# Former Copyright Boss Thinks The World Owes Him A Living **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 30, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333 "2012-09-30T20:34:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2012, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/81 "2012-10-03T23:01:00Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Almost none of those images have any value at all (even if you are the next Ansel Adams). If you want to keep them private, then you can do so and there’s no need for copyright. If you want to make money off of them, then they must have some value and you can afford to pay the fee. …why? Because you said so? No thanks: the current system works fine thanks. I don’t want to keep them private: but I don’t want other people to make money off them either. Considering I’m displaying thousands of images online and in different forum at the moment: the impact of this “thought experiment” would be that thousands of images shared in places like 500px and Flickr would get taken down. Its not gonna happen. Its a stupid idea. Who is going to manage the fee? How are you going to get something like the Berne Convention signed over this idea? Its not gonna happen not because of big business but because the idea is unworkable. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2012, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/82 "2012-10-03T23:02:26Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Cite for anyone suggesting stealing IP is acceptable, please? > > In case you’re one of the idiots who don’t know what that means, stealing IP is taking someone else’s IP, and passing it off as your own, for profit. _Not_ piracy. Actually Holden Caulfield did in an infamous thread. I asked him some specifics of what violation of IP rights he considered acceptable and he did agree that he should be able to take someone’s work, copy andsell it to make money. It had something to do with no one develops ideas in a vacuum (although the idea that for a copyright the idea must be sutably unique escaped him) or maybe that once he own the copy of a book, article, song, etc. he believes he also owns the ideas within or maybe that you can’t own IP because it is intangible and copy a tangible object (like building your own car) isn’t illegal (let’s not get into patent law please) I never figured it out but one person here has suggested stealing IP is acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2012, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/83 "2012-10-03T23:09:30Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I never figured it out but one person here has suggested stealing IP is acceptable. Huh. I must have missed that one. That’s just fucking crazy. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/84 "2012-10-03T23:18:03Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Huh. I must have missed that one. That’s just fucking crazy. I gave him 3 scenerios. One was stealing IP to sell for profit. One was pirating IP to avoid paying the IP holder. One was copying IP that was no longer available. He said all three should be acceptable. I think he also used a free speech argument in that preventing him from giving away another’s IP violated his freedom of speech. I also imagine he feels that the laws against stealing violates his 5th Amendment right to take other people’ possessions. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2012, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/85 "2012-10-03T23:34:28Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Copyright law protects the creative expression component. There can be creative expression in software just like there can be in a story. A lot of software _is_ a story. And a lot of it isn’t. > [@Baal\_Houtham](#): > > I’m much more sympathetic to the idea of Christopher Tolkien controlling (and benefiting) from his father’s work, than I am to tossing the rights into the wind so that everyone can try to make money off LOTR in any fashion. And I suspect that JRR would approve of his son’s efforts to honor and expand on his legacy. Why are the economic benefits of a copyright more important than the economic benefits of a patent? > [@](#): > > And as I mentioned upstream, it’s good for patents to expire in timely fashion, because technology absolutely benefits society, but copyrights are different. It doesn’t really hurt society if there isn’t free access to a creative work. If the question is “Should Christopher Tolkien control the LOTR brand name, even though I just thought of a neat way that I could make money by repackaging LOTR’s characters?” My answer is Chris should have the say-so. > > As for why the copyright shouldn’t just keep on going for ever and ever to the grand kids and great grand kids; ehh, enough is enough. I don’t know anything about IP law but isn’t software copyright? Doesn’t it hinder technological advancement to give exclusivity to software? > [@Acsenray](#): > > If you’re arguing that the sole material issue is that European copyright policy is driven by Disney lobbyists, and that that’s the beginning and end of it, then I can’t really see where there’s a rational discussion to be had. “In addition to the Walt Disney Company (whose extensive lobbying efforts inspired the nickname “The Mickey Mouse Protection Act”)” > **[Copyright Term Extension Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act)** > > The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act – also known as the Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or (derisively) the Mickey Mouse Protection Act – extended