The most famous civil rights song, “We Shall Overcome,“ is no longer copyrighted

Pete Seeger asked for his name to be removed from the copyright in 1994.

Read the whole story

 

[Otha]

I see the issue of copyright completely differently from many of you. I don't think of it as an incentive to create new cultural works at all. I think of it as protection from exploitation and appropriation of the ideas and voices of others. Why should I lose the right to prevent someone from using my words, or music, or art, to endorse and promote causes that I am opposed to? Why should I allow my work to be exploited for commercial endeavors, without any compensation? How is it that you believe that you are entitled to assign ownership of the fruit of my labor to the commons, when no one but myself or the respective authors of the work participated in creating it, and public ownership of the work is in no way essential to the public good? I'm genuinely interested in hearing the reasoning behind the idea that copyright should belong to anyone but the authors and their heirs and assigns.

 

[Ilikebundy99]

I see the issue of copyright completely differently from many of you. I don't think of it as an incentive to create new cultural works at all. I think of it as protection from exploitation and appropriation of the ideas and voices of others. Why should I lose the right to prevent someone from using my words, or music, or art, to endorse and promote causes that I am opposed to? Why should I allow my work to be exploited for commercial endeavors, without any compensation? How is it that you believe that you are entitled to assign ownership of the fruit of my labor to the commons, when no one but myself or the respective authors of the work participated in creating it, and public ownership of the work is in no way essential to the public good? I'm genuinely interested in hearing the reasoning behind the idea that copyright should belong to anyone but the authors and their heirs and assigns.

Well for one thing, Copyright is not property. It is a government granted monopoly privilege that only exists by taking away peoples actual rights in their tangible property.

You don't get to tell me what i can do with my own pen and paper, my computer or 3d printer just because it will bring you a profit if i have to get your permission and/or pay you. Property exist to curtail disputes over tangible goods. there is no need or justification for property in non-tangible goods except where the government intervenes because it deems it is in societies interest to promote creativity... at least in theory.

For another, nothing you could have possibly created came from you alone. It comes from and builds upon everyone's shared culture and heritage. You have no right to try and keep other people from using your creations and shared experiences the way you have no doubt used others, whether wittingly or not.

All of this is just my opinion of course.

 

[petersphilo]

I'm pretty sure this isn't a derivative work worthy of copyright protection on its own. The two word changes don't substantively change the meaning, intent and purpose of the song. The tune is identical.

Seems to me a derivative work should substantially alter the original before it merits any copyright protection.

Sad that this "well, duh" case has to go to court. I do hope the copyright holders of the "derivative" work get to pay for it all, plus refund any licensing fees.

And this comes from someone who believes heavily in copyright protection. The problem is, this isn't what it's intended for.

[edit: What this sounds like is a Mondegreen, which is NOT a derivative work.]

Now tell that to Richard Prince who tried and successfully sold other people's twitter photograph for up to $90,000 for "transforming" them into art.

THAT depends on how it's done.

If someone takes a collage of people's individual pictures and presents it as their art work, that is definitely a derivative work since, although the individual images may be unchanged, the CONTEXT (intent, purpose and meaning) of the original works have been substantially altered.

How the people whose pictures were used might want to interpret that is subject to debate, but there's no doubt such a work is substantially different from each individual picture. Each individual picture is taken as a whole and unique in and of itself. But when you stick those individual images into ONE other work, then you've created something both new and unique.

That's the classic definition of derivation.

What you describe kind of reminded me of the famous "Campbell's soup cans"

Just want to quickly provide you with some context on the derivative nature of the mentioned work. see link from guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... -instagram and

The New Portraits collection featured 37 inkjet prints on canvas of what Prince called “screen saves” of Instagram posts, according to the complaint. The only modification to the images by Prince, besides blowing them up in size, are in comments underneath the pictures comprised of emojis and bizarre sentences. The pieces sold for up to $100,000 at New York’s Frieze art fair, where they caused considerable controversy.

Basically, he took your vacation photo, add a caption something like "looks like the guy enjoying great vacation, omfg ))" and sell it for 100k.

To be fair, in the past Richard prince did get fair use backings from the court on other similar cases I think.

Wow!
That really makes my blood boil!

Just because that 'artist' adds a cutesy caption, he gets to insinuate that the photo is his?!?

That's pretty gruesome..
Although, the photos from the gallery in the story seem to show an author avatar of the photo at the top-left, but i couldn't tell if it was the correct one...

 

[Otha]

Well for one thing, Copyright is not property. It is a government granted monopoly privilege that only exists by taking away peoples actual rights in their tangible property.

Whether or not copyright is encoded in law, it strikes me that outright appropriating the work of others as your own, for no other reason than that you want it, is inherently immoral. Moreover, you seem to be making the claim that artistic work isn't "real" unless it's in the form of a tangible object. By that standard, no intellectual work of any kind deserves attribution and remuneration, whether artistic, scientific, philosophical, or otherwise.

You don't get to tell me what i can do with my own pen and paper, my computer or 3d printer just because it will bring you a profit if i have to get your permission and/or pay you.

Screw all the work I did on creating my new t-shirt design. All I'm entitled to is the fabric. That amazing piece of art on the front of the shirt that I spent years creating? It's yours, because it's awesome and you want it, and you're perfectly entitled to print tens of thousands of them and profit from my work at my expense. It's your equipment after all.

nothing you could have possibly created came from you alone. It comes from and builds upon everyone's shared culture and heritage. You have no right to try and keep other people from using your creations and shared experiences the way you have no doubt used others, whether wittingly or not.

No one creates *anything*, whether tangible or intangible, without some form of input or assistance from others. Does that mean no one should have any property rights, nor the right to benefit from the work of their own hands?

 

[ab78]

Jeff S[/url]":3b1c0snv]

10 or 20 years, tops, that's how long copyright shoud last. It's basically eternal now so those who profited from the public domain, like any creator inevitably does as nobody makes anything truly from nothing, are not actually giving anything back.

So, to follow your logic, Paul McCartney, after 10 years from publishing his songs should have given them up to be In The Public Domain. His work-after 10 years- is no longer his.

As opposed to the system where we've got now, where Michael Jackson bought them at auction and now Sony owns them? Yes.

There's one argument for longish copyrights, and that is that not every work enjoys wide acclaim (and therefore high royalties) soon after it is first publish. Some works languish in obscurity for years, and then suddenly become popular. With very short copyrights, a whole 'publishing' industry designed to gobble up other people's works after 10 years, promote/advertise the heck out of them, and turn them into hits without paying the creators anything, would *absolutely definitely be what happens*.

Sure, your Paul McCartney's and Taylor Swifts would still get paid during the first 10 years, because their stuff is going to be marketed and sold day one that it is released, but many more would toil in obscurity, only to see others reap the fruit of their creative labor.

And yes, creating new ideas, new lyrics, new melodies and harmonies, is actual labor, that creates something that potentially has value, and it would be a shame to see people get screwed. Yes, some people still get screwed in the current system, but that is usually because they signed on the dotted line. Which is still unfortunate, but they usually at least get *something* from the deal.

