Death of copyright, film at 11?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

even assuming the maximum original term, or 28 years, it's pretty obvious that the current term (life of the author plus 70 (soon 90 ?) years) is so far from the original intent of copyright as to be unrecognisable. current copyright law should be in the dictionary as an example next to the word "travesty".

Please apologise to the word "travesty" , it's far more decent that current copyright laws....

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Please apologise to the word "travesty" , it's far more decent that current copyright laws....

heh. good point. maybe we should invent a new word just for this case. to the mozzler, batman !

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

heh. good point. maybe we should invent a new word just for this case. to the mozzler, batman !

Right, Batgirl!
(Robin) Holy Thesarus, Batman. There isn't a word bad enough. Even the lawyer word won't accept it...

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Right, Batgirl!
(Robin) Holy Thesarus, Batman. There isn't a word bad enough. Even the lawyer word won't accept it...

It's not a single word, but I think "legalized raping of the public domain" fits rather well.

[HarryT]

Perhaps you'd feel a little differently if you depended on intellectual property rights for your livelyhood.

I have a right, as an author, to benefit from my work for AT LEAST my lifetime. I also feel that I should be able to pass on the "fruits" of my work to my descendents, just as I can with my other property. I honestly see no rational reason why "intellectual" property should be treated any differently.

[Nate the great]

There is a epigram that comes to mind right now. It goes something like:

If you give something away for free, eventually the recipient will demand it as a right.


Who wrote that? I think I heard it from Heinlein.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps you'd feel a little differently if you depended on intellectual property rights for your livelyhood.

I have a right, as an author, to benefit from my work for AT LEAST my lifetime. I also feel that I should be able to pass on the "fruits" of my work to my descendents, just as I can with my other property. I honestly see no rational reason why "intellectual" property should be treated any differently.

Sorry, you do not. Intellectual property goes back to the Statue of Anne (1714?). It has always been granted for a limited period to encourage the creation of more intellectual property. This was well described by McCauley to Parliment in 1841. It was (and is) still a limited monopoly, not a piece of property. Since it is not property, the rules of property don't apply. Totally different rules, for totally different reasons. Yes, there is overlap between the two set of rules, but that does not make them the same. Perhaps we shouldn't use the term Intellectual Property, as it is not property. It was called that to make more easily understood by the general public.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps you'd feel a little differently if you depended on intellectual property rights for your livelyhood.

I have a right, as an author, to benefit from my work for AT LEAST my lifetime. I also feel that I should be able to pass on the "fruits" of my work to my descendents, just as I can with my other property. I honestly see no rational reason why "intellectual" property should be treated any differently.

[pdurrant]

Intellectual Property is a (deliberate) misnomer. It's not property, it is a grant of a monopoly.

As an author you have been granted a monopoly on the reproduction of your literary output for your lifetime and for 70 years after that, to encourage you to create.

IMO this is an excessive period. Would you really be less inclined to write, if your monopoly only lasted for the greater of fifty years from publication or your lifetime?

Lifetime+70 is just far too long.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps you'd feel a little differently if you depended on intellectual property rights for your livelyhood.

I have a right, as an author, to benefit from my work for AT LEAST my lifetime. I also feel that I should be able to pass on the "fruits" of my work to my descendents, just as I can with my other property. I honestly see no rational reason why "intellectual" property should be treated any differently.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

May I ask, Shaggy, just what it is you find so "funny" about the idea of an author wanting to get paid for the work that he does? Do you get paid for the work that you do, or do you give it away free of charge?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Sorry, you do not. Intellectual property goes back to the Statue of Anne (1714?). It has always been granted for a limited period to encourage the creation of more intellectual property. This was well described by McCauley to Parliment in 1841. It was (and is) still a limited monopoly, not a piece of property. Since it is not property, the rules of property don't apply. Totally different rules, for totally different reasons. Yes, there is overlap between the two set of rules, but that does not make them the same. Perhaps we shouldn't use the term Intellectual Property, as it is not property. It was called that to make more easily understood by the general public.

With the greatest respect, Ralph, you're on very shaky ground trying to use the ideas of 300 years ago to justify today's laws. For one thing, we live far longer: average life expectency in the early 18th century was under 40; today, in most western countries, it's in the mid 80s. For another, there were virtually no professional authors at that time; today, many people make a living writing, and by other "creative" activities. I can honestly see absolutely no rational justification for considering the "work" of writing a book to be trated differently from any other type of work, in terms of being able to pass on its benefits to one's family.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

May I ask, Shaggy, just what it is you find so "funny" about the idea of an author wanting to get paid for the work that he does? Do you get paid for the work that you do, or do you give it away free of charge?

People want a lot of things. There is no law saying that they should have it.

I want to be able to create things using as parts what ought to be in the public domain if the copyrigt period was not absurdly long. Why is my "want" not as important than your's "want"?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

I want to be able to create things using as parts what ought to be in the public domain if the copyrigt period was not absurdly long. Why is my "want" not as important than your's "want"?

Because I'm the one doing the work. You just want "free stuff".

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the greatest respect, Ralph, you're on very shaky ground trying to use the ideas of 300 years ago to justify today's laws. For one thing, we live far longer: average life expectency in the early 18th century was under 40; today, in most western countries, it's in the mid 80s. For another, there were virtually no professional authors at that time; today, many people make a living writing, and by other "creative" activities. I can honestly see absolutely no rational justification for considering the "work" of writing a book to be trated differently from any other type of work, in terms of being able to pass on its benefits to one's family.

I agree. The author should certainly retain ownership of the original copy. All the other copies, is another matter. If they were sold, they belong to other people. The owners of the copies should be able to do with them as they please, including copy and distribute.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because I'm the one doing the work. You just want "free stuff".

I am doing the work creating new things. And I wrote "things that ought to be in the public domain". You seem to imply something strange with "free stuff".