Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alexandertnt]

I also hope you got the "Of course you dont" thing was just a joke, I wasnt actually implying anything.

So your sardonic accusation was just abrasive mockery. Good to know.

My comment was neither "sardonic" nor was it mockery. If it came across as that then I apologise, but I am pretty sure any reasonable person who read that would not read it as such.

If I show this to a normal person, who has never heard of these things, they generally have no issue accepting it as art

Because they still respect it because they respect that most (if not all) music is art regardless of whether or not they like it.

some people may even consider its unpopularity as part of its artistic appeal. "Doing it for the art" sort of thing.

Ahh the "so bad its art" deal. Either that or Hipster art.

Yeah, ok. It still stands as a valid counterexample?

[XXSockXX]

If I show this to a normal person, who has never heard of these things, they generally have no issue accepting it as art

Because they still respect it because they respect that most (if not all) music is art regardless of whether or not they like it.

some people may even consider its unpopularity as part of its artistic appeal. "Doing it for the art" sort of thing.

Ahh the "so bad its art" deal. Either that or Hipster art.

I guess you could call it Hipster art in a way, though without many of the things you would normally associate with that term. Rather "so extreme nobody else likes it" or "my secret thing nobody else knows about". Underground appeal, but not necessarily "so bad its art".

And a lot of people have a hard time respecting that as art. You can hear music in art galleries that sounds like a broken stereo to most people, because, well, it kinda sounds like that. 

[Vector]

Hm, perhaps. My thinking on 10 years is that, by then, if the work hasn't been discovered and earned you money, it's probably not going to be.

Nope.  Example: certain math textbooks.  You write a foundational math textbook and it will be purchased with fairly high regularity for, oh, fifty to sixty years.  I'm not even talking about different editions, either.  The amount of work and training it takes to produce such a text is really high, too... what can I say, I think it's reasonable to ask for more than 10 years.

[Loud Whispers]

The life + 70 years thing is supposed to make it so that the heirs the publishers benefit some from their parents' creations and derivative works don't pop up the moment the creator kicks it for two lifetimes.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i studied fine arts, this was a thing that happened back then and the reactions from my teachers and colleagues: an artist let a dog starve on a museum. people were revolted and disgusted and strongly disapproved of that artist's work and called for legal action against the guy, yet, very few people argued that his work wasn't art, just that it was a terrible thing to do.
art is not about popularity, art is about exploring and stretching the concept of aesthetics.

[Leafsnail]

The extensions probably have a lot to do with progress in technology and distribution models. There wasn't much to do with tie-in-merchandise and tv commercials in 1790.

The actual reason is that large corporations have a lot of lobbying power and a financial interest in making sure that one thing which someone created decades ago (see: Mickey Mouse) can keep making them money.

Nope.  Example: certain math textbooks.  You write a foundational math textbook and it will be purchased with fairly high regularity for, oh, fifty to sixty years.  I'm not even talking about different editions, either.  The amount of work and training it takes to produce such a text is really high, too... what can I say, I think it's reasonable to ask for more than 10 years.

If the book you made was so amazing that it's still relevant in 50 years time then it almost certainly made enough money in the first 10 years of its life to justify the cost of writing it/ incentivise you to make it.  Further, I'd want to get such an excellent book into the public domain as soon as reasonably possible so that everyone can benefit from it.

e: Also generally you'd probably bring out new editions anyway

[XXSockXX]

If the book you made was so amazing that it's still relevant in 50 years time then it almost certainly made enough money in the first 10 years of its life to justify the cost of writing it/ incentivise you to make it.  Further, I'd want to get such an excellent book into the public domain as soon as reasonably possible so that everyone can benefit from it.

That is just ridiculous. Look how many famous books didn't make any money in the first 10 years. Read up some biographies of writers, not many of them could live from their writing alone. That 10 year model would only work if you only wrote bestsellers, which most books are not and many famous books were not immediately. I can see how that could apply to something that ages very fast, like video games, but for other sectors such a model would be fatal.
If it is a scientific work there is no need for it to be in public domain anyway, these are accessible in libraries.

[Leafsnail]

That is just ridiculous. Look how many famous books didn't make any money in the first 10 years.

How many?  I'm going to go ahead and suggest the answer is very, very few.  Unless you're referring to stuff which only became popular after the author's death, in which case a longer copyright period would not have helped them at all (and indeed probably didn't help them at all, considering copyright law is a thing that exists in reality).

