What's wrong with current copyright laws?

[Joe_5859]

We’re talking about current copyright laws. I’m trying to point out that, so far, no one has shown any harm from the current length of copyright laws.

Peace,
Ed

Fair enough.

I think what you’re asking for is something that’s difficult to offer as it’s not something that is easily quantifiable or measureable.

I would say it would be easier to speak in terms of the benefit of public domain rather than harm from the current copyright laws.

My main argument comes in the form of works of art that are largely derivative from other people’s works, like Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, taken from an earlier poem. Many of Disney’s classic animated films are based off of characters in the public domain.

 

[thewanderer]

Seems I did,

I think I understand a bit better what your’re saying now.

Of course there’s nothing to stop anyone from having the very same ideas, it happens all the time.

And yes it can often be the third, fifth, or 170th person to think of the same idea that actually does the work and brings it to market,*** while the others procrastinate, whatever that might be, a movie, a song, a book, a trademark, a brandname, a product, a process.

But to bring these ideas to fruition almost always involves an expense, and very often a massive expense, on someones part.

And for that they have every right to protect their IP and maximise the returns.

*** This doesn’t relate to IP as such but I thought I’d share - I occasionally drive by a certain building, and I wince everytime I do so. I saw the building up for sale 10 years ago, thought about something that building could be put to great use for, and bring a new business into the area, given the area it’s in, did a little research, then let it drop as I was heavily involved in something else at the time and thought no more about it.

Someone else had the exact same idea as me, a year later, bought the building, set it up as I was going to set it up, and it’s now an extremely, and I do mean extremely, profitable business. Through a contact, I know their order books are full for the next five years.

I shed a little tear every time I pass that building

Sarah x

Right, and its precisely because of the money and work invovled that te government created these copyright laws. But, since this is such a different kind of ‘property’ if you will, the question still needs to be answered of what copyright laws are the most just and best for society? It is not most just and beneficial to have an indefinite copyright, that will limit creativity and so damage the culture of a society. It will be financially beneficial for those who own the copyright, but it will also be damaging culturally. Just because something is a law, or could be made into a law that benefits someone financially doesn’t mean it is a good idea, which is the point of this whole thread.

 

[thewanderer]

Fair enough.

I think what you’re asking for is something that’s difficult to offer as it’s not something that is easily quantifiable or measureable.

I would say it would be easier to speak in terms of the benefit of public domain rather than harm from the current copyright laws.

My main argument comes in the form of works of art that are largely derivative from other people’s works, like Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, taken from an earlier poem. Many of Disney’s classic animated films are based off of characters in the public domain.

This is a very good point. A law doesn’t have to be currently quantifiably damaging someone for it not to be a great law. If it is not benefitting society as much as a different law would then people should try to change the law to the one which will be of greater benefit to society as a whole.

 

[Godfollower]

We’re talking about current copyright laws. I’m trying to point out that, so far, no one has shown any harm from the current length of copyright laws.

Peace,
Ed

It’s the loss of the smaller works. I have high confidence that I’ll be able to find a copy of the Lord of the Rings when my grandchildren are ready for it. The same goes for Dr. Seuss and other popular works. But to sit back and say that a book or story I cannot find – not in used bookstores, not in defunct publishing companies’ files, not in libraries, not on Amazon, not anywhere – should remain unavailable, simply because the current holder of the copyright hasn’t yet received enough requests to justify a new print run (and because I won’t make copies I know to be illegal), is dissatisfying. That doesn’t justify breaking the law, but I wish the law had a solution for that problem. One way would be to shorten the copyright term; another would be to establish compulsory licenses for out-of-print books.

 

[edwest2]

Fair enough.

I think what you’re asking for is something that’s difficult to offer as it’s not something that is easily quantifiable or measureable.

I would say it would be easier to speak in terms of the benefit of public domain rather than harm from the current copyright laws.

My main argument comes in the form of works of art that are largely derivative from other people’s works, like Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, taken from an earlier poem. Many of Disney’s classic animated films are based off of characters in the public domain.

So we’re back to the public domain thing again? It is the last resort of the lazy beginning artist and writer. Let’s take Star Wars, filled with unique character names, spacecraft and robots. The setting is ready-made. Let’s wait until it’s in the Public Domain - that way we can make a buck off it without thinking too hard.

Let’s look at Buck Rogers, a character which first appeared in 1928. Do you know they’re about to release a new comic book based on the character?

