6 ms·

I do not see a problem with indefinite copyright protections. One of the assumptions is that everything being equal the same works would exist if it were not f

I do not see a problem with indefinite copyright protections. One of the assumptions is that everything being equal the same works would exist if it were not for copyright protections. However, I would argue without the extended copyright protections, most of these [future] classic works would not exist, simply because publishers/studios would not invest in the creation/distribution of the works initially. In other words, copyright protections encourages the creation of works. The OP takes an opposing stance, suggesting if copyright protections existed historically it would have stifled the creation of many classic works. This may be the case in certain instances, but to make that argument one must have an in depth understand of what constitutes copyright infringement in a legal sense - including all defenses to infringement (i.e. derivative work, fair use, educational/news worthy use, ect...)- and make the argument on a case by case basis. Very few people have any idea of what constitutes copyright infringement - and even among legal scholars, practitioners and judges there is disagreement. All I know is if you have ever created anything and had it stolen you understand the need for legal protection. Plus it would suck to live in a world where I am financially rewarding thieves because I can not distinguish if a work was original or a knockoff. Finally, legal protection is just that protection, there is nothing stopping copyright owners from giving away their works for free, in other words voluntarily releasing their work(s) to the public domain.

ewillbefull 13y ago
Nothing you wrote tries to justify indefinite copyright protections.
- will_brown 13y ago
  Certainly my points have counterpoints, but I included at least 3 reasons for indefinite copyright protection. 1. Indefinite protections encourages the creation of new works vis-a-vis encouraging investment in new creation/distribution. 2. That just because there is indefinite copyright protection, does not mean people can still create derivative works, engage in fair use, ect... 3. Finally, just because indefinite protection exists would not prevent works from being voluntarily entered into the public domain.
  - ewillbefull 13y ago
    The "indefinite" is not necessary in any of your points. What tangible difference in incentive exists for creating new works if your protection is 60 years or 1000 years after you die? Copyright is a contract between creators and society: limited protection to encourage the creation of creative works, with the promise that the material will eventually be (unconditionally) available to the public. Information cannot be permanently locked behind a paywall, especially as it becomes important to study it historically, or as it becomes culturally embedded.
    - will_brown 13y ago
      >What tangible difference in incentive exists for creating new works if your protection is 60 years or 1000 years after you die? You think Disney or anyone else will invest if they lose their copyright protections in 60 years? No, it is stability that encourages creation and investment. >Information cannot be permanently locked behind a paywall, especially as it becomes important to study it historically That is the problem...misconception that copyrighted work is behind a paywall. Copyrighted work is subject to fair use and a number of other exceptions such as academic/scientific purposes.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        >You think Disney or anyone else will invest if they lose their copyright protections in 60 years? Is this an appeal to imagination? Yes I do, because I'm going to speculate that most of the income derived from a creative work is extracted in its first 60 years, and going to mention the historical fact that none of the media created 60 years ago was expected to be marketable 60 years later, and was often just destroyed. So I don't think Disney would invest if they thought they couldn't make money from product 60 years later, it's just the truth. If your view of the issue requires as an axiom that all creativity would stop under a measly 60 year copyright term, it is clearly wrong.
        will_brown 13y ago
        I am being taken out of context, I am not talking about making money I am talking about copy right protection. Disney has a vested interest, whether making money or not on a work, that Joe Schmo does not start reproducing a given work 1 to 1 and selling it as their own. You may be right most income is derived from a work in its first 60 years, or that media created 60 years ago was not expected to be marketable 60 years later. Though I do not know this to be a historical fact, 60 years ago (1953) there was plenty of evidence to suggest a given work by a US author has plenty of commercial appeal after a mere 60 years of existence (Walden Pond, Civil Disobedience, Uncle Tom's Cabin, almost any Mark Twain novel).
Avenger42 13y ago
No one (rational) is arguing for no legal protections. However, there's a difference between "the creator gets a period of time in which they're not competing with themselves" and "nothing created post-1978 (or affected by the 1978 copyright extensions) will ever realistically enter the public domain because of continuing copyright extensions". What makes these works so much more valuable that their creators should never have to give up the rights to the public, the way that creators in the USA for nearly 200 years did?
- will_brown 13y ago
  >What makes these works so much more valuable that their creators should never have to give up the rights to the public, the way that creators in the USA for nearly 200 years did? Nothing makes these works more valuable, its just the jurisprudence has caught up to modern applications of the law. Copyrightable work is an asset much like anything else I should be able to leave to my heirs, why should I be limited to making money off my work during my lifetime or any other arbitrary period of time. Especially because there is case after case that establish work that becomes popular only after the death of the creator. So I will ask you your own question turned around, why as the creator of a work should I ever be forced to give up my rights of the same to the public?
  - ewillbefull 13y ago
    There are no business models which depend on a revenue stream existing 30 years from now to encourage the creation of works. In fact I can't think of any business models that are dependent upon such lengths of time; patents don't even exceed 20 years. You are not encouraging any additional creation by making the copyright indefinite, you are simply handing creators exclusivity enforcement forever at the expense of the public. As a creator you are not entitled to ownership of information, it is given to you by the government. It is not relinquished from you to the people. Copyright is a social contract, not an inalienable right arbitrarily given to creators simply for the act of creation. In the first Supreme Court case on Copyright, they ruled: “Congress… by this act, instead of sanctioning an existing right… created it.”
