What's wrong with current copyright laws?

[thewanderer]

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

See, this is where that distinction I made earlier comes in. Intellectual ‘property’ is not property in the same sense that any of those other things are, so it makes sense that it shouldn’t ‘belong’ to a person the same way.

 

[atheistgirl]

See, this is where that distinction I made earlier comes in. Intellectual ‘property’ is not property in the same sense that any of those other things are, so it makes sense that it shouldn’t ‘belong’ to a person the same way.

Oh well. We just totally disagree.

I write poetry.

I’ve always done.

My poems reflect the journey of my life, my most inner thoughts and fears, joys and delights.

My insecurities and strengths.

My thoughts and feelings on life, love and the universe.

I have a whole series of poems I’ve written and continue to write about my children, from the moment they were born, to the present. They don’t know about these poems. They’ll receive them when I’m dead.

Now, every last word, feeling and emotion in these poems is mine, and mine alone. They come from the deepest part of my being and flow from the well of my own creative and artistic mind and heart.

They’re for my family. They’re as deeply personal as can be and will never be published.

How you can seriously suggest that your great great grandson, should be able to take these poems, if he finds them, and put them in an anthology, and make money from them, while the people they’re for, and about, and who inspired them, and their relatives, get nothing, is beyond me.

Parasitic is the word that comes to mind.

Nope.

If anyone is going to make an anthology of these poems, and make money from them, it should be no one else other than me, or the people they’re intended for.

I will never ever understand the mentality that says it’s ok to live off the sweat of other peoples labor

Sarah x

 

[thewanderer]

Sara, I am not for parasitic lazy bums making oodles of cash off of someones hard labour and personal emotions etc. I would really appreciate it if you would stop implying that I have such motives/opinions as you keep suggesting. You clearly do not understand what it is that I am saying and what it is that I am not saying. Please make an effort to assume the best and if you are not sure about what I think, just ask and I will be more than willing to tell you. I do not appreciate you making assumptions about my opinions in such a way that they try to belittle my arguments by claiming that my opinions can’t be right because I am clearly an insensitive SOB who likes to promote cold, parasitic behaviour.
I have logical reasons for what my opinions and there are many nuances to what I think that have not been fully expressed here. Since when did I advocate for the private writings of someone to become publishable and turned into a source of income for others? What I am talking about is vastly different, and relies upon the works from which content is taken/references are made towards being already published and well known. If you disagree with ssomething I have said please address the specific things I have actually said instead of trying to belittle the arguments I’ve made by making unwarrented assertions about my opinions.

Oh well. We just totally disagree.

I write poetry.

I’ve always done.

My poems reflect the journey of my life, my most inner thoughts and fears, joys and delights.

My insecurities and strengths.

My thoughts and feelings on life, love and the universe.

I have a whole series of poems I’ve written and continue to write about my children, from the moment they were born, to the present. They don’t know about these poems. They’ll receive them when I’m dead.

Now, every last word, feeling and emotion in these poems is mine, and mine alone. They come from the deepest part of my being and flow from the well of my own creative and artistic mind and heart.

They’re for my family. They’re as deeply personal as can be and will never be published.

How you can seriously suggest that your great great grandson, should be able to take these poems, if he finds them, and put them in an anthology, and make money from them, while the people they’re for, and about, and who inspired them, and their relatives, get nothing, is beyond me.

Parasitic is the word that comes to mind.

Nope.

If anyone is going to make an anthology of these poems, and make money from them, it should be no one else other than me, or the people they’re intended for.

I will never ever understand the mentality that says it’s ok to live off the sweat of other peoples labor

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Sara, I am not for parasitic lazy bums making oodles of cash off of someones hard labour and personal emotions etc.

Reading back it was a mistake to give the example of saying ‘your great great great grandson…’ as that could make it seem way to personal towards you. I guess as it is us that was conversing it’s the sort of thing I’d say in real life, if we were having a coffee, for impact, and you’d be able to read my face and eyes along with hearing the comment, but I can see that it could be taken as if I think personally, you’re that kind of person.

