7 ms·

Wow, from 140 years to 110 years. For comparison, patents only last 20 years.

by swebs 8y ago

Spivak 8y ago
The goal of copyright is not to put works into the public domain, it's to allow the creator to extract all the possible value from their work. This has been the basis for every copyright extension and the courts have agreed seeing little value in letting works go public domain.
- MereInterest 8y ago
  > 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. Promoting the arts definitely sounds like extracting maximum value.
  - habitue 8y ago
    I think Spivak's comment was talking about the "de facto" purpose as born out by experience. I usually don't like being cynical, but it seems copyright legislation is one of those areas where it's hard to be overly pessimistic
  - lsiebert 8y ago
    progress is promoted when people can use existing stuff. Just look at Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and other things remixing existing public domain stuff.
    - MereInterest 8y ago
      Sorry, I forgot how poorly sarcasm translates over text. I completely agree, and think that the current copyright period is far too long, preventing expansion on existing works.
- pishpash 8y ago
  What is the argument then for setting any number other than 0 or infinity? What are 100, 110, or 140 supposed to represent?
  - adventured 8y ago
    > What are 100, 110, or 140 supposed to represent? A compromise between two or more people with the power to influence such things.
    - pishpash 8y ago
      Wrong. Nobody who wants to influence the number down will have any political power in a society with private property rights. It will grow toward infinity on that ground alone.
- telchar 8y ago
  Presumably you're speaking cynically about how copyright is treated. For the official, stated reason: Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “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.”[0] [0] https://fairuse.stanford.edu/law/us-constitution/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/law/us-constitution/
  - CraftThatBlock 8y ago
    I think the key word there is "limited times", which someone could argue that 140 years (even 110) is no longer limited, but "unlimited" for the authors/inventors lifetime. I do agree that copyright could last longer than patents, although the current laws are made to grant copyright for many (~6) generations, while patents are for only ~1 (all depends what you call a generation, I estimated at 20-25 years).
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    So the goal is to enable authors and inventors to have exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries? Out of curiosity, how many authors and inventors do you think live 110 years after their writing or discovery? And of course this is securing for a limited time to authors and inventors. In other words, it should be limited relative to the life of these authors -- not even life long, let alone long after they're deceased.
    - PeterisP 8y ago
      As the constitution clause states, it's not the goal to have these exclusive rights; these exclusive rights are the means(motivation) by which to facilitate the creation and publication of such works.
      - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        You're absolutely right, but what you're saying suggests an even more limited ability of congress. The whole point of the United State's political design was to strictly limit the ability of congress except to what was allowed. For instance the right to free speech does not grant citizens the right to free speech -- that is already inherent. It prohibits the government from being able to take that inherent right away. The constitution is not a guideline to unlimited powers, but constraints to limited powers. If congress is passing various copyright laws for reasons other than to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" then it would be unconstitutional. In other words passing laws to enhance profits rather than to ensure creator motivation would be unconstitutional, yet that's unambiguously the motivation for nearly all modern copyright law. Nobody is deterred from creating a work because they would only own the rights to it for e.g. 30 years, let alone 110 years.
- mtgx 8y ago
