I don't know whether the copyright period should be 14 years or forever. But what really pisses me off is that the new copyright period is always applied retrospectively. By extending the copyright retrospectively the government is giving wealth to the copyright-holders by taking it away from the non-copyright-holders.
When Walt Disney made Snow White in 1937 the copyright period was 56 years. That means he implicitly agreed to a contract with the public that said, "Mr Disney will get an exclusive right to publish and distribute this movie for 56 years, after which time anyone can do it". Like any contact that is freely entered into, it should not be altered. Arbitrarily extending the exclusivity period on this contract is just as wrong as reducing it.
If the government reduces company tax rates, does it refund companies that have paid the higher rate in previous years? No.
You want to make copyright last for 100 years? Fine, but it should only apply to works which are created from now on.
> There is no good reason for copyright to ever expire.
The case for limited copyright was laid down as early as the U.S. Constitution, and the Congressional Copyright Act of 1790. Lawrence Lessig has devoted much of his life's work to this exact question. It's also analyzed in this surprising and recent paper from the U.S. House Republican Study Committee, knocking down the three myths of copyright protection:
The protracted terms of modern copyright "protection" -- life plus 90 years, etc. -- stifles invention without rewarding creative artists, who are long dead and have no need for incentives to create new work.
Another commenter is entirely right on this about Disney. Much of Disney's own creative work (and enormous wealth) comes from repurposing the work of others: Carlo Collodi, the Brothers Grimm, Mark Twain, Joel Chandler, and on and on. We see Disney innovating in exactly the way the U.S. Founders intended in limiting copyright to 14 years.
Disney and the rest of Big Content, however, have paid lobbyists to lock up their own derivative works so that nobody can extend them in the way Disney reused the originals. It's a corporate scam, pure and simple, with manifold ill consequences for consumers and artists alike.
The incentives still exist in the present, even given a future when the creative artists are long dead. The ability to pass the rights down to descendants and the increase in the value of rights for the purposes of selling them to obtain cash can be significant incentives in the present.
That Disney is hypocritical in their support of extended copyrights is irrelevant. What we are left with is a law, which independent of how it was passed exists now. As rayiner points out -- what is the motivation for repealing it. Once we consider copyrights a form of property, it seems tenuous to put arbitrary limitations on them that do not apply to other forms of property.
Original US copyright law was for 14 years, with an optional extension for an additional 14. I think that's more than adequate for the original author to benefit from a government-created monopoly.
Sort of, but we normally think of monopolies in terms of controlling a market.
If I own a car, I may have a "monopoly" over a subsequent sale of that particular car, but it's an extremely limited market with n = 1. And the rationale for protecting my property rights here isn't just theft of my car would deprive me profits from resale, but that it would deprive me of actually using the car and driving around.
In contrast, intellectual property concerns the control of a particular market where n > 1. Copyright isn't necessary to protect my ability to use a particular copyrighted work -- I can still read my book, write sequels, etc. even if someone infringes. Rather, the rationale for copyright is to enable me to capture 100% of the profit from any market for my copyrighted work -- i.e. a monopoly.
"Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property" -- Bastiat
The idea being that proper governments recognize rights that already exist, they don't create those rights. One could argue that so-called intellectual property rights aren't rights that existed before governments created them.
The idea being that governments recognize rights that already exist, they don't create those rights.
I keep my copy of Hobbes bookmarked for occasions such as this.
Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.
And, a few paragraphs later, the refutation of your assertion:
To this war of every man against every man this also is consequent, that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ distinct, but only that to be every man’s that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it.
Without law, is fear of a violent reprisal the only thing that would 'keep you in line'?
There are countless opportunities for me every day to engage in risk free petty theft, yet I don't. Why don't I? It isn't fear of the law, since I have no fear of being caught, and it isn't fear of reprisal since, again, I have no fear of being caught.
No, I think the reason why I don't steal, even when I could, probably has something to do with the same underlying basis of all those "don't steal" laws. I mean, is it a coincidence that I, and those long dead lawmakers, both think that I shouldn't steal? I don't think the existence of the law has created in me this aversion to stealing either. I could cite for you countless examples where the law and I agree to disagree. It's neither fear nor respect of the law that keeps me (and I suspect, most people) from stealing.
>>Without law, is fear of a violent reprisal the only thing that would 'keep you in line'?
well... yeah. If not born into a society with established laws, there would be nothing engraining this idea that you may not take something somebody else is "using".