For clarity - I don’t think you’re like that. I have no reason to assume you are, even if I don’t agree with the argument you’re making.

I do think however, that anyone who thinks they can and should be allowed to make money off some one elses work and products, just because a certain period of time has passed, is wrong, and shouldn’t be allowed to do so.

I can’t say it any clearer than that.

Copyright should be in perpituity to the originator and their estate. It’s up to them what to do with their creation.

What I am talking about is vastly different, and relies upon the works from which content is taken/references are made towards being already published and well known.

This is already covered in the DMCA under fair use

Sarah x

 

[april32010]

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?

envy is an ugly emotion to base laws on.

 

[atheistgirl]

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?

Who’s to say they’ll be lazy

Who’s to say they won’t use their inheritance to make many more millions, creating jobs, wealth, and security for who knows how many others

Who’s to say they won’t donate millions to their church, the community, to education, to research, to how many other good causes?

But above all, why the heck shoudn’t they enjoy the fruits of their grandpa’s genius and creativity Who’s business is it but theirs

Sarah x

 

[Joe_5859]

Who’s to say they’ll be lazy

Who’s to say they won’t use their inheritance to make many more millions, creating jobs, wealth, and security for who knows how many others

Who’s to say they won’t donate millions to their church, the community, to education, to research, to how many other good causes?

But above all, why the heck shoudn’t they enjoy the fruits of their grandpa’s genius and creativity Who’s business is it but theirs

Sarah x

The only reason I made that statement is because Ed keeps referring to the public domain as the refuge of the lazy. I was simply pointing out that laziness goes both ways. Certainly, they could do lots of good things, too. Just as people utilizing the public domain can do lots of good things.

 

[thewanderer]

envy is an ugly emotion to base laws on.

I’m going to point out again that this seems to be one of the main arguments people are using against those who think copyright laws might not be perfect. Assume that they are all envious and trying to make an easy buck/ promoting envy etc. Please give actual arguments instead of making such implications.

 

[thewanderer]

Reading back it was a mistake to give the example of saying ‘your great great great grandson…’ as that could make it seem way to personal towards you. I guess as it is us that was conversing it’s the sort of thing I’d say in real life, if we were having a coffee, for impact, and you’d be able to read my face and eyes along with hearing the comment, but I can see that it could be taken as if I think personally, you’re that kind of person.

For clarity - I don’t think you’re like that. I have no reason to assume you are, even if I don’t agree with the argument you’re making.

I do think however, that anyone who thinks they can and should be allowed to make money off some one elses work and products, just because a certain period of time has passed, is wrong, and shouldn’t be allowed to do so.

I can’t say it any clearer than that.

Copyright should be in perpituity to the originator and their estate. It’s up to them what to do with their creation.

This is already covered in the DMCA under fair use

Sarah x

I can see we might be stuck in a disagreement, but like I said before, my argument against this is based on the fact that this is a different kind of ‘property’ (as shown previously) and so can only ‘belong’ in a different sense and so should not be treated the same as other types of property.

Also, as to your disagreement with people making money off of other peoples work… while I personally don’t see the huge issue after a certain point, (doesn’t it seem just a **little **odd to you that somebody could put in a finite amount of work and get an indefinite return?? That does not seem either natural or fair.) that is not at all the reason why I am hesitant about current copyright laws. (Mostly I just don’t know enough to say much about current laws) It has to do with restricting culture and art, which I do not agree with.

 

[Joe_5859]

It has to do with restricting culture and art, which I do not agree with.

That’s my main concern, too. Commodification of everything is pretty much the cultural air we breathe. I once heard a presenter talk about how the attitude of commercialization basically swallows up all other view points (because if I think things are getting too commercial, I can write a book about it, and copyright it, and selll it for profit, and get paid to go lecture about it, etc.).

That’s the big question mark for me. As copyright terms keep getting extended longer and longer, I don’t think we’ve fully experienced yet the cultural ramifications of the commodification of ideas. Perhaps any issues could be addressed with more robust fair use laws. I don’t really know. But I think it’s good to be able to at least talk about these things without resorting to assumptions about being envious of people’s success and/or trying to make a fast buck. Since copyright laws are not part of Divine Revelation, I’m guessing that there’s always going to be room for improvement.