Read up some biographies of writers, not many of them could live from their writing alone.

Sure.  But isn't that a failure of the copyright system as it exists?  Long copyright periods did not help them.

That 10 year model would only work if you only wrote bestsellers, which most books are not and many famous books were not immediately.

It's true that most books are not bestsellers.  However, the vast majority of books that are not bestsellers do not suddenly start making money decades after they were made - they never really make much money at all.  Increasing the copyright length doesn't help these books or the people that write them.

I can see how that could apply to something that ages very fast, like video games, but for other sectors such a model would be fatal.

I don't think any sector has a business model which depends on a creative product making money 10 years after publication.  Sure, businesses would like to be able to keep a monopoly on a popular creative product indefinitely.  But I don't think that means we should allow them to - we should instead be encouraging them to look for the next big thing, which is afterall what copyright is actually meant to do.

If it is a scientific work there is no need for it to be in public domain anyway, these are accessible in libraries.

I'd like all of our kids to be able to access the best textbooks as soon as reasonably possible.  Kids in poor areas likely do not have access to well-stocked libraries, and even if they did it would be far better if their school had permanent copies (or access to digital copies) which all of the kids could use in lessons.

[XXSockXX]

That is just ridiculous. Look how many famous books didn't make any money in the first 10 years.

How many?  I'm going to go ahead and suggest the answer is very, very few.  Unless you're referring to stuff which only became popular after the author's death, in which case a longer copyright period would not have helped them at all (and indeed probably didn't help them at all, considering copyright law is a thing that exists in reality).

I would say it happens quite often, 10 years is not much for literature. Only very few books become bestsellers upon release. The early work of most authors becomes interesting to people if they manage to become popular later on, why shouldn't they benefit from that.

Read up some biographies of writers, not many of them could live from their writing alone.

Sure.  But isn't that a failure of the copyright system as it exists?  Long copyright periods did not help them.

It's not a failure of the copyright system, it's just a reality that very few people can make a living off creative work.

I can see how that could apply to something that ages very fast, like video games, but for other sectors such a model would be fatal.

I don't think any sector has a business model which depends on a creative product making money 10 years after publication.  Sure, businesses would like to be able to keep a monopoly on a popular creative product indefinitely.  But I don't think that means we should allow them to - we should instead be encouraging them to look for the next big thing, which is afterall what copyright is actually meant to do.

Literature and music? 10 years is nothing. Looking only for the next big thing is incredibly short-sighted and quite shallow. Why not protect the classics?

That 10 year model would only work if you only wrote bestsellers, which most books are not and many famous books were not immediately.

It's true that most books are not bestsellers.  However, the vast majority of books that are not bestsellers do not suddenly start making money decades after they were made - they never really make much money at all.  Increasing the copyright length doesn't help these books or the people that write them.

They make some money over time. Some money over 50 years is much more than over just 10.

If it is a scientific work there is no need for it to be in public domain anyway, these are accessible in libraries.

I'd like all of our kids to be able to access the best textbooks as soon as reasonably possible.  Kids in poor areas likely do not have access to well-stocked libraries, and even if they did it would be far better if their school had permanent copies (or access to digital copies) which all of the kids could use in lessons.

That is a failure of the education system and has nothing to do with copyright.

[Leafsnail]

I would say it happens quite often, 10 years is not much for literature. Only very few books become bestsellers upon release. The early work of most authors becomes interesting to people if he manages to become popular later on, why shouldn't they benefit from that.

Yes, very few books become bestsellers upon release.  No, not very many books suddenly become bestsellers 10 years after they're released.  The authors who do become popular later on already have their later books to sell, and could probably release a new edition of their old work.

It's not a failure of the copyright system, it's just a reality that very few people can make a living off creative work.

Ok.  But that's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Literature and music? 10 years is nothing. Looking only for the next big thing is incredibly short-sighted and quite shallow.

Isn't the whole point of copyright to try and make new stuff, though?  I really don't understand what you're saying here.  You don't think we should be encouraging the creation of new stuff because 10 years isn't a very long time?

The make some money over time. Some money over 50 years is much more than over just 10.

