Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Thom
The discussion about the length of copyright is irrelevant, because any length will be "too long" for some (if not many).
|
I havent read this thread - so the length of the copyright might very well be irrelevant for this topic - but it is not irrelevant in general.
I am very much in favor of the German Urheberrecht over the American copyright (e.g. because I cannot sell the Urheberrecht, I can only license the usage of my product). I want creatives to earn (much) money with their work, and I surely dont want the industry to go bancrupt - but somewhere you have to draw a line. Please do not misunderstand me - I am much in favor of the Urheberrecht (or similar rights) - but up some limits.
Whats with patents? Somebody once invented a way to make a clock go tick ... And? Does this give him the right to hold to this invention for all eternity?
What's with patents on stuff life depends on? 'nother point? No, not really.
Quote:
|
The very fact that coyprights do cease to exist after a given period of time already is a concession to the public.
|
Actually its the other way round ... Copyright was introduced relatively late in history, and "copyright after the death of the original creative" even later...
Quote:
|
Being a creative myself it's kinda funny to watch that this whole copyright issue is usually brought up by people who weren't creative in their whole life. Or tried to make a decent living out of it.
|
Dont assume too much - just because one is working in a different field does not mean, that he is not creative or not depending on the Urheberrecht or Copyright for his living (e.g. I'm earning my money as a pyrotechnicist (choerographies are subject to the Urheberrecht) and as a software developer (software is subject to the Urheberrecht)). I'm using my d*mned software any way that pleases me, and I'm selling it any way *I* want - but I have no reason to hold to this right for all eternity (or even dozens of years).
Though I agree that its easier with software (who wants a piece of 50-year old software anyway? (There are cases where this is relevant, but they are few)).
Quote:
|
So, could you "non-creative" please accept the fact that we "creative ones" would like us to decide how and when and what for our work may be used by anyone else?
|
Up to your death? Certainly.
But could you creative please accept that there is no god-given right to hold on to licenses for any given length? It's always a relation between "feasible and fair public usage" and "fair payment for creative" - but ATM I believe the scale is too far on the "payment for creative AND THEIR INDUSTRY" side.
One problem with an unlimited (or even long-limited) copyright is that copyright always is touching other stuff - e.g. when you write a story in a certain way, I cannot re-invent this story (up to a certain degree), even if it would not be a copy.
I could not (reasonably) make any derived work or similar - which I can do with material goods (e.g. I can use that damned car in any art-installation, however I see fit).
Apart from that theres the (significant) point "culture"
Quote:
|
Imagine I'd tell any Kansas farmer that his land will be returned to the people 70 years after his death - which would even make sense since he even didn't create the land or the soil - and his children surely had plenty of time to make some money to buy some land of their own ...
|
See points regarding "immaterial goods" vs "material goods" (oh and there have been quite a number of cultures where land could not be inherited (mainly because all land belonged to the crown, but thats another point).
And I have no reason to object the CCL.