Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And beyond all that, these are luxuries. These aren't life-saving medicines being locked down by some corporation. No one needs to watch The Wizard Of Oz or read The Old Man And The Sea. The notion that it's unjust that you can't enjoy these non-essential pleasures without compensating the creator is, frankly, rather self-absorbed.
It's not just entertainment though. I've mentioned two examples previously where I have run into copyrighted work I'm reluctant to publish. I have numerous manuals for old coal stoves from now defunct coal stove manufacturers, I also have numerous pictures of coal breakers from the area.
Both of these are in demand. The manuals are in demand because people want to know how to operate their units. The images have cultural value. Since I can't find the copyright holder I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I could publish them and probably never hear a peep about it but I'm rolling the dice.
For that reason - even if we don't reform the length of copyright - I'd definitely institute a "use it or lose it" provision where the work has to be republished every 5 or 10 years by an active rights-holder, or else it automatically reverts to the public domain.
I could go along with a modified version of that.
Any creator could re-register themselves as "I'm still alive, still active, still want to keep the rights to my work" every 5-10 years. The heirs (surviving spouse, heirs) can do the same after the death of the rights-holder (for up to 70 years but not longer).
To try to re-publish every work, every little doodle, every snapshot you ever took, would be onerous. To even "re-register" each item you created (even if there were no fees involved in this re-registration) would be onerous. Some people can create thousands of things a year (like photographers, sketch artists who are especially prolific).
As long as a person (or their heirs) are active and interested in retaining the rights to the work, they can make themselves able to be contacted, and in this way their work can be used with proper permission (or permission can be denied). Therefore, there wouldn't be any more "orphan" works that no one can re-publish, but no one can confirm (or deny) that there are any interested rights-owners.
I'd also add that as long as a rights-owner has work in existence, even if it's just sketches in a sketchbook, writings in a journal, photos stored on a hard drive, that the work never has to be published at all to still "belong" to them, and still be protected by copyright.
Besides, these are no longer the days where all we have of our work is a dusty old book or faded print that no one else will be sure who it "belongs" to. We're in the digital age. We're easier to find, easier to track, and our work is easier to track as well.
A visual artist can do a simple Google Images search to see where else their images are showing up on the Internet. (Though this is far from foolproof.) A writer can copy and paste a sentence or paragraph into Google and see where else that shows up (it's cutting down on literary plagiarism). Video and music is easier to track (which explains how YouTube knows when to take down a video, when they deem that it has someone else's content in it). The technology isn't yet there to track something that is "similar," that will be up to people to judge and decide, but flat-out copies, rip-offs, we already have the technologies to detect where else it's being used.
As for the claim that there's no "proof" that copyright protection increases production, I see no "proof" that it harms it either. Just because there are people who want the work to be free (no charge) sooner, because apparently it's "greedy" for the rights-holder to keep it throughout their lifetime, is still no justification to take it away. Calling those who create "greedy" seems to be an emotional argument itself.
I'm not saying they shouldn't profit from it, the question is how long they should be able to do that. Certainly you would agree that works should not remain copyrighted in perpetuity? Should the bible still be copyrighted?
More than a century is far too long. I don't know what the magic number is but certainly 50, 60 or 70 years maximum is plenty of time to profit from your work. The benefits to society with the expansion of knowledge and culture is tremendous.
I think it depends on the copyright. You can't trace the bible owners. Stuff from the past hundred years, you can properly track ownership.
IMO, any copyrights that properly document ownership, I'd be fine with indefinite ownership.
The copyrights are a commodity. They can be bought and sold.
Even when a copyright expires, somebody is still likely profiting from you using it, so why shouldn't the copyright owner (of course at this point either sold or inherited) receiving a few pennies for that usage? That book you're reading that was written 150 years ago, but printed two years ago cost money that somebody profited from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310
Why should the surviving spouse be "entitled" to the income? Why the children? Well, why do many people work like dogs? To provide for their families. This is their incentive. They can die knowing their loved ones are cared for. Take that protection away, and they don't feel that same incentive.
It's the same as someone building a business, building a stock portfolio, etc.
Somebody took the time to create something of value.
Just like your house goes to your heirs, your business goes to your heirs, your holdings go to you heirs... your valuable copyrights should go to heirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle
I do see your point but how long is reasonable to hold onto something that the public could benefit from? And what happens when the public dislikes a law and finds it unreasonable? Who really deserves to benefit from a creation or idea ? Just the creator? the creators wife? Their children? Their grandchildren? Where does it end? In a lifetime of a creator plus 70 yeas, if a person lives to be 80 that is 150 years ! That is time enough for the copyright to conceivably benefit not only the wife and kids but the great great great great great grandchildren!
