Should Out-of-Print Scenarios be freely available?

Bryan Holtby

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
76
Location
Ontario, Canada
Country
llCanada
Man, this thread is getting old, painfully so. Its a dead debate with no possible resolution. Its been hashed out a hundred times over.
 

dgdimick

Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Man, this thread is getting old, painfully so. Its a dead debate with no possible resolution. Its been hashed out a hundred times over.
It maybe getting old, but I think there are more people looking at this tread then most of the others. This shows me that there is intrest in the subject.

As for "screwing" someone at death, this is why I think the copyright should be more like the patent. It's yours for 26 years then we all own it.

As for the law being changed more to come into line with the EU.. I don't think so :roll: . It's much more about Disney keeping the mouse.. Why do you think the jerk that floated it was called the "Senator from Disney" he only lasted one term, only as long as he was needed.
 

sgtono

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
911
Reaction score
2
Location
Portland, OR
Country
llUnited States
dgdimick said:
Man, this thread is getting old, painfully so. Its a dead debate with no possible resolution. Its been hashed out a hundred times over.
It maybe getting old, but I think there are more people looking at this tread then most of the others. This shows me that there is intrest in the subject.
Viewing and interest are two different animals. Maybe they just want to get rid of the dinging bell.

Keith
 

jwise

Recruit
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
admin said:
Take it down a notch. My post had nothing to do with screwing anyone's families.
Of course -- but this would necessarily be the effect, since creations people had spent a lot of time and hard work (not to mention money!) on making would no longer be able to benefit their survivors.

By making intellectual property different from all other property (by making it non-inheritable), you remove one of the largest incentives people have to produce things -- to provide for their posterity.

So of course it's not your intention to screw anyone, but it seems clear that such a policy would not only deprive the families of artists in a way that families of no other type of producer are deprived, but would also reduce drastically the incentive to produce creative works in the first place.
 

UXB

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Location
California, USA
Country
llUnited States
Copyright law

This is a very interesting topic.

The problem of who owns "creative" or "intellectual" propery and for
how long, has been a problem for a long time.

In the case of corporations (which never "die") having ownership for the
lifetime of the author just won't work.

There's a long history of authors creating in one country, then having
illegal copies distributed in other countries. Charles Dickens was a
prime example, he toured the US and discussed the abuses of American
publisher who brought out unauthorized editions of his works.

Since America is a signer to the Berne Copyright Convention, and Congress
implemented laws to enforce that treaty, the law is 70 years plus
life of author for individual works.
 

Nat Mallet

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
270
Reaction score
4
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
So of course it's not your intention to screw anyone, but it seems clear that such a policy would not only deprive the families of artists in a way that families of no other type of producer are deprived, but would also reduce drastically the incentive to produce creative works in the first place.
I disagree. The creator of the work would likely get the biggest revenue from that work early after the work was released. By the time he passed away, revenue would be much lower (unless it was a truly remarkable creation). The money generated during his lifetime would be passed on to his family.

Of course this assumes he didn't spend it all. But if he did, then he wouldn't care about passing it to his family to begin with.

In the case of corporations (which never "die") having ownership for the
lifetime of the author just won't work.
And that's why the copyright office differentiates between copyrights owned by the author of the work, and "anonymou" copyrights, or copyrights owned by corporations.

Nat
 

Nat Mallet

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
270
Reaction score
4
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
So of course it's not your intention to screw anyone, but it seems clear that such a policy would not only deprive the families of artists in a way that families of no other type of producer are deprived, but would also reduce drastically the incentive to produce creative works in the first place.
I disagree. The creator of the work would likely get the biggest revenue from that work early after the work was released. By the time he passed away, revenue would be much lower (unless it was a truly remarkable creation). The money generated during his lifetime would be passed on to his family.

Of course this assumes he didn't spend it all. But if he did, then he wouldn't care about passing it to his family to begin with.

In the case of corporations (which never "die") having ownership for the
lifetime of the author just won't work.
And that's why the copyright office differentiates between copyrights owned by the author of the work, and "anonymou" copyrights, or copyrights owned by corporations.

Nat
 

jwise

Recruit
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
admin said:
I disagree. The creator of the work would likely get the biggest revenue from that work early after the work was released. By the time he passed away, revenue would be much lower (unless it was a truly remarkable creation). The money generated during his lifetime would be passed on to his family.
Two points:

First of all, there is zero reason to assume that a creator's death will not occur `early after the work was released'. Any system in which the creator's rights expire on his death is thus awfully arbitrary, with some works lasting days after creation, and others lasting years.

