UK Green Party proposed cutting copyright to 14 years

Status
Not open for further replies.

Albedo

Alex
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
7,363
Reaction score
2,924
Location
A dimension of pure BEES
I think it is all about choice. And I think the choice should belong to the creator. The easiest way to do that is to make Public Domain opt-in. That way anyone who wants their work to go out of copyright can do that. And let's make it the original creator's choice too.
An idea would be to have provisions in any copyright registration for what happens to the work. Whether that be it goes into Public Domain in 25 years, author's lifetime plus 70 years, as long as the heirs make sure it does not go out of print for longer than a set period, or forever. And the only one who can change the length of copyright would be the original creator.
Forever is a long, long time.

I do not agree with any change of copyright law that takes power away from the original creator. And I do not see why people should be allowed to profit from a creator's work without paying the heirs a share.

How many generations of heir should be entitled to a share? Should it be indefinite? It was asked above, but again, should publishers of Shakespeare's works be seeking out his 21st century descendants and paying them? Because that's what eternal copyrights would mean.
 

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
I think two generations after originator's death is fair.

How many generations of heir should be entitled to a share? Should it be indefinite? It was asked above, but again, should publishers of Shakespeare's works be seeking out his 21st century descendants and paying them?

IMO: no.
 

TheNighSwan

Banned
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
398
Reaction score
54
Location
France
It's worth repeating that, conceptually and legally, "intellectual property" is not analogous to physical property, it's an entirely different idea that is governed by different principles. You cannot understand the idiom "intellectual property" by breaking it down to its constituent words, it is to be taken as a whole.

Let's consider a painting. Property laws govern who owns the physical canvas, and what they're allowed or not allowed to do with it (keep it, sell it, destroy it, alter it, put as part of an inheritance).

Intellectual property laws govern who has a finacial and moral* right over the act of making copies of that painting. Nothing is "owned" here, it's an intangible priviledge granted by the legal system — it's completely independent of who actually owns the canvas, and has to do with who is allowed or not allowed to duplicate it and under which conditions.

For the house analogy to be similar, it would mean that not only your children inherit your house, but also that no one is ever allowed to build a similar house without paying money to your children.


*: I don't know how it works in the US, but at least in France, the moral right of intellectual property, unlike the financial right, is valid perpetually: this means that even when a work has fallen into the public domain, the heirs of the artist can still oppose the creation of derivative work if they feel that it betrays the spirit of the original (not that a tribunal will necessarily buy the argument, but the provision exists and has been used, sometimes with success).
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
I didn't bring up patent. You did. i was just responding to your question. I didn't even bring up expiration dates.

Expiration dates has been what the whole thread is about. You asked about patents and I responded accordingly and you asked once more. So. . .
 

heza

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
4,328
Reaction score
829
Location
Oklahoma
DancingMaenid said:
What I don't care for is the implication that wanting your family to have control over your work when you die is the only thing that makes sense and that the rest of us are "weird" for not wanting that.

I'm not sure anyone really thinks it's weird. We can understand your POV. I think it's an emotional reaction to what we perceive as being an unfair attitude. It's perfectly fine to want your work to go into the public domain upon your death or even earlier, and there are ways for you to do that under the current architecture. So if we get "our way," and copyright can go to grandchildren, you can still set yours up the way you want with wills or creative commons licenses, etc. But if you [the general short-copyright "you"] get "your way," then those of us who want to leave copyright to our heirs don't have any recourse. We feel having decently long copyright coupled with plenty of options for those who want to put their work into the public domain sooner is fair for both sides (at least the side who feels like you do... this still doesn't help the "stories want to be free!" side).

What would make it easier to make alternative arrangements? Maybe we should start a larger movement supporting some of that. I'm in favor of everyone having options.


Albedo said:
How many generations of heir should be entitled to a share? Should it be indefinite? It was asked above, but again, should publishers of Shakespeare's works be seeking out his 21st century descendants and paying them? Because that's what eternal copyrights would mean.

Emotionally, I would like for the copyright to extend long enough to let the author's grandchildren profit because, like Aruna, I believe most authors would want copyright to extend to those they know and love, which would, on average, include the third generation. There are some grandparents who never get to meet their grandchildren... my grandmother has been able to watch all of her grandchildren grow into at least preteen stage and she's still very healthy, so it's conceivable she'd possibly even meet a great-great grandchild. I don't actually have a horse in this race because I don't have children, but as the world's greatest aunt, I'd like for my neices and nephew to benefit from any future sales of my work.

