This is an interesting thread.

For what it's worth, in the U.S. copyright law begins with the Constitution that gives Congress the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

So in the U.S. copyrights MUST be limited. The question boils down to what's a reasonably "limited time"? In the Constitution there is no mention of the author's estate or heirs, so one might argue the limit should be no longer than the life of the author. Of course it has not worked out that way because Disney and others have good lawyers and clever lobbyists see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

The idea, BTW, that family farms are going under because of estate taxes is, at best, an exaggeration. See: http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

The idea, BTW, that family farms are going under because of estate taxes is, at best, an exaggeration. See: http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html


That is not a factual way to look at it, because it fails to look at the past and what decimated the family farm in the first place. They practically do not exist now, compared to what they used to be. It's like saying that buggy whip abuse of horses can't be found these days, and is thought now to mythical!

Mike

By the way guys, how long should a patent be good for? You are not addressing that question.

Mike

When that business is passed on, it is taxed almost to death. Look at the plite of the family farms.

True - but my point is that total ownership/control of the business and its products/profits doesn't get taken away after the owner passes on or after a certain time period has elapsed, as copyrighed material eventually does. The family/heirs/trustees still control the business and are the sole beneficiaries (aside from Uncle Sam's share) of its profits. Not to mention, Uncle Sam still gets a healthy chunk of the money I make with my intellectual property too.

Should the business have the right in perpetuity to come out and demand that you give them their product back, or demand that you pay for it again?

Assuming the purchaser originally paid the business (artist) for the use/ownership of the product (song/video/film), there would be no reason for the business to demand returns and/or further payment.

Admittedly there is a problem IMO with most 'legit' IP licensing being unaffordable to the masses. Of course, this doesn't justify the theft of it, but does outline a need for a solution. Maybe royalty-free content would be a good business to get into these days :)

Scary, that once again we're calling upon the fact-frugal-font of Wiki's.

Better, read the US Copyright law.

As far as terms, the original term was the life of the author plus argued years. This is fallout from the Statute of Anne (worth reading when youv'e got a couple free hours). One of the reasons that copyrights don't expire at the death of a copyright holder is that the expiration of copyright was deemed in the 1700's as a potential incentive for early demise (read; murder) of the copyright holder.

As far as heirs....should society have the right to enjoy the works of anyone after they're gone, without paying a price for it? I don't believe so. Someone created that work; just because they died doesn't mean that society should benefit from their works if the creator doesn't want them to.

Why do people want to use copyrighted works in their own work anyway? Put the shoe on the other foot. Are people too lazy to create their own works? I submit they are.

Having experienced violations of my own copyrights and trademarked name, the *only* reason I can see for copyrighted works being used in a creative sense is for parodies, educational uses, and commentary. Outside of that, it's laziness, IMO.

I'm doing a video for a year-end project, it's pro-bono. Only one copy of the work will ever been seen at a one-time event. No doubt, I can easily get away with using U2, Stones, etc in this vid. But I won't. It's extra work, but I have integrity and want to be able to say that I created every aspect of this work myself, or used material for which the authors were compensated. That's what art is about.

Otherwise, we might as well be buying up paint-by-numbers paintings, selling them in stores as "by Chagall."

Kelly, I would submit you don't have a clear understanding of copyright, because you keep citing unrelated examples. Pencils, pens, paper don't fall under copyright, they fall under patents. Patents that benefit the greatest part of society in a tangible format expire. The inventor is allowed to own the right to his invention for a lengthy period of time so that he can recoup his initial investment in the project. Copyrights protect (predominantly) art and speech. Creative works.

I find it exceptionally frightening that people in a creative community inspired to bring forth creative works don't understand, or even refute the value of protecting intellectual properties.

The ENTIRE purpose of protecting intellectual properties, is to allow for a creative environment to take place. Spend a day reading the purpose and intent of the framers of the Copyright Laws in the early days. Without copyrights, there would be zero incentive to create, and all the incentive of the world to do as the Romans and Greeks did; hire brilliant people to write/create brilliant works, and stick the names of famous people on them. Nothing else matters. Not the amount of money generated, not the people who get rich or not, nothing else matters, except that we've preserved the natural right of protecting ownership of a piece of property. That was, and is the intent of the laws.

Not to mention, Uncle Sam still gets a healthy chunk of the money I make with my intellectual property too.

Not the same!! The tax on the farm is not on earnings, it is on the value. To be the same, when you die the government should tax you heirs at 20% of what ever the future earnings of your property could be. So if you pass on something that has the potential to earn $3,000.000, then your heirs would be required to pay $300,000 up front before any income is collected. Do you see what happened to the family farm now? They could not pay and the land was sold in whole or part to pay the taxes! The land had to leave the family because it was worth more than any potential earning. It is the same way with some songs, as their ability to earn all of a sudden goes through the roof because of some event, but they are only taxed on real income, not potential.


Assuming the purchaser originally paid the business (artist) for the use/ownership of the product (song/video/film), there would be no reason for the business to demand returns and/or further payment.

Not true. I could hire you to write a song for me, but the payment would only cover one use, or I could pay an extremely high price for the right to use it in any way I choose in perpetuity, but then it costs too much for me to even use.

If it were that way for a car manufacturer, you could buy your Chevy (which is made under thousands of patents, which EXPIRE soon!) and maybe only have the right to drive it to work, not for play.


Maybe royalty-free content would be a good business to get into these days :)

Royalty-free IS good business. That I what I buy for my music. Just bought another library. I could not afford to hire an artist to write it for me and the lawyers it would require for me to continue to use the material. Actually, the system may be puting song writers at a big disadvantage, and hurting their income, as people just don't consider it practical to deal with using them.


Still, no one has answered my question? How long should a patent run?

:) :)

Mike

I think this would be a good time for everyone to enjoy some of the other topics under discussion here at DVinfo. There are plenty of existing threads about copyrights (just do a search) and we're just covering old ground, so this thread is now closed.