Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

[ApK]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

To allow a 1,000,000 year copyright, the court would have to rule that 1,000,000 years constituted "limited times". No reasonable person would reach that conclusion, but people are sometimes unreasonable. So far, the Supreme Court has ruled that extensions haven't violated limited times, but that's not the same as saying anything short of infinity is limited times.

As far as the standing army goes, Congress follows the letter of the law by reauthorizing it with each Congress. The people who wrote the Constitution may not have wanted a standing army, but they gave the power to have one indefinately, so long as it was voted on every 2 years.

Yeah, that's all sort of the point. Obey the letter of the law, regardless of framers intentions, no amendment needed.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

if we increased the length of a patent, it would cripple our scientific, and economic, progress. Witness the state of the software industry....

Yeah, not really seeing it.

There's a lot of proprietary stuff in software that actually works very well, and in some cases better than an open format. E.g. iOS is proprietary and locked into hardware; Android is open and can be modified at will. In some respects, Android has its advantages; e.g. Amazon and B&N can use it, without licensing fees, for their ebook devices. Also anyone can write software for Android, without needing approval from the Cupertino Control Freaks. But in many respects, Android is a mess. A developer has to write for dozens of different screen sizes and hardware variations, whereas iOS devs have to deal with... two. The user experience on iOS is smooth, whereas Android is all over the place.

Some things, like an open standard that all vendors agree to use, are very helpful. But we've had a lot of proprietary software for decades, and it doesn't seem to have strangled innovation.

Short patent spans also creates issues. For example, drug manufacturers have a limited period of time when they have an exclusive right to sell a drug; after that, other companies can make a generic. The result is that branded drugs are very expensive for many years, as the pharmaceuticals try to recoup their R&D and earn profits as quickly as possible. I.e. shorter patent terms may in fact discourage drug development, and drive up prices before the generic is available.

In addition, drug manufacturers find ways to work around the shorter patent period. They engineer minor formula changes to make a "new" drug (which is no more effective than the old one), or combine two existing and tested drugs to make a "new" drug with a new patent.

I'd also say that the relative unimportance of content is exactly what makes it feasible to have longer copyright durations than patents. If you have a disease, and only one company has the right to make the drug to cure it for 75 years, even if the company goes bust, that's going to present a serious problem. If you wrote a cheap paperback mystery novel in the 1950s, no one is likely to die because it's out of print.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Yeah, not really seeing it.

There's a lot of proprietary stuff in software that actually works very well, and in some cases better than an open format. E.g. iOS is proprietary and locked into hardware; Android is open and can be modified at will. In some respects, Android has its advantages; e.g. Amazon and B&N can use it, without licensing fees, for their ebook devices. Also anyone can write software for Android, without needing approval from the Cupertino Control Freaks. But in many respects, Android is a mess. A developer has to write for dozens of different screen sizes and hardware variations, whereas iOS devs have to deal with... two. The user experience on iOS is smooth, whereas Android is all over the place.

Some things, like an open standard that all vendors agree to use, are very helpful. But we've had a lot of proprietary software for decades, and it doesn't seem to have strangled innovation.

Short patent spans also creates issues. For example, drug manufacturers have a limited period of time when they have an exclusive right to sell a drug; after that, other companies can make a generic. The result is that branded drugs are very expensive for many years, as the pharmaceuticals try to recoup their R&D and earn profits as quickly as possible. I.e. shorter patent terms may in fact discourage drug development, and drive up prices before the generic is available.

In addition, drug manufacturers find ways to work around the shorter patent period. They engineer minor formula changes to make a "new" drug (which is no more effective than the old one), or combine two existing and tested drugs to make a "new" drug with a new patent.

I'd also say that the relative unimportance of content is exactly what makes it feasible to have longer copyright durations than patents. If you have a disease, and only one company has the right to make the drug to cure it for 75 years, even if the company goes bust, that's going to present a serious problem. If you wrote a cheap paperback mystery novel in the 1950s, no one is likely to die because it's out of print.

Excellent post

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Excellent post

But wrong.

The ONLY REASON COPYRIGHT EXISTS IS BECAUSE WE CONSIDER THE CONTENT IMPORTANT!

If it were NOT important there'd be no need for protection. Go dig ditches and do something of value with your life instead of writng.

That some pulp of questionable value is included along with great philosophical and educational works is a GOOD thing. Protecting everything is far better than anyone deciding for us what's good.

Saying that "no one is going to die" is always a meaningless argument. No one need die in rape or arson or robbery or fraud, are those pointless too?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I'd also say that the relative unimportance of content is exactly what makes it feasible to have longer copyright durations than patents. If you have a disease, and only one company has the right to make the drug to cure it for 75 years, even if the company goes bust, that's going to present a serious problem. If you wrote a cheap paperback mystery novel in the 1950s, no one is likely to die because it's out of print.

I agree that copyright should be of a longer period than patent.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ApK

But wrong.

The ONLY REASON COPYRIGHT EXISTS IS BECAUSE WE CONSIDER THE CONTENT IMPORTANT!

If it were NOT important there'd be no need for protection. Go dig ditches and do something of value with your life instead of writng.

That some pulp of questionable value is included along with great philosophical and educational works is a GOOD thing. Protecting everything is far better than anyone deciding for us what's good.

Saying that "no one is going to die" is always a meaningless argument. No one need die in rape or arson or robbery or fraud, are those pointless too?