I do truly understand that there are a lot of valid arguments against very long copyrights, and imo, a lot of attention needs to be paid to the balance of things. As a compromise, I would say that I'd be amenable to a life+25, which, in most cases, would cover an infant child through to adulthood. But then again, this doesn't really help cases where special needs dependents need continuing support throughout their entire lives. In general, I would think it ridiculous to extend copyright to a generation of heirs who, at that point, don't really have any idea of what it's for—just that they get money from something that's legally theirs. At some point, there's an emotional disconnect between the heirs and the ancestor, and I definitely don't think copyright should outlive that.

The trouble with talking about all of this is that we all place value on different things. To some people the "greater good" is to keep as much literature in existence and free to read and adapt as much as possible to the exclusion of other concerns. For others, the need to provide for family, even after your death, is the greatest concern. And there are people all over the spectrum between the two ideas. A lot of us can mentally wiggle around in the middle of the spectrum, but it's much more difficult for those on opposing ends to understand what's driving each other.

TheNighSwan said:
For the house analogy to be similar, it would mean that not only your children inherit your house, but also that no one is ever allowed to build a similar house without paying money to your children.

It can, in some ways, be pretty similar.

We're inheriting property from my grandparents. I have siblings, so the property has been put in trust, and we will jointly pay taxes on it and receive a portion of the rental income on it. There are grandchildren who will then also inherit the trust, and their children will inherit the trust... this will go on, I suppose, indefinitely? That's nearly as complicated as multiple generations inheriting copyright. None of us worked or plan to work that land. In theory, it eventually should go to the family who has been leasing it this whole time, no?
 

Twick

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
3,291
Reaction score
715
Location
Canada
Personally, I'm puzzled by the idea that creative impulses will "dry up" if people can't steal someone else's work from 15 years ago. How did creative impulses continue through the 20th century under this supposed burden?

Goodness knows so few authors can make a living off writing anyway. Creating a system where, say, movie producers can simply wait out the 14 years and then announce the Major Motion Picture event based on the story seems grotesquely unfair.
 

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
Funny Interesting story from Germany (where I live) which has a very strong Pirate Party which would do away with copyright altogether:
The party has stated that free-of-charge downloads should be "explicitly" supported. Julia Schramm, a member of the Pirate Party's executive committee, once even deemed the idea of intellectual property "disgusting" in a podcast.
Now, however, Schramm appears to be backtracking on her party's limited interpretation of intellectual property rights -- at least when it comes to protecting her own work.

Schramm published a book in which she railed against capitalism and yadayadayada, and got a hefty advance for it.

On Monday, the book's official release date, illegal copies could still be found circulating on the Internet. Unidentified parties uploaded a PDF version of the book to an Internet file-sharing service and then spread the link on social media platforms like Twitter and Tumblr, along with information about the Pirate Party's platform -- including its proviso that information should be free.
The publisher immediately engaged its legal department and contacted the operator of the file-sharing service. By late Monday evening, the file could no longer be accessed at the original address. Instead, visitors to the link were informed:

"This file is no longer available due to a takedown request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by Julia Schramm Autorin der Verlagsgruppe Random House."

The file-sharing site had removed the illegal download on behalf of the Pirate Party author.

Karma's a bitch, Frau Schramm! :)

And there's the rub. These anti-copyright people seem very happy to take what's yours. When the favour is returned.... ouch.
 
Last edited:

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
Personally, I'm puzzled by the idea that creative impulses will "dry up" if people can't steal someone else's work from 15 years ago. How did creative impulses continue through the 20th century under this supposed burden?

Goodness knows so few authors can make a living off writing anyway. Creating a system where, say, movie producers can simply wait out the 14 years and then announce the Major Motion Picture event based on the story seems grotesquely unfair.

That's what I really don't get. Why is an author creating a story any different from a carpenter creating a chair, apart from the method of distribution? You wouldn't go into a furniture shop and just grab what you want. Why should you be able to grab an author's hard work, sometimes hard work over decades? Why do people think this is anything but stealing?

I am all for a compromise, as outlined by heza above, where everyone gets what they want: authors who want to pass on copyright, those who don't, as well as a law for orphaned work where the creator of a work cannot be found. If you can prove you have make every effort and received no reply, then yes, you should be able to use the work.

But I still don't see why those who want to use the work of others, should be favoured above those who created the work in the first place. I don't get why they can't try harder to create their own. :Shrug:
 

heza

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
4,328
Reaction score
829
Location
Oklahoma
And there's the rub. These anti-copyright people seem very happy to take what's yours. When the favour is returned.... ouch.

Keep in mind, though, that some authors can't necessarily act in accordance with their own conscience when they're bound to a publishing contract. Protecting the copyright might have been a legal obligation.


