Duration of copyright poll.

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

A copyright is a government granted right given to the author. The heirs have no legitimate claim to a work created by an ancestor.

I don't understand these two sentences together. A legitimate claim, of course, would be one granted by our government. I know of no other ways of defining, obtaining, or divining a "legitimate claim". To me, it makes sense for us (i.e., our government) to define and protect intellectual property. I think that the current laws are archaic and should be modified - but not abolished.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

A copyright is a government granted right given to the author. The heirs have no legitimate claim to a work created by an ancestor.

Eitherway if the ancestor author makes money with copyrighted work during his life, they heirs sure have a right to claim that money. Now where to draw the line, just because he is dead? I mean how about the ancestor author being in deep comatose for years? Does he still get the money for his book and can bequeath it to his heirs until they turn of the machines?

Wouldn't this be an extremely paradox situation created by law?

[Ramen]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I just don't think that will fly. If you publish and die a year later, the publishers won't have the exclusive anymore... I don't expect they want that to happen. Especially for Steven Kink, JK Rawling and some of the other prolific witter's publishers.

BOb

Originally Posted by nekokami

I'd be ok with that too. But I'm ok with a fixed limit regardless of the lifespan of the author, and I think it would be a lot easier to administer and check.

Which is why I am for a fixed limit as well. It's simpler and it's impartial, meaning independent of your lifespan or when in your life you wrote the book you know you will get royalities for X years. Or your family*.


*: I really don't like this part in the sense that it's a reason for longer copyrights. Not because I'm anti-social (quite the contrary actually) but because it's a huge exception to almost every other occupation. Then again, I'm also pissed at the ricidulous vages for musicians and actors**.

Edit: **: The "Top Acts" and "One Hit Wonders" of course, not the legion of other musicians and actors that can't survive on their art income.

[Ramen]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

But DisneyCo is trying to make sure Mickey and friends never become public domain. I can't blame them for wanting that outcome, but I'm deeply unhappy about the side effects.

Actually, Mickey and co are also Disney's trademark so others won't be able to use it anyhow. It's more expensive to maintain, though.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by LazyScot

And as I understand it, there is nothing preventing someone waving copyright (Creative Commons?) or making their content freely available (i.e. still copyrighted, but no-one need pay for it).

Creative Commons does not waive copyright. The work remains copyrighted, released under a license that allows it to be freely shared, with restrictions based on the version of the CC license used that restrict exactly what can be done with the shared work. Information of the Creative Commons license is here.

"Freely available" work is generally under a CC license these days.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

You've fallen for the "Intellectual property" propaganda.

"Intellectual property" isn't, never has been, never will be, property.

Period.

"Intellectual property" does not exist. It's simply a term created by those who would like ideas to be able to be owned and want people to start believing that ideas can be owned.

Only physical works are property? Things that exist as concepts don't have a value and can't be owned?

Oh, dear.

Copyrights are like patents. They grow out of a recognition that creativity and innovation are necessary, and attempt to encourage that by providing the creators and innovators with an exclusive right to the proceeds of their work for a set duration. They explicitly recognize that ideas are property with a value.

How great the value is is another matter: ultimately, something is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it, and having an exclusive right to something is no guarantee you'll be able to sell it.

But ultimately, people work for their own benefit, and lots of law revolves around ensuring that people do benefit from their work.

Should you come up with an idea that might have value and turned into something that can make money, you might have a different attitude on the matter.

A copyright is a government granted right given to the author. The heirs have no legitimate claim to a work created by an ancestor.

And the government granted right has a value, and is explicitly property. Property can be passed along to heirs, if the grant of rights extends beyond the rights holders death.

Let's take this on a personal level: how does copyright extending beyond the author's death negatively affect you? How would your life be improved if it wasn't the case?
______
Dennis

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

I don't understand these two sentences together. A legitimate claim, of course, would be one granted by our government. I know of no other ways of defining, obtaining, or divining a "legitimate claim".

