Everytime I hear another story about how the RIAA is claiming $3 billion in money lost due to piracy, or the scientologists suing google under the DMCA, or some angry slashdotter ranting at copy protection schemas and MS’s latest Palladium tripe, it makes me wonder why there can’t be a compromise between the two camps. Some change made to copyright law that eases both sides’ feelings. I was wondering what everyone else thought of the issue, and if anyone had any good ideas.
As I understand it, copyright was intended to help artists/engineers make a living by giving them a limited monopoly over their work for a short period of time, after which the work would be given to the public, and the artist would have to keep creating. Currently, copyright lasts for life+70 years, long enough for the artist and their descendents to live off the work. Just think, if current copyright law had existed a century ago when tomas edison invented the light bulb, we might today be forced to buy only Edison™ bulbs. (Okay, he died in '31, so it would be public domain in 2001, but you get the picture. Ridiculously long time.)
My quick-and-dirty solution: reset copyright duration to 20 years, adding in some proviso to keep it from being lengthened again by Disney et al. 20 years is more than enough time for any individual to profit from their work, while being short enough to spur them on to reate more content to enrich society.
Though the DMCA should be repealed, there’s no doubt in my mind about that.
I agree completely but the cynic inside me says it will never happen. Way to many companies have a vested interest in the 70+ copyright. Companies benefit from existing copyright law whereas only society as a whole would benefit from reducing it. Now a representitive democracy is supposed to look out for the needs of the greater society but in the world of campaign contributions that aint likely to happen.
The SCOTUS recently paved the way for future extensions of the copyright terms, so unless Disney and the RIAA companies go bankrupt in the next 20 years, don’t expect anything to fall into the public domain ever again.
A more realistic option might be compulsory licensing, where a government board sets prices, and the copyright holders can’t complain as long as you pay for what you copy. If the payment were collected in the form of a tax (on hard drives, ISP service, etc.) as it currently is for “music CD-R” media, users wouldn’t be inconvenienced, and if prices were truly reasonable, everyone would be happy.
Mr2001 afraid I don’t see how thats any more realistic an option. Why would all those companies ever give an inch on the money they collect? with therehuge lobbying coffers I don’t think the governments gonna be to compelled to change things for the public interest.
Well, regardless of their official position, I don’t think the RIAA is actually stupid enough to believe they can stamp out piracy by lobbying and filing lawsuits, or that everyone they convince not to pirate music will start buying CDs instead.
I think it’d be better for their bottom line to collect 10 cents per minute of music from thousands of pirates’ hard drive taxes than to sue, lobby, and still not get a dime from any of those people.
[SlightlyOffTopicNitpick]
You are confusing three distinct areas of intellectual property law here: inventions like the light bulb are patented, not copyrighted. And the ™ mark refers to a “word, phrase, symbol, or design” for which a trademark has been applied, but not yet registered. Once a trademark application is approved and registered, its owner can use the ® mark.
[/SlightlyOffTopicNitpick]
If you see how the copyright laws have been changed over the years, you will notice that they have been made progressively in favour of businesses while consumer rights have been steadily eroded. So it appears impossible that a win-win compromise can be developed: to restore consumer rights, one must hack off unfair previleges that companies enjoy. This will not make them happy.
That’s true. However, when you consider some of the bizarre applications of the DMCA we’ve seen in the past couple years–a printer manufacturer suing under the DMCA to stop sales of third-party toner cartridges, for example–I don’t think it’s improbable that the same twisted logic could have been used to apply copyright law to light bulbs.
Copyright Law has been completely perverted. As far as I understand it, the intent was to encourage works to ultimately become part of the public domain. That is, a creator would be granted a LIMITED exclusive license. What society gained from this license was that the work would not be kept secret or held under some kind of ransom perpetually–ultimately it would become part of our collective patrimony.
