Copyright

[280plus]

Why should someone (and their heirs) who writes an article have control over it for 120 years when someone who creates an invention that has far more value to society only gets a patent for only 20 years?

Just a SWAG, one can assume, given the rapid advance in technology, that in 20 years a particular design has become obsolete? If you think about it, it PROMOTES advancement because you design something and know that it will be public property in 20 years there is an added incentive for you to improve on it and patent the improvements or completely redesign this thing so that you yourself make the previous one obsolete.

Then, when it comes to writings and the like, intellectual property, when does it EVER become obsolete? I mean right now turn on the radio. The classic rock stations are still playing stuff that was done in the 60's and they're still  making $ off it. Same with the oldies stations. Only they play even older stuff.

Is Shakespeare obsolete? How about the weapons of his day, are they obsolete?  

My damn computer is 7 years old, it's a friggin dinosaur. 

[280plus]

FYI, I ain't never read no shakepeare. Never liked it. I am right now struggling my way through the last few philsophically based pages of W&P. The thing just won't END! 

[makattak]

Just a SWAG, one can assume, given the rapid advance in technology, that in 20 years a particular design has become obsolete? If you think about it, it PROMOTES advancement because you design something and know that it will be public property in 20 years there is an added incentive for you to improve on it and patent the improvements or completely redesign this thing so that you yourself make the previous one obsolete.

Then, when it comes to writings and the like, intellectual property, when does it EVER become obsolete? I mean right now turn on the radio. The classic rock stations are still playing stuff that was done in the 60's and they're still  making $ off it. Same with the oldies stations. Only they play even older stuff.

Is Shakespeare obsolete? How about the weapons of his day, are they obsolete? 

My damn computer is 7 years old, it's a friggin dinosaur. 

So the Internal Combustion Engine is obsolete?

Heck, every engine out there is a derivative of the original patent. That family is getting SCREWED!!!

Or, perhaps, we ought to let others use works and reinterpret them. Otherwise we would never have had a Shakespeare- he reinterpreted a great number of Greek/Roman plays.

Just because something is still valued doesn't mean we should continue to grant a monopoly over it.

Further, to turn your argument back on you:

If you think about it, it PROMOTES advancement creativity because you design something and know that it will be public property in 20 years there is an added incentive for you to improve on it and patent copyright the improvements or completely redesign this thing create a whole new work so that you yourself make the previous one obsolete out of fashion.

[makattak]

Fail. Copyright law existed LONG before Disney, Mate. Maybe not 500 years, but it IS written into the Constitution. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Granted, the time limits have changed, but they are still limited.

Your information is flawed. 120 years applies only to corporate authorship. For individuals it's the author's life plus 70 years -- and that's to protect the heirs of an author who may die soon after the work is created.

Yes, prior to Disney, copyright existed. It was granted for 14 years with a possibility of extension for another 14 years, making 28 years the total possible time under copyright, as passed by the authors of our constitution.

The 120 years was my estimate for 50 years of life + 70 years after death. I'm sorry, that's stupid. I'm all for giving a family time to hold the copyright should the author die, but his lifetime should have no bearing. The copyright should be granted for a limited time, period. If the author survives during that time, great for him. If not, his family will retain the rights.

On what grounds can you suggest that a copyrighted work ought to have a monopoly for a longer period of time than THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE or a drug that cures cancer!?

[280plus]

So the Internal Combustion Engine is obsolete?

The original one? Yes, it certainly is. 

If you think about it, it PROMOTES creativity because you design something and know that it will be public property in 20 years there is an added incentive for you to improve on it and copyright the improvements or create a whole new work so that you yourself make the previous one out of fashion

Is 70's classic rock "out of fashion"? Not if it can support whole radio stations it isn't. Copyrights and patents are apples and oranges I'm afraid.

[makattak]

The original one? Yes, it certainly is.  

Is 70's classic rock "out of fashion"? Not if it can support whole radio stations it isn't. Copyrights and patents are apples and oranges I'm afraid.

Yes. 1970's classic rock is "out of fashion." Yes, some people still like it (me, for example), but that doesn't mean it is not "obsolete."

There are plenty of opportunities for niche markets. Why should we grant a lifetime+ monopoly to "artists" that create merely aesthetic value, while we only grant inventors a few years?

We want inventions to have their patent protections fall away so that others may study them and improve them and innovate.

We should want the same for copyright protections. Instead, we've created a situation where someone singing karaoke in their living room or at a wedding are violating the law, even if they're singing songs that are 60 years old. How stupid is that?

