16 ms·

Copyright laws have outlived their useful laws. We give 72 years of public funded enforcement for leisure and entertainment but only 17 years for patents. This

Copyright laws have outlived their useful laws. We give 72 years of public funded enforcement for leisure and entertainment but only 17 years for patents. This has overly incentivized leisure and created irrational wealth in exchange for very little work. We worship football players while biochemistry majors with a bachelor's degree struggle to find jobs.

chrismcb 5y ago
Not sure what football players have to do with copyright. But I guess your point is life isn't fair. And people like literature activities. It are you suggesting we should all sit signs watching biochem scientists work?
unityByFreedom 5y ago
Lifetime of the author plus some time seems fair to me for copyright. And for patents, that's an exchange, the public sees the details and provides protection for some years. My major gripe is with software patents which are already covered by copyright.
- Archit3ch 5y ago
  > My major gripe is with software patents which are already covered by copyright. Software patents cover the invention. Software copyright (presumably) cannot cover software that has not been created yet.
- midasuni 5y ago
  Why does it seem fair?
  - unityByFreedom 5y ago
    Because you deserve to be compensated for your work. And maybe there is value in allowing you to sell your work for continued publication and protection against copying. The idea is that copyright encourages quality content. I don't know what the exact duration should be, but lifetime of author as a basis plus some time seems fair to me.
    - xfz 5y ago
      Does it even have to be their lifetime? 50 years from creation should suffice and they can put some of the profits during this time into a personal pension plan like the rest of us have to.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        50 years is too long. It is basically saying everything culturally relevant from someone’s youth should not enter the public domain until they are pretty much dead. At which point no one is going to car about the copyrighted material. 20 years seems like a sufficient term, I would even go for 10 or 15. Creators were still creating before copyright terms were extended to infinity.
    - midasuni 5y ago
      Why more than lifetime? Why not lifetime? Or 59 years? Or 27? Or 13? Or 6 months?
    - hajile 5y ago
      Thought experiments are inherently thoughts. The argument is actually that copyright encourages more public works without regard to quality. Copyright should be for a fixed number of years so that everyone receives equal benefit and that time period should be closer to 10-20 years rather than a hundred.
- thesimon 5y ago
  Why is it fair? After you are dead, no copyright protection can convince you to write more books. After you are dead, there is no point in protection.
  - DnDGrognard 5y ago
    So you cannot provide for your children then? you basically saying that on death the state should confiscate for example your house.
    - Scandiravian 5y ago
      A copyright holder will already have earned money on it during a fixed time period. Your argument is a straw man. Why should author's have a different right to provide for their children more so than other professions? There's something inherently unjust in protecting the works based on the death of the original author. A 25 year old will, on average, enjoy a significantly longer period of protection than a 75 year old.
      - DnDGrognard 5y ago
        Why is "unjust" and wanting some thing for free is not a valid legal argument here. And TBH with all due respect trotting out rhetorical devices like "straw man" does sound like sealioning.
      - jtbayly 5y ago
        So the 25yo with a wife and child finishes a book, signs with a publisher, and dies. The book sells a million copies and the publisher refuses to pay the widow and child anything because the work is now in the public domain. Justice has been done? I think a simple period of time, like 7 or 14 years, or even 50, makes more sense.
        DnDGrognard 5y ago
        Or an author has a disabled child who will require support for life?
- grishka 5y ago
  No, it's anything but fair. Those heirs did nothing at all. Why should they benefit from these works? On the opposite, copyright should not be transferable. It should last maybe several years, and that's it. Only then most people would have any semblance of respect for it. And then something entering the public domain would be actually an event people would be looking forward to. Right now everyone considers copyright to be an effectively eternal thing. It's also really depressing that the entirety of our pop culture is copyrighted, mostly by large faceless corporations.
  - justsomehnguy 5y ago
    > Why should they benefit from these works? You are young aspiring author. You have a family. You publish a greatly successful novel/series which would bring you $10M annually for at least 30 years. You and your SO die in a car crash. Your children, 3 and 5 y.o. now without a parents.. and without ANY part of that probable $300M. Good luck, children, you did nothing at all.
