Copyright

[280plus]

BUT, that still doesn't answer the question HOW DOES this promote creativity etc etc? How? I have an idea but I want to hear what others have to say.

[makattak]

BUT, that still doesn't answer the question HOW DOES this promote creativity etc etc? How? I have an idea but I want to hear what others have to say.

Umm... it promotes creativity because it rewards creativity.

We just must be careful we don't reward it beyond the value of innovation and creativity to society.

That is, just because it is good to reward something doesn't mean the rewards should be infinite. There are costs to granting a copyright and we must not ignore the costs and only look at the benefits. That's what bad economists (politicians) do.

[280plus]

Umm... it promotes creativity because it rewards creativity.

There you go. Consider MY incentive to create was based on my desire to hopefully provide for my children and even their children. What do you say then? If it ended when I died I'd be more inclined to spend my time and "disposable" money on something like a Harley. 

So here we have an example of the lengthy copyright laws both promoting creativity and preventing another 50 something from becoming road pizza. 

This is bad?

[280plus]

Almost forgot... SFW

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxkdmL3iMCY

[makattak]

There you go. Consider MY incentive to create was based on my desire to hopefully provide for my children and even their children. What do you say then? If it ended when I died I'd be more inclined to spend my time and "disposable" money on something like a Harley. 

So here we have an example of the lengthy copyright laws both promoting creativity and preventing another 50 something from becoming road pizza. 

This is bad?

I note you ignored the entire rest of my post which addressed the point I forsaw you would make.

[280plus]

I don't think I did.

I'm not sure what point it is you have forseen either.

[Hawkmoon]

ok, another question, looking at this again:
How DOES securing the rights of the authors and inventors PROMOTE the progress of Science and useful arts?

By encouraging smart people to do smart things, of course.

Let's pretend I'm a smart person. (I know, that's a stretch, but let's pretend.) I have an idea -- be it for a book, or a play, or a song, or a great invention. Doesn't matter what. But it's a great idea.

And there's no such thing as copyright protection. Anything that's created is immediately available in the public domain. So why the hell should I bother to spend a year or two years or five years of my life creating my creative masterpiece when I won't realize any return from it because as soon as I release it, anybody who wants to can rip off copies and sell them (or give them away) without my having any say in the matter? There's no point in my being creative, so instead of doing something creative, I'll just take a 9:00 to 5:00 job selling washing machines and ranges at Sears.

That's how securing the creator's rights promotes the progress of arts and sciences.

[De Selby]

Hawkmoon, your scenario isn't imaginary - you could be Shakespeare, galileo, Aristotle, or any number of people who innovated in ways not matched even today.   The ironic part is that if there had been strict copyright systems in those days, we might have lost all that knowledge.  Incessant copying is the only reason it was preserved.

[280plus]

You're a lot smarter than you look? 

And there's no such thing as copyright protection. Anything that's created is immediately available in the public domain. So why the hell should I bother to spend a year or two years or five years of my life creating my creative masterpiece when I won't realize any return from it because as soon as I release it, anybody who wants to can rip off copies and sell them (or give them away) without my having any say in the matter? There's no point in my being creative, so instead of doing something creative, I'll just take a 9:00 to 5:00 job selling washing machines and ranges at Sears

Exactly, and what makes most people happy most? Money. Reward.

I thought a bit more about the part of maks post I may not have given as much weight as I could have. Why should I EVER have to give up rights to what is essentially my property. I'd vote infinite. What about family heirlooms? Passed down from generation to generation, generating value over time. At some point should the item suddenly become part of the public domain and my family lose it's valuable heirloom? Isn't a work of art an heirloom as well? Paintings certainly are.

Shakespeare is a great writer back there whever he lived, his stuff is all copyrighted. His heirs are going to forgo their rights and let his books fade into obscurity losing all that potential income. Seems highly unlikely.

I think it's more about courtesy. If my idea helps you make money you should be courteous enough to WANT to give me a little piece. Me, personally. I almost feel like it's a friggin honor to say I'm responsible for putting a few bucks into the pockets of the families of oll those long ago writers. Hoagy Carmichael? yea, I don't mind sharing a little of the scratch with him at all. 

[280plus]

What if Disney lost the income from the Mickey Mouse copyright as well as the others they have and the subsequent loss of income caused the company to collapse? This would be good?  I can see their point in lobbying like hell for extensions.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

What if Disney lost the income from the Mickey Mouse copyright as well as the others they have and the subsequent loss of income caused the company to collapse? This would be good?  I can see their point in lobbying like hell for extensions.

IIRC, they've made most of their money off of works with expired copyrights. Their zealousness in demanding that the rights to their stuff be extended amuses me.
Also, their rights to use Peter Pan are in some dispute in the UK. Over there, Disney is fighting an orphanage. 

[280plus]

Or,,,

Wouldn't the thought that if you somehow turned an idea into a timeless hit that would guarantee your family's solvency for eternity a pretty good incentive to try and be creative?

[280plus]

IIRC, they've made most of their money off of works with expired copyrights. Their zealousness in demanding that the rights to their stuff be extended amuses me.
Also, their rights to use Peter Pan are in some dispute in the UK. Over there, Disney is fighting an orphanage.  

I was completely unaware of all this till this whole thread here so I have no idea how zealous they have been. They are most definitely based on the bottom line, there is no question there. My thought is that knowing they will take a hit in profit from loss of a patent pretty well frosts their asses. Mickey  especially, major hit I would think. I bet they have it all calc-ed out.