What's more, as much as my personal sense of justice wants to condemn these people, intellectually, I understand why they protect their copyrights. It's the way the world is. Wanting the world to be different and trying to function as if the world were different when it's not aren't necessarily simpatico states. I don't totally think that copyright is an area where you can lead by example while the rest of the world is staunchly hanging onto intellectual property until appropriate provisions are made to protect interests or until the world becomes less commercial in general.

I think it might be a Catch 22 sort of situation.
 

heza

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
4,328
Reaction score
829
Location
Oklahoma
But I still don't see why those who want to use the work of others, should be favoured above those who created the work in the first place. I don't get why they can't try harder to create their own. :Shrug:

I think this is the crux of why this is so difficult to discuss. I'm always faced with the question of, "How would you feel about it if Shakespeare was still under copyright and none of the Shakespeare retellings had been made?"

And all I've really got is: :Shrug:


It's hard to say. West Side Story still could have been created under the current system. And if it hadn't been, I wouldn't have known what I was missing, anyway. And who's to say that the creator wouldn't have made something else equally as important in its place—that we're not missing out on something even more significant because the creator was focused on this derivative work?

Clueless was basically a retelling of Emma, right? I enjoyed watching the film; I enjoyed it being a retelling. That said, I could probably have gone without watching it if its creation had meant someone was going to be out money I felt was owed them. So do I need the derivative work? A lot of it could still legally be made. There is an endlessness of stories in the world that I'm not going to get to read/watch in my lifetime. I just don't understand why we're so concerned when there's such variety out there.

And, frankly, I'm not sure I feel like every story that can be told really needs to be told.

I've never felt like my desire to use a copyrighted/trademarked thing is so great that it should trump all else. It's just never occurred to me, so it's difficult to understand where that mindset comes from. I'm not even sure why Disney should give up Mickey Mouse. I don't really understand what the world so desperately wants to do with Mickey Mouse.

What I would like is to see the definition of Fair Use expanded/better defined/something and penalties imposed for frivolous suites. I'd like an easier way of knowing pretty well what would and wouldn't be fair use and for people to be discouraged from making baseless lawsuits. I'd like that in general for all lawsuits, though.
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
That's what I really don't get. Why is an author creating a story any different from a carpenter creating a chair, apart from the method of distribution? You wouldn't go into a furniture shop and just grab what you want. Why should you be able to grab an author's hard work, sometimes hard work over decades? Why do people think this is anything but stealing?

A chair is a physical object. If you sell it, that person owns it, and can resell it. There are limited instances of it in the world, and you can't sue someone for making a chair that looks too much like your chair.

IP and physical property are both forms of property, but they are not the same thing.
 

heza

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
4,328
Reaction score
829
Location
Oklahoma
That's what I really don't get. Why is an author creating a story any different from a carpenter creating a chair, apart from the method of distribution? You wouldn't go into a furniture shop and just grab what you want. Why should you be able to grab an author's hard work, sometimes hard work over decades? Why do people think this is anything but stealing?

Furthermore, the way investment is recouped is different between the two. All effort/materials/marketing is recouped at a single point of sale for the chair. For a book, the investment is recouped over many sales.
 

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
IP and physical property are both forms of property, but they are not the same thing.

I KNOW they are different things! Please don't insult me by stating the obvious!

Yet still, they are both creations; they came from the mind/!hands of a creator. Without that creator, neither would exist. That one is physical and one consists of words in a certain order should make no difference whatsoever to the fact that a human being is responsible for their very existence, and both creators should have a right to adequate renumeration.

All jobs we humans do, all professions, have a different expression and are remunerated in different ways. A service, an object, a collection of words: why should the first two be worthy of payment, the third not?
 
Last edited:

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
I KNOW they are different things! Please don't insult me by stating the obvious!

Yet still, they are both creations; they came from the mind/!hands of a creator. Without that creator, neither would exist. That one is physical and one consists of words in a certain order should make no difference whatsoever to the fact that a human being is responsible for their very existence, and both have a right of adequate renumeration.

All jobs we humans do, all professions, have a different expression and are remunerated in different ways. A service, an object, a collection of words: why should the first two be worthy of payment, the third not?


Who said it's not worthy of payment? No one said authors should not be paid for their work.

I, personally, believe copyright should end at the creator's death, or maybe some small period after that, to account for heirs who haven't been adequately provided for in the event of someone's untimely death. But I really wouldn't be bothered by copyright ending at, say, 50 years post-publication, even if that is within the author's lifetime.
 

Twick

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
3,291
Reaction score
715
Location
Canada
Who is to say that Shakespeare today wouldn't still have written Hamlet, but that some other poor writer might have been paid some cash for the rights?
 