My solution to the matter would be to only permit individuals to hold copyright, not “corporations”. Of course, I’m also of the opinion that “corporations” are not human beings. The one great limit upon potential abuse of priviliges and rights by an individual human being is that the human being in question will be presumed to die at some time or another. That presumption is not the case for “corporations”. That, alone, is sufficient argument that “corporations” ought not be accorded civil rights as if they were actual human beings.
One problem with the current paradigm (or lack thereof) is that, during the very era when the distinction between copyrightable materials and patentable materials has been blurred by the prominence of software (which consists of writings of a sort, but functions more like a machine), we have an ever-widening gulf between the ways the law treats them. This makes no sense at all.
I’m not familiar with the history of any modern-day attempts to extend the terms of patents, but it would seem to me that one reason why the terms of copyrights get extended repeatedly and patents don’t, is that there are heavyweight commercial interests that would oppose as well as support patent extension (e.g. manufacturers of generic drugs). With copyrights, the money’s all on one side. Slamdunk.
Just need to get this out… compulsory licensing is not a compromise. It is a flat out, 100% win for the the record companies. Anybody who says otherwise is lying. There. Better.
To be honest, I think the system that we have now is actually fair to all parties. Yeah, music and movies get copied, but that isn’t putting the RIAA in the red. I know several people who have more movies than they could ever watch on their hard drives, but they still go to the movies and they still buy dvds. They go to the movies for the experience, and buy dvds for the additional content, higher quality, and hard drive space it frees up. 'Course, they don’t buy brand new $20 DVDs, they wait until they’re around $10 or less.
Which is why I’m hoping SCOTUS miraculously becomes computer literate. They’re the only branch of goverment the RIAA doesn’t own.
One thing that these discussions continually don’t want to address is the small-time artist, writer, photographer, etc., who merely wants to keep the rights to their own work throughout their lifetime. They aren’t making the big bucks, but they are able to make a living full time because they are able to keep the rights to their own work. Off the top of my head, I can think of freelance photographers who do this. Some will continue to sell rights to photos that they took 20, 30, 40 years ago. Their whole body of work still brings in income for them. And this allows them to be able to afford to work full time and create more photographs.
In previous threads about this subject, I’ve noticed a lack of understanding for the “small time” copyright holder who is only able to make a living because of copyright laws. It’s lamentable—I suspect that some of you don’t understand—perhaps some don’t know what it’s like to be a “small time” creative person. How frustrating it would be to work very hard at something for years, finally start to get a return from it, only to have the copyright “expire” and the work become part of the public domain. If such copyright laws were policy, I think that a lot of “freelancers” would no longer be able to work fulltime at their work. They’d have to take a “regular” job and they’d have less time to produce creative works.
What are you talking about? For years copyright protection has extended to life of the creator plus 50 years. Now the big corporations (led by Disney, whose copyright on Mickey Mouse et al would otherwise expire in 2006) want to make it another 20 years, and ultimately, forever. What “small-time” copyright holder needs protection for more than 50 years after his death in order to make a living?
This sounds like the specious arguments about all the family farms and businesses that are supposedly being destroyed by the “evil” estate taxes that in fact are paid only by the richest 0.1% of families. But I guess that’s a different thread.
Small time musicians always benefit from more exposure, however that exposure may come about. And 3 million kazaa users is about as exposed as you’re ever going to get.
I’m not saying copyright should be completely done away with. It’s most noble purpose, and the reason for its instantiation, is exactly as you say- to help the little guy survive in a big world. But it wasn’t intended to give him a free pass for the rest of his life if he does something well.
In my opinion, if your “small time copyright holder” still needs to rely on having a monopoly over things they did 20+ years ago to live, they either aren’t trying hard enough, or they probably should be doing something else. Not all art is good art.
That doesn’t mean they still can’t make money from their 20+ year old work. They just can’t sue anyone else who wants to do the same.
Yes, I understand. And that’s why freelancers are able to make a full-time living. And, they can pass along some of the profits of their hard work to their heirs.
