According to Rufus Pollock of Cambridge University, the optimal copyright length is 14 years.
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/07/research-optimal-...
http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyrig...
What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?
111–120 of 132 posts
Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?
#112Copyright law is really disappointing here. How do such long terms contribute to the progress of sciences or the arts? The writers and main contributors to most of the pieces named are dead. The publishers have made their cash time and time again and now most of these pieces are by no means "hot sellers", though they may be of cultural or historical interest. And, there's 40 years left before the copyright expires. A…
I make my living off of copyright. But I think the term should be 28 years, and it could be extended by the copyright holder for a few additional years at a fee of $5,000/year.
But a fee makes it only affordable to large companies, which is the exact reason against extended copyright protection.
Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue isn't getting a copy of the original work for free. Of greater concern is the penalty for creating derivative works - so we can't have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_and_Zombies
Actually, I would believe you could have had that even if it was in copyright, as it would be considered parody. Would it not?
It probably depends on how much of the original text and plot were used in the parody. It would certainly be considered illegal to write Harry Potter and the Zombie Hallows now, just by virtue of using the same characters as the original.
Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?
#114At least our dark lord Cthulhu is public domain.
Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property But Copyright as law is only about 300 years old and wasn't implemented because of "natural rights". > If people's intellectual property rights are not respected, it will not be profitable to develop intellectual property. And, yet, a lack of copyright didn't appear to stop people from creating works before copyright existed. And maybe the…
> And, yet, a lack of copyright didn't appear to stop people from creating works before copyright existed. And maybe there's more important things for a culture than profit Well. In those days "copying" wasnt all that easy either
Wrong.
People adapted and built upon other people's music, art and technology.
Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?
#116The current copyright law is a prime example of the impotence of the electorate in the face of the power of Big Money. It is in the public interest to have works move into the public domain, so that others can build upon them (I'll refrain from linking to the myriad talks by Lessig and others about how the current copyright system is broken). And yet Hollywood keeps buying the legislators and perpetuates this broken…
"It is in the public interest to have works move into the public domain, so that others can build upon them" Could offer some examples of "building upon" others' works which are not allowed without permission under current copyright law? I would like to understand what we as a society might be missing out on. More generally, I become concerned when I hear "public interest" arguments because they usually apply a relat…
Art is created because people feel the need. Money should not be the incentive.
An example could be a fan-made translation of old works. Mashups. Redubbing of movies. Free recordings of music.
Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
I make my living off of copyright. But I think the term should be 28 years, and it could be extended by the copyright holder for a few additional years at a fee of $5,000/year.
But a fee makes it only affordable to large companies, which is the exact reason against extended copyright protection.
"a few additional years" does not mean "indefinitely".
Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wealth is fine in literal terms. If you want to pass money on to your progenitors, that is just fine, as it is with all real property. The key here is that intellectual property and real property have some very fundamental differences. Ideas are assigned owners only to make it plausible to spread those ideas massively -- a stipulation that was necessary when it was expensive to spread ideas (printing). With the inter…
> Ideas cannot be owned; they are like fire and can only be equally shared. We assign monopolies to make publishing feasible, not to ensure the wealth of two or three generations that live off of the creativity of their grandfathers without contributing anything themselves. Here's an alternative ethics. Nontrivial ideas are not natural resources but are created by an author; just as a physical object is the property…
Ideas aren't created, they are discovered. They aren't property, either, in any legal sense in the U.S.
Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wealth is fine in literal terms. If you want to pass money on to your progenitors, that is just fine, as it is with all real property. The key here is that intellectual property and real property have some very fundamental differences. Ideas are assigned owners only to make it plausible to spread those ideas massively -- a stipulation that was necessary when it was expensive to spread ideas (printing). With the inter…
> Ideas cannot be owned; they are like fire and can only be equally shared. We assign monopolies to make publishing feasible, not to ensure the wealth of two or three generations that live off of the creativity of their grandfathers without contributing anything themselves. Here's an alternative ethics. Nontrivial ideas are not natural resources but are created by an author; just as a physical object is the property…
> The author can deny others access to his ideas, simply by not-disclosing them (keeping them secret);
At least that doesn't deny you the right to rediscover them.
Re: What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ideas cannot be owned; they are like fire and can only be equally shared. We assign monopolies to make publishing feasible, not to ensure the wealth of two or three generations that live off of the creativity of their grandfathers without contributing anything themselves. Here's an alternative ethics. Nontrivial ideas are not natural resources but are created by an author; just as a physical object is the property…
Nontrivial ideas are not natural resources but are created by an author; just as a physical object is the property of its creator, ideas are an intangible property owned by their author. Can you name the algorithm used to distinguish "trivial ideas" from "nontrivial ideas"? I'm waiting... What about an algorithm for determining when "nontrivial idea A" is equivalent to "nontrivial idea B"? We're still foundering on t…
The comment about nontriviality and equivalence goes for physical objects too, you know.