Interesting copyright question - Page 2

Shaggy · 09-25-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemurion

People are actually starting to challenge the current trend toward continuing copyright extension on constitutional grounds because regular extensions do make a mockery of the concept of limited terms and the public domain.

The whole concept of "for limited times" is very vague. You can bet that it was written that way intentionally, just so that they could keep extending it.

tompe · 09-25-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Technically, "life + 1,000,000" is still limited.

Yes, but (life+n) where n is the current year from the publication is not limited and this is the sort of formula that describes unlimited number of extensions.

fugazied · 09-25-2009, 06:29 PM

Also it could remain copyrighted for an eternity if a court declares it so (eg. disney has a lot of lawyers on retaining looking after their related works). The corporations want copyright to last FOREVER (well Sonny Bono said forever minus 1 day was ok) and they can throw millions into lobbying and court costs.

See..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig..._Extension_Act
and..
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36416.html

In a larger somewhat offtopic context, what scares me the most is that corporations patent natural enzymes occurring in certain plants which has useful effects (medicinal or otherwise), in effect securing intellectual property from nature. Then of course the courts, IP laws, Copyright, Patent laws and the whole machine would give the corporation power to attack people using the natural enzymes from plants in other products. Corporations should not own the world's knowledge and the power of naturally occurring flora.

Hellmark · 09-25-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fugazied

The corporations want copyright to last FOREVER (well Sonny Bono said forever minus 1 day was ok)

Not to nitpick, but that was actually his widow, Mary Bono after she succeeded him in Congress, and she was quoting then MPAA president Jack Valenti (although she seems to support it. The full quote is "Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress."

I am personally against the copyright lasting forever, because of the possible loss of knowledge and works. It would needlessly complicate things in the future, with families inheriting and sharing copyrights, then having to fight over them.

WT Sharpe · 09-25-2009, 09:52 PM

I wonder how many people know that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is still under copyright? Many professionals have discovered it the hard way.

Andybaby · 09-26-2009, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I wonder how many people know that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is still under copyright? Many professionals have discovered it the hard way.

most of the people I know know that is why they don't sing happy birthday in restaurants.

Format C: · 09-28-2009, 05:20 AM

A new party is being founded in Italy.
Amnog its proposals about energy, economy and justice, it has in its statute a copyright reform, limiting it to 20 years after publication.

IMHO it's still too much, but it's way better than it's now.

Hellmark · 09-28-2009, 08:44 AM

I'm really not against things being copyrighted for at least the life of the creator, because if you are doing works that are related to the original through out your life, as many do, it could harm things if random people start using your characters and other intellectual property. Not to mention if you are unheard of when first published, but really start making money with subsequent related works, you'd have all sorts of people cashing in on your work while you're still creating part of it. I just have problems with it with how things extend for long after the person is dead.

pdurrant · 09-28-2009, 08:52 AM

It's claimed to still be under copyright in the US until 2030, and unless you want to fight a case against Warner Music Group it's best to act as though it is, even though it seems likely that it isn't.

It is almost certainly in copyright in the EU and other life+70 countries until 2017.

It is out of copyright in life+50 countries life Canada, and some former life+50 countries, like Australia.

So since this server is in Canada, I can safely give you the lyrics:

Happy Birthday to You,
Happy Birthday to You,
Happy Birthday, dear [name],
Happy Birthday to You.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I wonder how many people know that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is still under copyright? Many professionals have discovered it the hard way.

pdurrant · 09-28-2009, 08:58 AM

It depends.

Consider someone who writes a great novel at age 25, and then gets killed in a road accident just after it took off, film rights, etc, etc. I'd think it quite reasonable for the royalties for several decades to go to the heirs.

Then consider an author who enjoys the royalties from a great novel and adaptions for (say) 70 years, and dies at 95. I don't think it reasonable for the heirs to go on collecting royalties for another 70 years.

There are two problems with current copyright - the length of the certain term (70 years after death of author), but also the uncertainty of the term - anywhere from 70 years to 150 years or more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I just have problems with it with how things extend for long after the person is dead.

DawnFalcon · 09-28-2009, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I just have problems with it with how things extend for long after the person is dead.

I'm in favour of the shorter of 50 years or Life+1, personally (+1? Yea, look at the way sales surge when someone dies. It's only fair afaik that their estate should get that).

pdurrant · 09-28-2009, 09:18 AM

Shorter? I'd favour the longer. Otherwise you're adding far too much uncertainty into copyright length

Quote:

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I'm in favour of the shorter of 50 years or Life+1, personally (+1? Yea, look at the way sales surge when someone dies. It's only fair afaik that their estate should get that).

