What's wrong with current copyright laws?

[atheistgirl]

I think you missed the point of what I was saying.

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

 

[JIB]

That’s you’re view and you’re entitled to it.

The courts and a whole body of law take a different view.

Guess who wins in a dispute?

Sarah x

You made two logical fallacies in that short post - Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam.

 

[BobCatholic]

This is what is wrong with copyright laws.

Compare Patents with copyright.

Patent:
I create a cure for cancer. For the next 20 years, I can make money off of it as a monopoly. After that, game over, it goes into public domain and anyone can sell medicine with my formula. If someone violates my patent, I can only sue for my damages and I may have to fight for lawyer’s fees and court costs.

Copyright
I write a nasty slimy song about killing and raping people. For the rest of my life plus 70 years, I can keep making money off the song. In addition, I can get the RIAA to sue you into the ground and bankrupt you if you mess with my copyright. I won’t ever see a penny of that litigation unfortunately, but I can have you punished severely.

THAT is what is wrong with the intellectual property laws. Copyright law is too long and gives private groups too much power to hurt people.

 

[atheistgirl]

You made two logical fallacies in that short post - Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam.

Copy one of my trademarks, processes or brand names, and we’ll see who get’s their verecundiam kicked into touch

Logic or no logic.



Sarah x

 

[JIB]

Copy one of my trademarks, processes or brand names, and we’ll see who get’s their verecundiam kicked into touch

Logic or no logic.



Sarah x

Okay, I get it. Logic is anathema to you.

 

[atheistgirl]

THAT is what is wrong with the intellectual property laws. Copyright law is too long and gives private groups too much power to hurt people.

I see it as my children and grandchildren and even great grandchildren and beyond benefiting from my work and leaving a legacy for them.

If only Speilberg would have used one of my little numbers in ET

I’d make it in perpetuity if I could, not 70 years.

If I compose a great piece of music, why should you be allowed to use it free of charge to enhance a movie of yours, 71 years from now???

No way.

You should be paying the due royalties to my estate so they can benefit.

After all, you want to use my music, and you’re expecting to make money from your film. Why should you get to use my music to make money for you for free?

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Okay, I get it. Logic is anathema to you.

Whatever.

Go ahead an copy one of my trademarks or brands

We’ll see then

Sarah x

 

[JimG]

It might be wise to keep in mind that if you post photos or words or nearly anything on facebook, even if it’s your intellectual property, copyrighted, you’ve just given them a nearly unlimited license to use it. You keep all responsibility; they get the benefit of free content. I haven’t read all the voluminous terms and conditions, but this guy has tried to.

 

[atheistgirl]

Copyright law is too long and gives private groups too much power to hurt people.

I’m only guessing here and be assured I mean no offense, but I wonder if the Catholic Church wished copyright ran a bit longer, in light of one of it’s most recent donation?

georgiabulletin.org/local/2012/08/16/mitchellestate/

The Church I am sure will do very well from this, and use all the moneys to great effect.

Sarah x

 

[St_Francis]

I see it as my children and grandchildren and even great grandchildren and beyond benefiting from my work and leaving a legacy for them.

If only Speilberg would have used one of my little numbers in ET

I’d make it in perpetuity if I could, not 70 years.

If I compose a great piece of music, why should you be allowed to use it free of charge to enhance a movie of yours, 71 years from now???

No way.

You should be paying the due royalties to my estate so they can benefit.

After all, you want to use my music, and you’re expecting to make money from your film. Why should you get to use my music to make money for you for free?

Sarah x

So the same should go for inventions, such as medicines. Why should we be able to buy inexpensive aspirin; we should be paying a ton of money for aspirin so that Bayer’s great-great-grandchildren can get the royalties?

 

[St_Francis]

I see it as my children and grandchildren and even great grandchildren and beyond benefiting from my work and leaving a legacy for them.

If only Speilberg would have used one of my little numbers in ET

I’d make it in perpetuity if I could, not 70 years.

If I compose a great piece of music, why should you be allowed to use it free of charge to enhance a movie of yours, 71 years from now???

No way.

You should be paying the due royalties to my estate so they can benefit.

After all, you want to use my music, and you’re expecting to make money from your film. Why should you get to use my music to make money for you for free?

Sarah x

So the same should go for inventions, such as medicines. Why should we be able to buy inexpensive aspirin; we should be paying a ton of money for aspirin so that Bayer’s great-great-grandchildren can get the royalties?

