Export thread
Lawsuit: Warner does NOT own "Happy Birthday to You"
#1
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
Clicky. (via Techdirt)
tl;dc Plaintiff says copyrights to the song expired in the 1920s at the latest, and the only thing Warner has legitimate title to is a specific piano arrangement, if even that. They certainly have no right to the base melody or lyrics.
tl;dc Plaintiff says copyrights to the song expired in the 1920s at the latest, and the only thing Warner has legitimate title to is a specific piano arrangement, if even that. They certainly have no right to the base melody or lyrics.
#2
PatrThom
PatrThom
Saw the story, am VERY interested to see how it plays out.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#3
GasBandit
GasBandit
We need to go back to "7 years then public domain." Boom.
#4
Espy
Espy
YES.We need to go back to "7 years then public domain." Boom.
#5
PatrThom
I'm not sure about the 7yrs thing, I could see it go for much longer BUT...the rights holder must demonstrate that the product has been continuously offered for sale for a period of no less than 30 days. Get rid of all this "Disney Vault" crap. You can't make a thing and then sit on it forever without doing anything with it. Also, hard maximum on whatever the maximum is. None of this "extend it every 10 years" hijinx..
--Patrick
PatrThom
I would amend that.We need to go back to "7 years then public domain." Boom.
I'm not sure about the 7yrs thing, I could see it go for much longer BUT...the rights holder must demonstrate that the product has been continuously offered for sale for a period of no less than 30 days. Get rid of all this "Disney Vault" crap. You can't make a thing and then sit on it forever without doing anything with it. Also, hard maximum on whatever the maximum is. None of this "extend it every 10 years" hijinx..
--Patrick
#6
GasBandit
GasBandit
Nope. No more shenanigans, no more loopholes. 7 years. Done.I would amend that.
I'm not sure about the 7yrs thing, I could see it go for much longer BUT...the rights holder must demonstrate that the product has been continuously offered for sale for a period of no less than 30 days. Get rid of all this "Disney Vault" crap. You can't make a thing and then sit on it forever without doing anything with it. Also, hard maximum on whatever the maximum is. None of this "extend it every 10 years" hijinx..
--Patrick
#7
Adam
Adam
I hope you mean 7 years after the death of the creator because 7 years is a ridiculously short amount of time that no country on earth currently subscribes to. At best it's 10 years for photographs.We need to go back to "7 years then public domain." Boom.
#8
GasBandit
GasBandit
Nope. I mean 7 years, full stop. I know they don't use it now. It's been perverted into what it is by the 6 corporations that control everything you watch, read, or listen to. But originally it was 7 years (albeit, admittedly, with one possible 7 year extension).I hope you mean 7 years after the death of the creator because 7 years is a ridiculously short amount of time that no country on earth currently subscribes to. At best it's 10 years for photographs.
#9
Adam
Adam
As a content creator, that's just too short a time frame for me. Hell, some books take 7 years to write, let alone only being able to profit from them in any conceivable way for 7 years? Nope, no way, no how. What Disney's done with the Mouse copyrights is abominable for sure, but the solution isn't to go so far in the other direction to make creative work even more unprofitable for people than it is now.Nope. I mean 7 years, full stop. I know they don't use it now. It's been perverted into what it is by the 6 corporations that control everything you watch, read, or listen to. But originally it was 7 years (albeit, admittedly, with one possible 7 year extension).
#10
GasBandit
GasBandit
It's not 7 years from when you start writing it. Also bear in mind that 7 years was standardized at a time when printing and distribution was MUCH slower and more labor intensive than it is today, even not counting digital content distribution. That was 7 years to sell and distribute the books by movable type, sail, and horse-drawn cart.As a content creator, that's just too short a time frame for me. Hell, some books take 7 years to write, let alone only being able to profit from them in any conceivable way for 7 years? Nope, no way, no how. What Disney's done with the Mouse copyrights is abominable for sure, but the solution isn't to go so far in the other direction to make creative work even more unprofitable for people than it is now.
#11
Adam
We have to allow content creators the opportunity to benefit financially from their work and keeping a timeline so short does not do that; quite the opposite. There is a lot of risk in being creative, and by reducing the reward, it just makes it that much more difficult to succeed. And then the only content creators that can survive financially are employed by the corporations, simply exacerbating the problem.
I'd see the advent of the internet and the ability to distribute content much quicker as a reason NOT to shorten the timeline, simply because 7 years out, it would be so easy for that content to be distributed for free public domain.
Adam
Oh I know how it worksIt's not 7 years from when you start writing it. Also bear in mind that 7 years was standardized at a time when printing and distribution was MUCH slower and more labor intensive than it is today, even not counting digital content distribution. That was 7 years to sell and distribute the books by movable type, sail, and horse-drawn cart.
We have to allow content creators the opportunity to benefit financially from their work and keeping a timeline so short does not do that; quite the opposite. There is a lot of risk in being creative, and by reducing the reward, it just makes it that much more difficult to succeed. And then the only content creators that can survive financially are employed by the corporations, simply exacerbating the problem.
I'd see the advent of the internet and the ability to distribute content much quicker as a reason NOT to shorten the timeline, simply because 7 years out, it would be so easy for that content to be distributed for free public domain.
#12
GasBandit
GasBandit
I think we have a fundamental disagreement then, because I think internet distribution makes it easier to profit more quickly during those 7 years. It also lowers the barrier to entry/self publish.Oh I know how it works
We have to allow content creators the opportunity to benefit financially from their work and keeping a timeline so short does not do that; quite the opposite. There is a lot of risk in being creative, and by reducing the reward, it just makes it that much more difficult to succeed. And then the only content creators that can survive financially are employed by the corporations, simply exacerbating the problem.
I'd see the advent of the internet and the ability to distribute content much quicker as a reason NOT to shorten the timeline, simply because 7 years out, it would be so easy for that content to be distributed for free public domain.
#13
Adam
Adam
I think it's easier for sure and makes it easier to profit, but it also coincides with the largest illegal distribution network of content ever conceived. A little bit of good, a little bit of bad.I think we have a fundamental disagreement then, because I think internet distribution makes it easier to profit more quickly during those 7 years. It also lowers the barrier to entry/self publish.
#14
PatrThom
In today's economy, with today's social pressures and stuff, I just don't want to standardize on "seven years" merely because someone 200 years ago thought it sounded like "a good number."
The same technological advances that make it easier to create also make it easier to share/disseminate, so you might be able to make more stuff faster, but the freeloaders have an equally easier opportunity to freeload.
--Patrick
PatrThom
I'm with Adam-ish. There needs to be a definite point where stuff you make becomes public domain (which I assume would be Xxx years or the death of the creator, whichever comes first). Creative works shouldn't be locked up due to generation after generation of heirs squabbling over the rights, or due to the immortality of corporations. Copyright, patents, whatever. The hard part is the determination of a just expiration period that balances the ability to make a living (for the creator) against the benefit of releasing work(s) into the public domain. Creators will always lobby for longer periods of exclusivity, and consumers will want the opposite.It's not 7 years from when you start writing it. Also bear in mind that 7 years was standardized at a time when printing and distribution was MUCH slower and more labor intensive than it is today, even not counting digital content distribution. That was 7 years to sell and distribute the books by movable type, sail, and horse-drawn cart.
