Why public domain

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

So something I haven't seen in this thread from the supporters of perpetual copyright, and treating IP as PP, especially with the case of the family farm.

You pay property tax. This is true whether you use the family farm to make money, or just as a home, or even just letting it sit unused.

That's true.

Currently, afaik, copyright holders are not charged for holding the copyright if they just let it sit,...

True again. That's because the laws are currently written that way. Nothing says those laws can't be changed.

...and even when they do something with it it's just the costs of achieving that thing.

Not sure what you're saying here.

Now it's all well and good for a copyright which has a finite life, the creator will hopefully make back enough to have made a profit for time+energy spent on the creation. But with never ending copyright they can constantly make money off something which they don't use.

Don't care if the rights holders make money or not. The relevant point is that the works belong to them, not society.

And before you start in on 'they need to work to promote the work', this isn't always the case. And will likely become less and less so with the ability to preserve their creation be it a book, or movie, or whatever, becoming easier and cheaper. Which allows it to stay in the social consciousness much easier. Thus it's possible for a creation to essentially become self sustaining.

Don't care about that point either. Again, the relevant point is that the works belong to them, not society. Even if they collect millions by sitting back and doing nothing, the fact is, they own it, period!

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That's true.
Not sure what you're saying here.

Take for example making a book into a movie, the costs applied are the costs of getting the movie made. Which is as it should be, they shouldn't pay more to do this.

Don't care if the rights holders make money or not. The relevant point is that the works belong to them, not society.

Don't care about that point either. Again, the relevant point is that the works belong to them, not society. Even if they collect millions by sitting back and doing nothing, the fact is, they own it, period!

[/quote]

Here we fundamentally disagree. The better societal good is if these works enter into wider use after a period of time. Having them locked away for all time only serves the rights holder, and in due time the rights holder will have done nothing to have contributed to society.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

Why not?

I'd say for two reasons:

1) It feels more fair. (Yes, this is highly subjective.)
Take someone like George R.R. Martin, who wrote some very popular books in his old age. I assume his earlier books also get some increased sale because of this. It feels fair that he gets to earn money from that.

2) Artistic control. A couple of examples:
Harper Lee Collins, who wrote another version of To Kill a Mockingbird, and didn't like it. She got to decide that it wouldn't be published as long as she lived.
Astrid Lindgren, who wrote Pippi Longstocking in the 1940s, and used a racist term. A publisher later asked her to replace that term before re-publishing, and she agreed. (This also means that she could have insisted on keeping the racist term, and the publisher would then have had to decide whether to republish or not.)

life + negative number creates all kinds of implementation problems.

life + 0 or + positive number can be far too long.

Life + x in general creates all kinds of implementation problems. If the author dies young, for whatever reason, their works would enter the public domain sooner than if they don't. If the idea is to compensate the authors and their families for their work, that seems backwards. If the author is unidentified, or obscure enough, or uses a pen name while remaining anonymous, or a collective of outhors use a pen name, it can be hard to figure out when the works would enter the public domain.

So, let's say (life + 30) or (publication + 80), whatever comes first. That should take care of authors who die early when they have small children, and works with unidentified authors.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I have a problem with this because the system is generally unfair to those in the lower economic classes. When eminent domain comes into play, it frequently impacts those classes. Try building a strip mall or adding lanes to a road in an upper class neighborhood.

Everything is unfair to poor people, including eternal copyright. Two authors get great ideas for transformative works based on older works. A rich author can afford to pay the rights holder, and can afford to take the loss if the book doesn't sell as well as expected. For a poor author, the risk of paying that extra fee before they even get started may be enough to make them shelve that idea forever.

As I've frequently stated, I see no difference in terms of property rights between Lord of the Rings and the family farm. If LOTR has to go into the public domain, then so should the family farm. If you see a benefit to society by getting the right to read and use someone's characters for free, then I see a benefit to society of being able to use the family farm to offset taxes by either selling or renting it.

Oh, I'm in favour of much much much higher inheritance taxes too, but that's out of scope for this discussion.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

...

Don't care if the rights holders make money or not. The relevant point is that the works belong to them, not society.



Don't care about that point either. Again, the relevant point is that the works belong to them, not society. Even if they collect millions by sitting back and doing nothing, the fact is, they own it, period!

You keep asserting that, yet it's not true and never has been. Simply dogmatically repeating it doesn't make it true. As I keep repeating because you and leebase keep ignoring the point, but copyright is NOT property. It is a government granted monopoly to copy a specific work. That's what it's been since the initial grant and that's what it is now. An author may feel that a specific work is theirs, theirs alone and they hold absolute control over it now and forever, but just because they feel that way, doesn't make it true.