I'd be interested to see solid evidence supporting this theory. Without it, I'm sort of inclined to believe that people wouldn't settle into anarchist madness without someone telling them not to do that.
Whether or not the esoteric idea of "property" exists as some sort of natural law seems irrelevant. Philosophy aside, a society just agrees that something should be a certain way, and then decides to enforce that idea. To me this is all what modern liberalism representative governments try to be. I reject the need for an idea to exist as some magical entity apart from a society. The idea of property was invented by people and is seen as good and is agreed upon. Same with government. Neither are natural laws of the universe. So to me this whole argument is arguing over nothing.
Probably, but I am not sure. Actually the more I think about it, yes. But only according to one interpretation of what Hobbes says in the quoted passage. I agree that order can only exist when people agree on something. Hobbes calls it a "common power". However, one could interpret Hobbes as saying you need some kind of rigid construct to enforce order. Not really. People just have to agree. I was trying to say that that's the only reason property rights exist, because people agree on them, but that's also the only reason government exists. My point was that "property" and "government" are both just words, and whether or not "property" can exist without "government" depends on how you define them. So in my opinion the two people above me were arguing over nothing of consequence. I do not count philosophy among my strengths so sorry if this doesn't make any sense.
Said another way, if you define "government" as people agreeing on a rule, then no, property rights cannot exist outside of government. Or if they did, they would have no basis in reality so they're not worth thinking about. However, if you define "government" as a certain way of enforcement, or a way of codifying laws, or really any particular construct, then in that case property rights obviously do exist outside of government.
> I agree that order can only exist when people agree on something. Hobbes calls it a "common power". However, one could interpret Hobbes as saying you need some kind of rigid construct to enforce order. Not really. People just have to agree.
What Hobbes is saying is a bit more involved than that. He is saying that because people's nature (and self-interest in particular) mean that they will, in practice, not acheive universal agreement, you can't, in practice, have order without an entity which can enforce compliance with the general-but-not-universal agreement and punish defection from it, because otherwise even a general agreement will devolve into chaos. (He might have been more succinct and made reference to the "Tragedy of the Commons", except that that term wouldn't be coined for a little over three centuries after Hobbes wrote Leviathan, and even the historical events that motivated the term were still.)
> Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.
As there is no global government or other power, we can observe the relationships between people that have no common power and prove his assertion false.
For example, there is no one common power that controls all American and British people. Yet Americans and British people travel to each other's homes, have relationships with each other, trade with each other, and sometimes even move from one country to another. All of this is done peacefully, with no common power that controls both sides of the equation. Same thing with relationships between Swiss people and Japanese people, or Chinese people and Egyptians, or Brazilians and Indians, or anybody else that you choose.
If Hobbes' idea was true, wouldn't the relationship between two average people that have no common power be rather warlike rather than the mutually beneficially peaceful relationships that we see every day?
As there is no global government or other power, we can observe the relationships between people that have no common power and prove his assertion false.
Or we can observe that though someone may travel abroad, at home they are subject to a power (their home country's laws) and abroad they are subject to a power (the laws of the country they're visiting).
And then we can observe that your analogy really works best with the countries themselves, and of course the history of international relations is full of countries respecting each others' territory, sovereignty, etc. without any need for some third party to exercise power and hold them in check. Right?
I have never read Hobbes but it sounds like his notion 'Common Power' could be more than a governing entity. Although trade is done peacefully without bloodshed I think that smaller societies realize that refusal to go along with larger societies' best interest would mean war, obviously this would not be good for the smaller society. So smaller societies co-operate and trade because they know they are better off doing so.
Which is why I think that phrase in the Declaration of Independence is philosophically deceptive, and perhaps deliberately so. To someone who does consent to most or all other their government's actions, it will give them a warm fuzzy feeling. To someone who doesn't consent, even if they're in the minority, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What's the real philosophy there? Is it really just that, if 50% plus one person consents to the government, everything is cool, but if one less person consents, they are all obligated to alter or abolish it?
Anarchists typically have a concept of "possession" (as opposed to "property", a concept that comparatively fewer anarchists support), if that is what you are asking.
"Possession", as a concept used by anarchists, has always seemed rather poorly defined (surprise surprise), but if we are willing to permit some very slight anthropomorphism, there are non-human examples of the recognition of a concept that we could reasonably call "possession". It seems therefore that whatever "possession" may be, it is a concept that can exist in the absence of governments.
