Copyright

[RevDisk]

This is what the Constitution says:

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.

Now, it is the view of some that (Life of the Universe - 1 picosecond) counts as "limited times".

I take a slightly more...  well, sane approach.  The point, for good or ill, is to promote the progress of science and useful arts.  Not personal gain.  Not the personal gain of descendants, not Disney's stranglehold on Steamboat Willy.  Not that I am in any way opposed to these things.  But per the Constitution, these are not the defining criteria.

A copyright is a government monopoly granted to an individual or corporation.  The government will back your claim in court (theoretically) and punish anyone that dares to violate said government monopoly.  That is not something to be taken lightly.  The burden of copyright is that the length of validity should entirely regarding its usefulness in promoting science and useful art.

[red headed stranger]

The point, for good or ill, is to promote the progress of science and useful arts.  Not personal gain.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Patents are the reward for putting your blood sweat, tears, and money into creating something new.  If just anyone can take your product and profit from all your effort, there is far less incentive to invent and innovate.   

That said, the state of copyright is a mess.  Disney has a lot to do with it.  It's ironic, considering they made a lot fo their money on derivative works. 

[RevDisk]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Patents are the reward for putting your blood sweat, tears, and money into creating something new.  If just anyone can take your product and profit from all your effort, there is far less incentive to invent and innovate.   

That said, the state of copyright is a mess.  Disney has a lot to do with it.  It's ironic, considering they made a lot fo their money on derivative works. 

Ah, I might not have been clear.  You are absolutely correct, they are NOT exclusive nor meant to be.  Profit is the primary incentive, of course, as it should be.  I'm merely stating the government's priority, per the Constitution. 

[Hawkmoon]

This view was put in place for me by JRR Tolkien's forward in a copy of Lord of The Rings that was printed back in the 70's.  Evidently another publishing house (Ace books) found a loophole in international copyright and started printing his books.  I forget the exact wording of the forward, but the part that hit me was along the lines of:

...

In my mind, the creator of M' (who also either created R or used R as a random string of bits for an encryption key) is the copyright violator.  And anyone who utilizes M' and R to re-create M.

That's not unique. In my younger days I read a lot of Louis Lamour western books. Apparently in Louis' lifetime the copyright laws changed, so that before his death the copyrights on some of his early short stories had expired. And some enterprising third-tier publisher put a bunch of 'em together and published them as a book.

Once Louis and his regular publisher got wind of this, they came out with a book containing the same stories, each prefaced with a short introduction, and even bearing the same title. And somewhere in the preface I think Louis wrote a request to buy the "official" version rather than the "other" version.

[zxcvbob]

You could claim that M' was a parody... 

(I think it should be lifetime of the author, or 20 year, whichever is longer)

[roo_ster]

Ah, I might not have been clear.  You are absolutely correct, they are NOT exclusive nor meant to be.  Profit is the primary incentive, of course, as it should be.  I'm merely stating the government's priority, per the Constitution. 

What sort of crazy talk is that!?

[280plus]

I'm not sure why my spouse, children or grandchildren etc, shouldn't be allowed to continue to reap the rewards of my work after I'm gone.

[tyme]

I'm not sure why my spouse, children or grandchildren etc, shouldn't be allowed to continue to reap the rewards of my work after I'm gone.

How is IP your work?  It's a state-granted monopoly for a limited time for the specific purpose of promoting progress in arts and useful sciences, a purpose which is largely ended when the creator dies.

You're assuming copyrightable material has long-term value.  That was not its original intent, or else the original copyright term would have been longer than 14+14 years (initial+renewal).

Why does there need to be such a disparity compared with patents?  While some interests would like patents to last longer than 20 years, there doesn't seem to be much traction on that.  Why is 20 years fine for patents while copyright needs to be lifetime + 70 years?

[RevDisk]

I'm not sure why my spouse, children or grandchildren etc, shouldn't be allowed to continue to reap the rewards of my work after I'm gone.

And they can do so.  IP is intangible property, just like anything else.  If you died five seconds after your work is published, it can and should be included with your other assets and liabilities in your estate as guaranteed by your Constitutional right to property and due process.

However, an unlimited time length of govt sanctioned and enforced monopoly on IP (in human lifespan terms of unlimited, obviously) is directly contrary to the specific intent enumerated in the Constitution, as it would be intentional usage of government force in order to inhibit the progress of science and useful arts.  Ergo, a direct violation of the Constitution, thus illegal.


If I may put it in more material terms.  If you make a physical object.  A book or statue.  It is your's forever.  You or your estate can keep it as long as you'd like, subject to taxation and whatnot.  No one is disputing that part. 

We are merely talking about the right to make copies of said form or content.  If I make a copy of said book or statue, I have not physically deprived you or your estate of your physical property.  Ergo, not theft.  I can only infringe upon your intellectual property, which is still potentially a crime.  Now, in the interest of promoting the sciences and useful arts, the government is accorded the right to use force to stop me from making copies and thus infringing on your IP for a limited time.   So you can make some money off licensing or whatnot.  The government is NOT accorded the right to use force against me for all time, as that would be hostile to the progress of science and the useful arts. 

If folks want to pass copyright laws that inhibit the progress of science and the useful arts, that is fine.  But they have to amend the Constitution first.  Otherwise, no go.