runesmithie Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 One thing that just popped into my head today was copyright law... later I realized a horrible fact: In the US, anything copyrighted during my lifetime will not go public domain during my lifetime. The current copyright length is authors life plus 70 years or for companies, 95 years. What a horrible way to stem creativity in favor of making money =\ At least the patent system isn't as horrible... (even though it's getting pretty bad itself). Does anyone know of any big causes/movements to get this lowered significantly? I just posted something! ^_^ to the terrorist...er... kirbybeam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 yeah, its called socialism. whats wrong with protecting ones works from being copied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellsurfer Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 i dont see the problem, people protecting there work so it cant be missused? whats wrong with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runesmithie Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 i dont see the problem, people protecting there work so it cant be missused? whats wrong with that yeah, its called socialism. whats wrong with protecting ones works from being copied? I'm not complaining about the fact that there is a copyright system, just that the time before whatever it is lapses into public domain is pretty damn long (reallly long...) Something like 20-30 years would definitely be more reasonable. EDIT: I meant after the authors death >.< I just posted something! ^_^ to the terrorist...er... kirbybeam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weezcake Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 The longer, the better. That's what I think. :wink: ==================================Retired tip.it moderator.Teaching and inspiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db26 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 As long as it's still selling it shouldn't be in public domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runesmithie Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 The longer, the better. That's what I think. :wink: If you think about it, if this was around in Shakespeares time, he would have gotten sued for writing a lot of his stuff :P As long as it's still selling it shouldn't be in public domain. That's a pretty good idea too, since companies will still have their games copyrighted, but will not sell them in any form at all since there's no money to be made off of it. I just posted something! ^_^ to the terrorist...er... kirbybeam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 why? as soon as you make something, 20 years later anyone that wants to can put there name on it and sell it? copyrights should last forever, artists shouldnt be the slaves of people who dont want to think for themselves. i still dont see how it stems creativity either. without copyright, anyone who wants to can take a song (for example), change the intro to it and market it as new. it would be easier than sitting down and writing there own song. just take the classics, and change them a bit. with copyright, you would have to go through the process (and cost) of buy the rights to a song to change it. its just easier to write new songs. so, why does copyright "stem" creativity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runesmithie Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 i still dont see how it stems creativity either. without copyright, anyone who wants to can take a song (for example), change the intro to it and market it as new. it would be easier than sitting down and writing there own song. just take the classics, and change them a bit. with copyright, you would have to go through the process (and cost) of buy the rights to a song to change it. its just easier to write new songs. so, why does copyright "stem" creativity? Say you found a great movie from the 1950s and you like the settings and idea and you want to make a sequel that you think will be a huge improvement on the original. Right now you would have to get permission and pay a large fee most likely. Now if you're an independent movie maker and you want to make a sequel and don't have the money, you're pretty much SOL if you want to sell it. While it would create a fair amount of crap, surely we can filter such stuff and focus on the gems... even if they don't make their own original content ;) As someone suggested to me, a copyright for life or until the person would be 80 years old (whichever happens to be longer) would be much better. I just posted something! ^_^ to the terrorist...er... kirbybeam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk4ever Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 The longer, the better. That's what I think. :wink: If you think about it, if this was around in Shakespeares time, he would have gotten sued for writing a lot of his stuff :P How would he have gotten sued (sorry I'm not following)? As far as I know, they didn't have patent laws or copyright laws back in his day, or did I miss something? Ideas, inventions, creations, etc. should remain the sole right of the inventor because it is theirs and theirs alone. Call me naive, but I don't think it's always about the money and royalties they receive; it's the fact that they came up with that idea or prodcut and no one else has the right (without their permission) to infringe upon that. By The_Jeppoz :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Say you found a great movie from the 1950s and you like the settings and idea and you want to make a sequel that you think will be a huge improvement on the original. Right now you would have to get permission and pay a large fee most likely. Now if you're an independent movie maker and you want to make a sequel and don't have the money, you're pretty much SOL if you want to sell it. While it would create a fair amount of crap, surely we can filter such stuff and focus on the gems... even if they don't make their own original content ;) As someone suggested to me, a copyright for life or until the person would be 80 years old (whichever happens to be longer) would be much better. so instead of having to think up new ideas, they can just use the charachters and settings from an old movie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman089 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 The longer, the better. That's what I think. :wink: If you think about it, if this was around in Shakespeares time, he would have gotten sued for writing a lot of his stuff :P How would he have gotten sued (sorry I'm not following)? As far as I know, they didn't have patent laws or copyright laws back in his day, or did I miss something? That's his point :) . Had there been laws like that back then, Shakespeare would've been in a lot of heat. Gamertag: King Arizona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjbj1991 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I used to think it was only about 20 years. I think its far too long, under current law everything will remain copywrited for about 100 years. By that time everyone that knew about it would be dead. The adverage lifetime of a product now days is about 10 years unless its to core of something bigger like an LED or transistor. Another thing is that if you own an ilegal product like a song or movie you could face between 1-5 years in prisson and 1-250k find. Is it just me or is this gona cost alot when the government sends almost everyone owning a computer to jail for owning something made my M&M or Snoop dog to jail??