14 ms·

In the US at least, perpetual copyright is explicitly unconstitutional [0] as copyrights are to be granted for a limited term [1]. I quote Mary Bono speaking o

In the US at least, perpetual copyright is explicitly unconstitutional [0] as copyrights are to be granted for a limited term [1]. I quote Mary Bono speaking on behalf of the Copyright Term Extension act: > Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress. Sources: [0] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-10-07/pdf/CREC-1998-10-07-pt1-PgH9946.pdf#page=7 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-10-07/pdf/CREC-1998-1... [1] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, (the Copyright Clause)

javert 12y ago
Umm, you do realize that laws are made by men and can be changed, right?
- thesteamboat 12y ago
  I don't understand what you're trying to argue here. On the one hand, this is obviously true. On the other hand, it is also true that art forms can essentially die out. Who works with stained glass murals or illuminated manuscripts anymore? It is certainly true that the US constitution can be amended. Nevertheless, we live in a world in which what you want is not [just not the law of the land] but explicitly [forbidden by the land's highest legal authority]. As I see it, there are two separate conversations here. The first one is whether the changes you're proposing would have the effect that you intend. The second is whether the changes you are proposing could be made in our society. My original comment was meant to convince you that this second point wasn't reasonable. To change something that's unconstitutional is a much bigger deal than just changing something that is currently a law. For the record, I also strongly disagree with you on the first point. I think, and have expressed elsewhere in this thread [0], that the current copyright regime is far too strong to be maximize social welfare. To directly address your original points: 1) Increasing incentives for authors does not necessarily produce better works. It turns out that money is an exceptionally poor motivator of creative work. Dan Pink has a rather famous TED talk [1] in which among other things he describes how offering people money for a task can make them perform worse at it. 2) Stronger copyright regimes do not reward creators, they reward rights holders -- a crucial difference. The creative industries are notorious bad actors with respect to the artists that do the work. See for example, Hollywood Accounting [2], the RIAA failing to pay musicians [3], and even when everything goes according to plan "For every $1000 worth of music sold, the average musician makes $23.40." [4] 3) Allow me to quote you for a second. You write > The worst case (and unrealistic) scenario of a stingy heir just doesn't matter. If someone deprived us of Sherlock Holmes or Harry Potter or Mickey Mouse or whatever, we would all be just fine. None of them are essential. If these works aren't essential why should we as a society subsidize the creation of new works through long-lasting monopoly rights? I am rather confused by what difference you perceive between yet-to-be created works and already created works. I've written a lot that probably won't be read by anyone, but in conclusion, arguing for an extension of copyright law requires a lot more thought than you seem to have put in. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8143683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8143683 [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting [3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120305/04332117978/how-big-music-companies-are-stealing-hundreds-millions-royalties-artists.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120305/04332117978/how-b... [4] http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2010/07/the_root_investigates_who_really_gets_paid_in_the_music_industry.html?GT1=38002 http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2010/07/the_root_inv...

javert 12y ago

Umm, you do realize that laws are made by men and can be changed, right?

thesteamboat 12y ago
I don't understand what you're trying to argue here. On the one hand, this is obviously true. On the other hand, it is also true that art forms can essentially die out. Who works with stained glass murals or illuminated manuscripts anymore? It is certainly true that the US constitution can be amended. Nevertheless, we live in a world in which what you want is not [just not the law of the land] but explicitly [forbidden by the land's highest legal authority]. As I see it, there are two separate conversations here. The first one is whether the changes you're proposing would have the effect that you intend. The second is whether the changes you are proposing could be made in our society. My original comment was meant to convince you that this second point wasn't reasonable. To change something that's unconstitutional is a much bigger deal than just changing something that is currently a law. For the record, I also strongly disagree with you on the first point. I think, and have expressed elsewhere in this thread [0], that the current copyright regime is far too strong to be maximize social welfare. To directly address your original points: 1) Increasing incentives for authors does not necessarily produce better works. It turns out that money is an exceptionally poor motivator of creative work. Dan Pink has a rather famous TED talk [1] in which among other things he describes how offering people money for a task can make them perform worse at it. 2) Stronger copyright regimes do not reward creators, they reward rights holders -- a crucial difference. The creative industries are notorious bad actors with respect to the artists that do the work. See for example, Hollywood Accounting [2], the RIAA failing to pay musicians [3], and even when everything goes according to plan "For every $1000 worth of music sold, the average musician makes $23.40." [4] 3) Allow me to quote you for a second. You write > The worst case (and unrealistic) scenario of a stingy heir just doesn't matter. If someone deprived us of Sherlock Holmes or Harry Potter or Mickey Mouse or whatever, we would all be just fine. None of them are essential. If these works aren't essential why should we as a society subsidize the creation of new works through long-lasting monopoly rights? I am rather confused by what difference you perceive between yet-to-be created works and already created works. I've written a lot that probably won't be read by anyone, but in conclusion, arguing for an extension of copyright law requires a lot more thought than you seem to have put in. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8143683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8143683 [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting [3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120305/04332117978/how-big-music-companies-are-stealing-hundreds-millions-royalties-artists.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120305/04332117978/how-b... [4] http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2010/07/the_root_investigates_who_really_gets_paid_in_the_music_industry.html?GT1=38002 http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2010/07/the_root_inv...