[News] Lawsuit: Warner does NOT own "Happy Birthday to You"

GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
figmentPez said:
Doesn't someone who owns a printing press have other property? Why should their business assets be excluded? Should an apple orchard be forfeit and the farmer's heirs be unable to profit from the fruit, just because most people's jobs don't involve a significant investment in capital?
Click to expand...
A printing press is a tangible asset. Until you can destroy an intellectual property in a fire or lose it in an earthquake (not to mention subject it to the same inheritance tax), I don't think it can be held to the same rhetorical standard.

You're mixing arguments here. Saying that copyright should be a flat seven years is tremendously different than saying that copyright should stop at death. If you want to argue that copyright should not be connected to the lifespan of the creator at all, you're going to have to stop arguing that copyright reverts to public domain upon the death of the author.
Click to expand...
Ah, I misinterpreted what you said then. Intellectual property is definitely a misnomer, as it isn't truly a property, it's a right or a license. IP theft doesn't actually remove the original, and it isn't something like a printing press that actually enables creation. It's just an agreement society makes to only let one person (or company) profit from an idea for a specific amount of time. A radio frequency isn't hereditary, either.

It's interesting to see the dividing lines in this argument - how the STEM types of the forum line up on one side and the Authors/Cartoonists line up on the other.

"Of course they shouldn't, why should they?"
"Of course they should, why shouldn't they?"
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

All I know is that it's about damn time Mickey Mouse entered the public domain. Walt's dead, his kids are dead, and their kids are 50-somethings that own a multi-billion dollar company that makes original content to this day. It's time for it to happen.
 
Adam

Adam

The Mouse House is exactly the reason we need copyright reform; it's pathetic how they've lobbied again and again to extend their copyrights, especially as they benefit from public domain work and create billion dollar franchises from it.[DOUBLEPOST=1406678600,1406678548][/DOUBLEPOST]
GasBandit said:
A printing press is a tangible asset. Until you can destroy an intellectual property in a fire or lose it in an earthquake (not to mention subject it to the same inheritance tax), I don't think it can be held to the same rhetorical standard.


Ah, I misinterpreted what you said then. Intellectual property is definitely a misnomer, as it isn't truly a property, it's a right or a license. IP theft doesn't actually remove the original, and it isn't something like a printing press that actually enables creation. It's just an agreement society makes to only let one person (or company) profit from an idea for a specific amount of time. A radio frequency isn't hereditary, either.

It's interesting to see the dividing lines in this argument - how the STEM types of the forum line up on one side and the Authors/Cartoonists line up on the other.

"Of course they shouldn't, why should they?"
"Of course they should, why shouldn't they?"
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, the STEM types benefit from patent protection while the author types benefit from copyright protection, and the two are fairly different in their application.
 
ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy

AshburnerX said:
All I know is that it's about damn time Mickey Mouse entered the public domain. Walt's dead, his kids are dead, and their kids are 50-somethings that own a multi-billion dollar company that makes original content to this day. It's time for it to happen.
Click to expand...
Yup. Copyright law is completely borked almost exclusively because of Disney and that fucking mouse. I don't agree with 7 years. I'd say life of creator plus 25-50 years is more than enough.
 
Eriol

Eriol

Adam said:
Well, to be fair, the STEM types benefit from patent protection while the author types benefit from copyright protection, and the two are fairly different in their application.
Click to expand...
And there are plenty on STEM types who think that patents should be abolished because they cause far more harm than good.

The same idea does translate to copyright. Why should you have exclusive rights to an idea? It's not a good to be snatched from you. You lose nothing if somebody else does something else with what you created. All works (yes 100%) are derivative of others. We are better off for it. The more to work with, with fewer restrictions, the better.

14 years. It is reasonable.
 
Zappit

Zappit

Staff member
Have I ever mentioned how I love that we can debate things with both emotion and reason, and not have it turn into a shitstorm? Because I really, really do.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
ThatNickGuy said:
Yup. Copyright law is completely borked almost exclusively because of Disney and that fucking mouse. I don't agree with 7 years. I'd say life of creator plus 25-50 years is more than enough.
Click to expand...
You do realize the creator of mickey mouse did not die more than 50 years ago, right? What you describe is exactly how things are, pretty much.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

For years, it was difficult to find a good DVD of Night of the Living Dead because people treated it as public domain, so the market was swamped with shitty releases. I'd hate to see that situation for every fucking movie that exists when every asshole with a DVD-R wants to release their cut of the Lord of the Rings.
 
ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy

Zero Esc said:
For years, it was difficult to find a good DVD of Night of the Living Dead because people treated it as public domain, so the market was swamped with shitty releases. I'd hate to see that situation for every fucking movie that exists when every asshole with a DVD-R wants to release their cut of the Lord of the Rings.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, we'd get a good fan cut of The Hobbit where it's cut down to include only the book stuff.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Personally, I definitely don't agree with any version of copyright that depends on the life of the author. Why should copyright be longer for a work written when I was 25 than for a work written when I was 88? Give both 20 or 30 years, and in the first case, I'll have been able to do with it what I wanted, and in the second case, my heirs can exploit it for a while. Life of the author plus 50 or whatever years can easily be over a century. Frankly, that borders on the insane. There's 19th-century works that still wouldn't be public domain.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
GasBandit said:
A printing press is a tangible asset. Until you can destroy an intellectual property in a fire or lose it in an earthquake (not to mention subject it to the same inheritance tax), I don't think it can be held to the same rhetorical standard.
Click to expand...
This is, interestingly enough, the same general argument that book publishers are trying to use against libraries lending digital copies of books. They claim that since physical books have to be replaced after an average of so many lendings, that digital books should have to be repurchased by the library on a regular basis as well.