It, like many things in political philosophy, depends on your definition of "property" and "government." In fact, I would argue that most "big debates" in political philosophy come down to semantic arguments over these terms and related ones like "rights."
But using a vague definition for government like "resources which most of society recognizes to be under the rightful possession of a specific individual or group and for which most of society expects attempted trespasses to be met with violence from the possessor or people serving the interests of the possessor" and a vague definition for (at least modern Western) government like "the organizations which are funded primarily by taxation and which have the sole legal authority to make and implement policy," both of which I think line up with most people's everyday definitions, I would say that property predates government and can easily be conceived of in modern times without government.
Enforcing a monopoly requires the application of violence to maintain it. In the absence of violence, anybody may compete.
Physical property rights, as an example, exist at all times in the absence of force. To physically take something from someone you must use violence in one form or another. That ownership is not granted by the government, it's granted by my having acquired it without using any form of violence to get it, and you must take the thing from me to change that.
The government doesn't guarantee I'll always own my property, they provide no guarantee to a monopoly over my car. A thief can come and steal it, and I may never see that car again. The government will not then replace it. The government provides justice, not property guarantees.
I don't understand this comment at all. How do physical property rights exist in the absence of force? How are you yourself not demonstrating that they don't when you talk about thieves stealing your property?
My response would be that violence-enforced monopolies on scarce resources like land and physical objects are more "natural" than those on non-scarce resources like digital media. Note that I don't mean to appeal to nature, because I'm not concluding that one is more "right" than the other. But considering territorial animals practice monopolies on scarce resources enforced by violence, it's clear that government is not a strict requirement for violence-enforced monopolies of scarce resources (unless we propose a very loose definition of "government" that includes the social activity of territorial animals).
The Founding Fathers didn't. In their view, government exists to secure rights, not to grant them.
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Is that the case? I thought social contract theory was primarily a response to the moral crisis experienced by Enlightenment philosophers upon the realization that government does many things which appear to be clear violations of "natural" rights.
There is no good reason for copyright to ever expire. That is to say, the economic framework that's well-accepted in policy circles has no way to express the value of letting copyright expire. So copyright keeps getting extended, because it's "obvious."
Let me put it another way. Why don't physical property rights expire? The argument of: "well then other people could use them!" doesn't fly, because the same thing applies to physical property. So long as Disney keeps making use of Mickey Mouse, what economic reason is there to give someone else a crack at the character? Would it create more economic value? What economic theory tells us that?
You can talk about "bribery" all you want, but at base there is a theoretical problem. The accepted belief is that there are no downsides to protecting property rights, and there is no way to express the value of allowing property rights to expire without sounding like a crunchy hippie.
If physical property could be copied and used without depriving its owner of its use, then I would be absolutely all for the abolition of physical property rights. After all, if I could simply take a copy of whatever you possessed without depriving you of possession or use of it, then why would anyone have any need to actually own anything? Our entire concept of property rights are predicated on the existence of scarcity; no such scarcity exists for intellectual property.
Justifying intellectual property through the analogy of physical property is flawed, as they are inherently different beasts.
That said, your core argument is entirely spot-on - our economic framework that is accepted in policy circles doesn't see the economic value of letting copyright expire. I'd also suggest that policymakers are rarely (if ever) dispassionate and unbiased; at the end of the day, their view of the world is closely aligned with the view of those who keep them in office through campaign contributions and whatnot. It doesn't even have to be as explicit as bribery - simply the fact that Congressmen (out of necessity) run in circles with wealthy people who have an interest in preventing the expiration of copyright is enough to color their opinions and views in favor of that particular position, even if they never knowingly accept a bribe.
Recognize that copyrights clash with basic property rights. Why can't I use my computer or printer however I wish, even if that means copying existing content?
The reason is a fundamental tradeoff -- we've accepted a bargain to deny ourselves some fundamental property rights temporarily under the theory that, in the long run, we'll get more innovation and content and further the "progress of science and useful arts", as the US constitution puts it.
If we're not making that progress, then it no longer becomes a tradeoff, and the laws are simply breaking property rights for no reason.
So, yes, if you care at all about property rights there's a very good reason to believe in limiting copyrights.
> Recognize that copyrights clash with basic property rights.
Like all property rights, copyright is a socially constructed privilege to exclude others from certain actions, and, like all property rights, every copyright interest limits everyone else's freedom, including the freedom to derive utility from their property.
