4 ms·

I've been a firm believer that copyrights should expire when the item isn't commercially available anymore. And to keep people from abusing the obvious issues,

I've been a firm believer that copyrights should expire when the item isn't commercially available anymore. And to keep people from abusing the obvious issues, it needs to be available at a reasonable cost relative to its price when originally released, or the copyright renewal needs to have an exponentially growing fee. I've also been considering what it means if copyright was to assure something for the public good whether there shouldn't be some kind of enforced escrow of the source. Having the copyright expire on the binaries does nothing if no one hid a copy of the source away in their shoebox.

CamperBob2 6y ago
It's outrageous that copyright protection applies to DRM-encumbered material. Simply outrageous. Copyright is supposed to be a bargain with the public domain, and DRM explicitly renounces that bargain. This is a great example to point to... but as usual, nobody cares who has any power to change things, and nobody with any power cares.
- fsflover 6y ago
  Join campaigns against DRM https://www.eff.org/issues/drm https://www.eff.org/issues/drm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_by_Design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_by_Design
- Silhouette 6y ago
  As ever, this would be a more compelling argument if the state that granted copyright protections also provided meaningful enforcement. Setting copyright up in a way that often makes it prohibitively expensive to enforce through legal means and then objecting when the rights holders attempt to protect their investments through technological measures feels a little hypocritical.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    There should be a choice: either the legal system protects your IP (copyright), or you do (DRM). You shouldn't get the benefits of both approaches, because they are mutually exclusive. Material that is protected with DRM has effectively been stolen from the future public domain. At the very least, key escrow should be required before copyright protection is granted.
    - Silhouette 6y ago
      There should be a choice: either the legal system protects your IP (copyright), or you do (DRM). I don't necessarily agree with that premise, but even if we accept it for the sake of argument, I don't think the legal system does effectively protect your IP in many copyright situations, so what happens then? As an analogy, if you told every store that to prosecute the theft of a bar of chocolate they'd have to employ specialist teams to track down the individuals and then spend a thousand bucks on legal fees to bring a private prosecution, and at the end they might only get back the cost of the chocolate bar and a bit of token compensation, do you really think thieves would be deterred effectively and the store properly protected in its legal rights? And yet we usually define copyright as a civil matter in most countries, other than sometimes in cases of large-scale commercial infringement, rather than a criminal matter like theft. Stores might or might not employ a dedicated security guard, but if the guard does see a theft, the rest of what happens after the police are called is mostly going to be handled and paid for by the state. It makes a viable deterrent against large numbers of small-scale offences. Such a deterrent doesn't usually exist in the case of copyright infringement.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      This is like arguing that front doors shouldn't have locks because burglary is illegal. Legal status and practical enforcement are unrelated issues. You seem to be attempting to conflate them because you just don't like the idea of copyright. But that's a different issue. In fact it's perfectly consistent to enforce copyright through a combination of DRM and legal challenges. Legally copyright is the default. Nothing is in the public domain unless it's explicitly handed over to the public domain. So software items with DRM can't be "stolen from the future public domain" because the DRM is part of the product or item. And it's up to the rights holder to decide whether or not they want to free it. This is a deliberate choice on their part. (It's a little more complex with other content because the content is assumed to have an existence independent of its realisation or distribution model. Not so much with software.) None of this justifies Adobe's actions, and a class action against Adobe would also be reasonable. (Realistically not likely to succeed - but hardly baseless.) But it would be an argument about real/assumed/implied breach of contract with buyers/license users, and not over copyright terms or DRM.
- tim333 6y ago
  I don't get that. Say Disney has a Lion King DVD. Why should attempts to stop you pirating it with DRM tech mean they shouldn't have copyright protection?
  - beeper-beeps 6y ago
    The argument would be: Because copyright is temporary, it is a legal protection allows one to exploit a their work. But when the protection expires works should be accessible for the public good. If the public cannot access a work after copyright expires (because of DRM) then then the company will never contribute to the community-good in return for the protection they receive. Those US Founding Fathers were all about laws that ensured progress of Science and useful Arts[0]. Or some such. [0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-8/copyrights-and-patents https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...
int_19h 6y ago
It's only "intellectual property" until it's time to pay property taxes.
- otterley 6y ago
  You are confusing property with land (not that I blame you; our language makes it confusing). Property is a term of legal art term that relates to the right to possession and control over something. There are many types of property, and land is just one of them. Artistic and creative works are another.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    I'm well aware that there are many types of property. And property taxes don't apply only to land. But copyright and patents, at least, are more similar to real estate than any other kind.

