Hey copyright hoarders. We had a deal. The society granted you a limited time monopoly in exchange for the works going into the public domain after this time. You broke this deal by hands of corrupt politicians. I do not feel obliged to keep my end of this deal anymore.
Which isn't likely to be a concern anymore, since most people here would be smart enough to either use a private tracker (which isn't selected) or to use some filehost like rapidshare.
Obviously the labels are doing it for themselves, but even their argument that they're doing it for the (very old) artists isn't a good one. The purpose of the copyright was to ultimately create a richer culture, and to do that they needed artists to create works of art, but once they do that, the period of time for which they own the copyright should be optimized for "minimization" not maximization, so the society at large can benefit from them.
Copyiright was designed to ultimately help the society. Helping the artists protect their works is just a step towards that goal, not the goal itself. But sadly the labels are trying to make protecting the works the ultimate and only goal of copyright, because they get to benefit even more than the artists themselves from that.
I think that the advertisement incident in the UK a few yeats back was telling. A full page advert with a list of artists that supposedly supported the copyright extension. People noticed that some of the artists on the list weren't even alive, and some artists came out that they were never asked if they supported it or not.
I just want to point one thing: As China is becoming the super-power (engine of the world), their view how copyright should be handled will become prevalent.
In other words, the majority of money to be made will be in Chindia and not in Europe and US. We need to prepare for that.
The USA will find the weapon of IP law etc. it has been building all over the world turned against it.
One would expect China and India to follow USA commercial practice and use the established structures of IP. But USA-IP is not intended to be good economics in the real sense, it is supposed to benefit the USA. When the USA is a net importer, it will be the loser. It will start to disavow international IP.
But IP is fairly dumb in an information economy so it must die out in the not too distant future anyway.
Historically speaking, it is far more likely than in 10-20 years, China will "see the light" and institute much stronger IP laws, once they have more stuff to protect, because your proposal is unstable; if the US starts disrespecting Chinese copyright, the historical outcome is a treaty, not mutual disrespect. If mutual disrespect were the stable outcome, we'd already see that.
FTA: They've sold out the public, who they're supposed to represent.
People keep saying this like its an opinion. This is the central fact of modern day politicians and government bureaucrats. Lets stop fucking talking about it. Lets get a voter measure on the ballot to criminalize it.
I don't believe that a living creator should have to suffer their creations going into the public domain. Once dead, however, their works should transition to the public domain.
All creations are a product of the culture they are produced in. Originality is an illusion in this sense.
What suffering occurs, exactly, when works enter the public domain? The public domain does not prevent works from being sold, for example. The author of a work loses exclusivity but he does not lose the right to benefit from the work.
A big problem with copyright is the name - it sounds like it concerns a "right" when in fact it is a privilege granted (in the US) by the Constitution. To quote the FSF, if copyright were a right, "nothing could justify terminating this right after a certain period of time".
You ought to question that belief with some careful thinking -- economic and moral.
Copyright restricts access to goods -- that is bad. It only makes sense to do that in so far as it is counterbalanced by doing some good -- supporting production. That is something to weigh up by evidence, and the lifespan of the creator seems not particularly germane.
And what exactly is being 'suffered'? If you look carefully, you will find nothing there. The loss of control of the work? But you only expect that control because of the current law. You cannot justify that expectation based on itself. The connection between creator and creation is abstract. Using a creation hurts the creator no more than poking a voodoo doll of them.
You might say you still 'feel' hurt by uncontrolled use. But by restricting other people's use you are very directly, materially, controlling them. Ought there not to be a good reason for telling someone else what they can or cannot do? Is some vague 'sense' or 'feeling' enough? It really does not seem to weigh up in favour of the creator.
And one cannot simply say that other people are irrelevant, that it is only about what is right for the creator. Laws or rules are not made to serve one (kind of) individual but to serve everyone -- otherwise why should everyone have any interest in obeying them?
I don't believe that all the other living creators should be forced to wait until someone's death before building, extending,transforming,sampling,etc their work.
Public domain concept is very similar reasoning open source, individuals contribute to the group cause the group result is far greater than individuals.
