If you had a vote for copyright?

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.

No, we're looking at it from a different perspective. Actually, we're probably looking at it from several different perspectives.

I mean, in a lot of respects infinite copyright is a non-issue. If a novel is lost in the mists of time because copyright diminishes it's appeal, so be it. Something is lost, to be sure, but it certainly could be recreated with the perspective and insights of a modern author addressing a modern audience. Yet MLK is different. By exerting copyright over his speeches, you are giving someone ownership of significant pieces of history. It isn't just a physical piece of history that you're selling off, it's the very words and often ideas.

Property is property is property.

Actually, no. There are very different types of property and those different types of property involve different rights. Ownership of different types of property also carries different responsibilities.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Actually, no. There are very different types of property and those different types of property involve different rights. Ownership of different types of property also carries different responsibilities.

Only because laws say so. On this point, I lose. On the other hand, laws keep extending copyright to even greater terms. On this point, I win. It's an ugly and convoluted process, but I'll take what I can get.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

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.

But the thing is, with the way the government is set up, protection is not guaranteed. The government is not responsible for your protection. If you get mugged, and a cop isn't able to get to you in time, you can't sue the police department for failure to perform their duties.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But some certainly do - eg the posthumous works of J.R.R. Tolkein edited and published by his son and literary executor, Christopher Tolkein. We certainly wouldn't have that without copyright protection. Much of it isn't especially interesting, certainly, but there are some real gems there.

Don't forget Brian Herbert with Kevin J. Anderson continuing the Dune saga. That too might not have happened without copyright.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

But the thing is, with the way the government is set up, protection is not guaranteed. The government is not responsible for your protection. If you get mugged, and a cop isn't able to get to you in time, you can't sue the police department for failure to perform their duties.

Thanks for invalidating spellbanisher's argument.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by toddsouth

The family should work, or invest their already earned money. We've enough lazy people in the world; stop encouraging more of the same behavior.

So if your mother was a stay at home mother and she's now (for the same of argument) 80 years old and your father the author has died. Shall your mother then have to go get a job?

I know that's an extreme example, but it's still valid.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Angst

An artist has a right to profit from his creation. No copyright would discourage people from writing if anyone could publish their work without compensating the author.

Ideal: 40 years or Life of Author, whichever is greater.

I would change that a little. I would go for 40 years but only if the author is dead. If the author is alive after 40 years, it doesn't become PD until the author dies.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So if your mother was a stay at home mother and she's now (for the same of argument) 80 years old and your father the author has died. Shall your mother then have to go get a job?

Yep; as a pole dancer

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Thanks for invalidating spellbanisher's argument.

Just because the government isn't obligated to protect you, doesn't mean that you're free to do what ever you want to protect yourself or your property. The government can be seen as one who is the one attacking your property.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So if your mother was a stay at home mother and she's now (for the same of argument) 80 years old and your father the author has died. Shall your mother then have to go get a job?

I know that's an extreme example, but it's still valid.

Problem is, if there was no planning was done for their financial future, having copyright or not will not protect them. Plus what about those who do not own any copyright? Why should they be expected to plan for their future, and the copyright owner be allowed to just skate by on the copyright. Plus that is assuming the copyright is profitable, which many copyrights are not.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by 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.)

I think it was businesses that managed to get things changed. Just like they've kept on doing so until we now have life+70. This means that gives Disney lawyers some time to figure out how to get it changed to life+"some ungodly amount of time".

As things stand, Disney gets to keep Mickey Mouse until December 16th, 2036. On that date, all of Walt's creations become public domain.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

This means that gives Disney lawyers some time to figure out how to get it changed to life+"some ungodly amount of time".

Thank god for the little things in life.

[spellbanisher]

You basically just made the argument for a public domain.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Uh, protection is provided via taxes.

Yes, and who pay taxes? Not each and every individual. But each and every individual is entitled to the protections that those taxes pay for. Otherwise, a poor starving artist would be entitled to no copyright protection, since he pays no taxes. The amount of protection you get also is not contingent on how much you pay. It is the public that pays and provides the protection, because it derives some benefit for providing that protection. But that also means that the protection is a discretionary act of a public and that the public has no interest in paying for protection past the point of any benefit. Otherwise, you have a system of privatized profit and socialized cost. This basic fact was recognized by the Founding Fathers, which is why the copyright clause says

"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."

Note that nothing in the constitution (or any constitution for that matter) is absolute. Even the Bill of Rights themselves can be amended. What that means is, as it pertains to government and laws, nothing is absolute. You can chant "property is property is property," but once you bring in government, laws, or a legal system, you are no longer in the realm of absolutes. Government, laws, and legal systems themselves are compromises and social institutions.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

If I'm expected to protect my own property, then I no longer have to pay taxes.

Technically, government is not needed for the protection of property. It would be less efficient and less convenient for you to protect your own property, but you could certainly do it, at least with physical property. Physical property is scarce and rivalrous, so the only way for someone to get your property would be to physically take it from you, or to kick you off your land. In other words, for your property rights to be violated, others would have to act aggressively towards you, and thus protection is against said aggression. To protect your property, you could buy a gun, you could hire guards, you could get a guard dog, you could build a fence. But this is passive protection, i.e. self-defense; you are protecting your property from others potential aggression. To protect Intellectual "Property" on your own you would have to actively pursue people who copied your stuff, as well as intimidate people who could potentially copy your stuff. In other words, you would have to act aggressively towards others. Thus, while physical property entails passive protection, intellectual "property" entails oppression and repression.

To go back to the issue of taxation, let's really think this through, because I don't think the eternal copyrighters have cause they seem to live in a world of absolutes (when society itself is a structure of compromises). If putting any limits on the scope of copyright is a violation of inviolable property rights, then shouldn't the government taking money from people to protect copyright, regardless of whether they support that act or not, also be considered a violation of inviolable property rights? Suppose you believe that to be so. In that case, a just government would be one where people could chose whether or not to pay taxes. And considering that individuals almost invariably underestimate the costs they impose on society, that would mean that a government capable of protecting copyright would be impossible.

Suppose, however, you believe that government has a right to tax because property is an absolute right. What you are in fact doing then is creating a hierarchy of property rights; the money you make is not absolutely yours, because the government can take that to protect more important property. In that case, property is not property is not property.

[toddsouth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So if your mother was a stay at home mother and she's now (for the same of argument) 80 years old and your father the author has died. Shall your mother then have to go get a job?

I know that's an extreme example, but it's still valid.

Absolutely. Poor planning on someone's part is not my fault. He should have invested earnings instead of expected the public to provide a paycheck. You should not be forced to buy my father's product either, for any reason.

[niggle]

An interesting article here on Dickens and copyright:

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/...pva/pva75.html

I hadn't realised that Wordsworth also suffered from being ripped off by copyright pirates.