Death of copyright, film at 11?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

You have the money the royalites provide, just like I have wages. I don't have to right to wages 100 years after I stop working, why should you? Don't tell me how special your work is.

A "paycheck" is not an appropriate equivalent, because that implies that one is an employee. Profits from a business that you've started are the equivalent of a writer's royalties, and you are free to hand down ownership of that business to your heirs with no limit on how long they can continue to reap the benefit of the continuing profits of that business - your descendents can certainly still profit from that business 100 years after you stop working.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I'm suggesting equal treatment of physical and intellectual property, and that neither should be able to be handed down "in perpetuity". I believe that all property ownership should be restricted in term.

Ummm... No limits on time ownership of real property or real property restricted in term?

You can't have it both ways....

[Robotech_Master]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the greatest respect, Ralph, you're on very shaky ground trying to use the ideas of 300 years ago to justify today's laws. For one thing, we live far longer: average life expectency in the early 18th century was under 40; today, in most western countries, it's in the mid 80s.

Right! Old ideas can't possibly have any bearing on modern life. Chuck out the Bible—nobody reads it anymore anyway. Oh, and dump the Constitution and Bill of Rights. How could the ideas of 200-300 years ago justify today's laws?

It's plain silly to think that the purpose of "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" no matter what the Constitution says. It's really to make lots of money for the authors (and their descendants), and the "useful Arts" (which rely on having a thriving public domain from which to borrow materials) can just go hang. After all, what "progress" is promoted by extending the length of copyright for works written by writers who are already dead? Will it get them to write more?

For another, there were virtually no professional authors at that time; today, many people make a living writing, and by other "creative" activities. I can honestly see absolutely no rational justification for considering the "work" of writing a book to be trated differently from any other type of work, in terms of being able to pass on its benefits to one's family.

So let's say you make fine furniture and sell it. You get paid money for the furniture, you save it up, you pass the money on to your family after you die. But you can't actively provide for your family after you die, because you can't go on making furniture after you're dead. (Unless you're, y'know, a zombie or something.)

Why should the "work" of writing a book be treated differently than the "work" of building furniture? Your family can't profit from your furniture after you're dead (unless they saved some back to sell then). Seems it's only fair that they not be able to profit from your book after you're dead (unless they save an unpublished manuscript to sell then), given that the "work" should be treated the same and all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

So let's say you make fine furniture and sell it. You get paid money for the furniture, you save it up, you pass the money on to your family after you die. But you can't actively provide for your family after you die, because you can't go on making furniture after you're dead. (Unless you're, y'know, a zombie or something.)

If I start up a furniture-making business, my familiy can continue to benefit from that indefinitely after I die. Royalies are very like share ownership in many ways - both are "future income for past work".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Ummm... No limits on time ownership of real property or real property restricted in term?

You can't have it both ways....

The latter.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The latter.

Including working, functional businesses? Do we shut them down on a pre-determined timer and revert the assets to the public?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Including working, functional businesses? Do we shut them down on a pre-determined timer and revert the assets to the public?

Harry is a socialist, after all. I'm sure he'd like that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Including working, functional businesses? Do we shut them down on a pre-determined timer and revert the assets to the public?

Certainly we don't "shut them down", but their ownership should revert to the state. As a good socialist I firmly believe that businesses should be run for the benefit of society, not for a "profit" motive.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly we don't "shut them down", but their ownership should revert to the state. As a good socialist I firmly believe that "the state should own the means of production".

Well, at least we've found our point of asymetry. Through careful analysis of history, the only way to maintain individual freedom is through a dispersion of economic and political power among many different groups. The more concentrated the power, the less free the society. Of course, too dispersed causes social disintergration. Always a careful balancing act.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If I start up a furniture-making business, my familiy can continue to benefit from that indefinitely after I die. Royalies are very like share ownership in many ways - both are "future income for past work".

Well, the business is passed on, but possible not the profits. For example, if it were a one man furniture making business and the funiture maker dies, certainly the business can still exist, but there is nothing to sell.

Even if it were a furniture shop. The shop still has to be run. It still has to produce furniture. Some one has to run it, make sales, manage the workers... train them. The business won't magically run if the dead owners work isn't replaced by someone else.

BOb

EDIT: Although I have to admit I have no idea what this has to do with copyright terms.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

EDIT: Although I have to admit I have no idea what this has to do with copyright terms.

Nothing really. Some people are just clueless and don't understand that physical property and "intellectual property" have nothing to do with each other.

[Jellby]

I'm not sure the copyright term should be life + anything. Something like a fixed 25, 30 or 50 years can be good enough. That could mean that something you write can be public domain before you die, yes... so what? you have had 25, 30 or 50 years to profit from it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Nothing really. Some people are just clueless and don't understand that physical property and "intellectual property" have nothing to do with each other.

Your arguments would be more convincing if you were to provide a reasoned explanation for your viewpoint, rather than simply asserting that anyone who disagrees with you is "clueless" .

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Jellby

I'm not sure the copyright term should be life + anything. Something like a fixed 25, 30 or 50 years can be good enough. That could mean that something you write can be public domain before you die, yes... so what? you have had 25, 30 or 50 years to profit from it.

I like the idea of life or 25 whichever is longer with maybe a small extension possible, maybe 5 years.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Your arguments would be more convincing if you were to provide a reasoned explanation for your viewpoint, rather than simply asserting that anyone who disagrees with you is "clueless" .

How many thousand times has this topic been discussed on here? I'm not trying to convince you, I realize that's futile. I just find your views entertaining.