CamperBob2 6y ago

It's outrageous that copyright protection applies to DRM-encumbered material. Simply outrageous. Copyright is supposed to be a bargain with the public domain, and DRM explicitly renounces that bargain. This is a great example to point to... but as usual, nobody cares who has any power to change things, and nobody with any power cares.

fsflover 6y ago
Join campaigns against DRM https://www.eff.org/issues/drm https://www.eff.org/issues/drm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_by_Design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_by_Design
Silhouette 6y ago
As ever, this would be a more compelling argument if the state that granted copyright protections also provided meaningful enforcement. Setting copyright up in a way that often makes it prohibitively expensive to enforce through legal means and then objecting when the rights holders attempt to protect their investments through technological measures feels a little hypocritical.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  There should be a choice: either the legal system protects your IP (copyright), or you do (DRM). You shouldn't get the benefits of both approaches, because they are mutually exclusive. Material that is protected with DRM has effectively been stolen from the future public domain. At the very least, key escrow should be required before copyright protection is granted.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    There should be a choice: either the legal system protects your IP (copyright), or you do (DRM). I don't necessarily agree with that premise, but even if we accept it for the sake of argument, I don't think the legal system does effectively protect your IP in many copyright situations, so what happens then? As an analogy, if you told every store that to prosecute the theft of a bar of chocolate they'd have to employ specialist teams to track down the individuals and then spend a thousand bucks on legal fees to bring a private prosecution, and at the end they might only get back the cost of the chocolate bar and a bit of token compensation, do you really think thieves would be deterred effectively and the store properly protected in its legal rights? And yet we usually define copyright as a civil matter in most countries, other than sometimes in cases of large-scale commercial infringement, rather than a criminal matter like theft. Stores might or might not employ a dedicated security guard, but if the guard does see a theft, the rest of what happens after the police are called is mostly going to be handled and paid for by the state. It makes a viable deterrent against large numbers of small-scale offences. Such a deterrent doesn't usually exist in the case of copyright infringement.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    This is like arguing that front doors shouldn't have locks because burglary is illegal. Legal status and practical enforcement are unrelated issues. You seem to be attempting to conflate them because you just don't like the idea of copyright. But that's a different issue. In fact it's perfectly consistent to enforce copyright through a combination of DRM and legal challenges. Legally copyright is the default. Nothing is in the public domain unless it's explicitly handed over to the public domain. So software items with DRM can't be "stolen from the future public domain" because the DRM is part of the product or item. And it's up to the rights holder to decide whether or not they want to free it. This is a deliberate choice on their part. (It's a little more complex with other content because the content is assumed to have an existence independent of its realisation or distribution model. Not so much with software.) None of this justifies Adobe's actions, and a class action against Adobe would also be reasonable. (Realistically not likely to succeed - but hardly baseless.) But it would be an argument about real/assumed/implied breach of contract with buyers/license users, and not over copyright terms or DRM.
tim333 6y ago
I don't get that. Say Disney has a Lion King DVD. Why should attempts to stop you pirating it with DRM tech mean they shouldn't have copyright protection?
- beeper-beeps 6y ago
  The argument would be: Because copyright is temporary, it is a legal protection allows one to exploit a their work. But when the protection expires works should be accessible for the public good. If the public cannot access a work after copyright expires (because of DRM) then then the company will never contribute to the community-good in return for the protection they receive. Those US Founding Fathers were all about laws that ensured progress of Science and useful Arts[0]. Or some such. [0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-8/copyrights-and-patents https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...

int_19h 6y ago

It's only "intellectual property" until it's time to pay property taxes.

otterley 6y ago
You are confusing property with land (not that I blame you; our language makes it confusing). Property is a term of legal art term that relates to the right to possession and control over something. There are many types of property, and land is just one of them. Artistic and creative works are another.
- int_19h 6y ago
  I'm well aware that there are many types of property. And property taxes don't apply only to land. But copyright and patents, at least, are more similar to real estate than any other kind.