- 13y ago
horseapples 13y ago
I can create and distribute any creation for free thanks to the internet. Your argument assumes that a publisher/studio is required, when this is simply not the case, and not the direction the world is headed. Copyright and all IP law stifles creation at the cost of creativity. I create because I'm a creator, not because there is a fiscal reward. I create because I want to make a great product, not because I want to make a lot of money. I don't create so I can make some corporate fat ass rich.
- cafard 13y ago
  You can copy and distribute any creation for free thanks to the internet. A publisher is not required for the next On the Road. But creating the next Bridge Over the River Kwai will require serious resources. Samuel Johnson, who did an awful lot of writing, and was not that one can tell a greedy man, said that No man but blockhead ever wrote but for money.
- will_brown 13y ago
  >I can create and distribute any creation for free thanks to the internet. >I create because I'm a creator, not because there is a fiscal reward. Then there is nothing stopping you from doing just that...Just because the protections exist does not mean you must avail yourselves to them, you can give your work away for free all you want or let others take your work reproduce it and sell it as their own (maybe even take credit as the original creator). However, if your saying you need to create your work off anthers work which is copyrighted and they want to enforce the same, then I would say IP is not what is stifling creativity, rather an unoriginal artist with no creativity to begin with.
  - skyebook 13y ago
    > However, if your saying you need to create your work off anthers work which is copyrighted and they want to enforce the same, then I would say IP is not what is stifling creativity, rather an unoriginal artist with no creativity to begin with. Creativity != originality. Its been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, but plenty of Disney's works are not original. That doesn't detract from the quality of the work or the creativity involved in adapting the story. What you argue for with indefinite control is building on someone else's work and then being allowed to say "OK, I have the final say. No more is to be done on this line."
austintaylor 13y ago
Copyright is traditionally an area of law that has been served by moderation. The government offers some protection to creators, but not absolute rights. For instance, songwriters have a right to receive royalties when someone else records and distributes their song, but they don't have the right (in the US) to set the price of that royalty, or to veto a particular artist covering their song. It's a balancing act. On the one side, if you don't have copyright at all, it severely limits the ability of creators to monetize easily copied works. This became a problem with the printing press and copying has only gotten easier as technology has progressed. On the other side, there are a number of problems with granting an absolute, indefinite copyright. One is that you stifle the creation of derivative works. Another is that obscure works can easily fall out of print and be lost forever. A larger philosophical concern is whether corporations should be allowed to hold control over the shared cultural heritage of a society long after the actual creators have died. Almost everyone sees the need for some kind of compromise here. Personally, Canada's life+50 years sounds pretty reasonable to me.
- will_brown 13y ago
  I touch on this point in OP, I am not saying owners should receive some absolute right, I am saying I believe an indefinite right (referring to the term only) of existing protections subject to existing infringement and defenses (fair use, derivative, news worth, ect...) Your use of song is a good example, just because I create a song (and receive indefinite protection) does not mean someone else can not sample it, only that I am entitled to a royalty..any why shouldn't I be whether I created the song yesterday or 100 years ago and transferred the copyright to my heirs?
Spooky23 13y ago
Forever is a long time. My great-great-great grandfather was a newspaper publisher in the 19th century. Should I be able to exert some sort of control over that information because someone who was dead before my grandfather was born wrote it? So if you were an author, you would not write a book because royalties would cease coming in to your grandchildren X years after your death? People and companies should be able to "own" their ideas for a reasonable period of time. The point of copyright is to "promote the useful arts" and to promote and reward creativity. Allowing companies to own the Mickey Mouse story in the year 2213 does nothing to promote that. What purpose does that serve? Why should the government protect the right for generations of your descendants to be profit from the intellectual work of a distant ancestor? Why should shareholders in the year 2513 benefit from a cartoon produced in 1930?
- will_brown 13y ago
  Why should I on the death of an author be able to reproduce their work and sell it? Why should that be the case after 28 years or 75 years after the death of the creator be able to take their work and profit from it? >So if you were an author, you would not write a book because royalties would cease coming in to your grandchildren X years after your death? The chilling effect on work is not a result of the author, but the company who pays for the work that allows the author to work on the book for years. Why would a company give advance an author, spend money promoting/printing/distributing a book if they can not make royalties on it x years after the author dies? >People and companies should be able to "own" their ideas for a reasonable period of time. You tell me what is a reasonable time? 28 years, 28 years + 28 years, life time of the creator, lifetime +75 years? >Allowing companies to own the Mickey Mouse story in the year 2213 does nothing to promote that. What purpose does that serve? That serves the purpose of Disney spending billions on theme parks to further develop the brand, to further invest in their brand, establish their brand all over the world which creates jobs fueling the global economy. That is less likely if their work can be diluted by any joe schmo creating independent subpar works creating confusion in the market place in terms of origin.
  - cafard 13y ago
    Copyright has always been for a limited term. Defining that limited term is a political judgment call, and I believe that the judgment is at this point wrong, erring in favor of unduly long copyright. It is a safe bet that any book of 1957 still remembered (definitely Atlas Shrugged and On the Road, believe it or not The Anatomy of Criticism, probably not some of the others) has long since paid back the publisher's investment beyond expectations.