The assumption with creative works is that the creator didn't create in a vacuum. They in fact, draw on a rich set of creations, experiences, etc of society. One's creations aren't entirely their own. Society recognizes the effort though and grants creators specific rights for a limited time. But, eventually (and no not a 150 hrs later) creations must return to the wellspring from which they originated, aka the public domain.
So if I express myself by writing I get life + 70, but by playing I get a flat 50? Why the differing value judgment?
I'm a firmly amateur musician so this isn't relevant to me, but as it happens I do as much improvisation as formal writing; there is a distinct anomaly exposed here, to my mind.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the copyright system, I strongly feel that the level of rights a creator receives should be equal regardless of their means of creation; the moral logic for preferencing one form of publishing over another in law seems entirely absent, to me.
> So if I express myself by writing I get life + 70, but by playing I get a flat 50? Why the differing value judgment?
Within this context, I believe the logic is you are playing someones written composition. If it's yours, then it's protected as normal. If it's not, then you merely performed a creation.
Specifically though, if you decide to record Beethoven's Fifth, which I believe is in the public domain, YOU get a 50 year copyright on your performance of it. Whatever unique aspects of it you added, whatever nuance, that's yours, and belongs to you, licensable, sellable only by you, for the period of 50 years. Nobody else can duplicate your performance exactly, unless in doing so, they are also duplicating the original performance exactly.
I've thought a compromise would be nice, where after 14 or 28 years the works would become available for reuse and derivation, but the creator would have a limited right of refusal for e.g. political or pornographic derivative works until after their death.
>... the creator would have a limited right of refusal for e.g. political or pornographic derivative works...
A law that explicitly discriminates against political works would likely violate the First Amendment. See, e.g., R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), holding that content-based regulations are presumptively invalid.
Any time period is going to be essentially arbitrary... but it seems to me that 20 years like patents, or maybe 30 years is plenty of time for the creator to derive value in the marketplace from their work.
These were never meant to be eternal, for good reason, and constantly extending them to me seems very corrupt... that this is favoring one group's interests over another.
This can (and has been) modeled using future value analysis (from economics). Since future payments are discounted (based on interest and inflation), extending copyright means that the value now of creating a new work increases but by smaller and smaller amounts. Somewhere in the 15-30 year range is about "right" according to most studies -- the additional value of even an infinite extension is minimal at this point.
Then there's the economic value of a work: very few copyrighted works have an economic life of one year, let alone a century. This is particularly true since copyright protections were extended to all works rather than just those which were registered with a copyright office (this post is copyrighted, however my economic interest in it is nil, still, it will extend for the next 120 years).
The real argument for extensions is copyright term in works of enduring value whose copyright is about to expire. This is the "Mickey Mouse Copyright Law" in the US. Walt Disney's first Mickey Mouse cartoon, "Steamboat Willie" (itself borrowing very heavily from earlier works) was published in 1928, and there's been a strong trend in extension to prevent works from at least this date from ever entering the public domain.
This results in the exceptionally strong protections of copyright being extended to a huge volume of valueless (and often ownerless in the sense that no true owner can be identified or contacted) to protect a very small number of works of enduring economic value, though by no means does this promote the directive in the US Constitution "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" (other nations have their own justifications).
While I'd love to see copyright terms just tuned down across the board, I could deal with a system whereby the next extensions required explicit renewals. For practicality's sake I might even be willing to put up with allowing owners to file one form for their entire catalog rather than enumerating everything, because if nothing else at least this would clear the zombie owner backlog.
I agree with this and I think you could even scale the fee for renewal up over time to discourage just automatic renewal of stuff that has almost no commercial value anymore. Seriously I could care less if disney wants to keep paying for steamboat willie to stay copyrighted as long as the fee keeps going up making them think about the value of doing so.
Initial copyright, until 1976, was for 28 years, registration required, with one renewal allowed for a total of 56 years (if I recall correctly).
While registration is still possible in the US (and is required for certain damages), it's not required. I agree that this would help greatly in addressing the matter of "orphan works".
