If you had a vote for copyright?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

People already have a right to make copies of PD works. There should be no reason for anybody to be able to make money from selling those copies.

Why? What harm is done?
Water is available to everyone (in 1st world countries), yet people make money selling bottled water, why is that less ridiculous?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by sonofpendragon

I think it should last forever anyway, so that's an easy one for me. I think others have mentioned here something similar, but none of us can turn up at someone's luxury villa on the Algarve 70 years after it was built, and say to the residents' 'clear out, folks, it's ours now', yet we can do this with books (based on the authors' demise, not the age of the book itself).

This.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why fourteen years? That's a very strange figure to choose. Why not ten, or fifteen?

That is how it originally was in the US. Don't ask me why the founding father's chose 14 years, other than there was precedence from the Statute of Anne.

[toddsouth]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But where would you get it from? That's my point. It's being published that keeps books in circulation. Without publication these works would disappear.

No, it wouldn't. Again, I ask, where would the public get it from? Without publication, there's no book.

Originally Posted by HarryT

But where would you get it from? That's my point. It's being published that keeps books in circulation. Without publication these works would disappear.

No, it wouldn't. Again, I ask, where would the public get it from? Without publication, there's no book.

Your point, while valid, assumes assimilation of the current crazy sales and marketing monopoly for publishers being the status quo. Shakespeare worked his ass off creating content at a fervor pace to feed his audiences. Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea for the movie industry that wants $16 a movie or fiction authors wanting $10 to $20 an eBook.

The purpose of copyright is to promote science and useful knowledge, not to idolize a mouse.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by sonofpendragon

I think it should last forever anyway, so that's an easy one for me. I think others have mentioned here something similar, but none of us can turn up at someone's luxury villa on the Algarve 70 years after it was built, and say to the residents' 'clear out, folks, it's ours now', yet we can do this with books (based on the authors' demise, not the age of the book itself)

Well no, but a knockoff of the design could probably be public domain so thousands of people could have a house in similar style ;-)

A large portion of our culture is based on the fact that there are a lot of ideas, pictures, stories, movies, songs, tie dye techniques, etc, that are public domain. Life would get pretty darn expensive if nothing was ever to be in the public domain - ever.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by sonofpendragon

I think it should last forever anyway, so that's an easy one for me. I think others have mentioned here something similar, but none of us can turn up at someone's luxury villa on the Algarve 70 years after it was built, and say to the residents' 'clear out, folks, it's ours now', yet we can do this with books (based on the authors' demise, not the age of the book itself).

Uh, no, eternal copyrighters continue to make this false and silly analogy. A more apt analogy would be that you would not be able to build an similar version of another person's luxury villa without permission (or paying that person).

[toddsouth]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

This.

Yes but it doesn't last forever because humans die. If the copyright didn't suddenly turn into this disembodied entity that corporations own like slaves I would be more inclined to argue exclusivity to the author.

MLK speeches are the perfect example. So, when MLK has 40,000 blood relatives floating around who gets the pie then? It's not like he left a will for specifying his copyrights control because he was an activist for us all.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Uh, no, eternal copyrighters continue to make this false and silly analogy.

You're looking at it wrong. A book generates income 70 years down the road. A house also generates income 70 years down the road.

Property is property is property.

[andym]

Originally Posted by sonofpendragon

I think it should last forever anyway, so that's an easy one for me. I think others have mentioned here something similar, but none of us can turn up at someone's luxury villa on the Algarve 70 years after it was built, and say to the residents' 'clear out, folks, it's ours now', yet we can do this with books (based on the authors' demise, not the age of the book itself). .

I'm not sure that analogy holds up: after all the builders of the luxury villa only get paid once - they don't expect to turn up every year and be paid again, still less expect their children and grandchildren to be paid.

Royalties and license payments for intellectual property are fairly unique in human endeavour - most people do a job (paint a picture, carve a sculpture, design a building or whatever), get paid and that's it. Personally I think life plus a few decades is about right - it gives people incentive to create and innovate and rewards them for doing so.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by toddsouth

MLK speeches are the perfect example. So, when MLK has 40,000 blood relatives floating around who gets the pie then? It's not like he left a will for specifying his copyrights control because he was an activist for us all.

The owner of the copyright.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by andym

Royalties and license payments for intellectual property are fairly unique in human endeavour...

Only because some make that distinction. Others don't.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

You're looking at it wrong. A book generates income 70 years down the road. A house also generates income 70 years down the road.

A house only generates revenue because of the scarcity of land. That is why you can't built an infinite number of houses--resources and land isn't infinite. But if these things were infinite, no one(except sociopaths) would consider it moral to artificially restrict the construction of homes just so rent-seekers could maintain their profits. When it comes to digital media, there is no scarcity, except of labor, but rewarding that labor beyond the life of the person does not in any way make that labor more productive or beneficial for society.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Property is property is property.

Fine, just don't expect others to sacrifice their property to protect yours. If property is an absolute individual institution, then it is up to the individual to protect it himself. If it is a social insitution, entitled to social protections, then society can determine the scope and limits of that institution.

[sonofpendragon]

That's a Freudian slip for some reason. Big Bob Goran from Law and Order CI would be on to that in a flash and would say exactly what you said, Harry, 'Why 14 and not 15 etc?' Summat amiss must have happened 14 years ago!
(Kidding of course, but it is an odd figure.)

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Fine, just don't expect others to sacrifice their property to protect yours. If property is an absolute individual institution, then it is up to the individual to protect it himself. If it is a social insitution, entitled to social protections, then society can determine the scope and limits of that institution.

Uh, protection is provided via taxes. If I'm expected to protect my own property, then I no longer have to pay taxes.

Try operating a government without a tax base.

[TheJohnNewton]

Sorry I passed on the poll.

I say keep it simple. Forget variables like date of death or optional renewals. Make it publication date plus some period, say 20 years. That way you only need to know one thing, the publication date, to figure the public domain date and it's consistent for every book. You can quibble on the period (10? 20? 30? years) but choose a period that covers most of the profit for most books and call it a day. Sure there will be exceptions where a book becomes popular after the period or continues to be popular after but those will be rare cases that will have little to no effect on motivating authors.