Copyright Law

[Talcite]

I originally read this article when it was linked to from /.

The author has a pretty innovative idea, perhaps it would be worth pushing it?
Read it here.

What do you think about copyright law? Does it work in it's current state? Why or why not?

 

[Brainonska511]

Today, I don't think copyright law works well. It is way to restrictive; nothing is entering the public domain anymore. At the current rate of expansions of CR law, it seems like its creating a state of perpetual CR. We should always remember, creativity breads creativity. The public domain is a great place to get ideas to create new ideas or use as a starting point for something new and innovative.

What I think copyright law should be:

-No more than 20 years, then into the public domain
-Something trademarked and copyrighted like Mickey Mouse - Disney can continue to have a monopoly on making Mickey cartoons, but any cartoons older than 20 years should enter the public domain.
-No selling of copyrights - Michael Jackson shouldn't be allowed to own the creative works of the Beatles.
-Copyrights should only be issued to the creator of the work. If the creator dies before the copyright ends, it can pass on in the creator's estate, but will still expire at the time that it would have originally if the creator didn't die.
-Backup copies are legal and the ability to make them shall not be hampered

 

[Lemon law]

The copyright laws were originally intended to protect the inventor or ideas and mechanical concepts. And prevented others from simply COPYING AND THEN reselling the ideas of the inventor For PROFIT. They were never intended to prevent individuals from copying those same things for their own enjoyment. ONLY THE FOR PROFIT THEFT was prohibited
from the marketplace. But if a person wanted to make something like a a total copy of a patented sewing machine for their own use, that was always allowed. But impractical in practice because with far less effort, one could pay the royalties to the inventor and receive a mass produced sewing machine using those patented design concepts. And at the time, the mechanical model worked as well for print media and authorship, a person could use long hand or a type writer to make a copy of a book like Huckelberry Finn for their own use, but needed a expensive printing press and access to markets to make it practical or profitable.

And now suddenly we are in the 21'st century, and the means of production are in the hands of the individuals. And if just one copy of an original work falls into the consumers hands, everyone and their brother in law can make an infinite number of perfect copies for their OWN USE. And the reproduction for profit motive prohibition model suddenly ceases to operate especially for things like music and movies.

And now we see the ultimate hypocrisies, organizations like the RIAA and the MPPA, the traditional holders of the means of mass reproduction and exploiters of artists, setting themselves up as the champions of artists.

In any rational reform of the copyright laws, technology dictates that its the RIAA and the MPPA are the very entities that are obsolete and need to get the ole heave ho. Its the artists that we need to save, to hell with the RIAA who are now just a bunch of scum sucking obsolete parasites.

 

[1prophet]

Congress continually extends copyrights to the point of being for all practical purposes perpetual at the behest of the RIAA/MPAA.

 

[Craig234]

All we need to do is to have the donations from the industries be less than the donations from the public interest groups/private citizens, and then the Congress can pass public-interest copyright laws.

In fact, that's such a handy idea, (c) Craig234.

Of course, as with most issues, the trick is in getting those who stand to make the fortunes to donate less than the public.

 

[MadRat]

All copyright should be limited to 17 years with one renewal possible. If the Library of Congress deems the work to be an important contribution to society then it should be extended to 150 years past the authors death like it is now and licensing handled by the Library of Congress at a fixed rate. I could live with that setup.

 

[Atreus21]

I don't care what changes they make. I just wish hackers would quit wasting their time and gang rape the RIAA site.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: MadRat
All copyright should be limited to 17 years with one renewal possible. If the Library of Congress deems the work to be an important contribution to society then it should be extended to 150 years past the authors death like it is now and licensing handled by the Library of Congress at a fixed rate. I could live with that setup.

If it's such an important contribution to society, why would you want to be able to extend the copyright for such an absurd amount of time?

 

[jonks]

dp

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: MadRat
All copyright should be limited to 17 years with one renewal possible. If the Library of Congress deems the work to be an important contribution to society then it should be extended to 150 years past the authors death like it is now and licensing handled by the Library of Congress at a fixed rate. I could live with that setup.

Generally agree. Life + 70 years = way to effing long. Artists don't need that much incentive to create.

 

[jjones]

IMO, copyrighted works that are never sold should last the author's life plus 1 year, or in the case of collaborative work (including corporations, etc.) somewhere between 50 and 75 years, and should remain free of charge, except for any filing fees associated with non-mandatory registration. After that time they become public domain.

Copyrighted works that are sold should require a commercial registration and last a period of 15 years before they fall into public domain.

What this does is insure an original creator of the work can freely distribute the work, yet retain control of that work over his lifetime as long as the work is never sold. Once a work is sold and/or intended for commercial use, the lifespan of the copyright falls dramatically. I think commercial works, by nature of the fact that they are intended for broad public distribution, should be accessible under public domain much sooner.

