Copright (again)

[didymus]

Boingboing has a post with a collection of articles about copyright extension, turning back the limit of copyright to 30 years.
The best, and shortest, is from the Atlantic.

One effect of copyright I hadn’t heard of until recently is that heirs of public figures can control access to their speeches and writings. So if you want to write a book about Winston Churchill you have to pay a shilling a word. Presidential libraries are usually in charge of who gets to see ex-president’s papers. The King family decides who may quote or publish his “I Have a Dream” speech. Et cetera.

Dr. King was, of course, a private citizen but I think the works of public officials should automatically be public domain.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Boingboing has a post with a collection of articles about copyright extension, turning back the limit of copyright to 30 years.
The best, and shortest, is from the Atlantic.

One effect of copyright I hadn’t heard of until recently is that heirs of public figures can control access to their speeches and writings. So if you want to write a book about Winston Churchill you have to pay a shilling a word. Presidential libraries are usually in charge of who gets to see ex-president’s papers. The King family decides who may quote or publish his “I Have a Dream” speech. Et cetera.

Dr. King was, of course, a private citizen but I think the works of public officials should automatically be public domain.

Now I can understand if I were to get into trouble for miss-quoting a public person’s speech, but to have to pay to use something that they gave out for free seems wrong.

When home video recording became available in the mid-1970s, there was controversy about recording shows and movies from television. The courts ruled that since the programs were being shown on broadcast signals (at the time), and broadcast signals enter our homes unbidden, that this negated any piracy laws.

I would think the same would apply to politicians and other public figures when they give a public speech. It is either heard in person, or over the airwaves, or in public print (as in a newspaper). Seems like it becomes public domain at that point.

Just my opinion.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Copyright holders tend to be wealthy corporations, people, and their heirs. That means that they have the money to lobby for laws to be re-written to benefit them. Look at the huge influence that Hollywood and the publishing industry plays in politics. Copyright is a valid moral concept but this corruption encourages disrespect for the law.

 

[edwest2]

Boingboing has a post with a collection of articles about copyright extension, turning back the limit of copyright to 30 years.
The best, and shortest, is from the Atlantic.

One effect of copyright I hadn’t heard of until recently is that heirs of public figures can control access to their speeches and writings. So if you want to write a book about Winston Churchill you have to pay a shilling a word. Presidential libraries are usually in charge of who gets to see ex-president’s papers. The King family decides who may quote or publish his “I Have a Dream” speech. Et cetera.

Dr. King was, of course, a private citizen but I think the works of public officials should automatically be public domain.

Copyright is just fine the way it is. No one is deprived of anything. There is no reason for public domain. If I write or draw or say something, I can transfer publication rights or broadcast rights to whoever I want: my heirs, a trust, or other entity. It’s my work, it’s tangible, and I should be able to do what I want with it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Copyright holders tend to be wealthy corporations, people, and their heirs. That means that they have the money to lobby for laws to be re-written to benefit them. Look at the huge influence that Hollywood and the publishing industry plays in politics. Copyright is a valid moral concept but this corruption encourages disrespect for the law.

Corruption? How so? People want to benefit from their work and have their heirs or assigns benefit from their work, so what’s the problem? People can read it or watch it or hear it. What’s the problem?

I’m not wealthy, but if I wrote a book, I would own the copyright and I would assign it to whoever I wanted in a will even if if I only broke even on it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Joe_5859]

Dr. King was, of course, a private citizen but I think the works of public officials should automatically be public domain.

Especially when you consider that they are being paid by our tax dollars to compose and deliver those speeches.