Copyright

[Ravariel]

Cambridge University PhD candidate Rufus Pollock used economics formulas to answer the question "how long should copyright last?". In a newly-released paper, Pollock pegs the "optimal level for copyright" at only 14 years.

Current copyright law is Death +70 years, thank you Walt Disney (you bastard). Now, as one who will hopefully be using copyright law to make money in the near future, this is very important to me. Currently about 1% of all published material is in the public domain, and that number will only decrease as time goes on and more and more work is created under current copyright law.

This hurts new artists because nothing grows in a vacuum. We are all inspired by others. If we're not extremely careful, a simple phrase could get us sued for infringement. This greatly hampers the creativity of artists everywhere, whose new takes on old material could be brilliant, yet are often not allowed because of the inability to pay for the rights.

However, should a person be able to keep the rights to his work? If I create something now, and it goes into the public domain when I'm 43... that's an awful lot of life where I won't have control over "my" work.

How do we reconcile the formulaic theory of Pollock, and the needs of the artist, and the needs of new artists to be able to be creative with minimal restrictions? How can we release the grip that companies like Disney have on the subject? How do we un-stifle our artists?

and I'd rather not get into a downloading argument, but somehow I doubt we'll be able to avoid it :/

[Imperator]

I took a sociology class this subject once....yeah, my academic interests are plentiful....I've done it all!

Run by a Professor Bob Frost (yes, relation to the poet).

The only real reason why copyright is so damned long is because of companies like Walt Disney, that will push and push until they get their way. And thus, Mickey will never fall out of copyright.

I think Death should be the end of copyright. YOU can't use that protection post death (70 years post death even), so why the hell should it be that long? Why should other people profit off YOUR work?

Interesting side note: Prof Frost still gets royalty checks...as he put it "for simply being related to a dead guy who wrote some stuff".....

I have no problem with someone owning their work until their demise (till death do you part), but there should be no reason why it should go any longer than that......we might as well have royalty re-established if people are going to inherit copyright ownerships, they're essentially the same thing (someone gaining something by doing nothing except being born to a certain family).

Freedom of Information is what creates new shit, new medicines, etc. I STILL can't believe that people actually put copyrights (or is it a patent?) on the formula of medicines.....

I'm all for changing copyright laws, the sooner the better.

and I'd rather not get into a downloading argument, but somehow I doubt we'll be able to avoid it :/

LOL ZOMG! I download liek SOOOOOOO much stufffff!!!! lolololololol!

[IllustriousPotentate]

Obviously, I think that one's works should be protected while the author of those works are still alive. Of course, that would stifle creativity of the elderly to produce any works, so an alternative 50 years would be in order--your works are copyright protected for your life, or 50 years, which ever is longer. That way, you have all your life to take in the profits of your work and use/invest them, or if you die shortly after, then you would get to leave those profits to your family.

[Ravariel]

At 8/2/07 06:03 PM, Imperator wrote: The only real reason why copyright is so damned long is because of companies like Walt Disney, that will push and push until they get their way. And thus, Mickey will never fall out of copyright.

Yup. So how do we get the corporate shenanigans out of the way? How do we stop lobbyists from controlling what artists who can't afford millions of dollars in "bribes"?

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

I think the time should depend. For example, on individual artists, the copyright should last as long as their life does. For example, a poets works should be made public domain when they die, the rights shouldn't pass onto children. However, when the copyright is central to a company ran by the former copyright holder, (I.E the Disney Corporation) it should be the Death + 70 years formula. Furthermore, I believe that the situations in which copyright materials can be used should be greatly increased.

[morefngdbs]

At 8/4/07 02:17 AM, Ravariel wrote: Yup. So how do we get the corporate shenanigans out of the way? How do we stop lobbyists from controlling what artists who can't afford millions of dollars in "bribes"?

