What's wrong with current copyright laws?

[april32010]

I don’t believe intellectual property is legitimate. Only real property is legitimate. While there are arguments for why it is socially beneficial for the government to enforce intellectual property rights, I don’t think it’s legitimate that I am not allowed to use my own typewriter and paper in the way I want because someone I’ve never met and won’t physically hurt in any way says he has ownership over a certain grouping of words.

                                                                                                                               “Thieves respect property; they merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it.”

― G.K. Chesterton,

 

[thewanderer]

“Thieves respect property; they merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it.”
― G.K. Chesterton,

The question that many people have, including myself, is whether or not it is actually correct to talk about ‘intellectual property’. In other words, we question whether or not thoughts themselves are the kind of things that can be owned by a single person. I say they are not. Just because someone slaps the name ‘property’ on it doesn’t make it such. Now, that does not mean I am against having copyright rules as such, they serve a purpose, and an important purpose, but the question is still open as to what is the best way to acheive the end desired, that is, more creativity.

 

[St_Francis]

Please do not take this personally… I am using your example.

Is the problem most people have with the copyright laws is that they limit access to the creative works of others … or … is it sour grapes because they didn’t get a Harry Potter-like character copyrighted first??

I’m sorry if this sounds sarcastic, but I have seen for myself and heard comments by “also-rans” in the arts whose protestations about copyright injustices seems to masquerade professional jealousy?

It’s a kind of crummy way to argue, to use a *possible *flaw in the person making the argument. It’s kinda designed to shut down all discussion, isn’t it?

I am not a writer; I have no problem with authors making money.

However, this is usually not the case. What often happens is that publishers will squash older books in favor of newer books which they can sell more of. This is a manipulation of our culure and of our ability to pass our culture along to our children.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t believe intellectual property is legitimate. Only real property is legitimate. While there are arguments for why it is socially beneficial for the government to enforce intellectual property rights, I don’t think it’s legitimate that I am not allowed to use my own typewriter and paper in the way I want because someone I’ve never met and won’t physically hurt in any way says he has ownership over a certain grouping of words.

The question that many people have, including myself, is whether or not it is actually correct to talk about ‘intellectual property’. In other words, we question whether or not thoughts themselves are the kind of things that can be owned by a single person. I say they are not. Just because someone slaps the name ‘property’ on it doesn’t make it such. Now, that does not mean I am against having copyright rules as such, they serve a purpose, and an important purpose, but the question is still open as to what is the best way to acheive the end desired, that is, more creativity.

Words are like raw material and writers shape into a literary work. This is work, and the worker is worthy of his hire. He should be paid for his work.

One is permitted to do what one will with a book or cd, but one cannot have two copies, one of which is in circulation and one of which is not.

If I buy a cd, copy it to my hard drive, and give my copy away to someone, then there are two copies each with a separate owner, but the band who made the cd originally only got paid for one copy. This may not be a big problem on a small scale, but imagine if a group made a cd and the first person who bought it put it on the internet and everyone got it free, then the band and everyone else who worked on it would only have $16 to split among them. That hardly seems fair, does it?

 

[coachdennis]

It’s a kind of crummy way to argue, to use a *possible *flaw in the person making the argument. It’s kinda designed to shut down all discussion, isn’t it?

I am not a writer; I have no problem with authors making money.

However, this is usually not the case. What often happens is that publishers will squash older books in favor of newer books which they can sell more of. This is a manipulation of our culure and of our ability to pass our culture along to our children.

It was not my intention to shut down discussion. My question was based on my personal experiences and comments** made by individuals who are not artists themselves, or artists who have not been overly successful towards myself, artists I have worked with, student/artists I teach, etc. Again, I am only thinking aloud on the motivation for someone’s opinion on an issue so I can be *open to learning *how and why certain positions are important to him or her.

 

[thewanderer]

Words are like raw material and writers shape into a literary work. This is work, and the worker is worthy of his hire. He should be paid for his work.

One is permitted to do what one will with a book or cd, but one cannot have two copies, one of which is in circulation and one of which is not.

If I buy a cd, copy it to my hard drive, and give my copy away to someone, then there are two copies each with a separate owner, but the band who made the cd originally only got paid for one copy. This may not be a big problem on a small scale, but imagine if a group made a cd and the first person who bought it put it on the internet and everyone got it free, then the band and everyone else who worked on it would only have $16 to split among them. That hardly seems fair, does it?