In today's economy, with today's social pressures and stuff, I just don't want to standardize on "seven years" merely because someone 200 years ago thought it sounded like "a good number."
The same technological advances that make it easier to create also make it easier to share/disseminate, so you might be able to make more stuff faster, but the freeloaders have an equally easier opportunity to freeload.
--Patrick
#15
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Long copy rights should benefit the creator. But when the copy right passes to a corporation the shelf life should be closer to milk's.
#16
GasBandit
GasBandit
I'd thought of something similar to that myself, but how do you close the loopholes? As in, for whatever reason, an author enters a contractual agreement with a corporation that has him sending all "his" IP money their way, thus allowing the corporation to de facto own the IP while still keeping it for extended duration?Long copy rights should benefit the creator. But when the copy right passes to a corporation the shelf life should be closer to milk's.
#17
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
My problem with the 7 year time frame is that artist starve, and the corporations continue to profit for decades.
#18
Adam
Adam
Could do something like "Copyright is for the life of the creator or 50 years, whichever is shorter. Derivative works do not extend the length of the original copyright. ". It puts a maximum cap on copy right length even assigned to corporations, but gives a creator significant enough time to benefit from their work without the ability for it to be passed down to their heirs.Long copy rights should benefit the creator. But when the copy right passes to a corporation the shelf life should be closer to milk's.
#19
Adam
Adam
It's currently life of the creator + 50 years. Life of the creator allows them to benefit from it for a manageable period and doesn't allow them to pass on the rights ad infinitum. 50 years helps keep corporations (who don't have a foreseeable lifespan) from the same.Why life of the creator? Why 50 years? That seems excessively long, and very similar to what we have now.
#20
GasBandit
GasBandit
Life of the creator is still too long. 50 years is still too long.
#21
fade
fade
State enforced redistribution of personal property. You lefties, you.
#23
blotsfan
blotsfan
I'd be fine with life of the creator. If he wants to sell it to a corporation, he can but when he dies the corporation loses it.
#24
Sparhawk
Sparhawk
So you're saying that Stephan Pastis should lose control of "Pearls Before Swine" right now because the first strip is over 7 years old?Life of the creator is still too long. 50 years is still too long.
#25
PatrThom
PatrThom
Don't know if that applies the same to "ongoing works," or whether it would just mean he just loses copyright on reproductions of the strips that are more than 7 years old.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#26
Sparhawk
Sparhawk
But, Gas is advocating 7 years, no exceptions. That would mean, to me (and probably more so to lawyers), that someone could start producing their own Pearls strips.Don't know if that applies the same to "ongoing works," or whether it would just mean he just loses copyright on reproductions of the strips that are more than 7 years old.
--Patrick
#27
PatrThom
PatrThom
I think it would mean clarification would be needed to determine whether each strip would be considered its own work, or whether the entirety of the strip would be considered a "work in progress."
And this doesn't even get into the required discussion over whether the books that are collections of subsets of the strip count as individual works unto themselves.
This is probably why I'm not a judge.
--Patrick
And this doesn't even get into the required discussion over whether the books that are collections of subsets of the strip count as individual works unto themselves.
This is probably why I'm not a judge.
--Patrick
#28
GasBandit
GasBandit
Is pearls before swine "completed?" Or is it still being written?So you're saying that Stephan Pastis should lose control of "Pearls Before Swine" right now because the first strip is over 7 years old?
#29
Sparhawk
Same with comic books, do you define it as a title that is still in production (even if the first comic was 45 years ago), or would it be a comic by comic issue? Should Spider-Man be public domain?
Sparhawk
Define it. The strips as individuals are completed, published and even collected, the strip as a whole is still being created today, by the original creator.Is pearls before swine "completed?" Or is it still being written?
Same with comic books, do you define it as a title that is still in production (even if the first comic was 45 years ago), or would it be a comic by comic issue? Should Spider-Man be public domain?
#30
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
Hey guys, did you knowyour cable companiescopyrights sometimes screw you over? You did? You can even prove? Great! Now go fuck off because you can't do anything about it.
#31
Zappit
Zappit
Life of the creator. If it's seven years, then my first two webcomics would be public domain, and I don't want others profiting off something that was mine - something I put a lot of work into - without getting a cut from their using my creations.
#32
Espy
Espy
This could probably become like an auto paste in the text box setting. Just toss it in every thread to cover everything.ma little speech
#33
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
I don't want anyone else writing Dill unless I'm either long dead or Hollywood gives me a big bag of money.
#34
Cheesy1
Cheesy1
I don't want anyone else writing Dill unless I'm either long dead or Hollywood gives me a big bag of money.
#35
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
And every bill in that big bag of money is folded like that.
#36
bhamv3
bhamv3
No no no, that means each bill takes up more space, so there's less money in the bag of money.And every bill in that big bag of money is folded like that.
#37
GasBandit
I know this is a sore subject for the "content creator" types, but when I stop working on a job, I stop getting paid for it. I'm not grasping why a company I custom built a computer for 7 years ago should still be paying me (even assuming they're still using it).
GasBandit
If you're not actively writing/producing comics for your previous webcomics anymore, why shouldn't somebody else be able to write more of it 7 years after you stop?Life of the creator. If it's seven years, then my first two webcomics would be public domain, and I don't want others profiting off something that was mine - something I put a lot of work into - without getting a cut from their using my creations.
I know this is a sore subject for the "content creator" types, but when I stop working on a job, I stop getting paid for it. I'm not grasping why a company I custom built a computer for 7 years ago should still be paying me (even assuming they're still using it).
#38
blotsfan
blotsfan
Its more like, can Bill Gates get revenue from Microsoft even though he no longer runs it?
#39
Fun Size
Fun Size
I think my only real argument is that sometimes, things like books or comics don't necessarily get 'discovered' until they've been around for some time, especially in our modern age where there is so much content available. I could easily see something going into the public domain just as people start talking about it and thus the content creator losing it right when it becomes popular.
Maybe a good example would be when a song is used in a movie. Prior to the movie, no one has heard of the artist. After the movie, everyone wants the song, looks into the album, etc.
Just seems a bit off to me.
Maybe a good example would be when a song is used in a movie. Prior to the movie, no one has heard of the artist. After the movie, everyone wants the song, looks into the album, etc.
Just seems a bit off to me.
#40
ThatNickGuy
And wow, that sounds really wrong if you read it too fast.
ThatNickGuy
Don't care! I want dillos raining down on my head!No no no, that means each bill takes up more space, so there's less money in the bag of money.
And wow, that sounds really wrong if you read it too fast.
#41
Zappit
If someone made a parody or a satirical take on my work, fine. That's Fair Use. My first comic had a definite ending. It's not meant to have someone come along and start doing their own stories with those characters. Come up with your own damn stuff.
What a seven year period does is empower movie studios, book publishers, and other media outlets to get material for free. They can wait until a work has been done for seven years, take it and produce something that could generate a tremendous sum of money, and not owe the creator a dime. We already see how Hollywood rips off small creators who do not have the financial resources to do big things with their creations. Why give those entities another legal avenue to grab up material for nothing? All they'd have to do is tweak things just a little bit.