At the time of Queen Anne, the publishing guide actually had the copyright, not the author. The author would sell a work to a publisher. The change to the copyright was to assign the copyright to the author, not to the publisher and to limit the copyright to a specific time. It was well understood at that time that the arts and sciences built on the works of previous generations. As Newton said "I stand on the shoulders of giants". Eternal copyright (and patents) takes away that continuity.

[leebase]

copyright most assuredly IS property. And in the case of fiction, it is property with an unnecessary and unjustifiable time limit.

And assertions are all that exist when one is PROPOSING how things SHOULD be. I've given my why's. Other people have taken opposing opinions and given THEIR thinking.

None of us are "right" as there is no right.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by leebase

copyright most assuredly IS property. And in the case of fiction, it is property with an unnecessary and unjustifiable time limit.

And assertions are all that exist when one is PROPOSING how things SHOULD be. I've given my why's. Other people have taken opposing opinions and given THEIR thinking.

None of us are "right" as there is no right.

Copyright is not property, is an a right, an ability granted to the holder for a limited period of time which extends beyond the original holders life.

You wish it to be property, but it's currently not. And you can most assuredly argue for it to be treated as such, but you can not claim that it is to back your claim that it should be.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You keep asserting that, yet it's not true and never has been. Simply dogmatically repeating it doesn't make it true. As I keep repeating because you and leebase keep ignoring the point, but copyright is NOT property. It is a government granted monopoly to copy a specific work. That's what it's been since the initial grant and that's what it is now. An author may feel that a specific work is theirs, theirs alone and they hold absolute control over it now and forever, but just because they feel that way, doesn't make it true.

I'm supporting what SHOULD be. In my opinion, the current laws are wrong; but then, this country has a history of enacting wrong laws.

[ekbell]

Why compare copyright to land in the first place? To compare one special case to another special case implies that they are/should be special in the same way.

As far as I can tell copyright has ended up being similar to ownership of normal PP where the property in question will eventually wear out, break down or be otherwise lost. Adding a life term even replicates the fact that we don't usually know how long the property will last

And I think that a perpetual copyright might benefit those wealthy enough to buy up large number of old copyrights on speculation and aggressively pursue scofflaws but unlikely to provide much benefit to the heirs of the average creator's heir.

I also think that a law so definitively opposed to the cultural practices of most of humanity would in the end be as successful as prohibition.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ekbell

Why compare copyright to land in the first place? To compare one special case to another special case implies that they are/should be special in the same way.

As far as I can tell copyright has ended up being similar to ownership of normal PP where the property in question will eventually wear out, break down or be otherwise lost. Adding a life term even replicates the fact that we don't usually know how long the property will last

So what? You didn't write it, therefore it doesn't belong to you. Even after some imaginary date, it still doesn't belong to you.

Copyright laws are nothing more than legalized theft of an author's works.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

So what? You didn't write it, therefore it doesn't belong to you. Even after some imaginary date, it still doesn't belong to you.

Copyright laws are nothing more than legalized theft of an author's works.

By this logic copyright should die with the creator. The heirs or whoever bought it didn’t write it either after all.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

By this logic copyright should die with the creator. The heirs or whoever bought it didn’t write it either after all.

So what? You didn't write it You're not the right's holder, therefore it doesn't belong to you. Even after some imaginary date, it still doesn't belong to you.

Better?

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

So what? You didn't write it You're not the right's holder, therefore it doesn't belong to you. Even after some imaginary date, it still doesn't belong to you.

Better?

For your argument, yes. For mine, it doesn't matter because copyright expires, which means when it ceases to be no one owns it.

Of course this all circles around and around, with people wanting to treat intangible things as property, but not recognize or care that intangible things suffer none of the natural limitations of physical things.

So okay, treat IP as PP, but in doing so make IP as much like PP for the owner as we can. Which means it will decay and cease to exist. Land being a slight exception, since it doesn't decay but certain natural events can make it essentially worthless for anything including living on.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Of course this all circles around and around, with people wanting to treat intangible things as property, but not recognize or care that intangible things suffer none of the natural limitations of physical things.

Why should that matter?

I operate on the premise that property belongs to the owner until such time as the owner relinquishes control of it (sale, gift, heirs, etc).

So okay, treat IP as PP, but in doing so make IP as much like PP for the owner as we can. Which means it will decay and cease to exist. Land being a slight exception, since it doesn't decay but certain natural events can make it essentially worthless for anything including living on.

When does grandma's 5 carat diamond ring cease to exist?

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Why should that matter?

I operate on the premise that property belongs to the owner until such time as the owner relinquishes control of it (sale, gift, heirs, etc).

And I operate on the premise that things decay. The laws of entropy agree with me.

When does grandma's 5 carat diamond ring cease to exist?

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/...-last-forever/

TL;DR-
Eventually, and under the right circumstances.