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.
Congress is given the job of passing copyright laws by the United States Constitution. I think virtually everyone agrees that a copyright for a set term of years is a good thing. Giving the author of a book or movie the right to reap profits for a reasonable period of time guarantees us that other other authors will write books and other producers will make movies.
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.
There is no inherent right to have a copyright for your life plus seventy years. The only right is that which Congress has chosen to give these groups. It could just as easily say twenty years, or fifty years, or for simply the lifetime of the author or producer.
I say its time for a change and we should shorten copyrights.
Of course there is an inherent right to a person's work after his death!
Patents don't expire any sooner than copyrights. A machine or mechanical principle, or now a genetically devised medical treatment may pay off much better for a person's heirs than the person who invented it, if the invention is far ahead of its time.
Copyrights legally ensure a person's intellectual work is protected. Things like writing, art, and music, and other creations that can never lie on a tool bench. If anything the former 25 year limit on protection was much too short.
That's why the Walt Disney corporation pushed for the extension of the copyright laws. Walt never knew, when in his youth, that Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and all his other cartoon creations, would be so popular or long lasting as they became, and all of them were about to go into public domain after they built a billion dollar enterprise. The Disney corporation shows just how valuable intellectual property really is.
The heirs of many other famous authors, musicians, artists, and innovators have just as much right to the ownership of their ancestor's intellectual property as the heirs of the great inventors do.
And if you ever write a book that becomes a best seller, or create a new character for a video game that becomes immensely popular, I'm sure your thoughts on the matter would change real fast.
So the Disney Corp. can make money off 1930's cartoons. They need the money to bribe the government to maintain the copyrights.
psik
Strictly speaking, 1920's cartoons. Of course, Disney thinks nothing of mining earlier public domain works for their films.
Another axis to all of this is that in addition to the continuing extensions of copyright law, it's becoming much easier to catch people who are violating copyright. The whole system is getting locked down to a far greater extent.
It's an interesting experiment. For the first time in history, literature (and related items) will have monopoly ownership during the lifetime of a potential user. The only countervailing trend I can think of is the increased ease of piracy (and the Chinese to some extent).
For the sake of argument, let's say all individuals had themselves monitored 24/7 and then every idea, phrase, bit of doodling, had some sort of rights angle applied. In turn, your computer agents could monitor the internet for any violation of same.
You could end up with a network clogged with lawyering rather than porn, so perhaps there's no great loss.
So the Disney Corp. can make money off 1930's cartoons. They need the money to bribe the government to maintain the copyrights.
psik
Those 1930 cartoons were the intellectual foundation of what became a much, much bigger financial empire that the creator, Disney, ever envisioned. He owned the rights to his creations and passed those rights on legally to his heirs and, eventually, the stockholders who joined his enterprise.
It's much more than simply protecting some old drawings and film. At 25 years, the old copyright laws were simply too brief in their protection. The Coca-Cola formula patent, created almost 50 years before Walt ever made his first movie, was fully protected when he first put Mickey Mouse to film.
The Coca-Cola company was allowed to renew their patent as well before the original expired. Walt could not renew his copyrights under the old law. The two laws were inconsistent with each other until the copyright law was re-written to more closely match the patent laws.
If you ever sit down with a guitar and write a song, or write your autobiography, and get it copyrighted, you may never see a nickel for your efforts; are you already a famous musician or writer? Would you not like to see your spouse and children benefit from your creative efforts, if possible, after you are dead and gone?
Well, that's what happened with the song you have known all your life. "Happy Birthday To You". Two completely un-famous American sisters wrote it, and copyrighted it. Way back. Around 1893. It went on to become the most recognized song in the English language.
Their heirs got a modest and regular royalty for 25 years, every year, by the publishing company that bought it. And then, the copyright expired. That family once more began to receive the money that was rightly due them at the same time Disney re-secured their copyrights.
Did they bribe the government? No. They, Disney, and hundreds of others, large and small, petitioned Congress to change the law, something we all have the right to do. Congress saw the errors in the old law and revised it. Bribery didn't enter into it. It was the right thing to do, for anyone, rich or poor, who has ever created something intangible that turned out to be worth money.
Most copyrighted works don't pay off in millions of dollars. Some pay in tens of dollars, others in hundreds of dollars, and others in thousands of dollars. A good friend of mine once sat down and wrote a song in 20 minutes when she was 18 years old. "Twenty Flight Rock". A songwriting friend of hers stuck her song into a batch of his and copyrighted it as a favor.
Eddie Cochran, an early rocker, picked it up as the B side to his own song 'Summertime Blues".
Summertime Blues became a top 40 hit in the 50s, and my friend got 1¢ a record royalty off of every copy of that record, even though her song was never a hit by itself.
Over about 15 years, she made a total of about $2,000 in royalties. Cochran died young, but Summertime Blues didn't, and 20 Flight Rock was still connected to it by copyright.
Then, in 1980, about 4 years before the copyright was due to expire, the Rolling Stones, who always liked her song, put it into their play list for their American tour.
Every time they sang it in concert, she got 1¢ for every ticket sold to the concerts. The Stones made a documentary of their tour, and it became a popular movie. She got another 1/2 penny from each movie ticket. When HBO picked up the movie, she got another tiny royalty. When the Stones released a live album with the song on it, she got some more pennies.