Even when the copyright expires, someone is still profiting. The cost on many copyrights going to the copyright owners is a pretty insignificant part of your average users bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
You assert my argument is weak, but it is my argument that enjoys support from the Founding Fathers and the actual language of our Constitution. This language states that copyrights may be given for a limited period of time. It also, in essence, gives Congress the power to create and define exactly what the property rights of someone publishing a book, producing a movie, or composing music are. Those rights are no greater than the definition Congress gives them under American law. That same Congress, in the past, extended copyright protection for only 28 years and allowed renewal of it for another 28 years.
What is your support for your idea that these are property rights which should go on forever? I hear nothing, but your own opinion. Frankly, its going to take more than an artist screaming at me that his ideas enjoy protection "forever" to convince me of that fact.
You're not using fact. You're using opinion.
Congress defining the length of time are ultimately the opinions of those in Congress at the time.
Times have changed. It's not the 1700s anymore. The Constitution gets changed. Amendments, court rulings, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Your analogy about the house fails. We are talking about the difference between something concrete and tangible and something which is really just an idea. Ideas may be committed to paper or a DVD, but it doesn't change the fact that a copyright is property based upon simply an idea. Ideas never solely belong to anyone. Most ideas for books, films, and manuscripts are the result of many ideas and than someone mixes old ideas together and comes up with a book.
An idea is an idea, a copyright is something tangible. Copyrights can be sold or given away or inherited. They are property.
A book, a film, a manuscript is no longer just an idea when it takes on a physical form. At that point, it is a book, a film, or a manuscript.
A house is something physical that can be sold or given away or inherited. Analogy still stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Again, you also choose to ignore the fact that the property right which exists in published materials is no greater than the right extended to authors, producers, and composers by Congress, acting under the Constitution.
Based on the opinions of the people in Congress at those times.
I think it depends on the copyright. You can't trace the bible owners. Stuff from the past hundred years, you can properly track ownership.
Some things are harder to trace from up to a hundred years back, but if we talk about NOW? Any creator of copyrighted material NOW is super easy to trace, as long as they want to be traced. If they value their rights to their work, they can be just an email away.
Also, on the issue of work being "published." What does that mean anymore? Many of us have been on the Internet for at least ten years. Some of us twenty+ years. If we are photographers or artists, we may have our visual work in digital form "published" online for all that time. If we are writers, we can have our work "available" through eBooks (or print-on-demand technologies) indefinitely. Same with video and music. A work can be in some online store's database and "in print" (available to be sold, and printed—pressed—whatever) at a moment's notice, when someone orders a copy.
So if someone is invested in keeping their copyright, and making money from it, they can set things up so it is available and "published."
Quote:
IMO, any copyrights that properly document ownership, I'd be fine with indefinite ownership.
Well... I wouldn't go that far. I like the life + 70 because it covers the creator themselves, and their heirs. Their kids will be senior citizens before the copyright runs out. Their kids will have plenty of time to prepare for the time that the copyright ceases for them.
I like seeing things in the public domain eventually. Just not while the creator and heirs (spouse, kids) are alive. The kids and spouse knew the creator. May have helped bolster the career of the creator. They should see some benefit for that. The great great great great grandkids, not so much.
I call, again, on the people who support these long-duration, copyright laws to come up with some proof that they benefit someone other than the heirs of the people who write a book. So far, I've seen nothing other than angry people who believe the legal system ought to totally take their side and ignore what maybe good for the masses living in this country.
I see no need for proof that a copyright benefits someone other than the heirs.
A person who writes a best-seller should have the same rights to leave his/her assets, in the form of a lengthy copyright period, to heirs as someone who builds a business.
I see no need for "the masses" to have free rights to someone's creation once they die.
Who's angry? The people who feel creators are entitled to the profits from their works, and said creators should be able to leave the result of their efforts to heirs, or the people who arbitrarily deem the creator made enough money after a period of time, and want the works for free? I think the second group is more angry that people get to protect their creative works as much as others get to protect their tangible assets.
What I disagree with are the current laws. They literally allow a copyright to last for the length of the author's life plus seventy years. At some reasonable point, a copyright should end. I ought to be able to go on Youtube or some other website and watch movies free of charge that are fifty or sixty years old. Those who own the copyright shouldn't be able to go to court and prohibit free copying and viewing of items that are this old.
I say its time for a change and we should shorten copyrights.
My understanding is that this law was written mostly by and for the editor lobby and the law does not provide for a distinction between books/films/creations having real monetary value and others having no monetary value but having otherwise a great social or scientific significance.
I have done a lot of research work in scientific libraries and I find that most books are rarely read. If I were living in China or Africa, I couldn't even get those books because they are out of print. No editor would print them because the demand is so tiny.