Speaking as a creator, it’s fair to say that creative people are inspired by things from the past but that’s it. Prior to the original Star Trek, a rocket ship was usually a tube with a conical nose cone and a tail with fins that spit fire, with a few flying saucers thrown in. The first time I saw the U.S.S. Enterprise on Star Trek, I was totally in awe. It was beautiful, functional and unlike any spaceship I’d previously seen. I felt the same way when I saw the Star Destroyers in the Original Star Wars and the Death Star? Wow.

You know, I actually heard this once from someone who works with metal artworks: “So I told the guy. Take this belt buckle here and change it around a little so you don’t get sued.” He was referring to an ornate belt buckle.

And the possibility that two people can come up with the same idea happens as well. I was reading about a guy who had been in the tattoo business a long time - long before the recent rise of the “modern” tattoo shop. He kept a library, on paper, of all of his designs. One, because he considered them art, and two, if a customer came in and wanted “a cool dragon,” but was unsure as to what kind or really didn’t have any other details to provide, he could go to his archive and under D for dragon, he could pull out some samples for his customer to pick from.

One day, a young tattoo artist came in with a portfolio bag. He claimed he had created tattoo designs that no one had ever done before. He asked the owner to draw the blinds so no one could look in. He spread the drawings in front of the owner and told him he was willing to sell him the designs for a fair price. In each case, the owner pulled out the same design from his archive. Dumbfounded, the young artist left.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It’s the loss of the smaller works. I have high confidence that I’ll be able to find a copy of the Lord of the Rings when my grandchildren are ready for it. The same goes for Dr. Seuss and other popular works. But to sit back and say that a book or story I cannot find – not in used bookstores, not in defunct publishing companies’ files, not in libraries, not on Amazon, not anywhere – should remain unavailable, simply because the current holder of the copyright hasn’t yet received enough requests to justify a new print run (and because I won’t make copies I know to be illegal), is dissatisfying. That doesn’t justify breaking the law, but I wish the law had a solution for that problem. One way would be to shorten the copyright term; another would be to establish compulsory licenses for out-of-print books.

A compulsory license to print maybe a handful of books? Shorten the copyright term? Why? Your argument is true - not enough requests and the book goes out of print. Simple business. Would you want to pay for printing boxes of books and then watch them collect dust for 5 or 10 years?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Cristiano]

So we’re back to the public domain thing again? It is the last resort of the lazy beginning artist and writer. …

Peace,
Ed

 

[Joe_5859]

So we’re back to the public domain thing again? It is the last resort of the lazy beginning artist and writer. Let’s take Star Wars, filled with unique character names, spacecraft and robots. The setting is ready-made. Let’s wait until it’s in the Public Domain - that way we can make a buck off it without thinking too hard.

Let’s look at Buck Rogers, a character which first appeared in 1928. Do you know they’re about to release a new comic book based on the character?

Speaking as a creator, it’s fair to say that creative people are inspired by things from the past but that’s it. Prior to the original Star Trek, a rocket ship was usually a tube with a conical nose cone and a tail with fins that spit fire, with a few flying saucers thrown in. The first time I saw the U.S.S. Enterprise on Star Trek, I was totally in awe. It was beautiful, functional and unlike any spaceship I’d previously seen. I felt the same way when I saw the Star Destroyers in the Original Star Wars and the Death Star? Wow.

You know, I actually heard this once from someone who works with metal artworks: “So I told the guy. Take this belt buckle here and change it around a little so you don’t get sued.” He was referring to an ornate belt buckle.

And the possibility that two people can come up with the same idea happens as well. I was reading about a guy who had been in the tattoo business a long time - long before the recent rise of the “modern” tattoo shop. He kept a library, on paper, of all of his designs. One, because he considered them art, and two, if a customer came in and wanted “a cool dragon,” but was unsure as to what kind or really didn’t have any other details to provide, he could go to his archive and under D for dragon, he could pull out some samples for his customer to pick from.

One day, a young tattoo artist came in with a portfolio bag. He claimed he had created tattoo designs that no one had ever done before. He asked the owner to draw the blinds so no one could look in. He spread the drawings in front of the owner and told him he was willing to sell him the designs for a fair price. In each case, the owner pulled out the same design from his archive. Dumbfounded, the young artist left.