I wouldn't particularly object to a copyright term of "life of the author". That gets round the problem of works that gain in popularity later on, without the ridiculous excesses of systems like life + 70. For copyrights assigned to a corporation, pick a reasonable time limit but IMO 30 years ought to be the upper limit.

 

[NoSkill]

10 or 20 years, tops, that's how long copyright shoud last. It's basically eternal now so those who profited from the public domain, like any creator inevitably does as nobody makes anything truly from nothing, are not actually giving anything back.

I like the idea where extensions can be granted, but cost an ever-increasing amount of money. For example:

Year 0: You write a song. The copyright is yours for 20 years.
Year 20: You pay $100 to extend the copyright for 10 years.
Year 30: You pay $1000 to extend the copyright another 10 years.
Year 40: You pay $10,000 to extend the copyright another 10 years.

And every 10 years thereafter, another zero is added on to the extension fee. This way Disney gets to keep its lucrative copyrights, and everything else gets put in the public domain the way the Founding Fathers explicitly intended.

The idea is nice and simple but the values are off quite a bit. Inflation after year 40 would put the actual cost closer to $1,000. That's peanuts to megacorps who sell 10 seconds of song for $20k.

To devise an effective handicap you would need to be charging much higher multiples plus CPI.

 

[fivemack]

ab78[/url]":2dv9to0c]I wouldn't particularly object to a copyright term of "life of the author". That gets round the problem of works that gain in popularity later on, without the ridiculous excesses of systems like life + 70

You would really suggest that a system whereby Tolkien's descendants get nothing from Peter Jackson is reasonable? Or where David Foster Wallace's suicide meant _Infinite Jest_ is already in the public domain?

 

[ED(I)]

For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Copyright is but another face of the polyhedral reverberating crusades against personal freedom and all of the other values engendered in Western Europe.

When will we ever learn.

 

[DRF]

10 or 20 years, tops, that's how long copyright shoud last. It's basically eternal now so those who profited from the public domain, like any creator inevitably does as nobody makes anything truly from nothing, are not actually giving anything back.

So, to follow your logic, Paul McCartney, after 10 years from publishing his songs should have given them up to be In The Public Domain. His work-after 10 years- is no longer his.

Not seeing the problem here. 10 years is a bit low but I'd say 20 is fine.

Copyright law is there to allow artists and authors to benefit from their works, to give them a financial incentive to create. It's not meant to be a cash for life scheme. It's not their for their grandchildren to rake in the cash and prizes.

I suspect that after 15 to 20 years, the creators have had sufficient time to benefit. That should be enough benefit to encourage creativity. After that, the copyright should expire and the work should be in the public domain.

 

[Marsflap]

Copyright law is there to allow artists and authors to benefit from their works, to give them a financial incentive to create. It's not meant to be a cash for life scheme. It's not their for their grandchildren to rake in the cash and prizes.

While that is basically true, leaving something to one's grandchildren is a financial incentive. Ulysses S. Grant famously wrote his memoirs because he knew he was dying and wanted to make sure his wife wasn't poverty-stricken.

 

[Otha]

10 or 20 years, tops, that's how long copyright shoud last. It's basically eternal now so those who profited from the public domain, like any creator inevitably does as nobody makes anything truly from nothing, are not actually giving anything back.

So, to follow your logic, Paul McCartney, after 10 years from publishing his songs should have given them up to be In The Public Domain. His work-after 10 years- is no longer his.

Not seeing the problem here. 10 years is a bit low but I'd say 20 is fine.

Copyright law is there to allow artists and authors to benefit from their works, to give them a financial incentive to create. It's not meant to be a cash for life scheme. It's not their for their grandchildren to rake in the cash and prizes.

I suspect that after 15 to 20 years, the creators have had sufficient time to benefit. That should be enough benefit to encourage creativity. After that, the copyright should expire and the work should be in the public domain.

Not only is that argument specious, it's brutally reductionist. What makes you think that the only value an artistic or intellectual work holds for its creator is its monetary value? If I thought that stepping up to a mike and speaking a piece in public, or sharing my work in a blog post, implicitly meant that I was assigning ownership of my work to anyone who felt like taking it, I would literally burn my shit before I ever let it see the light of day. No one owns something that is a part of me except me and the people that I willingly decide to share it with. If I decide to give it away, that's one thing. But let somebody just straight take it, against my will? Hell no.

 

[desertdweller]

I see the issue of copyright completely differently from many of you. I don't think of it as an incentive to create new cultural works at all. I think of it as protection from exploitation and appropriation of the ideas and voices of others. Why should I lose the right to prevent someone from using my words, or music, or art, to endorse and promote causes that I am opposed to? Why should I allow my work to be exploited for commercial endeavors, without any compensation? How is it that you believe that you are entitled to assign ownership of the fruit of my labor to the commons, when no one but myself or the respective authors of the work participated in creating it, and public ownership of the work is in no way essential to the public good? I'm genuinely interested in hearing the reasoning behind the idea that copyright should belong to anyone but the authors and their heirs and assigns.

Well for one thing, Copyright is not property. It is a government granted monopoly privilege that only exists by taking away peoples actual rights in their tangible property.

What exactly are "people's actual rights in their tangible property" and how can someone take away something that isn't tangible (like those "actual rights"), which negates its existence by that thinking?

You don't get to tell me what i can do with my own pen and paper, my computer or 3d printer just because it will bring you a profit if i have to get your permission and/or pay you. Property exist to curtail disputes over tangible goods. there is no need or justification for property in non-tangible goods except where the government intervenes because it deems it is in societies interest to promote creativity... at least in theory.

For most of recorded history in almost every part of the world, it has been the case that other people -do- get to tell you what you can do with your pen and paper, computer or 3D printer. They also get to tell you if you're allowed to have pen and paper, computer or 3D printer. That's just the way it has been. Yet you have a lot of unspoken assumptions that aren't aware of that reality. If your assumptions on freedom disagree, then try to find allodial title for land you've bought.

"...in societies interest to promote creativity" sounds meaningful, but how much of this argument boils down to "You can't tell me what to do. You're not my dad!" Because the opposite isn't always some utopian freedom ideal, but rather solipsism masquerading as the drive to freedom.

For another, nothing you could have possibly created came from you alone. It comes from and builds upon everyone's shared culture and heritage. You have no right to try and keep other people from using your creations and shared experiences the way you have no doubt used others, whether wittingly or not.

All of this is just my opinion of course.

By that idea, then no one has any right to tangible property either, if it was already in possession of someone else. Where exactly do you draw this line, or is it implied that this stuff is my stuff and your stuff is my stuff too, because of "shared culture and heritage".

If you build a house or build a song, it is still a contribution that creates value. There is no culture without contribution.

 

[Thad Boyd]

I see the issue of copyright completely differently from many of you. I don't think of it as an incentive to create new cultural works at all. I think of it as protection from exploitation and appropriation of the ideas and voices of others.