OK. I can see that.

I believe that that since the right was granted to the author, and since copyright is not a property right, that the grant does not automatically get transferred to the heirs upon author's death.

For example, the gov't grants you a driver's license. Upon death, that license is void and your heirs cannot us that driver's license.

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

To me, it makes sense for us (i.e., our government) to define and protect intellectual property.

There's no such thing as "intellectual property". If it's "intellectual", it cannot be "property".

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

I think that the current laws are archaic and should be modified - but not abolished.

No argument here.

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

There's no such thing as "intellectual property". If it's "intellectual", it cannot be "property".

Okay, that's your opinion. I just don't happen to share it with you. But you make it sound as if this is a universal, inalienable truth. It isn't.

[axel77]

Both "property" and "intelectual" are social constructs. Both don't exist in this universe as any observeable facts. With the same argument you say there is no "intellectual property" you can say, there is generally no "property" at all.

I see we are closing toward a Marxistic Theory :-) Abolish property to production facility

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

There's no such thing as "intellectual property". If it's "intellectual", it cannot be "property".

Why? What do you define as "property"?
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by axel77

Both "property" and "intelectual" are social constructs. Both don't exist in this universe as any observeable facts. With the same argument you say there is no "intellectual property" you can say, there is generally no "property" at all.

I see we are closing toward a Marxistic Theory :-) Abolish property to production facility

I wondered about that. If so, perhaps we can delve into why enthusiastic early adopters of Marxist ideas like Russia and China are now reversing course as rapidly as possible and moving away from those ideals.
______
Dennis

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Copyrights are like patents. They grow out of a recognition that creativity and innovation are necessary, and attempt to encourage that by providing the creators and innovators with an exclusive right to the proceeds of their work for a set duration. They explicitly recognize that ideas are property with a value.

If that was the case, copyright and patent laws are redundant - property law would work.

The fact that copyright and patent laws exist is because people recognize that ideas cannot be owned and are not property.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Should you come up with an idea that might have value and turned into something that can make money, you might have a different attitude on the matter.

As a computer professional, I have done this many times. All my code is protected by copyright.

I have no problem recognizing that copyright and property right are different.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

And the government granted right has a value, and is explicitly property.

"Value" is meaningless to this discussion. Property does not need to have value to be property. And anything of value is not property.

We are talking about the pipe dream of "owning" ideas in the same way that one owns their TV.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Let's take this on a personal level: how does copyright extending beyond the author's death negatively affect you?

By keeping things locked up far too long.

I'd really like to read the other Tarzan books. But I can't find them in the bookstores (used or otherwise) and the copyright holders won't reprint them. Burroughs has been dead for, what, 50 years now.

I'll throw your question back at you:
How does having most of the Tarzan books locked up under copyright benefit an author that's been dead for 50 years?

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

How would your life be improved if it wasn't the case?

I get to read what are, hopefully, interesting and entertaining books.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I wondered about that. If so, perhaps we can delve into why enthusiastic early adopters of Marxist ideas like Russia and China are now reversing course as rapidly as possible and moving away from those ideals.

Russia/China never really went after Marxist ideals, they always misused his theories to establish dictatorships. As the old Marx said (not exact quote), "One thing I know for sure, I'm no Marxist". Marx theories are just not practicable as they mostly critize capitalism wihtout given a real "cooking recipy" how to construct such a society, as going with hegelerian philosophy Marx was sure capitalism would over the next decades evolve itself into communism as part of the "Aufhebung" concept, that is supposed to drive our universe. But I see we are pretty of topic here already

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

Okay, that's your opinion. I just don't happen to share it with you. But you make it sound as if this is a universal, inalienable truth. It isn't.

Copyright and patent laws exist in just about every country, right?

That proves that at least most people believe that ideas are not property.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Why? What do you define as "property"?

Wikipedia has a nice definition that suits me - at least as far as the discussion on this topic.