If you had a vote for copyright?

The Terminator · 01-16-2012, 12:32 PM

If you had to vote to either completely get rid of all copyright or to have it last forever which would you choose?

pdurrant · 01-16-2012, 01:42 PM

Do away with copyright altogether is my choice of those two extremes.

I don't think either of those two extremes will ever come to pass, I'm glad to say.

susan_cassidy · 01-16-2012, 01:55 PM

Life + 50.

JSWolf · 01-16-2012, 01:56 PM

This poll is just too far to the left and right to be of any use. What I would like to see copyright be changed to a lesser time then we have now. But that won't happen because of Micky Mouse.

What I would like is Death+25 or 50 years from when it was created whichever is shorter.

Phogg · 01-16-2012, 02:00 PM

Fourteen years, renewable once.

CyGuy · 01-16-2012, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phogg

Fourteen years, renewable once.

I prefer 10 years, with no renewal allowed. This should hold true for copyright and patents. Trademarks should be allowed for much longer though.

JSWolf · 01-16-2012, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I prefer 10 years, with no renewal allowed. This should hold true for copyright and patents. Trademarks should be allowed for much longer though.

Good point about trademarks. If a trademark is given to a business and the business keeps it renewed, then they should be able to keep the trademark for as long as they are in business or renew it. That way, Disney would be able to trademark Micky Mouse and copyright ca be properly sorted.

spindlegirl · 01-16-2012, 02:23 PM

Since I only had two extremes, I chose the "do away with"....
I do think 3 generations past the death of an author is far too long, and would settle for simply shortened copyright.

I have a friend who is writing a (reference) book who has licensed her book thus: (quoted in part)

Quote:

I have made arrangements for this book to be put into the public domain after my death for use by anyone and everyone under all circumstances. I refuse to sequester the information in the name of copyright when I am no longer around to benefit from it.

The link to the full post containing her full licensing information is HERE. She has a great sense of humour but actually does intend to print that in the front of her book.

AlbertaCowboy · 01-16-2012, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Since I only had two extremes, I chose the "do away with"....
I do think 3 generations past the death of an author is far too long, and would settle for simply shortened copyright.

I have a friend who is writing a (reference) book who has licensed her book thus: (quoted in part)

The link to the full post containing her full licensing information is HERE. She has a great sense of humour but actually does intend to print that in the front of her book.

Since I can't give your friend Karma, you get it! What a great post.

banjobama · 01-16-2012, 02:31 PM

Honestly I don't really see anything wrong with how it is. I get that the US law of life+70 years is so that the author's family can continue to get revenue from his or her work. Maybe 40-50 years would be acceptable. But really I don't see anything wrong with a person getting paid for his work.

Phogg · 01-16-2012, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banjobama

Honestly I don't really see anything wrong with how it is. I get that the US law of life+70 years is so that the author's family can continue to get revenue from his or her work. Maybe 40-50 years would be acceptable. But really I don't see anything wrong with a person getting paid for his work.

I think the taxpayer should continue to pay me for the rest of my life for each of the radios i fixed or rebuilt in the military. In fact they should continue to pay my descendants too.

You have zero problems with me getting paid, right?

Ekaros · 01-16-2012, 02:54 PM

Depends on media. Still, I wouldn't give author full rights for whole life. On other hand there might be reason to separate commercial and peer to peer distribution. For commercial there should be some sort of standard fee.

For books maybe 25-50, 40 would be good since first publishing.
Computer software 10 years for executable form from launch. Source code could remain private if they so whishes.
Music 25 years
Films 25 years first commercial showing.

Also good point on trademarks they should be renevable for ever.
For extremes none.

BWinmill · 01-16-2012, 03:36 PM

I wouldn't (and didn't) vote.

If you held a gun to my head and told me to vote, I'd choose forever. After all, that leave the author the option to release their work into the public domain at a later date. It also gives authors the option to license their work under more generous terms, which is what CC licensing and the GPL is about.

In reality though, I find it quite offensive that someone can (in theory) work on something for a few months and live off the proceeds for the rest of their life. That is especially true when you consider that writing is easy work, and by easy work I mean that it isn't the sort of thing that you do for minimum wage and end up with a body that is wrecked for life.

Apache · 01-16-2012, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phogg

I think the taxpayer should continue to pay me for the rest of my life for each of the radios i fixed or rebuilt in the military. In fact they should continue to pay my descendants too.

You have zero problems with me getting paid, right?

Run for the US Senate.

Both are rediculous. Extreme anything is rediculous. That is why both Democrats and Republicans can not get anything done that benefits the country as a whole. They are like children who will take their football and go home if they do not get their way.

