Please read that article and watch that short video. It's very informative and gives a different angle. I changed my position on IP a couple years ago do to reading and hearing different arguments on it.

 

[JBeukema]

I'll watch the vid later on (it's a long vid) and get back to you

 

[FA_Q2]

Sorry but the vid is crap and the speaker sounds like an idiot. He certainly does not understand what we are aiming for in capitalism anyway. He may be quite versed but as he did say he was a patent lawyer and did bring up a few good points but not many. As far as copyrights go, yes they are too long and current IP law is absolute bullshit. I cannot believe that so many here are buying into the corporatist crap that is handed to us. This is a fight that is raging today between the free exchange of ideas and the hording of them that NEEDS to be won by the consumer or I fear there will be extreme ramifications.

First, let me say that copyright, IP law and the ownership of what you create MUST exist. There was a time when patents and copyrights made since but the laws have been twisted by lawmakers that have NO clue how technology actually works. You cannot have an indefinite copyright. The concept that you came up with it so no one else should be able to sell it EVER is crap. Fact remains, unlike property, goods and positions that you may pass down to your airs IP is EVERLASTING. It cannot break or degrade. It is not limited to a specific scope as a property is limited to the property itself. It affects ALL people whereas your possessions affect NOBODY. You miss the point that your copyright affects MY right to build and innovate and therefore should not be an indefinite term. There is obviously the need to extend copyright or any IP IF YOU ARE CURRENTLY INNOVATING with it. Mickey mouse is a good example that was brought up earlier. Disney is still quite active in innovating and progressing the use of that character and as such should continue to have full rights over it. Should Disney cease to use Mickey Mouse or cease innovating the character further then Disney should lose the sole right over that IP so that another can come in to do it. You need to realize that IP and copyright were created for the sole purpose of ensuring innovation and the forward movement of ideas as who would create if their creations were simply stolen. Obstinately long copyright simply stifles innovation. If you are not actively using a piece of IP, someone else should be able to pick it up and work from it without you STEALING their hard work simply because you provided a foundation that you have ALREADY reaped the benefits from. I believe that a 10 or 15 year copyright and patent is appropriate with extensions as needed. There are some good examples of where this has gone awry in that vid where people STOLE profits from those that made a work based on a world created by another. You should be able to pass on your IP, but the time that you own it as well as the time your heir owns it should be limited. This also brings me to the DCMA. The biggest issue I have with this crap piece of paper is that it redefines the concept of ownership. While you are sitting here defending the copyright holders rights you have forgotten they are taking yours. You are not allowed to edit IP that you purchased!!
WHAT!!! I OWN THE DAMN THING!!!
Does not matter, you don't truly own it. It is illegal to bypass copyright protections, make copies to protect you belongings or change a work in a way that is more pleasing to you because you simply do not own the item that you just bought. That is insane. There is a lot more to go into but I am tired at the moment. Suffice to say IP needs an overhaul by people that ACTUALLY understand technology and its ramifications.

PS - I forgot to mention the craptastic abuse companies are using in the patent and copyright system now. Companies now actively obtain patents for the sole purpose of blocking another company from INNOVATING A COMPETITIVE PRODUCT. They did not come up with an idea, develop a product or even plan on EVER developing one. They simply obtain a patent that blocks another from making an innovation. An example of this is a recent Microsoft patent on THE PAGE DOWN FUNCTION. The patent is on 'a type of function' that would cause the page down to go to the same spot on the next page. NO FUNCTION IS GIVEN. In other words THEY DEVELOPED NOTHING AND THEN PATENTED THAT NOTHING IN ORDER TO STOP SOMEONE ELSE FROM DOING IT. That should be downright illegal and is an affront to spirit of copyright and patents. It is getting harder for a person to create because large companies own the patents and copyrights for EVERYTHING and that is plain wrong. Those are to protect the small guy, NOT screw him over. It is also becoming cost prohibitive to file a patent or copyright for the same reason. All of this flies in the face of what it is supposed to accomplish.