[280plus]

We want inventions to have their patent protections fall away so that others may study them and improve them and innovate

In most cases someone else WILL study the product and develop improvements on it and then guess what? They get to patent the improvements. Not the case with the copyright. If you redo a previously recorded tune by someone else, you must pay them royalties per copy sold, in turn YOU may copyright YOUR version of the song and now anyone that uses THAT particular arrangement also owes YOU royalties.

we've created a situation where someone singing karaoke in their living room or at a wedding are violating the law,

Also not the case, whoever put out the karaoke material would be responsible for paying royalties on copyrighted tunes that were included which would in turn be passed on to the consumer in the final price.

Again, the point is nearly moot except in the biggest of cases. I was JUST having this conversation with someone who has a lot of songs registered. There are no "copyright police" other than the owner of the copyrights themselves. They can sue you in civil court but as soon as you involve laywers, who wins? The LAWYERS. Not you. 

[280plus]

Some owners of copyrights DO hire people to search for unathorized users/copiers but again, is it worth it over a few copies? Millions of copies? yes, then it becomes worth it. or maybe someone used one of my recordings in a blockbuster movie without my permission. Worth it again.

[KD5NRH]

Is Shakespeare obsolete? How about the weapons of his day, are they obsolete?

Ask the maintenance guy I chased off with a battleaxe.

Considering I was naked and screaming at the time, one could even safely state that not even the tactics of the Celts have become obsolete.

[280plus]

 

Fortunately he did not have the presence of mind to reply with something a little more modern. 

I have an old Arisaka with bayonet, I've thought about keeping it it the bedroom with bayonet attached just so I can try a good old fashioned banzai charge if the neccesity ever arose. 

[makattak]

In most cases someone else WILL study the product and develop improvements on it and then guess what? They get to patent the improvements. Not the case with the copyright. If you redo a previously recorded tune by someone else, you must pay them royalties per copy sold, in turn YOU may copyright YOUR version of the song and now anyone that uses THAT particular arrangement also owes YOU royalties.

Which is exactly my point. They don't have to pay the original patent holder when they derive improvements to the originial idea. That was my point about the ICE and how people aren't paying royalties to the family of the inventor since everything since is but an improvement on his intellectual property.

Also not the case, whoever put out the karaoke material would be responsible for paying royalties on copyrighted tunes that were included which would in turn be passed on to the consumer in the final price.

Only if you purchase a karaoke machine or other such devices. How about if you just played the song and sang along with it at a wedding? Copyright violation.

Again, the point is nearly moot except in the biggest of cases. I was JUST having this conversation with someone who has a lot of songs registered. There are no "copyright police" other than the owner of the copyrights themselves. They can sue you in civil court but as soon as you involve laywers, who wins? The LAWYERS. Not you. 

Unless you successfully re-interpret the song in a way that people like. Then you'll get slammed with the lawyers, posthaste.

In other words, although it's illegal, we allow people to break copyright. But if anyone does anything valuable with the work, we'll attack them. That's the exact opposite of the idea for promoting creativity.

[280plus]

How about if you just played the song and sang along with it at a wedding? Copyright violation.

Generally, the establishment you have your wedding at pays ASCAP, BMI and another one a yearly royalty fee so that all copyrighted songs can be reproduced at that establishment under that blanket agreement. If they don't they arte subject to being sued by thise organizations and they make it very clear they have oodles of lawyers on retainer just to ruin your life if'n you don't pay up. My friend says that in reality they have no jurisidiction or way to actually collect but the fear factor they impart is enough to keep most honest folks honest.

[280plus]

Unless you successfully re-interpret the song in a way that people like

If you don't do that you won't sell copies and once again the point becomes moot.  

Which is exactly my point. They don't have to pay the original patent holder when they derive improvements to the originial idea

They can patent the IMPROVEMENT because after all, it is their invention. That doesn't give them any rights to the original product.

[makattak]

They can patent the IMPROVEMENT because after all, it is their invention. That doesn't give them any rights to the original product.

And re-interpreting a song can be argued as an "improvement" as people make it popular. You'll still get sued into oblivion by the bloodthirsty copyright lawyers of the record companies if you did that, even to a song 60 years old.

But I could come up with a new invention that improves, say, the polaroid camera that makes people suddenly start wanting film again. I wouldn't have to pay royalties to polaroid to sell my new polaroid+my invention camera.

[280plus]

And re-interpreting a song can be argued as an "improvement" as people make it popular. You'll still get sued into oblivion by the bloodthirsty copyright lawyers of the record companies if you did that, even to a song 60 years old.

