If you had a vote for copyright?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The main problem with any significant copyright reform is the Berne Convention, which specifies a minimum term of life+50.

Those things can and have been changed.

[xg4bx]

The Great Martin Luther King Copyright Conundrum

"Believe it or not, to legally watch that famous Martin Luther King "I Have a Dream" speech -- arguably one of the most hallowed moments in American history -- costs $10 thanks to the twisted state of United States copyright law."

http://news.yahoo.com/great-martin-l...170521665.html

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

The Great Martin Luther King Copyright Conundrum

"Believe it or not, to legally watch that famous Martin Luther King "I Have a Dream" speech -- arguably one of the most hallowed moments in American history -- costs $10 thanks to the twisted state of United States copyright law."

http://news.yahoo.com/great-martin-l...170521665.html

Nothing wrong with making a buck.

[toddsouth]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Since I only had two extremes, I chose the "do away with"....
I do think 3 generations past the death of an author is far too long, and would settle for simply shortened copyright.

I have a friend who is writing a (reference) book who has licensed her book thus: (quoted in part)



The link to the full post containing her full licensing information is HERE. She has a great sense of humour but actually does intend to print that in the front of her book.

As your friend's blog rightly points out, copyright and trademark can still be used as restraint of trade vehicles. Specifically in the case of copyright, that is what has happened.

Copyright was originally designed to grant a monopoly for a SHORT time. This was to ENCOURAGE commerce. How does 200+ years of copyright possible now encourage anything? Let's just start copyrighting alphabet characters. It is essentially no different than one company copyrighting a stupid mouse and suing day care centers over its wall murals.

[toddsouth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But if this person has a family, that book can bring more income to that family. Way to go taking money from the family.

The family should work, or invest their already earned money. We've enough lazy people in the world; stop encouraging more of the same behavior.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Nothing wrong with making a buck.

However, MLK's speech is of far greater value to society than it is to the copyright holders. This is a defining moment in American history and has left a mark internationally. Should any individual have the right to profit from it or lock it away?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

However, MLK's speech is of far greater value to society than it is to the copyright holders. This is a defining moment in American history and has left a mark internationally. Should any individual have the right to profit from it or lock it away?

If the government feels that it would benefit the nation, it could buy it from the current copyright holders and make it available to the nation. That's what often happens in the UK when works of art of national significance come up for auction; they are bought for the nation and go on public display in our national galleries.

Does the current copyright holder have the right to financially benefit from its valuable property? Yes, of course it does.

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

What you're suggesting is having a relatively long certain term (50 years) compared to the uncertain term (life + 20 years), on the grounds that this ensures that works receive a more equal length of protection.

Which is precisely the argument made in the mid-19th century in the UK parliament by Macauley. Only he set the limit to 42 years or the lifetime of the author, whichever is longer.

The main problem with any significant copyright reform is the Berne Convention, which specifies a minimum term of life+50.

Thanks for the info. I browsed a bit of the Macauley speeches and from the little I've seen I like the way he thinks!

Originally Posted by xg4bx

The Great Martin Luther King Copyright Conundrum

"Believe it or not, to legally watch that famous Martin Luther King "I Have a Dream" speech -- arguably one of the most hallowed moments in American history -- costs $10 thanks to the twisted state of United States copyright law."

http://news.yahoo.com/great-martin-l...170521665.html

The interesting thing here is, not knowing too much about copyright law, that I'm surprised that speeches get copyright.

It seems strange that something given away free in public by an orator, in this case to inspire, can then be copyrighted and profited on by his descendants. It doesn't seem right. Do any of you think if MLK were still alive that he would've copyrighted the speech and sold it for money?

Originally Posted by HarryT

Does the current copyright holder have the right to financially benefit from its valuable property? Yes, of course it does.

Yes, but perhaps that's not the right question. There are many outdated and convoluted laws which give people some strange rights indeed. What about: Should the current copyright holder have the rights to this valuable property?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

The interesting thing here is, not knowing too much about copyright law, that I'm surprised that speeches get copyright.