There are a lot of ways that digital media makes getting a proper perspective for lawmaking difficult. Property and privacy not least among them.
 
fade

fade

Staff member
The problem with comparing IP to other types of work is the value location again. The value in building a PC is in the resulting PC which you get just once. The IP has value every time it's transferred. Or does it? Should we value just the creation?

Also, there seems to be a difference between technical IP and creative IP, which I suppose is already recognized by the current system of patents and peer reviewed journals. Technical IP is evolutionary. It is difficult to imagine Newton or Einstein being forced to bring all new ideas to the table without using the sacrosanct ideas of others.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

stienman said:
The "continuously offered for sale" wouldn't really work without a bunch more rules (and thus more loopholes) since one could simply raise the price substantially ($3,200 for blur ray cinderella, anyone?) and still technically be within the law.
Click to expand...
Technically, yes. Or it could only be offered for sale in some incredibly inaccessible location. But the idea that someone could legally claim exclusivity to an idea and then sit on it and do absolutely nothing needs to be addressed.[DOUBLEPOST=1406746094,1406746049][/DOUBLEPOST]
GasBandit said:
Now I've got the Lemiwinks song in my head.
Click to expand...
Dave said:
How the fuck have I never made that connection before? Seriously.
Click to expand...
"There and back again."

--Patrick
 
ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy

A thought occurred to me today. One way I do actually like how one IP owner handles copyright: by allowing the fans to do anything they want with it. George Lucas, after all, has been completely open to fan parodies, stories, etc. It's why we got the extended universe. It's why we've had movies like Fanboys, where Lucas went as far as to let them use sound effects from the original movies.

I think that's a positive way to do it while still owning the rights. Let the fans do what they want with it, within reason. They can't go all out and make their own Star Wars movies, but there's a lot of room to play with the property.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
ThatNickGuy said:
A thought occurred to me today. One way I do actually like how one IP owner handles copyright: by allowing the fans to do anything they want with it. George Lucas, after all, has been completely open to fan parodies, stories, etc. It's why we got the extended universe. It's why we've had movies like Fanboys, where Lucas went as far as to let them use sound effects from the original movies.

I think that's a positive way to do it while still owning the rights. Let the fans do what they want with it, within reason. They can't go all out and make their own Star Wars movies, but there's a lot of room to play with the property.
Click to expand...
Sure, there is the occasional rare fellow who does such things. Elon Musk released all Tesla Motors' patents for public use.
 
mikerc

mikerc

What about a tiered copyright deal. Original creator gets exclusive rights to the IP (as now) for the first X years, and after that it's opened up for anyone to use but they have to give a certain amount of the profits (gross not net so as to discourage Hollywood accounting) to the creator or his/her estate, eventually falling completely into Public Domain.

I know I'd be less annoyed by the ludicrously long copyright deal if it didn't completely lock other people off from using the IP, but I'm curious what the actually creative people on the board think?
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

That almost sounds like a decent compromise: after x years the creator loses sole right to his IP, but anyone wishing to make money off the IP has to pay the creator x% of their profits from said deal, with X% becoming smaller over the years until eventually settling on a certain percentage. The owner of the rights gets to claim what is and isn't considered "canon" in their universe, but isn't allowed to interfere with production otherwise.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

stienman said:
So, you want an RIAA for other copyright able works that makes sure every time a book gets read, or copied, or shared, the publisher gets their cut? And maybe the author?
Click to expand...
Set the threshold for over $1000 and you basically eliminate 90% of the problem.
 
Covar

Covar

GasBandit said:
Sure, there is the occasional rare fellow who does such things. Elon Musk released all Tesla Motors' patents for public use.
Click to expand...
It wasn't all of their patents, they were ones related to their charging technology. Basically allowing for his competitors to get a jump start in their electric vehicles, while ensuring that Telsa Motors charging technology will be standard across the industry. Charging stations will be more plentiful and compatible with Tesla vehicles, and TM maintains a competitive advantage with their years of experience in battery technology.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Covar said:
It wasn't all of their patents, they were ones related to their charging technology. Basically allowing for his competitors to get a jump start in their electric vehicles, while ensuring that Telsa Motors charging technology will be standard across the industry. Charging stations will be more plentiful and compatible with Tesla vehicles, and TM maintains a competitive advantage with their years of experience in battery technology.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? What I read said all their patents.

Tesla, considered a leader in development of long-range electric cars, has about 200 patents and none are being held back, Musk says.
Click to expand...
 
Tinwhistler

Tinwhistler

I think 7 years is far too short. It can sometimes take quite a while for a new author/musician/etc to build up a fan base to truly exploit their works--and by the time they do, their stuff would be in the public domain, or close to it.

Life+90 or whatever it is now is far too long.

I'd be fine, I think, with the 28 year span that was stipulated by the 1909 copyright act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top