Bryan Holtby
Senior Member
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.Man, this thread is getting old, painfully so. Its a dead debate with no possible resolution. Its been hashed out a hundred times over.
Viewing and interest are two different animals. Maybe they just want to get rid of the dinging bell.dgdimick said: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.Man, this thread is getting old, painfully so. Its a dead debate with no possible resolution. Its been hashed out a hundred times over.
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.admin said:Take it down a notch. My post had nothing to do with screwing anyone's families.
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.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.
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.In the case of corporations (which never "die") having ownership for the
lifetime of the author just won't work.
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.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.
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.In the case of corporations (which never "die") having ownership for the
lifetime of the author just won't work.
Two points: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.
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.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.
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*.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.
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;
College student, right? No family to feed and provide for, no real responsibilities in the world?ericblick said:I would suggest that the creation is merely a $ making act and not worth the effort.
Wrong, Mr Wise (isn't irony delicious?)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....
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.[*] 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;
Is DOS 3.0 itself serving the progress of Science and the useful arts?Is a 95 year patent on DOS 3.0 serving the progress of Science and the useful Arts?
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.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?
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).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.
Please don't hurt my feelings, Mr. Wise, I can feel tears welling up.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.