Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I know and I disagree with the concept. At least the terms are getting longer.

That does it, I won't be voting for you.

(I was going to say I won't be voting for a monkey, but, heck, then I'd pretty much have to stay home on election day.)

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ApK

That does it, I won't be voting for you.

(I was going to say I won't be voting for a monkey, but, heck, then I'd pretty much have to stay home on election day.)

I'm tubemonkey and I approve this message

[BeccaPrice]

ok, here's a question. My uncle wrote a book on his experiences in WWII, plus wrote lots of letters home. His book wasn't published in his lifetime, but is being published now by a military history publisher. My cousin, his daughter, is publishing his letters through Amazon. Who should own the copyright on these items? is it years after my uncle's death, or years after my cousin's death?

(quick answer: on the copyright page of both is my cousin's name. She did extensive editing and formatting on both documents, and she deserves it for all the work she's done on them. I'm just putting the situation out there for conversation.)

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Copyright laws shouldn't allow copyrighting details found in folklore.

That part of the argument was if the folklore tales were copyrighted by who ever created it. Back then, wasn't a big deal if someone retold your story, and due to that, the creators have been lost to history.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

That part of the argument was if the folklore tales were copyrighted by who ever created it. Back then, wasn't a big deal if someone retold your story, and due to that, the creators have been lost to history.

I'd like to think that if they were copyrighted, the creators of folklore, folk music, and the like, would have released their stuff under a Creative Commons-like license.....

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

ok, here's a question. My uncle wrote a book on his experiences in WWII, plus wrote lots of letters home. His book wasn't published in his lifetime, but is being published now by a military history publisher. My cousin, his daughter, is publishing his letters through Amazon. Who should own the copyright on these items? is it years after my uncle's death, or years after my cousin's death?

(quick answer: on the copyright page of both is my cousin's name. She did extensive editing and formatting on both documents, and she deserves it for all the work she's done on them. I'm just putting the situation out there for conversation.)

Posthumous works vary greatly from country to country.

Within the EU, copyright on posthumous works extends for the lifetime of the original author plus 70 years. However, the INITIAL publisher of a previously-unpublished work which would otherwise be in the public domain gets a one-time 25-year copyright on it. This is to encourage publication of old but unpublished works.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

ok, here's a question. My uncle wrote a book on his experiences in WWII, plus wrote lots of letters home. His book wasn't published in his lifetime, but is being published now by a military history publisher. My cousin, his daughter, is publishing his letters through Amazon. Who should own the copyright on these items? is it years after my uncle's death, or years after my cousin's death?

(quick answer: on the copyright page of both is my cousin's name. She did extensive editing and formatting on both documents, and she deserves it for all the work she's done on them. I'm just putting the situation out there for conversation.)

I think that depends on whether he declared someone his heirs (as in a will or intent). If he left everything to someone else, well technically they probably own the letters and the rights, etc.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

And there's nothing stopping someone else from doing the same thing with the same material.

But you're advocating for people like Walt Disney to be unable to mine the public domain. If copyright had been eternal, no Disney movies. No Shakespeare in the park. Dig up some 2,000 year old texts, can't copy them.

[QuantumIguana]

The public domain is not taking anything away from authors. The public domain is the default state, everything was public domain until copyright was invented. Copyright is a government granted monopoly on copying for a limited period of time. In exchange, the works eventually enter the public domain. It is no different than patents. If you don't like the deal that patents give, you're free to keep your technology a trade secret, it's the then up to you to keep it secret, if it gets out you have no protection. If you don't like the deal that copyright gives you, feel free not to accept it. Maybe you'll come up with an unbreakable DRM, right about the time a square circle is created.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

But you're advocating for people like Walt Disney to be unable to mine the public domain. If copyright had been eternal, no Disney movies. No Shakespeare in the park. Dig up some 2,000 year old texts, can't copy them.

I'm not advocating undoing current public domain works. That genie is out of the bottle and impossible to undo. I'm advocating a change to current copyright law.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I'm not advocating undoing current public domain works. That genie is out of the bottle and impossible to undo. I'm advocating a change to current copyright law.

The point is if you had had your way in the past, the effect would have been stagnation. If patents had been eternal, we'd be lucky to have a useable steam engine now. There is no reason to think that there would be any less stagnation if copyright were now made eternal. What you are advocating is killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Of course the story of the Goose that Layed the Golden Egg would have vanished into copyright limbo if copyright had been eternal.

I'm against eternal copyright for the same reason I'm against book burning. Eternal copyright is the biggest bonfire of them all.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Copyright is a government granted monopoly on copying for a limited period of time.

Everything is government granted; even basic human rights. Copyright is an arbitrary concept applied to a certain type of property. Nothing sacrosanct about it.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Everything is government granted; even basic human rights. Copyright is an arbitrary concept applied to a certain type of property. Nothing sacrosanct about it.

Wrong. Physical property exists without government. To say otherwise is to deny that the lock exists.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by teh603

The problem is, copyright law does favor the middleman right now, because he's the one with enough money to buy out copyrights from the actual creator.

If the creator doesn't want to sell those rights, then the publishers cannot buy them, no matter how much money is on offer.

If the content creator signs a bad deal, that's their own damned fault. They should hire a better lawyer next time.

And again: In the US, if your work was published after 1978, you can get your rights back. The content creator doesn't have to compensate the publisher, they basically fill out a form and voila, they have the rights back.

There is no way that aspect of US copyright law can be viewed as "in favor of the middle man," because it explicitly gives the content creator a legal means by which to regain copyright just by filling out a form.

Originally Posted by teh603

Look at a lot of the recent lawsuits between patent troll companies and business that're actually trying to make a product....

Patents are a form of intellectual property, but are a completely different ballgame. Patent trolls have nothing to do with content creators transferring rights to a publisher.

Originally Posted by teh603

Are you willing to make copyrights no longer tradeable as property, to ensure the right people benefit?

The "right people" can include either the author, or the company that spends money up front to pay the author for the book, pays for the editors, pays for the marketing, pays a bunch of the lawyers, pays the advertising....

Content creators should have the right to transfer their copyrights as they see fit. And no one, I repeat no one, is forcing them to fork over their rights.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The point is if you had had your way in the past, the effect would have been stagnation. If patents had been eternal, we'd be lucky to have a useable steam engine now. There is no reason to think that there would be any less stagnation if copyright were now made eternal. What you are advocating is killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Of course the story of the Goose that Layed the Golden Egg would have vanished into copyright limbo if copyright had been eternal.

Which of these copyrighted books was never made into a movie?

• Gone With the Wind
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Fahrenheit 451
• The Godfather
• Jaws