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.
Relatively few people making a living off copyrighted works as owners of copyrights. Most of the copyrights are earned by corporations. Of course, let's not forget that recording companies, movie studios, broadcasters, newspapers, and book publishers hire people who contribute from editing to recording and book binding.
If anything, I prefer that more people be able to make a living off their creative activities. Increasing the copyright term is not going to cause George Gershwin, let alone J S Bach, come back to life. Expanding the term of copyright was simply a windfall for corporations that could do more for humanity by fostering new creations than by milking some works 75 to 95 years old. But the laws were duly passed, and so long as we live under the rule of law one test of citizenship is that we obey laws that we dislike or otherwise find difficult to obey. Most of the creative activity is derivative works.
It is ironic that someone could be involved with a copyright violation by decorating a cake with an image of Mickey Mouse, but such is the law.
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 . . .
The solution -- do not give the prime stuff for free. Show a sample and insist upon payment as you complete your work -- as if you were a contractor on a construction project.
The solution -- do not give the prime stuff for free. Show a sample and insist upon payment as you complete your work -- as if you were a contractor on a construction project.
Of course.
AND, fight for your rights and keep your copyright!
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.
You carry on as though the sole purpose of copyright law is to protect the property rights of an artist or a writer. The language of our Constitution clearly shows that the Founding Fathers had something very different in mind. They wanted to promote science and the useful arts. They believed this purpose could best be achieved by giving artists and inventors the right to a copyright or patent for a limited time. The concept was that literature and technology would be developed, but after a limited number of years would become available to everyone and that there would be benefits from a rapid diffusion of knowledge.
That was the purpose of these laws. It was not to provide virtually limitless rewards and profits to a class of authors and inventors.
Enforcement of copyright laws requires the use of the court system and sometimes police agencies because violation of copyrights is a criminal act in some situations. All taxpayers pay for the police and the court system. In effect, long copyrights are an unjustified subsidy to authors and inventors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErnieG
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.
Its a poor idea unless one is an author or inventor seeking royalties in virtual perpetuity. Again, the lengthy copyright laws in this country have gone astray. Its no longer about creating a favorable climate to invent and write and spread knowledge to the whole country. Its about enriching certain people and corporations for three or more generations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn
And speaking of long-lasting copyrights, this story was just in the news:
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...
You understand the problem. I have no way of knowing. I suspect a large number of the people writing here in defense of long copyright laws are authors who don't their fiefdom threatened. They've got a pretty good deal. They will fight to keep that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
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.
Explain the source of that "inherent right". If you start telling me about "God" and natural law, I'll just laugh. Our Constitution makes it clear that intellectual property rights are not inherent and only exist to the degree that Congress creates them. What Congress gives it can take away. Intellectual property rights are different rights than other tangible property rights are. Other property is tangible and not merely an idea. Other property rights are protected by Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. My whole argument is that Congress should pass a new law and limit these rights to fifty years.
You make the comment that the authors heirs have a right to ownership of the property. That right only exists if Congress chooses to give it. It is no larger than that. You might talk me into writing these laws to benefit the author's spouse. You couldn't persuade me that society has an obligation to protect his children and grandchildren which is exactly what this law does.
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 . . .
There's a big difference between crumbs and the millions of dollars a corporation like Disney, MGM, or Columbia is earning based on getting royalties on productions like "The Sound of Music" which is 50 years old. Why hold up the 'starving artist" as your example? Why not hold up the huge motion picture industry? We both know that is why these laws exist in their present form. I can't compete with Disney or any of these companies in terms of making campaign contributions to a Congressman. That's who they listen too. They don't listen to the ordinary people who the Founding Fathers intended to benefit from these laws.
In this day and age when it is so easy to copy material this whole system may simply implode. When it does, those who have lobbied for such strict laws can look in a mirror for the reason why.
They wanted to promote science and the useful arts. They believed this purpose could best be achieved by giving artists and inventors the right to a copyright or patent for a limited time. The concept was that literature and technology would be developed, but after a limited number of years would become available to everyone and that there would be benefits from a rapid diffusion of knowledge.
And the technology has changed, hasn't it?
Now we have super-rapid diffusion of knowledge. There really isn't any restriction on people getting access to knowledge. Knowledge can be passed along, without violating anyone's copyright. You can't copyright an idea, only an expression of it. So specific expressions of knowledge are protected, but not the knowledge itself.
What exactly is the necessary knowledge that is needed to be "free" from copyright, in the film "Iron Man"? What about the knowledge in a Harlequin Romance? Or a photo of a puppy? Why is it that these copyrighted items are so necessary for society to get ahold of, free of copyright, right now? What useful knowledge is contained within these works that cannot be shared unless they are in the public domain? Why MUST the public have access to all of these, copyright-free?
Quote:
You understand the problem. I have no way of knowing. I suspect a large number of the people writing here in defense of long copyright laws are authors who don't their fiefdom threatened. They've got a pretty good deal. They will fight to keep that.
Oh, sure! We sit in rags while the big corporations "allow" us a copy of our own work! In the example given (that you agree with), it is apparently a travesty that Random House (a big, very rich and powerful corporation) must share royalties with a copyright holder! How awful. We must stop this. Poor Random House can't keep all the money for itself!
I take it that you don't create anything that would be protected by copyright? So you speculate that those of us in support of copyright only want it because it protects our "fiefdom." Well, I could just as easily say that you non-creators, you consumers-only, want to punish us creators because we create, and it's not "real" work (because it's fun and arty and creative) and therefore why should you have to pay for it?
Quote:
You make the comment that the authors heirs have a right to ownership of the property. That right only exists if Congress chooses to give it.
And Congress has chosen to give it.
Quote:
There's a big difference between crumbs and the millions of dollars a corporation like Disney, MGM, or Columbia is earning based on getting royalties on productions like "The Sound of Music" which is 50 years old. Why hold up the 'starving artist" as your example?
Because there are far more "starving artists" than big corporations who own copyright. It's all in how you look at it.
Many copyright holders (I'd say the majority of copyright holders) are individual people, and in some cases they must fight large multimillion dollar corporations in order to keep their rights. Without copyright, they'd be walked all over, and the multi-million dollar corporation would gobble up their work with no compensation.
There are many stories of individual people who wrote songs, wrote stories, created art, took pictures, who found their work "appropriated" by a big publisher or corporation, and when they approached the corporation, they were told to go pound sand. Only when they had a registered copyright and could go to the courts, could they get any justice. Without copyright protection, the big corporations will take and take and take, and the individual creators are left with nothing.
Quote:
Why not hold up the huge motion picture industry?
Why don't you tell me how YOU benefit directly if the motion picture industry is forced to forfeit its copyright after maybe 25 years? That's right, you don't have to pay for a copy of their movies. That's how society benefits. We the public don't have to pay. That's what this all is about. Getting some goodies for free, instead of compensating the creator.
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!
