ArsTechnica: EU adds 20 years to music copyrights

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Any law that extends copyright is therefore a good thing.

You forgot the smiley at the end of your post.

The problem with your wonderful idea is that it isn't the family of the authors that receive the benefits of extended copyrights. It's corporations that have nothing to do with the original process of creativity and use the copyrights to milk as much profit as possible from someone else's work. Much like the Walt Disney Corporation and the Mickey Mouse extension.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

You forgot the smiley at the end of your post.

The problem with your wonderful idea is that it isn't the family of the authors that receive the benefits of extended copyrights. It's corporations that have nothing to do with the original process of creativity and use the copyrights to milk as much profit as possible from someone else's work. Much like the Walt Disney Corporation and the Mickey Mouse extension.

Didn't forget it and I don't care who the rights' holders are.

[Daithi]

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.

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.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Daithi

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?

Also, it usually costs to obtain a patent.

They tried to explain the logic by saying:

"Performers generally start their careers young and the current term of protection of 50 years often does not protect their performances for their entire lifetime," wrote the Council afterwards. "Therefore, some performers face an income gap at the end of their lifetimes."

First step: the entire lifetime of the author
Next step: the entire lifetime of the children of the author
...

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

First step: the entire lifetime of the author
Next step: the entire lifetime of the children of the author
...

Next step: Beezlebug Music, who now holds the copyright. 200 years in the future.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Didn't forget it and I don't care who the rights' holders are.

Great attitude. To hell with the public and lets make all the money we can. Whatever.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Great attitude. To hell with the public and lets make all the money we can. Whatever.

The public didn't create it, nor do they own the rights.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The public didn't create it, nor do they own the rights.

Which is why the originators of the U.S. Constitution gave the creators a limit right to ownership of their ideas.

Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power... 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;

Since you seem to ignore Daithi's list, I'll ask it again.

What about patents? Should Whitney's inheritors still be receiving royalties from the Cotton Gin? Should drug companies receive royalties forever for their drug inventions? How about Bach and Beethoven?

Good luck..

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

They can't in the US. Our Constitution forbids it....(But it doesn't say how long it should be... )

unless i'm mistaken i seem to remember reading that it was supposed to be something like 14 years.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

unless i'm mistaken i seem to remember reading that it was supposed to be something like 14 years.

Copyright limits from 1790:

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Copyright limits from 1790:

I see the beginning of an exponential trend.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I see the beginning of an exponential trend.

Just as long as they don't use the word "FOREVER", the limit will continue to grow.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Just as long as they don't use the word "FOREVER", the limit will continue to grow.

...
Next step: until the sun goes supernova.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Which is why the originators of the U.S. Constitution gave the creators a limit right to ownership of their ideas.

Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power... 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;

Since you seem to ignore Daithi's list, I'll ask it again.

What about patents? Should Whitney's inheritors still be receiving royalties from the Cotton Gin? Should drug companies receive royalties forever for their drug inventions? How about Bach and Beethoven?

Good luck..

The Constitution isn't set in stone; it can be changed.

Patents are trickier because of the ridiculous things they grant them for. Patent law is in need of a drastic overhaul. I support perpetual patents also, but would allow "reasonable variations" that would be free from patent infringement.

Cotton gin? I don't know enough on the specifics to say where a "reasonable variation" would exist; but nonetheless, they would be numerous.

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

What makes "My Sweet Lord" a copyright infringement of "He's So Fine"? I don't hear it and would've tossed the case. To me, this would easily have been a "reasonable variation".

[Giggleton]

Property Schomperty. Take what you want, give what you can, How hard is that to understand? We can see a text and a pineapple as identical, why can't we see that we need both to lead a well nourished life??

There is only one incentive, the perpetuation of the genepool. Everything else is secondary and irrelevant when talking about property rights.