    - grishka 5y ago
      If I were to die, I wouldn't care the slightest about what happens next. As far as I'm concerned, the entire universe ceases to exist that very moment.
      - unityByFreedom 5y ago
        Do you not appreciate the world that was prepared for you? Safe, healthy, entertaining, etc. Much of this work was done with future generations in mind. You could throw evolution in there too. It's nice to not be limited to a single cell. On top of that, many people enjoy giving back, either to their kids or community. Preparing nice things for people after your death can bring comfort in life. That may come in the form of money, open sourced code, etc.
        grishka 5y ago
        Honestly, the existence of the universe is meaningless to me if my consciousness is to somehow irreversibly disappear from it in the future. I find this whole idea of eventual mandatory death extremely cruel, and those who romanticize it cringey. So many people hurry to live their lives because "life is short". So many people make so many irrational, bad decisions for the same reason. And so many people accept this as some kind of immutable fact. I'm looking forward to all that life extension/rejuvenation research that's gaining momentum right now. I don't want to die. Ever. I wish I could contribute to it, but my skill set isn't very fitting for this purpose. I doubt any one of the companies doing this kind of research needs a screaming fast android app or a java backend.
chrisseaton 5y ago
How’s enforcement public funded? Don’t infringers pay court costs?
- xfz 5y ago
  It's indirectly funded. The state passes a law granting a monopoly, and the copyright holder can sue for a breach. However this relies on the state providing courts, police, jails etc. (for people who breach court orders).
AussieWog93 5y ago
17 years is far, far too long for many patents. I'd hate to see what science looked like if we made this even longer.
paraknight 5y ago
There's a difference. If you invent a character or create some art and it gets popular, you deserve to be protected from people making money of off that work, to a reasonable extent (fair use etc). The difference to patents is that they're routinely abused. Patent trolls file or buy up patents that are as general as possible to drag smaller companies through the courts, or charge exorbitant licensing fees, stifling innovation. Pharma companies build monopolies around life-saving drugs and engage in price gouging. The patent holders get rich, not the biochem majors. Extending the effective period for patents will make things worse, not better, as the real problems are elsewhere.
- hajile 5y ago
  Are you implying then that copyright is not routinely abused? Big companies do this all the time (eg, Google v Oracle or the Unix lawsuits). There's fan fiction of almost every character you can imagine. Can you name even ONE fan fiction you'd rather consume instead of the original author's work?
  - Uehreka 5y ago
    Millions of people seem to have purchased the Fifty Shades books/movies, and some portion of them did not read/watch Twilight, so…
- djbebs 5y ago
  No you don't deserve anything. Just like a rice farmer doesn't deserve to have a monopoly on selling rice to the village he lives in.
  - Veen 5y ago
    Rice farmers have a monopoly on the rice they grow—if someone else takes it without permission and sells it they are considered thieves. But it doesn't really make sense to compare physical goods and creative goods like that. You can't "copy" rice in the same way you can copy a novel; rice doesn't need copyright. The reason copyright was invented in the first place was to encourage creative work by allowing the creator to profit from it for a period. It aims to balance potential benefits—the one that accrues to the creator and the one that accrues to the general population once copyright expires. You might think that the creator does not deserve any benefit from their creation, but most creators would disagree with you. Code is a possible exception. The benefits of open source development may greatly outweight the benefits that would accrue to an individual developer if the code couldn't be copied, but I'm not sure that the balance is the same for novels and movies. I suspect many valuable creative works would simply not be created if the creator had no way to benefit. Perhaps we need a more nuanced discussion that considers the actual benefits/harms of copyright periods on particular artforms and creative endeavours.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>We worship football players while biochemistry majors with a bachelor's degree struggle to find jobs. you think people idolize sports figures because of copyright?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  I think they're just pointing out that it's part of a larger cultural trend.
DnDGrognard 5y ago
WTF do "football players" have to do with Copyright laws?

