Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

??? Most? Like everything from cave paintings onward? That's true for the US too, I'm sure, as 20 or 30 years hardly matters.

But if you mean stuff done RECENTLY before the 60s, I doubt it's true in life+anything places since many folks who produced IP in the recent past are still alive.

Yes, I meant "most" from the viewpoint of "the whole of human history". The overwhelming majority of such works are in the public domain.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Format C:

I'm willing to bet that if copyright was suddenly canceled, they'd put their effort in that direction and they'll make it!

After all Wikipedia outperformed MS Encarta by several orders of magnitude...

Wikipedia, which is pleading for money donations to survive vs. Encarta which hasn't been around in years?

WTF?

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by ApK

Wikipedia, which is pleading for money donations to survive vs. Encarta which hasn't been around in years?

WTF?

We were talking about means to make money.
Donation is one of them.

Encarta tried to get a market share with a pay-per-copy method, and died.
Wikipedia did not, and it's still around.

So, if I understand correctly, your opinion is that copyright is the only way to make money out of creative work...

I disagree.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Format C:

So, if I understand correctly, your opinion is that copyright is the only way to make money out of creative work...

I disagree.

It's not the ONLY way (eg you can make money by selling support for open-source software), but it's certainly the EASIEST way. And I suspect that far fewer films would be made if they were given away free and all income had to come from things like merchandising. And, indeed, even merchandising wouldn't work if there was no copyright to prevent anyone else from selling it.

But we're straying into fantasy land here. The fact is that the US isn't going to reduce its copyright term to 28 years. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But we're straying into fantasy land here. The fact is that the US isn't going to reduce its copyright term to 28 years. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it.

Be realistic, demand the impossible?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by ApK

Wikipedia, which is pleading for money donations to survive vs. Encarta which hasn't been around in years?

WTF?

Wikipedia is not "pleading" for money. It takes money to run Wikipedia. There are a number of ways to raise money. One is to charge for access. Wikipedia does not charge for access. Another is to sell ad space. Wikipedia does not sell ad space. This leaves donations. You make it appear that Wikipedia is deperately begging for cash, which they are not. They are simply using standard fundraising tactics.

Encarta closed in 2009. Wikipedia and Encarta coexisted for a long time. Wikipedia survived, Encarta couldn't compete.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Actually, the US has increasingly come into compliance with Berne, most notably with the Uruguay Round Agreements in 1994 and some updates in '97.

For example, the US government actually refused to abide by one aspect of Berne: Certain works should have been offered public domain, but because the US did not properly adhere to Berne, some works were protected in the nation of origin, but were in the public domain in the US. In 2011, the SCOTUS ruled that the US had an obligation to abide by the treaty, and those works would be removed from the public domain and protected again by copyright, until such protections expire in the nation of origin.



Berne only specifies a minimum period; as far as I know, it does not require a maximum as well.

Each nation is allowed to implement copyright in its own way, as long as a) it honors the protections and durations of the other signatory nations, and b) it adheres to the minimum of life + 50.

Extensions are routine, and have been added many times over the course of history. The constitutionality of the extensions was thoroughly reviewed in Eldred v Ashcroft.

And the net result is a lot of Civil Disobedience. <Shrug> When the law goes to the highest bidder, the rest lose respect for it. And for the buyers. Look at the world around you, today....

[ApK]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Wikipedia is not "pleading" for money.

Umm...it's really not a matter for debate. Here's some Google hits....

Wikipedia Pleas for Money, Should we give Wikipedia Money ...
What's Up With The Wikipedia Plea for Donations? – ...
Wikipedia's Increasingly Angry Pleas for Cash ...
Wikipedia Makes Another Plea for Donations ...
How Effective Is Jimmy Wales' Creepy Plea for Wikipedia Money ...
Wikipedia's new plea for donations stirs skepticism ...

Anyway....
Encarta folded but Britannica Online did not. It hardly serves as a comparison or statement regarding of any kind of copyright licensing models.

And Wikipedia does not make profit, that's not it's goal, so I do not see the relevance of that comparison in this context.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

You mean like a:

Cabinetmaker
Filmmaker
Potterymaker
Boatmaker

or really anybody that makes things, or consultants that generate reports based on expertise?

Yea, authors are special flowers unlike everybody else...

Oh, BS.

Intellectual property is *property.* It can be sold, passed to one's heirs, etc. Just like rental property. Just like stocks or bonds. Just like farmland.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Oh, BS.

Intellectual property is *property.* It can be sold, passed to one's heirs, etc. Just like rental property. Just like stocks or bonds. Just like farmland.

Not true. I.P. is not "property" - it is a time-limited monopoly, granted by government. The monopoly can be passed, yes, but it is not unlimited property, like farmland. The land existed before humans, it will exist after humans. You can't say the same about I.P.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Oh, BS.

Intellectual property is *property.* It can be sold, passed to one's heirs, etc. Just like rental property. Just like stocks or bonds. Just like farmland.

The contention that Harry posited was that authors don't get paid until all the work is done.

And, that they're special because of it.

I was simply pointing out that any other craftsman works on the same principle, not making any point about inheritance of property.

But if you wanna misread the words and call BS, go for it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

The contention that Harry posited was that authors don't get paid until all the work is done.

And, that they're special because of it.

I was simply pointing out that any other craftsman works on the same principle, not making any point about inheritance of property.

But if you wanna misread the words and call BS, go for it.

Would you be kind enough to point out where I said that authors were special because of it, please?

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would you be kind enough to point out where I said that authors were special because of it, please?

Originally Posted by HarryT

In most jobs, you get paid while you're doing the work. An author works "for free", and gets paid once the work is complete

Pretty clear that authors are not lumped in with most jobs. Hence, special.

[HarryT]

"Most" jobs means exactly what it says - the majority of jobs. I neither said nor implied that authors were "special" in any way; you're the one who used that word, not me.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Not true. I.P. is not "property" - it is a time-limited monopoly, granted by government. The monopoly can be passed, yes, but it is not unlimited property, like farmland. The land existed before humans, it will exist after humans. You can't say the same about I.P.

Irrelevant and also incorrect. You only 'own' land because we have real estate law and deeds and the artifice that says we can subdivide and own pieces of the planet surface. Ownership of farmland is not 'unlimited' as anyone who has moved, or been foreclosed on, or lost mineral rights, or been subjected to eminent domain will surely know.

Ownership of anything outside your own skin is an artificial social and legal construct and nothing more. The only difference with IP over physical property is that because it has a different nature, we created a different social and legal construct to deal with it.