Just my opinion on the subject.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The copyright laws were originally intended to protect the inventor or ideas and mechanical concepts. And prevented others from simply COPYING AND THEN reselling the ideas of the inventor For PROFIT. They were never intended to prevent individuals from copying those same things for their own enjoyment. ONLY THE FOR PROFIT THEFT was prohibited
from the marketplace. But if a person wanted to make something like a a total copy of a patented sewing machine for their own use, that was always allowed. But impractical in practice because with far less effort, one could pay the royalties to the inventor and receive a mass produced sewing machine using those patented design concepts. And at the time, the mechanical model worked as well for print media and authorship, a person could use long hand or a type writer to make a copy of a book like Huckelberry Finn for their own use, but needed a expensive printing press and access to markets to make it practical or profitable.

And now suddenly we are in the 21'st century, and the means of production are in the hands of the individuals. And if just one copy of an original work falls into the consumers hands, everyone and their brother in law can make an infinite number of perfect copies for their OWN USE. And the reproduction for profit motive prohibition model suddenly ceases to operate especially for things like music and movies.

And now we see the ultimate hypocrisies, organizations like the RIAA and the MPPA, the traditional holders of the means of mass reproduction and exploiters of artists, setting themselves up as the champions of artists.

In any rational reform of the copyright laws, technology dictates that its the RIAA and the MPPA are the very entities that are obsolete and need to get the ole heave ho. Its the artists that we need to save, to hell with the RIAA who are now just a bunch of scum sucking obsolete parasites.

:thumbsup:

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't care what changes they make. I just wish hackers would quit wasting their time and gang rape the RIAA site.

:thumbsup:

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: MadRat
All copyright should be limited to 17 years with one renewal possible. If the Library of Congress deems the work to be an important contribution to society then it should be extended to 150 years past the authors death like it is now and licensing handled by the Library of Congress at a fixed rate. I could live with that setup.

If it's such an important contribution to society, why would you want to be able to extend the copyright for such an absurd amount of time?

You have to consider that the Library of Congress (LoC) needs to be able to regulate this small fraction of work that holds so much value. Because a library has a limit of storage, the curators would have to exclude much more overall work than they would prod up for the good of the American people. As it is now a copyright never has to be formally declared, it merely has to be able to be certifiable as to authenticity, date of origin, and whom is the ultimate creator. Therefore they use death as the "start" of the countdown to freedom timeline. If they had to register their work with the LoC then they begin the countdown to freedom at that point.

 

[alpineranger]

The constitution set forth the idea of a _limited_ period of copyright to help promote the development of culture and the arts. The media companies, and greedy individuals in the entertainment business have turned copyright in to a de-facto perpetual copyright to keep profiting from old franchises. Whenever old, valuable works such as Mickey Mouse are about to go out of copyright, congress has gladly extended the copyright period. The fact that you can't give a public performance of "Happy Birthday to You" (the words, not the music, is copyrighted) without paying royalties is an example of how ridiculous this is. A great example how greed combined with the willingness to discard the constitution is ruining this country.

The tax proposal is good but doesn't it's still contrary to the intention of the constitution. As long as we have perpetual copyright along with courts that are overzealous to protect any hint of encroachment on copyright, the system will continue to be a impediment to cultural progress.

 

[piasabird]

One could argue that copyright law is a civil matter and not a criminal offense. In the UK they argued that since it is civil law, no request for information has to be honored from a search warrant, because no crime had been committed.

The original law only grants 50 years for a copyright. It is only through extensions that the copyrights are extended. This means that the courts do not have to approve extensions, or we could change the law to say 20 years to be more reasonable if the courts or congress decided to change the existing laws. We have some religious hymns that have really old copyrights in excess of 100 years.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: alpineranger
The constitution set forth the idea of a _limited_ period of copyright to help promote the development of culture and the arts. The media companies, and greedy individuals in the entertainment business have turned copyright in to a de-facto perpetual copyright to keep profiting from old franchises. Whenever old, valuable works such as Mickey Mouse are about to go out of copyright, congress has gladly extended the copyright period. The fact that you can't give a public performance of "Happy Birthday to You" (the words, not the music, is copyrighted) without paying royalties is an example of how ridiculous this is. A great example how greed combined with the willingness to discard the constitution is ruining this country.

The tax proposal is good but doesn't it's still contrary to the intention of the constitution. As long as we have perpetual copyright along with courts that are overzealous to protect any hint of encroachment on copyright, the system will continue to be a impediment to cultural progress.

I'd argue only that some "culture" needs to be carefully protected from bastardization. Works that are mundane and lack noteworthiness should expire after a shorter period; perhaps after the expiration they can be further improved upon by a new party. Allowing some government entity like the Library of Congress to hold sway on such matters allows people to openly use the copyrighted information as long as they pay the standardized fee. Uncle Sam gets his share to safeguard the copyright while the author (and descendants) enjoys the extended protection. As it is now the copyright holder has such overwhelming protection it is impossible to use their work even in good faith for fear of being sued.

People should be able to add to culture that has long since met its last end. And by making a standardized fee for extended copyright material at least it opens the way for innovation where the costs of such innovation are able to be measured. Hell, stuff a 100 years old isn't worth a fraction of new material in most cases. Nothing says the standardized fees have to be void of category to create multiple tiers of value nor that the worth couldn't be downgraded to an early freedom if the material is not being accessed at all.