copyright terms in the United States in 1998. It is one of several acts extending the terms of copyright. > Following the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years (or the last surviving author), or 75 years from publication or 100 years after creation, whichever is shorter for a work o... > [@](#): > > Remember, when Disney’s oldest cartoons start dropping into the public domain, it’s going to be works that do not bring them much revenue today. And what will be in the public domain will only be those early cartoons. Disney will still hold trademark rights in the Mickey Mouse character, so it won’t be open season on Mickey Mouse. You can’t use Mickey Mouse as a trademark but you can use the image in movies. I can sell mickey Mouse T Shirts. I can do all sorts of commercial activity using the Mickey Mouse image. Can’t I? Like I said I’m not an IP lawyer. > [@Steophan](#): > > Huh. I must have missed that one. That’s just fucking crazy. Those people just want to download music for free. ---
**Author:** ![Baal\_Houtham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baal_houtham/32/13604_2.png) [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/86 "2012-10-04T00:09:14Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Why are the economic benefits of a copyright more important than the economic benefits of a patent? > > I don’t know anything about IP law but isn’t software copyright? Doesn’t it hinder technological advancement to give exclusivity to software? Hi **Damuri** , I don’t think the economic benefits of patents are less important than copyrights, but letting one company keep a monopoly on a medicine or a solar energy breakthrough for the inventor’s lifetime is rotten for society. And the limited time of patents encourages companies to get useful inventions into production in timely fashion. OTOH, if only Tolkien’s estate controls the licensing of LOTR for 70 years after JRR’s death, it doesn’t really hurt anyone and is probably better for society. As for copyrights and software, I’ve done no research and would keep my mouth shut if this was GQ, rather than the Pit. But since we’re here, I imagine that useful software innovations are patentable. Isn’t Apple suing Samsung for patent infringement, rather than copyright violation? However, I’m pretty sure that some software games are copyrighted. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/87 "2012-10-04T00:18:18Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And a lot of it isn’t. To the extent that there is creative expression, it’s protected by copyright law. To the extent that there isn’t, it’s not. Now, the tricky area is source code. Currently it is protected under copyright law, but there’s a good argument that it shouldn’t be. I can probably buy that argument — that it’s not the code itself that is creative expression, but rather what happens when you run the code. > [@](#): > > Why are the economic benefits of a copyright more important than the economic benefits of a patent? No one thinks they are. But the differences between the way that public and creator rights balance out are different. > [@](#): > > I don’t know anything about IP law but isn’t software copyright? Doesn’t it hinder technological advancement to give exclusivity to software? Software might be protected by copyright law or by patent law or by both, depending on whether that software embodies original, creative expression and whether it is a novel, useful, non-obvious invention. > [@](#): > > “In addition to the Walt Disney Company (whose extensive lobbying efforts inspired the nickname “The Mickey Mouse Protection Act”)” Yeah, that’s largely hyperbole and demonic mythmaking. > [@](#): > > You can’t use Mickey Mouse as a trademark but you can use the image in movies. I can sell mickey Mouse T Shirts. I can do all sorts of commercial activity using the Mickey Mouse image. Can’t I? Like I said I’m not an IP lawyer. No, you can’t. Those will be trademark violations. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/88 "2012-10-04T15:16:48Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Now, the tricky area is source code. Currently it is protected under copyright law, but there’s a good argument that it shouldn’t be. I can probably buy that argument — that it’s not the code itself that is creative expression, but rather what happens when you run the code. I think that clever ways to solve programming problems is creative and an argument could be made to copyright them. But as we see in the patent arena, that can very easily lead down a slippery slope where MicroSquish can copyright using semaphores when writing a database program. I don’t know that “look and feel” is perfect but it may be the best middle-ground we have. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/89 "2012-10-04T15:47:09Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I think that clever ways to solve programming problems is creative and an argument could be made to copyright them. That’s an argument that the source code should be protectable under patent law, which protects novel, useful, non-obvious inventions, not copyright law, which protects original works of creative expressionn. ---
**Author:** ![echoreply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/echoreply/32/3641_2.png) [@echoreply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/echoreply)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/90 "2012-10-04T19:18:06Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …it wont happen because its a stupid idea that is unworkable that is trying to fix a tiny issue with copyright by coming