No, you are merely attacking straw men. It seems to me that you are merely looking for a fight, and I see no point in continuing any discussion with you.
No, I’m not going off on tangents. I’m attempting to get you to focus on and elucidate the issue, using Evil Captor’s list as the means to do so.
So now the constraints are “morally OK but infringe copyright”. This reduces the relevant items from the list even more to:
Which of these constitutes whatever it is you’re railing against? Or is there something else beyond those items?
I’ve read the threads you to which you refer earlier; in every case that I can remember, the main point of contention was indeed the time frame. The pro-copyright side presents a parody of the anti-copyright position, ignoring the fact that no one (again, to my memory) argues for the complete abolishment of copyright. Related was the foundational purpose of copyright – a money-making vehicle vs. societal enhancement. But, in my view, that debate falls out of the time frame argument, as a person who might argue for abolishment of copyright is also arguing that the current copyright structure is societally detrimental.
Please enlighten me as to what presumptions I’m making, and exactly how they’re incorrect.
Actually, Mr2001 has been quite clear that he thinks copyright should be completely abolished.
Like **Princhester ** I’d like some examples of how writers and artists are harmed by current copyright law.
Ah. I skipped that thread, due to a viewpoint similar to Skammer’s. I’m not going to read the whole thread, though; tell me, is he the lone voice that should be pointed to as the stereotype of those who feel copyright is out of whack?
Furthermore, since the genesis of Princhester’s objection has to do with payment of individual authors and artists, that thread simply serves as a distraction. I’d say there’s merit in the idea that renting a movie fulfills that obligation – if it’s up for rental, it is because the author/artist has already made a contract and gotten paid.
At this point, i’d like to chime in and say that I would really like to see some more direct answers to my second question. That is:
“If they (copyright laws) are not morally necessary, what would it take for you to be convinced they should be reformed/abolished? Feel free to provide concrete, detailed examples to illustrate your viewpoint.”
I think it would be most illuminating and constructive to hear everybody’s answers to that. Especially those of us who support today’s copyright laws.
Sure, they do. They prevent collagists and samplers from doing their work free from restraint. They give Disney near-perpetual copyrights (I mean, we don’t REALLY believe we’ve see the end of copyright extensions do we? Are we THAT naive?) and extend the economic advantage they already have. Disney and the RIAA have proven themselves to be no friends to artists … remember the attempt the RIAA made, not so long ago, to legally transform all musicians into “work for hire” artists rather than independent artists so the recording companies would retain copyright on their music? Here’s a cite. Still think big corporations just love love love those artistes of theirs?
Writers and artists are for the most part absolutely crappy businesspeople. They’re famous for signing away their rights and getting into bad deal. Even ignoring the point that this is an argument to authority, you’ve definitely picked the wrong authorities.
Overall, I feel the copyright laws are good as they stand, although they need to be updated to reflect advances in technology. Allowing groups like the RIAA to do the updating would be a Very Bad Thing ™.
(bolding mine) As a writer, I strongly disagree with the bolded part. Copyright law protects the individual writer from the big companies, not the other way around. Of course, my accountant has suggested that I incorporate for tax and liability purposes, so I guess that would make my everyday writing income “corporate profits.” I presume when you wrote “corporate” you really meant “big companies that I can generalize about and treat as impersonal entities”?
And I second Princhester’s excellent point about your newtly transformation. Try a different example.
Yes, a lot of laws favor people with either money, connections, or both. I think copyright law does so less than most. OJ (probably) got away with murder, but I doubt he could have gotten away with republishing one of my books without permission.
Cite?
I have owned copyright to software products, and currently either own or co-own copyright to hundreds of books, essays, and articles that I’ve written. I can’t think of one instance where copyright law has harmed me, and can name quite a few where it’s helped.
Let’s take one little example: A bunch of my children’s books were published by a small publishing house. American copyright laws are the only things preventing a big publisher from copying my books and selling them without paying me royalties. Kill (or limit) those laws, and you’re not hurting Mr. Big Corporation–you’re hurting poor saps like me that are making a living as freelance writers.
A (possible) glimpse of copyright in the near future: Section 115 Reform Act of 2006. From the link:
A couple caveats: the link is a blog; I’m taking it at face-value and haven’t looked into the bill myself – I just thought it would be notable. Also, one of the replies says: “The bill is going to be introduced and marked-up on Wednesday (another trick to hide the bill), so we won’t know who is sponsoring and cosponsoring it until then.”
Yay (possibly soon-to-be) current copyright law!
As a follow-up, this explanation from the US Copyright Office. I don’t have time to read it right now, but thought I should post it since I came across it and it’s not some blogger’s (mis)interpretation.
(GREAT BIG ENORMOUS SIGH) Nobody is talking about eliminating copyrights altogether!!! Okay? You get that? Will you guys PLEASE quit attacking this straw man?
I’m very glad that current copyright laws happen to protect your interests as well as those of megacorps, but the simple fact is that the copyright laws have been changed and will be changed again primarily to protect the profits of major coporations. It’s nice that little guys like you sometimes benefit from the changes in those laws, but those laws are gradually being changed so as to give big corporations more and more control over the flow of information.