Now, some may argue that the amout of time after death should be shortened, and I can see some merit in that argument (in some cases, up to a point). But in previous threads on this subject many people express the preference of having copyright expire 20 years after creation. This, in my opinion, is unacceptable.
Oh, I keep hearing variations on this theme—“We’ll steal from you, but it’ll be good promotion!” Yeah. Right. :rolleyes:
Why not? Who else is entitled to their hard work? And you do know that some artists may start out slow, but later pick up steam.
Sometimes it takes time to find one’s niche. Sometimes an artist is really good, but they are ignored. It happens all the time. But finaly, finally the “right” person recognizes them, and they are starting to make money. But, oh, too bad. All the stuff they worked at so hard in their “lean years” (and didn’t make any money on) is now free for the taking. That doesn’t seem right.
Well, if it’s not good, who cares if it’s in the public domain? Why not let the artist keep it? Who else would want it anyway?
“Do the same”? “Same” what? Sue someone who makes money off their own work? Of course not! Sue someone else who swipes the artist’s work? Sure, why not? The person didn’t make the work, they just want to use it free of charge.
Now I gotta go to work, so I will resume this later…
I think we all agree that copyrights are useful, at least in theory, but that the practice is problematic. Every reasonable justification for the term of various intellectual property rights I have seen are related to the useful life of the item in question. Patents last 20 years from the date of filing with the understanding that most inventions will become obsolete in that time frame. Trademarks last forever, so long as you use them properly and pay the renewal fees. Trade Secrets also last forever, so long as you keep the subject matter secret.
What exactly is the useful life of a copyright is up for grabs. However I feel that it is safe to say that copyrights should not extend much, if at all, beyond the death of the author. The vast majority of copyrighted works will have become obsolete within one or two decades. Just look at all of the music and literature that was popular in the eighties and that now doesn’t move off the shelves of used book/music stores. Companies like Disney are hoping for the home run, the Snow Whites that will make them millions. Rest assured that Disney is also saddled with uncounted copyrighted works that are so much dreck. Disney hasn’t created anything new or better as a result of their copyright (or license) on works like Winnie the Pooh and I should know as my five year old loved that crap.
I think that a simple term such as 50 years or the life of the author, which ever is longer, would suffice. This would allow for more than a few stabs at commercializing the works and would also take into account the nostalgia craze that seems to demand reverence items from the day before yesterday.
Yeah, except copyright is now 70 years after the death of the creator. Oh No! The creator can’t keep on making money in (heaven/hell/purgatory/whatever). His great grand children can’t profit off his accomplishments!
Copyright should be at MOST lifetime for an individual author, and a set number of years (say 20) after invention.
I actually have a few friends who are in their own bands. They love seeing their songs on kazaa. I can’t speak for your friends, but their reasoning goes as follows:
The more people who hear their songs, the more people like their music.
The more people like their music, the more people show up at their concerts.
The more people show up at their concerts, the more they get paid to do the concert, and the more people buy their albums, which they sell at the concert.
Perhaps you hear it so often because it is true.
Copyright was instated to make being an artist potentially profitable. Copyright limits were instated to make sure that being an artist is not so profitable that the artist can make one masterpiece and rest on his laurels for the rest of his life. Today, his KIDS can rest on his laurels for the rest of their lives.
And what has the artist in question been doing for the last 20 years? Making more content that the public will want, now that you’ve been “recognized?” Or sitting on his ass thinking, “Gee, I’m so damn great, one of these days someone will surely like my old stuff, and then I damn well better be able to charge them an arm and a leg!” Fact is, if some of your work that’s out of copyright suddenly becomes popular, you will be far more hugely known than if you own the copyrights of everything you do, because the work that’s out of copyright will spread faster and farther than you could ever spread it on your own. And tell me, who will the public come to when they’re craving more of your oh so special something? YOU, with all your other cool shit for sale.
