Re-writing copyright laws.

[garbon]

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.

So we should let someone have life rights (or even just rather long rights) to a song because a song isn't really important to us? Why shouldn't we look at benefits? What is the benefit to society of letting a song holder have such long lasting rights?

[Valmy]

How would society suffer from that?

Ok here is how it worked in that exact scenario: the Wrights invented the thing and then spent the next decade or so taking all American companies who wanted to build and develop airplanes to court.  It set the US air industry back years and the Europeans took over the lead.

[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.

Who can say which is more "valuable"?

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

That's actually what I meant.  As opposed to a prefabricated assumption that the design of a machine/formula for a drug/etc. is more importnat than a piece of art, which the market often does not bear out.

[Ideologue]

How would society suffer from that?

Ok here is how it worked in that exact scenario: the Wrights invented the thing and then spent the next decade or so taking all American companies who wanted to build and develop airplanes to court.  It set the US air industry back years and the Europeans took over the lead.

Yet we built the B-29.  We were once a great country.

[Valmy]

Yet we built the B-29.  We were once a great country.

Yes...well after the Wright's patent had expired.

[Ideologue]

Yet we built the B-29.  We were once a great country.

Yes...well after the Wright's patent had expired.

I'm just indulging in my personal idiom, Val.  Don't read too much into it.

[dps]

Copyright on art: life of the author, period. 

That would work for a novel or the like, but what about a film?  Who would own the copyright?   The screenwriter(s)?  What shows up on screen sometimes has little resemblence to what was in the script.  The director?  Usually has as much or more impact on what we actually see in the theater than the screenwriter, but maybe not if he doesn't get to do the final edit.  The lead actor/actress?  Why should they hold the copyright--often they're just hired guns, essentially.

Just go back to the original limit and leave it at that.

[Martinus]

No transfer of IPs.

That's retarded. Just shows you never were anywhere close to practising law if you do not realize the multitude of problems that would create.

[The Brain]

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.

Many many inventions are a lot less valuable than many songs/books/movies.

[Martinus]

I also think a lot of problems the USians (and other countries with their IP model) have with copyright is not as much about duration but that fair use is very restrictively defined. It would be much better if you extended the right to quotation, incorporation, derivative and non-commercial use instead of simply shortening the periods.

[Martinus]

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.

Many many inventions are a lot less valuable than many songs/books/movies.

This is why I like Languish less and less. It's pretty obvious what Valmy meant but people just prefer to score points by deliberately misinterpreting him.

[Martinus]

It's obvious that art can make money, thus it is "valuable". And it gives people sophisticated experiences thus it is not worthless.

But from the point of the public interest, it isn't really a big deal if we never saw Titanic (even if it is one of the top grossing films in history).

It is however a big deal if we did not have pencilin or were not able to utilize fast air transport (or would have to pay hefty royalties to do so).

This is what Valmy meant and it should be clear to anyone with two braincells. It pisses me off that so many people choose to play the role of an obtuse idiot instead.

[The Brain]

It's obvious that art can make money, thus it is "valuable". And it gives people sophisticated experiences thus it is not worthless.

But from the point of the public interest, it isn't really a big deal if we never saw Titanic (even if it is one of the top grossing films in history).

It is however a big deal if we did not have pencilin or were not able to utilize fast air transport (or would have to pay hefty royalties to do so).

This is what Valmy meant and it should be clear to anyone with two braincells. It pisses me off that so many people choose to play the role of an obtuse idiot instead.

Have you actually looked at many patents? Hint: it's NOT a parade of penicillins and heavier-than-air flying.

[Martinus]

I know but there are also shitty books and movies so it's you not me who are comparing apples and oranges. Take the world's greatest works of art and world's greatest inventions. We would be much poorer without the former, but we would be likely dead without the latter.

[The Brain]

Do you want patents to last longer than they do?