Brutal Mustang

Loves interplanetary chaos.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
449
Location
Casper, Wyoming
One thing that must be considered is children and grandchildren often play a role in the creation of art. Maybe they inspired it, supported it, put up with it, or downright contributed to its creation. Maybe a kid mowed the lawn often, or made dinners, or gave up outings so Mom or Dad could spend more time clacking around on the keyboard.

My mom wrote a song, and is a member of ASCAP. The whole family had to put up with the horror of songwriting (it is horrible, hearing the same thing being played over, and over, and over, and we weren't rich, so her going someplace private with her guitar wasn't an option).

With my writing, my younger sister has suggested names or ideas for me. If I croak, she should get something.
 

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
One thing that must be considered is children and grandchildren often play a role in the creation of art. Maybe they inspired it, supported it, put up with it, or downright contributed to its creation. Maybe a kid mowed the lawn often, or made dinners, or gave up outings so Mom or Dad could spend more time clacking around on the keyboard.

.

My children absolutely did. I wouldn't have started writing were it not for certain financial needs my family had. And as I said before: my books are sort of heirlooms. My kids grew up in Europe, and I write about Guyana partly to let them know about their cultural background, where I came from, to help them develop a connection and a love for Guyana, that half of their ancestry. They have always motivated me, and they are very involved and proud of my writing. They know it financed their education, and their move to the UK in the early 2000's. Their loves are built from my books.

I don't think I would have written at all or worked so hard were it not for the needs we had. I remember writing through cold winters in Germany, in a house without heating, wearing coat and hat and gloves, just to get us out of that situation. And it worked.

It really does need to be choice. I don't mind you putting your works into the public domain. Why do you mind me passing my copyright to my children? Why would you want to stop me? Why? I honestly don't get it.
 

Weirdmage

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
562
Reaction score
52
Location
South Yorkshire, UK
How many generations of heir should be entitled to a share? Should it be indefinite? It was asked above, but again, should publishers of Shakespeare's works be seeking out his 21st century descendants and paying them? Because that's what eternal copyrights would mean.

I think it should be as long as any other property rights.
And I ask all the time why it shouldn't be. So, please explain why intelectual property should be singled out as a right to something you create that expires. (As opposed to having a block of flats built for instance.)
 

MaryMumsy

the original blond bombshell
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
3,396
Reaction score
829
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
From TheNighSwan:

"Let's consider a painting. Property laws govern who owns the physical canvas, and what they're allowed or not allowed to do with it (keep it, sell it, destroy it, alter it, put as part of an inheritance)."

In the US at least, for more recent works, ownership of the original is not the be-all/end-all. I know several artists. Even if they sell the original, they retain the rights to produce and sell prints/postcards/refrigerator magnets or whatever.

It is a totally different matter than written material.

MM
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
It really does need to be choice. I don't mind you putting your works into the public domain. Why do you mind me passing my copyright to my children? Why would you want to stop me? Why? I honestly don't get it.


Society benefits from intellectual productivity passing into the public domain. We can argue over whether the proper time frame is your lifetime, your children's lifetime, or your grandchildren's lifetime, but if we do not agree on that basic point, then it's an unbridgeable philosophical difference.
 

heza

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
4,328
Reaction score
829
Location
Oklahoma
Society benefits from intellectual productivity passing into the public domain. We can argue over whether the proper time frame is your lifetime, your children's lifetime, or your grandchildren's lifetime, but if we do not agree on that basic point, then it's an unbridgeable philosophical difference.

Maybe we should discuss the whys of this part. I mean, that's the only way to start bridging the gap.
 

Brutal Mustang

Loves interplanetary chaos.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
449
Location
Casper, Wyoming
I don't think I would have written at all or worked so hard were it not for the needs we had.

Same here. I'm an artist, and I sculpt and paint to eat. In fact, when needs are pressing, I sit down in my studio, and ask myself, What can I make that's so spectacular, my buyers will start an offer war over it?

Oh, and some of my paintings are on print-on-demand sites. Which means every time someone orders a poster, or a coffee mug, or whatever with my art on it, I get $0.40 to $7.00. So yeah, copyright is important to me! And my family (sister and parents) has put up with me being an artist, so they deserve to benefit from it if I die.
 

DancingMaenid

New kid...seven years ago!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
460
Location
United States
I think it should be as long as any other property rights.
And I ask all the time why it shouldn't be. So, please explain why intelectual property should be singled out as a right to something you create that expires. (As opposed to having a block of flats built for instance.)

Well, the primary difference is that with real estate and tangible property such as, for example, a car, only one person can own or use the property at any given time. That's an oversimplification since sometimes property is owned by multiple people, but still, it's not like you can create multiple copies of a house to distribute among the various owners.

Intellectual property can usually be copied indefinitely, and if something is in the public domain, pretty much anyone can profit from it. Including the author's heirs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.