5 ms·

I don't believe that a living creator should have to suffer their creations going into the public domain. Once dead, however, their works should transition to t

I don't believe that a living creator should have to suffer their creations going into the public domain. Once dead, however, their works should transition to the public domain.

hypersoar 15y ago
This only applies to performers. As it says in the linked article, composers and lyricists already get life + 70 years.
- eftpotrm 15y ago
  So if I express myself by writing I get life + 70, but by playing I get a flat 50? Why the differing value judgment? I'm a firmly amateur musician so this isn't relevant to me, but as it happens I do as much improvisation as formal writing; there is a distinct anomaly exposed here, to my mind. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the copyright system, I strongly feel that the level of rights a creator receives should be equal regardless of their means of creation; the moral logic for preferencing one form of publishing over another in law seems entirely absent, to me.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - jasonlotito 15y ago
    > So if I express myself by writing I get life + 70, but by playing I get a flat 50? Why the differing value judgment? Within this context, I believe the logic is you are playing someones written composition. If it's yours, then it's protected as normal. If it's not, then you merely performed a creation.
    - eftpotrm 15y ago
      If you think performers are merely mechanically repeating someone else's composition, I would suggest that you're not a musician...
      - bmelton 15y ago
        I don't believe that's what he meant to imply. Specifically though, if you decide to record Beethoven's Fifth, which I believe is in the public domain, YOU get a 50 year copyright on your performance of it. Whatever unique aspects of it you added, whatever nuance, that's yours, and belongs to you, licensable, sellable only by you, for the period of 50 years. Nobody else can duplicate your performance exactly, unless in doing so, they are also duplicating the original performance exactly.
      - jasonlotito 15y ago
        No, that's not what I said, nor implied. If you inferred that from what I wrote, I would suggest... nevermind. It's too easy, and pointless.
nitrogen 15y ago
I've thought a compromise would be nice, where after 14 or 28 years the works would become available for reuse and derivation, but the creator would have a limited right of refusal for e.g. political or pornographic derivative works until after their death.
- nokcha 15y ago
  >... the creator would have a limited right of refusal for e.g. political or pornographic derivative works... A law that explicitly discriminates against political works would likely violate the First Amendment. See, e.g., R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), holding that content-based regulations are presumptively invalid.
orangecat 15y ago
I don't believe that a living creator should have to suffer their creations going into the public domain. I've never understood why that's such a horrible fate. And even if it is, the purpose of copyright is not to protect the feelings of authors.
latortuga 15y ago
All creations are a product of the culture they are produced in. Originality is an illusion in this sense. What suffering occurs, exactly, when works enter the public domain? The public domain does not prevent works from being sold, for example. The author of a work loses exclusivity but he does not lose the right to benefit from the work. A big problem with copyright is the name - it sounds like it concerns a "right" when in fact it is a privilege granted (in the US) by the Constitution. To quote the FSF, if copyright were a right, "nothing could justify terminating this right after a certain period of time".
hxa7241 15y ago
You ought to question that belief with some careful thinking -- economic and moral. Copyright restricts access to goods -- that is bad. It only makes sense to do that in so far as it is counterbalanced by doing some good -- supporting production. That is something to weigh up by evidence, and the lifespan of the creator seems not particularly germane. And what exactly is being 'suffered'? If you look carefully, you will find nothing there. The loss of control of the work? But you only expect that control because of the current law. You cannot justify that expectation based on itself. The connection between creator and creation is abstract. Using a creation hurts the creator no more than poking a voodoo doll of them. You might say you still 'feel' hurt by uncontrolled use. But by restricting other people's use you are very directly, materially, controlling them. Ought there not to be a good reason for telling someone else what they can or cannot do? Is some vague 'sense' or 'feeling' enough? It really does not seem to weigh up in favour of the creator. And one cannot simply say that other people are irrelevant, that it is only about what is right for the creator. Laws or rules are not made to serve one (kind of) individual but to serve everyone -- otherwise why should everyone have any interest in obeying them?
ltamake 15y ago
> Once dead, however, their works should transition to the public domain. So we can make their work free once they're dead? That doesn't seem fair. What's wrong with something going into the public domain? It's not terrible.
- felipemnoa 15y ago
  Plus the chances of an "accident" occurring to the creator of very popular content increase.
njharman 15y ago
I don't believe that all the other living creators should be forced to wait until someone's death before building, extending,transforming,sampling,etc their work. Public domain concept is very similar reasoning open source, individuals contribute to the group cause the group result is far greater than individuals. The assumption with creative works is that the creator didn't create in a vacuum. They in fact, draw on a rich set of creations, experiences, etc of society. One's creations aren't entirely their own. Society recognizes the effort though and grants creators specific rights for a limited time. But, eventually (and no not a 150 hrs later) creations must return to the wellspring from which they originated, aka the public domain.
tomjen3 15y ago
Why should people who live longer lifes benefit economically for that? The only fair thing to do at this point would be the old 14 years + optional extension. Then everybody has a chance to benefit from what they have created and the original bargin is kept with the public.
anamax 15y ago
> Once dead, however, their works should transition to the public domain. Why shouldn't my kids be able to inherit my IP just as they inherit my PP? If the rights expire upon my death, they're less valuable. (Would you buy IP from someone old or sick under such a system?)