in swinging with a sledgehammer. I have hundreds of thousands of images sitting on my computer. Do you expect me to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to retain copyright to those images? The US already has a system where you have to register your copyright on your images to increase the protections in the United States and the overwhelming majority of photographers world wide do not use it because it involves uploading our images to the US government and paying the US government money. > > Who is going to run this system you propose? Who is going to take the money? This has nothing to do with powerful groups wanting to extend copyright indefinitely and everything do to with your idea being a dumb one. Like every “great new copyright idea” it would hurt the little guy: artists and photographers and singers much more than the big corporations. I suggest you put a little bit more thought into thought experiment. Why should the government (read: taxpayers) pay to protect your images, but you don’t have to pay? If somebody else uses one of your pictures, your not deprived of that picture. Is there a public interest in protecting thousands of pictures sitting on your computer until long after you’re dead? Property law is one thing. Society has an interest in strong property laws, and enforcement of those laws by the government, because it fosters order, and a stable, safe society is a good place for prosperity. But despite the rhetoric and even name “Intellectual Property” IP is not physical property. It’s ideas and information. Copyright (and patents) are a compromise between the creator and society. The government will enforce your exclusive rights to an idea or information for a period of time. During that time everybody elses free speech is restricted. After a time though, your idea or information becomes public domain, and now anybody can use it however they want. I believe that current IP laws have broken this compromise. All creative works are based on ideas which came before them. If somebody had a copyright on the various Celtic myths and old literature which inspired Tolkien, would he have been able to create his works, to the obvious benefit of society? Go ahead and write a retelling of the myths of Harry Potter, and see how far you get trying to publish it. Currently the expense of protecting works is an externality for the creator. With the criminalization of copyright violation, they often don’t even have to pay to sue infringers. I’m saying, you get 10 years of “free” protection, after that, you have to pay directly for protection. It’s a compromise. Rowling and Tolkien’s estate have made money because of the efforts governments put into protecting copyright. Sometime (and I think 10-30 years is reasonable) those works need to become public, so that they can inspire somebody else to use them and make more money. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/91 "2012-10-05T20:48:44Z")
> [@echoreply](#): > > Why should the government (read: taxpayers) pay to protect your images, but you don’t have to pay? If somebody else uses one of your pictures, your not deprived of that picture. Is there a public interest in protecting thousands of pictures sitting on your computer until long after you’re dead? …I’ve already stated I’m not talking about thousands of pictures sitting on my computer: I’m talking about thousands of images out there in the wild on sites like Flickr, 500px, Facebook, Picasa, and on my website. Some of them have been online for just about ten years. Under your system I’m looking at a bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars. How would you justify that? Where would the money go? Who would enforce it? How would you get any copyright holder to support such a hair-brained scheme? Can you give me an itemized cost of how much the typical US taxpayer pays to protect my copyright here in New Zealand? > [@](#): > > Property law is one thing. Society has an interest in strong property laws, and enforcement of those laws by the government, because it fosters order, and a stable, safe society is a good place for prosperity. But despite the rhetoric and even name “Intellectual Property” IP is not physical property. It’s ideas and information. Duh. > [@](#): > > Copyright (and patents) are a compromise between the creator and society. The government will enforce your exclusive rights to an idea or information for a period of time. During that time everybody elses free speech is restricted. After a time though, your idea or information becomes public domain, and now anybody can use it however they want. I believe that current IP laws have broken this compromise. All creative works are based on ideas which came before them. If somebody had a copyright on the various Celtic myths and old literature which inspired Tolkien, would he have been able to create his works, to the obvious benefit of society? Go ahead and write a retelling of the myths of Harry Potter, and see how far you get trying to publish it. > > Currently the expense of protecting works is an externality for the creator. With the criminalization of copyright violation, they often don’t even have to pay to sue infringers. I’m saying, you get 10 years of “free” protection, after that, you have to pay directly for protection. > > It’s a compromise. Rowling and Tolkien’s estate have made money because of the efforts governments put into protecting copyright. Sometime (and I think 10-30 years is reasonable) those works need to become public, so that they can inspire somebody else to use them and make more money. Oh. You are one of those people. One