ArsTechnica: EU adds 20 years to music copyrights

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Drugs? Change the molecular structure a bit and you have a new patent for a new drug with similar effects.

The way new drugs are discovered now is by doing thousands to million variations on a chemical substance that works, and out of those only the ones that have better effects and/or can cost less to produce are going to make it to the market as new drugs. And then they have to apply for a patent, it isn't theirs just because they made something.

I would love it if only the remixes of songs that are an improvement on the original would make it to the public.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The way new drugs are discovered now is by doing thousands to million variations on a chemical substance that works, and out of those only the ones that have better effects and/or can cost less to produce are going to make it to the market as new drugs. And then they have to apply for a patent, it isn't theirs just because they made something.

I would love it if only the remixes of songs that are an improvement on the original would make it to the public.

And as far as drugs are concerned, just changing the molecule a bit means it then has to go through the whole safety approval and trials process... and that's what costs the real money...

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Should the same apply to patents?

Should the Whitney family still have a monopoly on the cotton gin? Should we get rid of all those generic drugs whose patents have expired that are now being produced inexpensively to treat cancers and other diseases?

How about the intellectual property of all those scientists and mathematicians who currently get no rights to their intellectual property?

After all, isn't it just wrong that Newton's family is not profiting for his contribution of calculus? I mean every time a public performance of "Happy Birthday" occurs the descendants of that little tune's author is entitled to compensation. Newton's kin deserves compensation as well. Right?

How about political ideas?

Shouldn't the individuals responsible for coming up with unique thoughts be guaranteed some kind of monopoly on this intellectual property. I mean if they were the first to have a unique idea then others shouldn't be allowed to copy these ideas without recompense.

Maybe a world of "intellectual property" sounds good to you, but I'm not a big fan. I just don't see "intellectual property" as being the same thing as "physical property". I'm all for laws that encourage creation of arts, sciences, inventions, etc. However, treating it, or even viewing it, the same as actual property is a mistake.

Of course this is all just my opinion, and I realize there are quite a few people out there that see things similar to how you see them.

Exactly how I feel.

The concept was put into the Constitution not for the enrichment of the individual, but for the benefit of all of society - to be enriched by it.

I think modern folks forget this. Sure the free market is the best thing for economic growth and the welfare of all - but it's not the right way to resolve every single problem.

The Public Domain concept is for the good of us all. Imagine if every song, ever piece of writing, every bit of media required you to pay someone. That's not the best thing for the People as a whole.

[JeremyR]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

I think modern folks forget this. Sure the free market is the best thing for economic growth and the welfare of all - but it's not the right way to resolve every single problem.

The Public Domain concept is for the good of us all. Imagine if every song, ever piece of writing, every bit of media required you to pay someone. That's not the best thing for the People as a whole.

The free market would be no copyrights at all. The original copyright owner would have to compete with "Authorized" editions and what not with unauthorized ones.

That's too far the other way, as while the creator could make money off of it, it would require a lot of effort and that would be timer better off creating.

The old US system worked really well, IMHO. Having to renew copyright meant that only the really valuable commercially stuff was...

[GA Russell]

This is just in time for The Beatles, no doubt.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

This is just in time for The Beatles, no doubt.

I think that played a major roll. Just like protecting the interests of Disney played a major role in the U.S. extending copyrights several years ago.

Unfortunately, it also locks into obscurity millions of other works. Even well known authors like Isaac Asimov have the majority of their work unavailable except on the used book market (his non-fiction is really good). Now imagine all the books written by authors who aren't famous. We are losing this heritage in an effort to protect the commercial profits of large corporations.

[Hellmark]

I personally think there should be copyrights with some longer length, but I think it should be limited to the creator's life span some how. I mean, how many copyrights are still in effect where the creator, their kids, and even their grandkids have grown old and died? Look at Disney. He's got his great grandkids around, and he's been dead for 45 years, and his copyrights still have years left on the copyright (2023 for Steamboat Willie, unless gets extended again).

One of the worst things an artist can experience, is having others use your works without permission, and especially if for a profit. It makes you feel a loss of control, because you've spent all this time creating something and making it exactly how you want it, only to then have your desires ignored. Also, as been mentioned many times before around here, is to promote further creations by giving the creator exclusive rights to their past works so they can profit and afford to make more. Ok, if the creator is dead, will whoever inherits the copyright use them to further creation, or will they continue on with their life as is, and use what ever money they get to further their established life path? In my mind, Life + 10 or Life + 20, would be sufficient, since that would give enough time for the person who inherits the works to respect the wishes of the creator, such as if the creator was attempting to do something when they died (which is a common thing, most creators keep on until death). By having it a relatively short time after death, others still get the benefit of the work in the public domain.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Unfortunately, it also locks into obscurity millions of other works. Even well known authors like Isaac Asimov have the majority of their work unavailable except on the used book market (his non-fiction is really good). Now imagine all the books written by authors who aren't famous. We are losing this heritage in an effort to protect the commercial profits of large corporations.

