tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post3597153410722709027..comments2024-03-14T04:07:39.792-07:00Comments on Earl Pomerantz: Just Thinking...: "A Curious Regulation"Earl Pomerantzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963705121297866334noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-66977541486565585802012-05-06T04:08:46.665-07:002012-05-06T04:08:46.665-07:00I think you might not have considered the full ram...I think you might not have considered the full ramifications. You've basically just said that it should have been illegal to write the 1812 Overture (which is made up of a bunch of other, earlier music).<br /><br />You've also left out that a lot of rights holders cannot be found, so-called orphaned works - the Wikipedia article mentions millions of works that you'd prevent anyone from using - the original copyright owner isn't using them, and no one else can, for fear of being sued when the owner reappears.<br /><br />People also like the example of Sharespeare's heirs stopping West Side Story, although it's possible to imagine a copyright system that wouldn't let them. Shakespeare himself might very well have gotten into copyright trouble, given how derivative his works are.<br /><br />Spider Robinson wrote about an aspect of why this is a bad idea in a slightly long <a href="www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html" rel="nofollow">sci-fi story</a>. He doesn't get to the punchline until part 3, but it's worth reading if you have the patience.<br /><br />Personally, I think that some people (lawyers and people who make money from writing and art) forget what copyright is all about. Using someone else's song doesn't take anything from them. It's not stealing - but we have decided to make it like stealing. That's because we want to encourage people to create. We've cut creators a deal - we'll take something that isn't stealing, and make it like it is, to give you an incentive to create. Let's say you're writing a script today - and I offer you 10 years of copyright or 20. Will you really only create a good script if you have 20 years of copyright and not 10? So why should the public give you their rights as a present, at no benefit to themselves? You don't give the script away for free either.<br /><br />Aside from all this, I found the contrast with drug patents odd - someone has a unique, great idea. They can keep the rights forever - provided that the idea is not really needed by society. Only the really useful ideas get taken from the creator!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-41160805871901392152012-05-05T21:04:27.329-07:002012-05-05T21:04:27.329-07:00Regarding the "generic" version of Huck ...Regarding the "generic" version of Huck Finn; it is very important to be able to create derivative works based on Huck Finn. How many Huckleberry Finn movies/series have been made? How many would have been made if they needed licensing/permission?<br /><br />Look at most of the Disney classics: Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, the list goes on. All of those were Public Domain stories that Disney was able to make a wonderful adaptation because of the Public Domain, and we very well might not have had any of those stories were they still under copyright.<br /><br />However, today, the Disney corporation is the only company allowed to tell stories based on the characters that Walt Disney created. While I disagree with it, I can understand having copyright for the creator's lifetime, but the current plan is way overboard. I am currently wearing this <a href="http://www.redbubble.com/people/ninjaink/works/7385219-the-star-scream?c=82579-t-shirts-and-hoodies&p=t-shirt" rel="nofollow">awesome t-shirt</a> titled "The Star-Scream", based on Edvard Munch's <i>Scream</i> mixed with the Transformers character named "Starscream". According to current copyright laws, this shirt is likely illegal, as the artist does not have a license for Transformers characters, and almost certainly would not be granted one due to the artist's small business compared to the global Transformers brand. (And if you had perpetual copyright, then it would be doubly-illegal due to the Scream's copyright.)<br /><br />Public domain expands available the works of art, allows for creating of better stories and art. Copyright is a necessity to ensure that artists get paid for their work, but there needs to be a balanced limit.<br /><br />-NickNick Lassondenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-39868171932137414202012-05-03T19:50:58.213-07:002012-05-03T19:50:58.213-07:00It's not just "the publisher" who ca...It's not just "the publisher" who can continue to profit after a work falls into the public domain, it's any publisher who wants to take the time to publish the work.<br /><br />Of course, it may well be that the reason publishers can make money selling copies of "Huck Finn" is because it has been in the public domain for so long and is, therefore, easy and cheap for readers (and schools) to obtain.<br /><br />Would "It's a Wonderful Life" have become such a widely seen movie had it not fallen into the public domain for a time? It certainly wouldn't have been constantly on television for all those years (since the very reason it became a widely-aired "holiday classic" was because it was in the public domain).<br /><br />Heck, just untangling the rights over time would be potentially cost prohibitive for any future publisher if copyright were perpetual (you want to try and track down every descendent of Homer and get their permission to publish "The Odyssey"?)<br /><br />Just looking at my family which had a lot of early deaths and people who didn't have that many kids compared to their contemporaries, if my paternal great, great, great grandfather published a novel in 1885 (when 'Huck Finn' was published), to get the rights today, you'd have to deal with nearly 30 living adult direct descendants, and that's not even counting ex-wives who might well try to horn in on the action if the money people start sniffing around).