Today, it is theoretically possible for a copyright to last 150 years or more. Are you saying you can’t get enough profit out of your work in one lifetime to make it worth your while to create?
There are untold numbers of works out of print, out of production, that could be refreshed and re-released in today’s market. Take Wombat’s books. In 100 years, they will still be under copyright. Probably owned by the estate of one of his decendants who doesn’t even know they exist. Those works will disappear, never to be seen again. How is this beneficial to society, or to Wombat himself?
How are artists hurt? If we apply today’s laws back to the early part of the century, how many of Disney’s products would have never been created because of copyright? I suspect a great many. Only today, those products don’t exist at all, so we can’t point to them and say that they’re gone.
And bear in mind that overly broad copyright laws can actually work against the preservation of works of art.
In the days before videocassette recorders became common, film studios often sat on top of huge archives of old films. Because there was little prospect of making substantial profits from those films, there was often little effort made to properly preserve them; and yet, the studios jealously guarded their copyrights and sometimes went to great lengths to harass private film collectors who often did a much better job of archiving and preserving their copies than did the studios. I understand that in some cases, the studios even called in the FBI to investigate collectors.
Now, what happened when VCRs finally arrived on the market?
The studios went to their archives and suddenly discovered that they often had neither original negatives and masters nor decent prints with which to make videocassettes for the new market. Many films had been chopped up for broadcast television and complete versions no longer existed. Some had simply been lost, others had been damaged by poor storage and archiving.
And where did they turn?
To the very collectors they had formerly harassed!
Consider classic radio programs from the 30s, 40s and 50s. The producers of these shows often considered them an ephemeral commodity with no long term commercial value and did not bother trying to preserve them. In many cases the producers never bothered to make a recording of the performance or to register the copyrights for the scripts. Often it wasn’t clear who, if anybody, held the copyright. Many shows were recorded on aluminum disks for distribution, but the disks were often poorly archived or not saved at all. There are stories of huge collections of these disks literally being tossed in the trash.
Who preserved these works? The collectors. There are many old radio shows available today which would not exist if fans had not taken advantage of ambiguous copyright situations or simply ignored copyrights altogether to collect and trade these old shows.
How 'bout Batman, Superman and Spiderman? You’d think Marvel and DC would take great care to preserve copies of the old classic comics they’ve produced for more than seven decades. And yet I understand their archives are in terrible shape. The bound editions of past issues have often been stolen or had pages carefully cut out by thieves who either kept them for themselves or sold them to collectors. Much original artwork has similarly turned up missing or damaged.
Copyright restrictions which are too narrow may very well work against the preservation of creative works.
Something else for the copyright uber alles crowd to think about:
Both H.P. Lovecraft, the famed author of horror and fantasy stories, and Robert E. Howard, the creator of Conan the Barbarian, died without any heirs.
This means that the people who currently claim the copyrights on their works are not even remotely related to the creators of those works, and yet they still expect to collect royalties more than seven decades after the authors died. (There seems to be some controversy about the copyright status of both authors’ work.)
Will someone please explain how this does anything whatsoever to benefit the community?
I’m not attacking a strawman. There is no strawman. I directly addressed the points you made (and you haven’t refuted my statements), and I asked you for a citation (which you haven’t provided). You wanna debate? Quit sighing and back up your position!
Now we’re getting into some meat in the argument. How long after the death of an artist should works be protected? I’ll agree that it’s probably too long under current law. But I won’t agree that copyright should cease upon death. Were I a construction worker, I’d be paid the moment I finished working on something. As a writer, it takes me years, possibly decades, to realize my full income stream. Should my family be deprived of my royalty income when I die? I don’t think so. But I could certainly be persuaded that it lasts too long.
Ahem. Cite?
Sorry. Not buying this one. Fair use provisions in the copyright laws allow me to keep copies of radio or television shows. I don’t think our descendants will be deprived of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
I’m thinking about all of those Grimm fairy tales that have been adapted over and over again by Disney and others over the years. With the laws we have today, they would have been locked tight under copyright until the 1960s. With the laws as they appear to be headed, they would STILL be under copyright by whoever bought out the rights 75 years after the Grimms kicked the bucket.
If we were under one of the older versions of copyright, you would have over 50 years to realize income from your work. 28 years to start, and 28 more if you re-upped. If that’s not enough time to give incentive to create works, I don’t know what is. I’m not of the opinion that copyright is there to give everlasting financial support to an artist and his decendants, nor is it to secure the abilities of mega corporations to squeeze every last dime of profit from a work.
I believe copyright is there so that an artist can gain financially before a work goes to public domain. The word “before” is key, because it implies that works will eventually go public, the recent changes to copyright law make me believe that nothing will every go public domain again.
'Scuse me. You keep talking about people wanting to eliminate copyright altogether. NOBODY ON THIS THREAD IS TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING COPYRIGHT. That is the straw man you’re attacking.
And I HAVE backed up my position. It’s just that you’re doing a really, really lame job of trying to refute it.