ewillbefull 13y ago

Nothing you wrote tries to justify indefinite copyright protections.

will_brown 13y ago
Certainly my points have counterpoints, but I included at least 3 reasons for indefinite copyright protection. 1. Indefinite protections encourages the creation of new works vis-a-vis encouraging investment in new creation/distribution. 2. That just because there is indefinite copyright protection, does not mean people can still create derivative works, engage in fair use, ect... 3. Finally, just because indefinite protection exists would not prevent works from being voluntarily entered into the public domain.
- ewillbefull 13y ago
  The "indefinite" is not necessary in any of your points. What tangible difference in incentive exists for creating new works if your protection is 60 years or 1000 years after you die? Copyright is a contract between creators and society: limited protection to encourage the creation of creative works, with the promise that the material will eventually be (unconditionally) available to the public. Information cannot be permanently locked behind a paywall, especially as it becomes important to study it historically, or as it becomes culturally embedded.
  - will_brown 13y ago
    >What tangible difference in incentive exists for creating new works if your protection is 60 years or 1000 years after you die? You think Disney or anyone else will invest if they lose their copyright protections in 60 years? No, it is stability that encourages creation and investment. >Information cannot be permanently locked behind a paywall, especially as it becomes important to study it historically That is the problem...misconception that copyrighted work is behind a paywall. Copyrighted work is subject to fair use and a number of other exceptions such as academic/scientific purposes.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      >You think Disney or anyone else will invest if they lose their copyright protections in 60 years? Is this an appeal to imagination? Yes I do, because I'm going to speculate that most of the income derived from a creative work is extracted in its first 60 years, and going to mention the historical fact that none of the media created 60 years ago was expected to be marketable 60 years later, and was often just destroyed. So I don't think Disney would invest if they thought they couldn't make money from product 60 years later, it's just the truth. If your view of the issue requires as an axiom that all creativity would stop under a measly 60 year copyright term, it is clearly wrong.
      - will_brown 13y ago
        I am being taken out of context, I am not talking about making money I am talking about copy right protection. Disney has a vested interest, whether making money or not on a work, that Joe Schmo does not start reproducing a given work 1 to 1 and selling it as their own. You may be right most income is derived from a work in its first 60 years, or that media created 60 years ago was not expected to be marketable 60 years later. Though I do not know this to be a historical fact, 60 years ago (1953) there was plenty of evidence to suggest a given work by a US author has plenty of commercial appeal after a mere 60 years of existence (Walden Pond, Civil Disobedience, Uncle Tom's Cabin, almost any Mark Twain novel).