Second of all, there are plenty of works which continue or appreciate in value. A painting is worth more after the artist's death. Movies like It's a Wonderful Life have made far more in video and dvd sales than they ever made in the theaters. Novels published posthumously don't make any less than novels published while the author lives, and so forth.

In any case, whatever you think of the `fairness' of the situation, it is clear that by arbitrarily seizing an artist's rights to his work upon his death, you guarantee that the family will not be able to subsist on such rights, harming the family greatly, and removing one of his greatest incentives (providing for his survivors) to create such works in the first place.

If those rights were as worthless as you suggest, after all, anyone could buy them, and you would hardly need a law seizing them from the artist's survivors. It is precisely because these rights are of value that the idea of works eventually reverting to the public domain exists at all...
 

dgdimick

Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Second of all, there are plenty of works which continue or appreciate in value. A painting is worth more after the artist's death. Movies like It's a Wonderful Life have made far more in video and dvd sales than they ever made in the theaters. Novels published posthumously don't make any less than novels published while the author lives, and so forth.
Thats a great movie, and you do have a point. But what if Republic Pictures had decided not to re-release it? We'd all suffer.

However I don't think that this is going to be a case of "one size fits all" rather I think it's now a case of one size sort of fits, kind of..

I'm just saying that maybe 26 years is a good number. If you go back and read all of my posts you can see that I have slightly changed my views on this since my first post. Most everyone here has brought up some really good points and issues. A few seem to view the whole thing like driving by a car crash. Don't want to look but you just have to..

So with Paper products, games and books, etc, the copyright should be 26 years just like with a patent. And it's "real" property as in your family could own the copyright after your death etc..

This could be extended by the release of a "new" and updated version(20% or more new content), however the new copyright would only apply to the new version not the older version, it would still expire in 26 years as before. This should give everyone a "fair" chance to profit from the work they create.

Anyone want to comment?
 

Larry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
3,760
Reaction score
203
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
Why do we have the copyright laws currently in existence? While Disney is a major beneficiary of the current paradigm, the current state of affairs arose according to the Supreme Court decision in Edlund:

In 1976, Congress altered the method for computing federal copyright terms. 1976 Act §§302—304. For works created by identified natural persons, the 1976 Act provided that federal copyright protection would run from the work’s creation, not–as in the 1790, 1831, and 1909 Acts–its publication; protection would last until 50 years after the author’s death. §302(a). In these respects, the 1976 Act aligned United States copyright terms with the then-dominant international standard adopted under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. See H. R. Rep. No. 94—1476, p. 135 (1976). For anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire, the 1976 Act provided a term of 75 years from publication or 100 years from creation, whichever expired first. §302(c).

These new copyright terms, the 1976 Act instructed, governed all works not published by its effective date of January 1, 1978, regardless of when the works were created. §§302—303. For published works with existing copyrights as of that date, the 1976 Act granted a copyright term of 75 years from the date of publication, §304(a) and (b), a 19-year increase over the 56-year term applicable under the 1909 Act.

The measure at issue here, the CTEA, installed the fourth major duration extension of federal copyrights.2 Retaining the general structure of the 1976 Act, the CTEA enlarges the terms of all existing and future copyrights by 20 years. For works created by identified natural persons, the term now lasts from creation until 70 years after the author’s death. 17 U.S.C. § 302(a). This standard harmonizes the baseline United States copyright term with the term adopted by the European Union in 1993. See Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 Harmonizing the Term of Protection of Copyright and Certain Related Rights, 1993 Official J. Eur. Cmty. 290 (EU Council Directive 93/98 ). For anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire, the term is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first. 17 U.S.C. § 302(c).

Paralleling the 1976 Act, the CTEA applies these new terms to all works not published by January 1, 1978. §§302(a), 303(a). For works published before 1978 with existing copyrights as of the CTEA’s effective date, the CTEA extends the term to 95 years from publication. §304(a) and (b). Thus, in common with the 1831, 1909, and 1976 Acts, the CTEA’s new terms apply to both future and existing copyrights.3
 

jwise

Recruit
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Larry said:
What Nat and others are really advocating is a return to the plain letter of the constitution ... that paents and copyrights have a limited duration. Eldred does provide a good historical read. Breyer's dissent is particularly compelling, but got only one vote.
Actually, everyone here is content with some limit, but there is wide disagreement as to what that limit should be, a question the Constitution voices no opinion on, leaving the decision to Congress*.

So, in point of fact, while we can argue as to what Congress should rule, it's simply incorrect to claim that prefering one ruling by Congress over another is `more' Constitutionally justified. Breyer thus stood alone (as he so often does) not because he had a ``better'' understanding of the Constitution, but because he once again tried to go beyond the Constitution in pursuit of his idea of the `public good'.