Respectfully, you're wrong, at least if you're in the United States.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

You can claim that the purpose of copyright is something other than what it is, but it's not a matter of opinion; the purpose of copyright is explained clearly in the Constitution.

 

[jonah]

The 28-year copyright term was perfectly fine. Adding another 28 years via an extension was not ideal, but 56 years is at least within shouting distance of reasonable. The current system (life + 70 years/125 years) is absolutely batshit crazy.

If you cannot monetize your work in 30-40 years, it belongs in the public domain. Why should the grandchildren of an author or composer benefit from something that happened before their parents were even born, depriving all of society of the value of having free access to that creative work for literally centuries?

If I wrote something at age 20, for example, and I live to be 90, that work would enjoy its government mandated monopoly for a hundred and forty fucking years. It might even outlive those freeloading grandchildren!

 

[Andara]

You would really suggest that a system whereby Tolkien's descendants get nothing from Peter Jackson is reasonable? Or where David Foster Wallace's suicide meant _Infinite Jest_ is already in the public domain?

To the first: Absolutely. The family has enjoyed years of income on his body of work and continuing to pay his estate means that they have zero incentive to produce anything, ever; why work when you can live off the efforts of your forebears? That second is why copyright has to have a strict limit - no only to allow others to build upon the work while it is still in the public mind, but also to make it so that an artist and their family can't survive indefinitely on just one big hit.

To the second: I could see a lower bound of, say, 10 years. Then again, anyone can choose to release their copyright on their works, or, like with Melancholy Elephants, release it under a creative commons license.

While that is basically true, leaving something to one's grandchildren is a financial incentive.

You mean like the actual money made from the song during the reasonable period during which the work was copyrighted?

Also, it's worth noting that no matter who has a copy right to a song, there will always be big money in performance.

 

[shelbystripes]

Well for one thing, Copyright is not property. It is a government granted monopoly privilege that only exists by taking away peoples actual rights in their tangible property.

Copyright is known as "intellectual property" for a reason. I can make similar arguments about your tangible property. If you own a house with land, you have a monopoly privilege to use that land. It's a privilege exclusively recognized and enforced by the government; you can either have the government arrest someone (criminal trespass) or use government-provided courts to extract damages from someone who enters or uses your land (Civil trespass, conversion, etc). You can call on the power of the government to evict people from your land. The government is the final arbiter of whether you, and not some other person or entity, has exclusive ultimate control over who does and doesn't get to use "your" property.

Property is a bundle of rights and privileges that are recognized by others, often through government mandate. Copyright is different in that the bundle of rights and privileges is a bit different, but the bundle for different types of tangible property are different too. You pay taxes every year on your house, but not your couch or TV.

You don't get to tell me what i can do with my own pen and paper, my computer or 3d printer just because it will bring you a profit if i have to get your permission and/or pay you.

Well, your computer is just silicon and copper and substrates in a steel and plastic frame. What are you going to run on it? An operating system? Are you not going to pay for that?

And if you say "No, I'll run Linux", that means you're choosing an OS without royalties/fees over an OS with royalties/fees. It doesn't mean you're magically entitled to run any software in the world just because you bought hardware. You get to pick and choose beteeen software you don't have to pay for, and software you do.

And who determines what you have to pay for? The creator (or whoever the creator sold property rights to). That's how property works. People can give it away or charge for it.

Property exist to curtail disputes over tangible goods. there is no need or justification for property in non-tangible goods except where the government intervenes because it deems it is in societies interest to promote creativity... at least in theory.

Well this was some word salad.

For another, nothing you could have possibly created came from you alone. It comes from and builds upon everyone's shared culture and heritage. You have no right to try and keep other people from using your creations and shared experiences the way you have no doubt used others, whether wittingly or not.

This isn't really how the world works. Or how copyright works. Copyright law requires you to show sufficient originality in your work, otherwise the copyright can be legally defeated. That's exactly what is happening here. The judge found the song as copyrighted isn't sufficiently different from existing works.

If you create something original, you get to own it. Inspiration isn't enough to give others rights in truly original works; the people who inspired you didn't create it, even though they could have. You did. You should be rewarded for creating something new that others did not.

All of this is just my opinion of course.

You're welcome to have an opinion, but just because it's an opinion doesn't mean it won't get torn apart for being wrong.

 

[taswyn]

This is the shit that happens when copyright has ridiculous lengths to it.

Copyright extensions are definitely a problem, but it sounds like this copyright should never have been granted in the first place.

There's something ridiculously, poignantly, and disturbingly American about a copyright granted, on a song sung by African American field workers, to a bunch of wealthier white Americans who then tried to screw each other over while turning around and still gouging those who might be seen as, relatively, far more rightful heirs to the original song.

These types of cases are the ones that call into question of whether we're capable of running a copyright system that can even come close to the spirit it claims to embody, and whether we aren't just doing more harm than good in the process. Especially considering that these have come about not as part of a review process paid for by tax dollars, but instead requiring an adversarial process that represents a significant amount of money by those challenging what is at face value a fairly ludicrous copyright claim. At the very least, the length of time serves as a significant problem, given that it incites the absolute worst possible behavior over things like this.

Honestly, I think we need both copyright and patents. But they both absolutely require some reform to stop simply being one more means for those with more to leverage their relative wealth and the legal system simply to prey on those with less.

In 1993, Seeger explained that he sought a copyright because his publishers told him, "If you don't copyright this now, some Hollywood types will have a version out next year like 'Come On Baby, We Shall Overcome Tonight.'" That convinced him to sign a 'songwriter's contract.'"

I'd like to be sympathetic to Seeger in this, given some of the other shenanigans, but there's something bizarrely hypocritical about taking someone else's lyrics, making some light changes and arrangement to more music (since there was probably already a tune at the least, given the origins), and coming to the conclusion that you should file copyright so no one else can make a modified version of yours. Even if your heart were in the right place so far as preserving the "spiritual roots."

 

[Ilikebundy99]

Well for one thing, Copyright is not property. It is a government granted monopoly privilege that only exists by taking away peoples actual rights in their tangible property.

Copyright is known as "intellectual property" for a reason. I can make similar arguments about your tangible property. If you own a house with land, you have a monopoly privilege to use that land. It's a privilege exclusively recognized and enforced by the government; you can either have the government arrest someone (criminal trespass) or use government-provided courts to extract damages from someone who enters or uses your land (Civil trespass, conversion, etc). You can call on the power of the government to evict people from your land. The government is the final arbiter of whether you, and not some other person or entity, has exclusive ultimate control over who does and doesn't get to use "your" property.

Property is a bundle of rights and privileges that are recognized by others, often through government mandate. Copyright is different in that the bundle of rights and privileges is a bit different, but the bundle for different types of tangible property are different too. You pay taxes every year on your house, but not your couch or TV.

You don't get to tell me what i can do with my own pen and paper, my computer or 3d printer just because it will bring you a profit if i have to get your permission and/or pay you.

