5 ms·

Here's what's insane: Copyright Protect: is free and lasts 100+ years. Patent Protection: cost $5,000-$10,000 and lasts 20 years. Personally I think Copyrigh

Here's what's insane: Copyright Protect: is free and lasts 100+ years. Patent Protection: cost $5,000-$10,000 and lasts 20 years. Personally I think Copyright should last only 50 years. I'm open to a conversation about why that's fair or unfair. Please feel free to convince me to increase or decrease that number. I think 50 years is fair enough.

headclone 13y ago
One could claim that if an artist makes a song when they're 25, they're still entitled to some cut of any profits made on its sale when they're 75. I think that's fair, and the life + x years rule allows an artist to enjoy the full benefits of their work, and eventually handing it over to the public after they're gone.
- snogglethorpe 13y ago
  OTOH, the "happy birthday" song is really, really, simple and short (the text contains five words, and the music is only slightly more complex). It's valued not because of any inherent value, but because of its "cultural attachment" (a phrase I just made up, don't shoot me...), which the author has had nothing to do with. Intuitively it seems like something that's extremely simple should have less of a government-granted monopoly than something that's extremely long and complex ("War and Peace"). Five years for something like this, maybe? That lets ditty-writers cash in on any fortuitous fads they manage to stumble into, but doesn't bog down our culture in molasses...
  - nness 13y ago
    I think this approach actually disregards the original purpose of copyrights. To judge its importance before it has the opportunity to realise any cultural impact would be a pretty biased approach; since word length, or duration, or simplicity of the music, doesn't necessary mean it won't have an impact, as "Happy Birthday" clearly shows.
    - snogglethorpe 13y ago
      But as I said, "cultural impact" in this case seems to really have little to with any inherent value in the song, and stems mostly from the actions of society rather than the song's author. Why should the author reap the benefits, at the expense of society, when the author didn't actually contribute much?
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        What a ridiculous argument. The author contributed the tune, It's a cheesy tune, but it's clearly enormously popular. You're basically arguing that if enough people like something they should just get it for free. Now copyright terms are a separate issue, I think they should be substantially abridged. I'm just pointing out that society hasn't taken any action that could be construed as authorship.
        snogglethorpe 13y ago
        > The author contributed the tune, It's a cheesy tune, but it's clearly enormously popular. You're basically arguing that if enough people like something they should just get it for free. I'm saying that the reason why it's popular doesn't obviously have much to with the tune itself. Popularity is often pretty arbitrary. This sort of intellectual property law is intended to (1) provide incentive for people to put the work into being creative, because that benefits society, and (2) satisfy intuitive notions of fairness (if somebody puts a great deal of effort into something, people feel that he "deserves" some reward from that). For trivial works, neither (1) nor (2) is really justified: There's no significant effort to reward, society does not benefit significantly from it (because in such cases popularity does not stem from the work itself, any other work would have served just as well), and intuitive notions of fairness do not tend to consider great reward from little effort as justified.
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  I don't see why a lifelong monopoly is required for the artist to receive the "full benefits" of their work. This discussion is about what legal options should be available to retain those benefits. Here's the thing with copyright: it's a bargain between the public (IP consumers) and the authors (IP creators). The public wants new creative works and has recognized that some legal protection is needed to make these profitable, but when you share an idea and the public adopts it into their culture, it is no longer the author's thing. We grant a limited monopoly on copyrighted works so that authors can make a living and produce good stuff for us, and authors accept this aware that their publication will eventually into the public domain for free sharing, cultural commentary, etc. First, it's important to recognize that a copyright is a monopoly. You don't technically need a copyright to make money -- it's just a temporary thing we provide to ensure that artists have ample time to recoup their investments. Original authors can continue to create products off