Discussion: On Copyright
738 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
3410,
Maybe we could solve this problem by having all property revert to the public domain after 50 years.
-
Georgism? Why not?
-
Either way you don't value the work of creatives which is sad
For sure. I don't believe in deities. But don't be sad for me, I still lead a pretty complete life.
As far as valuing the work of artists, writers, programmers, film makers and musicians go all I can say is that you are completely and utterly wrong.
Your nickname and the activities of the Government have far more to do with robbing artists, writers and musicians than anything I have ever seen. That's the crying shame in all this debate. All the good work supporting the arts financially by Helen Clark is being undone. Channels to market are being destroyed and artistic endeavours will never see the light of day. Never mind the adverse impacts on the "knowledge economy".
Surely we could have done better than this?
-
Hmm. My view on why copyrights expire is simply to allow those ideas to go back into the pool of things that culture (i.e. everybody else) can draw upon, remix, make new, be creative from.
Take music - why should I not be able to take a song that meant something to people my age some years ago, and respin it to be from a different perspective, perhaps making it apply to more modern times? It's artistic (well, assuming I can do things with music, which isn't necessarily true), it's relevant and it's interesting to people. Just because it is based on something else doesn't make it any less so.
A great example of this is is that Romeo and Juliet move that came out 10 or 15 years ago. All the original lines, but applied to a modern situation. Were Shakespeare's plays tied up in copyright, society loses out because they can't do that.
This is the other side of the copyright bargain as I understand it. In order to provide them with an incentive to create, the copyright holders can control this sort of thing for a limited time. After that time, the ideas belong to everyone, and are free to be re-imagined, and in the process, more culture is created, more art is produced, and it isn't restricted to being totally original (which I posit doesn't exist).
There is nothing wrong with deriving from someone else's work, whether blatantly or subtly. By locking up ideas indefinitely, you reduce what can be created, what can be modified, and thus hurt culture by lowering the amount of art (in all forms) available.
So there needs to be a balance: encourage people to create, but ensure that the society that supports them and provides them with ideas to build on gets more out of it than a book with a pretty cover, eventually. Also consider albums and books that are still in copyright but aren't being published or released any more. How does that help anyone?
I contend that the long copyright terms are much to skewed away from being good for society.
-
Copyright expires as an intentional part of its design.
why? no ones explained why yet. why is it necessary to expire it?
-
I do think Mark could have the decency to apologise for, or at the least explain, his `stupid & prejudiced' comment.
As far as I can see it was utterly unfounded, although if any one could explain what is `stupid & prejudiced' about the term `Californian Ideology', I'd be happy to listen.
But I really can't see what on Earth his objection is; the `Californian Ideology' is a reasonably well-known concept, identifying the sort of Wired/Jimbo ideology that flourished in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, especially in the late 90's. It isn't any more `stupid & prejudiced' than saying that Stallman's a Naderite, and I thus have an aversion to his ideology.
why?
Because that's part of the arbitrary deal. There's no real underlying reason exactly, it's just that society gives and society takes.
-
why? no ones explained why yet. why is it necessary to expire it?
Because if it doesn't, then all new access to that content is lost when people decide to stop publishing it any more.
That's just one reason.
-
why? no ones explained why yet. why is it necessary to expire it?
er, yes we have. Countless times in many different ways. Your comment comes right below one clear explanation by Robin Sheat.
I am going to be kind and assume deliberate miscomprehension.
-
A great example of this is is that Romeo and Juliet move that came out 10 or 15 years ago. All the original lines, but applied to a modern situation. Were Shakespeare's plays tied up in copyright, society loses out because they can't do that.
That's not necessarily the case.
J R R Tolkein's work has obviously just been redone and come to the big screen. Newline cinema had to work with the copyright holder (Tolkien sold movie rights in the 1960s) to get the rights.
Copyright doesn't prevent other people publishing the work, it just requires that you do it with the agreement of the copyright holder.
Tolkien was quite picky about adaptions of his work. Wikipedia states that he expressly forbade that Disney ever be given rights over any of his work. That wish possibly won't be respected once his work falls out of copyright, Disney could both use his work for whatever they want, and do so without compensating his estate at all.