This sounds as though you are assuming I am against copyright laws, which, as I previously said, is completely untrue. I have no problem with having copyright laws. My point was simply that the idea or thought itself is not private property. It is a common good, not a private good, and so cannot be considered the property of any one person. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be laws in place which help the creators of novels, music, software etc earn more money for their efforts, that is a good thing, up to a point, the question is in determining what exactly such laws should be to allow for the most benefit to society as a whole.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t know if this would get anyone anywhere in court, but I believe it is bad for our cultural coninuity to have the copyright last so long. Used to be 28 years, which was about a generation. Thus parents were able to buy reprints of the stories they loved as children and pass them on. This is how we weeded out the no-so-good from the classics.

Now, however, it is more of a hassle to print a book the previous generation liked because of the lack of clarity wrt the owner, payment issues, etc. So each generation we just get new books.

And all of this because Disney Corp wanted to maintain control of Mickey Mouse? That was not worth it.

I’m sure the lawyers at the Walt Disney Company would be glad to explain it to you.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I don’t believe intellectual property is legitimate. Only real property is legitimate. While there are arguments for why it is socially beneficial for the government to enforce intellectual property rights, I don’t think it’s legitimate that I am not allowed to use my own typewriter and paper in the way I want because someone I’ve never met and won’t physically hurt in any way says he has ownership over a certain grouping of words.

Wow.

US Copyright Office:

copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what

FBI

fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr/ipr

US Department of Justice

justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/

The Global IP Center

theglobalipcenter.com/

Should J. K. Rowling return her Honorary Degree to Harvard University?

telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/2083815/Harry-Potter-author-J-K-Rowling-receives-honorary-degree-from-Harvard-University.html

Can you produce an arrangement of words and guarantee a profit? Who’s stopping you from typing anything you want?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Actually I would not mind if the writer could renew the copyright and start over again, but this is not what happens. Few writers benfit from the lengthening of the copyright because their books don’t stay in print that long, and if they do, they have already earned *a lot *of money from the book.

But what is currently happening is that books remain under copyright and are *not printed. *The authors don’t get any money from that, *and *the society loses the book.

Very wrong. Libraries retain copies as well as used book dealers. I have been in the book business for decades. I think you’ll need to back up your statement. Most major publishing companies earn a significant income on their backlist - that is, books the public wants to stay in print. “A lot of money?” Really? You’ll have to back that up too.

Mark Twain is still in print. And, well, he’s dead.

Peace,
Ed

 

[3DOCTORS]

Good reading on the subject - new book Reclaiming Fair Use - might be enlightening. The problem may lie partly in the length of copyrights, as others have suggested - but some of the issues that bother the average person may be fear of getting in trouble for what might actually be fair use.

centerforsocialmedia.org/reclaiming

 

[atheistgirl]

My point was simply that the idea or thought itself is not private property. It is a common good, not a private good, and so cannot be considered the property of any one person.

Huh

My original idea is public property

Sarah x

 

[edwest2]

I agree that the term is getting to be too long: life of the author plus 70 years for individually created works, and either 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation for works written anonymously or created “for hire.” (17 U.S.C. § 302). What happens when Mickey nears 95 years of age – increase the term to 125 years?

At some point, copyright should expire. And that time period should be reasonable. And, if the book isn’t available anymore from the copyrighted source, there should be some way to bring it back into print – perhaps using government-issued copyright licenses, the way “covers” of songs can be ordered.

Why? I’m not hearing any good reasons. Or to put it another way, if it increased to 300 years, so what?

I work in book publishing. My company could reprint any book that is still under copyright but is no longer in print. The usual reason a book goes out of print is (a) it is no longer making money, and (b) the people who bought it are it. Example: I could publish “The History of Fly-Fishing Lures” tomorrow, and after about 1,000 copies were sold to interested fly fishermen, the book is dead.

I am acquainted with people who publish books on highly specialized subjects, and they purposely limit their press runs to 500 - 800 copies. They know their market. They know the average person is not interested in the subject matter.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I think the fact that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author is too much. If that were always the case throughout history, a play like Romeo and Juliet would never have been written (since it is based on an earlier work…unless we imagine Shakespeare forking over gobs of money in licensing fees, which, frankly, I cannot imagine).

It’s a system where only the rich can afford to be creative utilizing other people’s works. I don’t think that’s a benefit for the common good.

And, yes, I’m well aware that nothing is holding people from creating their own intellectual property. But the history of art would be a much shorter read without artists borrowing from each other. “Good artists borrow, great artists steal.”

I think it goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway just to minimize the chance I am misunderstood. I am not advocating getting rid of copyright laws entirely. I certainly am not advocating breaking existing copyright laws. As much as I think reform is necessary, I think we need to respect the laws in place. I think the system in place right now has lots of problems, but I don’t pretend to have a just and equitable solution. I’m not enough of an expert to really know a good answer.