of those people who type a lot, use a whole lot of “buzz words” but don’t really have a lot to actually say. Rather than address what I actually said: you’ve gone off on an unrelated tangent espousing your personal beliefs. You think IP laws are broken? I don’t really care, because they are not. You think you should have the right to retell Harry Potter? I don’t think you should. You think Rowling’s work needs to become public? I think time would be better spent coming up with your own ideas. The laws aren’t broken. I’m not actually surprised that you avoided answering my questions so I’ll ask them again and add a few more. Who is going to run this system you propose? Who is going to take the money? How much would it cost to set up? How is it going to work between borders? Why do you want to create a system that will hurt the little guy more than the big corporations? How much support do you have from copyright holders for your idea? How much support do you have from the general public? Earlier you claimed that “It will never happen, because there are too many powerful groups (and these aren’t the artists) who have an interest in extending copyright indefinitely.” It won’t happen because your idea is expensive and unworkable and ultimately stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/92 "2012-10-05T22:19:05Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …I’ve already stated I’m not talking about thousands of pictures sitting on my computer: I’m talking about thousands of images out there in the wild on sites like Flickr, 500px, Facebook, Picasa, and on my website. Out of curiosity, why would you care if the copyright were lost? The images aren’t making any money for you now. And no one else could make money by selling them if the copyright expired, since the images are freely available. It can’t be privacy, since anyone can view them already. About all I can think of is that you’d object if someone else used them for commercial purposes, like for an advertisement. But Flickr, Facebook, etc. are already making money off of your images in exactly that fashion, and you don’t seem to mind. So I don’t see how that’s a valid argument either. PS: I am _not_ advocating **echoreply** ’s idea. I simply think the term should be reduced. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/93 "2012-10-05T22:33:56Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > You think you should have the right to retell Harry Potter? I don’t think you should. You think Rowling’s work needs to become public? Rowling’s work is recent and would still be covered even under extremely reduced copyright law. However, most of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s _Sherlock Holmes_ works are–due to the copyright terms that existed when they were published–in the public domain today. As such, there’s been a great variety in interpretations of the original work. If today’s copyright law had applied at the time, they would still be under copyright today and for the next several decades–possibly forever, given the way the law is going. Most likely, there would be a much reduced corpus of derivative work had the works not entered the public domain. Some would still exist with permission of the estate, but many would not, and worse, the more ambitious interpretations like the BBC’s _Sherlock_ or possibly even _House_ would be gone. As \*\*echoreply \*\*said, copyright is an exchange. The creator gets a temporary monopoly on the work, and in return society gets free use of the works after a period of time. This exchange is a net win for both sides, but it’s been increasingly biased in favor of the creators. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/94 "2012-10-06T00:05:41Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Rowling’s work is recent and would still be covered even under extremely reduced copyright law. …not under echoreply’s proposed law change:Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was written in 1997 and wouldn’t be covered by copyright without payment of an additional fee. I’m talking about echoreply’s proposed changes to the copyright laws which he claims are only not being implemented because of “big business.” If you want to have another discussion you are welcome to it but what you are talking about has no relevance to what I’ve said. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/95 "2012-10-06T01:02:39Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Out of curiosity, why would you care if the copyright were lost? The images aren’t making any money for you now. And no one else could make money by selling them if the copyright expired, since the images are freely available. It can’t be privacy, since anyone can view them already. …the images are of value. If I lost copyright on them I would loose the ability to sell them. I couldn’t stop them from using them on a neo-nazi website. I couldn’t protect my models who agree to a certain usage for the images and find out later they are endorsing venereal disease medication. > [@](#): > > About all I can think of is that you’d object if someone else used them for commercial purposes, like for an advertisement. But Flickr, Facebook, etc. are already making money off of your images in exactly that fashion, and you don’t seem to mind. So I don’t see how that’s a valid argument either. Of course I don’t mind. As the copyright holder I can choose to display them where-ever I like. Should you be able to display them without my permission? > [@](#): > > PS: I am _not_ advocating **echoreply** ’s idea. I simply think the term should be reduced. Reduced to what? Why? What effect will that have? When you can come with an answer that everyone can agree on and doesn’t destroy the creative industries we might have something to discuss. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/96 "2012-10-06T02:58:24Z")