Then seek legislation to get orphaned works into the public domain.

[anamardoll]

Like all rights, there is a tension between two sides.

I do believe that authors and creators have rights and should benefit from their works. This is a good thing and helps promote further creation by supporting the artists in their work.

However, society has rights too. Society provided safety nets and support for the artist. We have public schools so that artists can be educated, we have public grants so that artists can survive while practicing their art, we have public charities to catch artists when they fall, we have public roads and a mail system and a communications infrastructure so that people can send money to the artist in order to partake of their art.

Society invests ALL these things into ALL artists, regardless of whether the artist is successful or not. It stands to (my) reason that therefore society has some claim on the fruit of the artist's labor. We usually do this by taxing some portion of the artist's work and then "reclaiming" the artist's work after a certain time period so that ALL people -- including poor struggling artists -- can benefit from the artist's work.

Just as, you know, the artist in question benefited when THEY were looking for inspiration and living on a prayer and a nickel.

Incidentally, nearly everyone in America is living on land that once belonged to someone else and which -- in most cases -- was not legally purchased from the actual owners. Just throwing that out there to the people who believe that property rights should last forever -- you probably wouldn't be super thrilled if you got thrown out of your house with zero compensation because someone with longer rights than yours showed up.

And, indeed, imminent domain means that you CAN in fact be thrown out of your house (with some compensation) because (in theory) society needs the land more than you do. I've actually had this happen to me, as a matter of fact. It's not fun, but it's the price we pay for living in a functioning society instead of Deathlands.

And this is a point: in order to have a functioning society, there are very few "rights" which are sacrosanct over all other considerations. We place limits on free speech. We place limits on property rights. We should also place limits on intellectual property rights. In my opinion.

[Greg Anos]

If nothing else, it ought to be taxed like real property.

You want to keep a copyright forever, you get taxed on it every year, wther you earn any money on it or not. Land gets taxed that way....

And it has to registered in order for you to have a property right...

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If nothing else, it ought to be taxed like real property.

You want to keep a copyright forever, you get taxed on it every year, wther you earn any money on it or not. Land gets taxed that way....

No problem with that.

[emellaich]

In terms of patents, the goal is to encourage innovation, and the way they do that is through disclosure and limited terms.

We give the patent holder 20 years of protection in return for revealing all of their secrets. A patent must be written such that a practitioner skilled in the art can reproduce the patent. This means that, even when the patent is in force, the concept is published and others can use it to germinate their own ideas, and once the exclusive period ends anyone can make use of the revealed invention on their own. In effect, it protects for a limited time in exchange for an agreement to surrender future rights.

IMHO, this is where current patent practice is failing. In theory an invention must be 'non-obvious'. This makes it in the public interest to grant a limited protection in return for sharing the secret. However many of our patents are quite obvious and not really inventive.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

No problem with that.

I suppose it's ideologically consistent, but that would hurt 95% of artists while basically only benefiting the Beatles and other major names.

I'm not in favor of that at all, although if the ALTERNATIVE is "copyright forever", then I'm between Scylla and Charybdis in terms of attractive choices.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

The free market would be no copyrights at all. The original copyright owner would have to compete with "Authorized" editions and what not with unauthorized ones.

That's too far the other way, as while the creator could make money off of it, it would require a lot of effort and that would be timer better off creating.

The old US system worked really well, IMHO. Having to renew copyright meant that only the really valuable commercially stuff was...

The problem is that historically, the time is not spent 'off creating.' It's spent in rent seeking behavior (i.e. defending and enforcing the copyright, granting licenses, etc.). This certainly has been the case with patents, beginning with the patent for the steam engine. The book "Against Intellectual Monopoly" deals with this issue extensively via historical case studies (such as that cited above).

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

To me, property is property; whether it's real, personal, intellectual, or whatever. I think ownership of said property should all be treated the same.

If an author's estate loses ownership of his works 70 years after his death, then a farmer's estate should lose ownership of his farm 70 years after his death.

Any law that extends copyright is therefore a good thing.

But what makes any of these categories you mentioned species of the same genera other than a trick of language? How is my interest in an idea (a specific arrangement of letters and numbers forming the text of a novel, for instance) akin to my interest in a particular plot of land or a computer? And if the answer is that these are all government enforced monopolies, what then is the limit to what can become property? Can the government grant a monopoly on all water in a given area (such as the Bolivian government granted to Bechtel)? Can the air be assigned as property? If the rejoinder is that the monopolies have to be granted to ensure a public good (as is the case with copyright in the US), then it does not follow that perpetual copyright ought to be granted because this would not be in the public interest. Also, if we were to accept a definition of property as government granted monopoly, then said government can radically change the scope of property rights, leaving with you no rational grounds for complaint (there being no more fundamental concept of just ownership you can appeal to).

Luqman