of those IPs after the copyright has lapsed, and they can continue to sell and profit off of these; they just won't be able to stop anyone else from using the same IP. Second, the need for authors to be profitable is well recognized today, but the other end of the bargain is neglected. Ideas are free and they do not belong to people. "Intellectual property" is really a misnomer -- ideas cannot be held or controlled like property can. They have a very different nature. If your creation gets any semblance of recognition, people will modify, alter, suggest, revise, expand, and otherwise build upon your ideas. When you publish something, it's not just yours anymore. Expansion and development and commentary are natural human activities that are impossible to prevent. Sharing and communication is everything to us, and copyrights restrict this free osmosis in a rather severe fashion. Copyright is conceived to ensure an author can be profitable, so that more art comes out. Long copyright terms are seriously harmful because instead of encouraging new development from creative persons and/or those close to them, a successful copyright holder will be provided ample money for several lifetimes, and the monopolistic grasp that forces ALL revenue to go into their pockets propagates through the generations (right now, some copyrights could last 200+ years). Meanwhile, innocent parties attempting to expand on the copyrighted material and share in that natural human impulse for discussion and improvement, potentially contributing major social value to this cultural element, are hounded and threatened by aggressive lawyers. Does this promote useful progress in science and the arts? Does this represent the bargain that is meant to be recognized when a copyright is granted? I don't think copyright should exceed 20 years. Ideally I'd like to see default 5-year terms with four optional 5-year extensions. This makes it so there is still plenty of opportunity to collect revenues that are beyond reasonable, but copyrighted material will lapse into the public domain sometime when someone still living will care about the contributions that others may make. It opens up a whole new world of cultural richness, encourages creativity in expansion of old properties and the development of new properties, allows the author to obtain huge financial benefit (which they can continue to compete for once the IP goes public domain), and is fair and courteous to the public's requirement that their culture not be held hostage by a bunch of suits (lawyers, executives). Again, I don't see why we need to perpetuate the myth that one useful positive contribution should entitle the contributor to a lifetime of exclusive control and revenue. That is not fair.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- rflrob 13y ago
  Ah, but Mickey Mouse also has trademark protection. So if Steamboat Willie entered the public domain, then I could put it up on YouTube, but I couldn't sell an unlicensed Mickey Mouse Tshirt, which I think is totally fair to Disney.
  - cookiecaper 13y ago
    Agree. I think Disney et al like to play up confusion on trademark v. copyright. Trademark protects corporate identities, brands, and icons, like Mickey Mouse in the context of a representative of an amusement and media company, and copyright protects whole non-trivial creative works, like "Steamboat Willie". Due to trademark protection, other companies couldn't use Mickey Mouse to create confusion, misrepresent themselves as associated with Disney, etc., but anyone (including Disney) could watch, disseminate, or modify early Disney films under any terms they saw fit.
- steve19 13y ago
  Uhhh, so it was ok for Disney to take the stories of the Brother Grimm, who in turn took them from people all over Western Europe, to remix and then copyright them, but it is not ok for someone to remix Micky Mouse? Why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_grimm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_grimm
venomsnake 13y ago
Copyright should last 5-10 tops. In the current digital world it is more than enough for monetization and we don't lack creation of artifacts which copyright was created to spur. So we may tone it down a bit.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- corin_ 13y ago
  I don't know what the correct answer with, because I sympathise with both sides in different cases, but I think it's definitely not as simple as saying "5-10 years is more than enough for monetisation". Should JK Rowling not have been receiving money from the first Harry Potter book (published in '97) for the last 6-11 years? Sure she's rich enough already... but why should she lose out on that money which she arguably earned? And not everyone gets rich in the first few years after publication. My mother is an author of children's books, and my grandfather was a composer - money still comes in (not to me, to my mother and her sister) now, many years after some work was written, but it's never been a huge amount, even at time of publication, yet alone now. I'm personally a fan of the (life + X) model, whereby it extends a little beyond the creator's death. I don't know what that X should be, though I do feel that the X=70years that we currently have in the UK is too long. But while the creator is alive, why should they not continue to earn money on their work?
