7 ms·

Oh noes, we have to pay a few dollars for these things.

by javert 14y ago

ghshephard 14y ago
I suspect you are going to be downvoted into oblivion - So, on the faith that you aren't trolling, the issue isn't paying copyright holders for the intellectual property that they've created, and thereby incentivizing content creators to create more intellectual property. Nor, is the issue, that these people have a half-century government supported monopoly on their work. The issues are (A) that the expiration for copyrights (government supported monopolies) keeps getting moved further and further into the future, far beyond any date required to incent content creators, and (B) perhaps even worse, content that is completely orphaned, and is serving no commercial value to anyone, also can't be distributed because it's locked up on copyrights that nobody is interested in any more.
- javert 14y ago
  I'm not trolling. What makes you think that you should ever be able to take for free, something that someone else created? I think a content creator should be able to place any copyright terms on their work.
  - ComputerGuru 14y ago
    And then they die, and the estate doesn't know what the F they want to do with the IP and doesn't want to bother sorting it out, and it (legally) never sees the light of day thereafter. Copyrights EXPIRE for a reason. There isn't anyone (not in Hollywood, not in Congress, nowhere) that says copyrights should never, ever expire. It's a question of when.
    - javert 14y ago
      Fine, make it so they have to be renewed every year, but can be renewed ad infinitum. But that's not the actual debate about copyright that is taking place in society. In other words, the problem you're talking about is not the actual issue.
      - UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
        So someone should be rewarded just for being born into a family that happens to own the rights to a certain popular piece of content? Even if they themselves never did anything either creatively or in terms of hard work in their lives? Aren't you just suggesting a tax free way of passing money between generations of a family (as current inheritance is subject to taxation)? Also doesn't this kind of thing just discourage the creation of new artistic works? If there are tons of big popular individuals and companies, then how is the little guy meant to make a splash?
      - nathan_long 14y ago
        Please explain to me how many dollars I should personally chip in each year for the cost of running courts to protect your copyright claims, and what benefit I will get in return.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      Copyrights EXPIRE for a reason. There isn't anyone (not in Hollywood, not in Congress, nowhere) that says copyrights should never, ever expire. Maybe not now, but there certainly was: When I appeared before that committee of the House of Lords the chairman asked me what limit I would propose. I said, "Perpetuity." -- Mark Twain, http://www.bpmlegal.com/cotwain.html http://www.bpmlegal.com/cotwain.html Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress. -- Mary Bono, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#Support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#Su...
      - nathan_long 14y ago
        Good finds. However, whether some people want that really isn't pertinent. Sure, some creative people would like infinite copyright. Me, I'd like a pet giraffe. The question is should society spend lots of money and effort providing me with a giraffe and Mary Bono with indefinite copyright? Imagine talking to your next-door neighbor and saying "this is why you should chip in for the cost to enforce copyright forever". Can you do it? Will your neighbor really benefit?
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    "Copyright" is just another way of saying "Government enforced Monopoly over the distribution and copying of a particular intangible expression of an idea." We aren't talking about physical items - we're talking about expressions of idea's. I'm not a fan of monopolies, and I'm even less of a fan of government enforced ones, unless there is some overwhelming public good, such as utility's access to powerlines, coordinated use of the radio frequency, etc... In general, I'd like the government to stay out of managing my interaction with content creators, but, I will accept them granting a temporary monopoly to IP creators, so as to incent them to both (a) create, and (b) share their creations with me. That is the idea, of course, behind the Patent and Copyright. I certainly don't believe that just because (to use one of a million possible examples), Apple happens to have "patented" the page-turning-process in a particular way, that they forevermore have the rights to page-turning in that form. In the same way, I don't believe that someone who has written a story, forevermore has control over how that story may be used. Some reasonably temporary government enforced monopoly on the rights to copy/distribute is reasonable, but the US government has gone beyond what I think is reasonable. It's certainly gone beyond what was required to incentivize content creators to create and share their works with the public. And they've absolutely failed to manage the issues around orphaned works, which absolutely nobody benefits from being unable to copy/distribute. What has, instead happened, is that the legislation that has become the law of the land (and, to some degree, infected other countries' laws as well) - has been written by lobbyists from Hollywood, and, with little public debate or benefit, been rammed down the public's throat.
    - javert 14y ago