Let's look at an example. Say, ThatNickGuy's book series wraps up. Nick doesn't have the cash to finance a film, and the studios he pitches it to aren't biting. The seven year period ends, and oh...wouldn't you know it? Disney orders Pixar to produce a movie featuring an armadillo detective named Dill. It follows the same story Nick wrote, cleaned up more for the kiddos, and because it's Pixar, it's a hit, and sequels follow. Nick gets nothing. No royalties, no money for the rights despite pitching it to both Disney and Pixar. All Disney had to do was wait a few years to avoid paying out to the creator. That seem fair? Meanwhile, Nick feels to terrible that even his prom looks good compared to this.
Zappit
What if, as the content creator, I feel the work is "done"? Finished. Why should someone else then be able to come along after only a few years, take those characters and ideas, and then profit from them? Why shouldn't they have to come up with their own ideas?If you're not actively writing/producing comics for your previous webcomics anymore, why shouldn't somebody else be able to write more of it 7 years after you stop?
I know this is a sore subject for the "content creator" types, but when I stop working on a job, I stop getting paid for it. I'm not grasping why a company I custom built a computer for 7 years ago should still be paying me (even assuming they're still using it).
If someone made a parody or a satirical take on my work, fine. That's Fair Use. My first comic had a definite ending. It's not meant to have someone come along and start doing their own stories with those characters. Come up with your own damn stuff.
What a seven year period does is empower movie studios, book publishers, and other media outlets to get material for free. They can wait until a work has been done for seven years, take it and produce something that could generate a tremendous sum of money, and not owe the creator a dime. We already see how Hollywood rips off small creators who do not have the financial resources to do big things with their creations. Why give those entities another legal avenue to grab up material for nothing? All they'd have to do is tweak things just a little bit.
Let's look at an example. Say, ThatNickGuy's book series wraps up. Nick doesn't have the cash to finance a film, and the studios he pitches it to aren't biting. The seven year period ends, and oh...wouldn't you know it? Disney orders Pixar to produce a movie featuring an armadillo detective named Dill. It follows the same story Nick wrote, cleaned up more for the kiddos, and because it's Pixar, it's a hit, and sequels follow. Nick gets nothing. No royalties, no money for the rights despite pitching it to both Disney and Pixar. All Disney had to do was wait a few years to avoid paying out to the creator. That seem fair? Meanwhile, Nick feels to terrible that even his prom looks good compared to this.
#42
fade
fade
I'm really of two minds about this. On the one hand, the world would benefit from openness (though it seems a bit arbitrary to limit that openness to the one thing out of all nouns that people could truly call their own). On the other (spoken from a creator of both technical and artistic content), the value of IP isn't in its creation, but in its transference. That happens every time someone new picks up my work. A derivative work leverages that value.
#43
GasBandit
GasBandit
Stienman speaks similarly to my thoughts... albeit slightly more bluntly than I would have phrased it.
#44
figmentPez
figmentPez
I disagree. Recognized authors/creators would have competition for their works. Studios are going to compete to produce a movie of the next work from J.K. Rowling. She can force a sale of her movie rights within 7 years, and most likely do it on terms that are favorable to her. On the other hand @ThatNickGuy isn't recognized. If a movie studio decides that Dill would make a great movie... Well, they just have to wait around 7 years and then not pay him anything. Unless Nick can get two or more studios willing to fight over who gets to pay for Dill rather than wait 7 years, then Nick gets nothing.Many, probably most, authors have to work continually to put food on the table. Changing the copyright length to 7 years probably wouldn't change their lives at all. It would simply take the top 10% best selling authors and put them on the same playing field that the struggling authors are on.
#45
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
ಠ_ಠMeanwhile, Nick feels to terrible that even his prom looks good compared to this.
#46
Gryfter
Gryfter
I am curious why those arguing for a severely shortened copyright term want it? What is the gain beyond it's not fair that they hold the copyright for so long? Do you want to make your own Hunger Games story but don't want to bother to come up with a plot and characters of your own so you'd rather use Katniss since everyone loves her and you don't want to do the work to make your own character? How is copyright law affecting non-creators negatively?
I am truly curious as to why this is even a conversation.
I am truly curious as to why this is even a conversation.
#47
Adam
Adam
The idea is that there's a societal benefit to allow freer use of copyright. Using Hunger Games as an example, it's possible that an even better version of Hunger Games is released as a result and we as a whole benefit from this expansion of knowledge.I am curious why those arguing for a severely shortened copyright term want it? What is the gain beyond it's not fair that they hold the copyright for so long? Do you want to make your own Hunger Games story but don't want to bother to come up with a plot and characters of your own so you'd rather use Katniss since everyone loves her and you don't want to do the work to make your own character? How is copyright law affecting non-creators negatively?
I am truly curious as to why this is even a conversation.
#48
GasBandit
GasBandit
Have you read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality? Were it not for the fact that JK Rowling has given it her blessing, that frankly incredibly well written and engaging work would be in violation of copyright. Yes there is a veritable ocean of bad Harry Potter fanfiction out there, but the market of ideas and attention sorts the wheat from the chaff fairly handily. I wish Less Wrong could make money from his "fanfic," but that would obviously cross the legal line and make JKR (or at the very least, her publisher) come down on him like a ton of brick-toting lawyers. As it is, it skirts a line because LW often uses the place where he publishes HPMOR chapters as he writes them to pimp the foundation he works for and solicit donations. But worse, because he has to have a "real job," HPMOR gets written incredibly slowly. There are entire spans of months where he goes without writing anything because his job keeps him too busy. A shorter copyright duration would make the Less Wrongs of the world, who have good stories to tell that people want to read, actually able to make money telling those stories.I am curious why those arguing for a severely shortened copyright term want it? What is the gain beyond it's not fair that they hold the copyright for so long? Do you want to make your own Hunger Games story but don't want to bother to come up with a plot and characters of your own so you'd rather use Katniss since everyone loves her and you don't want to do the work to make your own character? How is copyright law affecting non-creators negatively?
I am truly curious as to why this is even a conversation.
#49
Emrys
And by "bag", I mean "dump truck".
Emrys
They'll just have to get him a bigger bag.No no no, that means each bill takes up more space, so there's less money in the bag of money.
And by "bag", I mean "dump truck".
#50
figmentPez
10 Things I Hate About You
BBC's Sherlock (and House M.D.)
Abbot & Costello Meet Frankenstein
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
West Side Story
Pretty much every animated Disney movie ever
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Need I go on?
Consider that last one, and then look at this concept, and ask if the world should be forced to wait indefinitely before that becomes a feasible possibility. The reason the comic book was possible is that Allan Quartermain, Captain Nemo, Dr. Jekyll, The Invisible Man, etc. are all in the public domain. People are free to take them and put them all in the same world, and have them fight evil. That is the purpose of limited copyright, to allow derivative works to be created and explore the possibilities of what ideas can be when combined freely with other ideas.
