Staples refuses to print my PDFs....

[S'mon]

I'm not saying its perfect, mind you, but I'm more of the mentality that the framework is sound and just needs some tweeks, rather than wholesale demolition & reconstruction.

I think the Statute of Anne framework with its registrable copyright and 14 year term (renewable to 28) was sound. Unfortunately, along came the Continentals and we got the Berne convention, automatic copyright and near-infinite duration.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I prefer automatic copyright because of the combination of there being simply too many people who are not aware of how simple it is to copyright something and the improvements in the technologies that facilitate many forms of copyright infringement.

OTOH, while I understand the desire of entities like Disney wanting to protect the value of their IP as long as possible, current copyright laws are bumping up against a ceiling similar to those found in other rules of law, like the Rule against Perpetuities (a rule regarding real property- IOW, Land).

Of course, as we all know, politicians listen to money, and right now IP is one of the major moneymakers in the Western world...I'm not sure the protectionist trend won't continue.

And really, I'm not sure who is being hurt by long periods of protection. While its true that under current law it means that an IP holder can spread out their exploitation over a long period of time, shortening that time (from the current regime) would lead to a compression effect. IOW, with less time to exclusively exploit their IP, they will try to set a higher price.

How that would work out would, of course, be determined by the market. I'm not going to prognosticate, but one possible outcome is that the short-run costs of using someone's IP might actually be higher under a shorter protection regime, if for no other reason than you're paying in today's dollars rather than tomorrow's (a time-value of money consideration).

 

[S'mon]

How that would work out would, of course, be determined by the market. I'm not going to prognosticate, but one possible outcome is that the short-run costs of using someone's IP might actually be higher under a shorter protection regime, if for no other reason than you're paying in today's dollars rather than tomorrow's (a time-value of money consideration).

That wouldn't bother me. Paying more for a new-release DVD would be a small price for not having our cultural heritage from ca 1922 onwards locked up in perpetual IP.

 

[Rykion]

Actually, yes-- I freakin' hate paying full retail price for books that I could almost certainly have bought cheaper online, only to find one of those d---- sticker tags permanently clamped onto a page or endpaper. That crap drives me crazy.

And, for that matter, your post confuses me; it sounds like you are building a convincing case for why it is obtrusive and annoying that you are treated like a thief by default, only to conclude that "a person has to live with it"? Or, are you saying to buy your books online to avoid the stupid things?

I say that a person has to live with it because at least 90% of stores I go to have them. Even most small boutique style stores have them. I can't even buy groceries without walking through scanners. Living with it doesn't mean liking it. :\

 

[Delta]

And really, I'm not sure who is being hurt by long periods of protection. While its true that under current law it means that an IP holder can spread out their exploitation over a long period of time, shortening that time (from the current regime) would lead to a compression effect. IOW, with less time to exclusively exploit their IP, they will try to set a higher price.

Wow, I would highly, highly doubt that. At least if we're talking entertainment media, I really think the price is simply set at whatever customers are willing to pay, irrespective of costs one way or the other.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That wouldn't bother me. Paying more for a new-release DVD would be a small price for not having our cultural heritage from ca 1922 onwards locked up in perpetual IP.

Depending, of course, on whether that "small price" is actually small.

And I'm not sure calling someone else's creation "our cultural heritage" is really helpful. Just because something becomes immensely popular (Disney films) or literarily important (like a Faulkner novel) doens't mean its ownership should be transferred into the public domain more quickly.

Arguably, the less popular a piece of IP proves to be, the more quickly it should fall into the commons- that way, someone else has a chance of taking it and reshaping it into something more useful. Immensely valuable IP is probably already being utilized to its fullest potential.

Would we as a society be better off if people were able to use Mickey Mouse as they saw fit? Personally, I don't think so- that IP has a certian set of connotations that have accrued to it over the years all centered around clean family entertainment- and respected in that context virtually around the world (but for a particular Pakistani propaganda film seen on CNN lately). Were someone able to take MM and make a slasher flick with it, that image would be tarnished, to say the least.

And in all honesty, the countries that have protected and respected IP the most have prospered because of it. Just this past winter, Chinese officials mused that they were having problems in their country because the same pirates they've protected while they cannibalize the IP of citizens in other countries are now targeting Chinese creators.

Is the current protection regime too long? Maybe- I haven't decided yet. But 28 years? I'm fairly sure that that is too short.

Wow, I would highly, highly doubt that. At least if we're talking entertainment media, I really think the price is simply set at whatever customers are willing to pay, irrespective of costs one way or the other.

Like I said, "try"- whether they would succeed would be determined by the market.

