5 ms·

So basically anything you make or design, I should be allowed to copy it as you get punished with higher and higher taxes to own it solely?

by Vaslo 4y ago

Eric_WVGG 4y ago
Not “as”, it’s “or”
wetpaws 4y ago
Yes
mjmahone17 4y ago
Yes? The longer something is public for, the less it is “yours”: people start making it their own, whether through remixes and recreations or just stories they want to create. It is good for society to allow ideas that have permeated public consciousness to be built on top of without worrying about legal repercussions.
- ztrww 4y ago
  Or alternatively there is no more incentive to put any significant effort into creating anything new since anyone can just rehash something that someone else made for much cheaper…
  - FractalParadigm 4y ago
    And yet, it already happens today. How many US companies invent something, just to be knocked-off 14-times over by various overseas entities within a year? It's not a once-in-a-while occurrence either, with virtually everything from electronics to fashion getting knocked-off very regularly with little/no repercussions.
- Vaslo 4y ago
  Sounds good. I'll let you spend all your valuable time creating things. I'll use that same time to do things I want like drinking beer by pool and playing video games. Then when you do all the hard work, I'll come in and use it. You just creating, I'll just keep relaxing and enjoying all your hard work.
  - literallyWTF 4y ago
    This is quite literally not what the OP said. But ok I guess?
    - Vaslo 4y ago
      What did he say then. He basically said and I’ll say another way so others understand 1) You spend time creating a great idea for a character or story 2) You get a limited amount of time to capitalize on it 3) I have a multimillion dollar corp where I can take the idea and spend loads of money making it popular through new works I can capitalize on 4) Sorry original creator, it’s now in the public domain very shortly after so womp womp 5) Oh and by the way I am a multibillion dollar company and did the math and I can afford those taxes in the “saner world” that the individual cannot for a longer period, so…. Also works the other way where a small corp spends tons of capital to come up with an idea or story and now they just have to give it for free before they can recoup? Talk about stifling innovation
      - _aavaa_ 4y ago
        That's how things work now. You think having a copyright on something will matter if the multibillion dollar company fights you and drags out the legal process until you run out of money?
        bdowling 4y ago
        A small creator doesn’t need a lot of money to sue a big corporate entity that infringes their work because (1) the statutory penalties for copyright infringement are intentionally high and (2) lawyers will take cases on a contingent fee basis if there’s a reasonable chance of winning.
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        Context is important. We're talking about Disney the multi-trillion-dollar corp holding copyright for countless works for decades after the original creators died. Yes, in this case, resounding yes: the longer you hold on to something, the more you have to pay (exponentially, if possible). I doubt anyone is really arguing that a creator shouldn't benefit from their works. Mickey Mouse is almost 94 years old now. Guess what. Brothers Grimm published the 7th edition of their tales in 1857. The last of Brothers Grimm died in 1863. Walt Disney released Snow White in 1937, Cinderella in 1950, etc. But sure. Do tell us how we are not allowed to do anything about Mickey Mouse
sircastor 4y ago
After a reasonable period, yes. When a design, character, idea, enters public consciousness, it contributes and (hopefully) enlightens the community. While it should be easy and inexpensive for you to introduce that and gain from it early on, it should become more expensive as you gain more from it, and as it gains more value to the community. So much IP is deeply ingrained in our culture and is owned seemingly indefinitely by corporations. And there are plenty of examples of those corporations abusing their legal ownership to prevent the public from enjoying its adoption of that property.
dmitriid 4y ago
> So basically anything you make or design, I should be allowed to copy it Yes. Just like Disney did with its animated movies: many of those are based on old European tales or on works that had entered public domain.
- david38 4y ago
  Those characters were HUNDREDS of years old, not within the creator’s lifetime.
  - NhanH 4y ago
    Neither Walt Disney, Roy Disney (the other co-founder of Disney) or Ub Iwerks (the other creator of Mickey) were still alive in the past 50 years.
  - Teever 4y ago
    What I'm hearing is that you're interested in a copyright term that expires at the death of the author? While I don't think that goes far enough, I think it's an improvement over the current state. Let's do it.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    Is Walt Disney alive then? Or JRR Tolkien? Or A.A. Milne? Or...
  - eesmith 4y ago
    Yes, some were. But Pinocchio (the 1940 Disney movie) was based on the 1883 Italian children's novel "The Adventures of Pinocchio" by Carlo Collodi. Disney released it just after the copyright expired. (Copyright then was a 28-year initial term with a 28-year renewal = 56 years.) And "Song of the South" (the 1946 movie) is based the Uncle Remus stories by Joel Chandler Harris published in 1881, so entered the public domain about 8 years before the movie. I'm perfectly fine with a 56 year limit on copyright.
Teever 4y ago
> The Congress shall have Power [...] to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Copyright isn't about profit, it's about promoting the progress of science and useful arts. If you making profit induces progress on science and useful arts that's cool, but if it doesn't, society does not care. You aren't owed a profit from the ideas you have. Get that silly idea out of your head.
PoignardAzur 4y ago
Yup. Holding a copyright should be affordable for about 20 years. No person or company should still be holding the copyright for something that was made more than a world war ago.
- Eric_WVGG 4y ago
  The original American law was 14 years, plus an option for one 14 year renewal. Seems reasonable!
grishka 4y ago
As a matter of fact, you ARE allowed to copy anything I make or design, because I release all my projects under a public domain license. I despise the idea of copyright this much because of how dysfunctional and abused it is.
- ztrww 4y ago
  That might be arguably true to a degree nowadays. But not having well defined copyright and patent laws stifled innovation for hundreds of years.
  - grishka 4y ago
    And now having them, and them being abused, also stifles innovation.