Apache

Hellmark · 01-16-2012, 03:42 PM

Personally, I have no problem with copyright for something lasting the lifetime of the creator, it just is when it lasts for longer that I have a problem. Copyright is for helping artists create more works, by letting them profit off their past work. Problem is, most heirs don't create more art. I say, life +10 or +20. Lets the heirs respect the wishes of the artist, and get things after the artist's death cleared up, but not create a career off managing the copyright.

View Poll Results: Which would you vote for
Copyright forever	32	21.77%
Fully do away with copyright	115	78.23%
Voters: 147. You may not vote on this poll

01-16-2012, 12:32 PM	#1
The Terminator Retired Posts: 2,552 Karma: 37638420 Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Vancouver Island Canada Device: Kobo Touch, Optimus One (2.3), Nexus 7 (4.2)	If you had a vote for copyright? If you had to vote to either completely get rid of all copyright or to have it last forever which would you choose?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Seriously thoughtful a voté !	zelda_pinwheel	Lounge français	1	03-21-2010 12:58 PM
Unutterably Silly Vote for me!	pshrynk	Lounge	90	11-06-2008 01:59 PM
In Copyright? - Copyright Renewal Database launched	Alexander Turcic	News	26	07-09-2008 09:36 AM
Government US Copyright Office: Report on Orphan Works. US Copyright Office. PDF	Nate the great	Other Books	0	01-03-2008 07:16 PM

01-16-2012, 01:42 PM	#2
pdurrant The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠 Posts: 71,504 Karma: 306214458 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Norfolk, England Device: Kindle Voyage	Do away with copyright altogether is my choice of those two extremes. I don't think either of those two extremes will ever come to pass, I'm glad to say.

01-16-2012, 01:55 PM	#3
susan_cassidy Wizard Posts: 2,251 Karma: 3720310 Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: USA Device: Kindle, iPad (not used much for reading)	Life + 50.

01-16-2012, 01:56 PM	#4
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 73,957 Karma: 128903250 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	This poll is just too far to the left and right to be of any use. What I would like to see copyright be changed to a lesser time then we have now. But that won't happen because of Micky Mouse. What I would like is Death+25 or 50 years from when it was created whichever is shorter.

01-16-2012, 02:00 PM	#5
Phogg PHD in Horribleness Posts: 2,320 Karma: 23599604 Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: In the ironbound section, near avenue L Device: Just a whole bunch. I guess I am a collector now.	Fourteen years, renewable once.

01-16-2012, 02:31 PM	#10
banjobama Busy Read'n Posts: 980 Karma: 5039283 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Auburn, WA Device: Pocketbook Touch Lux 5	Honestly I don't really see anything wrong with how it is. I get that the US law of life+70 years is so that the author's family can continue to get revenue from his or her work. Maybe 40-50 years would be acceptable. But really I don't see anything wrong with a person getting paid for his work.

01-16-2012, 02:54 PM	#12
Ekaros Illiterate newbie Posts: 661 Karma: 1702090 Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Finland Device: Sony PRS-T1	Depends on media. Still, I wouldn't give author full rights for whole life. On other hand there might be reason to separate commercial and peer to peer distribution. For commercial there should be some sort of standard fee. For books maybe 25-50, 40 would be good since first publishing. Computer software 10 years for executable form from launch. Source code could remain private if they so whishes. Music 25 years Films 25 years first commercial showing. Also good point on trademarks they should be renevable for ever. For extremes none.

01-16-2012, 03:36 PM	#13
BWinmill Nameless Being	I wouldn't (and didn't) vote. If you held a gun to my head and told me to vote, I'd choose forever. After all, that leave the author the option to release their work into the public domain at a later date. It also gives authors the option to license their work under more generous terms, which is what CC licensing and the GPL is about. In reality though, I find it quite offensive that someone can (in theory) work on something for a few months and live off the proceeds for the rest of their life. That is especially true when you consider that writing is easy work, and by easy work I mean that it isn't the sort of thing that you do for minimum wage and end up with a body that is wrecked for life.

01-16-2012, 03:42 PM	#15
Hellmark Wizard Posts: 2,549 Karma: 3799999 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: O'Fallon, Missouri, USA Device: Nokia N800, PRS-505, Nook STR Glowlight, Kindle 3	Personally, I have no problem with copyright for something lasting the lifetime of the creator, it just is when it lasts for longer that I have a problem. Copyright is for helping artists create more works, by letting them profit off their past work. Problem is, most heirs don't create more art. I say, life +10 or +20. Lets the heirs respect the wishes of the artist, and get things after the artist's death cleared up, but not create a career off managing the copyright.

Advert

Advert