While I don't agree that 7 years is appropriate, the current Disney-fied version of copyright law (which is, in effect, for the indefinite future) is much too long. Culture is enriched by derivative works, and the ability to reexamine cultural icons. It's important to be able to freely insert zombies into a period romance, without having to parody that romance in order to claim free speech.
figmentPez
WickedI am curious why those arguing for a severely shortened copyright term want it? What is the gain beyond it's not fair that they hold the copyright for so long? Do you want to make your own Hunger Games story but don't want to bother to come up with a plot and characters of your own so you'd rather use Katniss since everyone loves her and you don't want to do the work to make your own character? How is copyright law affecting non-creators negatively?
I am truly curious as to why this is even a conversation.
10 Things I Hate About You
BBC's Sherlock (and House M.D.)
Abbot & Costello Meet Frankenstein
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
West Side Story
Pretty much every animated Disney movie ever
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Need I go on?
Consider that last one, and then look at this concept, and ask if the world should be forced to wait indefinitely before that becomes a feasible possibility. The reason the comic book was possible is that Allan Quartermain, Captain Nemo, Dr. Jekyll, The Invisible Man, etc. are all in the public domain. People are free to take them and put them all in the same world, and have them fight evil. That is the purpose of limited copyright, to allow derivative works to be created and explore the possibilities of what ideas can be when combined freely with other ideas.
While I don't agree that 7 years is appropriate, the current Disney-fied version of copyright law (which is, in effect, for the indefinite future) is much too long. Culture is enriched by derivative works, and the ability to reexamine cultural icons. It's important to be able to freely insert zombies into a period romance, without having to parody that romance in order to claim free speech.
#51
mikerc
Although this "new installment every 7 years or lose copyright" might be enough to get GRRM to actually start writing ASoIaF again...
mikerc
Loophole. Every big budget movie would get a Star Wars style special edition every 6 1/2 years just to stay in copyright.Is pearls before swine "completed?" Or is it still being written?
Although this "new installment every 7 years or lose copyright" might be enough to get GRRM to actually start writing ASoIaF again...
#52
GasBandit
But in all seriousness, it's not really a loophole. A daily or weekly comic strip differs fundamentally from a book or movie, much the same as a TV series would. Now, if we got an actual star wars movie (not just a special edition/remastering but a new feature film) every 6 and a half years... bully for Disney, bully for moviegoers, the moneymakers are making money and the public is getting regular product.
No, where the real sticky wicket is, is in overlapping IPs like Marvel comics'. Even without tackling the whole thing about comic publishing rights being treated as separate from movie rights (which is why no spider-man or x-men in avengers movies' universe), how do overlapping properties such as the Avengers figure in? Iron Man movies vs Avengers? Or, say, the teaser for Scarlet Witch at the end of Cap2, does that start the clock running? It's a tangled web to unravel.
GasBandit
That alone might be worth it.Loophole. Every big budget movie would get a Star Wars style special edition every 6 1/2 years just to stay in copyright.
Although this "new installment every 7 years or lose copyright" might be enough to get GRRM to actually start writing ASoIaF again...
But in all seriousness, it's not really a loophole. A daily or weekly comic strip differs fundamentally from a book or movie, much the same as a TV series would. Now, if we got an actual star wars movie (not just a special edition/remastering but a new feature film) every 6 and a half years... bully for Disney, bully for moviegoers, the moneymakers are making money and the public is getting regular product.
No, where the real sticky wicket is, is in overlapping IPs like Marvel comics'. Even without tackling the whole thing about comic publishing rights being treated as separate from movie rights (which is why no spider-man or x-men in avengers movies' universe), how do overlapping properties such as the Avengers figure in? Iron Man movies vs Avengers? Or, say, the teaser for Scarlet Witch at the end of Cap2, does that start the clock running? It's a tangled web to unravel.
#53
Zappit
I'd hate to see that pattern. A great work defined by some flashy, dumbed down Hollywood version that would come out less than a decade after the original work was published. Let the creator define their creation during their lifetime. Give them the long-term option to sell it if they choose to.
Zappit
And each of those came out after the original authors passed. Derivative works have a place, and they can connect the present to those past works and themes. What would happen with a severely shortened copyright period? Derivative works would flood the market much sooner. Would Frankenstein have had such an impact if it simply got lost in the shuffle, considered part of some fad genre? Would it just be some zombie book? Part of the reason works become so memorable, so beloved, is that they're given time to stand on their own, and to not be defined by someone else so quickly. Think of the original black and white Frankenstein film. Lightning bolts, Igor, and pitchforks and torches. Was the book like that? No. Was it better than the book? That's subjective, but probably not. But that's what most people think of when they think of Frankenstein.Wicked
10 Things I Hate About You
BBC's Sherlock (and House M.D.)
Abbot & Costello Meet Frankenstein
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
West Side Story
Pretty much every animated Disney movie ever
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Need I go on?
I'd hate to see that pattern. A great work defined by some flashy, dumbed down Hollywood version that would come out less than a decade after the original work was published. Let the creator define their creation during their lifetime. Give them the long-term option to sell it if they choose to.
#54
Gryfter
Gryfter
Okay, haven't read the Harry Potter derivative work you mention but it's clear that without Rowling having created the world of Harry Potter to begin with, the author wouldn't have had a story. Why shouldn't she have control over the world and characters she created and have final say about what can be done with them? Besides, if that author truly has talent, they will create a story of their own and then they will own the rights to it the same way Rowling owns the rights to hers. Kudos to her for letting the story continue without involving lawyers but that is her right as the copyright holder.
All the titles that Pez lists were in public domain when they were written so I assume you are saying if they hadn't been in public domain we would have never gotten those stories told in that way. But I counter with who knows what stories we would have gotten instead, if those same creators had been forced to come up with all their own material rather that riding on what came before.
It is without a doubt shameful how some Corporations abuse copyright law ( and patent law but that is another problem) but I don't think that means we should take away the rights of all creators to own their creations and make money on them in their lifetime. I think looking at how those companies are abusing the system and fixing that would be better rather than saying I want the length of copyright changed to an arbitrary shortened time period so I can watch a derivative work of 80 iconic characters as a super-team. We already get so much recycled material in the entertainment business, this would make that worse not better.
In terms of societal benefit..... are you shitting me? So what we are saying that because some story based on a beloved book could be better that the original, we should strip the original author of their copyright in order to get it made? That is ridiculous. Is the creator's lifetime plus 70 years too much time for a copyright to be held? Maybe, but reducing it down to 7 years is a joke.
All the titles that Pez lists were in public domain when they were written so I assume you are saying if they hadn't been in public domain we would have never gotten those stories told in that way. But I counter with who knows what stories we would have gotten instead, if those same creators had been forced to come up with all their own material rather that riding on what came before.
It is without a doubt shameful how some Corporations abuse copyright law ( and patent law but that is another problem) but I don't think that means we should take away the rights of all creators to own their creations and make money on them in their lifetime. I think looking at how those companies are abusing the system and fixing that would be better rather than saying I want the length of copyright changed to an arbitrary shortened time period so I can watch a derivative work of 80 iconic characters as a super-team. We already get so much recycled material in the entertainment business, this would make that worse not better.
In terms of societal benefit..... are you shitting me? So what we are saying that because some story based on a beloved book could be better that the original, we should strip the original author of their copyright in order to get it made? That is ridiculous. Is the creator's lifetime plus 70 years too much time for a copyright to be held? Maybe, but reducing it down to 7 years is a joke.
