4 ms·

I would be fine with a lifetime copyright, or 20 years, whatever is longer. If you're still alive, you ought to have rights. If you die 2 years after creating

I would be fine with a lifetime copyright, or 20 years, whatever is longer. If you're still alive, you ought to have rights. If you die 2 years after creating something, your family ought to get something for your "property". Obviously, though, very little of what we're talking about in this discussion is 70 years old. Led Zeppelin doesn't tour anymore. They should still be making money from their copyrighted material.

pyre 15y ago
> Led Zeppelin doesn't tour anymore. They should > still be making money from their copyrighted material. Why? What's wrong with a hard 20-year cut-off? It's not like they would lose copyright on newly created merchandise, just on their older recordings. If they really wanted to, they could compensate for the lack of copyright on the older recordings by re-recording. > Obviously, though, very little of what we're talking > about in this discussion is 70 years old The Birthday Song is a good example of something that doesn't need to be under copyright anymore.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  The ability of an artist to make successful and popular music for the whole of their lives is next to impossible, as cultures change and the older generations don't necessarily adapt to what's popular. Why should they? Do you want your Grandma making Hip Hop videos? Meanwhile, some artists created a product during their professional lives that continues to generate revenue into their golden years. Why should we tell them - yeah, people still buy your albums but they're public property now. What about your ability to make money? Hmmm...See if people will buy the new version WITHOUT John Bonham. They won't buy it? Oh, then here is your Social Security check. The Birthday Song, on the other hand, I agree with. It's like the Q-Tip/Kleenex trademarks. It should be deemed too damn popular to prevent its use in things like TV shows or restaurants. I know...I'm a contradicting hypocrite. Sue me.
  - pyre 15y ago
    I think the flaw in your reasoning here is that people should get money for their work until they die. That's a ridiculous notion. The logic: > As long as people continue to derive value from > something, the creator deserves to get revenue Fails on a number of fronts: * Scientists/academics contribute to the whole of human knowledge, and arguably advance us more as a race than rock stars do, yet I don't see you arguing that they should be able to license their ideas and wring revenue out of each an everyone until 70 years after they are dead. If this was the case, I would need to pay money to the estate of Albert Einstein every time I wanted to use "E = mc^2." * If I hire a plumber to fix my pipes, I arguably derive value from having functional plumbing from that point on into the future. Should plumbers be able to collect licensing fees for that? > Do you want your Grandma making Hip Hop videos? Thanks for trying to appeal to emotion rather than logic. I'm sure your arguments had merit at some point, but you've gone off the rails and are a stone's throw away from resorting to personal attacks to get your message across.
    - earbitscom 15y ago
      Actually, the issue here is that you're confusing the premise of the argument. The logic is: > As long as people continue to purchase or commercially use a product > the creator deserves to get their share of the revenue. Nobody brought up scientists and I don't know enough about that to have an opinion. The obvious difference is that Einstein observed/discovered "E = mc^2", he didn't create it. But there is just no point in comparing apples to oranges. The problem with your plumber argument is that, if he wanted to charge you less up front and a fee for each use of the faucet, that would be his and his customers' choice to make. As long as you pay the agreed upon fee to the plumber, whether it's a one time fee or a license, you and the plumber have agreed that it's a fair trade. You're arguing that, at some point, a person who previously did not purchase a person's song should suddenly have the right to own it at no cost, simply because the song has been around for over 20 years. Why should this new person have that right? The Grandma point was just to demonstrate that popular, high-selling music is usually made by the younger generation. If someone creates something during that time that continues to produce revenue, why should we insist that they no longer make money for it and force them to learn a new trade, since it's very impractical to assume that they, at their age, can continue to make popular music for an audience they're out of touch with?

pyre 15y ago

> Led Zeppelin doesn't tour anymore. They should > still be making money from their copyrighted material. Why? What's wrong with a hard 20-year cut-off? It's not like they would lose copyright on newly created merchandise, just on their older recordings. If they really wanted to, they could compensate for the lack of copyright on the older recordings by re-recording. > Obviously, though, very little of what we're talking > about in this discussion is 70 years old The Birthday Song is a good example of something that doesn't need to be under copyright anymore.

earbitscom 15y ago
The ability of an artist to make successful and popular music for the whole of their lives is next to impossible, as cultures change and the older generations don't necessarily adapt to what's popular. Why should they? Do you want your Grandma making Hip Hop videos? Meanwhile, some artists created a product during their professional lives that continues to generate revenue into their golden years. Why should we tell them - yeah, people still buy your albums but they're public property now. What about your ability to make money? Hmmm...See if people will buy the new version WITHOUT John Bonham. They won't buy it? Oh, then here is your Social Security check. The Birthday Song, on the other hand, I agree with. It's like the Q-Tip/Kleenex trademarks. It should be deemed too damn popular to prevent its use in things like TV shows or restaurants. I know...I'm a contradicting hypocrite. Sue me.
- pyre 15y ago
  I think the flaw in your reasoning here is that people should get money for their work until they die. That's a ridiculous notion. The logic: > As long as people continue to derive value from > something, the creator deserves to get revenue Fails on a number of fronts: * Scientists/academics contribute to the whole of human knowledge, and arguably advance us more as a race than rock stars do, yet I don't see you arguing that they should be able to license their ideas and wring revenue out of each an everyone until 70 years after they are dead. If this was the case, I would need to pay money to the estate of Albert Einstein every time I wanted to use "E = mc^2." * If I hire a plumber to fix my pipes, I arguably derive value from having functional plumbing from that point on into the future. Should plumbers be able to collect licensing fees for that? > Do you want your Grandma making Hip Hop videos? Thanks for trying to appeal to emotion rather than logic. I'm sure your arguments had merit at some point, but you've gone off the rails and are a stone's throw away from resorting to personal attacks to get your message across.
  - earbitscom 15y ago
    Actually, the issue here is that you're confusing the premise of the argument. The logic is: > As long as people continue to purchase or commercially use a product > the creator deserves to get their share of the revenue. Nobody brought up scientists and I don't know enough about that to have an opinion. The obvious difference is that Einstein observed/discovered "E = mc^2", he didn't create it. But there is just no point in comparing apples to oranges. The problem with your plumber argument is that, if he wanted to charge you less up front and a fee for each use of the faucet, that would be his and his customers' choice to make. As long as you pay the agreed upon fee to the plumber, whether it's a one time fee or a license, you and the plumber have agreed that it's a fair trade. You're arguing that, at some point, a person who previously did not purchase a person's song should suddenly have the right to own it at no cost, simply because the song has been around for over 20 years. Why should this new person have that right? The Grandma point was just to demonstrate that popular, high-selling music is usually made by the younger generation. If someone creates something during that time that continues to produce revenue, why should we insist that they no longer make money for it and force them to learn a new trade, since it's very impractical to assume that they, at their age, can continue to make popular music for an audience they're out of touch with?