5 ms·

Then you don't understand why copyright was created. It's not there to give forever and ever protection. It's there to allow you to get some money before socie

Then you don't understand why copyright was created. It's not there to give forever and ever protection. It's there to allow you to get some money before society, which made your product worth something in the first place, can incorporate it into culture where it belonged in the first place. Disney themselves love using other people stories constantly, but no-one can use theirs for extreme amounts of time because they've distorted the meaning of copyright. There's no good reason for someone else's ideas to be protected, it doesn't benefit society at all. Copyright should be 10-15 years, not this ridiculous century. Apart from America as it exports the stuff, so, surprise, surprise, they've bullied the rest of the world into making stupidly long copyrights so that everything created in the last century is languishing in untouchable hell so a few big brands can continue making money off things that should be public domain.

philh 12y ago
> Then you don't understand why copyright was created. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean that they don't understand the issue. Your post would have worked just as well without this line.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 12y ago
That may have been why copyright was created, but over time, the justification has evolved, at least in Europe, into one based on the moral rights of the author. My personal opinion is that copyright should never expire. Think about it: you can have an indefinite government granted monopoly over land, something you didn't create, something that existed before you and will exist after you, but you have weaker protections over something you brought to life? Something that would not exist without you? To me, the moral case for indefinite copyright protection is stronger than the one for indefinite land ownership.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  Disney wouldn't be here today as we know if if that were the case back when they were creating their feature-length cartoons.
- maratd 12y ago
  You're conflating tangible with the intangible. Land ownership stems from natural law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law Animals are territorial and that's really the end of that. However, the idea of owning an idea ... that's a legal construct and a very recent one at that. The idea of owning an idea would be entirely foreign to someone a thousand years ago. And the idea that you have a moral claim on owning an idea is just patently absurd, for a very simple reason. You have no means of proving one way or another that you were the first person to have that very thought. It is entirely possible someone else had it long before you. What claim to ownership can you have? Because you commercialized the idea first? Most countries are moving to a "first to file" system to simplify bureaucracy, so now your moral claim is contingent not even on your business acumen, but on your ability to quickly fill out a form.
- rsl7 12y ago
  I have the opposite view. Artists contribute to world culture. George Lucas may own Star Wars in a narrow technical sense (something something disney, I know), but from a cultural standpoint, he can't take it away. It has become part of our culture, part of our written and visual language. A vast amount of energy and derivative art has been spent enjoying and celebrating Star Wars. It has outgrown the original author, because that is what all human artifacts are: derivatives, copies, reinventions, reimaginations. If copyright were 40 years, Star Wars would be up in 2017. That's more than enough time.
- decode 12y ago
  I think you're mistaken in both directions. On the one hand, you do not have a monopoly over land in the sense of copyright. Sure, you control the use of the particular piece of land, but if someone else wants to copy it by reshaping their own land to have the same topography as yours, you have no recourse. Also, if someone wants to make a derivative work, like a map, they are free to do so. In this sense, the land is in the public domain. On the other hand, you already have indefinite government granted monopoly of creative works in the sense of land ownership. You can write a novel, print it, bind it, and put it in a drawer. As long as you just have the one copy and don't give it to anyone else, the government will protect your right to exclusive usage and ownership of the work. In this sense, the book is protected property like land. Where the equivalence falls apart is when you want to sell or transfer the property. If you sell your land, you have no say in what the new owners do with it. If you sell a book, you expect to be able to control what the new owners do with it. This is why this comparison is not very useful.

philh 12y ago

> Then you don't understand why copyright was created. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean that they don't understand the issue. Your post would have worked just as well without this line.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 12y ago

That may have been why copyright was created, but over time, the justification has evolved, at least in Europe, into one based on the moral rights of the author. My personal opinion is that copyright should never expire. Think about it: you can have an indefinite government granted monopoly over land, something you didn't create, something that existed before you and will exist after you, but you have weaker protections over something you brought to life? Something that would not exist without you? To me, the moral case for indefinite copyright protection is stronger than the one for indefinite land ownership.

bitJericho 12y ago
Disney wouldn't be here today as we know if if that were the case back when they were creating their feature-length cartoons.
maratd 12y ago
You're conflating tangible with the intangible. Land ownership stems from natural law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law Animals are territorial and that's really the end of that. However, the idea of owning an idea ... that's a legal construct and a very recent one at that. The idea of owning an idea would be entirely foreign to someone a thousand years ago. And the idea that you have a moral claim on owning an idea is just patently absurd, for a very simple reason. You have no means of proving one way or another that you were the first person to have that very thought. It is entirely possible someone else had it long before you. What claim to ownership can you have? Because you commercialized the idea first? Most countries are moving to a "first to file" system to simplify bureaucracy, so now your moral claim is contingent not even on your business acumen, but on your ability to quickly fill out a form.
rsl7 12y ago
I have the opposite view. Artists contribute to world culture. George Lucas may own Star Wars in a narrow technical sense (something something disney, I know), but from a cultural standpoint, he can't take it away. It has become part of our culture, part of our written and visual language. A vast amount of energy and derivative art has been spent enjoying and celebrating Star Wars. It has outgrown the original author, because that is what all human artifacts are: derivatives, copies, reinventions, reimaginations. If copyright were 40 years, Star Wars would be up in 2017. That's more than enough time.
decode 12y ago
I think you're mistaken in both directions. On the one hand, you do not have a monopoly over land in the sense of copyright. Sure, you control the use of the particular piece of land, but if someone else wants to copy it by reshaping their own land to have the same topography as yours, you have no recourse. Also, if someone wants to make a derivative work, like a map, they are free to do so. In this sense, the land is in the public domain. On the other hand, you already have indefinite government granted monopoly of creative works in the sense of land ownership. You can write a novel, print it, bind it, and put it in a drawer. As long as you just have the one copy and don't give it to anyone else, the government will protect your right to exclusive usage and ownership of the work. In this sense, the book is protected property like land. Where the equivalence falls apart is when you want to sell or transfer the property. If you sell your land, you have no say in what the new owners do with it. If you sell a book, you expect to be able to control what the new owners do with it. This is why this comparison is not very useful.