Peace,
Ed

I don’t think casually dismissing public domain as the “last resort of the lazy” is a helpful addition to the discussion. Was Shapespeare being lazy when he wrote Romeo and Juliet? Are lazy people popping up left and right to make gobs of money off of works that are already in the public domain?

This argument just as easily goes in reverse. Why should an artist’s great-grandkids get to live a life of laziness simply because Grandpa bequeathed them an IP worth millions of dollars?

 

[thewanderer]

So we’re back to the public domain thing again? It is the last resort of the lazy beginning artist and writer. Let’s take Star Wars, filled with unique character names, spacecraft and robots. The setting is ready-made. Let’s wait until it’s in the Public Domain - that way we can make a buck off it without thinking too hard.

Let’s look at Buck Rogers, a character which first appeared in 1928. Do you know they’re about to release a new comic book based on the character?

Speaking as a creator, it’s fair to say that creative people are inspired by things from the past but that’s it. Prior to the original Star Trek, a rocket ship was usually a tube with a conical nose cone and a tail with fins that spit fire, with a few flying saucers thrown in. The first time I saw the U.S.S. Enterprise on Star Trek, I was totally in awe. It was beautiful, functional and unlike any spaceship I’d previously seen. I felt the same way when I saw the Star Destroyers in the Original Star Wars and the Death Star? Wow.

You know, I actually heard this once from someone who works with metal artworks: “So I told the guy. Take this belt buckle here and change it around a little so you don’t get sued.” He was referring to an ornate belt buckle.

And the possibility that two people can come up with the same idea happens as well. I was reading about a guy who had been in the tattoo business a long time - long before the recent rise of the “modern” tattoo shop. He kept a library, on paper, of all of his designs. One, because he considered them art, and two, if a customer came in and wanted “a cool dragon,” but was unsure as to what kind or really didn’t have any other details to provide, he could go to his archive and under D for dragon, he could pull out some samples for his customer to pick from.

One day, a young tattoo artist came in with a portfolio bag. He claimed he had created tattoo designs that no one had ever done before. He asked the owner to draw the blinds so no one could look in. He spread the drawings in front of the owner and told him he was willing to sell him the designs for a fair price. In each case, the owner pulled out the same design from his archive. Dumbfounded, the young artist left.

Peace,
Ed

Why in the world do you assume that anyone who questions current copyright laws is just wanting to make an easy buck? I am not convinced that they are the best laws, yet I have absolutely zero interest in searching through public domain to find something I can copy and make money off of. I just am not convinced they are currently the best that they could be. There are always going to be people just trying to make an easy buck, and they will do so as soon as copyright ends, does this mean that copyrights should be indefinite? That would be the only way to prevent someone making an easy buck off your work. I certainly do not agree with indefinate copyrights, the point of copyrights is to give people an incentive to develop their ideas into actual products by ensuring they willl recceive recompense for the effort it takes to develop said prducts. Is it really fair for anyone to receive indefinite recompense for a finite amount of effort? I certainly do not see how that could be so, especially as that kind of copyright would most certainly hinder the creativity of a culture ( I am thinking specifically with boooks, music, art etc, not software or medical products) Some of the greatest works we have today are based off of and borrow from other previous works. Because of this, I think your continued reference to those who just wwish to make an easy buck is quite misleading to the issue at hand. That is not something that is solved by copyright laws and so really can’t be used as a reason for the existence of copyright laws as they are. They do not solve this problem, they simply delay it.

 

[Joe_5859]

Why in the world do you assume that anyone who questions current copyright laws is just wanting to make an easy buck? I am not convinced that they are the best laws, yet I have absolutely zero interest in searching through public domain to find something I can copy and make money off of. I just am not convinced they are currently the best that they could be. There are always going to be people just trying to make an easy buck, and they will do so as soon as copyright ends, does this mean that copyrights should be indefinite? That would be the only way to prevent someone making an easy buck off your work. I certainly do not agree with indefinate copyrights, the point of copyrights is to give people an incentive to develop their ideas into actual products by ensuring they willl recceive recompense for the effort it takes to develop said prducts. Is it really fair for anyone to receive indefinite recompense for a finite amount of effort? I certainly do not see how that could be so, especially as that kind of copyright would most certainly hinder the creativity of a culture ( I am thinking specifically with boooks, music, art etc, not software or medical products) Some of the greatest works we have today are based off of and borrow from other previous works. Because of this, I think your continued reference to those who just wwish to make an easy buck is quite misleading to the issue at hand. That is not something that is solved by copyright laws and so really can’t be used as a reason for the existence of copyright laws as they are. They do not solve this problem, they simply delay it.