#55
GasBandit
Imagine how much it would have hurt the automobile market, consumers worldwide, and technological progress in general if Daimler and Benz had decided to stop making gasoline engines in 1890 but were able to prevent anyone else from doing so for as long as they lived (1929).
GasBandit
If she's not doing anything with them, why should she be able to stop anyone else from doing so for the rest of her life, plus howevermuch?Okay, haven't read the Harry Potter derivative work you mention but it's clear that without Rowling having created the world of Harry Potter to begin with, the author wouldn't have had a story. Why shouldn't she have control over the world and characters she created and have final say about what can be done with them?
Imagine how much it would have hurt the automobile market, consumers worldwide, and technological progress in general if Daimler and Benz had decided to stop making gasoline engines in 1890 but were able to prevent anyone else from doing so for as long as they lived (1929).
#56
Zappit
Zappit
There would be a HELL of a lot less incentive to be creative under a seven year copyright. If anything, it would damage the culture, as a few ideas and stories would be recycled over and over again.
And don't we have that bad enough as it is?
And don't we have that bad enough as it is?
#57
Gryfter
Gryfter
Because she created the work. If someone wants to make a derivative work on her copyright they can ask for permission.If she's not doing anything with them, why should she be able to stop anyone else from doing so for the rest of her life, plus howevermuch?
I imagine we might have been forced to come up with a better engine, one that ran on electricity maybe?Imagine how much it would have hurt the automobile market, consumers worldwide, and technological progress in general if Daimler and Benz had decided to stop making gasoline engines in 1890 but were able to prevent anyone else from doing so for as long as they lived (1929).
#58
GasBandit
Boy, I hope you weren't too attached to the concept of powered flight, either.
GasBandit
Why should they have to? If JK Rowling doesn't so much as speak or write the name "Harry" in 10 years (or to use Stienman's compromise, 30 years), still nobody else can make a derivative work without her permission why?Because she created the work. If someone wants to make a derivative work on her copyright they can ask for permission.
So the 19th century should have just spontaneously developed technology we're barely getting a handle on here in the 21st, and without the stepping-stone benefit of what is - by far - the most efficient energy delivery method per volume of fuel in recorded human history?I imagine we might have been forced to come up with a better engine, one that ran on electricity maybe?
Boy, I hope you weren't too attached to the concept of powered flight, either.
#59
Gryfter
Gryfter
No, I was being silly but so was the supposition that you made. Can you give me an example of copyright causing as much chaos as your example with the engine? Because I agree that your example would be problematic for the future of the automobile. How is a young author not getting to write their own take on Harry Potter going to make things hard for the future?So the 19th century should have just spontaneously developed technology we're barely getting a handle on here in the 21st, and without the stepping-stone benefit of what is - by far - the most efficient energy delivery method per volume of fuel in recorded human history?
#60
Zappit
Zappit
Copyright law sucks right now, but not because of the length of time a copyright can be enforced. Look at Ted. There's a webcomic called Imagine This. Same concept and tone. Looks like the movie could have ripped that off. Pretty likely it did. But can the creator, Lucas Turnbloom, afford to defend his copyright in court? Nope. So Ted succeeds, and gets a sequel. Take the Saranormal book series. The creator of the comic Tara Normal went to Simon and Schuster to try to get a publishing deal. S&S passed, and not long after that, they put out a book series that stands as one of the most blatant rip-offs ever seen. Tara Normal's creator can't afford a prolonged court case, either.
You want to change it? Why not change it to give the small-time creators a real chance to defend their copyrights? Because as things stand now, they can't afford to when a wealthy media entity can simply drown them out in court costs to make them go away, and that's not right.
You want to change it? Why not change it to give the small-time creators a real chance to defend their copyrights? Because as things stand now, they can't afford to when a wealthy media entity can simply drown them out in court costs to make them go away, and that's not right.
#61
Gryfter
Gryfter
Absolutely this.Copyright law sucks right now, but not because of the length of time a copyright can be enforced. Look at Ted. There's a webcomic called Imagine This. Same concept and tone. Looks like the movie could have ripped that off. Pretty likely it did. But can the creator, Lucas Turnbloom, afford to defend his copyright in court? Nope. So Ted succeeds, and gets a sequel. Take the Saranormal book series. The creator of the comic Tara Normal went to Simon and Schuster to try to get a publishing deal. S&S passed, and not long after that, they put out a book series that stands as one of the most blatant rip-offs ever seen. Tara Normal's creator can't afford a prolonged court case, either.
You want to change it? Why not change it to give the small-time creators a real chance to defend their copyrights? Because as things stand now, they can't afford to when a wealthy media entity can simply drown them out in court costs to make them go away, and that's not right.
#62
MindDetective
MindDetective
#63
Zappit
Zappit
I honestly think life plus twenty would work best. Let's say Supervillainous becomes a hit for me. I make a very good living off the comic, selling books, merchandise, and maybe even an animated special. If I get hit by a car and die, the copyright ends. Then Dreamworks swoops in and makes a Supervillainous movie. I know I want my family to be taken care of, and my creation shouldn't be up for grabs after I go, especially if SV's been a major source - perhaps the primary source - of income for the household. I don't want it to last for generations. I just want my loved ones taken care of, and if my work can do that, then that's what I want.
#64
GasBandit
GasBandit
Zappit, I love your comic, but I'm gonna have to break out the "and I want chocolate air." My workplace wouldn't pay my family for 20 minutes, let alone 20 years, after I die - even if I died on the job. My insurance would do that.
#65
Adam
Adam
Different risk/reward structure. Apples to oranges. A more apt comparison would be a lawyer in comparison to Joe Hill. Lifetime earnings are similar, but distributed over different time framesZappit, I love your comic, but I'm gonna have to break out the "and I want chocolate air." My workplace wouldn't pay my family for 20 minutes, let alone 20 years, after I die - even if I died on the job. My insurance would do that.
#66
GasBandit
GasBandit
It genuinely took me a few minutes to realize you weren't talking about an executed pro-union folk singer.Different risk/reward structure. Apples to oranges. A more apt comparison would be a lawyer in comparison to Joe Hill. Lifetime earnings are similar, but distributed over different time frames
#67
figmentPez
It's hard to make an exact comparison between physical and non-physical property, but completley throwing out the idea of intellectual property as property isn't the solution to that. (It also doesn't take into account what to do in the situation of a work that's only published after an author's death. Should Zappit's widow be unable to earn income on unpublished works, just because the author isn't alive to publish them?)
figmentPez
But your assets don't just become worthless the second you die, either. Any capital you own, land, machinery, computers, etc. all retains it's value and can be passed on to your heirs. Your property remains your property, and can continue to earn money for your family. Just because your job won't pay your family after you're dead, doesn't mean the car you own stops running.Zappit, I love your comic, but I'm gonna have to break out the "and I want chocolate air." My workplace wouldn't pay my family for 20 minutes, let alone 20 years, after I die - even if I died on the job. My insurance would do that.
