How Long Should Copyright Last?

[elcreative]

I don't think you need to wait that long to judge from some of the wretched spam that keeps flying around...

Originally Posted by wyndslash

we might as well get ourselves copyrighted and maybe after thirty years or so, we could get an extension

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And you believe, yet do not understand.... that the fairytale "new era" you're trying to wish into existence is not coming.

Nice to dream though... nothing wrong with that.
Pesky reality.

I am dreaming yes, dreaming a reality, which includes you.

It seems we've been having the same arguments for 500 years, about time to change it up.

[DiapDealer]

It seems we've been having the same arguments for 500 years, about time to change it up.

I'm picking up a very "Venus Project", Jacque Fresco-ish sort of vibe from you.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If you really want to get down to it, there is no empirical way to determine where I end and you begin

Originally Posted by Giggleton

You and I are a collection of entities, localities of energy, although going further down we begin to see that localities do not exist, only the instantaneous infinite universe, existing as itself. This is the only thing that applies everywhere and to everything, you have created nothing, everything simply exists, has existed, and will continue to exist.

Copyright????????????

If that were the case, then you could as well ask,

Books????????????

After all, who needs them, if nothing is created that the hive mind doesn't already know?

[GA Russell]

I think I'm going to unsubscribe to this thread!

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Piper_

If that were the case, then you could as well ask,

Books????????????

After all, who needs them, if nothing is created that the hive mind doesn't already know?

Well that is the case, but we don't really have to imagine the universe as a whole when making every daily decision, although it can never hurt! What I mainly refer to is that the act of creation depends on the universe for its impetus. So in effect, we are copyrighting the universe itself.

You are free to believe in copyright just as others are free to unbelieve in it. I think that an unbelief in copyright would be far better in the cultures long run though.

Copyrights proponents have historically been those who are vested in short term gains, incumbent publishers.

Copyright has also been used as a way to censor the publication of the word. And even today I feel that copyright and censorship are equal.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I am dreaming yes, dreaming a reality, which includes you.

It seems we've been having the same arguments for 500 years, about time to change it up.

Dreaming of a world of free slave labor for authors, all for your benefit. How wonderful! Fortunately the majority will make sure it won't happen.

Unless over the last 500 years technology has advanced to a point that authors don't need to eat anymore. Not that I am aware of such a development. Perhaps you would prefer to read computer generated text only in the future.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Dreaming of a world of free slave labor for authors, all for your benefit. How wonderful! Fortunately the majority will make sure it won't happen.

Unless over the last 500 years technology has advanced to a point that authors don't need to eat anymore. Not that I am aware of such a development. Perhaps you would prefer to read computer generated text only in the future.

I've mentioned it before but, abolishing copyright might enable technology that allows for computer generated food.

[8annika.yael]

if i was copy written with the option for renewal- i might not be granted said renewal.
mheh, it'd be worth a try but i bet there'd be some virtual wrap-sheet that pops up from somewhere chronicling all of my misdeeds...

[DiapDealer]

I've mentioned it before but, abolishing copyright might enable technology that allows for computer generated food.

I knew it! You did drink the Zeitgeist kool-aide, didn't you?

[Gwen Morse]

I like authors. I pay authors. I want authors to go out and create. I enjoy their work. However, books (and photographs and music, and all the other creative endeavors protected by copyright) are not all so excessively precious a commodity that they "deserve" to be sheltered from the Public Domain for a *minimum* of 2-3x as long as patented inventions (and effectively much longer).

We should have a brisk movement of works into publication and just as smooth a movement into the Public Domain. It's really rather disgusting that we still have plenty of the former and none of the latter.

Content creators have been spoiled by the changes to copyright law. It used to be simple...register it or lose it, just like a patent, and it was only yours for a short time. Now authors think that "Life + 50/Life + 70" is absolutely necessary to protect their fragile economic interests and also are deluded enough to think a minimum of two generations beyond them "should" be guaranteed protection to profit from their works.

If you want your work protected from the Public Domain for 100-150 years, you shouldn't allow yourself to be influenced by anything created less than 150 years ago. Because, you're stealing from those other content creators if you do. That's right. If it's "stealing" from content creators to force their works into the Public Domain before their grandkids are old enough to drive...then...they're just as much "stealing" from existing copyrighted media by allowing themselves to be influenced and inspired by their national (and international) culture.

[DJHARKAVY]

Originally Posted by bevdeforges

Interesting discussion, but from what I understand, the original reason for patents and copyrights was in order to assure that inventions and works of art would return to the public domain in a reasonable period of time. Yes, the inventor or creator should benefit from what they have created/developed, but the idea is for the society to ultimately benefit from these things.

This was never supposed to set up the inventor or creator with an income for life, never mind his family and descendants.

That was my understanding as well.

Like a patent, enough time to make a profit from your intellectual property. But ultimately the rights became public domain for others to use and benefit from.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Gwen Morse

I like authors. I pay authors. I want authors to go out and create. I enjoy their work. However, books (and photographs and music, and all the other creative endeavors protected by copyright) are not all so excessively precious a commodity that they "deserve" to be sheltered from the Public Domain for a *minimum* of 2-3x as long as patented inventions (and effectively much longer).

Would you pay for an author's work after you have read it? Or seen it? Or heard it? That is the only way out of this copyright business. It would allow for the free sharing of all intellectual property. And an extremely competitive market would emerge where the best works would be rewarded well, and the lesser works would be rewarded less, and the garbage texts would be relegated to the bin WHERE THEY BELONG. The garbage would still be accessible of course, and even more so, some like dumpster diving after all.