This is a very real tradeoff with copyright, but it is exactly the same kind of tradeoff that exists with all property rights, not something special to copyright vs. other property rights.
What, specifically, are the "basic property rights" that copyrights clash with?
I ask because the general statement of "use my ... however I wish" is obviously way too broad; I can't use my computer to commit fraud, or my printer to print dollars. More generally, I would say the distilled basic property right is to use my property in a way that does not violate anyone else's rights or break any laws.
The most basic property right is the right to exclude others from the use of your property, and in that sense, if we accept that "intellectual property" is property, then it seems to apply there too.
I don't think I'm the only one in this thread who saw rayiner's comment and felt instinctive disgust followed by grudging admiration -- the idea there is really messing with my while framework for thinking about copyrights.
"I don't think I'm the only one in this thread who saw rayiner [...]"
Uhm, no. Like many of rayiners "arguments" it's authoritative rhetorical bullshit. He frames the question, makes some assertions that aren't backed up and leaves the burden of proof on the reader. If you look closely you'll find he's not even taking much of a position on the subject. So even if you manages to disapprove what he's claiming you'll end up in a discussion you can't win since he's the one making up the rules as you go along. Actually this is quite similar to how copyright keeps getting extended.
When you commit fraud or print fake dollars, you're interfering with other people's property rights in fairly clear ways. It's an obvious harm. When you sing Happy Birthday to your grandmother, or make a mix tape for your girlfriend, you're creating value through the use of your property. Property rights are especially relevant when you're not affecting others in any way in your own privacy, but copyrights can even interfere with that.
It's not just property rights that copyrights interfere with, of course, there are also other basic fundamental rights being diminished. Freedom of speech is an obvious example.
This isn't an argument against all copyright. It's merely pointing out that there's a tradeoff, and every now and again we should ask "is it worth it?"
I suspect what rayiner means is that copyright should never expire for American corporations. Also, the Brothers Grimm would probably qualify as "crunchy hippies" in his book, so it's not like they were worthwhile people.
rayiner has the qualifier "So long as Disney keeps making use of Mickey Mouse". I assume that's not the case for the Brothers Grimm. I'm not a fan of Disney's practices, but rayiner makes a good point.
Is this continued use restricted to corporations, or is continued use by the estate or descendants sufficient? Would Tolkien need to form a corporation to handle the rights to his works in order to pass control of those works on to his children?
Continued use by estate or children should suffice. The great^6 grandchildren of the Grimms can't just show up one day and say "oh, those stories belong to me" any more than they could show up at some old house and claim they own it. It would be to the benefit of the rights' owners to register (for a fee, that could be more than token) the copyright and keep it updated, precisely to prevent the long lost cousin from showing up and demanding a piece.
Passing on such an abstract concept, generation to generation, with safeguards against rogue cousins coming in out of the woodwork? I wonder what the world would look like today if this Intellectual Property Feudalism were implemented centuries ago.
I'm confused. More than one person can use "intellectual property" at the same time, which isn't quite true for physical property.
Also, I'm confused why this is an "economic value" issue. I was under the impression copyright existed solely for the benefit of the public, "to promote the sciences and useful arts" as I read.
You've got more insight than I do, so further elaboration would be greatly appreciated.
If I own a huge piece of land, it is also true that many people may use that property; but that does not make my right to that property expire at some point. There might be an argument in the limit as the marginal cost of reproduction drops to zero, or even that the cost of reproduction is borne entirely by the consumer.
The purpose of "intellectual property" protection is a valid point, though. I think that the greatest victory of the pro-"intellectual property" is simply calling it "intellectual property", thereby tainting it with thousands of years of philosophy of what "property" is.
In the US, the constitutional basis for these rights is not the same as physical property rights. In fact, in addition to being limited in time and scope, it is explicitly to promote the general advancement of the arts and sciences... you might not like that as a reason, but that is the reason.
And alas, the European Convention on Human rights dies not have any limitation on copyright like the USA, nor mention the motivation for having copyright at all! There are some parts if USA constitutional law that are nice.
Indeed, there are many good points. That doesn't stop the MPAA lobbying to have "limited" interpreted as "forever minus one day", but at least it's in there.
The point of copyright is to encourage the creation of new works (called content these days). If Disney can just keep making money off Mickey Mouse forever and use that money to crowd newer ideas out of the market, I would argue that we're significantly poorer as a society than if new and original creations were being made.