 

[Joe_5859]

This is just anecdotal, but I thought I’d share a story. The other week, someone came up to me and asked me if it was (morally) okay for them to make their own calendar/planner on the computer and print it out. We’re talking about a table with numbers on paper for goodness sake! And yet the person was genuinely (and greatly) concerned about potentially violating copyright laws and thereby doing something both illegal and immoral.

I know it’s just anecdotal, but I think this type of attitude is on the increase. Good people who want to do their best to do the right thing are getting downright scrupulous about copyright issues. The issue seems so confusing that one feels like they need a law degree to understand it all. I don’t think that helps serve the common good.

 

[thewanderer]

This is just anecdotal, but I thought I’d share a story. The other week, someone came up to me and asked me if it was (morally) okay for them to make their own calendar/planner on the computer and print it out. We’re talking about a table with numbers on paper for goodness sake! And yet the person was genuinely (and greatly) concerned about potentially violating copyright laws and thereby doing something both illegal and immoral.

I know it’s just anecdotal, but I think this type of attitude is on the increase. Good people who want to do their best to do the right thing are getting downright scrupulous about copyright issues. The issue seems so confusing that one feels like they need a law degree to understand it all. I don’t think that helps serve the common good.

Agreed.

 

[atheistgirl]

This is just anecdotal, but I thought I’d share a story.

Excellent

The other week, someone came up to me and asked me if it was (morally) okay for them to make their own calendar/planner on the computer and print it out.

Nothing wrong with that.

And yet the person was genuinely (and greatly) concerned about potentially violating copyright laws and thereby doing something both illegal and immoral.

And so they should be.

I know it’s just anecdotal, but I think this type of attitude is on the increase. Good people who want to do their best to do the right thing are getting downright scrupulous about copyright issues.

And so they should be.

The issue seems so confusing that one feels like they need a law degree to understand it all. I don’t think that helps serve the common good.

I disagree.

DMCA is not difficult.

People are right to check if they’re infringing someone’s copyright. It protects them, and their company.

We have fair use, and ignorance is no defence.

People should be educated in these things.

No one, sensible anyways, would just get in a car and drive, assert they needed to drive and they needed their car, and not educate themselves enough to understand the requirements to drive, insurance issues and maintain a car and so on and when pulled over tell the nice officer this is ridiculous, you’d need a degree in law just to understand what was required to legally drive

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

(doesn’t it seem just a **little **odd to you that somebody could put in a finite amount of work and get an indefinite return??

Nope.

Not in the slightest.

If I discover the cure for all cancers, for all of mankind, and I create a potion that will evolve and adapt as the cancer does, thereby ensuring even new cancers will be beaten as they emerge, you think I’m happy with 20 years then everyone gets my formula.

Too funny.

Nope.

My formula. My creation. My genius that discovered/made/created it. My entitlement in perpituity.

Let anyone else that can, go out and do what I did. I’m not stopping them and neither is anyone else. Let them make their own discoveries, develop a significantly better formula than mine, one that has fewer side effects, whatever, and meet me in the market place, compete fairly, and let that be the drive for even better discoveries and creations from all of us.

Mankind is the winner here.

Course, they could just wait out 20 years because they havent got the skill, knowledge and knowhow, and just copy my lifetimes work

Mankind now just pays for a cheap copy with nothing new brought to the table

Who’s to say I wouldn’t leave such a discovery as open source - in fact in the example concerning a cure for all cancers for all mankind I absolutely and totally would - but the point is that’s my choice, and it should be my choice.

Not yours, not the governments, not anyone elses. My choice.

(Mostly I just don’t know enough to say much about current laws) It has to do with restricting culture and art, which I do not agree with.

The first part of that is right because with respect, if you did, you’d know culture and art are not being restricted.

