4 ms·

Unlimited copyright terms are eroding the basis of society (the Constitution). 5 to 10 years would be reasonable.

by natesm 15y ago

javert 15y ago
Yeah, because I just can't stand to pay an enormous amount like $10 or $20 for that book or album I really have to have. I think it's unreasonable to expect people who make things to be able to profit from them for more than 5 years. Hell, why don't we make all property expire after 5 or 10 years? Please don't take the sarcasm personally; it was just the best way to illustrate my point.
- rhizome 15y ago
  Which part is the sarcasm?
- 18pfsmt 15y ago
  It's actually quite interesting to think about with respect to real property. For example, many Native American tribes couldn't conceive of the idea that one person could own the land; it simply didn't match their mental model. As a result, they ended up ceding, practically, the entire lower 48 states to the European immigrants.
  - TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
    That's not quite true. Understanding the Native Americans from an anthropological point of view indicated the Land owned them. The Land provided food, water, shelter, warmth, entertainment, animals, and other things. The trade of Manhattan for wampum beads is a perfect example: The European thought he got a killer deal because an island was worth far more than those beads. The Native thought, 'the land will be here after he dies, as he belongs to the land'. The native got a better deal because it wasn't a trade. Native Americans of all the tribes had a very strong sense of ownership. If that was not the case, the Natives would have not signed treaties indicating that this is "X's territory". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp
- Splenivore 15y ago
  Most property has value without artificial legal limitations. I agree that 5-10 years is probably too short of a period for intellectual property to be protected. Honestly, putting an arbitrary span of time on the duration is a suboptimal way of accomplishing the goals of copyright law. Why not protect an artist’s creation as long as he or she is alive, and then release it into the public domain upon his or her death? One of the main problems with the current system is that corporations (e.g. Disney) can monopolize culturally-significant works for decades after their creator’s death.
  - javert 15y ago
    One of the main problems with the current system is that corporations (e.g. Disney) can monopolize culturally-significant works for decades after their creator’s death. So? How is it a problem that Disney has a monopoly on Pocahontas or Aladdin?
    - jacquesm 15y ago
      > How is it a problem that Disney has a monopoly on Pocahontas or Aladdin? Because both of those already existed long before Disney 'reinvented' them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin
      - waterlesscloud 15y ago
        You can still tell and sell stories about them. It's done all the time. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing so. You can't tell a story about Disney's Pocahontas or Aladdin, true. But you can about your own version of those characters.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      > How is it a problem that Disney has a monopoly on Pocahontas or Aladdin? Because if you try to tell any of those stories today, you'll have Disney's lawyers knocking on your door (if not the FBI knocking down your door). And don't forget those stories were already old when Walt Disney was a little boy.
- alextgordon 15y ago
  It's not like it's unprecedented. Patents expire after 20 years. Many people and organizations get very good use out of that 20 year term. I'm not sure why there's such a disparity between patents (which cost thousands of dollars and expire after 20 years), trademarks (which cost thousands of dollars, and have to be actively defended), and copyright (which costs nothing, is automatic, and expires after your grandchildren are dead).
  - javert 15y ago
    The difference is as follows. Patents are applications of scientific discoveries. Other people are likely to make the same discoveries and want to apply them in a similar way, and that's legitimate. Copyright covers things that are purely creations of the author. The author holding a copyright on something doesn't prevent or restrict anyone, except people who want to directly use the copyrighted work, which they wouldn't have come up with anyway (e.g. even if I write a novel about wizards, it would not be Harry Potter).
- natesm 15y ago
  > Yeah, because I just can't stand to pay an enormous amount like $10 or $20 for that book or album I really have to have. This isn't about listening to something or reading something. It's about the ability to remix and build upon it. > I think it's unreasonable to expect people who make things to be able to profit from them for more than 5 years. It doesn't matter, because most people don't profit from their works after 5 years, if they ever profit from it at all. The current law helps the Disneys and bestselling authors and has little to no effect on small, independent creators. I don't think we should optimize for corporations, I think we should optimize for everyone being able to reproduce, distribute and build upon their culture - with a period of potential financial motivation to kickstart the creation of new cultural artifacts. If you're still living off your work 5 years on, you're probably already rich. Girl Talk's music is literally illegal because his instrument comes with a license agreement. What if Stratocasters had come with one? > Hell, why don't we make all property expire after 5 or 10 years? This makes no sense. At all. Physical property and my culture are not comparable.
  - batista 15y ago
    This isn't about listening to something or reading something. It's about the ability to remix and build upon it. Yes, those pirate bay users are all about remixing and building upon stuff... /s How about inventing something new?
    - chc 15y ago
      There is nothing new under the sun. Nearly everything is a remix of older ideas. Even many of Shakespeare's plays were retellings of popular contemporary stories — we wouldn't have Romeo & Juliet if not for the less copyright-crazy era that he lived in. Your suggestion would work better if it were in response to "20 years isn't long enough for a copyright term."
      - javert 15y ago
        we wouldn't have Romeo & Juliet if not for the less copyright-crazy era that he lived in Nonsense. It's still not possible to copyright the idea of a "love story involving two feuding families," or something. You can't copyright ideas.

