Perpetual copyright under such terms is a bad idea for many reasons—not the least of which is the implicit government ownership of artistic creation. Let the people themselves own historical works of literature and music. That is what is meant in the legal term, “in public domain.”
I agree with your position. The public domain is the public domain.
I am skeptical that much “public good” would come of most of these schemes.
Too much money filtered through bureaucracies and boards of this type ends up in new office carpets, Chardonnay, and more administrative salaries. The intended or advertised recipients of the aid receive considerably less than one might hope or expect.
It’s like the Colorado River in the USA … it is so tapped and drained on its way south that some years it does not even reach the Gulf of Mexico.
You will agree that an analogy only goes so far and has limited application. My comment was not intended to campaign against riparian rights and law. Simply to illustrate the notion of being tapped out. More about aid than rivers. Could have used a dozen other analogies or metaphors.
But that would be another kettle of fish or a whole new ball game.
Hi John, meaning that the stream (of water/revenue) entering the channel becomes mighty shrunken by (evaporation/irrigation/various costs); quite a bit of aid doesn’t make it to its destination.
of course, and that's why there are rules--admittedly out of date and with adverse consequences and a failure to recognize change--to govern what is taken. But I doubt you would argue that Mexico, let alone down river states, would be better off with NO rules.
I agree completely. Copyright is valuable and important, but it's already too long. Continuing it in perpetuity will choke off individual creators who seek to make "derivative works"--that's US copyrightese for things like film adaptations, fan fiction, retellings, and so forth.
And, of course, the AI machine will already have hoovered up all of this content anyway, so it will have been used for machines to create while humans who respect the law cannot. Although copyright holders are suing the AI companies, that will do no more than yield payouts from the AI companies; it won't democratize access to copyrighted works.
"Continuing it in perpetuity will choke off individual creators who seek to make "derivative works"" How? For example, assume a perpetual copyright on MOBYDICK. Precisely how does that prevent Peter Benchley from writing JAWS?
i still fail to understand your assertion that the perpetual copyright precludes spinoffs and adaptations. in short, once any writer, composer, artist, creator of ANY theme had a copyright, NO ONE would ever be able to 'explore' the same theme? How do you/the proposed extension arrive at that concussion. SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE! :-)
you are making an argument about rents and who benefits. Effectively you argue there should be none, yes? and because of increased production, 'the public' will be better off--more choice and lower costs. I will concur if you will extend the argument to estates in general and end the privileged treatment of them.
17 US Code Section 101 defines a "derivative work" as "a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work.'" Under Section 106 of the same statute, only the copyright holder is authorized to create derivative works. THAT IS THE LANGUAGE!
Can't say. One of the problems is that the line between something that is different enough to be non-derivative and a derivative work is quite difficult to discern. I'm not a copyright expert. But the fact that the statute is out there has a chilling effect on creation, because if you're anywhere near the line, you'd rather not have to pay the fairly harsh statutory damages that can result from a finding of willful infringement.
There would be no Fantasia on A Theme if Tallis’s work had been under perpetual copyright.
A charity dedicated to Britten or Vaughan William’s legacy would be better off aiming towards something like the RSC - become the definitive authority people turn to. Recordings can be copyrighted, with out-of-copyright books, people still aspire to good or definitive editions - even on Kindle.
Extending copyright as these agencies have suggested would, in effect, make the state the owner of these works. Most democratic countries limit government 'ownership' of intellectual property for good reasons, and it is an autocratic move for governments to seek to expand their control over intellectual property. It's hardly a surprise that such governments also tend to seek increasing control over expression. It's a grab.
Bravo! Hard cases = bad law. But ho! What am I saying? It’s all-aboard the dream and fairy dust: cry ‘change’ and let loose the Burnham wood: to paradise doth come… use every man after his just desert… Ho-hum and believe the old lie.
Perpetual copyright under such terms is a bad idea for many reasons—not the least of which is the implicit government ownership of artistic creation. Let the people themselves own historical works of literature and music. That is what is meant in the legal term, “in public domain.”
fully agree!