I don't believe that a living creator should have to suffer their creations going into the public domain. Once dead, however, their works should transition to the public domain.

hypersoar 15y ago

This only applies to performers. As it says in the linked article, composers and lyricists already get life + 70 years.

eftpotrm 15y ago
So if I express myself by writing I get life + 70, but by playing I get a flat 50? Why the differing value judgment? I'm a firmly amateur musician so this isn't relevant to me, but as it happens I do as much improvisation as formal writing; there is a distinct anomaly exposed here, to my mind. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the copyright system, I strongly feel that the level of rights a creator receives should be equal regardless of their means of creation; the moral logic for preferencing one form of publishing over another in law seems entirely absent, to me.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  > So if I express myself by writing I get life + 70, but by playing I get a flat 50? Why the differing value judgment? Within this context, I believe the logic is you are playing someones written composition. If it's yours, then it's protected as normal. If it's not, then you merely performed a creation.
  - eftpotrm 15y ago
    If you think performers are merely mechanically repeating someone else's composition, I would suggest that you're not a musician...
    - bmelton 15y ago
      I don't believe that's what he meant to imply. Specifically though, if you decide to record Beethoven's Fifth, which I believe is in the public domain, YOU get a 50 year copyright on your performance of it. Whatever unique aspects of it you added, whatever nuance, that's yours, and belongs to you, licensable, sellable only by you, for the period of 50 years. Nobody else can duplicate your performance exactly, unless in doing so, they are also duplicating the original performance exactly.
    - jasonlotito 15y ago
      No, that's not what I said, nor implied. If you inferred that from what I wrote, I would suggest... nevermind. It's too easy, and pointless.

nitrogen 15y ago

I've thought a compromise would be nice, where after 14 or 28 years the works would become available for reuse and derivation, but the creator would have a limited right of refusal for e.g. political or pornographic derivative works until after their death.

nokcha 15y ago
>... the creator would have a limited right of refusal for e.g. political or pornographic derivative works... A law that explicitly discriminates against political works would likely violate the First Amendment. See, e.g., R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), holding that content-based regulations are presumptively invalid.

orangecat 15y ago

I don't believe that a living creator should have to suffer their creations going into the public domain. I've never understood why that's such a horrible fate. And even if it is, the purpose of copyright is not to protect the feelings of authors.

latortuga 15y ago

All creations are a product of the culture they are produced in. Originality is an illusion in this sense. What suffering occurs, exactly, when works enter the public domain? The public domain does not prevent works from being sold, for example. The author of a work loses exclusivity but he does not lose the right to benefit from the work. A big problem with copyright is the name - it sounds like it concerns a "right" when in fact it is a privilege granted (in the US) by the Constitution. To quote the FSF, if copyright were a right, "nothing could justify terminating this right after a certain period of time".

hxa7241 15y ago

You ought to question that belief with some careful thinking -- economic and moral. Copyright restricts access to goods -- that is bad. It only makes sense to do that in so far as it is counterbalanced by doing some good -- supporting production. That is something to weigh up by evidence, and the lifespan of the creator seems not particularly germane. And what exactly is being 'suffered'? If you look carefully, you will find nothing there. The loss of control of the work? But you only expect that control because of the current law. You cannot justify that expectation based on itself. The connection between creator and creation is abstract. Using a creation hurts the creator no more than poking a voodoo doll of them. You might say you still 'feel' hurt by uncontrolled use. But by restricting other people's use you are very directly, materially, controlling them. Ought there not to be a good reason for telling someone else what they can or cannot do? Is some vague 'sense' or 'feeling' enough? It really does not seem to weigh up in favour of the creator. And one cannot simply say that other people are irrelevant, that it is only about what is right for the creator. Laws or rules are not made to serve one (kind of) individual but to serve everyone -- otherwise why should everyone have any interest in obeying them?

ltamake 15y ago

> Once dead, however, their works should transition to the public domain. So we can make their work free once they're dead? That doesn't seem fair. What's wrong with something going into the public domain? It's not terrible.

felipemnoa 15y ago
Plus the chances of an "accident" occurring to the creator of very popular content increase.

njharman 15y ago

I don't believe that all the other living creators should be forced to wait until someone's death before building, extending,transforming,sampling,etc their work. Public domain concept is very similar reasoning open source, individuals contribute to the group cause the group result is far greater than individuals. The assumption with creative works is that the creator didn't create in a vacuum. They in fact, draw on a rich set of creations, experiences, etc of society. One's creations aren't entirely their own. Society recognizes the effort though and grants creators specific rights for a limited time. But, eventually (and no not a 150 hrs later) creations must return to the wellspring from which they originated, aka the public domain.

tomjen3 15y ago

Why should people who live longer lifes benefit economically for that? The only fair thing to do at this point would be the old 14 years + optional extension. Then everybody has a chance to benefit from what they have created and the original bargin is kept with the public.

anamax 15y ago

> Once dead, however, their works should transition to the public domain. Why shouldn't my kids be able to inherit my IP just as they inherit my PP? If the rights expire upon my death, they're less valuable. (Would you buy IP from someone old or sick under such a system?)