Well put. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make, but you said it more clearly.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think casually dismissing public domain as the “last resort of the lazy” is a helpful addition to the discussion. Was Shapespeare being lazy when he wrote Romeo and Juliet? Are lazy people popping up left and right to make gobs of money off of works that are already in the public domain?

This argument just as easily goes in reverse. Why should an artist’s great-grandkids get to live a life of laziness simply because Grandpa bequeathed them an IP worth millions of dollars?

Yeah, give me a poem, any poem, and speaking as a writer, I’ll just produce Skakespeare quality work - automatically.

Why should rich kids get a million dollar home that was owned by grandpa in a will, or an art collection of his that’s worth millions of dollars? Let’s just set a limit on all inheritance laws - nobody gets nothing worth over X number of dollars.

I know of a company that borrowed some designs from another company. They were sued but lucked out. They could drastically alter the designs so that “confusion in the marketplace” would not result. But their old designs were still valued by future collectors because they resembled the designs they borrowed from.

C’mon Joe. Public domain works are tainted by age. The average kid today never heard of Buck Rogers and the old trappings - the props, the spaceships, the villains - they’re all old. A product of a time long past for most.

Peace,
Ed

 

[thewanderer]

Yeah, give me a poem, any poem, and speaking as a writer, I’ll just produce Skakespeare quality work - automatically.

Why should rich kids get a million dollar home that was owned by grandpa in a will, or an art collection of his that’s worth millions of dollars? Let’s just set a limit on all inheritance laws - nobody gets nothing worth over X number of dollars.

I know of a company that borrowed some designs from another company. They were sued but lucked out. They could drastically alter the designs so that “confusion in the marketplace” would not result. But their old designs were still valued by future collectors because they resembled the designs they borrowed from.

C’mon Joe. Public domain works are tainted by age. The average kid today never heard of Buck Rogers and the old trappings - the props, the spaceships, the villains - they’re all old. A product of a time long past for most.

Peace,
Ed

If so then what in the world is the problem with someone refreshing them and bringing them back into the modern day? You call it just slacking and looking for an easy way to make money, what about those who wish to extend copyrights, aren’t they just looking for an easy (an even easier, actually) way of making money? They try to change the law so that they can get even more money for the same amount of time and effort. People are always looking for easy ways to make money, whether or not they succeed shouldn’t really concern us, what should concern us is making sure that our laws are the most conducive for the good of society.

 

[edwest2]

If so then what in the world is the problem with someone refreshing them and bringing them back into the modern day? You call it just slacking and looking for an easy way to make money, what about those who wish to extend copyrights, aren’t they just looking for an easy (an even easier, actually) way of making money? They try to change the law so that they can get even more money for the same amount of time and effort. People are always looking for easy ways to make money, whether or not they succeed shouldn’t really concern us, what should concern us is making sure that our laws are the most conducive for the good of society.

What “good of society” are you talking about? Please explain.

Peace,
Ed

 

[thewanderer]

What “good of society” are you talking about? Please explain.

Peace,
Ed

For now I was talking generally. I take it you agree that the laws of a society exist for the sake of the good of that society? Assuming this is it pretty obvious that all the laws ought be both made and evaluated with the good of that society in mind and with the aim of best promoting the good of that society. Now, as to what exactly constitutes the good of a society, well that is a much more in depth debate, and not one that I was not trying to get into by my reply.

 

[St_Francis]

What “good of society” are you talking about? Please explain.

Peace,
Ed

The thing about books is that they contain *information. *Some of the information goes into our culture, like when we say, Ignorance is bliss, which is a cut-off bit of Shakespeare (who was intending to say the opposite).

And speaking of Shakespeare, when he borrowed the story of Romeo and Juliet, he would have been able to be sued if the work he borrowed from had been under copyright, no?

The Brothers Grimm and Tschaikovsky would have been violating Perrault’s copyright when they used his stories as a basis for their own.

Shrek could not have been made had those stories not been in the public domain.

For centuries, the copyright was at about 28 years. Then it was changed. Of what benefit to society was that change? Instead of getting others to justify what existed for a long time, how about if you tell us what the great benefit was for the change which occurred at the behest of a corporation which will now hold the copyrights in perpetuity because when will it die?