If Mickey Mouse is the most original idea that can be thought of and it's not possible to create new art without repurposing it, I'd say we already are that significantly poorer society. Why is it so necessary that artists be able to remix Mickey Mouse? Go make something better.
If remixing Disney signals some abysmal state of society, what does that say about Disney?
DJs should be free to remix pop songs as they like and everything is gravy, but if a DJ dares remix another DJ's work then suddenly we are a poorer society? Absurd.
Disney's abysmal. Who cares? This is the same as the "artists who let people torrent their songs will crush the RIAA" argument. Go ahead and let the RIAA be crushed by these new artists. Everybody hates Disney, but yet cares very strongly that Disney be forced to make new material instead of just fading away.
I have no idea how your second paragraph relates to my comment.
> the "artists who let people torrent their songs will crush the RIAA" argument.
What? I have absolutely no idea what this is suppose to mean and/or refer to.
The second section of my comment is pointing out that Disney remixes, yet you seem to think remixing Disney would be a symptom of some sort of awful state of society. If remixing evidences that, then why do we need further evidence of it? Remixing Disney media would just be continuing in the same vein as Disney.
An artistically vibrant society should be able to create new art without remixing Disney. Nothing in the preceding statement should be construed as a comment on Disney's own artistic vibrancy or lack thereof.
Artistically vibrant societies have always remixed, and always will. We live in a society that values what Disney has done; we live in a society that has traditionally valued remixing.
It's less about forcing other people to make something newer and better (which happens all the time) as it is to force Disney to make something newer and better, instead of just continuing to cash in on their original idea. That gives them a huge advantage over newcomers and disincentivises the creation of something new inside Disney.
Replace copyright with monopoly and your argument is equally sensible. Using textbook micro, the cost of copyright is clear. The copyright on Mickey Mouse raises the cost of goods featuring it. In a world without copyright, my expenditure on Mickey Mouse videos will decrease likely resulting in consuming somewhat more Mickey Mouse videos but for lower total cost and deploying some of the saved money to other goods that I desire. Hence, I will consume more of that good and a greater variety at the same income making me better off.
I'm not sure how to gauge whether I sound like a crunchy hippie, but I'll try not to.
It's nice that children and hobbyists can read and perform Twelfth Night without paying gratuitous royalties to a company that is now completely unrelated to the long-dead William Shakespeare. It would be nice if, in 3013, children and hobbyists could read and perform The Lady's Not For Burning without paying royalties to a company that is by then completely unrelated to Christopher Fry.
Of course there's a good reason: copyright exists to motivate the production of creative works, but creators typically are not motivated by the thought of royalties 80 years down the road.
Also, real/personal and intellectual property differ enough that I don't think the analogy from your second paragraph is particularly instructive. For example, with physical property I can't think of any obvious analogs to remixes and derived works.
> But they probably wouldn't be less motivated by longer expirations.
Sure they would be: properties that are valuable more than a handful of years after they are first published are rare enough that the chance of achieving that is a minor factor in motivation, but the existence of such properties under extended protection both reduces the potential for and reduces the market value of new works, reducing the motivation for new creators more than the slight chance of producing such a work increases it.
> But they probably wouldn't be less motivated by longer expirations.
If expirations were shorter, say 20 or 30 years after the publication of a work, wouldn't creators be motivated to keep creating so as to not suddenly lose a stream of income?
Wow, I had a visceral, negative gut reaction to this comment. But upon further reflection it's actually an interesting point I'd never considered. So, hm, thanks.
> So long as Disney keeps making use of Mickey Mouse, what economic reason is there to give someone else a crack at the character?
You seem to be confusing trademarks and copyright. Disney characters are in fact protected in perpetuity as long as Disney continues to use them commercially.
The copyright question is the question of whether Disney can keep control over specific works like Steamboat Willie, or whether they will start to enter the public domain.
> the economic framework that's well-accepted in policy circles has no way to express the value of letting copyright expire
Nonsense. The definition of copyright is a legal monopoly on the production of copies of a work. It has long been understood by economists that monopolies legal or not, incentives rent-seeking and disrupt a markets natural trend towards natural prices.
All kinds of physical property rights do expire -- leasehold interests, life estates, etc., are, after all, property rights -- though most common subjects of physical property have some person somewhere holding a "root" set of property rights which are held in fee simple and thus do not expire in the most simplistic sense (though many items of physical property have ad valorem taxes assessed on their value, which is essentially a means of property rights gradually expiring; this is particularly common with real property.)
