Has copyright gone too far?

Yes, copyright has indeed gone too far. There seems to be a tug-of-war between two equally undeserving groups: Web downloaders who want their stuff for free, and leech heirs and publishers who want to cabbage onto the efforts of whoever created the work in the first place. Death to both, in my opinion.

What surprises me, though, is the clumsy efforts of legislatures to sort this out sensibly. But then most legislators seem to more attuned to lobbying input instead of proper ethical concerns.

If my memory serves, copyrights used to be good for 14 years, plus a 14-year renewal. This, or something like it, would serve the interests of the original creator without turning into a cash cow for useless nobodies.

In the Web world, it ought to be possible to track small monetary exchanges so that all downloads would be charged a nominal fee, with the proceeds to be divided between the original creator and the original publisher (who should also be rewarded for investment in making the material available).

This applies to all creative forms: literature, music, art reproduction, you name it. But in a world in which almost everyone is a crook, no one seems to be working on this. (Or if they are, it hasn't been publicized enough for me to hear about it.)

I agree 100%.

The original term of 14/14 is more than sufficient to reward/incite authors and creators to create more. The problem is that they have sold their copyrights/souls to the publishers who have no reason to invest in creativity and every reason to lobby/bribe lawmakers to make copyright infinite.

Hmmm, not sure I'll die for want of seeing Abbott and Costello go Mars.
Del

At least we still have

Laural & Hardy

If only I could have worked in a penguin reference....

Here ya go Mate, I'll do it for you, Ky.

That's a GA, and not really a hyper-rant. Things might not go that far in that direction, but it isn't impossible, or even implausible.

In some other thread I mentioned an idea for tracking Web downloads and charging nominal fees (nickel-and-dime range). I'm not sure anyone is freely entitled to anything that requires positive effort from anyone else, but neither should anyone have to pay through the nose for downloads. (But then, it is not always easy to tell free markets from manipulated markets.)

Hi there Ed

It's coming folks, unless we wake up.

I just woke up and thought about doing and practicing plagiarism. That's what it is about, to catch out people that claim but have no substance and use it for their own good. There is no greater embarrassment than to be caught with an original when it was just a copy. I'll try it now and will tell you, I spontaneously made up this little penguin sketch. Take a lawyer any one, I breached copy right, make my day.

"Real" breaches of intellectual property are much more damaging than mundane indiscretions and they can't be defended by the average single identity. Lets hope nobody reads this crap and takes it serious, Ky.

Although this version has been cropped, thereby concealing the www.cartoonstock.com reference, I checked out the first one. Interesting site, gazillions of cartoons. The only obvious topic to search was "penguin/penguins", but that turned up only one example, different from this. "Copyright: Original Artist" doesn't tell much, and I don't see why the artist's name would be concealed.

I once wanted to use a Gary Larson cartoon as a slide in a debate on evolution, in which I would have given full credit to author and publisher; no further reproduction, and no money to me. My need was on short notice, but I contacted the publisher for permission. This was going to take a several-week process. I would have been happy to pay say $5 or $10 for this one-shot go-nowhere-else copy, but there was no mechanism for this. So I just scanned it and printed it on a transparency for overhead projector use. In this case, it wasn't publisher greed that queered the deal; it was publisher stupidity. They blew a chance to make a few bucks.

If my system (or some variation thereof) were to be adopted, the people that should make a little money would do so, and the people who should pay a little would also do so. How soon do you think this will happen?

How soon do you think this will happen?

Honestly? Never! Unless I take your "system" and turn it into the next google thingo, nobody will ever find out that you are the originator and that I am the guy putting it into reality and making some $$. Any one could take ownership of anything if supported by legal eagles. The Internationale Anthem was copy righted in Germany in, I think it was 1986 or some time, by a couple which had noticed that the copy right had run out. Not that it is sung much now but back then every time it was sung they collected. GEMA fully involved.

BTW could any one tell me what this recurring penguin drift is all about. It keeps coming up like the bathtub thread. Eff knows, Ky.