[*] Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, which lists among the powers of Congress
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
 

ericblick

Recruit
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
Interesting digression into copyright, patent and inheritance.

I vote for passing on the rights at creator's death. If this means that the incentive to create goes away as the grim reaper approaches, well, I would suggest that the creation is merely a $ making act and not worth the effort.

The family is subject to the vagaries of fate, as we all are. If the holder of the copyright/ patent is able to provide for them with the income collected while they are alive, great. Otherwise, it's off to work we go...

I admit that I am a bit radical when it comes to inheritance. The picture of families that have a zillion dollars and all of the power and influence that represents when they have NONE of the interest or talent that their benefactor possessed is terrible social policy, imo. (See W)

75% inheritance tax on estates valued above $400,000, I say!

So, who's willing to knock off some scenario creators so we can have all the free scenarios?* ;-)

Steve

* A joke , for those born without a humorous
 

jwise

Recruit
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
ericblick said:
I would suggest that the creation is merely a $ making act and not worth the effort.
College student, right? No family to feed and provide for, no real responsibilities in the world?

Let's see how long your opinion on inheritance holds up once you have a wife and children depending on you....
 

ericblick

Recruit
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
College student, right? No family to feed and provide for, no real responsibilities in the world?

Let's see how long your opinion on inheritance holds up once you have a wife and children depending on you....
Wrong, Mr Wise (isn't irony delicious?)

I am in all likelihood much older than 99% of the people on this list, with a real life just like you Can't imagine paring down what you think is vital to you and yours, eh?

I think you may eventually be enlightened on what is critical to living a happy life. Just live a bit more, my friend...




Steve
 

Larry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
3,760
Reaction score
203
Location
Guada La Habra
Country
llUnited States
[*] Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, which lists among the powers of Congress
Quote:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The real question that Breyer sought to address is the phrase "by securing for limited Times." Is a 95 year patent on DOS 3.0 serving the progress of Science and the useful Arts? I don't think that the Court sufficiently addressed Breyer's principle concern. To be clear, the odd copyrighted material like Mickey Mouse is the beneficiary of the current copyright law but it too will expire. Disney will then be left with its trademark protection.

Intellectual property under the Constitution is a balancing act between limited time to give the public free access and long enough to provide an incentive to create. While I disagree with those that espouse expiration on death, I agree with Breyer's analysis that current law throws out the balance of "limited time" that does not fetter other jurisdictions.
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,791
Reaction score
379
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
Is a 95 year patent on DOS 3.0 serving the progress of Science and the useful Arts?
Is DOS 3.0 itself serving the progress of Science and the useful arts?

There is more than one question here. This entire issue is a balance between allowing someone (and their heirs) to profit from a creation / invention on the one hand and "serving progress" on the other.

Its not rational just to ask one question -

1. Should old scenarios be availalbe?
2. Does it help mankind?
3. Can I make money from something I create?
4. Can I maintain ownership of something I make?

You have to ask several questions, not just "does it advance science".

This is all rather pointless. If you want to change the law, you have to make alot of money and use it to influence the lawmakers. That's the way it works.

Sam
 

jwise

Recruit
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
ericblick said:
I am in all likelihood much older than 99% of the people on this list, with a real life just like you Can't imagine paring down what you think is vital to you and yours, eh?
Well, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume that your generosity with other people's hard work was a product of youthful inexperience instead of some deeper wrong-headedness.

If this is not the case, then you have one less excuse. :)
 

jwise

Recruit
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Larry said:
The real question that Breyer sought to address is the phrase "by securing for limited Times." Is a 95 year patent on DOS 3.0 serving the progress of Science and the useful Arts? I don't think that the Court sufficiently addressed Breyer's principle concern. To be clear, the odd copyrighted material like Mickey Mouse is the beneficiary of the current copyright law but it too will expire. Disney will then be left with its trademark protection.
There is no such things as a 95 year `patent' on anything. Please get your terminology straight and work out your confusion between patent and copyright law (two very different things).

More generally, as the overwhelming majority of justices pointed out to Mr. Breyer, the decision as to what is useful in this area is reserved by the Constitution to Congress. The last thing we need is yet another unconstitutional power-grab by the court system...
 

ericblick

Recruit
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
Well, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume that your generosity with other people's hard work was a product of youthful inexperience instead of some deeper wrong-headedness.

If this is not the case, then you have one less excuse.
Please don't hurt my feelings, Mr. Wise, I can feel tears welling up.

And put it back in your pants. I'm not impressed.


Bless your heart...

Steve
 
Top