-
Exactly, Kyle. What people seem to be arguing for is to be able to use (profit from?) the material for free. But I haven't seem anything serious that justifies such behaviour.
Egall new access to that content is lost when people decide to stop publishing it any more
Wah? If you can't get hold of an original copy, you can't copy it to start with. Let's say you want to copy and distribute it: "new access" is simply begging the question of whether you should be allowed to copy and distribute without permission.
Let's say it's otherwise going to be lost to posterity: I think you'll find this is explicitly allowed under the (new) law.
WRT creative commons- I'm very sympathetic to this movement. But a/ as mentioned, it depends on existing copyright law, and b/ it would have a very different feel if it were compulsory, rather than voluntary. Would people support that? -
"New access is lost"-
That becomes a choice. You could always contact the copyright holders- and if necessary (gasp, how unfair!) offer to pay royalties to publish it yourself! -
You could always contact the copyright holders
Harder than you would think, quite often.
-
@Keir
Fair enough, I do withdraw and apologise for that comment. I hadn't heard the term before and thought you were just bagging Californians for being Californians.Having now read the paper in question, I don't think it's a Californian ideology as much as a global digital ideology - it just happened in California first and, in 1995 when the paper was written, much of the digital industry was in that part of the world. I think the paper and theory are a little out of date and, with hindsight, remarkably shallow in analysis. It reads more like a political tract damning with faint praise than a reasoned analysis. Rosseto's counter was accurate, if a little impassioned:
Meanwhile, it's Europeans who are discussing "Californian Ideology" not Californians who are discussing "European Ideology." And not because some clatch of bureaucrats in Strasbourg or Luxembourg have issued yet another directive. Because Europeans are recognizing that 19th century nostrums are not solutions to 21st century problems - on the contrary, they are the problem - and it's time to encourage competition, risk taking, democracy and meritocracy, and dare I say it, dreaming about a different, better future.
As he says, there are always pioneers. You don't have to be Cory Doctorow to use the net to advance towards your particular goals - you just have to understand what he's done and apply the principles to your own work. The future is here - you can hide from it if you want, but I don't think you can say it doesn't work just because you can't see a way to make it work for you.
Nobody is just one thing. Nobody.
-
J R R Tolkein's work has obviously just been redone and come to the big screen.
And if his estate had just said no? Maybe because they don't like movies or something. Society loses.
It is detrimental to everyone else to allow one person or group to control something that has become part of our culture for too long.
-
Yep. It's something I sometimes have to do. Always a drag, sometimes a drama. And often not worth it.
There is, I believe, something in the act about "reasonable efforts" but I don't know how the courts will judge that.
I totally get "too hard, what a drag, who'll bother, how can it be enforced." I just don't get righteous indignation about work being "denied": what gives anyone who hasn't bought or been given a legitimate copy of a work the "right" to have it? Infringing copyright is always going to happen. It's just disconcerting how quickly it's gone from being "minor" and "sneaky-keep-it-quiet" to big-time and "how dare you think you can stop me!" -
Fair enough, I do withdraw and apologise for that comment. I hadn't heard the term before and thought you were just bagging Californians for being Californians.
No worries; it isn't what you might call a very common term.
-
(Ah, talking to Keir)
"if his estate had just said no?"
How bout Mr Jackson hired some writers to come up with a new story. Why would that be so dreadful?
In net terms, society would have gained a new cultural artifact, and not lost the old one. -
Wah? If you can't get hold of an original copy, you can't copy it to start with. Let's say you want to copy and distribute it: "new access" is simply begging the question of whether you should be allowed to copy and distribute without permission.
Say it's 200 years later, and you've tracked down the one remaining copy of this interesting book from the past. You can't contact the copyright holder because they died a long time ago. Oh well, you can't do anything about it. Too bad. That book is now lost to everyone except those that get to read this one copy.
A slightly ludicrous situation, I know, but not too much I hope.
Let's say it's otherwise going to be lost to posterity: I think you'll find this is explicitly allowed under the (new) law.
Indeed, and that is a good feature of the new law. But why should it be necessary in the first place?
-
That becomes a choice. You could always contact the copyright holders- and if necessary (gasp, how unfair!) offer to pay royalties to publish it yourself!