Well, your computer is just silicon and copper and substrates in a steel and plastic frame. What are you going to run on it? An operating system? Are you not going to pay for that?

And if you say "No, I'll run Linux", that means you're choosing an OS without royalties/fees over an OS with royalties/fees. It doesn't mean you're magically entitled to run any software in the world just because you bought hardware. You get to pick and choose beteeen software you don't have to pay for, and software you do.

And who determines what you have to pay for? The creator (or whoever the creator sold property rights to). That's how property works. People can give it away or charge for it.

Property exist to curtail disputes over tangible goods. there is no need or justification for property in non-tangible goods except where the government intervenes because it deems it is in societies interest to promote creativity... at least in theory.

Well this was some word salad.

For another, nothing you could have possibly created came from you alone. It comes from and builds upon everyone's shared culture and heritage. You have no right to try and keep other people from using your creations and shared experiences the way you have no doubt used others, whether wittingly or not.

This isn't really how the world works. Or how copyright works. Copyright law requires you to show sufficient originality in your work, otherwise the copyright can be legally defeated. That's exactly what is happening here. The judge found the song as copyrighted isn't sufficiently different from existing works.

If you create something original, you get to own it. Inspiration isn't enough to give others rights in truly original works; the people who inspired you didn't create it, even though they could have. You did. You should be rewarded for creating something new that others did not.

All of this is just my opinion of course.

You're welcome to have an opinion, but just because it's an opinion doesn't mean it won't get torn apart for being wrong.

All of what you state implies/requires government intervention. Property exists and can be defended even in the absence of a government because it is tangible. even land. in the event of societal collapse your "intellectual property" does not exist at all unless someone for their own reasons chose to recognize it.

My house, my land, my car, my computer... all these tangible things i can keep and defend and claim as my property whether a government exists or not.

I believe governments have fallen and wars have been fought over allocation of scarce resources, i have never yet heard of even the suggestion of the same for "intellectual property"

The Justification for property in scarce resources is to prevent conflict, we cannot use the same physical item at the same time, so to prevent people from fighting over that item we recognize it as belonging to a person or a group of people. In general people seem to accept this as fair and valid. People will recognize tangible property rights even in the absence of a government, even if they intend to violate those rights.

Copyright is a government granted monopoly that takes away everyone's rights in their property to assign a subset of those rights to specific people or groups of people. It's justification is supposed to be in order to promote creativity. Absent a government to enforce it, it does not exist. period. It cannot be defended.

You have torn nothing apart, you are just one of those people who has a vested interest in copyright and wants to push it as far as you can to the detriment of society for your own benefit. You will never consider any other point of view because it is not in your interest to. That does not mean i have not raised valid points or make my point of view any less valid than yours

*edited to elaborate

 

[NeverTheKraken]

A 57-year old copyright in and of itself is criminal.

I agree, but get used to it

Also expect the length to be extended, or some other mechanism to keep copyright enforced, any time 'the mouse' or 'steamboat willy' is in danger of becoming public domain.

Unfortunately the case. The mouse is happy to plunder other people's works for its own use and profit but its unthinkable and 'theft' for anyone to suggest its own material should enter the public domain (as it should).

 

[desertdweller]

(...clipped...)

All of what you state implies/requires government intervention. Property exists and can be defended even in the absence of a government because it is tangible. even land. in the event of societal collapse your "intellectual property" does not exist at all unless someone for their own reasons chose to recognize it.

My house, my land, my car, my computer... all these tangible things i can keep and defend and claim as my property whether a government exists or not.

That's a false equivalence to compare the tangible object with the intangible claim of "your property". Objects are blind to ownership. They just exist. If enough people make the counter-claim that a specific house, land, car or computer is not yours, then sufficient force negates your claim. Because your belief in property rights is just that, a sense of meaning projected onto an object, not a physical law like gravity. If society collapses, then so does property rights. (Did you look up the difference between fee simple ownership and allodial title like I mentioned earlier?)

You're confusing hardware with software. Your obsession with objects is like hardware, but there is no point in anyone's life where they are not guided by principles and ideas, even when there is a lack of government. If electricity were to stop working tomorrow or an meteorite strike put the world in a state of nuclear winter, the survivors could still "keep and defend and claim" the US Constitution, even if they don't have a tangible copy.

Your objects that you get so worked up about are just stuff, basic objects, but not Property in the largest sense. In a crisis, people cling to and crave norms as much as they do objects. While your tangible objects feed your tangible body, the consciousness needs to be fed too...and that's where rights & intellectual property come into play.

I believe governments have fallen and wars have been fought over allocation of scarce resources, i have never yet heard of even the suggestion of the same for "intellectual property"

Then let me introduce you to the most ancient form of intellectual property: Religion and its various forms of Holy Scripture. How many wars have been fought because one group modified an older version of non-tangible religious dogma with new ideas, which the older group claimed a monopoly of authority over?

The Justification for property in scarce resources is to prevent conflict, we cannot use the same physical item at the same time, so to prevent people from fighting over that item we recognize it as belonging to a person or a group of people. In general people seem to accept this as fair and valid. People will recognize tangible property rights even in the absence of a government, even if they intend to violate those rights.

People will not recognize tangible property rights in the absence of a government. Many won't even in the presence of one. They only recognize what they want, but you are so invested in your idea that you assume everyone must think like you. Even where there is no scarcity, some people want to take things from others. That's why you have camping griefers in MMOs and countless other examples. Not everyone is the same as you.

Copyright is a government granted monopoly that takes away everyone's rights in their property to assign a subset of those rights to specific people or groups of people. It's justification is supposed to be in order to promote creativity. Absent a government to enforce it, it does not exist. period. It cannot be defended.

You have torn nothing apart, you are just one of those people who has a vested interest in copyright and wants to push it as far as you can to the detriment of society for your own benefit. You will never consider any other point of view because it is not in your interest to. That does not mean i have not raised valid points or make my point of view any less valid than yours

*edited to elaborate

Or copyright is just one of the many codified concepts that give concrete form (even if not tangible form) to unspoken community beliefs in right and wrong.

Yes, it does make your point less valid. You refuse to point out flaws in your own thinking, which makes them less points of debate if you won't give and take in a debate, and instead more like internalized truthiness or religious dogma. Your refusal in anything beyond the tangible is dancing close to a "Might Makes Right" stance, which you could have just come out and said that.

 

[ab78]

ab78[/url]":1qj7jif9]I wouldn't particularly object to a copyright term of "life of the author". That gets round the problem of works that gain in popularity later on, without the ridiculous excesses of systems like life + 70

You would really suggest that a system whereby Tolkien's descendants get nothing from Peter Jackson is reasonable? Or where David Foster Wallace's suicide meant _Infinite Jest_ is already in the public domain?

Totally. It's not *their* work. The son of a builder doesn't continue to get paid for work his dead father did years ago. If a work is any good then it'll make the author some profit; he can use that to buy stuff or just put it in the bank, and when he dies those assets can be passed down in his will. But the rights to profit from your ancestors' work? No. I don't think so. (And my father worked his whole life as an author, albeit a fairly obscure author of local history.)

