How Long Should Copyright Last?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

I really don't understand. You say that copyright should last forever, but out of copyright works are excluded from copyright lasting forever? If copyright lasts forever, then there will be no out of copyright works. Or do you just think that there should be no new works put in the public domain... so anything written today should still be under copyright half a millenium from now?

How do you undo the past? How do you economically track down the legal heirs to every author that ever existed? What's done is done.

You start with the "now" and move forward.

[pietrocrazy]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

How do you undo the past? How do you economically track down the legal heirs to every author that ever existed? What's done is done.

You start with the "now" and move forward.

Ok, so let's talk about a book published right now. You really think that it should never enter public domain? Not in 50 years, 100 years, 500 years? 500 years from now and beyond you think an author's descendants should still be profiting from their great-great-great-great-great-great......grandparent's work?

I'm asking because I really don't think you've thought this through. Not a single country in the world has perpetual copyright, even countries with the strongest intellectual property rights. There's a good reason for this. It's impractical, for one thing, and certainly not fair, for another. A person from 500 years ago has thousands, possible tens or hundreds of thousands of descendants. Why should one of them own the rights to a work they had absolutely nothing to do with?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

Ok, so let's talk about a book published right now. You really think that it should never enter public domain? Not in 50 years, 100 years, 500 years? 500 years from now and beyond you think an author's descendants should still be profiting from their great-great-great-great-great-great......grandparent's work?

That's correct. Whoever holds the copyright gets to collect the profits.

Should a company like Disney go into public domain 70 years after the death of Roy Disney? He and his brother (Walt) built this company up and turned it into a valuable piece of property. Why should their work be allowed to be passed on forever and an author's work not?

Like I said, I make no distinction between physical and intellectual property.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

I'm asking because I really don't think you've thought this through. Not a single country in the world has perpetual copyright, even countries with the strongest intellectual property rights. There's a good reason for this. It's impractical, for one thing, and certainly not fair, for another. A person from 500 years ago has thousands, possible tens or hundreds of thousands of descendants. Why should one of them own the rights to a work they had absolutely nothing to do with?

Why should someone be allowed to inherit their uncle's millions when they had absolutely nothing to do with its creation?

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That's correct. Whoever holds the copyright gets to collect the profits.

Should a company like Disney go into public domain 70 years after the death of Roy Disney? He and his brother (Walt) built this company up and turned it into a valuable piece of property. Why should their work be allowed to be passed on forever and an author's work not?

Like I said, I make no distinction between physical and intellectual property.

That is an intellectually consistent argument - it is hard to claim that someone has a moral right to IP that is superior to the creator's right.

Although your scheme would need a mechanism to deal with "abandoned" copyrights, as we do with other forms of abandoned property.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Should a company like Disney go into public domain 70 years after the death of Roy Disney?

Not the company, no; their works, yes, definitely. Disney is a particularly bad example as they themselves profited enormously from works in the public domain.

Like I said, I make no distinction between physical and intellectual property.

Well, there is. Whoever fails to to acknowledge that has a (hidden) agenda or is severely lacking in the "abstract thinking skills" department.

[AndrewH]

The point of copyright, according to the US Constitution, is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

I think copyright should last the author's life.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

The point of copyright, according to the US Constitution, is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

It's entirely irrelevant what a few people in a different country 250-odd years ago thought was its purpose in THEIR society. What we have to deal with is what its usefulness is in TODAY'S society, which is very different to that of the late 18th century.

[Giggleton]

One problem of perpetual copyright, even limited perpetuity as in to death and slightly beyond, is that it allows for a work that could be very commercial, perhaps even needed by the market, to be un-copyable at the request of the rights holder.

Would someone be allowed to copy a work under a perpetual copyright if they did not profit monetarily from the work?

We would definitely run into some problems about what does it mean to profit? But that could be worked out I suppose.

[JeremyR]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's entirely irrelevant what a few people in a different country 250-odd years ago thought was its purpose in THEIR society. What we have to deal with is what its usefulness is in TODAY'S society, which is very different to that of the late 18th century.

Well, they didn't have lobbyists back then. That's pretty much literally the only reason the copyright laws have expanded - politicians have essentially been bought and paid for by companies that own lucrative copyrights.

Disney primarily (in the US), which as mentioned, has literally profited from taking ideas from previous sources as much as any other company, the very thing they have fought to deny others.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

One problem of perpetual copyright, even limited perpetuity as in to death and slightly beyond, is that it allows for a work that could be very commercial, perhaps even needed by the market, to be un-copyable at the request of the rights holder.

The right NOT to publish is an important part of copyright law. Everyone has the right to keep such things as diaries, personal letters, etc, private. Copyright law is what provides that right.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The right NOT to publish is an important part of copyright law. Everyone has the right to keep such things as diaries, personal letters, etc, private. Copyright law is what provides that right.

Yes, what I meant was things that were once published commercially and well admired by the market, and then one day the rights holder says, "I don't want that to be copied anymore."

Under perpetual copyright, what would happen to those works? Gone forever?

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's entirely irrelevant what a few people in a different country 250-odd years ago thought was its purpose in THEIR society. What we have to deal with is what its usefulness is in TODAY'S society, which is very different to that of the late 18th century.

Is the rest of the Constitution irrelevant because it is old? How about the Bill of Rights?

This is a ridiculous argument. Our country's laws are founded and based on a very specific set of rules that are NOT changed on a whim.

I believe copyright should be nearer to what it was at the beginning of the Republic. Copyright has moved much farther from the original than patent law has.

The Copyright Act of 1790 had a 14 year copyright term, plus an option 14 year extension. I would say that we should be at a similiar term, changed only due to increased human lifespan. 28 years was a long time, but not a life time if you were fortunate enough to live into your 50s. Quite likely close to it unless you were in your twenties or something. So it was basically covering the span from young man to 50ish (realistically quite long). Given the average lifespan has crept up quite a bit into the 60s (67 worldwide) I would say the copyright period should be equivalent. Something like 40 years or so. Maybe 48.

Certainly not entire lifetimes, nor multiple lifetimes or centuries.

There was a concept modern hardcore capitalists forget about pre and immediately post-Revolution America. A concept that comes off as "kinda commie" or something like that. It's that some things are for the benefit of all citizens. Sure, intellectual property should benefit the creator. But the reason wasn't "so the creator can make the money they are entitled to" or something like that. It was for the good of everyone - to promote science and the arts. FOR THE PEOPLE.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes, what I meant was things that were once published commercially and well admired by the market, and then one day the rights holder says, "I don't want that to be copied anymore."

Under perpetual copyright, what would happen to those works? Gone forever?

The problem of "orphaned works" is a very real one, and is an excellent argument against "perpetual copyright". I would certainly not favour perpetual copyright for that very reason.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The problem of "orphaned works" is a very real one, and is an excellent argument against "perpetual copyright". I would certainly not favour perpetual copyright for that very reason.

Yes, but I meant more along the lines of a book being published, for say one small printing. The book is well-regarded, wins awards etc.. One year later, the copyright holder decides to not copy their book anymore and goes to hide in a cave.

I'm trying to say here that if the book is of a benefit to the public, and the rights holder does not want the book to be copied, even though it has been available to the public in the past, what do we do? Wait for the book's copyright to expire? What if no one has a suitable copy of the book to copy from at that point in time?