chrismcb 5y ago

Not sure what football players have to do with copyright. But I guess your point is life isn't fair. And people like literature activities. It are you suggesting we should all sit signs watching biochem scientists work?

unityByFreedom 5y ago

Lifetime of the author plus some time seems fair to me for copyright. And for patents, that's an exchange, the public sees the details and provides protection for some years. My major gripe is with software patents which are already covered by copyright.

Archit3ch 5y ago
> My major gripe is with software patents which are already covered by copyright. Software patents cover the invention. Software copyright (presumably) cannot cover software that has not been created yet.
midasuni 5y ago
Why does it seem fair?
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  Because you deserve to be compensated for your work. And maybe there is value in allowing you to sell your work for continued publication and protection against copying. The idea is that copyright encourages quality content. I don't know what the exact duration should be, but lifetime of author as a basis plus some time seems fair to me.
  - xfz 5y ago
    Does it even have to be their lifetime? 50 years from creation should suffice and they can put some of the profits during this time into a personal pension plan like the rest of us have to.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      50 years is too long. It is basically saying everything culturally relevant from someone’s youth should not enter the public domain until they are pretty much dead. At which point no one is going to car about the copyrighted material. 20 years seems like a sufficient term, I would even go for 10 or 15. Creators were still creating before copyright terms were extended to infinity.
  - midasuni 5y ago
    Why more than lifetime? Why not lifetime? Or 59 years? Or 27? Or 13? Or 6 months?
  - hajile 5y ago
    Thought experiments are inherently thoughts. The argument is actually that copyright encourages more public works without regard to quality. Copyright should be for a fixed number of years so that everyone receives equal benefit and that time period should be closer to 10-20 years rather than a hundred.
thesimon 5y ago
Why is it fair? After you are dead, no copyright protection can convince you to write more books. After you are dead, there is no point in protection.
- DnDGrognard 5y ago
  So you cannot provide for your children then? you basically saying that on death the state should confiscate for example your house.
  - Scandiravian 5y ago
    A copyright holder will already have earned money on it during a fixed time period. Your argument is a straw man. Why should author's have a different right to provide for their children more so than other professions? There's something inherently unjust in protecting the works based on the death of the original author. A 25 year old will, on average, enjoy a significantly longer period of protection than a 75 year old.
    - DnDGrognard 5y ago
      Why is "unjust" and wanting some thing for free is not a valid legal argument here. And TBH with all due respect trotting out rhetorical devices like "straw man" does sound like sealioning.
    - jtbayly 5y ago
      So the 25yo with a wife and child finishes a book, signs with a publisher, and dies. The book sells a million copies and the publisher refuses to pay the widow and child anything because the work is now in the public domain. Justice has been done? I think a simple period of time, like 7 or 14 years, or even 50, makes more sense.
      - DnDGrognard 5y ago
        Or an author has a disabled child who will require support for life?
grishka 5y ago
No, it's anything but fair. Those heirs did nothing at all. Why should they benefit from these works? On the opposite, copyright should not be transferable. It should last maybe several years, and that's it. Only then most people would have any semblance of respect for it. And then something entering the public domain would be actually an event people would be looking forward to. Right now everyone considers copyright to be an effectively eternal thing. It's also really depressing that the entirety of our pop culture is copyrighted, mostly by large faceless corporations.
- justsomehnguy 5y ago
  > Why should they benefit from these works? You are young aspiring author. You have a family. You publish a greatly successful novel/series which would bring you $10M annually for at least 30 years. You and your SO die in a car crash. Your children, 3 and 5 y.o. now without a parents.. and without ANY part of that probable $300M. Good luck, children, you did nothing at all.
  - grishka 5y ago
    If I were to die, I wouldn't care the slightest about what happens next. As far as I'm concerned, the entire universe ceases to exist that very moment.
    - unityByFreedom 5y ago
      Do you not appreciate the world that was prepared for you? Safe, healthy, entertaining, etc. Much of this work was done with future generations in mind. You could throw evolution in there too. It's nice to not be limited to a single cell. On top of that, many people enjoy giving back, either to their kids or community. Preparing nice things for people after your death can bring comfort in life. That may come in the form of money, open sourced code, etc.
      - grishka 5y ago
        Honestly, the existence of the universe is meaningless to me if my consciousness is to somehow irreversibly disappear from it in the future. I find this whole idea of eventual mandatory death extremely cruel, and those who romanticize it cringey. So many people hurry to live their lives because "life is short". So many people make so many irrational, bad decisions for the same reason. And so many people accept this as some kind of immutable fact. I'm looking forward to all that life extension/rejuvenation research that's gaining momentum right now. I don't want to die. Ever. I wish I could contribute to it, but my skill set isn't very fitting for this purpose. I doubt any one of the companies doing this kind of research needs a screaming fast android app or a java backend.