I think the benefit to society from works entering the public domain and then being able to be built upon by future authors far outweighs the supposed benefit of descendants being able to leech off their parents' or grandparents' work all their lives.

 

[fivemack]

ab78[/url]":1gqzkm9k]But the rights to profit from your ancestors' work? No. I don't think so. (And my father worked his whole life as an author, albeit a fairly obscure author of local history.)

It's not the right to profit from your ancestor's work; it's the right to get a reasonable license fee from other people who are profiting from your ancestor's work. The alternatives are 'Penguin publishes the book / Peter Jackson makes the movie and gets to keep all the profit' and 'Penguin publishes the book / Peter Jackson makes the movie and also a bit of the profit goes to Tolkien's heirs'.

 

[blacke]

ab78[/url]":3a9odo1e]But the rights to profit from your ancestors' work? No. I don't think so. (And my father worked his whole life as an author, albeit a fairly obscure author of local history.)

It's not the right to profit from your ancestor's work; it's the right to get a reasonable license fee from other people who are profiting from your ancestor's work. The alternatives are 'Penguin publishes the book / Peter Jackson makes the movie and gets to keep all the profit' and 'Penguin publishes the book / Peter Jackson makes the movie and also a bit of the profit goes to Tolkien's heirs'.

So... if they don't profit from it (or more importantly don't use it in a commercial setting) then we should be perfectly fine using it however we want?

 

[desertdweller]

ab78[/url]"ied0gau]I wouldn't particularly object to a copyright term of "life of the author". That gets round the problem of works that gain in popularity later on, without the ridiculous excesses of systems like life + 70

You would really suggest that a system whereby Tolkien's descendants get nothing from Peter Jackson is reasonable? Or where David Foster Wallace's suicide meant _Infinite Jest_ is already in the public domain?

Totally. It's not *their* work. The son of a builder doesn't continue to get paid for work his dead father did years ago. If a work is any good then it'll make the author some profit; he can use that to buy stuff or just put it in the bank, and when he dies those assets can be passed down in his will. But the rights to profit from your ancestors' work? No. I don't think so. (And my father worked his whole life as an author, albeit a fairly obscure author of local history.)

I think the benefit to society from works entering the public domain and then being able to be built upon by future authors far outweighs the supposed benefit of descendants being able to leech off their parents' or grandparents' work all their lives.

So you would prefer if Disney or Viacom were able to keep all proceeds of any future works (like a movie made from a book) instead of any of it going to the family of the creator?

Why would an author who wrote something focused on social commentary or other political statement want their work to be appropriated and re-packaged by the forces they opposed within their lifetime? All because some stranger feels that their effort is "freeloading" if they don't relinquish their work within some arbitrary short period of time, like ten years.

If you claim there is greater benefit to society, then PROVE IT with something more than just namecalling. Don't just tell us about your bellyfeel truthiness. Otherwise, it sounds a bit authoritarian. Just like those who felt that Cloudflare didn't have a right to choose not to be associated with extremist groups who claimed they were part of them.

 

[desertdweller]

ab78[/url]":f0x0774b]I wouldn't particularly object to a copyright term of "life of the author". That gets round the problem of works that gain in popularity later on, without the ridiculous excesses of systems like life + 70

You would really suggest that a system whereby Tolkien's descendants get nothing from Peter Jackson is reasonable? Or where David Foster Wallace's suicide meant _Infinite Jest_ is already in the public domain?

Totally. It's not *their* work. The son of a builder doesn't continue to get paid for work his dead father did years ago. If a work is any good then it'll make the author some profit; he can use that to buy stuff or just put it in the bank, and when he dies those assets can be passed down in his will. But the rights to profit from your ancestors' work? No. I don't think so. (And my father worked his whole life as an author, albeit a fairly obscure author of local history.)

I think the benefit to society from works entering the public domain and then being able to be built upon by future authors far outweighs the supposed benefit of descendants being able to leech off their parents' or grandparents' work all their lives.

It just occurred to me that the son of a builder could get paid for the work his dead father did years ago, if the building is significant enough. Why would it benefit society more to allow a significant work to disappear?

Frank Lloyd Wright's estate, Taliesin, was declared a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service. It was listed as a "Priority 1" NHL, a site that is "seriously damaged or imminently with such damage." Seven years after that, it was still listed by The National Trust for Historic Preservation as one of America's Most Endangered Places, due to its "water damage, erosion, foundation settlement and wood decay." 25,000 people visit Taliesin each year (compared with the 120,000 visitors who visit Fallingwater, a house he designed but does not own).

All this passionate hatred for copyright does not answer the problem in the other direction. It sets up a cycle that leads to the Tragedy of the Commons. It's easier to poach someone else's work than it is to develop creative work of your own. That's why we have umpteen zillion superhero movies. Or zombie shows. Or vampires.

There's a implicit idea that was mentioned earlier that allowing copyright to pass to heirs would encourage them to just sit on their old IP and not produce more stuff. Perhaps that's motivated by jealousy or just a negative view of their fellow humans in general, but there are many examples where the copyright holder continues to make more stuff.

Would Tolkien's son have found the time to get The Silmarillion published after his father's death if it didn't pay for his time? Wouldn't many series be worse off if they were just left as uncollected notes in their attic? Frank Herbert's son has produced more books in the Dune series (13 books from the son, 6 books in the original Dune series). The Millennium series ( The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest ) weren't even published before Stieg Larsson died, yet there's two more beyond that which wouldn't exist if not for the success of the first three. James Bond movies would have run out years ago if they were limited to just Ian Fleming's writings.

I don't see how society would be better off if all that were released to the public domain after a decade. All that would do is lead to a lot of bad fan fiction by predatory corporations, and people already write bad fan fiction even with copyright. I don't see the difference between a person spending their life building a business, building a house or building a literary world. You're allowed to pass the first two down to your children, so why not all of their life's work?

 

[Andara]

So you would prefer if Disney or Viacom were able to keep all proceeds of any future works (like a movie made from a book) instead of any of it going to the family of the creator?

If the copyright is decades old? You bet your ass, I would.

Because that means that Joe Blow with no multi-million dollar backing could also create works based on the original, now public domain work, without having to seek a source of funding just to be able to secure the rights.

We would be culturally richer society if fewer people were interested only in becoming a monetarily richer one. But only for a few people.

 

[blacke]

ab78[/url]":1s3azzpd]I wouldn't particularly object to a copyright term of "life of the author". That gets round the problem of works that gain in popularity later on, without the ridiculous excesses of systems like life + 70

You would really suggest that a system whereby Tolkien's descendants get nothing from Peter Jackson is reasonable? Or where David Foster Wallace's suicide meant _Infinite Jest_ is already in the public domain?

