Planesdragon said:
There are two major and one minor problem with that, Sigil.
Firstly, scholoary research already has a Fair Use exemption. If I want to write a piece on the history of cartoons, I don't need to pay Disney or get their permission to mention, describe, or even sample Steamboat Willie.
Yes and no. In theory, yes, in practice, no.
Here is what Disney and every other media conglomerate wants...
Put all copies of Steamboat Willie into a format that is protected by Digital Rights Management.
Now, even if SW passes into the public domain, if you try to sample a portion of Steamboat Willy and incorporate it elsewhere, you must bypass their DRM scheme to do so.
That is a direct violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. You are committing a felony.
Thus, the public domain is DE FACTO and DE JURE eliminated... because nothing in the can be accessed without the DRM manager's permission... including public domain works.
Let me repeat that:
DRM + DMCA = De Facto Cessation of Public Domain
Secondly, most copyright violations are torts, not crimes. If the copyright holder never comes up and punishes the offender, then no foul can be called. As for criminal copyright, a reasonable search for the copyright holder followed by holding the equivalent royalty payments in escrow would probably help proof against criminal behavior. (If the copyright holder ever does surface, they can just demand the ceasation of the printing and get their money.)
In theory, yes. In practice... not any more. Copyright violation is a now a criminal felony, unless I am mistaken.
The Department of Justice has a copyright infringement contingent of lawyers. The FBI investigates alleged copyright infringement. These are CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies, not CIVIL LAW enforcement agencies.
Thirdly and minorly, copyright won't get extended to an unlimited term. While a tangential case for twice the mean lifespan of the author could be made*, there's not enough political support to extend copyright so long that people the author never knew or met could inherit the copyright.
Really? Senators Sonny Bono and now his widow, Mary(?) Bono support/supported copyright terms to infinity... when told the Constitution forbids this, her response was "okay, well, infinity less one day, then."
There's not enough political support? Extending copyright terms 7 times in the last couple of decades is not enough political support?
Please tell me you're joking.
*: The author already has their lifespan, and being able to pass the work on to their spouse or children is a clearly moral law.
I would argue with this.
Creators of "Intellectual Property" seem to have this funny notion that they should required to expend blood, sweat, and tears once and then be paid the rest of their lives. The rest of us must continue to produce, spending blood sweat, and tears, to continue to get paid. What makes two years (or however long it takes to create their artistic work) of their blood, sweat, and tears worth over 100 years of payments, while the common man expects that one year of his work will pay for one year of his expenses?
In the service industry (e.g., plumbing), a plumber does spend five years fixing pipes, then expect royalties on every toilet flush to keep him in luxury the rest of his days... and his children, and his grandchildren, too. He has to keep fixing things.
In the manufacturing industry, a TV manufacturer cannot sell 1 million TVs, then sit back and collect royalties the rest of his life... and the lives of his children and grandchildren.
Why should IP creators be any different?
This is probably a difference of opinion, and as such I don't expect to convince you one way or the other. I'm merely stating my POV... AS A CREATIVE ARTIST WHO MAKES MONEY FROM HIS WORK.
--The Sigil