The reason fee simple ownership as the general norm is the case is largely that the capitalist class, as it was developing and feudalism was declining, amassed sufficient resources and influence to direct government to further enhance the capitalist class's ability to continue to amass resources and influence by reforming property to favor that situation.
This is what happens when you confuse objects in the physical world with those in the information world.
Physical rights don't expire because it entails deprivation of use. But copyright expiration doesn't eliminate your right to create, distribute, or sell -- it simply extends these capabilities to others.
that argument maybe applies when you have a company such as Disney making a tangible economic benefit (to both the corporation and the economy at large) - although it's arguable whether breaking the monopoly gives more overall economic gain than what Disney loses.
but even assuming that it does, it only works when there's a huge empire providing thousands of jobs themed around a work, right? so how do you codify the difference between Mickey and $random_forgotten_book_from_1920, from which releasing copyright could only be a good thing for the economy?
I am beginning to think it should work like trademark, you own it as long as you are using it. Once you stop using it you have a short(in the case of trademark it is 3 years, but I could see 10-20 years being good for copyright) time before you lose it. That way it does what it should entice people to produce useful works, and let those works go free when they are no longer of use to the original author.
Physical property rights do expire. The builder gets paid for each new creation only once. He doesn't make one building and get paid every time someone wants to visit it, for example.
Physical property rights can and do expire. If you throw something away, you don't own it anymore. If someone squats in your property for many years they get more rights. Physical goods often have a natural degradation with time, unlike copyright. I wish copyright was as weak as physical property rights.
Isn't the estate tax essentially a way for a portion of that to go back to the people? People die, and have to pass their belongings on, and pay a tax when they do. Corporations don't die, so they have an unfair advantage over people.
There is no good reason for copyright to ever expire.
This is wholly wrong. There are entire classes of good where marginal consumption does not dilute the value of average consumption. The purpose of copyrights is to subsidize (temporarily) the production of such goods. This under the theory that they would not otherwise be (or only inefficiently) be produced. Certainly mickey mouse needs no further encouragement...extending DIS an ongoing franchise is pure and simple pork-barrel-politics to the governing class that relies on the media (eg, ABC a DIS subsidiary) to get elected (and/or the electoral votes of Florida).
The reason copyright is not supposed to be forever, is because everyone builds on previous works. Nothing is 100 percent original. Maybe not even 20 percent original, if you really start deconstructing something and rip the most fundamental ideas out of the "new" creation.
Plus, if you then again allow others to build on the more recently "invented" stuff, then you get even more ideas and creations, as a society, which is why there's this "agreement" that copyright works should go into public domain. But corporations, who don't invent anything themselves, want to be able to exploit those works forever.
This is why I support Sweden's Pirate Party's idea [1] to limit copyright to 5 years, and then allow creators to extend it every 5 years up to 20 years, for a fee each time, because then you wouldn't end up with problems like these, where the vast majority of works become abandonware that nobody can use for almost a century to at least remix them:
There's no economic axiom that says existing copyright holders inherently generate maximum economic value from a copyright, either.
Why give someone else a crack at it? There are a lot of excellent reasons, here's two: 1) Because competition is always a good thing in the private sector. It has been demonstrated constantly throughout free market economic history that competition generates greater innovation, as opposed to the lack of competition. 2) It's a massive net benefit to a nation's culture to have copyrights expire such that the public can own its history (and individuals can then do with it as they please), of which characters such as Mickey Mouse are a part.
But we would not say "let's allow any shoe manufacturer to use the Nike swoosh, because competition is always good." There is economic value in being able to reliably identify Nike products, and the only "innovation" other firms could bring to the swoosh is to mislead customers. Copyright is like trademarks in that it is part of the brand of the firm.
On the other hand, I completely agree we should own our history. For example, the purported owners of "Happy Birthday" are pure rentiers. They have no brand to protect and add no economic value. The copyright on that song should have expired long ago.
I think a good compromise is "use it or lose it." A copyright expires after some period of disuse by the holder. At that point it can be said to have passed into history, and is owned by everyone.
We are now really comparing physical property rights with copyright? I have property rights to this copy of a banana, so it follows someone should have a right to all bananas?
Isn't the scope and intrusion worth considering?