For the vast majority of books that "some money" is gonna be less than a dollar a year.  I'm going to go ahead and suggest that the societal benefit of making that book freely available outweighs the tiny trickle of cash that the creator may get over an extremely long period of time.

That is a failure of the education system and has nothing to do with copyright.

If schools can't afford to get the textbooks due to the copyright on them, I'd say it's pretty related.

[XXSockXX]

Well, I already said what I think about 10 years only copyright a few pages ago. Sometimes stuff needs a lot of time to become popular, especially in music and literature profits that come a long backcatalogue are important. Copyright is also about ownership and creative control, which I consider even more relevant than profit. I'm not arguing for a particular model of copyright, but I would consider a model that retains ownership for only 10, 20 or 30 years as pretty bad.

[palsch]

Time to suggest proactive registration and periodic renewal?

There are serious flaws, but the basic concept;

A work is registered prior to publication. Copyright goes from the date of registration for X years. After X years the copyright may be renewed for a period of Y five years. This renewal may be repeated N times.

To my eyes, an X of 10, Y of 5 and N of 12 make sense. You get 10 years instant copyright, enough for most works to be profitable and enjoy some element of the long tail. You have fairly frequent chances to choose to renew or allow it to lapse into the public domain. The total term possible is long enough to reflect current expectations and lifespans.

The flaws as I see them;

1) Registration is a burden on creators. Having an automatic initial period would be nice, but impractical when combined with renewals. Realistically registration would need to be as easy and accessible as possible, for any possible works.

2) Renewals are also a burden, but I see this as less important. The goal would be for any work not actively profitable (and so worth the effort) to lapse into the public domain. But even so the mechanisms should be as easy and accessible as possible.

3) Checking whether a work is copyrighted or not becomes far harder, as you need to check whether it's term has been renewed. Again, this is a burden that should be minimised as far as possible.


Honestly, I think that term length is the easy part of this debate compared to copyright enforcement. Unless there is a realistic copyright enforcement scheme that is both effective and non-disruptive to society them copyright will become largely defunct anyway. Right now we are headed in that direction and no matter what the terms on copyright are they simply won't matter.

[Leafsnail]

That's a totally fair point.  The fact that it's extremely difficult and perhaps not desirable to enforce suggests that maybe we should find another system.

[GlyphGryph]

It appears LordBucket's argument is against any system ensuring that, not just against the current system. I think alot of people here are agreeing that the current system is either doing a poor job, or is just overkill.

LordBucket isn't against ANY system insuring that, just against copyright, near as i can tell. And has been discussed several times, there are multiple other systems in use right now.

Personally, I am against any but an extremely limited kind of copyright. I think we do not, as a society, need to do actively encourage creation any longer in the artistic fields - the sheer preponderance of opportunity has resulted in an incredibly explosion of creation, and I would wager a guess that the amount of art created for free or from patronage systems today vastly overshadows the amount that was created thanks to the encouragement of copyright 200 years ago, per capita. And it's become obvious that copyright laws, even in the first several years, actively limit many types of creation.

I would support laws against plagiarism - but that's not copyright. That's attribution. I think there's still a strong benefit to such laws for promoting creation without also limiting it. But beyond that? I would be hard pressed to support the inherent monopolies created. I don't think copyright currently serves the purpose originally intended, and if it did so that would be an improvement... but I also don't think that the purpose originally intended is actually a purpose we need to actively pursue any longer.

Would this lead to the crash of the entertainment industry? Probably. But since it's an industry that has shown a willingness to pirate mercilessly from independents, pervert the political system, and use heavy handed methods of enforcement to insure a large enough pool of money for the executives (and not the artists, usually) to roll around - I'm perfectly fine with that. Let it die.

We'll adapt, people will spend their time doing other things, either looking at works freely distributed by hobbyists or by media created through a patronage system, or boosting other industries that provide entertainment without having to exert monopolies, and the world will be none the worse for it.

That's my opinion anyway.

[XXSockXX]

Time to suggest proactive registration and periodic renewal?

There are serious flaws, but the basic concept;
-snip-

Actually that is not as flawed as you think. Musicians have to register with agencys anyway if they want to profit from uses of their music. In Germany you can't even get a CD pressed if you don't register it with GEMA. (Though that system is a horrible clusterfuck where you have to pay if you want to get money for your music. Basically only very sucessful artists benefit from that, yet still it is more or less enforced.)