Why don’t you get the ball rolling by telling us what seems fair to you? Frankly, 150 years for a copyright is ridiculous no matter how you look at it. Again, the original idea behind the principle of copyright was to encourage creative effort that would enrich our culture and community as a whole. It wasn’t intended simply to provide a never-ending revenue stream for the likes of Disney, Time-Warner and the Margaret Mitchell estate.
Perhaps you’d care to answer my question about Lovecraft and Howard?
But you see, DT has already pointed out that the megacorps are trying to take away the fair use provision. And I seem to recall that at least one major media company tried to sue to keep videorecorders from being produced and sold when they were first brought to the consumer market. Do you really feel comfortable allowing the megacorps to write the copyright laws?
I have a feeling, LonesomePolecat, that we don’t disagree as much as you think we do. You’re extrapolating my specific positions (e.g., I think copyrights benefit writers and that the concept of a corporation isn’t spawned by Satan) into generalizations (e.g., you seem to think I believe copyright laws should be extended into infinity and written by Sony and RIAA) that are blatantly wrong.
That’s correct. Nobody. INCLUDING ME. You said, “Today it [copyright law] is used simply to protect corporate profits.” That is the statement I’m refuting, and it’s the statement you aren’t backing up. Copyright laws aren’t “simply” to protect “corporate” (whatever that means) profits. They protect artists. Certainly there have been changes (and more proposed) that protect large companies, but I strenuously disagree with your implication that the core function of copyright is protecting someone other than the artists.
Again, I’m arguing with one specific statement you made (quoted in the previous paragraph). You haven’t backed it up. Actually, there’s another statement of yours that I disagree with, as explained at the end of post #34. I’m talking about copyright laws as they exist today, not at some point in the future where fair use provisions may potentially possibly be removed or reduced.
I’d say the copyright should expire when the artist dies or 50 years from when the work was created, whichever comes first.
Here’s where I don’t understand your position. If you write “Polecat’s Fairy Tales” with a 150-year copyright, how the heck does Disney profit? The only way they get their mitts on it is if you or your beneficiary sells it to them, in which case you (the creator of the work) have received compensation for what you did, which is a good thing. The 28-year system, on the other hand, is where Disney can make the huge profits, by waiting until the copyright expires and then exploiting your characters. I’m not saying that 150-year copyrights are good, but if you look at Cheesesteak’s example in post #35, Disney benefits more heavily from exploiting expired copyrights than by using extended copyrights. Sure, copyrights protect specific Disney works like Steamboat Willie, but the Mickey Mouse character itself is protected by trademark law more than copyright law.
When you say they “died without heirs,” are you saying they died intestate (in which case I feel the works should have gone into the public domain immediately) or that they died without blood relatives (in which case I feel that they should have had the right to will the copyrights to anybody they pleased)?
I absolutely agree with you on this one. No, I don’t want to lose fair use provisions, and no, I don’t want “megacorps” writing copyright law. Honestly, though, I’m a lot more worried about so-called “trade groups” like the RIAA than I am about megacorps like Disney. Well, there’s Sony. They worry me.
Since this is a website devoted to fighting ignorance, let’s talk about the idea, assumed by many posters in this thread, that Disney was behind the 1998 copyright extension. Not so. It was about conformity with international copyright law, and protection of U.S. intellectual property interests in world trade.
The straight dope, from the Background section of the bill:
Virtually all major copyright holders in the U.S. — book publishers, music publishers, movie studios, writers, composers, artists — were for the extension of the copyright term. The idea that nefarious Disney pulled this out of its corporate hat so that Steamboat Willie wouldn’t enter the public domain is silly if not ignorant. There were much bigger issues involved.
Yes, they should, and I believe that time is already here.
Simply put, copyright has gotten in the way of progress. New ways to produce, find, and enjoy music, video, and other works are stifled or never investigated at all because of concerns about copyright.
Sampling was the subject of lawsuits, and mash-ups are still pushed underground. New video cards and HD-DVD/BluRay players won’t work with old HDTV sets because the old sets didn’t have the right encryption technology to make sure you can’t access the movie you paid for as it travels between the player and the screen. The standards themselves were delayed for months because of worries about copy protection. Movies have been released for home viewing with the original soundtracks cut out because of worries about licensing. Online radio services like Pandora have to limit the number of songs you can skip per hour, and can’t play music upon request or publish schedules of upcoming songs, because of more worries about licensing. Sony proved with their rootkit fiasco that they value their copyright over the security of every one of their customers. And even now, five years after the peak of Napster and 15 years after the invention of MP3, we still can’t buy popular music online in a form that’ll play on generic MP3 players.
If any other industry were spending similar amounts of time and money, driving up prices and limiting consumer choice, just because they were worried that a friend might borrow your widget instead of buying his own, I don’t think we’d stand for it. We’d put our feet down and shout “Look, you’re in the business of making widgets. Get back to making the damn widgets and let us decide what we do with them.” I’m already convinced we need reform, and I think the only reason more people aren’t convinced is that the industries haven’t succeeded in impacting most people’s lives as much as they’d like to.
Ok, so far, it seems to me that the people who actually answered my two questions believe that current copyright laws are bad and should be reformed. Are pro-copyright people here uncapable of answering those two questions in a convincing manner? I am still looking forward to their answers.