Why? It fulfils all the criteria for copyright. It's a piece of creative writing. The fact that the author of such a work chooses to read it out in public doesn't place it into the public domain.

Do any of you think if MLK were still alive that he would've copyrighted the speech and sold it for money?

He didn't have to "copyright" the speech. It was automatically protected by copyright the moment that he set pen to paper.

Should the current copyright holder have the rights to this valuable property?

As I said, someone is free to make them an offer and buy the right from them. Are you suggesting that this extremely valuable property should be forcibly taken from them without compensation of any kind?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

(And the room goes quiet for half an hour...)

Originally Posted by sun surfer

Should the current copyright holder have the rights to this valuable property?

Be aware that the owner of the film has the rights to the film... not the speech itself. The owner has those rights because he filmed it. If the government had seen fit, they could also have filmed it, and the film would be available to the public.

Obviously, it is an important historical document. That, in itself, does not give others the right to just take it from the rightful owner--not even with compensation offered--if the owner does not agree. That's what rights are for.

[Sil_liS]

Given the options I would choose do away with copyright, but I think that 20 years from when it's written would be best. Also nobody should be allowed to make a profit of it after it entered the public domain because this is the only way to stop the publishers from making money of PD books.

Originally Posted by sun surfer

To those who want a specific time period for copyright, especially a short one such as ten years, and not a "life+": What would you say to a poor author who publishes a book that bombs at first, but the minute it lapses out of copyright somehow it becomes a huge Harry Potter type phenom, leaving the author still poor?

At least it would keep the author writing.

Originally Posted by HarryT

But some certainly do - eg the posthumous works of J.R.R. Tolkein edited and published by his son and literary executor, Christopher Tolkein. We certainly wouldn't have that without copyright protection. Much of it isn't especially interesting, certainly, but there are some real gems there.

We would have had that faster if there was no copyright protection.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

However, MLK's speech is of far greater value to society than it is to the copyright holders. This is a defining moment in American history and has left a mark internationally. Should any individual have the right to profit from it or lock it away?

I don't believe in that concept. As long as tax dollars aren't involved, society has no right to someone else's creation; be it a book, a painting, a song, an invention, a speech, a movie, etc. If the owner wishes to grant free access, so be it. If not, then pay for it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Also nobody should be allowed to make a profit of it after it entered the public domain because this is the only way to stop the publishers from making money of PD books.

So you're saying that nobody should be allowed to publish authors like Shakespeare, or, indeed, perform Shakespeare plays and charge money for those performances? . I'm probably missing something obvious, but it's not clear to me how society would benefit from this. Can you explain?

The whole point of the public domain is that it allows anybody to publish the work. What you're suggesting wouldn't benefit anyone - its sole effect would be to completely kill off the publication of all the great (and not so great) works which are in the public domain.

We would have had that faster if there was no copyright protection.

Where would have been the incentive for Christopher Tolkein (who was very likely the only one who could have done it) to edit and publish his father's unpublished work had he not been able to make a reasonable return from doing so? You say "we would have had that faster if there was no copyright protection". How would we? These were private papers that only the family had access to. How would we have had them faster?

[Angst]

An artist has a right to profit from his creation. No copyright would discourage people from writing if anyone could publish their work without compensating the author.

Ideal: 40 years or Life of Author, whichever is greater.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you're saying that nobody should be allowed to publish authors like Shakespeare, or, indeed, perform Shakespeare plays and charge money for those performances? . I'm probably missing something obvious, but it's not clear to me how society would benefit from this. Can you explain?

I'm not sure what my post has to do with plays.
Society would benefit because without people being able to make money from selling something that the public has a right to get for free Amazon wouldn't have 87,404 results showing for Shakespeare.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Where would have been the incentive for Christopher Tolkein (who was very likely the only one who could have done it) to edit and publish his father's unpublished work had he not been able to make a reasonable return from doing so?

There wouldn't have been a need for this. According to wikipedia The Silmarillion was published in 1977, but J.R.R Tolkien tried to publish it since 1937. If it would have entered the public domain after 20 years, people would have had access to it much earlier mainly because publishers would have a limited time to make money of the book. So worst case scenario it would have been available in 1957.