Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

(And I have had 3 of the 4 items above happen to my nuclear family...)

Yikes. I hope at least one of them was 'moved.'

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by ApK

Yikes. I hope at least one of them was 'moved.'

A gentleman never tells...It's part of the code.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by ApK

Umm...it's really not a matter for debate. Here's some Google hits....

Wikipedia Pleas for Money, Should we give Wikipedia Money ...
What's Up With The Wikipedia Plea for Donations? – ...
Wikipedia's Increasingly Angry Pleas for Cash ...
Wikipedia Makes Another Plea for Donations ...
How Effective Is Jimmy Wales' Creepy Plea for Wikipedia Money ...
Wikipedia's new plea for donations stirs skepticism ...

I agree, it's not up for debate. It costs money to run Wikipedia. If they aren't going to charge money or have ads, then they have to ask for donations. That some people don't like it and call it begging or pleading doesn't make it begging or pleading.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by ApK

Irrelevant and also incorrect. You only 'own' land because we have real estate law and deeds and the artifice that says we can subdivide and own pieces of the planet surface. Ownership of farmland is not 'unlimited' as anyone who has moved, or been foreclosed on, or lost mineral rights, or been subjected to eminent domain will surely know.

Ownership of anything outside your own skin is an artificial social and legal construct and nothing more. The only difference with IP over physical property is that because it has a different nature, we created a different social and legal construct to deal with it.

That is incorrect. Real estate law does not create property. All that law does is enhance your ability to protect your property. Without law, you can still put up fences or put up locks.

Intellectual property is a government creation because it doesn't exist without law. Without IP law, anyone can look at what you created, and create one of their own. With physical property, you can lock the gates. You have no means to protect intellectual property without law, but you do have at least some means to protect physical property without law.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That some people don't like it and call it begging or pleading doesn't make it begging or pleading.

"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose.
The second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk.
But the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."
--The Rabbi, from Lucky Number Slevin

It's called pleading by a lot of people because it is pleading.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I'm just saying it not a business model that has them rolling in dough. In any case I think the entire "Encarta vs. Wikipedia" mention was totally out of whack, and Wikipedia financial status was merely one of the reasons.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by ApK

"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose.
The second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk.
But the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."
--The Rabbi, from Lucky Number Slevin

It's called pleading by a lot of people because it is pleading.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I'm just saying it not a business model that has them rolling in dough. In any case I think the entire "Encarta vs. Wikipedia" mention was totally out of whack, and Wikipedia financial status was merely one of the reasons.

If and only if ALL solicitation for donations is "pleading".

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

The claim that copyright hinders science or prevents any form of library is disingenuous.

If copyright was eternal, Romeo and Juliet couldn't have been written, because it would be a derivative work. Walt Disney made a career of mining the public domain. If patents were eternal, we'd be lucky to have a practical steam engine.

Eternal or excessively long copyright or patent creates stagnation, but of course no copyright or too short copyright or patents removes incentive to create in the first place. The issue is what the correct lenght of time is.

[Hellmark]

With the recent push for software patents, we're starting to see issues in that field, where basic concepts are being patented, blocking innovation. For instance, not too long ago I read that HTC and Samsung were having issues getting stuff into the country, unless they stripped out some features of their Android phones, because Apple had a patent on an address book that would give you an menu of methods to contact a person if you clicked on their face. A simple thing that I've seen for years in other address book apps, on forums, etc, and now no one can do something like that without getting Apple's permission first. At least on patents, in the US they're protected for 20 years (14 if considered a design patent)

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

With the recent push for software patents, we're starting to see issues in that field, where basic concepts are being patented, blocking innovation. For instance, not too long ago I read that HTC and Samsung were having issues getting stuff into the country, unless they stripped out some features of their Android phones, because Apple had a patent on an address book that would give you an menu of methods to contact a person if you clicked on their face. A simple thing that I've seen for years in other address book apps, on forums, etc, and now no one can do something like that without getting Apple's permission first. At least on patents, in the US they're protected for 20 years (14 if considered a design patent)

That's an issue of patents infringing on prior art, not the length of them. As I've been saying for a while, the old Doctrine of Prior Art is dying.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by teh603

That's an issue of patents infringing on prior art, not the length of them. As I've been saying for a while, the old Doctrine of Prior Art is dying.

Personally, prior art or no, I think it's HUGELY stupid for that to have been granted a patent. Sound like the 'novel' and 'non obvious' parts needs some more attention.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If and only if ALL solicitation for donations is "pleading".

One can always become a member of NPR, and they frequently make that known, but if they don't make enough, they interrupt their programming for several days and plead for members.

Calibre has a donation button on it's tool bar. I'm not privy to Kovid's financial status, but community comments seem to suggest he gets enough in donations to support Calibre. He so far has not seen fit put a series of banner adds up pleading for more donations.

Wikipedia has.

There is a difference there.


p.s. I suspect NPR would have the pledge drive no matter what, but they CLAIM they would cancel it if they got enough donations before hand.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by teh603

That's an issue of patents infringing on prior art, not the length of them. As I've been saying for a while, the old Doctrine of Prior Art is dying.

Even that aside, if something is locked away for an incredible long time, improvements are limited to simply what the copyright or patent owner chooses to. Say if I design a device that can cure cancer by simultaniously causing you to orgasm while showing you a picture of a dog riding a cat, but refuse to sell copies to the public because I think that it is perverted. Now, with the patent running out in 20 years, the integral dog riding a cat picture couldn't be duplicated or copied for another hundred or so years due to copyright, so ultimately I'd cause generations to die from cancer because of being prudish.

Now, I know that is an outlandish and far fetched possibility, but the absurdity helps show that the excessive length of protection can hinder progress.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If copyright was eternal, Romeo and Juliet couldn't have been written, because it would be a derivative work. Walt Disney made a career of mining the public domain. If patents were eternal, we'd be lucky to have a practical steam engine.

Eternal or excessively long copyright or patent creates stagnation, but of course no copyright or too short copyright or patents removes incentive to create in the first place. The issue is what the correct lenght of time is.

Not so. It would have involved paying for the right of use. The only difference an expired copyright provided Disney was a reduction in production costs. It wouldn't have stopped production, they still had to generate income.

As for steam engines, (and patents are not under discussion) we had a great deal of research and development in steam engines during the time that the patents were in place.

[Lynx-lynx]

A format needs to be devised that provides for the originator of 'x' to gain from their creation AND allows others to use that material to build on, create new material based on the intellectual premises of, simultaneously but not exclusively.

This format needs to include different options and means as to HOW the originator is recognised and variable terms of recognition depending on the form of the creation.

No - I do not believe that the current legislation, Berne and individual countries that are signatory to it and copyright legislation made as a result of it or keeping within the confines of it, is appropriate to today's creations and technological advances.

Add me to the list of people who say that a total overhaul to copyright legislation needs to be done.

[Phogg]

The title should properly be "Petition to return US copyright to 28 years."