Present copywrite laws are insane and stifle innovation ... Discuss

B

buffys

Registered Loser
Registered Senior Member
My understanding is that originally copywrite was supposed to be 14yrs and then end. I'm all for creators getting paid, im an artist myself and would be really PO'd if after all my work someone just took it and started making cash from it without me BUT the copywrites are getting longer & longer if we all keep our greedy paws around our creations or innovations indefinitely no one wins. Look at disney, they built their empire on public domain fairy tales and yet they are the worst for enforcing their copywrite on 40 year old cartoons in some cases. From my limited knowledge of the situation the problem isn't only in the arts either, scientific research is being seriously undermined by this trend.

sorry, I just needed to rant and I also really wanted to hear from others on this topic (hopefully people who know more about this than me, i'm afraid my knowledge in this area is still fairly superficial).

Agree or disagree, just have a good argument and youll make my day.

thnx

I should add the thing that got me thinking about this was a lecture I'd heard on-line at http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_play_stream.html?stream_id=702 . Its about an hour long and sort of wet my appetite for information on this subject.
 
I can understand why people would have objections to this copyright policy, but I support it.

Why should a copyright expire? Why should your intellectual property ever cease to be yours (or your estate's, when you die)?
 
Can you imagine paying royalties to the family of the person that invented the wheel?
 
Think about how much of our artistic and scientific content is really just built on public domain, this allowed rampant innovation in the last few centuries using the research/creations of people before them to start ... its how we get (and have gotten) better and smarter ideas. If the copywrite laws existed 500 yrs ago as they do today i doubt we'd even have cars let alone airplanes or computers by now. As I said Im not against copywrite but an indefinite one would (in my opinion) be a detriment to our future, copywrite holder or not. What good is being payed for a certain idea untill the end of time if innovation stops or is, almost as bad, only being done only by the rich? I think its a question of balance, as i said the creator should be payed (14 years is a long time) but don't you think there is an inherent debt to our future society, to make sure they are as unobstructed in their creativity as possible?

I'm obviously not an expert in this area and am just now rounding my understanding and opinion but I really think 14 years is fair, both society as a whole and the initial creator get something in that senario. Also, keep in mind that many patents and copywrites are owned by companies not by the individuals or groups who created it, im not saying thats necessarily bad but it makes me think.

thnx for the reply

if you want a much more coherent argument in this area check out the link i posted previously, before I heard it i had the same feelings on this issue as you. In fact just a week ago I had a similar conversation with someone and told them almost word for word what you said in your post, frankly i'm suprised to find myself on this side of the argument but here i am.
 
jarrek u summed up what took me 2 posts to say in 1 sentence, well put.
 
We pay royalties on all sorts of things now. If the wheel was only a few years old we might be paying royalties on it every time we bought a car or motorcycle, or even a wheelbarrow; actually, on almost every machine we have these days
But something as important as the wheel would probably be deemed, by agreement among countries, too important to limit it's use by patent.
 
I don't think copywrite laws stifle innovation, in fact I think the mere fact of being able to make specific monetary gains from good ideas spurs innovation faster than doing it for the public good.
 
our esteemed site owner holds that Music is not property. Music is culture and culture is collectively owned.

;)

thoughts? if i compose a tune, it would be nice if society gives me an opportunity to make some cash out it (which they do anyway).

Works created after 1/1/1978_ -_ life of the longest surviving author plus 70 years -_ earliest possible PD date is 1/1/2048
* Works registered before 1/1/1978_ -_ 95 years from the date copyright was secured.
* Works registered before 1/1/1923 - Copyright protection for 75 years has expired and these works are in the public domain.

of course if these anarchists have their way, i would have no choice in the matter.

;)

Fortunately, copyrights eventually expire and the owner has no exclusive rights._ Also some composers renounce their copyright and give their music or lyrics to the public, either during their lifetime or at their death._

http://www.pdinfo.com/copyrt.htm

so what do we do here? storm into peoples house and take old paintings off the walls to put in a museum since it is collectively owned by society? confiscate rare manuscripts owned by individuals cos it is deemed culturally significant and put em in a library?

* i see nothing wrong with a copyright that lasts for the lifetime of the holder.
 
Copyrights are meant to help society, not the individual. Longterm copyrights stop innovation in certain fields because individual companies effectivly 'own' those fields.

With shorter copyright terms (15-20 years) more companies would just go the trade-secret route. There is no reason for a company to need such long term copyrights as they have now. Companies would still develop new technologies, and I would bet at a faster rate.
 