Totally. It's not *their* work. The son of a builder doesn't continue to get paid for work his dead father did years ago. If a work is any good then it'll make the author some profit; he can use that to buy stuff or just put it in the bank, and when he dies those assets can be passed down in his will. But the rights to profit from your ancestors' work? No. I don't think so. (And my father worked his whole life as an author, albeit a fairly obscure author of local history.)

I think the benefit to society from works entering the public domain and then being able to be built upon by future authors far outweighs the supposed benefit of descendants being able to leech off their parents' or grandparents' work all their lives.

It just occurred to me that the son of a builder could get paid for the work his dead father did years ago, if the building is significant enough. Why would it benefit society more to allow a significant work to disappear?

Frank Lloyd Wright's estate, Taliesin, was declared a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service. It was listed as a "Priority 1" NHL, a site that is "seriously damaged or imminently with such damage." Seven years after that, it was still listed by The National Trust for Historic Preservation as one of America's Most Endangered Places, due to its "water damage, erosion, foundation settlement and wood decay." 25,000 people visit Taliesin each year (compared with the 120,000 visitors who visit Fallingwater, a house he designed but does not own).

All this passionate hatred for copyright does not answer the problem in the other direction. It sets up a cycle that leads to the Tragedy of the Commons. It's easier to poach someone else's work than it is to develop creative work of your own. That's why we have umpteen zillion superhero movies. Or zombie shows. Or vampires.

There's a implicit idea that was mentioned earlier that allowing copyright to pass to heirs would encourage them to just sit on their old IP and not produce more stuff. Perhaps that's motivated by jealousy or just a negative view of their fellow humans in general, but there are many examples where the copyright holder continues to make more stuff.

Would Tolkien's son have found the time to get The Silmarillion published after his father's death if it didn't pay for his time? Wouldn't many series be worse off if they were just left as uncollected notes in their attic? Frank Herbert's son has produced more books in the Dune series (13 books from the son, 6 books in the original Dune series). The Millennium series ( The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest ) weren't even published before Stieg Larsson died, yet there's two more beyond that which wouldn't exist if not for the success of the first three. James Bond movies would have run out years ago if they were limited to just Ian Fleming's writings.

I don't see how society would be better off if all that were released to the public domain after a decade. All that would do is lead to a lot of bad fan fiction by predatory corporations, and people already write bad fan fiction even with copyright. I don't see the difference between a person spending their life building a business, building a house or building a literary world. You're allowed to pass the first two down to your children, so why not all of their life's work?

It seems to me that you are argumenting for something different here, mainly the protection of the "world" or lore rather than the individual works of these creators. Just because a single work enters into the public domain DOES NOT necessitate that anyone is now legally allowed to write from the same "world" or lore, it just means that anyone can use that specific work as they see fit.

Personally I could see keeping protections of the "world" or lore of creators to today's copyright terms but single works should be limited to something like 20-30 years imo.

 

[desertdweller]

So you would prefer if Disney or Viacom were able to keep all proceeds of any future works (like a movie made from a book) instead of any of it going to the family of the creator?

If the copyright is decades old? You bet your ass, I would.

Because that means that Joe Blow with no multi-million dollar backing could also create works based on the original, now public domain work, without having to seek a source of funding just to be able to secure the rights.

We would be culturally richer society if fewer people were interested only in becoming a monetarily richer one. But only for a few people.

You sound bitter. Since when does anyone need multi-million dollar backing to create their own original work instead of demanding to ride on the back of someone else's work?

I wonder how many people equate copyrights with patents on an emotional level, because much of this bitterness seems to target the arguments against patents. Can you give me concrete examples, or is this anger ill-defined in your thoughts?

For example, I just saw the movie Ingrid Goes West, which has a scene in the middle where the main characters are singing in a car to each other. Originally, the script was written to use Seal's "Kiss From a Rose", but Seal wanted $300,000 to use part of the song in the movie, which they couldn't afford. Instead of complaining that it was a 20+ year old song, they just replaced the song with "All My Life" by K-Ci & JoJo. Unlike patents, it's not same kind of monopoly.

We are a culturally richer society when we have more to choose from. JK Rowling didn't need multi-million dollar backing to create the Harry Potter series. She was living a hand to mouth existance after her divorce with an infant to take care of. She created her own magical world instead of copying Tolkein's world. Even those who do copy, like Sword of Shannara, add enough of their own touches to make the fandom richer.

Copyright can be abused, but there are those who -do- have multi-million backing who would much rather steal someone else's work for their gain instead of adding something new to the pot, and society is better off encouraging the new creator over the multi-million dollar machine.
It all comes down to whether it is more important to reward creators or punish the machine, and I cannot see how a urge to punish creates more creativity. It's about control. The multi-million dollar machine and the people who think authors that devote their entire lives to their work are "freeloaders" are standing in the same corner. They're both control freaks who cannot stand for anyone else to have more control than them.

 

[ivan256]

10 or 20 years, tops, that's how long copyright shoud last. It's basically eternal now so those who profited from the public domain, like any creator inevitably does as nobody makes anything truly from nothing, are not actually giving anything back.

I like the idea where extensions can be granted, but cost an ever-increasing amount of money. For example:

Year 0: You write a song. The copyright is yours for 20 years.
Year 20: You pay $100 to extend the copyright for 10 years.
Year 30: You pay $1000 to extend the copyright another 10 years.
Year 40: You pay $10,000 to extend the copyright another 10 years.

And every 10 years thereafter, another zero is added on to the extension fee. This way Disney gets to keep its lucrative copyrights, and everything else gets put in the public domain the way the Founding Fathers explicitly intended.

The ramp needs to be faster though. Maybe every 5 years, or multiply by 100 instead of 10.

Even a token fee for renewal would be an improvement though, as it would prevent works in limbo, where the rights holder can't be found or might not exist to obtain a license from but the work is still protected. The current law does exactly the opposite of what the constitution claims the purpose of copyright is.

It will never happen though. We have too many treaty obligations we would never back out of.

 

[Jeff S]

Jeff S[/url]":3ndfjw1x]

10 or 20 years, tops, that's how long copyright shoud last. It's basically eternal now so those who profited from the public domain, like any creator inevitably does as nobody makes anything truly from nothing, are not actually giving anything back.

So, to follow your logic, Paul McCartney, after 10 years from publishing his songs should have given them up to be In The Public Domain. His work-after 10 years- is no longer his.

As opposed to the system where we've got now, where Michael Jackson bought them at auction and now Sony owns them? Yes.

There's one argument for longish copyrights, and that is that not every work enjoys wide acclaim (and therefore high royalties) soon after it is first publish. Some works languish in obscurity for years, and then suddenly become popular. With very short copyrights, a whole 'publishing' industry designed to gobble up other people's works after 10 years, promote/advertise the heck out of them, and turn them into hits without paying the creators anything, would *absolutely definitely be what happens*.

Sure, your Paul McCartney's and Taylor Swifts would still get paid during the first 10 years, because their stuff is going to be marketed and sold day one that it is released, but many more would toil in obscurity, only to see others reap the fruit of their creative labor.