chrisseaton 5y ago

How’s enforcement public funded? Don’t infringers pay court costs?

xfz 5y ago
It's indirectly funded. The state passes a law granting a monopoly, and the copyright holder can sue for a breach. However this relies on the state providing courts, police, jails etc. (for people who breach court orders).

AussieWog93 5y ago

17 years is far, far too long for many patents. I'd hate to see what science looked like if we made this even longer.

paraknight 5y ago

There's a difference. If you invent a character or create some art and it gets popular, you deserve to be protected from people making money of off that work, to a reasonable extent (fair use etc). The difference to patents is that they're routinely abused. Patent trolls file or buy up patents that are as general as possible to drag smaller companies through the courts, or charge exorbitant licensing fees, stifling innovation. Pharma companies build monopolies around life-saving drugs and engage in price gouging. The patent holders get rich, not the biochem majors. Extending the effective period for patents will make things worse, not better, as the real problems are elsewhere.

hajile 5y ago
Are you implying then that copyright is not routinely abused? Big companies do this all the time (eg, Google v Oracle or the Unix lawsuits). There's fan fiction of almost every character you can imagine. Can you name even ONE fan fiction you'd rather consume instead of the original author's work?
- Uehreka 5y ago
  Millions of people seem to have purchased the Fifty Shades books/movies, and some portion of them did not read/watch Twilight, so…
djbebs 5y ago
No you don't deserve anything. Just like a rice farmer doesn't deserve to have a monopoly on selling rice to the village he lives in.
- Veen 5y ago
  Rice farmers have a monopoly on the rice they grow—if someone else takes it without permission and sells it they are considered thieves. But it doesn't really make sense to compare physical goods and creative goods like that. You can't "copy" rice in the same way you can copy a novel; rice doesn't need copyright. The reason copyright was invented in the first place was to encourage creative work by allowing the creator to profit from it for a period. It aims to balance potential benefits—the one that accrues to the creator and the one that accrues to the general population once copyright expires. You might think that the creator does not deserve any benefit from their creation, but most creators would disagree with you. Code is a possible exception. The benefits of open source development may greatly outweight the benefits that would accrue to an individual developer if the code couldn't be copied, but I'm not sure that the balance is the same for novels and movies. I suspect many valuable creative works would simply not be created if the creator had no way to benefit. Perhaps we need a more nuanced discussion that considers the actual benefits/harms of copyright periods on particular artforms and creative endeavours.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

>We worship football players while biochemistry majors with a bachelor's degree struggle to find jobs. you think people idolize sports figures because of copyright?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
I think they're just pointing out that it's part of a larger cultural trend.

DnDGrognard 5y ago