Spookz:

That's an actual, physical property... let's assign it a value of 'x'. What's valuable about x is not the fact that its 'x,' but rather the medium on which it is printed. The original Mona Lisa is worth a lot more than the duplicates...

So essentially, it's all the medium, right? If you could make an identical (as in not an atom's difference), the original would still be worth more.

Now,
Music is printed on a CD medium. Music these days can also be duplicated, but in this case as information. What we cannot really copy is the medium because it is original. It has a number, something unique and special about it. Even though you can get your duplicate for next to nothing (if not free,) the original is still gonna be worth loads more because it's the medium thats original. Now I'm thinking of something like an SACD. Something with unique things on that I'll value and get my monies worth out of. If all I'm getting is a number from your plain old CD, then 'x' isn't worth very much to anyone because the medium isn't unique. Plain and simple. CD's are obsolete. Theres nothing special about them any longer.

Basically, old Porf is right. But maybe he worded it wrongly. Information is culture, and music is information. Therefore it IS owned collectively. If an executive wants to make a buck off of it, they don't do it by controlling my thoughts. They do it by offering something special in the form of a medium

What's next? Is the RIAA gonna come knocking on my door, asking me to delete the latest Metallica song from my brain?
 
Persol,

What part of society are copyrights trying to help. The rising elite? That's what I think.

In a way, they're good short term because they disallow the elite themselves from taking an original idea and capitalizing it before the little man can have his chance at digging out of the working mans class. But when you extend them to 75 years or longer, you're not allowing any competition, and innovation cannot take place.

I don't think that helps society.
 
As i said earlier I'm not against copywrite. if someone creates something and someone else wants it, the creator "gots ta get paid", its the tendency to extend them longer and longer that I'm worried about.

Perhaps I misnamed this thread, I should have said, "copywrite terms are getting longer and longer ... what are the consequences (discuss). Ill be more careful in the future, "Present copywrite laws are insane and stifle innovation ... Discuss " was a bit more anti-copywrite than I meant to be.
 
Originally posted by buffys
Ill be more careful in the future, "Present copywrite laws are insane and stifle innovation ... Discuss " was a bit more anti-copywrite than I meant to be.
Click to expand...
Lol... yeah... I'm extremely surprised someone didn't point it out earlier.
 
Persol, you said - "With shorter copyright terms (15-20 years) more companies would just go the trade-secret route. There is no reason for a company to need such long term copyrights as they have now. Companies would still develop new technologies, and I would bet at a faster rate."

excellent point! I still think the direction the laws are taking is, overall, a bad thing for innovation but you've definitely given me something to chew on, thnx!
 
If music is valued by society, which it is, then society will find some way to support artists and musicians. Artists will not only survive the liberation of music, they will revel in it. (porfiry)

ok lets assume all is information and as such is free. how can we as a society enable the musicians/poets/artist to make a living? do we value these people?
i mean the money is there. they can be all govt funded (can a single b2 bomber) we could make em all millionaires. we have a poet laureate that gets cash from us. a dept of musicians maybe? hmm?

:)
 
spookz, I appreciate your responses but as ive said repeatedly I'm not against copywrite per se. I think your argument in this case is with porfiry, I belive our views (porfiry and myself) are quite different based on what you've posted so far.

I'm happy to hear any thoughts you have regarding what I've said so far.
 
ahh cmon i aint ragging on shit. porfs ideas are hardly unique. i personally rip off all kinds of artists of by p2p-ing. if however in the unlikely event i get creative, i wanna make a living off it till i die. even then perhaps i wanna leave the royalty payments for my kids and they would wanna for their kids..... if it is mine, i should decide! (i am a generous fella but allow me the option of deciding when and where and how....
 
Originally posted by spookz
i am a generous fella but allow me the option of deciding when and where and how....
Click to expand...
Why should we do that? Are you going to not develop music if we don't let your kids slum off your hard work after you die?
 
ahh it will become a hobby or maybe i wont bother at all. i will find another means of ensuring my kids are ok. perhaps i will be a ........ stockbroker!
 
Ok, it's a hobby... fine with me. People have always been making music, even when they aren't paid for it. Even as a 'hobby', many people will record and distribute (as they do now).

The point is that giving the author more then 20 years to make money off the song is just silly. It doesn't benefit society, and it rarely benefits the artist. Just about the only people who benefit are Disney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top