----- Original Message ----- From: "Gametech" <voltronalpha at hotmail.com> > Joshua Kronengold wrote: > > David Dyer-Bennet writes: > >> I have a few rough rules of thumb. > > > > Heh. I have a different set. > > > > > >> Copyright shouldn't expire during the original creators life, because > >> they shouldn't have to watch helplessly while other people rape their > >> babies. > > > > I go another way: > > > > Copyright shouldn't extend indefinately, becuase it's important that > > everything eventually go in the soup -- the whole justification for > > copyright is to encourage creation...but eventually, your baby has to > > grow up and move out of the house. > > > Exactly. With the current system: ideas thought up almost 50 years ago are > still under copyright protection, take Tolkiens work for example. > How many pieces of media encroached his work in way that you could validly > claim copyright infringment? Hell half the fantasy gaming ideas were taken > directly from his and other work like his. Good lord! Tolkien didn't invent elves, quests, magic, magic swords. It's very possible to create works in the same genre or vein without wholesale theft of their ideas. And if you can't, then maybe you should find another field of work.... or a fan fiction website to contribute to. It's even possible to write a novel about an assasin with a reptilian familiar and have it not even resemble Steve's books. > > Copyright should have a fixed term, both out of interest of fairness, > > and to encourage creators of any age -- a monetarily motivated 90 year > > old should expect to provide for their children if they produce a > > best-seller just like a younger author might try to provide for their > > later years. By the same token, though, anything other than a fixed > > term isn't reasonable -- a reductio ad absurdium of this is a work > > written by an immortal or virutally immortal creator -- such a thing > > will never go out of copyright, and by principle 1, works should be > > guarunteed to go out of copyright. Reductio absurdium indeed. You might as well say that copyright will be rendered useless because one day we might be able to record our memories digitally. Laws are living things. That's why we elect people every four years or so. > >> It's much more important to reward individual human beings who > >> actually create things than it is to create valuable "property". > > > > Agreed here. Also agreed here, and I'm going to bring this point up again later on in my reply. > >> Discussions over the years have pointed out some other things -- such > >> as that if copyright doesn't extend significantly past death, > >> creators who are old will have a difficult time negotiating decent > >> terms on new works. > > > > Yup. This is why it should be a fixed term. Yup, 50 years past the life of the creator. > > > > Other points: > > > > The big moneymakers for writers (which you don't > > particularly want to hit) are residuals and adaption rights. > > It may be reasonable to have a longer term for such things > > than for straight derivitave or character copyrights. Generous of you. I hope that didn't hurt you too much. >> Or not; Maybe it did. Need a band-aid? > > you do want a term long enough that most media works > > capitalizing on the popularity of a work in one form will > > need to be created in the term of the copyright so the creator > > has a good chance of reaping their rightful benefits. > > I'd -guess- a good number for copyright is somewhere between > > 30 and 50 years. OTOH, part of me says that the "right" > > number is 18: the year your kid's allowed to move out of the > > house. :) Fine, you want to tell Steve that you're going to produce 'Jarhead: The Movie' and not give him a cent? Jarhead was written over 18 years ago, you know. There's no way that 20 years is long enough, perhaps not even 30 or 40. I'm 35 now, and I still get nostalgic for materials I've read/watched when I was a teenager/preteen. I imagine this won't change as I become even older. > If it was engineered to expire after 18 years people would be more likely to > 'create' more not less they'd realize they can only ride one wave for so > long and have to paddle back out to the ocean of creation. How many people > still get paid for work they did over 20 years ago outside of the realm of > Arts? We haven't even discussed Trademarks yet either... that's a whole > 'nother ball of wax. Oh I see. "We're taking away the rights to your work because we want to make you a better writer. It's for your own good. Really!" As far as I can see, the only result that will come from the early termination of copyrights is an upsurge in the creation of t-shirts, comic books, and made-for-tv movies based on 20 year old intellectual property.... without having to give a cent to their creators! In other words, you're taking the 'property' from the authors, and giving it to everyone else so THEY can make money off of 'property' they never created, never promoted, and never worked for. "It's much more important to reward individual human beings who actually create things than it is to create valuable "property"." EXACTLY!! Why are you guys so against creators making money off of their creations? Or hell, even just sitting on their creations and refusing to let anyone make any money? (ie: the refusal Calvin and Hobbes creator, Bill Watterson, to allow toys to be made of his characters). Is the inability to publish works about hobbits named Frodo and vampires named Sethra really inhibiting your creativity so much? You all seem so concerned that people may make money off their own hard work. I've yet to see any CONCRETE examples of how this hurts anyone..aside >from those who wish to steal from creators and benefiting off of their years of hard work and self-promotion. Why are you so afraid that people will prosper? This NOT a zero-sum game! -Scott