While you may think this is no big deal, sure, we can pay big bucks for medicine, consider the issues we already have with inheritance and situations where 7 cousins inherit a piece of property and one cannot be found so nothing can be done with the property, and all that sort of thing. Imagine if we couldn’t get aspirin anymore because the heirs cold not agree or because one could not be found…

 

[JimG]

I’m only guessing here and be assured I mean no offense, but I wonder if the Catholic Church wished copyright ran a bit longer, in light of one of it’s most recent donation?

georgiabulletin.org/local/2012/08/16/mitchellestate/

The Church I am sure will do very well from this, and use all the moneys to great effect.

Sarah x

Good point. I’m not sure just how much copyrighted material is involved, but there is no doubt that Margaret Mitchell is still a moneymaker. I was in Marietta GA a year or so ago, and went into the Gone With The Wind museum just to get out of the rain.

 

[BobCatholic]

I see it as my children and grandchildren and even great grandchildren and beyond benefiting from my work and leaving a legacy for them.

If only Speilberg would have used one of my little numbers in ET

I’d make it in perpetuity if I could, not 70 years.

If I compose a great piece of music, why should you be allowed to use it free of charge to enhance a movie of yours, 71 years from now???

No way.

You should be paying the due royalties to my estate so they can benefit.

After all, you want to use my music, and you’re expecting to make money from your film. Why should you get to use my music to make money for you for free?

Sarah x

The same argument should be used for the patent laws. If I create the cure for cancer, I think my children and grandchildren and others should benefit financially from it as well. But I’m only given 20 years.

The inequality between patent laws and copyright is what is wrong.

 

[pnewton]

The same argument should be used for the patent laws. If I create the cure for cancer, I think my children and grandchildren and others should benefit financially from it as well. But I’m only given 20 years.

In this case, I would have no problem getting services in places or ways that do not honor this patent, if it was necessary, and I would do so both in good conscience and in line with Catholic moral theology.

 

[atheistgirl]

The same argument should be used for the patent laws. If I create the cure for cancer, I think my children and grandchildren and others should benefit financially from it as well. But I’m only given 20 years.

The inequality between patent laws and copyright is what is wrong.

I totally agree with you.

Having a perpetual patent on a drug doesn’t stop other players entering the market with their own drug concoction that does the same job.

In fact, having a perpetual patent - or a 70 year one to bring it closer to copyright laws would lower the price of drugs because companies after spending billions in research and development and clinical trials with the clock ticking wouldn’t have such a short window of time to recoup all their expenses and turn a profit for shareholders.

Currently they have to squeeze every last drop of revenue out of the drug, where as if they could adopt a longer term pricing strategy they could effectively still corner their market with their pricing not making it worthwhile for others to try and get a bit of the action. Making them more money.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

In this case, I would have no problem getting services in places or ways that do not honor this patent, if it was necessary, and I would do so both in good conscience and in line with Catholic moral theology.

You wouldn’t need to a lot of the time. There are usually several drugs that do the same thing, from different companies. Not all as effectively though. The one your clinic might be pushing might not necessarily be the best either.

It might depend on which golf course the director got complimentary free life membership for

Sarah x

 

[Joe_5859]

Well, Joe, you’re looking at it the wrong way. Intellectual Property is property and I would will any I owned to anybody I wanted.

Peace,
Ed

So would you be in favor of lengthening copyright terms to go on indefinitely? You do realize that – prior to the 20th century – that idea is completely unprecedented.

I need to check my lineage and see if I’m decended from one of the Apostles. Maybe I can get some royalty payments from the Bible.

 

[edwest2]

So would you be in favor of lengthening copyright terms to go on indefinitely? You do realize that – prior to the 20th century – that idea is completely unprecedented.

I need to check my lineage and see if I’m decended from one of the Apostles. Maybe I can get some royalty payments from the Bible.

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

 

[Godfollower]

You made two logical fallacies in that short post - Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam.

As Catholics, don’t we accept arguments from authority?

 

[Godfollower]

I’m only guessing here and be assured I mean no offense, but I wonder if the Catholic Church wished copyright ran a bit longer, in light of one of it’s most recent donation?

georgiabulletin.org/local/2012/08/16/mitchellestate/

The Church I am sure will do very well from this, and use all the moneys to great effect.

Sarah x

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.