Re-writing copyright laws.

[garbon]

Copyright law is fine.

Change patent law instead.

I'm not really sure why it would be in our interests to grant Pfzier and the like longer periods of exclusivity on their drugs.

[viper37]

Copyright on art: life of the author, period.  Non transferable to anyone during lifetime of the author, the author is always the owner of the rights, wich he can lease but not sell.

Patents:
First-filed, as lastly amended by the Congress.
Caveat:
-limits on 10 years, non renewable.  No tax deduction for business buying a patent they don't use.  If you own patent X just to cut the grass under your competitor's feets, you don't get any kind of fiscal amortizing on this.
-1% tax on patent value every year, where patent value is the sales $$ resulting in the use of this patent in your product
-patent for a full product or full descriptive concept, not for "a process that transfers data from video card architecture to CPU by using the motherboard chipset".

Trademarks:
For life, renewable every 10 years if provided proof of use.  Must be a real trademark, not a common name, i.e. Coca-Cola is ok, Coca is not.  An image can be a trademark if it's an original creation.  Santa Claus can not be a trademark.

[crazy canuck]

Santa Claus can not be a trademark.

Grinch

[jimmy olsen]

Don't Download This Song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY

[garbon]

Copyright on art: life of the author, period.  Non transferable to anyone during lifetime of the author, the author is always the owner of the rights, wich he can lease but not sell.

Patents:
First-filed, as lastly amended by the Congress.
Caveat:
-limits on 10 years, non renewable.  No tax deduction for business buying a patent they don't use.  If you own patent X just to cut the grass under your competitor's feets, you don't get any kind of fiscal amortizing on this.
-1% tax on patent value every year, where patent value is the sales $$ resulting in the use of this patent in your product
-patent for a full product or full descriptive concept, not for "a process that transfers data from video card architecture to CPU by using the motherboard chipset".

Trademarks:
For life, renewable every 10 years if provided proof of use.  Must be a real trademark, not a common name, i.e. Coca-Cola is ok, Coca is not.  An image can be a trademark if it's an original creation.  Santa Claus can not be a trademark.

So why should a person who makes something "real" (like an invention vs. song) - have less rights to control what they've made?

[Ideologue]

Don't Download This Song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY

I approve of your contribution.  That's a fun video.

[Ed Anger]

I always wanted to be a patent troll.

[Valmy]

So why should a person who makes something "real" (like an invention vs. song) - have less rights to control what they've made?

Because something real is too valuable to have its use limited to its inventor for too long a time.  A song is useless thus society doesn't suffer as much in the trade off.

[ulmont]

I don't think so. Patents don't even get that long so why should copyright?

Apples and oranges, in terms of public interest, "expiration date", and potential monetizing value.

I don't see why.  Contrast Star Wars and Viagra.

[Ideologue]

So why should a person who makes something "real" (like an invention vs. song) - have less rights to control what they've made?

Because something real is too valuable to have its use limited to its inventor for too long a time.  A song is useless thus society doesn't suffer as much in the trade off.

That is, of course, not true whatsoever.

Both increase the quality of life.  Who can say which is more "valuable"?

[Slargos]

So why should a person who makes something "real" (like an invention vs. song) - have less rights to control what they've made?

Because something real is too valuable to have its use limited to its inventor for too long a time.  A song is useless thus society doesn't suffer as much in the trade off.

Why?

How does "society" suffer more from not having safety matches than not having free access to singing "Happy Birthday" in public?

[Slargos]

So why should a person who makes something "real" (like an invention vs. song) - have less rights to control what they've made?

Because something real is too valuable to have its use limited to its inventor for too long a time.  A song is useless thus society doesn't suffer as much in the trade off.

Who can say which is more "valuable"?

Well that's at least easy to answer: The market.

[Slargos]

Essentially, Valmy is suffering from a gamer's min-maxing perspective. Looking at society as a tool for technological, cultural and racial progress from point A to point B a work of art will need to have substantially measurable importance in decreasing civil unrest in order to be more important than a work of engineering or theoretical science. Its only merit lies in increasing the efficiency of production.

However, I expect most people don't really give a fig about the progress of mankind but instead value things by how they make them feel.

[Valmy]

That is, of course, not true whatsoever.

Both increase the quality of life.  Who can say which is more "valuable"?

If we had let the Wright Brothers and their heirs have exclusive rights to the Airplane for the last century you do not see how society would suffer for that?  Whereas who gives a crap if people have to pay royalties on a song written in 1903.

[Slargos]

That is, of course, not true whatsoever.

Both increase the quality of life.  Who can say which is more "valuable"?

If we had let the Wright Brothers and their heirs have exclusive rights to the Airplane for the last century you do not see how society would suffer for that?  Whereas who gives a crap if people have to pay royalties on a song written in 1903.

How would society suffer from that?