Sarah x

 

[thewanderer]

Whether or not they are currently restricted, I do not know, which is why my definitive statements have all been with respect to the idea of having permanent copyrights, and they have mostly been based off of philosophical principles. Ideas are a very different kind of thing than material goods. You cannot treat them as if they are the same. If I ever come up with something in the future that I can copyright and make money off of, I will, but even if I came up with a cure for cancer and so was able to make loads of money off it I would be vehemently opposed to the idea of extending my legally bestowed ownership in perpetuity, yes, I, and my heirs, would benefit from such a legal move, but I do not think it is valid so even if I and my heirs were to benefit enormously from such a law I would be opposed because I think it is unjust.

Nope.

Not in the slightest.

If I discover the cure for all cancers, for all of mankind, and I create a potion that will evolve and adapt as the cancer does, thereby ensuring even new cancers will be beaten as they emerge, you think I’m happy with 20 years then everyone gets my formula.

Too funny.

Nope.

My formula. My creation. My genius that discovered/made/created it. My entitlement in perpituity.

Yes, I think you have made it quite clear that you feel so entitled.

Let anyone else that can, go out and do what I did. I’m not stopping them and neither is anyone else. Let them make their own discoveries, develop a significantly better formula than mine, one that has fewer side effects, whatever, and meet me in the market place, compete fairly, and let that be the drive for even better discoveries and creations from all of us.

Again, I think that would be a great idea, for other people to go out and make their own discoveries. I don’t know which laws would best achieve that. However that is very different from the idea of extending copyright in perpetuity on principle, as though it is something that is a natural entitlement.

Mankind is the winner here.

Course, they could just wait out 20 years because they havent got the skill, knowledge and knowhow, and just copy my lifetimes work

Mankind now just pays for a cheap copy with nothing new brought to the table

Who’s to say I wouldn’t leave such a discovery as open source - in fact in the example concerning a cure for all cancers for all mankind I absolutely and totally would - but the point is that’s my choice, and it should be my choice.

Not yours, not the governments, not anyone elses. My choice.

The first part of that is right because with respect, if you did, you’d know culture and art are not being restricted.

Sarah x

This is getting a little off topic. The only definitive statements I have given were with respect to copyright in perpetuity, which is a little off topic. And even with respect to those statements and arguments, instead of addressing the reasons I have given (mostly the fact that ideas are a **very **different thing than material goods and so cannot be treated as though they were the same) you just continue to state that you think copyrights should be in perpetuity and that you would feel entitled to such benefits. Thats great and all, but it means that as well as being off-topic we aren’t even going to be able to get anywhere in this discussion.

 

[St_Francis]

Oh well. We just totally disagree.

I write poetry.

I’ve always done.

My poems reflect the journey of my life, my most inner thoughts and fears, joys and delights.

My insecurities and strengths.

My thoughts and feelings on life, love and the universe.

I have a whole series of poems I’ve written and continue to write about my children, from the moment they were born, to the present. They don’t know about these poems. They’ll receive them when I’m dead.

Now, every last word, feeling and emotion in these poems is mine, and mine alone. They come from the deepest part of my being and flow from the well of my own creative and artistic mind and heart.

They’re for my family. They’re as deeply personal as can be and will never be published.

How you can seriously suggest that your great great grandson, should be able to take these poems, if he finds them, and put them in an anthology, and make money from them, while the people they’re for, and about, and who inspired them, and their relatives, get nothing, is beyond me.

Parasitic is the word that comes to mind.

Nope.

If anyone is going to make an anthology of these poems, and make money from them, it should be no one else other than me, or the people they’re intended for.

I will never ever understand the mentality that says it’s ok to live off the sweat of other peoples labor

Sarah x

If we had what you are calling for, indefinite copyright, we would not have much of the literature we have today which has shaped our language and shaped our culture.

Shakespeare would have gone broke when he sued stories already in existence as the basis for his plays. The Brothers Grimm would have been unable to include many fo the stories they did in their work. Disney would have had to collect all of Perrault’s and Anderson’s multitudinous heirs and get them all to agree to the terms to be able to make the fairy-tale movies they did.

I have seen this happen. When there are lots of heirs, they all have to agree. One doesn’t agree, and nothing happens. Houses then fall apart, families lose their entire property because some heirs do not pay property taxes, and the state gets it all or auctions it off to, wow, lazy bums who want to make a quick buck off other people’s work.