So basically anything you make or design, I should be allowed to copy it as you get punished with higher and higher taxes to own it solely?

by Vaslo 4y ago

So basically anything you make or design, I should be allowed to copy it as you get punished with higher and higher taxes to own it solely?

Eric_WVGG 4y ago

Not “as”, it’s “or”

wetpaws 4y ago

Yes

mjmahone17 4y ago

Yes? The longer something is public for, the less it is “yours”: people start making it their own, whether through remixes and recreations or just stories they want to create. It is good for society to allow ideas that have permeated public consciousness to be built on top of without worrying about legal repercussions.

ztrww 4y ago
Or alternatively there is no more incentive to put any significant effort into creating anything new since anyone can just rehash something that someone else made for much cheaper…
- FractalParadigm 4y ago
  And yet, it already happens today. How many US companies invent something, just to be knocked-off 14-times over by various overseas entities within a year? It's not a once-in-a-while occurrence either, with virtually everything from electronics to fashion getting knocked-off very regularly with little/no repercussions.
Vaslo 4y ago
Sounds good. I'll let you spend all your valuable time creating things. I'll use that same time to do things I want like drinking beer by pool and playing video games. Then when you do all the hard work, I'll come in and use it. You just creating, I'll just keep relaxing and enjoying all your hard work.
- literallyWTF 4y ago
  This is quite literally not what the OP said. But ok I guess?
  - Vaslo 4y ago
    What did he say then. He basically said and I’ll say another way so others understand 1) You spend time creating a great idea for a character or story 2) You get a limited amount of time to capitalize on it 3) I have a multimillion dollar corp where I can take the idea and spend loads of money making it popular through new works I can capitalize on 4) Sorry original creator, it’s now in the public domain very shortly after so womp womp 5) Oh and by the way I am a multibillion dollar company and did the math and I can afford those taxes in the “saner world” that the individual cannot for a longer period, so…. Also works the other way where a small corp spends tons of capital to come up with an idea or story and now they just have to give it for free before they can recoup? Talk about stifling innovation
    - _aavaa_ 4y ago
      That's how things work now. You think having a copyright on something will matter if the multibillion dollar company fights you and drags out the legal process until you run out of money?
      - bdowling 4y ago
        A small creator doesn’t need a lot of money to sue a big corporate entity that infringes their work because (1) the statutory penalties for copyright infringement are intentionally high and (2) lawyers will take cases on a contingent fee basis if there’s a reasonable chance of winning.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      Context is important. We're talking about Disney the multi-trillion-dollar corp holding copyright for countless works for decades after the original creators died. Yes, in this case, resounding yes: the longer you hold on to something, the more you have to pay (exponentially, if possible). I doubt anyone is really arguing that a creator shouldn't benefit from their works. Mickey Mouse is almost 94 years old now. Guess what. Brothers Grimm published the 7th edition of their tales in 1857. The last of Brothers Grimm died in 1863. Walt Disney released Snow White in 1937, Cinderella in 1950, etc. But sure. Do tell us how we are not allowed to do anything about Mickey Mouse

sircastor 4y ago

After a reasonable period, yes. When a design, character, idea, enters public consciousness, it contributes and (hopefully) enlightens the community. While it should be easy and inexpensive for you to introduce that and gain from it early on, it should become more expensive as you gain more from it, and as it gains more value to the community. So much IP is deeply ingrained in our culture and is owned seemingly indefinitely by corporations. And there are plenty of examples of those corporations abusing their legal ownership to prevent the public from enjoying its adoption of that property.

dmitriid 4y ago

> So basically anything you make or design, I should be allowed to copy it Yes. Just like Disney did with its animated movies: many of those are based on old European tales or on works that had entered public domain.

david38 4y ago
Those characters were HUNDREDS of years old, not within the creator’s lifetime.
- NhanH 4y ago
  Neither Walt Disney, Roy Disney (the other co-founder of Disney) or Ub Iwerks (the other creator of Mickey) were still alive in the past 50 years.
- Teever 4y ago
  What I'm hearing is that you're interested in a copyright term that expires at the death of the author? While I don't think that goes far enough, I think it's an improvement over the current state. Let's do it.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  Is Walt Disney alive then? Or JRR Tolkien? Or A.A. Milne? Or...
- eesmith 4y ago
  Yes, some were. But Pinocchio (the 1940 Disney movie) was based on the 1883 Italian children's novel "The Adventures of Pinocchio" by Carlo Collodi. Disney released it just after the copyright expired. (Copyright then was a 28-year initial term with a 28-year renewal = 56 years.) And "Song of the South" (the 1946 movie) is based the Uncle Remus stories by Joel Chandler Harris published in 1881, so entered the public domain about 8 years before the movie. I'm perfectly fine with a 56 year limit on copyright.

Teever 4y ago

> The Congress shall have Power [...] to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Copyright isn't about profit, it's about promoting the progress of science and useful arts. If you making profit induces progress on science and useful arts that's cool, but if it doesn't, society does not care. You aren't owed a profit from the ideas you have. Get that silly idea out of your head.

PoignardAzur 4y ago

Yup. Holding a copyright should be affordable for about 20 years. No person or company should still be holding the copyright for something that was made more than a world war ago.

Eric_WVGG 4y ago
The original American law was 14 years, plus an option for one 14 year renewal. Seems reasonable!

grishka 4y ago

As a matter of fact, you ARE allowed to copy anything I make or design, because I release all my projects under a public domain license. I despise the idea of copyright this much because of how dysfunctional and abused it is.

ztrww 4y ago
That might be arguably true to a degree nowadays. But not having well defined copyright and patent laws stifled innovation for hundreds of years.
- grishka 4y ago
  And now having them, and them being abused, also stifles innovation.