  - cookiecaper 13y ago
    >Should JK Rowling not have been receiving money from the first Harry Potter book (published in '97) for the last 6-11 years? Sure she's rich enough already... but why should she lose out on that money which she arguably earned? She can continue to earn money by making a competitive product. A copyright is a short-term monopoly granted to ensure that authors can recoup expense before the rush comes in. It's not meant as anything more than that. Whatever she makes in the first five years since publication is all she "earns" simply by holding a copyright. The rest of her money must be earned by contributing further to the progress of science and useful arts (perhaps by writing a sequel, which would have its own copyright term...) and/or competing on the open market with everyone else. If the public takes the time to integrate your story into its culture, if they read your book and pore over the characters and develop their own interpretations and feelings, they should be able to share these commercially within a reasonable timeframe. When you publish something, it's not your own anymore. I think Joss Whedon had a cool quote from a reddit AMA a while back. It was something like "Art is not a pet that you keep forever, which follows you around loyally without criticism until the end of its days. Art is a child, and it grows up and moves out and talks back to you." The real quote is probably better, but that was the concept.
noloqy 13y ago
The first stated purpose of copyright in the US is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Keeping this in mind, first we can ask ourselves whether the current system does or does not significantly limit progress by disallowing derivative works. If the purpose of copyright is still the same as it was when it was first specified, then our goal is to optimize for progress, and for that we need to ask ourselves at least one more question: to what extent does the duration of copyright prevent or stimulate potential creators to create. I don't think Disney had the income of his grandchildren in mind when he first started drawing. Perhaps the purpose of copyright has since shifted towards a principal of fairness and compensation for efforts. If this is the case I wish it wasn't: in my opinion the goal of society should be for society to progress on several levels, including culturally and technologically - at this level we shouldn't be interested in the wealth of individuals or corporations.
mtgx 13y ago
It's too long. Both copyright and patents should be limited to a few years. In the case of patents, you could maybe have 20 years, but it would have to be an invention on which you worked 2-3 years on it, like say Andrea Rossi working on e-cat, or making a new drug. If we're talking about slide to unlock or similar stuff, then either ban such patents for good, or give them maybe 2 years at most.
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  Pharmaceutical patents need to be reworked. It's nice for pharma companies to be able to make money, but it's not acceptable to have life-saving drugs locked behind a paywall and indiscriminately allow people to die for two decades, based on any criteria which the patent holder may set up, just to make sure a corporation makes large profits on successful products. Don't mind patent terms on inventions that are non-essential, but we need to treat medicines differently. The public needs to recognize that IP protection is a gift we give authors to make their authorship more feasible, and that they cannot hold the life and health of either the populace or the culture hostage for their exclusive profitability.
  - jakejake 13y ago
    The flipside of that is drugs that simply don't get made. The clinical trials and approval process are so expensive. If there's not enough potential for profits then no company even bothers to research it. I do agree that big pharma goes too far with prices sometimes though.
fafner 13y ago
50 years would still be far too long. We shouldn't forget that we are talking about our cultural heritage. Which we are currently damaging by such extensive and draconian copyright law. I'd say 20 years would be good. That way the owner can in most cases still utilise the full commercial potential. But it still enters our cultural heritage fast enough to have value attached to it.