      I don't think see any important similarity between patent and copyright. I think that if I write something down, I should be able to say, "If you want to consume this content, you have to agree to certain conditions." I see copyright as the legal mechanism to enforce this. That's all there is to it. I wouldn't mind if there is an exception for orphaned works. People want to argue that what I'm suggesting would result in horrible consequences, but it just wouldn't. Take your story example. So what if I forevermore have control over a story I wrote? It just doesn't matter. So what if my decendants get rich selling it? Again, it just doesn't matter. But, hell, it's my story, I and the people I share it with should be able to institute any rules around its distribution that we mutually agree on. You talk about the government staying out of the interaction between content creators and consumers, but that is exactly my position, whereas you are arguing that the government can force content creators to cede their works to consumers after a certain time has elapsed. I don't think copyright can/should cover "an idea," only specific content.
  - zobzu 14y ago
    I'm gonna put a license agreement on each word you write, so that you pay its respectful owner's descendents. Sum up the copyright laws for anything someone else created (which is, basically, everything)
  - TruthElixirX 14y ago
    >What makes you think that you should ever be able to take for free, something that someone else created? Copyright infringement isn't theft.
  - paulhodge 14y ago
    If we were talking about an ordinary creation, like a physical object, then I'd agree with you. Creative works follow different rules though. The most successful ones become part of our shared culture and they permanently infect our brains. They become part of our jokes and our metaphors. You can't opt-out. The most extreme example is Happy Birthday. Because of copyright, you can't legally take a recording of your child's special day and share it with others. It's a ridiculous situation, especially for such a basic song. It's fine for the author to reap the rewards of their creation, but there needs to be some limit. 50 or so years is not asking too much.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    Allow me to pose a similar question: What makes you think that you should ever be able to grant third-party ownership of those synapses in my brain that encode a particular creative work? In an extreme sense, copyright is the ownership of portions of peoples' minds. Consider that this must be balanced against the desire to encourage creation.
  - belorn 14y ago
    Society would not work if copyright would extend indefinitely. We would not have access to words, math, or the basic stories produced by culture. Imitation is the key aspect of all creative works. As a training exercise, try find a work, any work, be that music, film, paintings or writing, and find one that is 100% original and has no inspiration from previous works. It is impossible, but you could always try. The work of William Shakespeare is well know for copying and incorporating its time cultural classics and stories. So, if someone can make a 100% original, 100% uninfluenced work, I am fine in giving that person indefinite copyright.
  - darkarmani 14y ago
    > What makes you think that you should ever be able to take for free, something that someone else created?...I think a content creator should be able to place any copyright terms on their work. When it isn't backed by natural scarcity, but through gov't regulation. People can currently keep control of copyrightable goods forever -- it's called not sharing the good. If they want to publish the good, there are natural consequences. These natural consequences are adjusted by gov't protection through copyright. I could just as well ask you why you think people should be able to take for free, gov't protection of their intangible works forever without ever giving back. Copyright is a gov't invented "right." The only reason the right is even offered is that there is supposed to be mutual benefit for the creators and the general public.
  - regularfry 14y ago
    > What makes you think that you should ever be able to take for free, something that someone else created? That you have been guiled into believing this is reasonable is a large part of the problem. Let me flip it around: > What makes you think that you should be able to restrain an idea for your own profit once it has been released? Both of these are extremist positions. The trick is in finding a middle position that society can agree on.
  - bluedanieru 14y ago
    Because I'm not an objectivist hack. Shame on HN for all the replies you've received. Your ignorant and wrong opinions do not deserve the air of legitimacy an honest discussion provides (and to be clear the honesty, in this case, is entirely one-sided).
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  Not only do long copyright terms not incent creativity, they actually diminish the motive for creative people. Once they get one well-paying license attributed to their ownership, they can live off of it the rest of their lives -- and not only the creator/rightsholder, but generally multiple generations of his progeny. In a fair-but-reasonable world of copyright terms, one would be free to hold a monopoly on his creation for several years and make plenty of money off of it (in some cases, more money than anyone could need), but if a dependence on the government-granted monopoly was still important to the rightsholder after 10-15 years, he would be incentivized to create new stuff. His progeny would also be so incentivized, instead of living off their forefathers' work for 3+ generations and never needing to contribute anything themselves. This also means that works can enter the public domain while they're still relevant; with reasonable copyright terms, Star Wars would be entering the public domain. There are plenty of people who can remember Star Wars' opening night ... how many still living can remember and appreciate the opening of The Seven-Year Itch?
beedogs 14y ago
Oh noes, you are completely ignorant of the original intent of copyright.
tsotha 14y ago
Maybe so, but why should we, given that the original content creators are long dead?
njharman 14y ago
After granting artificial monopoly for many, many years, why should we pay anything? It was an agreement, for a limited time for the purpose of promoting art and science, not profit. Copyright holders owe us, it's time they started paying. Also issue is mostly about access and availability, not cost. Our culture is being locked away from us.
ghshephard 14y ago
More succinctly: In the majority of these cases there is nobody to pay a few dollars to. They are orphaned.