It's hard to make an exact comparison between physical and non-physical property, but completley throwing out the idea of intellectual property as property isn't the solution to that. (It also doesn't take into account what to do in the situation of a work that's only published after an author's death. Should Zappit's widow be unable to earn income on unpublished works, just because the author isn't alive to publish them?)
#68
GasBandit
GasBandit
Do cartoonists not have property, a bank account, a car, a house? It seems the difference here is that a "creator" expects his revenue stream to continue post mortem in a fashion that someone in any other industry would be laughed at for suggesting.But your assets don't just become worthless the second you die, either. Any capital you own, land, machinery, computers, etc. all retains it's value and can be passed on to your heirs. Your property remains your property, and can continue to earn money for your family. Just because your job won't pay your family after you're dead, doesn't mean the car you own stops running.
I didn't say throw out the idea of intellectual property altogether, I just said the length of the copyright should be 7 years. Though, if that economist MD linked says the ideal length is 14 years, I'd be willing to defer to his judgement.It's hard to make an exact comparison between physical and non-physical property, but completley throwing out the idea of intellectual property as property isn't the solution to that.
#69
figmentPez
figmentPez
Doesn't someone who owns a printing press have other property? Why should their business assets be excluded? Should an apple orchard be forfeit and the farmer's heirs be unable to profit from the fruit, just because most people's jobs don't involve a significant investment in capital?Do cartoonists not have property, a bank account, a car, a house? It seems the difference here is that a "creator" expects his revenue stream to continue post mortem in a fashion that someone in any other industry would be laughed at for suggesting.
You're mixing arguments here. Saying that copyright should be a flat seven years is tremendously different than saying that copyright should stop at death. If you want to argue that copyright should not be connected to the lifespan of the creator at all, you're going to have to stop arguing that copyright reverts to public domain upon the death of the author.I didn't say throw out the idea of intellectual property altogether, I just said the length of the copyright should be 7 years. Though, if that economist MD linked says the ideal length is 14 years, I'd be willing to defer to his judgement.
#70
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
If my creative creations - most especially my direct work, like my books - is still making money long after I'm gone, then I would want my family to at least get some of that. There's a difference between putting your time in with a company for X number a years, where your work is no longer making them money, and a creative piece of work that continues to sell and make money far into the future. Of course the writer's estate should still receive money for their work. Why shouldn't they?
Now, obviously, there's a difference if the work is almost 100 years old, like the examples listed above. When it's public domain and the creator's direct family are also long and gone, it's a little silly for the family to keep getting money. I don't know if there's still an estate for Mary Shelley or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but I doubt they get any money for those creations any more. If Dill entered public domain, I wouldn't expect anyone but the creators of the new work where they modernize it and make Dill a space detective or something, to get money.
I really don't see why there's such a huge argument over this. Using JK Rowling as an example, why should Harry Potter be public domain while she's still alive? She told her story, it ended the way she wanted it to, and it worked out quite well, in my opinion. For the most part, the books conclude in a satisfying manner. They still make her a LOT of money because they are her direct work, her creations, her writing. Writing is a very personal process. Putting ideas to page takes a lot of consideration and effort. At least to do it right. That should be rewarded.
Right now, Dill is mine and mine alone. There are a lot of personal motivations and inspirations behind his creation. He wasn't just thrown together overnight. It was a long process to create him the way he is now. I have (very rough) plans for his future. And I would want it to stay that way as long as humanly (dilloly?) possible.
Now, obviously, there's a difference if the work is almost 100 years old, like the examples listed above. When it's public domain and the creator's direct family are also long and gone, it's a little silly for the family to keep getting money. I don't know if there's still an estate for Mary Shelley or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but I doubt they get any money for those creations any more. If Dill entered public domain, I wouldn't expect anyone but the creators of the new work where they modernize it and make Dill a space detective or something, to get money.
I really don't see why there's such a huge argument over this. Using JK Rowling as an example, why should Harry Potter be public domain while she's still alive? She told her story, it ended the way she wanted it to, and it worked out quite well, in my opinion. For the most part, the books conclude in a satisfying manner. They still make her a LOT of money because they are her direct work, her creations, her writing. Writing is a very personal process. Putting ideas to page takes a lot of consideration and effort. At least to do it right. That should be rewarded.
Right now, Dill is mine and mine alone. There are a lot of personal motivations and inspirations behind his creation. He wasn't just thrown together overnight. It was a long process to create him the way he is now. I have (very rough) plans for his future. And I would want it to stay that way as long as humanly (dilloly?) possible.
#71
GasBandit
It's interesting to see the dividing lines in this argument - how the STEM types of the forum line up on one side and the Authors/Cartoonists line up on the other.
"Of course they shouldn't, why should they?"
"Of course they should, why shouldn't they?"
GasBandit
A printing press is a tangible asset. Until you can destroy an intellectual property in a fire or lose it in an earthquake (not to mention subject it to the same inheritance tax), I don't think it can be held to the same rhetorical standard.Doesn't someone who owns a printing press have other property? Why should their business assets be excluded? Should an apple orchard be forfeit and the farmer's heirs be unable to profit from the fruit, just because most people's jobs don't involve a significant investment in capital?
Ah, I misinterpreted what you said then. Intellectual property is definitely a misnomer, as it isn't truly a property, it's a right or a license. IP theft doesn't actually remove the original, and it isn't something like a printing press that actually enables creation. It's just an agreement society makes to only let one person (or company) profit from an idea for a specific amount of time. A radio frequency isn't hereditary, either.You're mixing arguments here. Saying that copyright should be a flat seven years is tremendously different than saying that copyright should stop at death. If you want to argue that copyright should not be connected to the lifespan of the creator at all, you're going to have to stop arguing that copyright reverts to public domain upon the death of the author.
It's interesting to see the dividing lines in this argument - how the STEM types of the forum line up on one side and the Authors/Cartoonists line up on the other.
"Of course they shouldn't, why should they?"
"Of course they should, why shouldn't they?"
#72
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
All I know is that it's about damn time Mickey Mouse entered the public domain. Walt's dead, his kids are dead, and their kids are 50-somethings that own a multi-billion dollar company that makes original content to this day. It's time for it to happen.
#73
Adam
Adam
The Mouse House is exactly the reason we need copyright reform; it's pathetic how they've lobbied again and again to extend their copyrights, especially as they benefit from public domain work and create billion dollar franchises from it.[DOUBLEPOST=1406678600,1406678548][/DOUBLEPOST]
Well, to be fair, the STEM types benefit from patent protection while the author types benefit from copyright protection, and the two are fairly different in their application.A printing press is a tangible asset. Until you can destroy an intellectual property in a fire or lose it in an earthquake (not to mention subject it to the same inheritance tax), I don't think it can be held to the same rhetorical standard.
Ah, I misinterpreted what you said then. Intellectual property is definitely a misnomer, as it isn't truly a property, it's a right or a license. IP theft doesn't actually remove the original, and it isn't something like a printing press that actually enables creation. It's just an agreement society makes to only let one person (or company) profit from an idea for a specific amount of time. A radio frequency isn't hereditary, either.
It's interesting to see the dividing lines in this argument - how the STEM types of the forum line up on one side and the Authors/Cartoonists line up on the other.