…and she didn't even know the Stones or what they had done.
She was leading the life of an everyday housewife who once played the guitar a little bit. Then, one day in 1981, she went to the mailbox and pulled out an $80,000 royalty check. She and her husband were able to move out of their little house that was falling apart and buy a nicer home to raise their kids in.
Not a mansion- just a little bigger and a lot better than the old house. About 23 years after she had written that one, single song, the only one that was ever published. The song had beaten copyright expiration by a whisker under the old law.
Now, if an effort of yours, writing that little tune down that had been spinning in your head, ends up making your descendants better off in 30 years, how is that bad? You have the benefits in exactly the same way. Except that your protection is now far longer than my friend's was back then.
And the best of all? You don't have to go through the strict requirements of the old law to get a copyright. My friend could not read nor write music, but her songwriter buddy could. He also knew how to navigate through the long list of requirements needed to apply for a copyright as well.
Nowadays, all you will need is a short trip to the closest Post Office to pick up a form, a dated recording of your work, a signature that says you alone created it, and $25 money order. From the time the post office stamps your packet, you are the owner and your'e protected. You can protect 12 songs (or any number, as long as they are on the recording) at once, not needing 12 individual copyrights.
The revised law was written for guys like you, or me, or anyone who has ever come up with a good mental creation that could be worth money.
That's true of all kinds of government-granted monopolies, though. The question is, at what length do copyright terms conflict with the public interest in having things enter the public domain? The original formulation was 28 years at most. The current formulation is giving rise to 150+ year terms. Somehow I think the best policy is closer to the 28 than the 150, though.
That's true of all kinds of government-granted monopolies, though. The question is, at what length do copyright terms conflict with the public interest in having things enter the public domain? The original formulation was 28 years at most. The current formulation is giving rise to 150+ year terms. Somehow I think the best policy is closer to the 28 than the 150, though.
The laws can always change. They have in the past, and there's no prohibition against changes in the future.
There are no 150 year terms of protection. Internationally, patents are protected for 20 years. Current U.S. copyrights are for 75 years. The difference comes from the belief that an actual tool that is extremely useful to all should enter public domain after a proper compensation time for the inventor.
A copyright work, as intellectual property, can conceive of something that cannot physically exist now or in the future, so it's protection is longer. Concepts are not patentable, but they may be copyrighted. If technology allows the concept to become a physical reality, then the resultant product may be patented.
That's true of all kinds of government-granted monopolies, though. The question is, at what length do copyright terms conflict with the public interest in having things enter the public domain? The original formulation was 28 years at most. The current formulation is giving rise to 150+ year terms. Somehow I think the best policy is closer to the 28 than the 150, though.
"Public interest," in what way?
So Random House can publish content and not pay any royalties? So Susie the Watercolor Painter can see Random House put her watercolors on the cover of their books, and she's not getting a dime for it? So Joe Smith can download music without paying for it? So Acme Art Prints can make and sell posters with Andre's photography on it and not pay Andre a cent?
Some seem to assume that all copyrights are held by rich fat cats who don't do any work and just collect dough. But the majority of copyright holders that are regular folks, earning modest livings, and it's because they keep the copyrights to their work.
Like the example I gave before, a photographer might have a thousand photos, which only a portion will make any money any given year. The photographer can afford to still keep taking photos, keep traveling to locations to take photos, or experiment with new techniques. Keeping the rights to his own work throughout his lifetime allows him to do this. Taking it away makes him wonder if he can afford to keep working in that line of work. And even with keeping the copyrights throughout his lifetime, he may not make an actual living. It just may be a supplemental income. Surely it's not "greedy" of him to be able to keep making at least some money from his own work.
It seems on this one subject, many people think they should get the fruits of someone else's labor without paying for it. As it is right now, many people don't think to pay creative people enough. Many seem to believe that it's "not really work" or it's "fun" or whatever. Is that's what's fueling this? The belief that these people don't "deserve" to keep their own work, because it's not really work at all?
Anyone who works in a creative field can identify with this meme:
It's already hard enough, and those who want to limit copyright just want to make it harder.
In the early hours of yesterday morning, local artist Sue Jolley was found dead of exposure mere days after being paid with the same. “We’re all shocked by this, but contrary to popular belief we were paying her quite well,” said H&M Canada representative Lawrence Pike, who had hired Jolley to create a mural at their downtown location. “In her contract, she was set to receive fair compensation in the form of exposure, promotion, opportunity, free publicity, “a foot in the door”, and at least 5 real-world experiences.”
Quote:
“She was a talent,” said colleague Jeremy Ivanovich. “Just last week, she designed a brilliant poster for McDonald’s that read ‘I’m Hungry’. They liked it so much that they let her keep a copy. Later, I saw her sitting on the sidewalk in her rags, showing it to people as they walked by.”
This is, of course, satire, but most creative people can identify with it!
Don't pay the artists. They should be grateful for crumbs, and the "opportunity" to show their work off! Eventually someone will pay them! But it won't be you! You're "doing them a favor" by using their work! Why do they want any more than that?
They don't need to keep a copyright for their own work too! That's "greedy"! They make so much as it is! If they demand royalties, then Random House won't be able to keep all the profits for themselves! That can't be right, can it?
Lest any of you think that all or most copyright owners are greedy corporations . . .
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.
This is, of course, satire, but most creative people can identify with it!