  > it's to allow the creator to extract all the possible value from their work That may be why governments of the world keep passing copyright laws now and how they view copyright. But copyright was established as a "balance" between making it profitable for the author to create the work (read: not to extract billions of dollars out of a work) in order to benefit the public. The primary goal has always been to benefit the public, not the author. Also, one of the reasons why copyright should be finite and not have too long of a term is because no author has ever created anything - anything at all - from scratch. They themselves have built upon the work of others. This is why copyright is meant to be a system where one creates something upon something else, and then someone new can create something new upon that previous work, and so on. Copyright was meant to be a kickstarting mechanism for authors, not a rent-seeking one, which is how it's used today. If you still don't see this what I'm trying to say from my comment, I highly suggest you watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPERZDfyWc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPERZDfyWc
- ddingus 8y ago
  Current authors oulling the ladder up behind them. The Brothers Grimm works helped Disney, who refuses to allow another Disney in like kind. FREE THE MOUSE I had that as a bumper sticker for over a decade. Lots of people asked! Was the best sticker ever. I told the Disney story many, many times. Interestingly, most people were engaged, asked questions, mostly understood. "So, that is why we get Terminator 2, 3, 4, 13...?" What makes sense? Balance of benefit of author and the public. Authors need material to work from. Without that, everything will need a clearance of some sort. It is extremely difficult to make entirely new works and have them be compelling enough to reach greater relevance. No public works = tepid new works. The public wants and benefits from a robust, rich culture. Everything owned = stale, managed culture formed in boardrooms. Authors need to eat and benefit from their works. These benefits can and should be substantial, depending. No copyright term = dubious value in creative works = starving authors. 0 years breaks creation. Infinity years breaks culture, dilutes overall value to everyone. 100? It is better than infinity, but where is the sweet spot? The Brothers Grimm worked under 24 year terms. Disney used those works, once public, only to object and deny others what they got to build from. And here we are today. I personally think 40 is pretty great. Others want 0, others want hundreds of years. I also believe overly long terms will result in counter, protest culture. Won't be easy to monetize, will ignore DRM, law, and will exist to deny the established scheme, because fuck them and their greed. Or something along those lines.
  - kibwen 8y ago
    Regarding "FREE THE MOUSE", Disney wouldn't even actually lose the rights to Mickey Mouse at all, right? I'm under the impression that Mickey Mouse is a trademark, and that the copyrighted work in question is the actual Steamboat Willie cartoon. So even if copyright was abolished entirely, Mickey would be just as safe as the Disney trademark itself. Am I wrong?
    - ddingus 8y ago
      I do not think you are wrong. But, some one could do a Felix the Cat, Betty Boop, Steamboat Willie mashup.
  - 8y ago
- int_19h 8y ago
  That's fine, but we should then tax it same as all other property that is a significant investment - have the tax assessor evaluate the market value, and tax based on that. Then we'll see how much Mickey Mouse copyrights etc are really worth to Disney. Oh, and capping it on the bottom end - even symbolically, to something like a dollar a year, just so that there's the hassle of having to pay it - would also solve the abandonware problem.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    Don't know about Mickey or how corps are taxed on their assets but I assume they are taxed on what they gain from their assets. So if Disney makes $2 Billion a year from Mickey they are taxed on that. Also, when Eminem dies, IRS will value his estate (mainly image rights, songs and copyrights) and send a bill for close to half of the value.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      A person who owns a house and rents it out is taxed both on rental income, and on the value of the house itself. They say that copyrights are "intellectual property". Let's treat them as such in other respects, not just when it comes to protecting property rights.
vlehto 8y ago
Patents last 20 years only if you keep paying the maintenance fees. Edit: Here's and idea: The yearly fees for copyrights ought to be something like X = years from publication, fee is X^X. So the first year would cost a dollar and the 10th year would cost 10 billion dollars. You can keep your copyright as long as you want!

