Is copyright too long?

[Cecilie1200]

Why should your right to own what you created ever expire?

How can you own anything 70 years after you die?

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?

 

[Cecilie1200]

How can you own anything 70 years after you die?

so you do not believe in inheritance?

You support 100% inheritance tax?

How can you inherit an idea or a concept?

I can hand you my car and house keys before I die. How can i hand you the words I spoke or wrote 30 years ago that are floating around the web, written in books around the world, and resonating in people's heads?

By passing on the copyright, obviously.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I can hand you the keys to my home.


How can I hand you words that are floating in other peoples' heads?


We're not discussing the inheritance of real property. The two matters are not the same in reality or in the law.

Copyrights have nothing to do with "words floating in people's heads". They have everything to do with words being cited in some sort of permanent medium, such as on paper or on film. We ARE discussing the inheritance of real property, very much so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How can I have any say in who collects all my posts from here on USMB, binds them in a volume, and sells them in their store after I'm dead? And how would they be depriving me of anything at all or harming me in any way by doing so?


I do. Then I die. Then, by your reasoning, the rest of America can never see their Constitution because I was a FF and we wrote it and it still belongs to us.

It's not my problem if you don't copyright your stuff.

Our posts on this message board are the intellectual property of the owner of this board, not our own. If you read the TOS that is in there somewhere. Not that any of us are likely to make a profit off our ramblings on here.

Not true. The copyright the forum has applies only to this forum, I still have the right to my words as the person who originally published them. The forum only gets a limited copyright as it pertains to them publishing those words, and having the right to edit, or delete, what I post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What if you manage to actually come up with an original thought? Would you want that to go to someone else who makes money off it and ignores your contribution?

I died 20 years ago. Or 30. Or 70.

What harm does it do me if someone takes my stageplay and bases a film off of it?

It harms your estate and heirs. I thought you loved your children, or does that only apply to using eugenics to make your life better?

 

[JBeukema]

Why should your right to own what you created ever expire?

How can you own anything 70 years after you die?

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?

 

[JBeukema]

I should also mention that endless copyrights on anything would be unconstitutional.

 

[ConHog]

How can you own anything 70 years after you die?

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?

Correct, because if inventors couldn't get paid for their inventions, who would bother?

 

[ConHog]

I should also mention that endless copyrights on anything would be unconstitutional.

How so?

 

[2Parties]

Intellectual "property" is a contradiction of terms. More libertarians and free-marketers need to realize this. You can't own a thought, you can't own a musical sequence, and you can't own an idea.

 

[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?

Correct, because if inventors couldn't get paid for their inventions, who would bother?

An inventor gets paid 300 years after he dies how,exactly?

And how can a man invent the crane or the car if the cog and thew gear aren't readily available for use to everyone?

 

[JBeukema]

I should also mention that endless copyrights on anything would be unconstitutional.

How so?

Once again you prove you've never read the Constitution.

If you don't know why it;d be unconstitutional, you should just sit down in the corner and be silent and merely thought a fool.

 

[Paulie]

Intellectual "property" is a contradiction of terms. More libertarians and free-marketers need to realize this. You can't own a thought, you can't own a musical sequence, and you can't own an idea.

This is bullshit.

If I spend my hard earned time constructing a specific musical sequence, why should someone else have the right to profit from it?

I can buy wood and build a birdhouse that no one else is allowed to take from me, but I can't buy a guitar and make a song that no one can take from me?

This is completely illogical.

 

[Paulie]

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?

Correct, because if inventors couldn't get paid for their inventions, who would bother?

An inventor gets paid 300 years after he dies how,exactly?

And how can a man invent the crane or the car if the cog and thew gear aren't readily available for use to everyone?

Not every invention has to offer royalties to someone, or require usage rights.

Someone can invent a gear and simply sell them to people without any expectation of further profit beyond the original sale.

 

[ConHog]

I should also mention that endless copyrights on anything would be unconstitutional.

How so?

Once again you prove you've never read the Constitution.

If you don't know why it;d be unconstitutional, you should just sit down in the corner and be silent and merely thought a fool.

I GUARANTEE you that I have read and studied the COTUS more than you. Your name calling doesn't change that fact.

You obviously have no idea why it would be unconstitutional , and realized it after making a stupid statement and had nothing to back it up that's why you resorted to insults.

Copyrights are NOT unconstitutional.

 

[Paulie]

For instance, I used to spend a lot of time creating hip hop instrumentals.

Many of them I copyrighted, but many of them I would just sell to someone outright without ever having copyrighted them.

Whatever they did with it beyond the sale was their own business.

 

[2Parties]

If I spend my hard earned time constructing a specific musical sequence, why should someone else have the right to profit from it?

If what you think you constructed was already constructed (or even portions of it) before you why should you be able to profit from it? How far does this stretch (2 chords in a row, 5?)? Can the inventor of the first stringed instrument claim a right to all sounds that come from future stringed instruments until the end of time?

I can buy wood and build a birdhouse that no one else is allowed to take from me, but I can't buy a guitar and make a song that no one can take from me?

No one is taking your song away from you any more than you are taking "your" song away from musical influences you have.

You can buy wood, but you can't make a birdhouse because I already "invented" it.

 

[ConHog]

Correct, because if inventors couldn't get paid for their inventions, who would bother?

An inventor gets paid 300 years after he dies how,exactly?

And how can a man invent the crane or the car if the cog and thew gear aren't readily available for use to everyone?

Not every invention has to offer royalties to someone, or require usage rights.

Someone can invent a gear and simply sell them to people without any expectation of further profit beyond the original sale.

That be correct. Filing for a copyright or patent is one hundred percent voluntary. No one makes anyone do it, or not do it. An obvious comparision is Microsoft Office versus OpenOffice. Two similar programs, one is copyrighted and earns a corporation a profit on every copy sold, one is an uncopyrighted program which earns the creator nothing , donations not withstanding.

 

[JBeukema]

How so?

Once again you prove you've never read the Constitution.

If you don't know why it;d be unconstitutional, you should just sit down in the corner and be silent and merely thought a fool.

I GUARANTEE you that I have read and studied the COTUS more than you. Your name calling doesn't change that fact.

You obviously have no idea why it would be unconstitutional , and realized it after making a stupid statement and had nothing to back it up that's why you resorted to insults.

Copyrights are NOT unconstitutional.

Hi, you have received -66 reputation points from ConHog.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
if you were half as intelligent as you thought yourself you would be dangerous, luckily for us you are not

Regards,
ConHog

Note: This is an automated message.

Fail, moron. I never said copyrights are unconstitutional. I said that infinite copyrights would be unconstitutional.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, the Copyright and Patent Clause (or Patent and Copyright Clause), the Intellectual Property Clause and the Progress Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
“ 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.

Learn to fucking read.

 

[JBeukema]

Intellectual "property" is a contradiction of terms. More libertarians and free-marketers need to realize this. You can't own a thought, you can't own a musical sequence, and you can't own an idea.

This is bullshit.

If I spend my hard earned time constructing a specific musical sequence, why should someone else have the right to profit from it?

I can buy wood and build a birdhouse that no one else is allowed to take from me, but I can't buy a guitar and make a song that no one can take from me?

This is completely illogical.

I should be legally required to put some money on Bach's grave site whenever I play Toccata and Fugue in D minor?