> [@Baal\_Houtham](#): > > This is what I wrote: > _Like pretty much everything in life, the right approach is nuanced and practical. So, I can’t say exactly what restrictions, if any, should be placed on your software._ > > Your response carries the aroma of straw. No, yours does. That’s the logical response to the absolute statements made in the OP. You’re the one who made a starwman: challenging someone who thinks that all ideas (something copyright doesn’t even cover) should have to be vetted before they are given is somehow equivalent to being against the creators benefiting from their work. You’re the one defending an untenable position because the guy happens to be on your side. You’re the one who had to jump to attacking someone because you know your argument doesn’t have any actual relevance. You just did the equivalent of those who cry “Think of the children.” I don’t think you have to worry about anyone pirating anything you’ve made. ---
**Author:** ![Baal\_Houtham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baal_houtham/32/13604_2.png) [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/97 "2012-10-06T03:06:20Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > No, yours does. Hi BigT. A saying I find useful: _Never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience._ Do have a pleasant weekend. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/98 "2012-10-06T03:44:47Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …I’ve already stated I’m not talking about thousands of pictures sitting on my computer: I’m talking about thousands of images out there in the wild on sites like Flickr, 500px, Facebook, Picasa, and on my website. Some of them have been online for just about ten years. Under your system I’m looking at a bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars. How would you justify that? Where would the money go? Who would enforce it? How would you get any copyright holder to support such a hair-brained scheme? Of course the money would go to the government granting you the extension on your copyright. You are paying them for a service–protecting your work from being copied. And the entire point is that you wouldn’t pay for all of them. You would only pay for the images you considered important. And thus the rest would be available to enrich the public. Of course the copyright holders aren’t going to go for it, as it limits their power for no monetary gain. The same way rich people want to not pay taxes–there’s nothing in it for them in the short term. That’s the problem. And since you guys don’t want to work on a solution, piracy is mainstream, and most of us don’t even feel guilty. That’s what’s in it for the creators–to stop the piracy that bothers them so much, instead of having to constantly fight a war they can’t win. To get people to actually care about their work instead of having to use the law as a baseball bat to people’s heads. And, I know, you’re actually one of the good guys. You don’t stop people from using your work unless it’s against message. That’s great. You are not part of the problem. I’d be fine with amending my 14-year copyright idea to allow you to do exactly what you’re doing, even after the normal copyright would expire. I just don’t want you to have more power than that. And, frankly, you don’t. You just think you do. If your work is good, it would have been circulated online whether you tried to stop it or not. The only difference is that one guy might be hurt disproportionately to the crime so that you can feel you have control over your work. The real question is, Would you be so magnanimous if you could fight this? Because a large number of copyright owners can and do. And that’s what I want to stop. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/99 "2012-10-06T03:48:36Z")
> [@Baal\_Houtham](#): > > Hi BigT. A saying I find useful: _Never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience._ > > Do have a pleasant weekend. Funny, I don’t think that’s the reason you can’t argue with someone you think is an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333/100 "2012-10-06T04:01:19Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > To the extent that there is creative expression, it’s protected by copyright law. To the extent that there isn’t, it’s not. > > Now, the tricky area is source code. Currently it is protected under copyright law, but there’s a good argument that it shouldn’t be. I can probably buy that argument — that it’s not the code itself that is creative expression, but rather what happens when you run the code. And I think the exact opposite. What happens when you run the code is what should be unprotected. The code itself actually took work to discover, and you should be able to make money off of that work for a limited time. But you shouldn’t be able to stop someone else from doing work that creates a similar thing, any more than you should be able to stop someone from writing a story that makes a similar point to your own. The words you write is what should be protected. Fortunately, that is how copyright works. Unfortunately, the triviality of software patents has effectively also protected the other, stifling innovation. Again, that’s the real problem we’re trying to fix here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/former-copyright-boss-thinks-the-world-owes-him-a-living/636333.md?page=6)