DawnFalcon · 09-28-2009, 09:25 AM

I'm extremely uncomfortable tying it to lifespans, especially given the current state of biology, a young author today might well have a longer lifespan than the older authors copyright period now...

Hellmark · 09-28-2009, 09:47 AM

I just remember a bunch of stories of creators dying poor, while others profit from their creations. And while most of those are due to them selling the rights off, wouldn't be good if that happened merely because of copyrights expiring.

Format C: · 09-28-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Consider someone who writes a great novel at age 25, and then gets killed in a road accident just after it took off, film rights, etc, etc. I'd think it quite reasonable for the royalties for several decades to go to the heirs.

I don't agree. IMHO it's not reasnoable at all.
It's completely unfair.

If he was a carpenter, his heirs get only what he saved for them.
For writers, guitarists and pornstars it has to be the same.

Or is a porn movie star / director more valuable as an human being than a carpenter?

By the way how many great writers you know who died at 25?
I know dozens of hard-workers (carpenters, factory workers, building workers, sailors...) who din't make that age.
Is it fair to keep a lot of corporation privileges on an hypotetical case, while depriving the real ones from that same treatment?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Copyright question	Seabound	Upload Help	9	01-23-2009 02:33 AM
CopyRight Question	=X=	Upload Help	45	05-01-2008 12:47 PM
interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"	Liviu_5	News	389	03-15-2008 01:06 AM
Interesting paper on copyright law vs reality	Nate the great	News	9	11-20-2007 02:20 AM
very interesting link about copyright in the digital age	Liviu_5	News	0	06-05-2006 10:45 AM

09-25-2009, 06:29 PM	#18
fugazied Wizard Posts: 1,305 Karma: 1958 Join Date: Jan 2009 Device: iPod Touch	Also it could remain copyrighted for an eternity if a court declares it so (eg. disney has a lot of lawyers on retaining looking after their related works). The corporations want copyright to last FOREVER (well Sonny Bono said forever minus 1 day was ok) and they can throw millions into lobbying and court costs. See.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig..._Extension_Act and.. http://www.reason.com/news/show/36416.html In a larger somewhat offtopic context, what scares me the most is that corporations patent natural enzymes occurring in certain plants which has useful effects (medicinal or otherwise), in effect securing intellectual property from nature. Then of course the courts, IP laws, Copyright, Patent laws and the whole machine would give the corporation power to attack people using the natural enzymes from plants in other products. Corporations should not own the world's knowledge and the power of naturally occurring flora.

09-25-2009, 09:52 PM	#20
WT Sharpe Bah, humbug! Posts: 39,072 Karma: 157049943 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Chesapeake, VA, USA Device: Kindle Oasis, iPad Pro, & a Samsung Galaxy S9.	I wonder how many people know that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is still under copyright? Many professionals have discovered it the hard way.

09-28-2009, 05:20 AM	#22
Format C: Guru Posts: 753 Karma: 1496807 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: The Third World Device: iLiad + PRS-505 + Kindle 3	A new party is being founded in Italy. Amnog its proposals about energy, economy and justice, it has in its statute a copyright reform, limiting it to 20 years after publication. IMHO it's still too much, but it's way better than it's now.

09-28-2009, 08:44 AM	#23
Hellmark Wizard Posts: 2,592 Karma: 4290425 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Foristell, Missouri, USA Device: Nokia N800, PRS-505, Nook STR Glowlight, Kindle 3, Kobo Libra 2	I'm really not against things being copyrighted for at least the life of the creator, because if you are doing works that are related to the original through out your life, as many do, it could harm things if random people start using your characters and other intellectual property. Not to mention if you are unheard of when first published, but really start making money with subsequent related works, you'd have all sorts of people cashing in on your work while you're still creating part of it. I just have problems with it with how things extend for long after the person is dead.

09-28-2009, 09:25 AM	#28
DawnFalcon Banned Posts: 2,094 Karma: 2682 Join Date: Aug 2009 Device: N/A	I'm extremely uncomfortable tying it to lifespans, especially given the current state of biology, a young author today might well have a longer lifespan than the older authors copyright period now...

09-28-2009, 09:47 AM	#29
Hellmark Wizard Posts: 2,592 Karma: 4290425 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Foristell, Missouri, USA Device: Nokia N800, PRS-505, Nook STR Glowlight, Kindle 3, Kobo Libra 2	I just remember a bunch of stories of creators dying poor, while others profit from their creations. And while most of those are due to them selling the rights off, wouldn't be good if that happened merely because of copyrights expiring.