Re-writing copyright laws.

[Slargos]

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.

Society worked just fine before penicillin and charter tourism. I still don't see how society "suffers" from not having access to all potential technology.

[frunk]

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 point is that art, both good and bad, becomes a part of our culture and shouldn't be tightly held.  It's useful to grant an entity control of distribution of that for a limited time, but the excessively long span currently given means that virtually all of the people who remember or care about it when it was first released will be dead and buried when it comes out of copyright.    It means that unless the controlling entity chooses to re-release the copyrighted material there won't be anyone left to care once copyright ends.  They hold pieces of our history hostage for too long.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm fine with copyright transferring to children, but I still think a flat term, say 40 years, is better.

Let's say I write the next Lord of the Rings, then die tomorrow. Tolkien's actual work was published originally in the 1950s, and didn't pick up real steam until the 70s, there was at least a decade after publication where I'd have to wager his book sales were quite low.

I don't think my wife/daughter should be entitled to no money from my book just because I died right after publishing it.

However, I also don't think my great-grandkids should be living off my royalties in 2065, either.

[DontSayBanana]

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.

You're assuming static values of quality.  Why don't we run your comparison again with a salad shooter and a fictional song that some would like to see instated as a new state anthem?

[grumbler]

It pisses me off that so many people choose to play the role of an obtuse idiot instead.

Agreed.  You should have the copyright on that posting style, since you invented it.

[Slargos]

It pisses me off that so many people choose to play the role of an obtuse idiot instead.

Agreed.  You should have the copyright on that posting style, since you invented it.

Really? I would argue that it's a technique rather than a style, and thus fall under patent law.

[garbon]

It is however a big deal if we did not have pencilin

Why would it not exist? It still would have been happened upon and then someone would have tried to sell it to make a profit. Only difference is that many other individuals would have hopped on the game once knowledge of it was released.

[The Brain]

What's the cost to market for a typical new drug? 1-1.5 billion USD? The initial discovery can be cheap if you're lucky but making it into a medicine that you are allowed to give to humans sure isn't. Who wants to pay for this instead of just waiting for someone else to do it and then copy it?

[garbon]

What's the cost to market for a typical new drug? 1-1.5 billion USD? The initial discovery can be cheap if you're lucky but making it into a medicine that you are allowed to give to humans sure isn't. Who wants to pay for this instead of just waiting for someone else to do it and then copy it?

Not particularly relevant to the penicillin example as many of those costs weren't there back then. I wasn't really trying to get into the whole host of modern ramifications of patent protection being lost - although it is hard to believe that useful inventions would entirely cease.

Anyway, you've actually hit on a key reason why pharma companies are increasingly less in the research business for new products and more in the business of buying up biotechs that have created promising products. Even with patent protection - the incentive isn't there.

[Razgovory]

It pisses me off that so many people choose to play the role of an obtuse idiot instead.

Agreed.  You should have the copyright on that posting style, since you invented it.

Then you would be paying Marty royalties on a regular basis.  Why would you want to do that?

[Razgovory]

Society worked just fine before penicillin and charter tourism. I still don't see how society "suffers" from not having access to all potential technology.

Stop being stupid.

[Razgovory]

Incidentally, a country that did have penicillin really did a number on a couple of countries that didn't have penicillin back in the 1940's.  So not having penicillin did contribute to a certain society not collapsing around that time.

[Neil]

Incidentally, a country that did have penicillin really did a number on a couple of countries that didn't have penicillin back in the 1940's.  So not having penicillin did contribute to a certain society not collapsing around that time.

So correlation = causation in Raz-land?

[Razgovory]

Penicillin was a useful war material.  It didn't win the war, but it helped.  The Germans could have defiantly benefited from it.  Mass produced penicillin is one of those unsung weapons of the war.

[Neil]

Penicillin was a useful war material.  It didn't win the war, but it helped.  The Germans could have defiantly benefited from it.  Mass produced penicillin is one of those unsung weapons of the war.

Tanks and bullets were even more useful though, and we sing about them all the time.