And yes, creating new ideas, new lyrics, new melodies and harmonies, is actual labor, that creates something that potentially has value, and it would be a shame to see people get screwed. Yes, some people still get screwed in the current system, but that is usually because they signed on the dotted line. Which is still unfortunate, but they usually at least get *something* from the deal.

I wouldn't particularly object to a copyright term of "life of the author". That gets round the problem of works that gain in popularity later on, without the ridiculous excesses of systems like life + 70. For copyrights assigned to a corporation, pick a reasonable time limit but IMO 30 years ought to be the upper limit.

What if you die a week after creating a song/book/computer program/painting? So, your heirs should not be able to inherit any interest in that creative work because of bad timing?

I agree that + 70 years seems a bit long for personal copyrights, but I could see the argument for +20 years.

 

[ivan256]

It all comes down to whether it is more important to reward creators or punish the machine

False dichotomy.

Anyway, the real question is "how much reward is appropriate"? Why should anybody be compensated for the rest of their life for work they did once? And how does that encourage people to create more? Want more money? Make something else. The returns from a copyrighted work are typically heavily front loaded anyway. A shorter term would be just fine.

 

[Jeff S]

ab78[/url]":wajc9c6t]I wouldn't particularly object to a copyright term of "life of the author". That gets round the problem of works that gain in popularity later on, without the ridiculous excesses of systems like life + 70

You would really suggest that a system whereby Tolkien's descendants get nothing from Peter Jackson is reasonable? Or where David Foster Wallace's suicide meant _Infinite Jest_ is already in the public domain?

Totally. It's not *their* work. The son of a builder doesn't continue to get paid for work his dead father did years ago. If a work is any good then it'll make the author some profit; he can use that to buy stuff or just put it in the bank, and when he dies those assets can be passed down in his will. But the rights to profit from your ancestors' work? No. I don't think so. (And my father worked his whole life as an author, albeit a fairly obscure author of local history.)

I think the benefit to society from works entering the public domain and then being able to be built upon by future authors far outweighs the supposed benefit of descendants being able to leech off their parents' or grandparents' work all their lives.

I asked above, but again I ask, what if a creator dies shortly after creating a work, before they can profit on it to amass assets to pass onto heirs? Shouldn't there be a minimum term of copyright even if the author dies? Life + 10 or Life + 20 years, or maybe something like (life *or* 20 years, whichever is greater)?

 

[Andara]

You sound bitter. Since when does anyone need multi-million dollar backing to create their own original work instead of demanding to ride on the back of someone else's work?

There is no such thing as someone's original work. Every part of it is a reflection of their experiences and the society in which they reside and all of the influences within it, including every single work of art to which they have been exposed.

It's like some guy claiming that he is solely responsible for his retail businesses success while ignoring the people who make the payment system possible, who developed the production process, who developed the materials, the people and governments responsible for maintaining the roadways and infrastructure required for his storefront to even exist....

We are not all isolated individuals, spinning our tales with no connection to our pasts and environments. To fence off massive swathes of a person's culture is not a good thing. Extending that shit to the point where the people for whom it was relevant are no longer creating is a net loss to all of society.

I asked above, but again I ask, what if a creator dies shortly after creating a work, before they can profit on it to amass assets to pass onto heirs? Shouldn't there be a minimum term of copyright even if the author dies? Life + 10 or Life + 20 years, or maybe something like (life *or* 20 years, whichever is greater)?

Already asked and answered.

All that's needed is a minimum bound so that the work is protected for a base X years regardless of whether the actual creator survives to the end of that period.

 

[Thad Boyd]

ab78[/url]":2mlag9gt]I wouldn't particularly object to a copyright term of "life of the author". That gets round the problem of works that gain in popularity later on, without the ridiculous excesses of systems like life + 70

You would really suggest that a system whereby Tolkien's descendants get nothing from Peter Jackson is reasonable? Or where David Foster Wallace's suicide meant _Infinite Jest_ is already in the public domain?

Totally. It's not *their* work. The son of a builder doesn't continue to get paid for work his dead father did years ago.

Oh God.

Why do so many people seem to think that copyrights are houses?

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

Patentholders get huge sums of money from a similar timeframe. Failing to see the problem.

Patents have a shorter timeframe than copyrights for a good reason. A copyrighted work such as a song or a novel or a movie... is one of thousands of songs or novels or movies. A patent governs what may be the only way to do something, or a much more effective way to do it.

Copyrights lasting forever may be unreasonable, but it's really little more than an annoyance. If the same thing happened with patents, we would be living in a kind of oligarchy.

Of course, there are borderline cases where a copyright behaves like a patent: the copyright on Microsoft Windows comes to mind.

20 or even 30 years is reasonable on a copyright... The current version is not.

 

[whatdouno]

I see the issue of copyright completely differently from many of you. I don't think of it as an incentive to create new cultural works at all. I think of it as protection from exploitation and appropriation of the ideas and voices of others. Why should I lose the right to prevent someone from using my words, or music, or art, to endorse and promote causes that I am opposed to? Why should I allow my work to be exploited for commercial endeavors, without any compensation? How is it that you believe that you are entitled to assign ownership of the fruit of my labor to the commons, when no one but myself or the respective authors of the work participated in creating it, and public ownership of the work is in no way essential to the public good? I'm genuinely interested in hearing the reasoning behind the idea that copyright should belong to anyone but the authors and their heirs and assigns.

Well for one thing, Copyright is not property. It is a government granted monopoly privilege that only exists by taking away peoples actual rights in their tangible property.

You don't get to tell me what i can do with my own pen and paper, my computer or 3d printer just because it will bring you a profit if i have to get your permission and/or pay you. Property exist to curtail disputes over tangible goods. there is no need or justification for property in non-tangible goods except where the government intervenes because it deems it is in societies interest to promote creativity... at least in theory.

For another, nothing you could have possibly created came from you alone. It comes from and builds upon everyone's shared culture and heritage. You have no right to try and keep other people from using your creations and shared experiences the way you have no doubt used others, whether wittingly or not.

All of this is just my opinion of course.

Disney made its billions remixing public domain stories like Snow White, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Snow White, Rapunzel, the tales of King Arthur, Robin Hood, etc, etc, etc, and yet because they don't want to allow Steamboat Willie to enter into public domain, they're completely fucking up our culture and the way art works. They can keep the mouse forever as a trademark, this would not impact their use of Mickey Mouse in any way, but they don't want that crappy little piece of film to enter history and belong to the world, so they pay off congresscritters and invite them to parties with a couple of B-grade movie stars and get what they want.

Sherlock Holmes went into public domain, then the last short story or two went back into Conan-Doyle-descendant-owned IP when copyright was once again extended. Due to most of the Holmes oeuvre being in public domain, we got the Guy Ritchie version, the "Sherlock" BBC version, and the CBS Elementary version... the Conan Doyle descendants could no longer tell anyone what they could and couldn't put on the screen as they'd lost that power, but they still got their pound of flesh from all three productions because they made unhappy noises that they might like to sue over those last couple of short stories. They'd probably lose but it would cost the productions money and time and bad press. Cheaper just to pay off the descendants, so they did.

