In the Piracy thread, there was some discussion that copyright laws are not fair. I agree with this, while not an excuse for piracy, I think that really should be overhauled. For instance, I don't think reducing the time of copyright to only twenty or thirty years most intellectual property is unfair. I'm not really well versed on this (though some members of this board are I believe), what do the rest of you think?
What do I think would be fair?
Ten years window of copyright on works, but with much longer exclusionary ownership of properties. E.g.: MST3K would be in the public domain, but Jim Mallon's company would still own the rights to use Crow and Tom Servo and such for several more decades; Adventure Comics #247 would be in the public domain, but DC Entertainment would still own the Legion of Super-Heroes; and so on.
I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.
I think death of author + 70 years is retarded, I see no real reason that benefits any part of society aside from major media corporations.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 01, 2011, 11:27:08 PM
I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.
I don't think so. Patents don't even get that long so why should copyright?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 01, 2011, 11:27:08 PM
I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.
I think death of author + 70 years is retarded, I see no real reason that benefits any part of society aside from major media corporations.
hmm...I would add a bit of a plus; the author might have a family reliant on him. +30 or 40 or so? - assumes even if the author has a newborn son he will still be supported well into adulthood. And his wife should be able to see her way through to retirement age.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2011, 11:35:43 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 01, 2011, 11:27:08 PM
I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.
I don't think so. Patents don't even get that long so why should copyright?
Actually, copyrights occupy an interesting middle ground between patents (which are for a strictly limited time) and trademarks (which last as long as they serve to identify the producer to the public). I wouldn't mind a perpetual copyright, as long as it was accompanied by an annual, and escalating, tax (to insure that only those copyrights which are still rather valuable are monopolized, and even so, not forever).
Quote from: Tyr on December 01, 2011, 11:39:13 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 01, 2011, 11:27:08 PM
I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.
I think death of author + 70 years is retarded, I see no real reason that benefits any part of society aside from major media corporations.
hmm...I would add a bit of a plus; the author might have a family reliant on him. +30 or 40 or so? - assumes even if the author has a newborn son he will still be supported well into adulthood. And his wife should be able to see her way through to retirement age.
While the children of inventors can starve to hell. OK.
Quote from: ulmont on December 01, 2011, 11:54:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2011, 11:35:43 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 01, 2011, 11:27:08 PM
I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.
I don't think so. Patents don't even get that long so why should copyright?
Actually, copyrights occupy an interesting middle ground between patents (which are for a strictly limited time) and trademarks (which last as long as they serve to identify the producer to the public). I wouldn't mind a perpetual copyright, as long as it was accompanied by an annual, and escalating, tax (to insure that only those copyrights which are still rather valuable are monopolized, and even so, not forever).
Interesting idea.
Quote from: Tyr on December 01, 2011, 11:39:13 PMhmm...I would add a bit of a plus; the author might have a family reliant on him. +30 or 40 or so? - assumes even if the author has a newborn son he will still be supported well into adulthood. And his wife should be able to see her way through to retirement age.
From an academic perspective I do think it can hold back research.
Some estates are extremely protective. The Joyce estate for example are just about to lose their copyright restrictions - that's why they gave Kate Bush permission to use Ulysses on one of her 2011 albums but not in the 80s. It'll be interesting to see the effect of that, I've read that it's expected to lead to another bout of Joycemania as we see new interpretations based on Joyce's work. The Abbey Theatre's already refusing to comment.
I can't wait for the Nabokov estate to lose their copyright as I think they've been similarly quite restrictive :mmm:
If estates (ie children of talented artists with copywrited work) want seventy years of monopoly, maybe they can pay inheritance tax on the value? After all they would do so on, say, the family home.
But yeah, current terms are far too restrictive and are just rent seeking. I accept the need to ensure a fair reward for an artists creative labour, but I don't think the de facto perpetual monopolies are a fair deal for society.
Among other things I manage an archive of 155 years worth of academic material and we only charge or get restrictive about the last twenty years of papers, even though we could get decent cash for a lot of our older material. But then we are a charity and have some naive beliefs about the public good...
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2011, 11:35:43 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 01, 2011, 11:27:08 PM
I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2011, 07:40:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2011, 11:35:43 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 01, 2011, 11:27:08 PM
I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.
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.