;
I thought they call 'bribes illegal' , but lobbying with millions of dollars in your budget is perfectly legal. You lobby the goverment, not bribe them.
(you see the difference, I don't see know difference)

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 8/4/07 02:25 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: I think the time should depend. For example, on individual artists, the copyright should last as long as their life does. For example, a poets works should be made public domain when they die, the rights shouldn't pass onto children. However, when the copyright is central to a company ran by the former copyright holder, (I.E the Disney Corporation) it should be the Death + 70 years formula.

Nah, that's too vague. What would "central to a company" mean? Donald Duck is also a world-famous and symbol of the Disney Corportation, too. Would he qualify? What about other characters? Artists would claim that their body of music is central to the company, therefore, the death+70 years should apply.

[Imperator]

At 8/4/07 02:17 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 8/2/07 06:03 PM, Imperator wrote: The only real reason why copyright is so damned long is because of companies like Walt Disney, that will push and push until they get their way. And thus, Mickey will never fall out of copyright.

Yup. So how do we get the corporate shenanigans out of the way? How do we stop lobbyists from controlling what artists who can't afford millions of dollars in "bribes"?

Well if I knew that.....

seriously, no clue....

Nah, that's too vague. What would "central to a company" mean? Donald Duck is also a world-famous and symbol of the Disney Corportation, too. Would he qualify? What about other characters? Artists would claim that their body of music is central to the company, therefore, the death+70 years should apply.

I don't understand the 70+ years after death. Why is that needed? How is one gonna make use of something after they've died?

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/4/07 10:30 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

Nah, that's too vague. What would "central to a company" mean? Donald Duck is also a world-famous and symbol of the Disney Corportation, too. Would he qualify? What about other characters? Artists would claim that their body of music is central to the company, therefore, the death+70 years should apply.

Any time a company is actively making money of the copyright, it's considered central.

[FlurpMonkey]

The problem with copywrights is that with supply and demand art is kinda on the end of supply and the medium of demand. So it really shouldn't be worth that much (As a whole) I think with the dawn dawn of limewire and napster plus stricter copywright laws that counter-act lime-wire like programs justice has been served.

[MortifiedPenguins]

I mean, the idea of the copyright is still a hang over from old mediveival( fuck the spelling) though that was brought in under capitalism.

A person's art, much like thier property was considered an extension of thier own being( reason why Dante added arsonists to the woods of the suicide's in the Inferno).

To say somebody doesn't have the right over thier work would remove many of the incentives for the work that the person is doing( yes there is always creativity, but we don't need a literal starving artist here).

We should embrace it like the US Patent System, a reasonable time limit on your property and work for you to make money on it, then it goes into the public domain.

Or make it easier to gain permission from the authors.

Regardless, there are many other ways to form inspiration from other people's works and even allude to them while still being well within the law.

[Sajberhippien]

I think most of the copyright things are just bullshit. Mostly because copyright only covers SOME things and not others, which makes some arts "less worth" in the eyes of law. For example, if I work in my garden, and plant 15 white roses with a red rose after each 2 white, I can't sue anyone who also does that. If I play 15 D minors with an E minor after each 2 D-s, I can sue.

I think that the copyright should be divided in two things; sole rights, which are what copyright is today, and rights to origin, which would force anyone using it to mention that he is using something created by someone else.
The sole rights could last for about 10 years, and the rights to origin should last until his death. Why not last forever? Because there is a limited number of potent songs, movies, and so on, and all that created anything would be much more scared of publishing anything if they risked breaking the law without even knowing.

Also, another argument against it is that it is unfair to require of any artist to know of EVERY OTHER CREATION IN THE WORLD. For example, here in sweden an artist called Basshunter was reported because a part in a song vaguely resembled the 80's hit Doctor Doctor.

[Sajberhippien]

At 8/4/07 02:25 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: However, when the copyright is central to a company ran by the former copyright holder, (I.E the Disney Corporation) it should be the Death + 70 years formula. Furthermore, I believe that the situations in which copyright materials can be used should be greatly increased.

So if a poet just started a company, the copyright should be extended with 70 years?