"Of course they shouldn't, why should they?"
"Of course they should, why shouldn't they?"
#74
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Yup. Copyright law is completely borked almost exclusively because of Disney and that fucking mouse. I don't agree with 7 years. I'd say life of creator plus 25-50 years is more than enough.All I know is that it's about damn time Mickey Mouse entered the public domain. Walt's dead, his kids are dead, and their kids are 50-somethings that own a multi-billion dollar company that makes original content to this day. It's time for it to happen.
#75
Eriol
The same idea does translate to copyright. Why should you have exclusive rights to an idea? It's not a good to be snatched from you. You lose nothing if somebody else does something else with what you created. All works (yes 100%) are derivative of others. We are better off for it. The more to work with, with fewer restrictions, the better.
14 years. It is reasonable.
Eriol
And there are plenty on STEM types who think that patents should be abolished because they cause far more harm than good.Well, to be fair, the STEM types benefit from patent protection while the author types benefit from copyright protection, and the two are fairly different in their application.
The same idea does translate to copyright. Why should you have exclusive rights to an idea? It's not a good to be snatched from you. You lose nothing if somebody else does something else with what you created. All works (yes 100%) are derivative of others. We are better off for it. The more to work with, with fewer restrictions, the better.
14 years. It is reasonable.
#76
Zappit
Zappit
Have I ever mentioned how I love that we can debate things with both emotion and reason, and not have it turn into a shitstorm? Because I really, really do.
#77
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
Well, that won't do.Have I ever mentioned how I love that we can debate things with both emotion and reason, and not have it turn into a shitstorm? Because I really, really do.
#78
GasBandit
GasBandit
You do realize the creator of mickey mouse did not die more than 50 years ago, right? What you describe is exactly how things are, pretty much.Yup. Copyright law is completely borked almost exclusively because of Disney and that fucking mouse. I don't agree with 7 years. I'd say life of creator plus 25-50 years is more than enough.
#79
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Only by two years. Walt died in '66.You do realize the creator of mickey mouse did not die more than 50 years ago, right? What you describe is exactly how things are, pretty much.
#80
GasBandit
GasBandit
The point stands.Only by two years. Walt died in '66.
#81
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
For years, it was difficult to find a good DVD of Night of the Living Dead because people treated it as public domain, so the market was swamped with shitty releases. I'd hate to see that situation for every fucking movie that exists when every asshole with a DVD-R wants to release their cut of the Lord of the Rings.
#82
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
On the other hand, we'd get a good fan cut of The Hobbit where it's cut down to include only the book stuff.For years, it was difficult to find a good DVD of Night of the Living Dead because people treated it as public domain, so the market was swamped with shitty releases. I'd hate to see that situation for every fucking movie that exists when every asshole with a DVD-R wants to release their cut of the Lord of the Rings.
#83
Bubble181
Bubble181
Personally, I definitely don't agree with any version of copyright that depends on the life of the author. Why should copyright be longer for a work written when I was 25 than for a work written when I was 88? Give both 20 or 30 years, and in the first case, I'll have been able to do with it what I wanted, and in the second case, my heirs can exploit it for a while. Life of the author plus 50 or whatever years can easily be over a century. Frankly, that borders on the insane. There's 19th-century works that still wouldn't be public domain.
#84
figmentPez
There are a lot of ways that digital media makes getting a proper perspective for lawmaking difficult. Property and privacy not least among them.
figmentPez
This is, interestingly enough, the same general argument that book publishers are trying to use against libraries lending digital copies of books. They claim that since physical books have to be replaced after an average of so many lendings, that digital books should have to be repurchased by the library on a regular basis as well.A printing press is a tangible asset. Until you can destroy an intellectual property in a fire or lose it in an earthquake (not to mention subject it to the same inheritance tax), I don't think it can be held to the same rhetorical standard.
There are a lot of ways that digital media makes getting a proper perspective for lawmaking difficult. Property and privacy not least among them.
#85
fade
fade
The problem with comparing IP to other types of work is the value location again. The value in building a PC is in the resulting PC which you get just once. The IP has value every time it's transferred. Or does it? Should we value just the creation?
Also, there seems to be a difference between technical IP and creative IP, which I suppose is already recognized by the current system of patents and peer reviewed journals. Technical IP is evolutionary. It is difficult to imagine Newton or Einstein being forced to bring all new ideas to the table without using the sacrosanct ideas of others.
Also, there seems to be a difference between technical IP and creative IP, which I suppose is already recognized by the current system of patents and peer reviewed journals. Technical IP is evolutionary. It is difficult to imagine Newton or Einstein being forced to bring all new ideas to the table without using the sacrosanct ideas of others.
#86
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
I knew I'd seen someone try and research it, but couldn't remember where. Ars is on my list of daily reads, so that's probably where I saw it.
--Patrick
#87
Covar
Covar
I'll take three Peter Jackson films over a 22 minute TV sized special any day.On the other hand, we'd get a good fan cut of The Hobbit where it's cut down to include only the book stuff.
#88
Dave
That song is so very, very terrible...
Dave
That song is so very, very terrible...
#89
GasBandit
GasBandit
Now I've got the Lemiwinks song in my head.
#90
Dave
Dave
How the fuck have I never made that connection before? Seriously.
#91
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Technically, yes. Or it could only be offered for sale in some incredibly inaccessible location. But the idea that someone could legally claim exclusivity to an idea and then sit on it and do absolutely nothing needs to be addressed.[DOUBLEPOST=1406746094,1406746049][/DOUBLEPOST]The "continuously offered for sale" wouldn't really work without a bunch more rules (and thus more loopholes) since one could simply raise the price substantially ($3,200 for blur ray cinderella, anyone?) and still technically be within the law.
Now I've got the Lemiwinks song in my head.
"There and back again."How the fuck have I never made that connection before? Seriously.
--Patrick
#92
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
A thought occurred to me today. One way I do actually like how one IP owner handles copyright: by allowing the fans to do anything they want with it. George Lucas, after all, has been completely open to fan parodies, stories, etc. It's why we got the extended universe. It's why we've had movies like Fanboys, where Lucas went as far as to let them use sound effects from the original movies.
I think that's a positive way to do it while still owning the rights. Let the fans do what they want with it, within reason. They can't go all out and make their own Star Wars movies, but there's a lot of room to play with the property.
I think that's a positive way to do it while still owning the rights. Let the fans do what they want with it, within reason. They can't go all out and make their own Star Wars movies, but there's a lot of room to play with the property.
#93
GasBandit
GasBandit
Sure, there is the occasional rare fellow who does such things. Elon Musk released all Tesla Motors' patents for public use.A thought occurred to me today. One way I do actually like how one IP owner handles copyright: by allowing the fans to do anything they want with it. George Lucas, after all, has been completely open to fan parodies, stories, etc. It's why we got the extended universe. It's why we've had movies like Fanboys, where Lucas went as far as to let them use sound effects from the original movies.
I think that's a positive way to do it while still owning the rights. Let the fans do what they want with it, within reason. They can't go all out and make their own Star Wars movies, but there's a lot of room to play with the property.
