4 ms·

Maybe it's time to kill Copyright for good (in both possible meanings of good): http://praxeology.net/anticopyright.htm http://praxeology.net/anticopyright.htm

Maybe it's time to kill Copyright for good (in both possible meanings of good): http://praxeology.net/anticopyright.htm http://praxeology.net/anticopyright.htm Edited: and by "maybe it's" I mean "It's about damn time". Edited again: this quote from Jefferson is highlighted on that Anti Copyright Resources page, and nicely captures the spirit of why we might choose to kill Copyright: ... He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

chrismcb 13y ago
What do ideas and inventions have to do with copyright? No, it isn't time to kill Copyright, that would be a very bad idea. But certainly reduce the limits. Much less than the current "greater than the average lifespan"
- x0054 13y ago
  It makes no sense to link the duration of the copyright work to the life of the author. Say some one writes a book and then promptly gets hit by a car. Why should their book have less of a copyright term then a book written by and author that goes on to live for 80 more years. Copyright term should be set number of years after first publication. 20-30 years would be reasonable. Copyright is absolutely necessary to allow authors to make money from their work. Short term rights, 10-30 years of so, benefit the authors the most. Long terms of 100+ years only favor the distributors.
  - charleslmunger 13y ago
    I think part of the theory behind the "life of the author" is that there shouldn't be a disincentive to produce your work now. If you're a creator of some kind, you might not publish a book you're writing until you think it'll be ready. In single-author creative endeavors, like book publishing, you want to encourage people to create all they can before they get hit by a bus.
  - phaemon 13y ago
    > Copyright is absolutely necessary to allow authors to make money from their work No it isn't. Writers can sell books. They can write for magazines and journals. They can write for TV. They can write for radio. They can write plays. Etc. None of these things require copyright.
    - x0054 13y ago
      Ok, let's look at the world with no Copyright:: Books: Writer writes a book, self publishes it, and starts selling it. It starts selling really well. Big company comes along, buys one copy of the book, and starts publishing copies of it all over the place. They publicize the book, make money from it, and pay nothing to the author. Magazines and Journals: Magazine comes out. I take it, scan it, remove all the advertisement, and completely legally post it online for free. No one buys the magazine, because why should they. No one even looks at the advertisement in the magazine, so they cant make money from that either. TV and Radio are the same. Plays: Writer rights a play, sends it to a play producer, producer likes the play, produces it, pays the writer nothing, because, why should he, it's not like the writer has rights in his work. Open Source Software: You, as a programer, write some great open source software. Company comes a long, takes the software, incorporates it into their closed source project, improves it, and NEVER redistributes the code. Because they don't have to. After all, OSS is only a thing because under the copyright law you can release things under a given license. Hmm, does not look like such a good world, to me at least. People should really think about these things before screaming "death to copyright." Do copyright laws need to be changed so the copyright term is some kind of fixed, reasonable time period. Yes. Do we need to get rid of it all together. NO! Remember, life is about balance.
      - phaemon 13y ago
        I've thought about it more than you have I suspect. I notice that the argument has moved from "absolutely necessary" to "not such a good world". But let's look at your arguments anyway: Books: so what? The author has made money from the sale of the books ("selling really well") and will continue to do so, particularly with the free publicity. They have the "authorised" copy and are first to market. How does it hurt them that someone else also makes money? Magazines and Journals: Go ahead. Do it. I assure you absolutely no-one will complain because no-one will even notice. They're disposable media. Seriously, no one will care. EDIT: Sorry, missed TV and radio: are you serious? Do you know how much TV channels pay to be the first to show a particular show? You can't possibly think that they do that just for fun, right? Radio just wants listeners...being a poor copy of another station is not going to get you listeners. Plays: ....and never gets any work again. Or just have them sign a contract up front like most working people do. OSS: Just like BSD you mean? Looks like a pretty good world to me. And who was screaming other than you? And no, not all things should be balanced: we didn't get "limited term slavery" when full slavery was abolished.
Joeri 13y ago
You are arguing against patents, not copyright. Copyright is not the protection of invention, it is the protection of expression.
- 001sky 13y ago
  This is pedantic; the idea of a 'creation' easily spans both cases.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  No, I'm not. The resource is specifically "Anti-Copyright Resources". You're reading a lot more into one Jefferson quote than you should be :)