headclone 13y ago

One could claim that if an artist makes a song when they're 25, they're still entitled to some cut of any profits made on its sale when they're 75. I think that's fair, and the life + x years rule allows an artist to enjoy the full benefits of their work, and eventually handing it over to the public after they're gone.

snogglethorpe 13y ago
OTOH, the "happy birthday" song is really, really, simple and short (the text contains five words, and the music is only slightly more complex). It's valued not because of any inherent value, but because of its "cultural attachment" (a phrase I just made up, don't shoot me...), which the author has had nothing to do with. Intuitively it seems like something that's extremely simple should have less of a government-granted monopoly than something that's extremely long and complex ("War and Peace"). Five years for something like this, maybe? That lets ditty-writers cash in on any fortuitous fads they manage to stumble into, but doesn't bog down our culture in molasses...
- nness 13y ago
  I think this approach actually disregards the original purpose of copyrights. To judge its importance before it has the opportunity to realise any cultural impact would be a pretty biased approach; since word length, or duration, or simplicity of the music, doesn't necessary mean it won't have an impact, as "Happy Birthday" clearly shows.
  - snogglethorpe 13y ago
    But as I said, "cultural impact" in this case seems to really have little to with any inherent value in the song, and stems mostly from the actions of society rather than the song's author. Why should the author reap the benefits, at the expense of society, when the author didn't actually contribute much?
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      What a ridiculous argument. The author contributed the tune, It's a cheesy tune, but it's clearly enormously popular. You're basically arguing that if enough people like something they should just get it for free. Now copyright terms are a separate issue, I think they should be substantially abridged. I'm just pointing out that society hasn't taken any action that could be construed as authorship.
      - snogglethorpe 13y ago
        > The author contributed the tune, It's a cheesy tune, but it's clearly enormously popular. You're basically arguing that if enough people like something they should just get it for free. I'm saying that the reason why it's popular doesn't obviously have much to with the tune itself. Popularity is often pretty arbitrary. This sort of intellectual property law is intended to (1) provide incentive for people to put the work into being creative, because that benefits society, and (2) satisfy intuitive notions of fairness (if somebody puts a great deal of effort into something, people feel that he "deserves" some reward from that). For trivial works, neither (1) nor (2) is really justified: There's no significant effort to reward, society does not benefit significantly from it (because in such cases popularity does not stem from the work itself, any other work would have served just as well), and intuitive notions of fairness do not tend to consider great reward from little effort as justified.
cookiecaper 13y ago
I don't see why a lifelong monopoly is required for the artist to receive the "full benefits" of their work. This discussion is about what legal options should be available to retain those benefits. Here's the thing with copyright: it's a bargain between the public (IP consumers) and the authors (IP creators). The public wants new creative works and has recognized that some legal protection is needed to make these profitable, but when you share an idea and the public adopts it into their culture, it is no longer the author's thing. We grant a limited monopoly on copyrighted works so that authors can make a living and produce good stuff for us, and authors accept this aware that their publication will eventually into the public domain for free sharing, cultural commentary, etc. First, it's important to recognize that a copyright is a monopoly. You don't technically need a copyright to make money -- it's just a temporary thing we provide to ensure that artists have ample time to recoup their investments. Original authors can continue to create products off of those IPs after the copyright has lapsed, and they can continue to sell and profit off of these; they just won't be able to stop anyone else from using the same IP. Second, the need for authors to be profitable is well recognized today, but the other end of the bargain is neglected. Ideas are free and they do not belong to people. "Intellectual property" is really a misnomer -- ideas cannot be held or controlled like property can. They have a very different nature. If your creation gets any semblance of recognition, people will modify, alter, suggest, revise, expand, and otherwise build upon your ideas. When you publish something, it's not just yours anymore. Expansion and development and commentary are natural human activities that are impossible to prevent. Sharing and communication is everything to us, and copyrights restrict this free osmosis in a rather severe fashion. Copyright is conceived to ensure an author can be profitable, so that more art comes out. Long copyright terms are seriously harmful because instead of encouraging new development from creative persons and/or those close to them, a successful copyright holder will be provided ample money for several lifetimes, and the monopolistic grasp that forces ALL revenue to go into their pockets propagates through the generations (right now, some copyrights could last 200+ years). Meanwhile, innocent parties attempting to expand on the copyrighted material and share in that natural human impulse for discussion and improvement, potentially contributing major social value to this cultural element, are hounded and threatened by aggressive lawyers. Does this promote useful progress in science and the arts? Does this represent the bargain that is meant to be recognized when a copyright is granted? I don't think copyright should exceed 20 years. Ideally I'd like to see default 5-year terms with four optional 5-year extensions. This makes it so there is still plenty of opportunity to collect revenues that are beyond reasonable, but copyrighted material will lapse into the public domain sometime when someone still living will care about the contributions that others may make. It opens up a whole new world of cultural richness, encourages creativity in expansion of old properties and the development of new properties, allows the author to obtain huge financial benefit (which they can continue to compete for once the IP goes public domain), and is fair and courteous to the public's requirement that their culture not be held hostage by a bunch of suits (lawyers, executives). Again, I don't see why we need to perpetuate the myth that one useful positive contribution should entitle the contributor to a lifetime of exclusive control and revenue. That is not fair.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rflrob 13y ago
Ah, but Mickey Mouse also has trademark protection. So if Steamboat Willie entered the public domain, then I could put it up on YouTube, but I couldn't sell an unlicensed Mickey Mouse Tshirt, which I think is totally fair to Disney.
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  Agree. I think Disney et al like to play up confusion on trademark v. copyright. Trademark protects corporate identities, brands, and icons, like Mickey Mouse in the context of a representative of an amusement and media company, and copyright protects whole non-trivial creative works, like "Steamboat Willie". Due to trademark protection, other companies couldn't use Mickey Mouse to create confusion, misrepresent themselves as associated with Disney, etc., but anyone (including Disney) could watch, disseminate, or modify early Disney films under any terms they saw fit.
steve19 13y ago
Uhhh, so it was ok for Disney to take the stories of the Brother Grimm, who in turn took them from people all over Western Europe, to remix and then copyright them, but it is not ok for someone to remix Micky Mouse? Why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_grimm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_grimm