#94
mikerc
mikerc
What about a tiered copyright deal. Original creator gets exclusive rights to the IP (as now) for the first X years, and after that it's opened up for anyone to use but they have to give a certain amount of the profits (gross not net so as to discourage Hollywood accounting) to the creator or his/her estate, eventually falling completely into Public Domain.
I know I'd be less annoyed by the ludicrously long copyright deal if it didn't completely lock other people off from using the IP, but I'm curious what the actually creative people on the board think?
I know I'd be less annoyed by the ludicrously long copyright deal if it didn't completely lock other people off from using the IP, but I'm curious what the actually creative people on the board think?
#95
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
That almost sounds like a decent compromise: after x years the creator loses sole right to his IP, but anyone wishing to make money off the IP has to pay the creator x% of their profits from said deal, with X% becoming smaller over the years until eventually settling on a certain percentage. The owner of the rights gets to claim what is and isn't considered "canon" in their universe, but isn't allowed to interfere with production otherwise.
#96
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Set the threshold for over $1000 and you basically eliminate 90% of the problem.So, you want an RIAA for other copyright able works that makes sure every time a book gets read, or copied, or shared, the publisher gets their cut? And maybe the author?
#97
Covar
Covar
It wasn't all of their patents, they were ones related to their charging technology. Basically allowing for his competitors to get a jump start in their electric vehicles, while ensuring that Telsa Motors charging technology will be standard across the industry. Charging stations will be more plentiful and compatible with Tesla vehicles, and TM maintains a competitive advantage with their years of experience in battery technology.Sure, there is the occasional rare fellow who does such things. Elon Musk released all Tesla Motors' patents for public use.
#98
GasBandit
GasBandit
Are you sure? What I read said all their patents.It wasn't all of their patents, they were ones related to their charging technology. Basically allowing for his competitors to get a jump start in their electric vehicles, while ensuring that Telsa Motors charging technology will be standard across the industry. Charging stations will be more plentiful and compatible with Tesla vehicles, and TM maintains a competitive advantage with their years of experience in battery technology.
Tesla, considered a leader in development of long-range electric cars, has about 200 patents and none are being held back, Musk says.
#99
Adam
Adam
They can maintain trade secrets outside of patents.
#100
Covar
Covar
My mistake then, the article I saw said it was just charging patents.
#101
Dave
Dave
http://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-sues-new-york-bar-playing-80-year-old-song-140829/
New York bar being sued because someone there played "I Only Have Eyes For You", a song that while 80 years old, is still under the 95 YEAR COPYRIGHT LIMIT!!
New York bar being sued because someone there played "I Only Have Eyes For You", a song that while 80 years old, is still under the 95 YEAR COPYRIGHT LIMIT!!
#102
PatrThom
PatrThom
Is the bar an ASCAP venue? Because if it is, it's bogus.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#103
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
I think 7 years is far too short. It can sometimes take quite a while for a new author/musician/etc to build up a fan base to truly exploit their works--and by the time they do, their stuff would be in the public domain, or close to it.
Life+90 or whatever it is now is far too long.
I'd be fine, I think, with the 28 year span that was stipulated by the 1909 copyright act.
Life+90 or whatever it is now is far too long.
I'd be fine, I think, with the 28 year span that was stipulated by the 1909 copyright act.
#104
PatrThom
PatrThom
Oh hey, this might finally be coming to an end.
Filmmakers fighting “Happy Birthday” copyright find their “smoking gun”
--Patrick
Filmmakers fighting “Happy Birthday” copyright find their “smoking gun”
--Patrick
#105
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
They're kind of fucked just for the evidence tampering.Oh hey, this might finally be coming to an end.
Filmmakers fighting “Happy Birthday” copyright find their “smoking gun”
--Patrick
#106
Frank
Frank
I hope they're ordered to pay back every God damn cent they've received with no right to it, with interest. Fuck Warner Brothers.
#107
Eriol
It's an essential disconnect between individuals who lose in court, and large companies. If you lose in court as an individual for ANYTHING outside of small claims court (and sometimes then too), your life is probably ruined. Possibly permanently if it's a criminal offense. Even small companies fall prey to this, as the penalties/liabilities are often enough to make them go under.
Large companies though? When's the last time you heard of one going under due to lawsuit? Enron maybe, but I think the stock price did it before the court got to it, but I'm really REALLY unsure.
A more interesting penalty for a corporation would be for ALL of its patents and copyrights and such to be put into the public domain by the courts. That would be a truly horrific penalty for abusing them. That I'd like to see. The reason that's different than currently, is that even if the company goes down, its methods of abuse (IP/trademarks/etc) live on with whomever buys them. Make the asset itself go away.
Eriol
That would make sense.I hope they're ordered to pay back every God damn cent they've received with no right to it, with interest. Fuck Warner Brothers.
It's an essential disconnect between individuals who lose in court, and large companies. If you lose in court as an individual for ANYTHING outside of small claims court (and sometimes then too), your life is probably ruined. Possibly permanently if it's a criminal offense. Even small companies fall prey to this, as the penalties/liabilities are often enough to make them go under.
Large companies though? When's the last time you heard of one going under due to lawsuit? Enron maybe, but I think the stock price did it before the court got to it, but I'm really REALLY unsure.
A more interesting penalty for a corporation would be for ALL of its patents and copyrights and such to be put into the public domain by the courts. That would be a truly horrific penalty for abusing them. That I'd like to see. The reason that's different than currently, is that even if the company goes down, its methods of abuse (IP/trademarks/etc) live on with whomever buys them. Make the asset itself go away.
#108
aaronmocksing
aaronmocksing
Wow, I didn't think such a simple song would be copyrighted in the first place. I always thought it was just some simple melody everybody sang.
#110
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
#111
evilmike
evilmike
#112
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Now... how does this apply to previous rulings regarding use of this song? For instance, say a guy in the 80's used it without paying for the rights... does this override his case and entitle him to compensation?
#113
Eriol
Also something to be considered: other countries where they're enforcing this? e.g. Canada?
Eriol
Ask a Lawyer. I'm not one.Now... how does this apply to previous rulings regarding use of this song? For instance, say a guy in the 80's used it without paying for the rights... does this override his case and entitle him to compensation?
Also something to be considered: other countries where they're enforcing this? e.g. Canada?
#114
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Other countries only enforce it for trade reasons with us: If we tell them it's not enforceable, they won't enforce it.Ask a Lawyer. I'm not one.
Also something to be considered: other countries where they're enforcing this? e.g. Canada?
#115
Bubble181
Bubble181
HB was considered public domain in the EU.
As for how this relates to earlier rulings, it would depend, but probably not.
As for how this relates to earlier rulings, it would depend, but probably not.
#116
strawman
strawman
Those who feel wronged can sue, but they would have to prove that 1) Summy's company and the Warner Music Group were acting in bad faith and 2) that the plaintiff's specific use didn't infringe on the limited piano arrangment that Summy and Warner did have rights to.
Given that Warner has been charging royalties of about 2 million a year for nearly 20 years, and Summy a similar sum for the previous hundred years, there's a very high likelihood of follow-up suits.
Given that Warner has been charging royalties of about 2 million a year for nearly 20 years, and Summy a similar sum for the previous hundred years, there's a very high likelihood of follow-up suits.