I would rather see the work of a thousand crappy artist wannabes in the public domain than lose one great piece of art because the inventor is too selfish or too stupid to realize that public domained art provides a greater benefit to society than it would to the artist.
Example: How much would the study of the roots of modern culture be enlightened by the portrayals of early twentieth century society in the films currently residing in Disney’s vault? Yet because Disney refuses to relinquish their hold on the Mouse by paying for longer and longer copyrights, said material is rotting alone instead of benefiting society.
Same as everyone else, who now can reproduce your work without your permission. All it does is allow everyone else to feed from the same trough you have had the sole pleasure of for 20 years. If you’ve left anything there to make a profit off of, that’s your fault and no one else’s. In the meantime, all of society benefits from the suddenly reduced cost of your work. It’s a fair trade, in my opinion, and if you’re good enough to be an artist full time, 20 years is plenty.
Not the same person here…
Won’t work. As soon as that’s a law, all future copyrights that “corporations” want to aquire will be in the name of the CEO, to be transferred should he be replaced. Nothing will change.
In conclusion, the only party that benefits from reprehensibly long copyright terms is large conglomerated companies that actually are around long enough to leech enough money out of the copyrights to make it worthwhile. Individual artists usually profit by having some of their work spread far and wide, or at the very least, it doesn’t hurt them much. If you don’t believe that, that’s because companies have been pulling the wool over your eyes since the time of Mark Twain.
I actually have a few friends who are in their own bands. They love seeing their songs on kazaa. I can’t speak for your friends, but their reasoning goes as follows:
The more people who hear their songs, the more people like their music.
The more people like their music, the more people show up at their concerts.
The more people show up at their concerts, the more they get paid to do the concert, and the more people buy their albums, which they sell at the concert.
Perhaps you hear it so often because it is true.
Copyright was instated to make being an artist potentially profitable. Copyright limits were instated to make sure that being an artist is not so profitable that the artist can make one masterpiece and rest on his laurels for the rest of his life. Today, his KIDS can rest on his laurels for the rest of their lives.
And what has the artist in question been doing for the last 20 years? Making more content that the public will want, now that you’ve been “recognized?” Or sitting on his ass thinking, “Gee, I’m so damn great, one of these days someone will surely like my old stuff, and then I damn well better be able to charge them an arm and a leg!” Fact is, if some of your work that’s out of copyright suddenly becomes popular, you will be far more hugely known than if you own the copyrights of everything you do, because the work that’s out of copyright will spread faster and farther than you could ever spread it on your own. And tell me, who will the public come to when they’re craving more of your oh so special something? YOU, with all your other cool shit for sale.
I would rather see the work of a thousand crappy artist wannabes in the public domain than lose one great piece of art because the inventor is too selfish or too stupid to realize that public domained art provides a greater benefit to society than it would to the artist.
Example: How much would the study of the roots of modern culture be enlightened by the portrayals of early twentieth century society in the films currently residing in Disney’s vault? Yet because Disney refuses to relinquish their hold on the Mouse by paying for longer and longer copyrights, said material is rotting alone instead of benefiting society.
Same as everyone else, who now can reproduce your work without your permission. All it does is allow everyone else to feed from the same trough you have had the sole pleasure of for 20 years. If you’ve left anything there to make a profit off of, that’s your fault and no one else’s. In the meantime, all of society benefits from the suddenly reduced cost of your work. It’s a fair trade, in my opinion, and if you’re good enough to be an artist full time, 20 years is plenty.
Not the same person here…
Won’t work. As soon as that’s a law, all future copyrights that “corporations” want to aquire will be in the name of the CEO, to be transferred should he be replaced. Nothing will change.
In conclusion, the only party that benefits from reprehensibly long copyright terms is large conglomerated companies that actually are around long enough to leech enough money out of the copyrights to make it worthwhile. Individual artists usually profit by having some of their work spread far and wide, or at the very least, it doesn’t hurt them much. If you don’t believe that, that’s because companies have been pulling the wool over your eyes since the time of Mark Twain.