Wow, from 140 years to 110 years. For comparison, patents only last 20 years.

by swebs 8y ago

Wow, from 140 years to 110 years. For comparison, patents only last 20 years.

The goal of copyright is not to put works into the public domain, it's to allow the creator to extract all the possible value from their work. This has been the basis for every copyright extension and the courts have agreed seeing little value in letting works go public domain.

MereInterest 8y ago
> 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. Promoting the arts definitely sounds like extracting maximum value.
- habitue 8y ago
  I think Spivak's comment was talking about the "de facto" purpose as born out by experience. I usually don't like being cynical, but it seems copyright legislation is one of those areas where it's hard to be overly pessimistic
- lsiebert 8y ago
  progress is promoted when people can use existing stuff. Just look at Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and other things remixing existing public domain stuff.
  - MereInterest 8y ago
    Sorry, I forgot how poorly sarcasm translates over text. I completely agree, and think that the current copyright period is far too long, preventing expansion on existing works.
pishpash 8y ago
What is the argument then for setting any number other than 0 or infinity? What are 100, 110, or 140 supposed to represent?
- adventured 8y ago
  > What are 100, 110, or 140 supposed to represent? A compromise between two or more people with the power to influence such things.
  - pishpash 8y ago
    Wrong. Nobody who wants to influence the number down will have any political power in a society with private property rights. It will grow toward infinity on that ground alone.
telchar 8y ago
Presumably you're speaking cynically about how copyright is treated. For the official, stated reason: Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “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.”[0] [0] https://fairuse.stanford.edu/law/us-constitution/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/law/us-constitution/
- CraftThatBlock 8y ago
  I think the key word there is "limited times", which someone could argue that 140 years (even 110) is no longer limited, but "unlimited" for the authors/inventors lifetime. I do agree that copyright could last longer than patents, although the current laws are made to grant copyright for many (~6) generations, while patents are for only ~1 (all depends what you call a generation, I estimated at 20-25 years).
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  So the goal is to enable authors and inventors to have exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries? Out of curiosity, how many authors and inventors do you think live 110 years after their writing or discovery? And of course this is securing for a limited time to authors and inventors. In other words, it should be limited relative to the life of these authors -- not even life long, let alone long after they're deceased.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    As the constitution clause states, it's not the goal to have these exclusive rights; these exclusive rights are the means(motivation) by which to facilitate the creation and publication of such works.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      You're absolutely right, but what you're saying suggests an even more limited ability of congress. The whole point of the United State's political design was to strictly limit the ability of congress except to what was allowed. For instance the right to free speech does not grant citizens the right to free speech -- that is already inherent. It prohibits the government from being able to take that inherent right away. The constitution is not a guideline to unlimited powers, but constraints to limited powers. If congress is passing various copyright laws for reasons other than to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" then it would be unconstitutional. In other words passing laws to enhance profits rather than to ensure creator motivation would be unconstitutional, yet that's unambiguously the motivation for nearly all modern copyright law. Nobody is deterred from creating a work because they would only own the rights to it for e.g. 30 years, let alone 110 years.
mtgx 8y ago
> it's to allow the creator to extract all the possible value from their work That may be why governments of the world keep passing copyright laws now and how they view copyright. But copyright was established as a "balance" between making it profitable for the author to create the work (read: not to extract billions of dollars out of a work) in order to benefit the public. The primary goal has always been to benefit the public, not the author. Also, one of the reasons why copyright should be finite and not have too long of a term is because no author has ever created anything - anything at all - from scratch. They themselves have built upon the work of others. This is why copyright is meant to be a system where one creates something upon something else, and then someone new can create something new upon that previous work, and so on. Copyright was meant to be a kickstarting mechanism for authors, not a rent-seeking one, which is how it's used today. If you still don't see this what I'm trying to say from my comment, I highly suggest you watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPERZDfyWc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPERZDfyWc
ddingus 8y ago
Current authors oulling the ladder up behind them. The Brothers Grimm works helped Disney, who refuses to allow another Disney in like kind. FREE THE MOUSE I had that as a bumper sticker for over a decade. Lots of people asked! Was the best sticker ever. I told the Disney story many, many times. Interestingly, most people were engaged, asked questions, mostly understood. "So, that is why we get Terminator 2, 3, 4, 13...?" What makes sense? Balance of benefit of author and the public. Authors need material to work from. Without that, everything will need a clearance of some sort. It is extremely difficult to make entirely new works and have them be compelling enough to reach greater relevance. No public works = tepid new works. The public wants and benefits from a robust, rich culture. Everything owned = stale, managed culture formed in boardrooms. Authors need to eat and benefit from their works. These benefits can and should be substantial, depending. No copyright term = dubious value in creative works = starving authors. 0 years breaks creation. Infinity years breaks culture, dilutes overall value to everyone. 100? It is better than infinity, but where is the sweet spot? The Brothers Grimm worked under 24 year terms. Disney used those works, once public, only to object and deny others what they got to build from. And here we are today. I personally think 40 is pretty great. Others want 0, others want hundreds of years. I also believe overly long terms will result in counter, protest culture. Won't be easy to monetize, will ignore DRM, law, and will exist to deny the established scheme, because fuck them and their greed. Or something along those lines.
- kibwen 8y ago
  Regarding "FREE THE MOUSE", Disney wouldn't even actually lose the rights to Mickey Mouse at all, right? I'm under the impression that Mickey Mouse is a trademark, and that the copyrighted work in question is the actual Steamboat Willie cartoon. So even if copyright was abolished entirely, Mickey would be just as safe as the Disney trademark itself. Am I wrong?
  - ddingus 8y ago
    I do not think you are wrong. But, some one could do a Felix the Cat, Betty Boop, Steamboat Willie mashup.
- 8y ago
int_19h 8y ago
That's fine, but we should then tax it same as all other property that is a significant investment - have the tax assessor evaluate the market value, and tax based on that. Then we'll see how much Mickey Mouse copyrights etc are really worth to Disney. Oh, and capping it on the bottom end - even symbolically, to something like a dollar a year, just so that there's the hassle of having to pay it - would also solve the abandonware problem.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  Don't know about Mickey or how corps are taxed on their assets but I assume they are taxed on what they gain from their assets. So if Disney makes $2 Billion a year from Mickey they are taxed on that. Also, when Eminem dies, IRS will value his estate (mainly image rights, songs and copyrights) and send a bill for close to half of the value.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    A person who owns a house and rents it out is taxed both on rental income, and on the value of the house itself. They say that copyrights are "intellectual property". Let's treat them as such in other respects, not just when it comes to protecting property rights.

vlehto 8y ago

Patents last 20 years only if you keep paying the maintenance fees. Edit: Here's and idea: The yearly fees for copyrights ought to be something like X = years from publication, fee is X^X. So the first year would cost a dollar and the 10th year would cost 10 billion dollars. You can keep your copyright as long as you want!