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk4ever Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 The longer, the better. That's what I think. :wink: If you think about it, if this was around in Shakespeares time, he would have gotten sued for writing a lot of his stuff :P How would he have gotten sued (sorry I'm not following)? As far as I know, they didn't have patent laws or copyright laws back in his day, or did I miss something? That's his point :) . Had there been laws like that back then, Shakespeare would've been in a lot of heat. Ah okay, I wasn't sure that Shakespeare had taken ideas from other authors or plays, but then again, I'm not too familiar with his life:P By The_Jeppoz :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runesmithie Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 Ideas, inventions, creations, etc. should remain the sole right of the inventor because it is theirs and theirs alone. Call me naive, but I don't think it's always about the money and royalties they receive; it's the fact that they came up with that idea or prodcut and no one else has the right (without their permission) to infringe upon that. Do you think that person still stands to make money off of it 70 years after their death though? It *would* be unfair if it was anything below authors lifetime copyright, but that's not the suggestion here. The adverage lifetime of a product now days is about 10 years unless its to core of something bigger like an LED or transistor. As far as I know it's patent for invention/idea and copyright for the more artistic works. (Reading up on it, patents have a maximum term of 20 years after filing in the US) I just posted something! ^_^ to the terrorist...er... kirbybeam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk4ever Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Ideas, inventions, creations, etc. should remain the sole right of the inventor because it is theirs and theirs alone. Call me naive, but I don't think it's always about the money and royalties they receive; it's the fact that they came up with that idea or prodcut and no one else has the right (without their permission) to infringe upon that. Do you think that person still stands to make money off of it 70 years after their death though? It *would* be unfair if it was anything below authors lifetime copyright, but that's not the suggestion here. No, but, like I said, it's not about the money. It's the fact that they have come up with something worthy of carrying on to future generations. If the rights to that idea or creation are gone after their death, then those who originally came up with it are easily forgotten. Once more people have access to their idea/product/whatever, it becomes so stale and it feels cheap in a sense. It loses its integrity in a way. By The_Jeppoz :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjbj1991 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 to - punk4ever Im not sure were the names of the inventor is saved but I am fairly certain that its not the copywrite, its probly the pattents office but dont quote me. I think copywrites are mostly about the money also and pattents are for saying this is mine not yours only I can sell this or tell who sells it. Its like linux. It can be pattented but its not under copywrite. In otherwords everyone know Linus made it but everyone can own it without legal isues like fines and prison time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vape Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Does anyone know of any big causes/movements to get this lowered significantly?Open Source Software? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html http://www.fsf.org/ Not trying to get it lowered as such, we just produce software that's free and is released under a lisence that allows it to be copied, modified, redistributed etc. Where the bloody hell are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Well you got Disney to thank for all of this; whenever their works are close to expiry they lobby to get it extended. In one way itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s quite disgusting to try and get them extended for such ridiculous amounts of time yet at the same time you wouldn't want to be in their situation. You should get some financial reward but you shouldn't be allowed to permanently withhold inventions from the public; kind of takes away the spirit of being part of the human race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runesmithie Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 Ideas, inventions, creations, etc. should remain the sole right of the inventor because it is theirs and theirs alone. Call me naive, but I don't think it's always about the money and royalties they receive; it's the fact that they came up with that idea or prodcut and no one else has the right (without their permission) to infringe upon that. Do you think that person still stands to make money off of it 70 years after their death though? It *would* be unfair if it was anything below authors lifetime copyright, but that's not the suggestion here. No, but, like I said, it's not about the money. It's the fact that they have come up with something worthy of carrying on to future generations. If the rights to that idea or creation are gone after their death, then those who originally came up with it are easily forgotten. Once more people have access to their idea/product/whatever, it becomes so stale and it feels cheap in a sense. It loses its integrity in a way. IMO the works of Jules Verne have no lost integrity when compared to say, Anne Rice... I just posted something! ^_^ to the terrorist...er... kirbybeam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now