(I ignored the part on economic theory because first of all 1) you're likely wrong on your assumptions 2) none of it is applicable to lawmakers as they exist today, they are not science-, but ideology-driven)
I don't really have much of a problem with Mickey Mouse getting an infinite copyright extension. I do, however, have a problem with the fallout to everything else. What I'd like to see is the following:
First, under current copyright law, copyright is granted automatically without having to register for one. This makes it complicated to track down the copyright holder if you want to get permission to use a work. But I can see the benefits, so that people don't get exploited as free creative labor just because they aren't professionals who can navigate the copyright registration process.
But, what would be beneficial is for any unregistered work to have a shorter copyright term before it falls into public domain. Then, require re-registration of each work in order to extend copyright on it. That way, abandoned / worthless works will fall into the public domain automatically, and valuable works can still be protected, but at a cost. Just like a bank charges you an annual fee for a safe deposit box, the government should charge for granting copyright protection on a recurring basis.
I support the current "automatic copyright without needing to be registered" system. I think it helps the little guy, and if we switched to a "copyright on registration" system only big professional companies would ensure they dot their i's and cross their t's, the little guy who takes a photo at would probably not register it, and would have no copyright protection.
I agree completely, but should that copyright last over a hundred years? If you haven't sold that picture in 20 years, why not let it fall into the public domain (assuming you have already published it)? Now if it is unpublished, then it should stay with the author, from a pure privacy standpoint.
Songwriters everywhere would hate this. :-) I speak from the recent experience of trying to register one cd of seven songs, some of which were previously released on my website, some of which weren't, some of which had lyrics previously published, some of which weren't. The email threads with the library of congress on how to properly register, and how to properly amend my previous registrations, are legendary. If a songwriter with 50-100 (or more) songs were given a semi-short registration expiration, they'd never get anything done.
When I mentioned shorter, I meant shorter than "life of the author plus [bignum] years". My main concern is to figure out how to track down the original author, and also for preservation efforts (esp old films that are rotting away, and no one can archive copies of them legally if the "copyright holder" can't be tracked down, or is unknown).
An alternative could be compulsory licensing of unregistered works that are beyond a given age. So that if someone uses it, and no one comes by to claim it is theirs, then all is good. But if a copyright holder shows up (and can prove ownership), then appropriate fees can be transferred at a standard rate.
There's actually a chance that congress is in a state where they could reject another retroactive extension. The two forces that could crush it are 1) public interest backlash, as we saw with SOPA, getting a chunk of democrats who aren't on the industry payroll and 2) the 'corporate welfare' argument that gets the tea party republicans. Congress is in a state of near-anarchy right now, since the traditional 'stick' of earmarks doesn't exist to keep the ideological members in line, and for once it could work out in the public's interests.
Imagine harder. Snow White and Cinderella were both compiled in Grimm's Fairy Tales, which was so popular that the brothers produced 7 editions over more than 40 years. It was the Harry Potter of its day. And yet, when Walt Disney was casting about, trying to find a story that would make the first ever full-length animated feature, there was Snow White, published 120 years before, just sitting in the public domain. Absolutely top quality "intellectual property" available for free, and Disney seized the opportunity. I may be painfully naïve, but I can see that happening again.
That's a good way of keeping track of who owns what and getting stuff out into the public domain if it's an orphaned work.
But it doesn't do anything to stop the infinite copyright of books or movies or music. There's no reason that I couldn't write a book and assign the rights to a corporation which could then pay $1/year on it for as long as the US continues to exist.
I think there needs to be some kind of mechanism that eventually forces copyrighted works into the public domain. And it should probably be less than a lifetime.
After visiting Disney World, it is shocking to think how much money-generating activity is associated with those 3 circles that make up the Mickey Mouse sillouhette. I would imagine there is a compelling argument to make for preserving exiting business infrastructure associated with that and similar existing IP to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions over time.
I disagree with that argument, but I could imagine some folks in congress letting that be what compels them.
It's not clear that it's actually generating money, as opposed to transferring money to Disney from other people.
There is certainly a compelling argument to make for preserving something that generates a lot of wealth. Not so much for preserving something that merely transfers a lot of wealth to an already very wealthy business.
Couldn't the Mickey Mouse image be protected as trademark (which is infinite, as long as it is defended)? Even if the old films fall into the public domain, Disney could use trademark to keep people from creating new non-approved films.
I've argued this point with friends for years. Individual characters (Mickey Mouse, Bart Simpson, James Bond, etc) and the like would be trademarked, and could only be used in new works by the trademark holder. Those works, however, would be released into the public domain after x years.