chrismcb 13y ago

What do ideas and inventions have to do with copyright? No, it isn't time to kill Copyright, that would be a very bad idea. But certainly reduce the limits. Much less than the current "greater than the average lifespan"

x0054 13y ago
It makes no sense to link the duration of the copyright work to the life of the author. Say some one writes a book and then promptly gets hit by a car. Why should their book have less of a copyright term then a book written by and author that goes on to live for 80 more years. Copyright term should be set number of years after first publication. 20-30 years would be reasonable. Copyright is absolutely necessary to allow authors to make money from their work. Short term rights, 10-30 years of so, benefit the authors the most. Long terms of 100+ years only favor the distributors.
- charleslmunger 13y ago
  I think part of the theory behind the "life of the author" is that there shouldn't be a disincentive to produce your work now. If you're a creator of some kind, you might not publish a book you're writing until you think it'll be ready. In single-author creative endeavors, like book publishing, you want to encourage people to create all they can before they get hit by a bus.
- phaemon 13y ago
  > Copyright is absolutely necessary to allow authors to make money from their work No it isn't. Writers can sell books. They can write for magazines and journals. They can write for TV. They can write for radio. They can write plays. Etc. None of these things require copyright.
  - x0054 13y ago
    Ok, let's look at the world with no Copyright:: Books: Writer writes a book, self publishes it, and starts selling it. It starts selling really well. Big company comes along, buys one copy of the book, and starts publishing copies of it all over the place. They publicize the book, make money from it, and pay nothing to the author. Magazines and Journals: Magazine comes out. I take it, scan it, remove all the advertisement, and completely legally post it online for free. No one buys the magazine, because why should they. No one even looks at the advertisement in the magazine, so they cant make money from that either. TV and Radio are the same. Plays: Writer rights a play, sends it to a play producer, producer likes the play, produces it, pays the writer nothing, because, why should he, it's not like the writer has rights in his work. Open Source Software: You, as a programer, write some great open source software. Company comes a long, takes the software, incorporates it into their closed source project, improves it, and NEVER redistributes the code. Because they don't have to. After all, OSS is only a thing because under the copyright law you can release things under a given license. Hmm, does not look like such a good world, to me at least. People should really think about these things before screaming "death to copyright." Do copyright laws need to be changed so the copyright term is some kind of fixed, reasonable time period. Yes. Do we need to get rid of it all together. NO! Remember, life is about balance.
    - phaemon 13y ago
      I've thought about it more than you have I suspect. I notice that the argument has moved from "absolutely necessary" to "not such a good world". But let's look at your arguments anyway: Books: so what? The author has made money from the sale of the books ("selling really well") and will continue to do so, particularly with the free publicity. They have the "authorised" copy and are first to market. How does it hurt them that someone else also makes money? Magazines and Journals: Go ahead. Do it. I assure you absolutely no-one will complain because no-one will even notice. They're disposable media. Seriously, no one will care. EDIT: Sorry, missed TV and radio: are you serious? Do you know how much TV channels pay to be the first to show a particular show? You can't possibly think that they do that just for fun, right? Radio just wants listeners...being a poor copy of another station is not going to get you listeners. Plays: ....and never gets any work again. Or just have them sign a contract up front like most working people do. OSS: Just like BSD you mean? Looks like a pretty good world to me. And who was screaming other than you? And no, not all things should be balanced: we didn't get "limited term slavery" when full slavery was abolished.

Joeri 13y ago

You are arguing against patents, not copyright. Copyright is not the protection of invention, it is the protection of expression.

001sky 13y ago
This is pedantic; the idea of a 'creation' easily spans both cases.
duncan_bayne 13y ago
No, I'm not. The resource is specifically "Anti-Copyright Resources". You're reading a lot more into one Jefferson quote than you should be :)