Oh noes, we have to pay a few dollars for these things.

by javert 14y ago

Oh noes, we have to pay a few dollars for these things.

I suspect you are going to be downvoted into oblivion - So, on the faith that you aren't trolling, the issue isn't paying copyright holders for the intellectual property that they've created, and thereby incentivizing content creators to create more intellectual property. Nor, is the issue, that these people have a half-century government supported monopoly on their work. The issues are (A) that the expiration for copyrights (government supported monopolies) keeps getting moved further and further into the future, far beyond any date required to incent content creators, and (B) perhaps even worse, content that is completely orphaned, and is serving no commercial value to anyone, also can't be distributed because it's locked up on copyrights that nobody is interested in any more.

javert 14y ago
I'm not trolling. What makes you think that you should ever be able to take for free, something that someone else created? I think a content creator should be able to place any copyright terms on their work.
- ComputerGuru 14y ago
  And then they die, and the estate doesn't know what the F they want to do with the IP and doesn't want to bother sorting it out, and it (legally) never sees the light of day thereafter. Copyrights EXPIRE for a reason. There isn't anyone (not in Hollywood, not in Congress, nowhere) that says copyrights should never, ever expire. It's a question of when.
  - javert 14y ago
    Fine, make it so they have to be renewed every year, but can be renewed ad infinitum. But that's not the actual debate about copyright that is taking place in society. In other words, the problem you're talking about is not the actual issue.
    - UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
      So someone should be rewarded just for being born into a family that happens to own the rights to a certain popular piece of content? Even if they themselves never did anything either creatively or in terms of hard work in their lives? Aren't you just suggesting a tax free way of passing money between generations of a family (as current inheritance is subject to taxation)? Also doesn't this kind of thing just discourage the creation of new artistic works? If there are tons of big popular individuals and companies, then how is the little guy meant to make a splash?
    - nathan_long 14y ago
      Please explain to me how many dollars I should personally chip in each year for the cost of running courts to protect your copyright claims, and what benefit I will get in return.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Copyrights EXPIRE for a reason. There isn't anyone (not in Hollywood, not in Congress, nowhere) that says copyrights should never, ever expire. Maybe not now, but there certainly was: When I appeared before that committee of the House of Lords the chairman asked me what limit I would propose. I said, "Perpetuity." -- Mark Twain, http://www.bpmlegal.com/cotwain.html http://www.bpmlegal.com/cotwain.html Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress. -- Mary Bono, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#Support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#Su...
    - nathan_long 14y ago
      Good finds. However, whether some people want that really isn't pertinent. Sure, some creative people would like infinite copyright. Me, I'd like a pet giraffe. The question is should society spend lots of money and effort providing me with a giraffe and Mary Bono with indefinite copyright? Imagine talking to your next-door neighbor and saying "this is why you should chip in for the cost to enforce copyright forever". Can you do it? Will your neighbor really benefit?
- ghshephard 14y ago
  "Copyright" is just another way of saying "Government enforced Monopoly over the distribution and copying of a particular intangible expression of an idea." We aren't talking about physical items - we're talking about expressions of idea's. I'm not a fan of monopolies, and I'm even less of a fan of government enforced ones, unless there is some overwhelming public good, such as utility's access to powerlines, coordinated use of the radio frequency, etc... In general, I'd like the government to stay out of managing my interaction with content creators, but, I will accept them granting a temporary monopoly to IP creators, so as to incent them to both (a) create, and (b) share their creations with me. That is the idea, of course, behind the Patent and Copyright. I certainly don't believe that just because (to use one of a million possible examples), Apple happens to have "patented" the page-turning-process in a particular way, that they forevermore have the rights to page-turning in that form. In the same way, I don't believe that someone who has written a story, forevermore has control over how that story may be used. Some reasonably temporary government enforced monopoly on the rights to copy/distribute is reasonable, but the US government has gone beyond what I think is reasonable. It's certainly gone beyond what was required to incentivize content creators to create and share their works with the public. And they've absolutely failed to manage the issues around orphaned works, which absolutely nobody benefits from being unable to copy/distribute. What has, instead happened, is that the legislation that has become the law of the land (and, to some degree, infected other countries' laws as well) - has been written by lobbyists from Hollywood, and, with little public debate or benefit, been rammed down the public's throat.
  - javert 14y ago