My understanding is that this whole debate is a bit sensationalized, because, whether their copyright expires or not, Disney will still hold a trademark--which exists indefinitely--on the likeness of Mickey Mouse. The issue at stake is their hold over the copyright of the original Steamboat Willie films--that's what the copyright is set to expire on.
Yes, it would be very hard for Disney to exist if they lost IP rights to the likeness of Mickey Mouse, but they won't, because he's trademarked, and trademark exists to ensure that companies retain rights to the branding and art crucial to their operation and the identification of their business. Should Mickey Mouse slip into the public domain? I don't think anybody would argue that. But should the Steamboat Willie cartoons, a cultural landmark now nearing a century old, become common property? A lot more people would argue yes.
My outline here is probably lacking some accuracy and precision, because I'm not an expert. If there are any details I've missed, please do let me know.
While components of the federal budget have intense lobbying efforts dedicated to them, the budget as a whole doesn't. Which is why there's no incentive to pass a full budget: there's no bribery in it, and lots of political points to score by refusing and blaming the other guys.
The copyright lobby, on the other hand, is a reliable bribe source every time they want something. So I'd expect an extension to just glide on through.
Let's say the copyright period is not extended. Perhaps the government should then auction off the rights to Snow White, rather than putting it into the public domain. That is, Disney could buy a 25-year copyright extension, but they would have to pay through the nose for it.
I like the idea of being able to watch Snow White on Youtube for free, but I prefer the idea of significantly boosting cancer research.
That would require the government to take ownership of Snow White - that is, it would require that after a certain amount of time, all copyrighted works become the property of the government, who may then be under some mandate to auction it off or whatnot.
Maybe some folks would be okay with this, but I would much rather my creations be owned by no one after a certain period than that the government just exercises some form of eminent domain over my property to take possession of it.
That kind of implies that everything we create inherently belongs to the government, "they" let us use it for the period of copyright, and then it's theirs again to sell off. I can make a case for copyright ending and creative works no longer having an owner, but I can't make a case (philosophically) for them to automatically belong to the government.
But in a democracy the government isn't "they", it is "we". If we all have the right to copy and distribute a particular creative work, then we can collectively decide to trade that right for something we find more valuable (such as cancer research).
This article misses an important point. The reason that Sonny Bono was interested in extending copyright is that he was a scientologist, and the Church of Scientology is deathly afraid of their works reaching the public domain. If I remember correctly, they were among the main lobbyists for the last extension.
I'd rather Congress vote on specific exceptions rather than blanket it for everything. I'm one to believe our culture actually is for the poorer due to the lack of historical works entering the public domain. The problem is that it's a counterfactual, so we wouldn't really know if it were true.
Why aren't characters trademarked instead of copyrighted? I feel like it would make so much more sense. Disney can have Mickey Mouse for as long as it wants, but the company has little to no financial need to keep 100-year-old cartoons out of the public domain.
That's close to how I'd like to see it work. My system:
1. The copying right would have a shorter term. Maybe go back to 28 years with perhaps one renewal term.
2. The derivative work right would have a very long term.
3. Fair use would be expanded to explicitly recognize things sampling, parody, and the like. (Yes, I know this would be tricky to do well).
I think this strikes a good balance between making cultural works readily available and affordable, and saving us from seeing a poorly animated Calvin and Hobbes selling breakfast cereal to kids in TV ads.
The biggest problem is that Disney is paying the lawmakers (in contributions) for these permanent rights, but not paying the people (the citizens) who grant them. This needs to be taxed. It's property they say? Property taxes.
This fixes almost everything about copyright terms.
Is there any kind of distinguishment between characters and singular works? While I can see both sides for characters remaining copyrighted, I don't see much of a good reason why a singular work like steamboat willie should still be under lock and key.
At this point, I would be actually happy for Disney IP to be in copyright forever, as long as they leave the copyright law alone and works start entering public domain again.
When Walt Disney made Snow White in 1937 the copyright period was 56 years. That means he implicitly agreed to a contract with the public that said, "Mr Disney will get an exclusive right to publish and distribute this movie for 56 years, after which time anyone can do it". Like any contact that is freely entered into, it should not be altered. Arbitrarily extending the exclusivity period on this contract is just as wrong as reducing it.
If the government reduces company tax rates, does it refund companies that have paid the higher rate in previous years? No.
You want to make copyright last for 100 years? Fine, but it should only apply to works which are created from now on.