Avenger42 13y ago

No one (rational) is arguing for no legal protections. However, there's a difference between "the creator gets a period of time in which they're not competing with themselves" and "nothing created post-1978 (or affected by the 1978 copyright extensions) will ever realistically enter the public domain because of continuing copyright extensions". What makes these works so much more valuable that their creators should never have to give up the rights to the public, the way that creators in the USA for nearly 200 years did?

will_brown 13y ago
>What makes these works so much more valuable that their creators should never have to give up the rights to the public, the way that creators in the USA for nearly 200 years did? Nothing makes these works more valuable, its just the jurisprudence has caught up to modern applications of the law. Copyrightable work is an asset much like anything else I should be able to leave to my heirs, why should I be limited to making money off my work during my lifetime or any other arbitrary period of time. Especially because there is case after case that establish work that becomes popular only after the death of the creator. So I will ask you your own question turned around, why as the creator of a work should I ever be forced to give up my rights of the same to the public?
- ewillbefull 13y ago
  There are no business models which depend on a revenue stream existing 30 years from now to encourage the creation of works. In fact I can't think of any business models that are dependent upon such lengths of time; patents don't even exceed 20 years. You are not encouraging any additional creation by making the copyright indefinite, you are simply handing creators exclusivity enforcement forever at the expense of the public. As a creator you are not entitled to ownership of information, it is given to you by the government. It is not relinquished from you to the people. Copyright is a social contract, not an inalienable right arbitrarily given to creators simply for the act of creation. In the first Supreme Court case on Copyright, they ruled: “Congress… by this act, instead of sanctioning an existing right… created it.”
13y ago

horseapples 13y ago

I can create and distribute any creation for free thanks to the internet. Your argument assumes that a publisher/studio is required, when this is simply not the case, and not the direction the world is headed. Copyright and all IP law stifles creation at the cost of creativity. I create because I'm a creator, not because there is a fiscal reward. I create because I want to make a great product, not because I want to make a lot of money. I don't create so I can make some corporate fat ass rich.

cafard 13y ago
You can copy and distribute any creation for free thanks to the internet. A publisher is not required for the next On the Road. But creating the next Bridge Over the River Kwai will require serious resources. Samuel Johnson, who did an awful lot of writing, and was not that one can tell a greedy man, said that No man but blockhead ever wrote but for money.
will_brown 13y ago
>I can create and distribute any creation for free thanks to the internet. >I create because I'm a creator, not because there is a fiscal reward. Then there is nothing stopping you from doing just that...Just because the protections exist does not mean you must avail yourselves to them, you can give your work away for free all you want or let others take your work reproduce it and sell it as their own (maybe even take credit as the original creator). However, if your saying you need to create your work off anthers work which is copyrighted and they want to enforce the same, then I would say IP is not what is stifling creativity, rather an unoriginal artist with no creativity to begin with.
- skyebook 13y ago
  > However, if your saying you need to create your work off anthers work which is copyrighted and they want to enforce the same, then I would say IP is not what is stifling creativity, rather an unoriginal artist with no creativity to begin with. Creativity != originality. Its been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, but plenty of Disney's works are not original. That doesn't detract from the quality of the work or the creativity involved in adapting the story. What you argue for with indefinite control is building on someone else's work and then being allowed to say "OK, I have the final say. No more is to be done on this line."

