[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by gmw

I could be on shaky ground here. But consider that these days copyright comes into existence at the time the work is created, and the copyright cannot be transferred to another work. The two aspects (thing and rights) are effectively inseparable. Consider, too, that it is copyright that effectively gives the work potential value as a property in legal and economic terms.

Without the legal rights you run into the problems cited in that Jessica Dickinson article. An intellectual thing without rights is non-rival and non-excludable. But with those rights, the intellectual thing becomes rival and excludable (which is pretty much the point) and so potentially valuable as an exploitable asset.

It seems this is more an issue of terminology then. Or to put it another way, I think we may agree on this point but are expressing it differently and that is causing my confusion.

Originally Posted by gmw

You lost me. When did this become your point? I don't recall you mentioning when copyright runs out ... but then we've both talked a lot , so I might have missed it.

And perhaps once again I have expressed myself inaccurately.

My point is and always has been, IP and PP are different. So long as I have that rock in my hand I have the possibility of denying it to anyone else. The only thing giving me any rights over my IP is the law. Currently, under the law, copyright runs out. You gave the example of Disney to show copyright works. How will Disney stop anyone from using anything it has under copyright when that copyright protection runs out?

So yes, copyright works and is good and should be in place and all the rest. However, it is a legal concept under the law and that is it. Work protected by copyright is very different to physical property.

Originally Posted by gmw

I have not been arguing in favour of eternal copyright.

No, you have not. Which, to be completely honest, is why I am so surprised you are finding minutia to disagree with me on.

My entire post was in relation to and directed at those supporting the concept of copyright being extended in perpetuity. The only arguement I have seen put forward for that idea is that the government does not take your physical property after a certain time and make it "public domain" therefore the government should not do so with IP. That argument is non-sensical for two reasons;
1: Because IP and PP are different and therefore not only should be treated differently under the law but actually need to be treated differently. And
2: Because copyright doesn't even protect IP, it gives a right to control the output of ones work for a limited period of time. So if one wants to compare copyright with other rights, one should reasonably compare copyright to worker's rights.

Originally Posted by gmw

I think publish + 70 sounds pretty reasonable to all concerned, maybe publish + 50. Not that it matters, the constraints of the Berne Convention mean we are unlikely to see any change below what exists now, however many impassioned discussions happen on MR.

I have no problem with Life + a limited time such as 50 or 70 years. I agree that we will not see a reduction in copyright length. If anything I think corporations will continue to buy politicians and eventually ensure there is no public domain.

Originally Posted by gmw

While I am not a fan of perpetual copyright, but I do have some sympathy for what tubemonkey suggested: life + renewal every x years. That would seem to resolve some of the issues surrounding eternal copyright, but ...

Eternity is a long time. The potential for building complications of copyrighted material dependent on copyrighted material strike me as horrendously messy.

I have zero sympathy for the idea of eternal copyright.

All current creators draw extensively on what has been created before them. To now suggest no one into the future should have that same right is nothing more than, to quote leebase, "an attitude of gimme, gimme, gimme".

Furthermore, I can not comprehend why an author should be compensated for their work over and over for all eternity if other workers are not afforded the same right.

If any proponents of eternal copyright can actually come up with a rational and cogent argument why the two situations should be treated differently I'd sincerely be interested in reading it.