Moral Basis for copyright and similar laws

[jmcrae]

YAAAY, it’s Deacon Cameron!! :extrahappy: :bounce:

 

[johnwis]

I would like to thank those of you who helped me gain a better understanding of these issues.

I would also like to know any information or thoughts you have on the subject of what the terms of copyright law should be, such as length of copyright, fair use exceptions, etc.

 

[markomalley]

I would like to thank those of you who helped me gain a better understanding of these issues.

I would also like to know any information or thoughts you have on the subject of what the terms of copyright law should be, such as length of copyright, fair use exceptions, etc.

Broaden the definition to IP, in general, and there might be a possibility for a more cogent discussion.

In my opinion, it depends upon what the category of commodity the idea pertains to (whether the subject is patent, copyright, trademark, or other IP designation). The term should be somehow related to the advancement of technology. It should also relate to the relative amount of effort expended in developing the IP. For example, a drug patent may involve millions of dollars of R&D effort in its development. The company that put up that research should be able to reap plenty of rewards for a very considerable investment. If somebody manages to develop a reasonably-priced and reasonably efficient fuel cell that could be placed in automobiles, they should be able to reap the rewards from their investment. NOT FOREVER. But an adequate amount of time for them to be able to see an ROI. However, I don’t know that a patent on a rose should receive the same benefit, nor do I think that a design patent should receive the same (where one applies existing technology to accomplish a new and different purpose).

With copyright, the owner of the copyright (from what I understand) owns that until it is assigned, or 70 years after his death. I think that this could be reasonably reviewed and given a somewhat shorter period of time (although he should be able to maintain the integrity of his work throughout his life). Maybe 25 years would be a reasonable amount of time that he should be able to reserve rights for reproduction, while the duration of his life he should be able to control the artistic interpretation or misuse of his creativity. (For example, Elvis is dead (we think). He has been dead (we think) since 1977. Over 30 years. Why should his works not now be completely in the public domain?? He isn’t getting any of the royalties from them anymore!)

I do agree that a re-look at IP laws could be appropriate. (Unless that re-look gave the RIAA even more power than they have now) But until that time, we need to respect those laws, particularly if they protect all IP owners, big or small, fairly.

 

[johnwis]

With copyright, the owner of the copyright (from what I understand) owns that until it is assigned, or 70 years after his death.

I believe the length of personal copyrights is author’s life plus 70 years, but for corporate copyrights the length is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

 

[JoshR]

Priest told me if its copyrighted then its stealing