 

[atheistgirl]

It is not most just and beneficial to have an indefinite copyright, that will limit creativity and so damage the culture of a society.

Where’s your proof for this?

I guess this is where you and I are different. You see a copyright or patent and think shoot, someones making money off that and I gotta use it. Nothing I can do about it.

I see a copyright or patent and think shoot, that’s a brillant idea. Now, let me see how I can make that better, change enough that it doesn’t fall under infringement, and let me make some money here

Course, I then protect my work

Which I might be happen to licence - for the appropriate fee

It doesn’t limit creativity, it boosts it!

It will be financially beneficial for those who own the copyright,

Darn right.

but it will also be damaging culturally.

You proof for this?

Just because something is a law, or could be made into a law that benefits someone financially doesn’t mean it is a good idea, which is the point of this whole thread.

I never argued that was necessarily the case

Sarah x

 

[thewanderer]

Where’s your proof for this?

I guess this is where you and I are different. You see a copyright or patent and think shoot, someones making money off that and I gotta use it. Nothing I can do about it.

I see a copyright or patent and think shoot, that’s a brillant idea. Now, let me see how I can make that better, change enough that it doesn’t fall under infringement, and let me make some money here

Course, I then protect my work

Which I might be happen to licence - for the appropriate fee

It doesn’t limit creativity, it boosts it!

Sarah x

I guess I don’t have clinching proof for this, but I guess I’m just thinking back to the way that so many great works in the past were great in large part because of all the references, both explicit and implicit to all the other works that came before them. That just seems way to difficult to do with copyrighted material, so to me it seems like we are loosing one of the best literary tools. Yes, I realize that people can go ahead and do all the research into whetther or not the workss are copyrighted, and then go pay all the money to the owners of the copyrights, but come now, that is a lot of work and definately an added expense for something that only might turn out to make you any money or be of profit to society, (just because the creator of the work thinks it great doesn’t mean other people will agree. ) That people are just going to bypass this tool, its too much of a hassle and a risk.

Oh, by the way, in case you were wondering, this is not at all my opinion.

You see a copyright or patent and think shoot, someones making money off that and I gotta use it. Nothing I can do about it.

I see the possibility for a great loss to the artistic works of our culture, and so to our society in general. I am not just a copycat who wants to make a quick buck off of other peoples ideas. Although I do find it interesting that this claim has been used so often throughout this thread to try and belittle the arguments of those who are saying that maybe just possibly copyright law is not currently perfect.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, perhaps there will be a benefit from that donation. But right and wrong are what they are, irrespective of benefits to the Church or its members. Even if the Church were legally prohibited from owning copyrights or patents – or land, or personal property, or what have you – it would still teach that there is such a thing as property of others, and that it’s immoral to steal.

The ICEL holds copyrights on the English translations.

 

[St_Francis]

…I am not just a copycat who wants to make a quick buck off of other peoples ideas. Although I do find it interesting that this claim has been used so often throughout this thread to try and belittle the arguments of those who are saying that maybe just possibly coppyright law is not currently perfect.

Yes, this does seem to be the major argument against a shorter copyright. None of the valid arguments proposed for a shorter copyright have even really been discussed, except to say that the books most certainly still exist in the Library of Congress.

 

[atheistgirl]

Although I do find it interesting that this claim has been used so often throughout this thread to try and belittle the arguments of those who are saying that maybe just possibly coppyright law is not currently perfect.

Oh, I never argued the copyright laws were perfect.

They’re not.

The owner of the copyright should be entitled, in law, to own it forever and ever and ever, disposing of it as they wish on their death.

Fair use is already enshrined in law so parts of my works can be used for critique, reports, research, education or ridicule.

But just think for a minute.

You buy a car. It’s yours. Forever.

You buy a house. (buy, not mortgage!) It’s yours. Forever.

You buy a painting. It’s yours. Forever.

You buy shares. They’re yours. Forever.

You decided what to do with them. When you’re good and ready.

And you can make as much or as little money from them as you wish.

You could rent your house, and buy another. Securing an income for you, and your estate, like forever, until they will it to someone else, or sell it or whatever.

BUT!!!

You write a book. Or a song. Or a film.

You get to your death and 70 years beyond.

It’s crazy.

And grotesquely unfair and unjust.

Nope.

Make copyright in perpituity I say.



Sarah x