4 ms·

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

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.

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.