Why public domain

[leebase]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

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.

That's just a silly position to take. It is property...intellectual property...which is a type of PROPERTY.

And the same forces that have put and are arguing to put more "temporariness" on copyright....could JUST as easily put time limits on ANY kind of property.

Inheritance tax is just one mechanism by which "collective opinion" can be use to remove property from an individual to "the public". There are others. There are even times and places which deny the concept of personal property at all.

There is nothing inherent in ANY concept of property. It's all consensus and political force (and sometimes actual force).

[leebase]

Nobody....neither the rich person nor the poor person...need to acquire right to someone else's work. They can write a NEW work.

The reason they want to write upon an existing work is to gain the benefits of the existing work.

I can't just walk into a mall and setup a kiosk to sell my goods. "But that's where the people are". Yes, the people are there because of the investment and effort of the mall owner and other stores. You don't just get to take that benefit for yourself because you want to.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by leebase

The reason they want to write upon an existing work is to gain the benefits of the existing work.

Which still serves the societal good, we get more stories, arguably more so since those characters would then be immortal through generations. Copyright exists to protect the creators ability to profit off their creation without interference.

I can't just walk into a mall and setup a kiosk to sell my goods. "But that's where the people are". Yes, the people are there because of the investment and effort of the mall owner and other stores. You don't just get to take that benefit for yourself because you want to.

You also can't stand on an idea. It's almost as if things are different, and thus we treat them differently with different laws and regulations.

[leebase]

Of course people want to grab value someone else has. There is no debate that it's desirable to be given money in various forms.

But do we define the rights of property as temporary? I don't think so. Not for fiction. If you don't want to pay the rights holder for using their intellectual property. If you don't want to....you can create a NEW story. Then it's up to you to build up the "mind space" that someone else has already built for their intellectual property.

And it's not ONLY about money. It's about control. It's the ability to deny Mickey Porn or political parties using an artist's work to promote issues the artist might abhor.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by leebase

Of course people want to grab value someone else has. There is no debate that it's desirable to be given money in various forms.

But do we define the rights of property as temporary? I don't think so. Not for fiction. If you don't want to pay the rights holder for using their intellectual property. If you don't want to....you can create a NEW story. Then it's up to you to build up the "mind space" that someone else has already built for their intellectual property.

And it's not ONLY about money. It's about control. It's the ability to deny Mickey Porn or political parties using an artist's work to promote issues the artist might abhor.

Actually we do, as currently copyright does expire. You do not, which is the root of this dicussion.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Actually we do, as currently copyright does expire. You do not, which is the root of this dicussion.

Right. I’m advocating for a change to permanent copyright for fiction. Any work that is no longer economically active can fall into the public domain.

[pwalker8]

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 and patents are granted in the US Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 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."

Nothing is said about property, though the term property is used elsewhere in the Constitution. Neither copyright nor patents were treated as property when the Constitution was written. As I have shown earlier in the thread, the writers of the Constitution most closely tied to the copyright clause did not consider copyright to be property.

I can rent a house. I can sign a 1 year lease. I can sub lease that house to someone else, but that doesn't make it my property even through I can use that lease to generate profit. While you may call it "intellectual property", it's also known as intangible property. Intangible property includes things like copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, debts and company good will. Should company good will be treated as physical property? How about debts? One can trade debts, sell them to someone else, but that doesn't make them property. Rather it's a type of contract. There are many things that are treated in manners similar to tangible property for various legal reasons, but that doesn't mean that they are actually property. Copyright is better understood as a type of lease than actual property. You may want that lease to go on forever, but unless both parties agree, it doesn't.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Copyright and patents are granted in the US Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 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."

Nothing is said about property, though the term property is used elsewhere in the Constitution. Neither copyright nor patents were treated as property when the Constitution was written. As I have shown earlier in the thread, the writers of the Constitution most closely tied to the copyright clause did not consider copyright to be property.

I can rent a house. I can sign a 1 year lease. I can sub lease that house to someone else, but that doesn't make it my property even through I can use that lease to generate profit. While you may call it "intellectual property", it's also known as intangible property. Intangible property includes things like copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, debts and company good will. Should company good will be treated as physical property? How about debts? One can trade debts, sell them to someone else, but that doesn't make them property. Rather it's a type of contract. There are many things that are treated in manners similar to tangible property for various legal reasons, but that doesn't mean that they are actually property. Copyright is better understood as a type of lease than actual property. You may want that lease to go on forever, but unless both parties agree, it doesn't.

And this exists because it's been written into law. Guess what? Laws can be changed.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

And this exists because it's been written into law. Guess what? Laws can be changed.

They can also be left as they are. Especially as they harm no one. And no a rights holder in this case who has done nothing to continue the work the copyright pertains to is not hurt they were not profiting from the work nor was society benefiting from it being left to rot. Thus the greatest good is to have the copyright expire.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

They can also be left as they are. Especially as they harm no one. And no a rights holder in this case who has done nothing to continue the work the copyright pertains to is not hurt they were not profiting from the work nor was society benefiting from it being left to rot. Thus the greatest good is to have the copyright expire.

It hurts Mickey Mouse. He's a cash cow and should be left alone.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It hurts Mickey Mouse. He's a cash cow and should be left alone.

Mickey told me he’s fine with copyright expiring.

[PKFFW]

Firstly, no, Copyright is not property. It is a legally granted right to control Intellectual Property. Without that right, your intellectual property could be copied, used, changed, developed, etc, all without your consent, payment or whatever. So please, at least know what you are talking about and get the terminology correct.

So, you can have your intellectual property for all eternity. However, if you want the right to control it for all eternity then please, for the love of god, someone make a rational argument as to why that should be. Simply repeating it should be isn't getting anyone anywhere.

Many posters in this thread have attempted to give reasonable arguments as to why copyright should not extend for eternity but rather should remain the same as it is now. Why can't those supporting the idea of eternal copyright do the same courtesy?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Many posters in this thread have attempted to give reasonable arguments as to why copyright should not extend for eternity but rather should remain the same as it is now. Why can't those supporting the idea of eternal copyright do the same courtesy?

I did.

I wrote the book, it's mine. That simple. I'm the one who should determine what becomes of it, not society. It does not expire unless I abandon it.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Mickey told me he’s fine with copyright expiring.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I did.

I wrote the book, it's mine. That simple. I'm the one who should determine what becomes of it, not society. It does not expire unless I abandon it.

Death ends marriage, it can end copyright too.