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

[doctorbadwolf]

Don't get me wrong, I think copyright reform is needed. I just don't think that a bill that specifically is designed to be a punitive measure against a specific company for the reasons behind this one is the way to go.

Oh I agree. And it isn’t even written in a way that would be all that helpful.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Superman isn’t 100 yet. Superman first appeared in 1938, and is slated to hit the public domain pretty soon, along with Batman and Wonder Woman.

As for absurdity? One of the bundle of rights in what we call copyright is the power to sell it outright. You can’t sell something devoid of value. (Well, besides NFTs.)

Besides, as pointed out numerous times, Supes has dozens of non-DC knockoffs despite being under copyright…and a fairly valuable and well defended one at that. I find it absurd that people utterly unconnected to the creation of a piece of IP feel a need to assert a right to using the EXACT copyrighted form is something as opposed to an homage after the mere passage of time.

With other forms of property, that doesn’t really happen.

How does using the original IP of something serve the public good when alternate versions are perfectly legal?

Certainly there are differences. But they’re not so great that it somehow justifies the shortening of copyright durations,

While I generally agree with you points, I do have …. concerns ….. about the music industry right now.

 

[dragoner]

Personally if I never saw Tolkien or Star Wars stuff again, I would not be sad, and if something were to be done see more of it? Uh, no. That's what bills like this seem to be trying to do, is free up already popular IP's. It is like Bilbo Baggins porno, it probably exists, and I don't want to see it.

 

[Horwath]

Patent length is 20 years, so...

 

[TheSword]

Copyright can stifle creativity by limiting the number of people that can develop an IP (edited for clarity).

But it also gives monetary value to IP which encourages investment which can develop an idea.

… it’s a quandary.

 

[Fifth Element]

Copyright can stifle creativity by limiting the number of people that can develop an idea.

Untrue. You can't copyright an idea, only a very specific expression of an idea. See, for example, the 170 copies of Superman mentioned in the thread previously.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes you keep pointing it out, but it’s not compelling. Superman isn’t owned by his creators, so I have absolutely no regard for any supposed rights to exclusive ownership.

That's the part you're missing. A creator cannot be said to have full rights over their creation if they are not able to sell it to someone else.

 

[Ryujin]

That's the part you're missing. A creator cannot be said to have full rights over their creation if they are not able to sell it to someone else.

And that's where things can get really messy. There's a good doc you can find on Youtube about the history of Judge Dredd and it mentions why the Stallone movie was a walking lawsuit.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's the part you're missing. A creator cannot be said to have full rights over their creation if they are not able to sell it to someone else.

2 things

First, that's absolutely absurd. A thing not being able to be sold doesn't make it not yours. It just means it's a type of thing that can't legally be sold.

Second, you can sell it, under the rules I'd prefer. The new owner just has a much more limited time frame to make exclusive use of it. If they sell it, the timeframe doesn't reset, it just continues from the original date of sale.

 

[TheSword]

Untrue. You can't copyright an idea, only a very specific expression of an idea. See, for example, the 170 copies of Superman mentioned in the thread previously.

Thanks. By saying development I though expression was implied, but. Edited for clarity.

My point still stands though.