If you had a vote for copyright?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

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.

That's so true; and while I lose on my definition of property, I win with extended copyright laws. Though I'm not happy with these short terms, I can live with it.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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.

Depending on how it was done, not all of his work may be up then. If some of Disney's works were copyrighted as done by the corporation and by Walt himself, it could potentially be even longer.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That's so true; and while I lose on my definition of property, I win with extended copyright laws. Though I'm not happy with these short terms, I can live with it.

Life+70, or 120 years for corporations, is short?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Life+70, or 120 years for corporations, is short?

You bet it is when we're talking about theft of someone's property.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

You bet it is when we're talking about theft of someone's property.

A corporation is a government created entity. So unless you are the Roberts Court, a corporation is not a "someone."

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

A corporation is a government created entity. So unless you are the Roberts Court, a corporation is not a "someone."

Must we?

You bet it is when we're talking about theft of an entity's property.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Must we?

You bet it is when we're talking about theft of an entity's property.

But if the government comes in and takes it, or limits your ability to own, that isn't theft.

[speakingtohe]

copyright laws are already heavily weighted against the people inheriting said rights.
If you inherit property, no one comes and takes it away from you after 50 years.
No one demands that you give back the $1,000 that Great Aunt Freda left you in her will after 70 years.
A person who inherits millions of shares in an ongoing successful business, get to keep them and pass them on to their heirs with no time restrictions.

Helen

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

copyright laws are already heavily weighted against the people inheriting said rights.
If you inherit property, no one comes and takes it away from you after 50 years.
No one demands that you give back the $1,000 that Great Aunt Freda left you in her will after 70 years.
A person who inherits millions of shares in an ongoing successful business, get to keep them and pass them on to their heirs with no time restrictions.

Helen

If you write a poem, no one comes to take it away from your inheritants ever.
If you create a painting, no one comes to take it away from your descendants ever.
If you compose a song, no one comes to take it away from your heirs ever.

[Ekaros]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

copyright laws are already heavily weighted against the people inheriting said rights.
If you inherit property, no one comes and takes it away from you after 50 years.
No one demands that you give back the $1,000 that Great Aunt Freda left you in her will after 70 years.
A person who inherits millions of shares in an ongoing successful business, get to keep them and pass them on to their heirs with no time restrictions.

Helen

On otherhand if someone inherits patent it still does run out. If you inherit lease or contract it can too run out. So can time-limited licences if they are at all transferable at all.

Immaterial things and matterial things are different, no one is going to take away the money or things bought with it, which owner of copyright made while he had the right.

[SteveEisenberg]

Given the two bad choices, I voted for copyright forever because most books I have loved would, I suspect, not have been written without intellectual property protection.

Originally Posted by Phogg

Fourteen years, renewable once.

I like this. Reasons include the careers of J. D. Salinger and Ralph Ellison. I don't think that putting a great writer in a situation where the residuals are never-ending is wise.

Life + 50 made some sense back when agreed to in 1886. Lifespan length back then was extremely unpredictable. An author's surviving widow could easily live another fifty years, during which her earning potential, given discrimination against women, would be low. But in modern nations with a social safety net, I don't see the justification for having copyright last decades past the author's death.

[carld]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

If you write a poem, no one comes to take it away from your inheritants ever.
If you create a painting, no one comes to take it away from your descendants ever.
If you compose a song, no one comes to take it away from your heirs ever.

They do if you publish it.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by carld

They do if you publish it.

No they don't. You still have the song. You still have the poem. You still have the painting.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

But if the government comes in and takes it, or limits your ability to own, that isn't theft.

And it isn't slavery if the government allows you to be sold and used as property.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

You bet it is when we're talking about theft of an entity's property.

Should we be tracking down the descendents of ancient Greek or Chinese manuscripts to pay them royalties? After all, we shamelessly stole their works and made them our own. Should peoples of European, Asian, African, etc. descent be backing our bags and returning to our homelands? After all, we shamelessly stole their land and made it our own.

At the end of the day, there is no such thing as absolute property rights. We lose track of who owns what. Sometimes we just take what we want. In a sense, copyright laws acknowledge that. Actually, in the case of some nations, copyright goes beyond acknowledging that and suggest that sometimes things have to be turned over to society for the public good.

I, for one, would not want to live in a world of absolute ownership. I would also hate to live in a world where no one owns anything. Both extremes have their faults, so some sort of compromise has to be found.

[carld]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

No they don't. You still have the song. You still have the poem. You still have the painting.

You have your copy yes, but the rights you had to it are gone. It's no longer "your" song, book, or painting. It eventually belongs to everyone.

A creative work is more than just the creation itself, it's also the bundle of associated rights. Those rights are taken away in time, if you publish. I think that's a good thing, eventually.