(Assuming music for convenience) I don't want to publish it. I want to listen to it. Maybe remix it into something new to see how it sounds. Why should I not be allowed to do so? I mean, the original almost certainly would come from a long line of musical history, it draws from that, it uses it, and it adapts it.
Why do you not want anyone else to do the same?
And, what if the author is dead, and it's the music label that holds it now. They're not going to dig it out of the archives for me.
-
Were Shakespeare's plays tied up in copyright, society loses out because they can't do that.
no, you could do it but you would have to contribute some reddies to the originator of the work, or get their permission. your work would not exist as referential if their work did not pre exist so it seems only fair to acknowledge it.
-
How bout Mr Jackson hired some writers to come up with a new story. Why would that be so dreadful?
In net terms, society would have gained a new cultural artifact, and not lost the old one.So, copyright should be used to prevent people telling the stories how they want? That's not very good. Maybe I want to write a Biggles (or whatever) story because I liked them years ago. Why shouldn't I be allowed to adapt the characters and settings of the originals, most of them aren't even in print any more. Why should I have to negotiate with the copyright holder? Perhaps I don't even want to sell them, not everything is driven by money. Maybe I want to write them and stick them up for anyone to read.
A big hook for the LOTR movies was that they are LOTR movies. People know the story. A big hook for movies based on Shakespeare is that they are exactly that. If you force everyone to create something new, you risk losing your connection with the cultural history that you're from. Culture and shared stories aren't static things. They should be allowed to change as time goes by. People should be able to make adaptations.
Once something is written, it is out there. You don't lose ideas by my thinking of more based on yours.
Note that I'm (mostly) not talking about verbatim copying here. I'm talking about creating new art using existing art as a starting point, like almost everyone does.
-
Because if it doesn't, then all new access to that content is lost when people decide to stop publishing it any more.
surely a not published becomes public domain clause would deal with that, rather than stripping everyone of their rights.
-
Because that's part of the arbitrary deal. There's no real underlying reason exactly, it's just that society gives and society takes.
is that a good enough explanation in the modern world.
The whole social good argument doesn't really add up when compared to other endeavours, like land speculation and oil production. I'm up for some open source petrol. -
no, you could do it but you would have to contribute some reddies to the originator of the work, or get their permission. your work would not exist as referential if their work did not pre exist so it seems only fair to acknowledge it.
And their work wouldn't exist but for those that came before it, acknowledged or otherwise, and so on so forth. It's turtles all the way down.
Just because I'm inspired by them, doesn't mean that I owe them anything. I was inspired by a part of culture, most likely multiple parts. Just like they were.
I don't see the need for everything to involve a transaction. We (as members of society) want to see things be created in order to enrich society, make it better, and so we create a system to encourage people to create.
The incentive to create is time-limited control over the creation. This is an incentive because they can use that control to make money from the creation if they so choose. However, this scheme is provided for a reason. It causes more art to be produced that eventually makes its way to where everyone can take it, adapt it, work with it, learn from it, and change it.
By having too long copyright terms, that bargain breaks down. People can't absorb it and manipulate it, and use it to create new works unless approved by the copyright holder. That would be a sad state of affairs, not everything done should need to be approved by someone else.
Maybe what it comes down to is ownership of ideas. The moment you tell someone your idea, it's theirs too. I can't see why anyone would think they have the right to control what that person then does with that idea.
-
surely a not published becomes public domain clause would deal with that, rather than stripping everyone of their rights.
I think you're approaching it from the wrong direction (or, at least, not the same one as me).
It's not stripping people of their rights. It's giving them rights for a limited time to encourage them to create more. There is no natural right to restrict free flow of ideas, it's an artifical right with the ultimate goal of enriching culture.
If you've had (say) 50 years to make money off that book you wrote, that album you recorded, why isn't that enough? It's more than that guy that bound the book got. He was paid when it occurred, and not at all after.
The whole social good argument doesn't really add up when compared to other endeavours, like land speculation and oil production. I'm up for some open source petrol.
So, because other systems aren't perfectly aligned with the needs of society, this one shouldn't aim to be?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.