And drugs are even more important. So why don't we have life + 70 years on drug patents?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

And drugs are even more important. So why don't we have life + 70 years on drug patents?

It sounds like you're arguing for a shorter period for copyright.

We could have life+70 for patents, but the purpose of patent is so that others can build on the technology when the period of exclusivity expires.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

It sounds like you're arguing for a shorter period for copyright.

Au contraire

We could have life+70 for patents, but the purpose of patent is so that others can build on the technology when the period of exclusivity expires.

That's not an argument for terms shorter than copyright.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

And drugs are even more important. So why don't we have life + 70 years on drug patents?

Because they are more important.
Copyright and patents law is a balance between the rights of the individual to profit from their creations, and the right of society to benefit from them.
Patents have shorter time period because their benefits to society are greater, therefore the period allowed for the creator to solely profit is smaller.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Au contraire

I realize you didn't intend to.

That's not an argument for terms shorter than copyright.

Yes, it, is. US Constitution, Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

There's nothing in there that patent and copyright should be the same length. They key factor is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" an excessively long period of patent exclusivity would fail "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". So would an excessively short period of patent, or no patent at all. If you're arguing that patent and copyright must be of the same length, that's an argument for shorter periods of copyright.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Because they are more important.
Copyright and patents law is a balance between the rights of the individual to profit from their creations, and the right of society to benefit from them.
Patents have shorter time period because their benefits to society are greater, therefore the period allowed for the creator to solely profit is smaller.

It's not just the greater benefits, but that excessively long periods of patent would lead to stagnation, and this fail the intent of patent. Technology is build upon technology that came before. If patent is too short or non-existent, there is no incentive to create. If too long, technical advancement stagnates.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Because they are more important.
Copyright and patents law is a balance between the rights of the individual to profit from their creations, and the right of society to benefit from them.
Patents have shorter time period because their benefits to society are greater, therefore the period allowed for the creator to solely profit is smaller.

I know.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If patent is too short or non-existent, there is no incentive to create.

Sure there is. Just ask Samsung.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

In many Jurisdictions patents apply for a short term - usually four years - and have to be regularly renewed. There is little chance of a valuable patent being allowed lapse while within its renewal window.

This is called a maintenance fee, which is different from the duration of the patent. The patent is in effect for 20 years. The US charges maintenance fees 3 times (3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years). If a fee is not paid within six months of the renewal window, you can still renew the patent up to two years later. That's pretty generous for something that's being monetized.

Canada, fees are assessed every year starting on the second anniversary.

I actually would prefer we moved to the Canadian system. If you're not currently using it, or have plans to use it, then it should go the community.

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

You also ignore the fact that interest in a writer's works and its genre go through phases of renewed popularity.

Irrelevant to my argument. Technology goes through phases of popularity as well. Look at using CO2 as a refrigerant, as an example.

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

BTW, what am I supposed to "witness" about the software industry? It seems fine to me. As increasingly bloated and as inept as it ever was.

Have you not been paying attention to Microsoft's actions over the past 30 years? Or the emergence of patent trolls?

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

There's a lot of proprietary stuff in software that actually works very well, and in some cases better than an open format.

I am a proponent of open source stuff, and I use Linux whenever I can. However, proprietary software is usually better. There's no question that Microsoft Office is waaaaay more functional LibreOffice, not to mention it has saner defaults and is just generally prettier. CAD is something that just doesn't exist in a usable format in Linux. I like Linux, but it's really only a play-thing for geeks.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

In some respects, Android has its advantages; e.g. Amazon and B&N can use it, without licensing fees, for their ebook devices.

BN was paying Microsoft for the right to use Android before their recent partnership. Many other players are paying Microsoft as well.

Not the best article, just the first I found.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

But we've had a lot of proprietary software for decades, and it doesn't seem to have strangled innovation.

Originally Posted by The Atlantic

That's basically the only conclusion you can draw from a new study by James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer of Boston University which looks at the costs of patent litigation instigated by "non-practicing entities" (NPEs), the polite term for patent trolls. NPEs own patents, but don't actually use them to make goods or services that people would, you know, want. Rather, they use the patents to prevent other companies from creating goods or services that people might want. Lovely, really. The cost of this vital industry? $29 billion in 2011 alone, and that's just the direct legal costs, not even counting "various indirect costs ... such as diversion of resources, delays in new products, and loss of market share." The loss for the economy overall -- in terms of immeasurable opportunities -- is surely far greater.



http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...t-year/259070/

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I'd also say that the relative unimportance of content is exactly what makes it feasible to have longer copyright durations than patents.

A valid viewpoint. But then why do patents on things like Sham Wow not enjoy longer terms than drugs, or plant patents?

We segregate based on type, not based on importance.

EDIT: I forgot to add that according to that BU Study, 82 percent of defendants had less than $100 million in annual revenue, and the median company had only $10.8 million in annual revenue.

That's a definite drain on the competitiveness, and therefor growth, of small companies.

[theducks]

I never understood why anyone other than the immediate family at the time of the works creation had a long term claim (the Plus part)?
spouses and children may have suffered from 'Don't disturb Daddy/Mommy they have a deadline to meet'. But any other inheritor? How did the automatically earn this windfall?
Why not the Editor, The layout designer? They had a big working stake in the success of the work.

But how is that much different from the rest of us who work long or odd hours at a employers (customers) beck and call ? Any Patents or copyrights belong to our Employer to do what they wish with. (Yes! Theducks has his legal name on a company owned patent. I got a Plaque and a dinner as the award. )