<br /><br />And if said book came through my mother's side, the number of living adult direct descendants of my great, great, great grandfather is closer to 100.<br /><br />And that's after 127 years. Each generation potentially expands exponentially, so before long, the number of people with a say/stake in any given work of art would begin to rival the number of shareholders of Disney. Just doing the accounting on the royalty checks would be more than 99% of books would ever earn.<br /><br />And that doesn't even get into all the other ways that the rights to a work could get really complicated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-73597545038884425122012-05-03T18:08:31.528-07:002012-05-03T18:08:31.528-07:00I would not want to be supported by money earned f...I would not want to be supported by money earned from my grandfather's bestseller. I believe once the creators have died (or if they died shortly, when 50 years have passed), the descendants no longer have much grounds for claiming money. It wasn't *their* work, nor was it the work of whatever modern company has is now profiting from it.Thomashttp://www.radicaldog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-53363878490046116342012-05-03T17:07:20.192-07:002012-05-03T17:07:20.192-07:00Lyle: the rights have been continually held since ...Lyle: the rights have been continually held since first publication in 1935 (there's some debate as to whether that company had rights to do so, but it's done now). As Thomas points out, every time the copyright period for the oldest-still-covered-works (e.g. Steamboat Willy, 1928; Happy Birthday, 1935) comes close, the US congress (and by extension, often other countries due to treaties, free trade agreements etc.) extends the period of copyright to stop it happening.<br /><br />Earl: interesting argument. I'm very strongly pro-public domain expiry, because I think once things have been around long enough to become part of our cultural heritage they should be available to all. So to clarify: you'd be happy if performances of Mozart required licensing + permission? Of Shakespeare? Of Chaucer or Aristophanes or (reductio ad absurdum) the Bible? What if companies went bankrupt, stopped responding to requests, etc (this has happened with modern works; still no-one can perform those works because they never know when the next holding company is going to take over the rights from some long-dormant organisation and decide to retroactively sue them)?<br /><br />I also find it hard to reconcile your two points. One's about patents and one about copyright, which are of course different, but - why shouldn't Pfizer or Merck get the rights to their genius in perpetuity? They put in the hard work. If patents extended in perpetuity, you can bet your sweet bippy that we'd still be paying Bayer $50 a packet for aspirin (which they discovered in the late 1890s).<br /><br />(Side note: it doesn't really change your argument, but for accuracy it's worth pointing out that "The publishers can still collect money" means <i>any</i> publisher, not just the original one. Anyone can publish Shakespeare's plays now...)Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00089945997667148310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-73496494973355039432012-05-03T14:08:22.340-07:002012-05-03T14:08:22.340-07:00Point One: A genius writes "Huckleberry Finn...Point One: A genius writes "Huckleberry Finn." And after a specified period of time, neither he nor his descendants are permitted to benefit from his achievement. The publishers can still collect money. But the source of the work of genius cannot. Who does that situation benefit? Who does continuing paying royalties to the creator of the work of genius hurt?<br /><br />Point Two: My daughter take a certain medicine that costs six hundred dollars a month. Why should any medicine cost so much? And why should people who can't afford that medicine be forever deprived of its benefits?Earl Pomerantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16963705121297866334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-69214788023646012142012-05-03T07:15:19.087-07:002012-05-03T07:15:19.087-07:00I've long preferred the Three Stooges "Bi...I've long preferred the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKYHYxTYxS0" rel="nofollow"><b>Three Stooges "Birthday Cake Song"</b></a> anyway.Dimension Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05392348422733549988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-33776308367942740252012-05-03T06:43:37.770-07:002012-05-03T06:43:37.770-07:00Earl: How were the rights to "Happy Birthday...Earl: How were the rights to "Happy Birthday" acquired? If the copyright had run out . . . how was it extended? Is this a Congressional Act? Some legal procedure must be involved. Unclear. Can you clarify?Lylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08455023609172006217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-41475369246353652892012-05-03T05:55:55.585-07:002012-05-03T05:55:55.585-07:00Did you know, the original creator of 'Happy B...Did you know, the original creator of 'Happy Birthday To You' didn't get a cent.<br /><br />The copyright length is sometimes called Steamboat Willy + 20. That is, since the creation of that animation, the copyright laws have been extended every time Steamboat Willy looks likely to come out of copyright. I would be unsurprised if the laws continued being extended, and Steamboat Willy will remain copyrighted in 200 years.<br /><br />My opinion is that it should be until the creator's death, or 50 years, whichever is longer. This is economical - creators and publishers profit for a long time, but eventually it becomes released to be assimilated into our culture as a whole. Music, animation, and art can all become a part of our collective brain, and it allows creative freedom.<br /><br />I believe that culture is hampered when nothing ever becomes open, and this affects us all.Thomashttp://www.radicaldog.comnoreply@blogger.com