    I don't think see any important similarity between patent and copyright. I think that if I write something down, I should be able to say, "If you want to consume this content, you have to agree to certain conditions." I see copyright as the legal mechanism to enforce this. That's all there is to it. I wouldn't mind if there is an exception for orphaned works. People want to argue that what I'm suggesting would result in horrible consequences, but it just wouldn't. Take your story example. So what if I forevermore have control over a story I wrote? It just doesn't matter. So what if my decendants get rich selling it? Again, it just doesn't matter. But, hell, it's my story, I and the people I share it with should be able to institute any rules around its distribution that we mutually agree on. You talk about the government staying out of the interaction between content creators and consumers, but that is exactly my position, whereas you are arguing that the government can force content creators to cede their works to consumers after a certain time has elapsed. I don't think copyright can/should cover "an idea," only specific content.
- zobzu 14y ago
  I'm gonna put a license agreement on each word you write, so that you pay its respectful owner's descendents. Sum up the copyright laws for anything someone else created (which is, basically, everything)
- TruthElixirX 14y ago
  >What makes you think that you should ever be able to take for free, something that someone else created? Copyright infringement isn't theft.
- paulhodge 14y ago
  If we were talking about an ordinary creation, like a physical object, then I'd agree with you. Creative works follow different rules though. The most successful ones become part of our shared culture and they permanently infect our brains. They become part of our jokes and our metaphors. You can't opt-out. The most extreme example is Happy Birthday. Because of copyright, you can't legally take a recording of your child's special day and share it with others. It's a ridiculous situation, especially for such a basic song. It's fine for the author to reap the rewards of their creation, but there needs to be some limit. 50 or so years is not asking too much.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  Allow me to pose a similar question: What makes you think that you should ever be able to grant third-party ownership of those synapses in my brain that encode a particular creative work? In an extreme sense, copyright is the ownership of portions of peoples' minds. Consider that this must be balanced against the desire to encourage creation.
- belorn 14y ago
  Society would not work if copyright would extend indefinitely. We would not have access to words, math, or the basic stories produced by culture. Imitation is the key aspect of all creative works. As a training exercise, try find a work, any work, be that music, film, paintings or writing, and find one that is 100% original and has no inspiration from previous works. It is impossible, but you could always try. The work of William Shakespeare is well know for copying and incorporating its time cultural classics and stories. So, if someone can make a 100% original, 100% uninfluenced work, I am fine in giving that person indefinite copyright.
- darkarmani 14y ago
  > What makes you think that you should ever be able to take for free, something that someone else created?...I think a content creator should be able to place any copyright terms on their work. When it isn't backed by natural scarcity, but through gov't regulation. People can currently keep control of copyrightable goods forever -- it's called not sharing the good. If they want to publish the good, there are natural consequences. These natural consequences are adjusted by gov't protection through copyright. I could just as well ask you why you think people should be able to take for free, gov't protection of their intangible works forever without ever giving back. Copyright is a gov't invented "right." The only reason the right is even offered is that there is supposed to be mutual benefit for the creators and the general public.
- regularfry 14y ago
  > What makes you think that you should ever be able to take for free, something that someone else created? That you have been guiled into believing this is reasonable is a large part of the problem. Let me flip it around: > What makes you think that you should be able to restrain an idea for your own profit once it has been released? Both of these are extremist positions. The trick is in finding a middle position that society can agree on.
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  Because I'm not an objectivist hack. Shame on HN for all the replies you've received. Your ignorant and wrong opinions do not deserve the air of legitimacy an honest discussion provides (and to be clear the honesty, in this case, is entirely one-sided).
cookiecaper 14y ago
Not only do long copyright terms not incent creativity, they actually diminish the motive for creative people. Once they get one well-paying license attributed to their ownership, they can live off of it the rest of their lives -- and not only the creator/rightsholder, but generally multiple generations of his progeny. In a fair-but-reasonable world of copyright terms, one would be free to hold a monopoly on his creation for several years and make plenty of money off of it (in some cases, more money than anyone could need), but if a dependence on the government-granted monopoly was still important to the rightsholder after 10-15 years, he would be incentivized to create new stuff. His progeny would also be so incentivized, instead of living off their forefathers' work for 3+ generations and never needing to contribute anything themselves. This also means that works can enter the public domain while they're still relevant; with reasonable copyright terms, Star Wars would be entering the public domain. There are plenty of people who can remember Star Wars' opening night ... how many still living can remember and appreciate the opening of The Seven-Year Itch?

beedogs 14y ago

Oh noes, you are completely ignorant of the original intent of copyright.

tsotha 14y ago

Maybe so, but why should we, given that the original content creators are long dead?

njharman 14y ago

After granting artificial monopoly for many, many years, why should we pay anything? It was an agreement, for a limited time for the purpose of promoting art and science, not profit. Copyright holders owe us, it's time they started paying. Also issue is mostly about access and availability, not cost. Our culture is being locked away from us.

ghshephard 14y ago

More succinctly: In the majority of these cases there is nobody to pay a few dollars to. They are orphaned.