I agree with your position. The public domain is the public domain.
I am skeptical that much “public good” would come of most of these schemes.
Too much money filtered through bureaucracies and boards of this type ends up in new office carpets, Chardonnay, and more administrative salaries. The intended or advertised recipients of the aid receive considerably less than one might hope or expect.
It’s like the Colorado River in the USA … it is so tapped and drained on its way south that some years it does not even reach the Gulf of Mexico.
You will agree that an analogy only goes so far and has limited application. My comment was not intended to campaign against riparian rights and law. Simply to illustrate the notion of being tapped out. More about aid than rivers. Could have used a dozen other analogies or metaphors.
But that would be another kettle of fish or a whole new ball game.
All the best.
your metaphor/'parallel' escapes me.
Hi John, meaning that the stream (of water/revenue) entering the channel becomes mighty shrunken by (evaporation/irrigation/various costs); quite a bit of aid doesn’t make it to its destination.
of course, and that's why there are rules--admittedly out of date and with adverse consequences and a failure to recognize change--to govern what is taken. But I doubt you would argue that Mexico, let alone down river states, would be better off with NO rules.
I agree completely. Copyright is valuable and important, but it's already too long. Continuing it in perpetuity will choke off individual creators who seek to make "derivative works"--that's US copyrightese for things like film adaptations, fan fiction, retellings, and so forth.
And, of course, the AI machine will already have hoovered up all of this content anyway, so it will have been used for machines to create while humans who respect the law cannot. Although copyright holders are suing the AI companies, that will do no more than yield payouts from the AI companies; it won't democratize access to copyrighted works.
"Continuing it in perpetuity will choke off individual creators who seek to make "derivative works"" How? For example, assume a perpetual copyright on MOBYDICK. Precisely how does that prevent Peter Benchley from writing JAWS?
Wrong analogy. It prevents things like spin offs and adaptations.
i still fail to understand your assertion that the perpetual copyright precludes spinoffs and adaptations. in short, once any writer, composer, artist, creator of ANY theme had a copyright, NO ONE would ever be able to 'explore' the same theme? How do you/the proposed extension arrive at that concussion. SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE! :-)
Copyright holders have veto and impose costs which leads to lower production
you are making an argument about rents and who benefits. Effectively you argue there should be none, yes? and because of increased production, 'the public' will be better off--more choice and lower costs. I will concur if you will extend the argument to estates in general and end the privileged treatment of them.
17 US Code Section 101 defines a "derivative work" as "a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work.'" Under Section 106 of the same statute, only the copyright holder is authorized to create derivative works. THAT IS THE LANGUAGE!
JAWS--yes or no.
Can't say. One of the problems is that the line between something that is different enough to be non-derivative and a derivative work is quite difficult to discern. I'm not a copyright expert. But the fact that the statute is out there has a chilling effect on creation, because if you're anywhere near the line, you'd rather not have to pay the fairly harsh statutory damages that can result from a finding of willful infringement.
There would be no Fantasia on A Theme if Tallis’s work had been under perpetual copyright.
A charity dedicated to Britten or Vaughan William’s legacy would be better off aiming towards something like the RSC - become the definitive authority people turn to. Recordings can be copyrighted, with out-of-copyright books, people still aspire to good or definitive editions - even on Kindle.
Extending copyright as these agencies have suggested would, in effect, make the state the owner of these works. Most democratic countries limit government 'ownership' of intellectual property for good reasons, and it is an autocratic move for governments to seek to expand their control over intellectual property. It's hardly a surprise that such governments also tend to seek increasing control over expression. It's a grab.
I agree with you. And I love your last line.
Thanks!
Bravo! Hard cases = bad law. But ho! What am I saying? It’s all-aboard the dream and fairy dust: cry ‘change’ and let loose the Burnham wood: to paradise doth come… use every man after his just desert… Ho-hum and believe the old lie.
How entirely predictable from a Mecatus/GMU Fellow.
Sorry!