austintaylor 13y ago

Copyright is traditionally an area of law that has been served by moderation. The government offers some protection to creators, but not absolute rights. For instance, songwriters have a right to receive royalties when someone else records and distributes their song, but they don't have the right (in the US) to set the price of that royalty, or to veto a particular artist covering their song. It's a balancing act. On the one side, if you don't have copyright at all, it severely limits the ability of creators to monetize easily copied works. This became a problem with the printing press and copying has only gotten easier as technology has progressed. On the other side, there are a number of problems with granting an absolute, indefinite copyright. One is that you stifle the creation of derivative works. Another is that obscure works can easily fall out of print and be lost forever. A larger philosophical concern is whether corporations should be allowed to hold control over the shared cultural heritage of a society long after the actual creators have died. Almost everyone sees the need for some kind of compromise here. Personally, Canada's life+50 years sounds pretty reasonable to me.

will_brown 13y ago
I touch on this point in OP, I am not saying owners should receive some absolute right, I am saying I believe an indefinite right (referring to the term only) of existing protections subject to existing infringement and defenses (fair use, derivative, news worth, ect...) Your use of song is a good example, just because I create a song (and receive indefinite protection) does not mean someone else can not sample it, only that I am entitled to a royalty..any why shouldn't I be whether I created the song yesterday or 100 years ago and transferred the copyright to my heirs?

Spooky23 13y ago

Forever is a long time. My great-great-great grandfather was a newspaper publisher in the 19th century. Should I be able to exert some sort of control over that information because someone who was dead before my grandfather was born wrote it? So if you were an author, you would not write a book because royalties would cease coming in to your grandchildren X years after your death? People and companies should be able to "own" their ideas for a reasonable period of time. The point of copyright is to "promote the useful arts" and to promote and reward creativity. Allowing companies to own the Mickey Mouse story in the year 2213 does nothing to promote that. What purpose does that serve? Why should the government protect the right for generations of your descendants to be profit from the intellectual work of a distant ancestor? Why should shareholders in the year 2513 benefit from a cartoon produced in 1930?

will_brown 13y ago
Why should I on the death of an author be able to reproduce their work and sell it? Why should that be the case after 28 years or 75 years after the death of the creator be able to take their work and profit from it? >So if you were an author, you would not write a book because royalties would cease coming in to your grandchildren X years after your death? The chilling effect on work is not a result of the author, but the company who pays for the work that allows the author to work on the book for years. Why would a company give advance an author, spend money promoting/printing/distributing a book if they can not make royalties on it x years after the author dies? >People and companies should be able to "own" their ideas for a reasonable period of time. You tell me what is a reasonable time? 28 years, 28 years + 28 years, life time of the creator, lifetime +75 years? >Allowing companies to own the Mickey Mouse story in the year 2213 does nothing to promote that. What purpose does that serve? That serves the purpose of Disney spending billions on theme parks to further develop the brand, to further invest in their brand, establish their brand all over the world which creates jobs fueling the global economy. That is less likely if their work can be diluted by any joe schmo creating independent subpar works creating confusion in the market place in terms of origin.
- cafard 13y ago
  Copyright has always been for a limited term. Defining that limited term is a political judgment call, and I believe that the judgment is at this point wrong, erring in favor of unduly long copyright. It is a safe bet that any book of 1957 still remembered (definitely Atlas Shrugged and On the Road, believe it or not The Anatomy of Criticism, probably not some of the others) has long since paid back the publisher's investment beyond expectations.