Not if you pay the royalties. Put it this way, if you are going to substantially change the song. improvement or not, you have to ask the publisher's permission to do so. Even if you do or do NOT change it substantially it is completely subjective for one person vs another whether you have "improved" the song. You might improve the arrangement which causes people to take to your version more than the original but at the basic level you have not done anything to the song itself to improve it over its original form.

But I could come up with a new invention that improves, say, the polaroid camera that makes people suddenly start wanting film again. I wouldn't have to pay royalties to polaroid to sell my new polaroid+my invention camera.

No, because the patent has run out. 

[KD5NRH]

Fortunately he did not have the presence of mind to reply with something a little more modern.

I measured it off later; we were 12 feet apart at the start of my charge, and he was 4 feet in from the door.  According to the Tueller Drill, running backward and shutting the door on his way out was pretty much the only intelligent choice.  (Too bad there's not a naked, screaming, hairy, axe-wielding smiley)

[KD5NRH]

Just a SWAG, one can assume, given the rapid advance in technology, that in 20 years a particular design has become obsolete?

Is the circular saw obsolete?  Table saw?  Claw hammer?

[makattak]

Not if you pay the royalties. Put it this way, if you are going to substantially change the song. improvement or not, you have to ask the publisher's permission to do so. Even if you do or do NOT change it substantially it is completely subjective for one person vs another whether you have "improved" the song. You might improve the arrangement which causes people to take to your version more than the original but at the basic level you have not done anything to the song itself to improve it over its original form.

If people like my version better, than I've done something to improve it. (Otherwise, why do people like it?)

No, because the patent has run out.  

That's my point. The patent could have been granted in my lifetime AND, in my lifetime, I can use that patented item to make money for myself!

[280plus]

Is the circular saw obsolete?  Table saw?  Claw hammer?

They've all certainly been improved upon since they were first introduced. And I'll bet those improvements were patented by each successive developer. I mean, the first hammer was a rock, then someone tied the rock to a stick, then someone else sharpened the rock and now we have an axe. Then bronze comes along etc etc... Now you want to patent the hammer?

I'll bet stanley has a patent on that newfangled shock absorbing handle they sell. And I'll bet the Chinese already have a knock off on it even though they're violating the patent rights. Of course, US patents don't necessarily apply to them until they try to sell the knockoffs in the US. Ever see a Rilex watch? 

I still say we're talking apples and oranges trying to compare physical property vs intellectual property.

[Hawkmoon]

I still say we're talking apples and oranges trying to compare physical property vs intellectual property.

And I still say if you don't think the law is fair -- get it changed. Until then, it IS the law and we're supposed to follow it.

[makattak]

I still say we're talking apples and oranges trying to compare physical property vs intellectual property.

Patents aren't physical property. They are intellectual property bound in a physical item (usually).

[makattak]

And I still say if you don't think the law is fair -- get it changed. Until then, it IS the law and we're supposed to follow it.

I don't know about the rest of us, but DeSelby and I are arguing that. We're not suggesting that we break it because it's stupid. (As much as I may want to make a new Mickey Mouse movie, for some reason, I don't feel like taking on Disney's fire-breathing lawyers. "Now, shall you deal with ME, O Makattak- and all the powers of HELL!")

[280plus]

Forget the lawyers, I'd be worried about this guy a little more... NSFW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKgpKH2AH3s

[280plus]

Patents aren't physical property. They are intellectual property bound in a physical item (usually).

That doesn't change the differences between what can be copyrighted and what can be patented. Two different animals. Let's go back. So you're saying it's possible for someone to improve "Hamlet" for instance? I'm not thinking too many folks will buy that one.

[De Selby]

That doesn't change the differences between what can be copyrighted and what can be patented. Two different animals. Let's go back. So you're saying it's possible for someone to improve "Hamlet" for instance? I'm not thinking too many folks will buy that one.

They are fundamentally similar - it's the concept or idea that's protected, not any particular physical manifestation. 

A copyright is just a Government monopoly.  It's the same as a mining monopoly, a railroad monopoly, or any other such government prohibition on people doing something they otherwise would be perfectly capable of doing with their own property.

I think a rational starting point for copyright reform would be to adopt two basic principles:

1.  No copyright should be granted unless the evidence shows that granting copyright under the circumstances, and for any given amount of time, is a proven method of promoting creativity; and

2.  Any person bringing a lawsuit to enforce copyright should be required to prove damages, just like any other litigant.