5 ms·

Can someone make the argument about why should Disney be forced to give up copyright to Mickey Mouse? Or The Beatles to the music they created?

crpatino 14y ago
Because the creations are presumably so good that will remain valuable long after the authors or any kin they'd personally care about are dead.
seabee 14y ago
Because releasing it into the public domain would benefit people more than it hurts Disney? That's not the right question to ask anyway. Copyright only exists insomuch as government grants it - thus they can take it away if they please, or after an arbitrary duration. You should really ask how long is reasonable for a creator's work to be protected, and just how many generations of his descendants should inherit that right.
orionblastar 14y ago
Our founding fathers wanted to encourage competition and innovation. Copyright was given as a temporary protection of works for the owner, and after a certain amount of time the copyright fell into the public domain and then anyone could use it for free. This allowed small businesses and individuals to be able to compete with the copyright holder, and encourage the copyright holder to keep innovating new copyrights as the old ones expired. But with the current system, copyrights never expire, and copyright holders don't innovate like they used to do. As a result our economy has gotten worse, and unemployment keeps going up, and the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is denied. The US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 has been violated by these modern copyright laws. And I quote: "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."
- OGinparadise 14y ago
  Personally I see patents and copyrights as different, very different (I know that the expiration time are different too). There's a huge difference in innovation and benefit to the society when it comes to a Viagra patent and Mickey Mouse. It's my opinion of course.
darkarmani 14y ago
They were given the copyright only with the limitation that it would expire someday. You have the argument backwards. Can any one make the argument why we should give Disney an unlimited monopoly on the content they create? Why should we pay for courts and systems to enforce their artificial scarcity, if they cannot uphold their side of the agreement?
- OGinparadise 14y ago
  "They were given the copyright only with the limitation that it would expire someday. You have the argument backwards." Maybe not, if it's something I invent or write, why does someone have to give me rights over it? They shouldn't take them instead... "shall not." I understand how the constitution is written but
  - darkarmani 14y ago
    > why does someone have to give me rights over it? They don't have to give you rights over it. You already get all of the natural rights associated with it. What you don't get is the additional right to prevent other people from using it or copying it until a government gives you that right. Restricting other people is an artificial construct and that is enforced by the government. This is artificial scarcity unlike property rights where ownership naturally deprives someone else of the property. Ideally, the government only grants you a limited (time) monopoly in exchange for incentivizing people to create. If we aren't going to get anything in exchange, why should we grant you additional rights?
    - OGinparadise 14y ago
      "What you don't get is the additional right to prevent other people from using it or copying it until a government gives you that right." If you can copy my code /book or whatnot what rights do I have? Almost none. If there was no government, I could kill you for it to maybe scare others. > "This is artificial scarcity unlike property rights where ownership naturally deprives someone else of the property." Can I use your house while you are away? On the nightstand, I'll leave $5 or whatever the wear and tear might be for the night. Or "clone" Coca Cola? They can keep theirs

crpatino 14y ago

Because the creations are presumably so good that will remain valuable long after the authors or any kin they'd personally care about are dead.

seabee 14y ago

Because releasing it into the public domain would benefit people more than it hurts Disney? That's not the right question to ask anyway. Copyright only exists insomuch as government grants it - thus they can take it away if they please, or after an arbitrary duration. You should really ask how long is reasonable for a creator's work to be protected, and just how many generations of his descendants should inherit that right.

orionblastar 14y ago

Our founding fathers wanted to encourage competition and innovation. Copyright was given as a temporary protection of works for the owner, and after a certain amount of time the copyright fell into the public domain and then anyone could use it for free. This allowed small businesses and individuals to be able to compete with the copyright holder, and encourage the copyright holder to keep innovating new copyrights as the old ones expired. But with the current system, copyrights never expire, and copyright holders don't innovate like they used to do. As a result our economy has gotten worse, and unemployment keeps going up, and the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is denied. The US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 has been violated by these modern copyright laws. And I quote: "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."

OGinparadise 14y ago
Personally I see patents and copyrights as different, very different (I know that the expiration time are different too). There's a huge difference in innovation and benefit to the society when it comes to a Viagra patent and Mickey Mouse. It's my opinion of course.

darkarmani 14y ago

They were given the copyright only with the limitation that it would expire someday. You have the argument backwards. Can any one make the argument why we should give Disney an unlimited monopoly on the content they create? Why should we pay for courts and systems to enforce their artificial scarcity, if they cannot uphold their side of the agreement?

OGinparadise 14y ago
"They were given the copyright only with the limitation that it would expire someday. You have the argument backwards." Maybe not, if it's something I invent or write, why does someone have to give me rights over it? They shouldn't take them instead... "shall not." I understand how the constitution is written but
- darkarmani 14y ago
  > why does someone have to give me rights over it? They don't have to give you rights over it. You already get all of the natural rights associated with it. What you don't get is the additional right to prevent other people from using it or copying it until a government gives you that right. Restricting other people is an artificial construct and that is enforced by the government. This is artificial scarcity unlike property rights where ownership naturally deprives someone else of the property. Ideally, the government only grants you a limited (time) monopoly in exchange for incentivizing people to create. If we aren't going to get anything in exchange, why should we grant you additional rights?
  - OGinparadise 14y ago
    "What you don't get is the additional right to prevent other people from using it or copying it until a government gives you that right." If you can copy my code /book or whatnot what rights do I have? Almost none. If there was no government, I could kill you for it to maybe scare others. > "This is artificial scarcity unlike property rights where ownership naturally deprives someone else of the property." Can I use your house while you are away? On the nightstand, I'll leave $5 or whatever the wear and tear might be for the night. Or "clone" Coca Cola? They can keep theirs