New Bill to Limit Copyright to 56 Years, Would be Retroactive

[Bohandas]

OTOH, the First Amendment issues (doing this because Disney expressed a political opinion certain GOPers don’t like) and Fifth Amendment issues (taking property without due process) would remain significant barriers to this surviving a well-funded legal challenge.

If the first amendment somehow prevents copyright from being weakened - despite the fact that it should invalidate copyright entirely - than we have truly failed as a country

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I have very limited knowledge as to how copyright laws work. But I've read this thread and it was a very interesting read.

Personally, I don't really agree that copyright laws stifle creativity. Anyone can look at the absurd amount of consumable media released every year (games, movies, series) to see how creative and thriving this all is. I don't see why anyone would need to borrow exact characters or other elements of an IP to be creative, as opposed to getting inspired, exploring the same themes or aesthetic.

But the meat of the debate here seems to be about how long after a creator's death should the copyright expire. Most seem to agree that it should become public really shortly after their death.

I have a question... my personal situation is the following. My father worked in journalism for most of his life (some twenty-five years) and at 50, he decided to quit it all to become a writer. He's written a few books and is hoping to publish more, sell more copies. He makes very little money from this at this point.

As he's growing older, we have had a discussion about inheritance. He told me that he doesn't have much money to pass down to me, or a property. But he hopes that what he spent the last twenty years of his life creating will be some some of inheritance to pass to me. I thought that made sense. He could have kept working at his job, not created anything and eventually pass me some money; but I'm personally very proud of him for having the guts to do what he wanted to do, and I see it as fair that his work could become some sort of inheritance.

So, why do I have the feeling from most posts in this thread that an IP, and the revenues and control that comes with it, should not be in some way passed down to the next generations? Don't we want to encourage individuals to be creative? It seems unfair to me that all the work my father did, and wish to pass to me would become public domain shortly after and that then anyone, like my neighbour or someone with more means than me, could exploit that IP and profit from it.

Not all creators become very wealthy from creating, and not all creators create their best work (or work at all) early in their life.

 

[Mannahnin]

So, why do I have the feeling from most posts in this thread that an IP, and the revenues and control that comes with it, should not be in some way passed down to the next generations? Don't we want to encourage individuals to be creative? It seems unfair to me that all the work my father did, and wish to pass to me would become public domain shortly after and that then anyone, like my neighbour or someone with more means than me, could exploit that IP and profit from it.

Not all creators become very wealthy from creating, and not all creators create their best work (or work at all) early in their life.

I think this strikes to the heart of some fundamental questions about the nature of property and wealth, and the concept of Intellectual Property.

To what extent can (and should) an idea be the property of a human being? To what extent can the use of that idea be justly denied to others, given that it is not a limited resource in the same way that a physical object is?

To what extent is a designated heir more worthy of the value of such property than any other human being who also didn't do any work to create it?

Is there greater benefit in sharing such ideas than in restricting their usage?

Is money the main reason people create things? Like music, or poetry, or stories?

I agree that creators should be compensated for their work in creating things. I'm a bit more skeptical about the overall benefit of restricting the usage of ideas for an extended period after their death.

 

[Bohandas]

To what extent can (and should) an idea be the property of a human being? To what extent can the use of that idea be justly denied to others, given that it is not a limited resource in the same way that a physical object is?

0.00%

Intellectual property is intrinsically inimical not only to free speech and free expression but ultimately also to free thought as well

 

[Mannahnin]

0.00%

Intellectual property is intrinsically inimical not only to free speech and free expression but ultimately also to free thought as well

I know other people with the same view.

I was asking the questions more rhetorically, though. I think really digging into the issue may in practical terms run afoul of the board's rules on politics a bit. It's a big area.

I do think the current structure shouldn't be assumed to be just or reasonable though, and that it's worth folks reading about how it's evolved and how it's abused. From patent trolls to Disney and co.

 

[Ryujin]

0.00%

Intellectual property is intrinsically inimical not only to free speech and free expression but ultimately also to free thought as well

Then there is precisely zero reason for anyone to want to create anything new.

 

[Mannahnin]

Then there is precisely zero reason for anyone to want to create anything new.

I think every hobbyist creator in this forum not trying to get paid for their work is evidence to the contrary.

 

[Ryujin]

I think every hobbyist creator in this forum not trying to get paid for their work is evidence to the contrary.

Then I'll add a codicil: As a career.

 

[Mannahnin]

Then I'll add a codicil: As a career.

Definitely more defensible. I'm still not sure it's true, though.

 

[Rabulias]

Not all creators become very wealthy from creating, and not all creators create their best work (or work at all) early in their life.

You have raised a very good and valid point here. If copyright lapses on the death of the creator, say we have two people, Creator A and Creator B, who both live to be 80 years old.

Creator A generates a masterpiece work when they are 25 years old. In the 55 remaining years of their life, they collect income from the work, and leverage it to build a fortune to pass on to their heirs.

Creator B creates an equally masterful work (yes, it is impossible to quantify creative quality, but for sake of this example, bear with me) when they are 70 years old, and only have 10 years to reap the rewards, and so can only pass a smaller inheritance to their children and grandchildren.

This does not seem equitable to me. I know some dislike the idea of inheritance and building of generational wealth, but I don't see that going away. If one built a private business, one could pass that on to descendants. No one is calling for laws saying that after someone dies, any businesses they founded, money earned, or physical material they acquired must be given up to "the public domain." Why do some want to treat creators and their creations so differently? I believe there is an infinite amount of creativity in the world; it won't run out, so we don't need to keep "refilling the tank."

All that said, IMO the eventual release into the public domain is a good thing, but not necessarily for spurring the creative efforts of others. Rather, I would like to see works preserved and passed on for future generations to see/read/enjoy, as well as get some insight into the society/culture of the time of their creation. And yes, it may inspire them, either directly or indirectly, in their own creations, but that is a side benefit. I do not want to see a work disappear just because "it won't make money" and the copyright-holders do nothing with it.