venomsnake 13y ago

Copyright should last 5-10 tops. In the current digital world it is more than enough for monetization and we don't lack creation of artifacts which copyright was created to spur. So we may tone it down a bit.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
corin_ 13y ago
I don't know what the correct answer with, because I sympathise with both sides in different cases, but I think it's definitely not as simple as saying "5-10 years is more than enough for monetisation". Should JK Rowling not have been receiving money from the first Harry Potter book (published in '97) for the last 6-11 years? Sure she's rich enough already... but why should she lose out on that money which she arguably earned? And not everyone gets rich in the first few years after publication. My mother is an author of children's books, and my grandfather was a composer - money still comes in (not to me, to my mother and her sister) now, many years after some work was written, but it's never been a huge amount, even at time of publication, yet alone now. I'm personally a fan of the (life + X) model, whereby it extends a little beyond the creator's death. I don't know what that X should be, though I do feel that the X=70years that we currently have in the UK is too long. But while the creator is alive, why should they not continue to earn money on their work?
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  >Should JK Rowling not have been receiving money from the first Harry Potter book (published in '97) for the last 6-11 years? Sure she's rich enough already... but why should she lose out on that money which she arguably earned? She can continue to earn money by making a competitive product. A copyright is a short-term monopoly granted to ensure that authors can recoup expense before the rush comes in. It's not meant as anything more than that. Whatever she makes in the first five years since publication is all she "earns" simply by holding a copyright. The rest of her money must be earned by contributing further to the progress of science and useful arts (perhaps by writing a sequel, which would have its own copyright term...) and/or competing on the open market with everyone else. If the public takes the time to integrate your story into its culture, if they read your book and pore over the characters and develop their own interpretations and feelings, they should be able to share these commercially within a reasonable timeframe. When you publish something, it's not your own anymore. I think Joss Whedon had a cool quote from a reddit AMA a while back. It was something like "Art is not a pet that you keep forever, which follows you around loyally without criticism until the end of its days. Art is a child, and it grows up and moves out and talks back to you." The real quote is probably better, but that was the concept.

noloqy 13y ago

The first stated purpose of copyright in the US is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Keeping this in mind, first we can ask ourselves whether the current system does or does not significantly limit progress by disallowing derivative works. If the purpose of copyright is still the same as it was when it was first specified, then our goal is to optimize for progress, and for that we need to ask ourselves at least one more question: to what extent does the duration of copyright prevent or stimulate potential creators to create. I don't think Disney had the income of his grandchildren in mind when he first started drawing. Perhaps the purpose of copyright has since shifted towards a principal of fairness and compensation for efforts. If this is the case I wish it wasn't: in my opinion the goal of society should be for society to progress on several levels, including culturally and technologically - at this level we shouldn't be interested in the wealth of individuals or corporations.

mtgx 13y ago

It's too long. Both copyright and patents should be limited to a few years. In the case of patents, you could maybe have 20 years, but it would have to be an invention on which you worked 2-3 years on it, like say Andrea Rossi working on e-cat, or making a new drug. If we're talking about slide to unlock or similar stuff, then either ban such patents for good, or give them maybe 2 years at most.

cookiecaper 13y ago
Pharmaceutical patents need to be reworked. It's nice for pharma companies to be able to make money, but it's not acceptable to have life-saving drugs locked behind a paywall and indiscriminately allow people to die for two decades, based on any criteria which the patent holder may set up, just to make sure a corporation makes large profits on successful products. Don't mind patent terms on inventions that are non-essential, but we need to treat medicines differently. The public needs to recognize that IP protection is a gift we give authors to make their authorship more feasible, and that they cannot hold the life and health of either the populace or the culture hostage for their exclusive profitability.
- jakejake 13y ago
  The flipside of that is drugs that simply don't get made. The clinical trials and approval process are so expensive. If there's not enough potential for profits then no company even bothers to research it. I do agree that big pharma goes too far with prices sometimes though.

fafner 13y ago

50 years would still be far too long. We shouldn't forget that we are talking about our cultural heritage. Which we are currently damaging by such extensive and draconian copyright law. I'd say 20 years would be good. That way the owner can in most cases still utilise the full commercial potential. But it still enters our cultural heritage fast enough to have value attached to it.