4 ms·

> What's the point of making something of lasting value if > someone else can just take it after 30 years? Is that really what scholars of behavioural economy

> What's the point of making something of lasting value if > someone else can just take it after 30 years? Is that really what scholars of behavioural economy and human psychology would tell us motivates makers to make things?

sp332 14y ago
Not really, but it is the stated purpose of copyright in the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Purpose_of_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...
- mtgx 14y ago
  Copyright was supposed to be 14 years - not 30, and not 100. Your argument doesn't make sense. You can make something of extreme value and still be able to make a lot of money on it for 14 years. Don't forget copyright was also supposed to return the works into public domain. Don't think of it just frm the point of view of an author. Piracy has arisen as "competition" to the much crippled copyright system.
  - sp332 14y ago
    rayiner said "I don't think there is any good reason to have a copyright term longer than 30 years." The reason for having a 30 year term would be the same as the reasons for having a 14 year term. Of course the tradeoffs would move around a bit and it's debatable whether there would be a net gain or loss.
    - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
      I'm confused. Are you suggesting that since rayiner doesn't think there is a good reason to have the copyright last longer than 30 years then there is no good reason for it to last longer than 14 years... therefore there is no need for copyright at all? I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Among those that feel copyright has its use, there is going to be differing opinions of just how long that copyright should be. But I think that group would all agree it should be greater than 0 (or else they would not be in that "copyright is useful" group at all). Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your argument. If so, I apologize.
      - sp332 14y ago
        That isn't really what I meant. I meant that, even though the downside might outweigh the upside, there is some upside, some good reason, to have a 30-year copyright term.
        jack-r-abbit 14y ago
        Got it. Thanks. Some length of copyright term is good. I don't have any strong opinions on where the limit should be. But I do believe it should be greater than 0.
    - mtgx 14y ago
      Watchi these videos, and hopefully you'll understand why having 14 years for copyright is not the same as 30 or 100 years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbSt0QG7mY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbSt0QG7mY
- betterunix 14y ago
  The stated purpose is to ensure public access to creative work, not necessarily to promote the creation of such work in the first place. Copyrights actually do little to promote broad categories of creative work, much of it being the most important work for society: scientific research. Until the 1970s, copyrights were necessary to ensure that creative work could be disseminated by industrial copying operations, whose profits were dependent on having monopoly positions. These days, industrial equipment is not needed to produce large numbers of copies of creative works, and copyrights have done little to promote more modern and vastly superior methods (such as the one you used to read this comment that I am writing).

sp332 14y ago

Not really, but it is the stated purpose of copyright in the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Purpose_of_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...

mtgx 14y ago
Copyright was supposed to be 14 years - not 30, and not 100. Your argument doesn't make sense. You can make something of extreme value and still be able to make a lot of money on it for 14 years. Don't forget copyright was also supposed to return the works into public domain. Don't think of it just frm the point of view of an author. Piracy has arisen as "competition" to the much crippled copyright system.
- sp332 14y ago
  rayiner said "I don't think there is any good reason to have a copyright term longer than 30 years." The reason for having a 30 year term would be the same as the reasons for having a 14 year term. Of course the tradeoffs would move around a bit and it's debatable whether there would be a net gain or loss.
  - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
    I'm confused. Are you suggesting that since rayiner doesn't think there is a good reason to have the copyright last longer than 30 years then there is no good reason for it to last longer than 14 years... therefore there is no need for copyright at all? I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Among those that feel copyright has its use, there is going to be differing opinions of just how long that copyright should be. But I think that group would all agree it should be greater than 0 (or else they would not be in that "copyright is useful" group at all). Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your argument. If so, I apologize.
    - sp332 14y ago
      That isn't really what I meant. I meant that, even though the downside might outweigh the upside, there is some upside, some good reason, to have a 30-year copyright term.
      - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
        Got it. Thanks. Some length of copyright term is good. I don't have any strong opinions on where the limit should be. But I do believe it should be greater than 0.
  - mtgx 14y ago
    Watchi these videos, and hopefully you'll understand why having 14 years for copyright is not the same as 30 or 100 years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbSt0QG7mY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbSt0QG7mY
betterunix 14y ago
The stated purpose is to ensure public access to creative work, not necessarily to promote the creation of such work in the first place. Copyrights actually do little to promote broad categories of creative work, much of it being the most important work for society: scientific research. Until the 1970s, copyrights were necessary to ensure that creative work could be disseminated by industrial copying operations, whose profits were dependent on having monopoly positions. These days, industrial equipment is not needed to produce large numbers of copies of creative works, and copyrights have done little to promote more modern and vastly superior methods (such as the one you used to read this comment that I am writing).