My solution to that problem is quite simple. One needs to modify the law so that anyone who registers a copyright for a book or a film needs to pay an annual fee to keep that copyright active. That should not be a problem as long as the book sells for a profit. The copyright would expire a year after the payments have stopped. That solution would make it possible for the children of Michael Jackson to keep receiving royalties on their father's production as long as they pay for maintaining the copyright rights active. This change to the law would also allow for scientific books having no market value to come to the public domain much sooner.
My solution to that problem is quite simple. One needs to modify the law so that anyone who registers a copyright for a book or a film needs to pay an annual fee to keep that copyright active. That should not be a problem as long as the book sells for a profit. The copyright would expire a year after the payments have stopped.
No, that doesn't really seem practical in many cases.
There are plenty of photographers and artists, and other creators who have a large body of work, all which might make some money in any given year. The sum total of all the creations equals a modest living per year. But having to re-register each and every work, every year, would be (as I said before) onerous.
Let's say I'm a photographer and I have a thousand photos that are all good works, have made money in the past, and are likely to continue to make money in the future, off and on. I need to keep rights to all thousand at all times. Maybe 50 out of those thousand could sell in any given year, but which 50? So in order to cover my butt, I would have to pay a fee to protect all thousand?
(I'm not a photographer, so my numbers may be off, but the principle is the same.)
Though, there is a workaround for this. Visual artists can compile a "book" of their work (let's say four images per page) and make a print-on-demand copy of the book, which could have up to a thousand images (or whatever) per book. Then they can register the book, and all its contents (the images) and only pay one fee! But all thousand images are protected, because they are part of that book. (There are people who do that now! )
But I think I have an even simpler solution, for those who complain that there are "orphan" works (no one knows who the creator is, but everyone is afraid to use it just in case someone comes forward to claim ownership).
I proposed before that each copyright holder/creator could register themselves as "still active" and make themselves available to contact. They wouldn't have to re-register (or pay a fee) for each work, only verify that they are still interested in keeping the rights to their work, and making themselves available for any inquiries from interested parties (who want to use the work).
There's also the issue of having your work "published." Most of us (whether we are visual artists, writers, musicians) can "publish" our work online, and make it available for sale indefinitely (as long as an Amazon-type place exists, anyway). If no one buys a copy of their work for years, who is going to know? Who is going to care? It's still available, in the event that someone wants it.
Does it have to make a profit for the copyright holder to want to keep it? Isn't it enough that they created it and they should have some say over how it's used, and they should be the ones making some money (if and when it makes money)? Why do they have to jump through extra hoops to retain the fruits of their labor, or somehow justify their right to it?
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-12-2015 at 07:14 AM..
Reason: Removed icons
I see no need for proof that a copyright benefits someone other than the heirs.
A person who writes a best-seller should have the same rights to leave his/her assets, in the form of a lengthy copyright period, to heirs as someone who builds a business.
I see no need for "the masses" to have free rights to someone's creation once they die.
Who's angry? The people who feel creators are entitled to the profits from their works, and said creators should be able to leave the result of their efforts to heirs, or the people who arbitrarily deem the creator made enough money after a period of time, and want the works for free? I think the second group is more angry that people get to protect their creative works as much as others get to protect their tangible assets.
I agree fully! Sounds like greed to me. At the very least access to something (to own and use for benefit) without having done the work.
The estate of Adolf Hitler's propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, is suing a publisher for royalties for the use of extracts from his diaries.
Goebbels died in 1945, which means his writings are still under copyright under jurisdictions where the standard is the author's life plus 70 years (the term usually expires at the end of calendar year 70, eg, January 1, 2016).
A flat 50-year term would not have this problem.
Another example - the Portuguese director Manoel de Oliveira died earlier this month at the age of 106. He released his first film in 1931. Under the "life + 70" standard, that film would not enter the public domain until January 1, 2086 - a copywritten term of 154 years, or almost double the average human lifespan.
I truly doubt the constitution's drafters intended terms of 150 years when they described copyrights as being "for a limited duration."
Flat terms avoid those sort of hyper-long time periods that can arise from using someone's own lifespan as part of the copyright's definition. If life-extension technology allows people to live for hundreds of years, does it follow that copyright should persist and persist and persist? That wasn't the goal of the copyright system to begin with...
Why can't the estate get royalties? The publisher is making money. You're just saying that the publisher should get all the money.
Quote:
Another example - the Portuguese director Manoel de Oliveira died earlier this month at the age of 106. He released his first film in 1931. Under the "life + 70" standard, that film would not enter the public domain until January 1, 2086 - a copywritten term of 154 years, or almost double the average human lifespan.
I truly doubt the constitution's drafters intended terms of 150 years when they described copyrights as being "for a limited duration."
If a person is alive and potentially still creating, why shouldn't they still be allowed to profit from their own work? I don't see the problem.
If they're alive, presumably they still need to eat. Rather than the fruits of their labors go to fill the pockets of a Random House, why not let them keep some of the money being made on THEIR work?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
