4 ms·

"it would become easier to spot a fake" For a theoretical example look at the situation with Wooton desks and their multiple trim levels. They'll just be more

by VLM 10y ago

"it would become easier to spot a fake" For a theoretical example look at the situation with Wooton desks and their multiple trim levels. They'll just be more trim levels to work around the copyright. Obviously the specific example of Wooton desks don't matter because that design is about 150 years old. But it is an example of a general class of problem. In my infinite spare time I enjoy fine carpentry for relaxation, as do a couple other people here, and on my infinite list of things to do is make either a copy of a Wooton or make a Wooton / 43 folders mashup. And running off extra copies doesn't take much extra time, and selling extra copies is an interesting way to pay for your supplies. So this kind of thing could theoretically impact small craftsmen not just Chinese factories.

toyg 10y ago
> They'll just be more trim levels to work around the copyright. Which is why there are judges and court cases to decide if design patents are infringed, otherwise we'd have machines that simply compare pictures. If your desk is exactly the same as the original bar a few trim levels, a judge will likely find you're infringing. > So this kind of thing could theoretically impact small craftsmen not just Chinese factories. That's entirely possible, but not a new phenomenon. Can small craftsmen make and sell statues of Han Solo without infringing Disney's copyright?
- VLM 10y ago
  Woodworking is smaller than you think. If I take a Chippendale table and replace the (creepy) animal like curvy legs and those (creepy) ball and claw feet with straight square footless legs, that both is, and is not, a minor trim variation on a Chippendale. On one hand its just different actions at my workbench, on the other hand that's an entirely different product that being a Hepplewhite style table. Both styles are over two hundred years old and being free for all to use has increased the size of the economy not collapsed it. I like the analogy with Wooton from 150 years ago. I should be able to make and sell copies of a Wooton to my hearts desire. I don't think retroactively increasing copyright to 151 years will suddenly retroactively make Wooton invest more in fancy desk designs thus retroactively increasing hiring in his plant in the late 1800s or whatever ridiculous mantra is recited in favor of imaginary property. Likewise in 2170 I should be able to sell Han Solo figurines, although I'm willing to bet if our corrupt system is still even operational then, I still won't be able to do so legally and unfortunately Hollywood will probably still be churning out sequels remakes and reboots. Copyright duration needs something like the Laffer Curve.
  - toyg 10y ago
    > being free for all to use has increased the size of the economy not collapsed it Considering the sad state of English manufacturing, including furniture, that's a controversial statement. It was undoubtedly a good thing as the English industry was small and growing, much like loose open-source code sharing is a good thing for the still-burgeoning software industry. But that industry is mature now; profits are razor-thin and fundamental innovations are very rare. In such a scenario, commercial viability in high-cost countries usually hinges on design and marketing differentiating you from competitors. > I don't think retroactively increasing copyright to 151 years will suddenly retroactively make Wooton invest Yeah, I agree that retroactive application looks stupid with such long terms. Still, the concept overall is consistent with the long-term industrial direction that developed countries are set on. I don't think established interests would be so aggressive on copyright if they could see other realistic alternatives to "let's just leave it all to the Chinese".

by VLM 10y ago

toyg 10y ago

> They'll just be more trim levels to work around the copyright. Which is why there are judges and court cases to decide if design patents are infringed, otherwise we'd have machines that simply compare pictures. If your desk is exactly the same as the original bar a few trim levels, a judge will likely find you're infringing. > So this kind of thing could theoretically impact small craftsmen not just Chinese factories. That's entirely possible, but not a new phenomenon. Can small craftsmen make and sell statues of Han Solo without infringing Disney's copyright?

VLM 10y ago
Woodworking is smaller than you think. If I take a Chippendale table and replace the (creepy) animal like curvy legs and those (creepy) ball and claw feet with straight square footless legs, that both is, and is not, a minor trim variation on a Chippendale. On one hand its just different actions at my workbench, on the other hand that's an entirely different product that being a Hepplewhite style table. Both styles are over two hundred years old and being free for all to use has increased the size of the economy not collapsed it. I like the analogy with Wooton from 150 years ago. I should be able to make and sell copies of a Wooton to my hearts desire. I don't think retroactively increasing copyright to 151 years will suddenly retroactively make Wooton invest more in fancy desk designs thus retroactively increasing hiring in his plant in the late 1800s or whatever ridiculous mantra is recited in favor of imaginary property. Likewise in 2170 I should be able to sell Han Solo figurines, although I'm willing to bet if our corrupt system is still even operational then, I still won't be able to do so legally and unfortunately Hollywood will probably still be churning out sequels remakes and reboots. Copyright duration needs something like the Laffer Curve.
- toyg 10y ago
  > being free for all to use has increased the size of the economy not collapsed it Considering the sad state of English manufacturing, including furniture, that's a controversial statement. It was undoubtedly a good thing as the English industry was small and growing, much like loose open-source code sharing is a good thing for the still-burgeoning software industry. But that industry is mature now; profits are razor-thin and fundamental innovations are very rare. In such a scenario, commercial viability in high-cost countries usually hinges on design and marketing differentiating you from competitors. > I don't think retroactively increasing copyright to 151 years will suddenly retroactively make Wooton invest Yeah, I agree that retroactive application looks stupid with such long terms. Still, the concept overall is consistent with the long-term industrial direction that developed countries are set on. I don't think established interests would be so aggressive on copyright if they could see other realistic alternatives to "let's just leave it all to the Chinese".