There can be a balance struck that is fair to creatives and fair to the culture, but what we have now is not fair. Nothing is going into public domain and won't for many years, and our culture is being starved. Example: if Batman were in public domain, as he should have been for a decade or two at this point, we'd be able to enjoy many versions of the character presented by talented people who will never get the chance to make those TV shows and movies, the way Sherlock Holmes has been celebrated in media. We're stuck with the crappy versions Time Warner wants to give us.

 

[whatdouno]

ab78[/url]":2vewfu24]I wouldn't particularly object to a copyright term of "life of the author". That gets round the problem of works that gain in popularity later on, without the ridiculous excesses of systems like life + 70

You would really suggest that a system whereby Tolkien's descendants get nothing from Peter Jackson is reasonable? Or where David Foster Wallace's suicide meant _Infinite Jest_ is already in the public domain?

Yes and probably not. My dad built garage doors all over Manhattan, but I don't get paid every time the fire department opens and closes one of his doors, not 5 years later, not 15 years later, and not 30 years later. Why the hell should Tolkien's grand kids and great grand kids still get bags of money for something someone they barely remember if at all did decades and decades ago? Tolkien got paid, and he left a legacy for his kids. That's enough. Life + 30 should be more than enough.

When does it end? Should Disney have paid Hans Christian Anderson's descendants for use of The Little Mermaid? Because I can tell you right now, they did not pay them a cent. That work was in public domain. Disney don't pay no one for no stories. But they don't want to give back to our culture.

 

[blacke]

Considering how most of the more vocal copyright proponents argue it feels like we are heading in this direction. The points on the next page though makes a fairly balanced view, with the only real point of discussion being the length of time for copyright.

 

[foxyshadis]

ab78[/url]":258dbqjd]I wouldn't particularly object to a copyright term of "life of the author". That gets round the problem of works that gain in popularity later on, without the ridiculous excesses of systems like life + 70

You would really suggest that a system whereby Tolkien's descendants get nothing from Peter Jackson is reasonable? Or where David Foster Wallace's suicide meant _Infinite Jest_ is already in the public domain?

Yes and probably not. My dad built garage doors all over Manhattan, but I don't get paid every time the fire department opens and closes one of his doors, not 5 years later, not 15 years later, and not 30 years later. Why the hell should Tolkien's grand kids and great grand kids still get bags of money for something someone they barely remember if at all did decades and decades ago? Tolkien got paid, and he left a legacy for his kids. That's enough. Life + 30 should be more than enough.

When does it end? Should Disney have paid Hans Christian Anderson's descendants for use of The Little Mermaid? Because I can tell you right now, they did not pay them a cent. That work was in public domain. Disney don't pay no one for no stories. But they don't want to give back to our culture.

A flat 28 (or 30), not even life+30. Despite some unscrupulous companies being willing to cut out everyone with Hollywood accounting long after the fact, there's the balance of the cachet of a beloved author being a consultant on the films (eg, Rowling or Martin).

There is really no argument for heirs being able to profit off of a creative work (aside from the remaining time as part of the estate, should the creator die early). Everyone else has to individually put part of their pay away for retirement, and if they choose, an estate or trust. Certainly copyright shouldn't end at life, so creators aren't murdered regularly, but the solution to that is fixed periods, not ludicrous extensions.

 

[ab78]

desertdweller[/url]":1lzhy9vp]

ab78[/url]":1lzhy9vp]I wouldn't particularly object to a copyright term of "life of the author". That gets round the problem of works that gain in popularity later on, without the ridiculous excesses of systems like life + 70

You would really suggest that a system whereby Tolkien's descendants get nothing from Peter Jackson is reasonable? Or where David Foster Wallace's suicide meant _Infinite Jest_ is already in the public domain?

Totally. It's not *their* work. The son of a builder doesn't continue to get paid for work his dead father did years ago. If a work is any good then it'll make the author some profit; he can use that to buy stuff or just put it in the bank, and when he dies those assets can be passed down in his will. But the rights to profit from your ancestors' work? No. I don't think so. (And my father worked his whole life as an author, albeit a fairly obscure author of local history.)

I think the benefit to society from works entering the public domain and then being able to be built upon by future authors far outweighs the supposed benefit of descendants being able to leech off their parents' or grandparents' work all their lives.

Would Tolkien's son have found the time to get The Silmarillion published after his father's death if it didn't pay for his time? Wouldn't many series be worse off if they were just left as uncollected notes in their attic? Frank Herbert's son has produced more books in the Dune series (13 books from the son, 6 books in the original Dune series). The Millennium series ( The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest ) weren't even published before Stieg Larsson died, yet there's two more beyond that which wouldn't exist if not for the success of the first three. James Bond movies would have run out years ago if they were limited to just Ian Fleming's writings.

I don't see how society would be better off if all that were released to the public domain after a decade. All that would do is lead to a lot of bad fan fiction by predatory corporations, and people already write bad fan fiction even with copyright.

I think you have something of a point regarding unfinished works. Certainly with the Silmarillion Christopher Tolkien did a huge amount of work on JRRT's notes to get it into a publishable shape and should be considered a co-author with his own copyright. More generally I wouldn't have a problem with an author's descendant being able to claim the copyright to their parent's unpublished works, should the descendant decide to publish them after the author's death. Pretty much always if something is unpublished at the time of death, at least some work would be required to make it publishable and so the descendant should be able to claim co-authorship and therefore copyright. Otherwise there would be no incentive to release them and important work would be lost. But that isn't contrary to copyright expiring on the original works. CT could happily release "The Silmarillion, by JRRT" and enjoy copyright on it for his life, but people would be able to freely distribute the (copyright-free) The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings etc. and write their own works using the characters and settings.

But for stuff like Frank Herbert's son's Dune novels? Given the quantity of them, they can't to any significant degree be based on Franks' detailed notes in the same way the Silmarillion was based on JRRT's detailed notes. Maybe he had an idea of how Frank saw the overall sequence of eventsi n the greater universe, but they're essentially fanfiction granted an unfair monopoly by virtue of descent. They may be fine, but they're not Frank Herbert's Dune and I don't see why any other author shouldn't be able to produce Dune books and sell them if they're good enough to attract a market.
I don't accept the argument that the existence of Middle Earth fanfiction would have seriously undermined publication of The Silmarillion:- the Silmarillion would still carry JRRT's name and people would still therefore be more interested in it than some random fanfiction. After all, there is plenty of (non-commercial) Middle Earth fanfiction today, see fanfiction.net for example, but it didn't detract in any way from sales of The Children of Húrin. Yes, lots of fanfiction is bad, and lots of it would still be bad if companies were able to produce commercial fanfiction. Lots of original work is terrible too. Sometimes, good stuff (whether fanfiction or original work) is produced too.