Unlimited copyright terms are eroding the basis of society (the Constitution). 5 to 10 years would be reasonable.

by natesm 15y ago

Unlimited copyright terms are eroding the basis of society (the Constitution). 5 to 10 years would be reasonable.

Yeah, because I just can't stand to pay an enormous amount like $10 or $20 for that book or album I really have to have. I think it's unreasonable to expect people who make things to be able to profit from them for more than 5 years. Hell, why don't we make all property expire after 5 or 10 years? Please don't take the sarcasm personally; it was just the best way to illustrate my point.

rhizome 15y ago
Which part is the sarcasm?
18pfsmt 15y ago
It's actually quite interesting to think about with respect to real property. For example, many Native American tribes couldn't conceive of the idea that one person could own the land; it simply didn't match their mental model. As a result, they ended up ceding, practically, the entire lower 48 states to the European immigrants.
- TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
  That's not quite true. Understanding the Native Americans from an anthropological point of view indicated the Land owned them. The Land provided food, water, shelter, warmth, entertainment, animals, and other things. The trade of Manhattan for wampum beads is a perfect example: The European thought he got a killer deal because an island was worth far more than those beads. The Native thought, 'the land will be here after he dies, as he belongs to the land'. The native got a better deal because it wasn't a trade. Native Americans of all the tribes had a very strong sense of ownership. If that was not the case, the Natives would have not signed treaties indicating that this is "X's territory". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp
Splenivore 15y ago
Most property has value without artificial legal limitations. I agree that 5-10 years is probably too short of a period for intellectual property to be protected. Honestly, putting an arbitrary span of time on the duration is a suboptimal way of accomplishing the goals of copyright law. Why not protect an artist’s creation as long as he or she is alive, and then release it into the public domain upon his or her death? One of the main problems with the current system is that corporations (e.g. Disney) can monopolize culturally-significant works for decades after their creator’s death.
- javert 15y ago
  One of the main problems with the current system is that corporations (e.g. Disney) can monopolize culturally-significant works for decades after their creator’s death. So? How is it a problem that Disney has a monopoly on Pocahontas or Aladdin?
  - jacquesm 15y ago
    > How is it a problem that Disney has a monopoly on Pocahontas or Aladdin? Because both of those already existed long before Disney 'reinvented' them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin
    - waterlesscloud 15y ago
      You can still tell and sell stories about them. It's done all the time. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing so. You can't tell a story about Disney's Pocahontas or Aladdin, true. But you can about your own version of those characters.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > How is it a problem that Disney has a monopoly on Pocahontas or Aladdin? Because if you try to tell any of those stories today, you'll have Disney's lawyers knocking on your door (if not the FBI knocking down your door). And don't forget those stories were already old when Walt Disney was a little boy.
alextgordon 15y ago
It's not like it's unprecedented. Patents expire after 20 years. Many people and organizations get very good use out of that 20 year term. I'm not sure why there's such a disparity between patents (which cost thousands of dollars and expire after 20 years), trademarks (which cost thousands of dollars, and have to be actively defended), and copyright (which costs nothing, is automatic, and expires after your grandchildren are dead).
- javert 15y ago
  The difference is as follows. Patents are applications of scientific discoveries. Other people are likely to make the same discoveries and want to apply them in a similar way, and that's legitimate. Copyright covers things that are purely creations of the author. The author holding a copyright on something doesn't prevent or restrict anyone, except people who want to directly use the copyrighted work, which they wouldn't have come up with anyway (e.g. even if I write a novel about wizards, it would not be Harry Potter).
natesm 15y ago
> Yeah, because I just can't stand to pay an enormous amount like $10 or $20 for that book or album I really have to have. This isn't about listening to something or reading something. It's about the ability to remix and build upon it. > I think it's unreasonable to expect people who make things to be able to profit from them for more than 5 years. It doesn't matter, because most people don't profit from their works after 5 years, if they ever profit from it at all. The current law helps the Disneys and bestselling authors and has little to no effect on small, independent creators. I don't think we should optimize for corporations, I think we should optimize for everyone being able to reproduce, distribute and build upon their culture - with a period of potential financial motivation to kickstart the creation of new cultural artifacts. If you're still living off your work 5 years on, you're probably already rich. Girl Talk's music is literally illegal because his instrument comes with a license agreement. What if Stratocasters had come with one? > Hell, why don't we make all property expire after 5 or 10 years? This makes no sense. At all. Physical property and my culture are not comparable.
- batista 15y ago
  This isn't about listening to something or reading something. It's about the ability to remix and build upon it. Yes, those pirate bay users are all about remixing and building upon stuff... /s How about inventing something new?
  - chc 15y ago
    There is nothing new under the sun. Nearly everything is a remix of older ideas. Even many of Shakespeare's plays were retellings of popular contemporary stories — we wouldn't have Romeo & Juliet if not for the less copyright-crazy era that he lived in. Your suggestion would work better if it were in response to "20 years isn't long enough for a copyright term."
    - javert 15y ago
      we wouldn't have Romeo & Juliet if not for the less copyright-crazy era that he lived in Nonsense. It's still not possible to copyright the idea of a "love story involving two feuding families," or something. You can't copyright ideas.