Think of it: we’d have to get *all *of Plato’s descendants to agree in order to print his works. Anyone who quoted Plato “too much” or expounded upon his ideas could be up for a major lawsuit.

You think there would be some kind of riches passed on to future generations if there was infinite copyright? No, there would be nothing. No one would want to publish anything for fear that they would be sued.

And those similar meds that come out? Most of them don’t come out until *after *the patent period is expired, because companies want to have patent-protected meds on their roster.

 

[atheistgirl]

And even with respect to those statements and arguments, instead of addressing the reasons I have given (mostly the fact that ideas are a **very **different thing than material goods and so cannot be treated as though they were the same) you just continue to state that you think copyrights should be in perpetuity and that you would feel entitled to such benefits. Thats great and all, but it means that as well as being off-topic we aren’t even going to be able to get anywhere in this discussion.

You’ve given no argument. You’ve just made a statement, ie, ideas are not the same as other property and shouldn’t be treated the same

That’s not an argument, that’s a statement.

My statement counters yours.

My argument is just as I create a piece of furnature with my hands and sell it, I create ideas, poetry, business proposals, with my brain. The output, whether it’s a chair, or a schematic for a patentable energy saving device, is irrelevant. It’s my output. My property. Mine to do as I wish with.

You claim there’s a distinction.

I don’t, and neither does a whole body of law, which arose from our reason and intellect and sense of natural justice.

You’re right. We can go no further here. Nice talking with you.

Sarah x

 

[thewanderer]

You’ve given no argument. You’ve just made a statement, ie, ideas are not the same as other property and shouldn’t be treated the same

Sarah x

Maybe I should remind you of this post, where I helped explain why I see there as being a distinction. I certainly have not just made a claim that such a distinction exists

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.

The point being that ideas are the kind of things which naturally can be created orginially by multiple different people. And so cannot belong, naturally, to one individual. This is different than material goods, because, by their very nature, they can each only be created once, and so can only be created by one person. It is a completely different monster.

 

[atheistgirl]

Maybe I should remind you of this post, where I helped explain why I see there as being a distinction. I certainly have not just made a claim that such a distinction exists

Yes and I said in reply loads of people can think of the same thing. In law, it’s the first to the patent lawyers that sakes the claim.

I have no problem with that.

Often the second mouse gets the cheese

It encourages competition, which is good.

Just saying because someone might think of the same idea as me, in India, means the ideas not mine, isn’t an argument either.

And saying my copyrighted material isn’t really mine, based on my idea, which I thought of, because a girl in India also thought of it, is just silly.

My idea. I copyrighted it. It’s mine.

The point being that ideas are the kind of things which naturally can be created orginially by multiple different people. And so cannot belong, naturally, to one individual.

So my idea, produced by my brain, which I thought of, is not my idea, because someone else, in India, also thought of it, on a different day. My idea is now not my idea and doesn’t belong to me, because this happened. Say that out loud and tell me that’s not silly.

This is different than material goods, because, by their very nature, they can each only be created once, and so can only be created by one person. It is a completely different monster.

Why does the chair, a material good, look like it does?

Could it be because someone designed it?

Where does that design originate?

Where does my schematic for my energy saving device originate?

Same place?

Ever heard of mass production?

Anyhow, I have no more to add.

You’ve not made any argument to back up your claims, and there’s a whole body of law disputes your opinion, which you’re fully entitled to.

Just make sure you have deep pockets if you infringe one of my copyrights, brands, designs or patents.

Wanna know something?

I can even come after you with a cease and desist as a warning shot (because I’m nice like that ) if you use a particular shade of a certain color in a certain letter combination

How cool is that :

I have my own color, developed by me, and no one else can use it

Sarah x

 

[Joe_5859]

My formula. My creation. My genius that discovered/made/created it. My entitlement in perpituity.

When you say “in perpetuity”, do you mean for the rest of your life or for the rest of human history?

If it’s for the rest of your life, I can undesratnd. But do you really think it would be just for one person or family of persons to forever hold complete control over the cure for cancer?