However, if they felt they really had to do so, there are several steps the big companies could take to strengthen their hands in the market, each of which has the benefits of decreasing manufacture & security costs while increasing the "security" of their product.

1) Limit the total number of releases in a year.

2) Limit the number of formats in the market.

3) Limit the number of legitimate outlets for their product.

4) Take copy protection more seriously...and roll that cost into the base costs of the product. Some of the proposed protection schemes have been quite radical, including the release of viruses that would detect and destroy pirated IP.

And so forth.

And costs are always part of the equation. Any product whose costs exceed the price the public is willing to pay for it will soon be pulled from the market.

 

[wingsandsword]

And I'm not sure calling someone else's creation "our cultural heritage" is really helpful. Just because something becomes immensely popular (Disney films) or literarily important (like a Faulkner novel) doens't mean its ownership should be transferred into the public domain more quickly.

Of course, with that mentality, Shakespeare would still be copyrighted. Classical works of literature become even more classic when they pass into the public domain and can be reinterpreted, reproduced, used, remixed, and changed by everybody.

 

[Delta]

And in all honesty, the countries that have protected and respected IP the most have prospered because of it.

The current New Yorker (May 14) Financial Page has an article on copyright expansion making a compelling argument for exactly the opposite.

The great irony is that the U.S. economy in its early years was built in large part on a lax attitude toward intellectual property rights and enforcement. As the historian Doron Ben-Atar shows in his book "Trade Secrets," the Founders believed that a strict attitude toward patents and copyright would limit domestic innovation and make it harder for the U.S. to expand its industrial base. American law did not protect the rights of foreign inventors or writers, and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, in his famous "Report on Manufactures," of 1791, actively advocated the theft of technology and the luring of skilled workers from foreign countries. Among the beneficiaries of this was the American textile industry, which flourished thanks to pirated technology.

In other words, strong IP laws are good for a dominant economy to secure its existing position, not so much for promoting innovation or getting there in the first place.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Of course, with that mentality, Shakespeare would still be copyrighted. Classical works of literature become even more classic when they pass into the public domain and can be reinterpreted, reproduced, used, remixed, and changed by everybody.

You're misinterpreting my statement- I said that I wasn't convinced that valuable IP- that which captures the imaginations of large numbers of people- should slip into the public domain more quickly because of its popularity. I'm not arguing for indefinite/infinite IP protection- the commons must be fed. Its just a question of what, how much and at what rate.

As for reinterpretation etc.- that is already allowed within the period of copyright as long as the reinterpretation falls within certain perameters, like parody, critique, or education.

Other loopholes exist as well. For instance, in music, you need only do 2 things- give credit and pay small royalty fee to the songwriter- no songwiter can actually ban you from recording their song unless he simply refuses to let anyone do so (by not releasing it to the public). Otherwise, our culture would not have been enriched by Hendrix's versions of "All along the Watchtower" and "Hey, Joe"; Elton John couldn't have done his cover of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"; the 900 different versions of "Louie, Louie"; and Rap.

Similarly, other copyrighted works have been reinterpreted within the span of their enforcement- Gone with the Wind and Wizard of Oz, for instance.

You really want to make me happy? Make copyright have a sliding scale- the number of times your IP can have its protection renewed depends upon its market value (the more valuable, the stronger the protection)- but give it a ceiling- say...life of the creator + 50 years.

The current New Yorker (May 14) Financial Page has an article on copyright expansion making a compelling argument for exactly the opposite. <edit>

In other words, strong IP laws are good for a dominant economy to secure its existing position, not so much for promoting innovation or getting there in the first place.

The Founders were definitely quite the brain trust, but they weren't perfect. After all, they definitely lagged on the human rights front.

As time has passed since the foundation of this country, the stronger the IP enforcement, the faster the rate of our technological improvements- a pattern repeated in country after country. And, as I pointed out, the countries that are not protecting the IP of others are now having their own IP poached- sometimes by their own citizens- causing a lag in development in their own countries, as China and Russia are finding out.

Just because theft- your own quote called it piracy- of someone else's ideas lets you get out of the gate faster doesn't mean its a good idea. Theft definitely drops the costs of entry into a market, making it easier for the thief to turn a profit. However, it definitely fails the test of Kant's Universality principle, and economically speaking, the easier IP is to steal without repercussions, the less likely it is someone will want to invest in producing & marketing it.

 

[S'mon]

I'll just point out that the connotations of Mickey Mouse is something that is, and should be, protected by Trade Mark law, not copyright.

I don't think valuable works should fall out of copyright protection quicker; I think registration to get protection plus maximum 28 years, as in the original law, is fine for all works. 'Life of the creator+50/70' is a Europeanism happily seized on by Anglo-American corporations, but far too long on any cost-benefit analysis.