So the orphanage had Peter Pan as their logo first and big mean old Disney is trying to bully them out of it? Bastards...  

I remember them in the 70's going after Carvel for making Disney character ice cream cakes. I made many unauthorized copies of them all. The one day "the letter" came and the molds went away.  

[280plus]

Peter Pan was not a Disney creation was he? Crap, now I gotta go look up Peter Pan.  

 

[280plus]

yea, by all means read THIS and let's talk some more about limitations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/dec/28/gtormondst

[280plus]

I remember them in the 70's going after Carvel for making Disney character ice cream cakes. I made many unauthorized copies of them all. The one day "the letter" came and the molds went away. 

I'll let you guess what were the #1 and #2 sellers out of all the characters. 

[280plus]

Sure,, I can have Great-great-great Grandpa's Winchester 1873 but I can't make any money from the book he wrote about the old west that still sells because the general printers are flooding the market with cheap copies that I can't afford to compete with and I get nothing from the bastards. Meanwhile the wife has been feeling poorly lately and we've been spending more money on medicine lately and then last week lightning hit the barn, set it on fire and killed the mule wen it burned down.

I'll be copyrighting that in the morning so don't get any ideas. 

 

[280plus]

...and now the horse and the dog are sad and won't do much of nothing because they miss the mule. It ain't been good around here lately.  Just sayin'...  


Yes, I need to find some work and get off this damn computer!  

[makattak]

Exactly, and what makes most people happy most? Money. Reward.

I thought a bit more about the part of maks post I may not have given as much weight as I could have. Why should I EVER have to give up rights to what is essentially my property. I'd vote infinite. What about family heirlooms? Passed down from generation to generation, generating value over time. At some point should the item suddenly become part of the public domain and my family lose it's valuable heirloom? Isn't a work of art an heirloom as well? Paintings certainly are.

Shakespeare is a great writer back there whever he lived, his stuff is all copyrighted. His heirs are going to forgo their rights and let his books fade into obscurity losing all that potential income. Seems highly unlikely.

I think it's more about courtesy. If my idea helps you make money you should be courteous enough to WANT to give me a little piece. Me, personally. I almost feel like it's a friggin honor to say I'm responsible for putting a few bucks into the pockets of the families of oll those long ago writers. Hoagy Carmichael? yea, I don't mind sharing a little of the scratch with him at all. 

Umm... it promotes creativity because it rewards creativity.

We just must be careful we don't reward it beyond the value of innovation and creativity to society.

That is, just because it is good to reward something doesn't mean the rewards should be infinite. There are costs to granting a copyright and we must not ignore the costs and only look at the benefits. That's what bad economists (politicians) do.

[Hawkmoon]

Hawkmoon, your scenario isn't imaginary - you could be Shakespeare, galileo, Aristotle, or any number of people who innovated in ways not matched even today.   The ironic part is that if there had been strict copyright systems in those days, we might have lost all that knowledge.  Incessant copying is the only reason it was preserved.

Right. Shakespeare was probably Victorian London's most popular playright. I'm certain if there had been a copyright law in effect NONE of his plays or poems would have survived his death.

[280plus]

I'm thinking it's a testament to the quality of his work?

[280plus]

That is, just because it is good to reward something doesn't mean the rewards should be infinite. There are costs to granting a copyright and we must not ignore the costs and only look at the benefits.

What costs? other than your sharing what amounts to a very small portion of your profit from my idea somehow costs something? Somehow creativity suffers? I'm not buying it.

[roo_ster]

Right. Shakespeare was probably Victorian London's most popular playright. I'm certain if there had been a copyright law in effect NONE of his plays or poems would have survived his death.

1. Shakespeare predated Queen Victoria by centuries.  "Elizabethan" is more accurate.

2. There are plenty of folks whose genius is now acknowledged who, for a time, had very few extant copies of their work survive.  Any more disincentive (like a copyright regime) would have caused the disappearance of the work for eternity.  JS Bach is just one of them I recall off the top of my head.

So you guys are saying every idea that becomes realized in one form or another should immediately become part of the public domain for all to profit from. Sounds like a hard sell to me.

That is a dishonest presentation of mak's argument and does you no credit.

[280plus]

What has Disney holding on to the copyright on Mickey done to thwart creativity? How do you plan to improve on him? What other use would you have for him than to profit? Other people have created cartoon mice, Disney couldn't do crap about that but theirs survived and the others are slowly fading from memory. Whay shouldn't Disney continue to profit from their original creation on into infinity?

[280plus]

1.That is a dishonest presentation of mak's argument and does you no credit.

I submit, once again, that it was an honest representation of my misunderstanding of what these guys are getting at. I expected a reply either in the positive or negative "Yes, that is correct" or "No that is not correct and here is what we actually mean" not the one I got.

I'm doing my best trying to keep it light here, but I get the feeling others are not. People want to get all huffy puffy and really, how important is this discussion anyways? So if it's going to turn all snarky we can stop. My copyright is good for 70 years after I die, I think it should be forever, snarkiness will ony make me stand my ground that much firmer so it's useless against me. I never did like long drawn out horse beatings that you just can't exit without a fuss. Which I've tried to do several times. Or at least i think I tried to, I could be wrong about that too.