My question was rhetorical and didn't call for an answer, but I'm pretty sure your answer is correct!

I don't yet get the Internationale thing. I can see how an inventor or author should get a patent or copyright, and be able to assign part or all of it to employers, publishers, heirs, or anyone--but only for the relevant duration. If interlopers come along later and manage to get a patent/copyright, somebody has simply fallen asleep at the switch.

I have encountered some interesting stories involving copyright:

1. There are novelists who did not sell well in the West, but did get translated into Russian, and thrived there. The Russian system of tracking sales didn't communicate to the outside, but royalties nonetheless accumulated, and decades later were paid.

2. If you know the song "Black and White" as sung by Three Dog Night, this song was written by one Earl Robinson. The royalties made his living for a while. He also wrote a song, "The House We Live In," which was the Communist Party song in about 1936, and the Republican Party song in about 1944 !!! (My dates may be off or even reversed.) By a fluke of fate, my wife and I came to know him in the last year of his life.

3. Bill Monroe, of bluegrass fame, was sort of eclipsed for a while by someone else covering some of his songs. But he didn't object, because he was receiving royalties, and he said, "Them checks was mighty powerful."

4. Once in a blue moon, a physics book I co-wrote with a retired nuclear physicist actually sells a copy; we get a few bucks and share a beer together.

If the system (whatever it is) is done right, the benefits will (or at least can) flow appropriately. We don't have such a system right now.

Roger Pink has a thing about penguins.

A couple of weeks ago Stevem had a penguin for an avatar & I asked him if it was just to annoy Roger...

Link

Ok. Now I know. Thank you.

And what about the Google plan to DIGITIZE all the books in the world ?

Why ask me?

My opinion is that survival of the fittest will prevail. Dubious information will never be passed on, digitized or not. If google can improve the delivery of books and thereby increase the knowledge base, why not. I get frustrated some times, when I am asked to pay $29.50 for a passage in a book that might not even be relevant to what I am after. I usually find other sources that can provide me with information on the subject, it just takes longer.

The author should always be reimbursed for his trouble and usually is. I can't see a problem unless google wants to make $$$ out of it them selves, which could be on the cards if one is not careful. Complex it is in any case but unstoppable with all variants included, Ky.

"...when I am asked to pay $29.50 for a passage in a book that might not even be relevant to what I am after. I usually find other sources that can provide me with information on the subject, it just takes longer."

So you are paying $29.50 for the convenience.

"I can't see a problem unless google wants to make $$$ out of it themselves"

Of course google is going to make money out of it. They are an organization with the goal of generating a profit. While they may not charge the user directly, they will most likely charge advertisers who will be able to present adds to those browsing the books or something along those lines.

I believe your use of the Larson cartoon was covered under the "Fair Use" doctrine. There was no need to contact the publisher although it was thoughtful you attempted.

Hello all,

Copyright protects an author. Copyright gives a possibility to receive MONEY by his/her work. You wish to use all masterpieces without payment. You did not want to pay to an author. It is the main reason of all your words.

Sincerely,

John

An absolutely wrong interpretation of the discussion.

I believe all here agree that the creator of an original work should be able to monetize their work. The question being debated is for how long.

Stubby -- I agree with your point. Following is something I wrote a while back stating my own position in this matter. I can't remember where I posted it; but it might have been here on CR-4. Those of you with good memories please bear with me. I do think my suggestion is particularly germane to the discussion at hand.

Copyrights and the Berne convention article 5pt2

Dear Sir,

Article 5.2 of the Berne Convention is a big mistake for modern civilization. It provides the seeds for the loss of most of the technology, culture and history of the era in which we live. Why? Because knowledge is now automatically locked up for over a century requiring overt action by individual owners in order to be legally and reliably (read a viable population of reproducible copies)preserved in the constantly changing media and archiving technologies.

The alternate, of course, is wholesale disrespect for the rule of law such as we are teaching our children as we tolerate their consumption of pirated works. This is OK? Please tell that to the citizens of nations that still operate by the "rule of men" because their legal systems are too defective to operate with a "rule of law".