Oh there's certainly a public interest in having patents expire at much shorter times...but where is the public interest in allow copyrights to last so long? I really doubt that without such a long period of copyright that authors would feel so stifled as to not create works.
Bring it back to 28 years. Though I suppose the first change to 42 would be acceptable as well.
Experiation after 20 years of registering. Extension of what consist fair use. Much lower royalties. No transfer of IPs.
Copyright law is fine.
Change patent law instead.
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2011, 01:23:26 PM
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.
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 $$ resulting in the use of this patent in your product
-patent for a full product or full descriptive concept, not for "a process that transfers data from video card architecture to CPU by using the motherboard chipset".
Trademarks:
For life, renewable every 10 years if provided proof of use. Must be a real trademark, not a common name, i.e. Coca-Cola is ok, Coca is not. An image can be a trademark if it's an original creation. Santa Claus can not be a trademark.
Don't Download This Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY
Quote from: viper37 on December 02, 2011, 04:30:09 PM
Copyright on art: life of the author, period. Non transferable to anyone during lifetime of the author, the author is always the owner of the rights, wich he can lease but not sell.
Patents:
First-filed, as lastly amended by the Congress.
Caveat:
-limits on 10 years, non renewable. No tax deduction for business buying a patent they don't use. If you own patent X just to cut the grass under your competitor's feets, you don't get any kind of fiscal amortizing on this.
-1% tax on patent value every year, where patent value is the sales $$ 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?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 02, 2011, 04:42:23 PM
Don't Download This Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY
I approve of your contribution. That's a fun video.
I always wanted to be a patent troll.
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2011, 04:44:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2011, 07:40:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2011, 11:35:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 04:50:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2011, 04:44:13 PM
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"?
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 04:50:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2011, 04:44:13 PM
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?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 02, 2011, 05:06:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 04:50:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2011, 04:44:13 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 02, 2011, 05:06:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 05:17:09 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 02, 2011, 05:06:44 PM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 04:50:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2011, 04:44:13 PM
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?
Quote from: Slargos on December 02, 2011, 05:21:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Slargos on December 02, 2011, 05:10:35 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 02, 2011, 05:06:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 04:50:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2011, 04:44:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 05:26:34 PM
Quote from: Slargos on December 02, 2011, 05:21:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 02, 2011, 05:27:39 PM
Yet we built the B-29. We were once a great country.
Yes...well after the Wright's patent had expired.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 05:30:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 02, 2011, 05:27:39 PM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on December 02, 2011, 04:30:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 02, 2011, 01:06:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 04:50:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2011, 04:44:13 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: The Brain on December 03, 2011, 04:52:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 04:50:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2011, 04:44:13 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 03, 2011, 05:02:31 AM
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.
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.
Do you want patents to last longer than they do?
Quote from: Martinus on December 03, 2011, 05:02:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 03, 2011, 05:02:31 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2011, 05:17:09 PM
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?
Quote from: Martinus on December 03, 2011, 05:02:31 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on December 03, 2011, 09:55:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 03, 2011, 05:02:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 03, 2011, 05:02:31 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: The Brain on December 03, 2011, 11:18:42 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on December 03, 2011, 09:55:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 03, 2011, 05:02:31 AM
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?
Quote from: Slargos on December 03, 2011, 05:37:01 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 03, 2011, 02:11:29 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 03, 2011, 09:00:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on December 03, 2011, 09:07:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 03, 2011, 09:00:48 PM
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.
I dunno, it's hard to cure an infection with a tank. Penicillin lets you field more soldiers. Soldiers who would have been unfit for duty could sometimes be ready for active duty because of penicillin and others may simply recover faster.
Who sings about bullets and tanks anyway? I'm not always singing about either. Is that something they do in Alberta?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 03, 2011, 09:29:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 03, 2011, 09:07:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 03, 2011, 09:00:48 PM
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.
I dunno, it's hard to cure an infection with a tank. Penicillin lets you field more soldiers. Soldiers who would have been unfit for duty could sometimes be ready for active duty because of penicillin and others may simply recover faster.
OR you could have soldiers who don't run to whores all the fucking time.
Quote from: The Brain on December 04, 2011, 03:02:25 AM
OR you could have soldiers who don't run to whores all the fucking time.
True. It's much better when they run to each other.