General Discussion

Originally posted by rikilii

 

Copyrights don't last that long.   They last for the life of the author plus about 50 years.  So they protect the author and his heirs.

Who the hell would spend any time or money writing anything if someone else could come along and copy it word for word and give the author no credit?

You trash publishing companies, and some may deserve it, but they also are the ones who fund the authors, make it possible for authors to make a living by writing, and to get their creations to large numbers of people.  Without them, you'd never have the likes of Tolkein's works.

Life of author plus 70 years or 95 years for corporate held copywrites. No product needs protection for 95 years. It's absurd. Corporations shouldn't be able to hold copywrites for single source creations ever.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by rikilii

 

Copyrights don't last that long.   They last for the life of the author plus about 50 years.  So they protect the author and his heirs.

Who the hell would spend any time or money writing anything if someone else could come along and copy it word for word and give the author no credit?

You trash publishing companies, and some may deserve it, but they also are the ones who fund the authors, make it possible for authors to make a living by writing, and to get their creations to large numbers of people.  Without them, you'd never have the likes of Tolkein's works.

 

Life of author plus 70 years or 95 years for corporate held copywrites. No product needs protection for 95 years. It's absurd. Corporations shouldn't be able to hold copywrites for single source creations ever.

Why not?  The rights protected by copyright law are very narrow.  No one needs these rights to be available to the public, ever.  You're free to write any story or song you want, as long as you don't copy what someone else did.

Honestly, if you don't like the law, write your Congressman.

Originally posted by rikilii

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by rikilii

 

Copyrights don't last that long.   They last for the life of the author plus about 50 years.  So they protect the author and his heirs.

Who the hell would spend any time or money writing anything if someone else could come along and copy it word for word and give the author no credit?

You trash publishing companies, and some may deserve it, but they also are the ones who fund the authors, make it possible for authors to make a living by writing, and to get their creations to large numbers of people.  Without them, you'd never have the likes of Tolkein's works.

 

Life of author plus 70 years or 95 years for corporate held copywrites. No product needs protection for 95 years. It's absurd. Corporations shouldn't be able to hold copywrites for single source creations ever.

 

Why not?  The rights protected by copyright law are very narrow.  No one needs these rights to be available to the public, ever.  You're free to write any story or song you want, as long as you don't copy what someone else did.

Honestly, if you don't like the law, write your Congressman.

That's ridiculous tbh, copywrites have to have some kind of time limitation on them otherwise it would enable monopolies to arise on potentially revolutionary idea's. 

It does not take a very large imagination to envisage what kind of world we would live in if this was allowed, and it would not be pleasant. 

Originally posted by Blodpls

Originally posted by rikilii

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by rikilii

 

Copyrights don't last that long.   They last for the life of the author plus about 50 years.  So they protect the author and his heirs.

Who the hell would spend any time or money writing anything if someone else could come along and copy it word for word and give the author no credit?

You trash publishing companies, and some may deserve it, but they also are the ones who fund the authors, make it possible for authors to make a living by writing, and to get their creations to large numbers of people.  Without them, you'd never have the likes of Tolkein's works.

 

Life of author plus 70 years or 95 years for corporate held copywrites. No product needs protection for 95 years. It's absurd. Corporations shouldn't be able to hold copywrites for single source creations ever.

 

Why not?  The rights protected by copyright law are very narrow.  No one needs these rights to be available to the public, ever.  You're free to write any story or song you want, as long as you don't copy what someone else did.

Honestly, if you don't like the law, write your Congressman.

 

That's ridiculous tbh, copywrites have to have some kind of time limitation on them otherwise it would enable monopolies to arise on potentially revolutionary idea's. 

It does not take a very large imagination to envisage what kind of world we would live in if this was allowed, and it would not be pleasant. 

Copyright does not protect ideas, it protects works of authorship.  So the parade of horribles that people think is or will accompany this long period of exclusivity is non-existent.   You are perfectly free to write and publish a story about a gray old wizard who travels across the world with a band of adventurers, some of whom are elves, and some of whom are very short, to cast a magical heirloom into a firey pit to undo the evil overlord that seeks to wreak havok on the good peoples of central earth.

Can you honestly give me one good example of a copyright preventing the use of a 'revolutionary idea'?

Sure, here's a couple of example's: the light bulb, the transistor

You could not possibly have unlimited copyright on inventions like these without causing severe harm to humanity.

Originally posted by Blodpls

Sure, here's a couple of example's: the lightbulb, the transistor

The lightbulb and the transistor are not protected by copyright--they are not "works of authorship".  They might at one time have been protected by patents, but patents only last for 20 years, so these inventions are now part of the public domain.

If you decide that you want to dedicate your life or invest your money in the development of a BETTER lightbulb, and you succeed, you too can get a patent and profit from your efforts and investment.  If you didn't get a patent, everybody else would copy your invention, undersell you, and put you out of business, because they never had to spend the time and money needed to invent the thing in the first place.

Ok a copy right and patent are different.

I still don't agree that copyright should be extended perpetually, there is long tradition of works of art becoming public property after a predefined time.  If this wasn't the case it would still be necessary to pay the copywrite holder of Beethoven or Rudyard Kipling every time their work was reproduced.

It is likely that the copywrite holders of these works by now would not in fact be the decedents of the author but would be hands of a small group of companies or individuals who would have a stranglehold over our cultural history.

If these copywrites ever came into the hands of people who do not want them ever to be reproduced again for whatever reason, then they are lost forever.  An example would be a group of people who deny the existance of evolution purchasing the works Charles Darwin or the communist party of wherever purchasing all copywrites of George Orwell's works.

Originally posted by Blodpls

Ok a copy right and patent are different.

I still don't agree that copyright should be extended perpetually, there is long tradition of works of art becoming public property after a predefined time.  If the is wasn't the case it would still be necessary to pay the copywrite holder of Beethoven or Rudyard Kipling every time their work was reproduced.

It is likely that the copywrite holders of these works by now would not in fact be the decedents of the author but would be hands of a small group of companies or individuals who would have a stranglehold over our cultural history.

If these copywrites ever came into the hands of people who not want them ever be reproduced again for whatever reason, then they are lost forever.  An example would be a group of people who deny the existance of evolution purchasing the works Charles Darwin or the communist party of wherever purchasing all copywrites of George Orwell's works.

That could happen, yes, but only to a certain extent.  That's why there's a limit on the time period of copyrights.  And even if someone bought the rights to Charles Darwin's writings, that would not prevent you or anyone else from reproducing the ideas or facts set forth in his works.  You just couldn't do it word for word.  As I said, copyright does not protect ideas, nor does it protect facts. 

I agree that copyright is necessary to ensure that people get rewarded for their efforts, but I do think that having them run out after specified time, as is currently the case, is important and that this stipulation should not be removed.