Joe,

I’m surprised at you. “…great artists steal.”? Just feel lucky that Michaelangelo is still not around because I think he’d have a few words to say to you, not just about his art but the inventions he created.

Who was George Lucas before Star Wars? Just some rich guy with nothing better to do?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Too high prices, burdensome restrictions on use/fair use, the fact middlemen benefit rather than artists.

Wow? Do you know the story of J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter? She was poor. And for you, you can put your work up on the internet tomorrow if that’s what you want - for free. You don’t need a middleman or distributor. Or, if you want to make money, self-publish and sell it on your own web site, or go digital, and sell it as a PDF. Who’s stopping you?

All I hear about fair use is this: “I wish I could use somebody else’s idea and make money off it.” Create your own Star Wars or Harry Potter.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I can understand that, but what other profession allows a person to work for a short period of time and then profit off it indefinitely? Imagine if you only had to show up for work for 10 weeks and then you could pull in regular checks for the rest of your life without putting forth any more effort.

J.K. Rowling would still be a billionnaire even if her copyright on Harry Potter expired in another 13 years. Of course, she’s an extreme example, but I think that 28 years is plenty of time to make money off of a creative work. As it is, if J.K.Rowling lives to be 80, Harry Potter would remain under copyright for another 100 years!

And what’s wrong with that?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I agree that the term is too long. Seventy years – SEVENTY? – after the death of the author? Who benefits from that except publishers? Publishers and greedy descendants who want to make money on work they didn’t do.

Sorry for the attitude. This topic just drives me to the brink of distraction some days!

Gertie, the grumpy musician

Greedy? If I had written Harry Potter, I would transfer all rights to my heirs or assigns (other people if I had no heirs) in my will. If I ran a billion dollar business making car parts, I’d do the same thing. How long has the Ford Motor Company been around?

And who needs a publisher today? Go and do it yourself and sell it yourself. If you don’t want your work to be under copyright then don’t file! The government doesn’t care one way or the other. Go ahead, create the next Star Wars with no copyright protection. Go ahead.

Peace,
Ed

 

[thewanderer]

Huh

My original idea is public property

Sarah x

Think of it this way. You think up some original idea (although how in the world you determine that noone has ever thought it up before is beyond me). Then, a year later, someone, somewhere halfway across the globe who never heard about your idea comes up with the exact same idea. He did not copy you, it was a completely original thought, if you will. If coming up with the idea on your own makes it yours, then you must admit that it is not just yours, but it also belongs to this other man. Or what if this other person comes up with his idea first, but you copyright it before he does. Now it apparantly belongs to you, even though you weren’t the first person to think of it. That just doesn’t make sense. Yes, its fine to put in legislation that says that no one else can use it without your permission because you copyrighted it, and thats totally fine, but that doesn’t make it actually your property.

 

[adrift]

A good way to kill of the creative arts entirely. The same goes for photography.

This makes me upset. You pay to have pictures taken of you and they have a copyright on your image?

I wouldn’t be to opposed to that but then you have a picture handed down by relatives who you cannot get a copy of because it is copyrighted by an unknown photographer who whent out of buisness fifity years ago.

 

[edwest2]

Please do not take this personally… I am using your example.

Is the problem most people have with the copyright laws is that they limit access to the creative works of others … or … is it sour grapes because they didn’t get a Harry Potter-like character copyrighted first??

I’m sorry if this sounds sarcastic, but I have seen for myself and heard comments by “also-rans” in the arts whose protestations about copyright injustices seems to masquerade professional jealousy?

This does appear to be the case. George Lucas was on nobody’s radar when he went from studio to studio trying to sell Star Wars. He didn’t give up, and now, he has Skywalker Ranch and created other things like the THX sound system.

I think it is sour grapes in some cases. And you’d be surprised now many people, and I understand this completely and without judging, decide that the arts are not for them because it has not been as easy or profitable as it has been for others, or as they imagined when they started their careers. It does require persistence, which is something I tell all the young writers and artists I speak to. Without persistence, planning and hard work, it lowers your chances. However, the other thing I’ve noticed among some creatives is the belief that there is some quick and easy way, some secret, to getting to where they want to be.

After decades of working in a very creative field, the thing that makes an amateur a pro is work, hard work - and I’m not talking about burning yourself out, but realizing that just like a rookie in sports, as you practice and learn, you can eventually be a top ball player.

Peace,
Ed

 

[thewanderer]

Huh

My original idea is public property

Sarah x

I just want to add that I never said it was public property either, the point I was making was that they are not private property. In fact, I think they are neither. Some things, by their nature, just are not property, like people, for example. Thoughts and ideas are another one of these things.