Intellectual Property morality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoveGod102
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fairwinds said:
lighten up, it was a joke.

but I do see where this is going.
Click to expand...
Next time if you are joking could you add a smiley? Without something to show that the written words are a joke they are going to appear as though they are meant seriously.

And I don’t really know how you could see where it is going since I really wasn’t going to do anything more than let you know your post came across as going too far. If you had replied rudely to me then I would perhaps have considered bringing it to the attention of the mods, but only if you continued to be rude.
 
mwic said:
Sorry if I phrased the question wrong. I know what the current copyright term is.

The question is: is there any term shorter than this that violates an author’s right to enjoy the fruits of her labor? Is there any term longer than this that would violate anyone’s rights?
Click to expand...
And why is whatever length is the correct length the correct one? What principle do you use to determine what the correct length is?
 
Fairwinds said:
copyright lets the artist exploit his or her own work. they expire so the public can benefit from them (public domain) after the protection period expires. just public policy.
Click to expand...
Copyrights on old movies have been renewed. I have no idea why people like the idea of public domain. Go to a library, read the book and bring it back. Simple.

Peace,
Ed
 
thewanderer said:
And why is whatever length is the correct length the correct one? What principle do you use to determine what the correct length is?
Click to expand...
The principle that is currently at work – at least in US copyright law – is this:

The “content industry” gives you mountains of campaign contributions, and then they tell you what the correct length is.

When – according to this “correct” length – Steamboat Willie is about to enter the public domain, you repeat the above process.
 
mwic said:
The principle that is currently at work – at least in US copyright law – is this:

The “content industry” gives you mountains of campaign contributions, and then they tell you what the correct length is.

When – according to this “correct” length – Steamboat Willie is about to enter the public domain, you repeat the above process.
Click to expand...
Disney will never let of of its properties become public domain, its got the ear of congress for that.
 
thewanderer said:
What I think is an even more pertinent question is why is there such a thing as fair use? Even in our current copyright laws the originators of an idea/piece of art/whatever do not have complete control over their works.
Click to expand...
They do have complete control of their works. If I draw something, I own it. Period. If I sell it, I do not automatically give the new owner permission to make copies of it. If I look for “work for hire,” I get a ‘letter of understanding’ stating how much I will get paid and how the art will will be used. If I agree, I produce the art. If not, I look for work elsewhere.

Libraries were started by wealthy people as a service to the general public. In that same spirit, publishers allowed libraries to buy books from them so that they could loan out the books to people who either could not afford them or for researchers and students who would use limited parts of a book or magazine for a term paper, or a reviewer could quote a part for the purpose of reviewing the book. Fair use also applies to referencing a few lines from a published book for use in a new book as long as credit is given. However, lengthier quotes and the use of images would require written permission from the copyright holder who may agree only if certain conditions were met. Photos will usually have notations like, “Reprinted with permission of the John Smith collection photographic trust.” Text will have attributions like: “Reprinted with the permission of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.” Sometimes, a fee for reprinting a photo will have to be paid, which can vary by country and depending on the source.

Peace,
Ed
 
mwic said:
The principle that is currently at work – at least in US copyright law – is this:

The “content industry” gives you mountains of campaign contributions, and then they tell you what the correct length is.

When – according to this “correct” length – Steamboat Willie is about to enter the public domain, you repeat the above process.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so?

Ed
 
Fairwinds said:
Disney will never let of of its properties become public domain, its got the ear of congress for that.
Click to expand...
World A:
Creative works are property just like houses, etc.
In world A, it is supererogatory for Disney to “let” its properties become public domain. Disney can pass it on to his children, down through the centuries, just like a house, etc.

I submit that world A would be a nightmare to live in. You couldn’t write, sing, say, think, make, or do anything without getting permission from dozens of people who had written, sung, etc. along similar lines.

World B:
Creative works are not property, but are treated as (metaphorically) similar-to-property for a period of time. The length of time is calibrated to that value that most benefits the public. Too short, and art will not be created. Too long, and you veer toward world A

This is the world of the US copyright system – on paper.

World C:
Similar to World B, but the length of time is calibrated to the value that most benefits the content industry.

This is the world of the US copyright system – in practice.

World D:
Creative works are never treated as property: they enter the public domain immediately.

World D is the context in which most of human history occurred.

I think a case can be made for worlds B and D
 
edwest2 said:
Name 3.
Click to expand...
Here’s why I won’t be replying to you (other than this reply, obviously). I am a professional software engineer, a professional writer, and an amateur musician, and I know quite a bit about this topic. Based on your posts in this thread, I do not think you know very much about it.

This is not an insult: I wouldn’t expect Irina Krush to discuss chess with me, because by the time she was 14 she had forgotten more about chess than I will ever know.

NB: I might be completely wrong about you. You might have an encyclopedic knowledge of all the arguments for and against “intellectual property”. If so, I’ll just miss out, I guess. My loss.

Oh, and so you don’t think I’m just dodging a hard question, here are your three:

Every work of art derived from material in the public domain.
Every piece of scientific research derived from material in the public domain
Every invention derived from material in the public domain

Whoops, I accidentally name several million. Hope you don’t mind.
 
mwic said:
World A:
Creative works are property just like houses, etc.
In world A, it is supererogatory for Disney to “let” its properties become public domain. Disney can pass it on to his children, down through the centuries, just like a house, etc.

I submit that world A would be a nightmare to live in. You couldn’t write, sing, say, think, make, or do anything without getting permission from dozens of people who had written, sung, etc. along similar lines.

