3 ms·

Letting only unused IP go to public domain is completely contrary to the stated goals of the constitution. To promote the progress of science and useful arts,

Letting only unused IP go to public domain is completely contrary to the stated goals of the constitution. 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. Much of our creative works and culture are driven by building on top of what came before. The asinine length of copyright we have today means we have to wait entire generations before works are available to adapt and build upon, which is extremely hypocritical wrt Disney since most of their classic movies were based on public domain books.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
frogpelt 9y ago
Maybe we need a compromise. Should we let companies keep some percentage of their IP out of the public domain?
- snuxoll 9y ago
  No. The US constitution was a lot more forward thinking than people give it credit for, securing works for a LIMITED TIME is explicitly stated and there's a reason for that. Disney in particular has made a killing releasing copyrighted products based off public domain, and it extends far beyond the obvious ones like Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, Snow White, etc. We have ALWAYS lived in a culture where reusing older works in newer ones has been a driving force for creativity. I just went to a play a friend helped put on a couple weeks ago called Heddatron, a mashup of Hedda Gabler, a telling of Ibsen's life, comedy and robots. The whole thing made absolutely no sense to me, but it was amusing as hell to watch. Hedda Gabler came out in 1890, if our current copyright laws applied to his work it would still be under protection and there's a good chance it would have never come to light. We don't need to grant MORE protections to IP, we need to severly reduce the copyright terms back to sane levels.
cookiecaper 9y ago
Yes. Any intellectual property should always have to meet the "test" described in the Constitution: "does this promote the progress of science and useful arts?", and secondarily, "Are these rights being secured to authors and inventors?" Copyright terms that allow 5 generations of descendants to live off continuing royalties while the property rots are not beneficial (I am not anti-inheritance, I just don't think it helps anyone for exclusive monopoly rights to last so long). Extensive copyright powers that make _everything_ that gets digitized subject to draconian copyright protection are not beneficial. Arcane legal processes and astronomical legal costs blocking the useful application of the small amount of recourse available in these laws is a travesty. Should companies whose primary function is pressing "go" on the DVD assembly line be competitive with massive, serious logistical operations that deliver necessities like food and energy? Is it possible we are rewarding companies who invent cute characters a little too much? Do note that copyright is not a natural thing; it exists only due to governmental fiat, the government's threat to use force to stop someone from drawing Mickey Mouse in an unflattering pose. We are so protective of "free speech", yet are not concerned when we see government goons hauling people off for offending BigCo?
cableshaft 9y ago
There was a time where I was like "Just let there be an exception for Disney. They're going to fight tooth and nail for their IP to be in perpetuity and win, so just let that be an exception, and have sane copyright lengths elsewhere." But they keep buying up alllllll the popular IP....so that kind of doesn't really work now.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

frogpelt 9y ago

Maybe we need a compromise. Should we let companies keep some percentage of their IP out of the public domain?

snuxoll 9y ago
No. The US constitution was a lot more forward thinking than people give it credit for, securing works for a LIMITED TIME is explicitly stated and there's a reason for that. Disney in particular has made a killing releasing copyrighted products based off public domain, and it extends far beyond the obvious ones like Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, Snow White, etc. We have ALWAYS lived in a culture where reusing older works in newer ones has been a driving force for creativity. I just went to a play a friend helped put on a couple weeks ago called Heddatron, a mashup of Hedda Gabler, a telling of Ibsen's life, comedy and robots. The whole thing made absolutely no sense to me, but it was amusing as hell to watch. Hedda Gabler came out in 1890, if our current copyright laws applied to his work it would still be under protection and there's a good chance it would have never come to light. We don't need to grant MORE protections to IP, we need to severly reduce the copyright terms back to sane levels.

cookiecaper 9y ago

Yes. Any intellectual property should always have to meet the "test" described in the Constitution: "does this promote the progress of science and useful arts?", and secondarily, "Are these rights being secured to authors and inventors?" Copyright terms that allow 5 generations of descendants to live off continuing royalties while the property rots are not beneficial (I am not anti-inheritance, I just don't think it helps anyone for exclusive monopoly rights to last so long). Extensive copyright powers that make _everything_ that gets digitized subject to draconian copyright protection are not beneficial. Arcane legal processes and astronomical legal costs blocking the useful application of the small amount of recourse available in these laws is a travesty. Should companies whose primary function is pressing "go" on the DVD assembly line be competitive with massive, serious logistical operations that deliver necessities like food and energy? Is it possible we are rewarding companies who invent cute characters a little too much? Do note that copyright is not a natural thing; it exists only due to governmental fiat, the government's threat to use force to stop someone from drawing Mickey Mouse in an unflattering pose. We are so protective of "free speech", yet are not concerned when we see government goons hauling people off for offending BigCo?

cableshaft 9y ago

There was a time where I was like "Just let there be an exception for Disney. They're going to fight tooth and nail for their IP to be in perpetuity and win, so just let that be an exception, and have sane copyright lengths elsewhere." But they keep buying up alllllll the popular IP....so that kind of doesn't really work now.