4 ms·

> both US parties are weirdly on board with continually extending the reach of copyright and IP laws I don't think it is weird considering that US is a mass-ex

> both US parties are weirdly on board with continually extending the reach of copyright and IP laws I don't think it is weird considering that US is a mass-exporter of Intellectual Property. Hollywood is big global business. It is good for the US economy if other countries respect the copyright laws and are willing to pay for movie-tickets. US is also a massive software exporter. I don't have the numbers but we know US has Oracle and IBM and Microsoft. Think about Intel and AMD, without copyright their processors could be copied by anybody and pirated and sold much cheaper. What's the best length for copyright protection is a different discussion, I agree that "Monopolizing works for most of a century after the life of the author is bad policy." But I don't think it is weird that countries which benefit from it would support longer terms and better IP protections in general.

sircastor 8y ago
I don't mean to be pedantic, but wouldn't chips be covered by patent rather than copyright?
beefield 8y ago
> I don't think it is weird considering that US is a mass-exporter of Intellectual Property. I wonder what would US trade deficit look like if we remove IP related trade from the statistics? My gut feeling would be that the deficit would look quite a lot worse, but is there some "official" measure on this?
- nraynaud 8y ago
  Trade deficit is not bad per se.
mwfunk 8y ago
I’m not arguing against IP laws in general, I just feel that in many ways they’ve become weighted far too much in favor of IP holders, as a result of IP holders having all the money and thus power in Washington. I’m not anti-patent or anti-copyright as a rule. They are legal fictions (an actual term, not a disparaging one) which were created in order to benefit everyone. The fact that they directly benefitted IP holders was not the intention, just a side effect. The goal was to spur creation, which everyone would benefit from, not to protect anyone’s revenue stream. The rhetoric seems to have shifted to treating IP as a fundamental right. No longer is it a legal fiction to benefit everyone, which had a side effect of allowing a few to reap more profits. Now politicians talk about it as if patent protections, etc. exist solely to protect the IP holders and their revenue, which for some reason is treated as an inalienable right, and not as a compromise for the greater good for everyone. At least that’s my impression as an observer.
- toyg 8y ago
  The goal has always been to protect revenue streams - originally, it was the one of printers of music sheets. Most artists have always worked on patrons’ commissions and continue to do so; most musicians made money when performing, and continue to do so; most engineers made money when building things, and continue to do so. Copyright fundamentally benefits a tiny minority of middlemen and investors in the distribution chain, and that’s always been true. It’s one of the distortions of mass-market, where the real money-makers are subjects that have the resources and connections to operate at scale - like in retail.
Thiez 8y ago
I have a hard time imagining software companies benefitting from copyright extension. The vast majority of software is obsolete literally decades before copyright expires, in most cases the source code will be lost or otherwise unavailable even if the copyright expires, and the CPUs able to run the software will no longer be manufactured. A movie or song might become a classic, but software just gets old.

sircastor 8y ago

I don't mean to be pedantic, but wouldn't chips be covered by patent rather than copyright?

beefield 8y ago

> I don't think it is weird considering that US is a mass-exporter of Intellectual Property. I wonder what would US trade deficit look like if we remove IP related trade from the statistics? My gut feeling would be that the deficit would look quite a lot worse, but is there some "official" measure on this?

nraynaud 8y ago
Trade deficit is not bad per se.

mwfunk 8y ago

I’m not arguing against IP laws in general, I just feel that in many ways they’ve become weighted far too much in favor of IP holders, as a result of IP holders having all the money and thus power in Washington. I’m not anti-patent or anti-copyright as a rule. They are legal fictions (an actual term, not a disparaging one) which were created in order to benefit everyone. The fact that they directly benefitted IP holders was not the intention, just a side effect. The goal was to spur creation, which everyone would benefit from, not to protect anyone’s revenue stream. The rhetoric seems to have shifted to treating IP as a fundamental right. No longer is it a legal fiction to benefit everyone, which had a side effect of allowing a few to reap more profits. Now politicians talk about it as if patent protections, etc. exist solely to protect the IP holders and their revenue, which for some reason is treated as an inalienable right, and not as a compromise for the greater good for everyone. At least that’s my impression as an observer.

toyg 8y ago
The goal has always been to protect revenue streams - originally, it was the one of printers of music sheets. Most artists have always worked on patrons’ commissions and continue to do so; most musicians made money when performing, and continue to do so; most engineers made money when building things, and continue to do so. Copyright fundamentally benefits a tiny minority of middlemen and investors in the distribution chain, and that’s always been true. It’s one of the distortions of mass-market, where the real money-makers are subjects that have the resources and connections to operate at scale - like in retail.

Thiez 8y ago

I have a hard time imagining software companies benefitting from copyright extension. The vast majority of software is obsolete literally decades before copyright expires, in most cases the source code will be lost or otherwise unavailable even if the copyright expires, and the CPUs able to run the software will no longer be manufactured. A movie or song might become a classic, but software just gets old.