World B:
Creative works are not property, but are treated as (metaphorically) similar-to-property for a period of time. The length of time is calibrated to that value that most benefits the public. Too short, and art will not be created. Too long, and you veer toward world A

This is the world of the US copyright system – on paper.

World C:
Similar to World B, but the length of time is calibrated to the value that most benefits the content industry.

This is the world of the US copyright system – in practice.

World D:
Creative works are never treated as property: they enter the public domain immediately.

World D is the context in which most of human history occurred.

I think a case can be made for worlds B and D
Click to expand...
Wow. So all those old movies and TV shows with robots and rockets were never made? The same with George Lucas and Star Wars except for the rockets, which were converted to faster than light ships, an old science-fiction concept.

Right now, I am helping an artist create modern versions of robots, manned and unmanned, and I guarantee there will be no problems publishing what we’re designing or describing or inventing, even though certain basic aspects borrow from some real world and speculative designs. I have no idea where such thinking comes from. My company has been building fictional worlds in all genres except for romantic fiction, for years. Not one letter from one lawyer. Now if a design looks like 99% of somebody else’s design, there might be a problem.

Heck, James Cameron got sued by a handful of people about Avatar.

guardian.co.uk/film/2013/feb/06/james-cameron-wins-avatar-lawsuit

If you know what you’re doing and have a good copyright lawyer, you should be fine. Note: I am not offering legal advice and I am not a copyright lawyer.

Peace,
Ed
 
mwic said:
World A:
Creative works are property just like houses, etc.
In world A, it is supererogatory for Disney to “let” its properties become public domain. Disney can pass it on to his children, down through the centuries, just like a house, etc.

I submit that world A would be a nightmare to live in. You couldn’t write, sing, say, think, make, or do anything without getting permission from dozens of people who had written, sung, etc. along similar lines.

World B:
Creative works are not property, but are treated as (metaphorically) similar-to-property for a period of time. The length of time is calibrated to that value that most benefits the public. Too short, and art will not be created. Too long, and you veer toward world A

This is the world of the US copyright system – on paper.

World C:
Similar to World B, but the length of time is calibrated to the value that most benefits the content industry.

This is the world of the US copyright system – in practice.

World D:
Creative works are never treated as property: they enter the public domain immediately.

World D is the context in which most of human history occurred.

I think a case can be made for worlds B and D
Click to expand...
we start with:

Article I, sec 8, clause 8 of the US Constitution, the Copyright Clause, empowers congress
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.
Click to expand...
A Disney – the Walt Disney Company, not the man, had the political pull to have the copyright protection period extended. the 1998 C*opyright Extension Act *was also known as The Mickey Mouse Protection Act. disney has in fact been very protective of even the folklore that its movies were based on, and has the legal muscle to roll over people. fortunately, disney is an entertainment company.

B - true, although the terminology is different. IP is considered property. its necessary that IP-protected property have its protection expire (patents) at some point, for the public good. that’s how the law tries to balance both public and private needs.

C- the content industry is only half the equation.

D- most forms of property or business arise because there’s a need for them. joint stock companies appear when there’s a need to protect risk capital (16th c.?). there was no need for a business structure like this before. IP is no different. it wasn’t needed during the time of Aristotle or Aquinas, it is now. if I didn’t have copyright protection, why would I bother writing for pay when someone else could turn my novels into broadway plays or a hollywood movies or publish them under someone else’s name and I wouldn’t see a penny?

same with a pharma company. why would one spend millions of dollars on research and approval of a drug if it didn’t get a limited period of time to monopolize the market (sell or license) and recoup its investment?
 
Once again, a work enters public domain immediately? For what?

Learn how to do something on your own. It’s hard. Do you think artists and writers spend years creating something worth paying for only to have hacks dismember it the moment it’s released? Please. Capitalism works.

And the public domain people would be happy to have their hack work to be hacked again and the other person makes money and you don’t because you don’t have the skill of the other guy? Sounds like pointless anarchy to me.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Once again, a work enters public domain immediately? For what?

Learn how to do something on your own. It’s hard. Do you think artists and writers spend years creating something worth paying for only to have hacks dismember it the moment it’s released? Please. Capitalism works.

And the public domain people would be happy to have their hack work to be hacked again and the other person makes money and you don’t because you don’t have the skill of the other guy? Sounds like pointless anarchy to me.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
in the public domain are all works published in the U.S. before 1923. if the author has been dead for 70 years, its not like he’s losing anything.
 
Fairwinds said:
in the public domain are all works published in the U.S. before 1923. if the author has been dead for 70 years, its not like he’s losing anything.
Click to expand...
If an author produces a work in 1928 and assigns the rights to others, like Disney did, what’s the big deal? Disney’s gone but his work can still be enjoyed by anybody and no matter who runs the company bearing his name continues to profit. I don’t see the problem.

Peace,
Ed
 
Fairwinds said:
in the public domain are all works published in the U.S. before 1923. if the author has been dead for 70 years, its not like he’s losing anything.
Click to expand...
Well most people don’t just work to support themselves but also their children - and many look to leave something to their grandchildren too. So 70 years, or roughly two generations, sounds about right.
 
edwest2 said:
If an author produces a work in 1928 and assigns the rights to others, like Disney did, what’s the big deal? Disney’s gone but his work can still be enjoyed by anybody and no matter who runs the company bearing his name continues to profit. I don’t see the problem.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
you don’t see the problem with what? the walt disney company doesn’t want warner brothers making mickey mouse mouse cartoons. do you know what a copyright does or what public domain is?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top