The obvious answer? Berne 5.2 automatic copyrights should be good for no more than 10 years, preferably much less, during which time a formal registered copyright good for 10 years and renewable a limited number of times must be filed. Renewability should satisfy the media giant corporations. Governmental entities that record registrations should be provided with resources to archive and reproduce copies for broad release and free use once copyrights have finally expired.

The thought here is that if your creative work isn't worth the small effort to copyright then why should you have the right to withhold it from benefiting the rest of society.

My other take on the subject is both philosophical and practical. If one is to have any immortality in this world, regardless of one's beliefs about life after death, it will be through the record and substance of one's ideas, works and accomplishments. Sequestered in little legal capsules in populations too small to guarantee reproduction their early loss is highly probable.

Is that what we want to be the fate of our collected wisdom?

Even the most primitive populations had a better answer to that dilemma. They had no copyright laws to prevent the passing of wisdom down through generations in the form of oral histories.

Ed Weldon

An excellent resource for this issue can be be found at the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

www.EFF.org

They have a very balanced view of the issues while fighting to preserve our constitutional rights in the digital age.

As an aside, take a look at Project Gutenbeg,

www.gutenberg.org

They are working to convert all the copyright-free books worldwide into ebooks and make them available for free download.

There seems some confusion here between "copyright" and "patent protection". (The latter certainly deserves to be in inverted commas as big companies always seem to be able to circumvent it).

Copyright applies automatically to artistic creations and applies until 70 years after the death of the author. I have yet to find out why it doesn't have a reasonable time frame like, say, 20 years from creation, but that is the law.

If you produce a civilization changing invention, it isn't covered by copyright but by intellectual property rules which basically need a patent to protect them. I think this is good for 25 years from time of application.

Some new technology would require 25 years of research before it is even satisfactorily marketable, so our legislators definitely weight the dice against technical innovation.

If you want reward for creative effort, write a hit song. Don't attempt to do it by technical invention.

Advances in technology have made copyright and patent law a jungle which is increasingly weighted towards the big players and is increasingly irrelevant to the real world, which is why piracy is rife.

End of rant.

sceptic -- "I have yet to find out why it doesn't have a reasonable time frame like, say, 20 years from creation, but that is the law."

I think Disney had a hand in the US legislation because they were afraid of losing copyright protection for Walt Disney's early Mickey Mouse creations specifically and all their productions in general.

Whether this is provable fact or just rumor I don't know. A bit of internet research would likely give the answer.

There is little doubt of the continuing profitability of many 1930's movie productions and music compositions. I have absolutely no issue with owners being able to protect these works. Their distribution is so wide that there is little likelihood of their disappearance into obscurity. IMHO as long as the copyright owners are willing to "actively" protect their work either by a certifiable volume of production and sale (which is hard to legally administer) or periodic routine reregistration and nominal fee payment I'd be happy.

It is the disappearance of the other 99.9% of human "literary" or artistic works that concerns me. Of course most of human production of such stuff is worthy of little more than the dustbin. But there is still a sizable mass of material of significance and importance to succeeding generations that we would do well to add a measure of protection of these assets. The freedom of others to copy and distribute allows an excellent means of sorting the wheat from the chaff, i.e. the marketplace, to do the job.

Allowing indifferent and uninterested legal copyright owners to destroy useful knowledge by their own default is a sad and potentially dangerous public policy.

Ed Weldon

G'day sceptic

"Some new technology would require 25 years of research before it is even satisfactorily marketable, so our legislators definitely weight the dice against technical innovation."

Shocking how true it is, shocking. I hope I can prove you wrong and I mean this year. This would be the 26th year since I gave birth to an under nourished idea which is now going to be patented. Not that I have been sitting around doing nothing but not to do what others have done has kept me quiet busy. The fear of being ripped off is stopping more people than any copy right laws can do. I shudder just thinking of my next meeting with a Patent Attorney. How can I hide my disdain?

Happy new year and talk to you soon, Ky.