Opinion of Copyright

[TNF]

Horrible, no good, awful and should definitely be done away with or at the very least (for the time being) altered beyond recognition.

[bedstuy]

We need to figure out how to update our copyright laws for the 21st century. 

But, the general principle is a huge positive for society.  I think if you think about it, intellectual property is an idea that has improved the world like few others.  Ultimately, the basic building block of a free, prosperous society is private property along with legal norms respecting it.

[SWE]

FP, but our copyright laws right now are a joke.

[MurrayBannerman]

FP in theory, HP in execution.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

FP to a point. In practice, at least as practiced in the United States, mega-HP.

[Randy Bobandy]

As an artist, I say HP.

[AggregateDemand]

We need to figure out how to update our copyright laws for the 21st century. 

But, the general principle is a huge positive for society.  I think if you think about it, intellectual property is an idea that has improved the world like few others.  Ultimately, the basic building block of a free, prosperous society is private property along with legal norms respecting it.

[Hatman 🍁]

Overrated

[Antonio the Sixth]

Stupid and outdated.

[free my dawg]

Needs to be totally transformed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

FP, but horribly overlong.  Twenty to thirty years would be a good term for a copyright with at most fifty years.  Life+75 (or 95 in the case of corporate copyright) is way, way, way, too long.

[Oakvale]

We need to figure out how to update our copyright laws for the 21st century. 

But, the general principle is a huge positive for society.  I think if you think about it, intellectual property is an idea that has improved the world like few others.  Ultimately, the basic building block of a free, prosperous society is private property along with legal norms respecting it.

Pardon the effective empty quote but I can't put it any better than this.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Horrible. The only reason it's so long is two words: Mickey Mouse.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Disney-infinite-copyright.svg

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We need to figure out how to update our copyright laws for the 21st century. 

Not really.  The most needed change in our copyright laws would be a return to the 18th century and the Statute of Anne with its maximum copyright period of 28 years.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Incredibly important yet painfully tedious at times.

[RedSLC]

In theory - A necessary mechanism that allows the creator of something to benefit from something that they made, as opposed to someone else.

As practiced in the United States - HP that is used as a tool by large corporations to ensure that not only can only they benefit from a work, but that other people cannot use it for free, even if not used for profit, and is often taken to ridiculous extremes (copyrighting Happy Birthday, buying the rights to pre-existing words, etc.)

[AggregateDemand]

FP, but horribly overlong.  Twenty to thirty years would be a good term for a copyright with at most fifty years.  Life+75 (or 95 in the case of corporate copyright) is way, way, way, too long.

If the duration is shortened, legislators should differentiate between commercial and non-commercial activities. It's one thing for Harry Potter to be in the public domain or for an educational non-profit to sell hardcopies at cost. It's another thing entirely for an author to use JK Rowling's characters to write a new Harry Potter novel.

If profit-protection doesn't exist for producers, goods may not be provided. If Top Gun is in the public domain, what incentive does anyone have to produce copies for consumption or to set up a legitimate download/streaming service?

I almost wonder what would happen if intellectual property actually became public property. When a company leases public land or extracts public resources, they are required to pay a fee (often below market rate) for the privilege of exclusionary use. If copyrighted material reverted to federal ownership, I wonder if some of the tax burden could be alleviated.

 

[Cassius]

FF. As a subset of the broader concept of private property, it represents one of the pillars of a civilised society.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

FP, but horribly overlong.  Twenty to thirty years would be a good term for a copyright with at most fifty years.  Life+75 (or 95 in the case of corporate copyright) is way, way, way, too long.

Hell, just 'life' would be more reasonable and make a lot more sense than the current system.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

FP, but horribly overlong.  Twenty to thirty years would be a good term for a copyright with at most fifty years.  Life+75 (or 95 in the case of corporate copyright) is way, way, way, too long.

If the duration is shortened, legislators should differentiate between commercial and non-commercial activities. It's one thing for Harry Potter to be in the public domain or for an educational non-profit to sell hardcopies at cost. It's another thing entirely for an author to use JK Rowling's characters to write a new Harry Potter novel.

If profit-protection doesn't exist for producers, goods may not be provided. If Top Gun is in the public domain, what incentive does anyone have to produce copies for consumption or to set up a legitimate download/streaming service?

Now that we are in a digital age, making perfect copies of a digital original doesn't need a whole lot of incentive.  And Google Books has shown that there is already a sufficient interest in digitizing even the old long out of print and largely forgotten material for certain purposes.  In short the whole idea that we need copyright to make back catalog material available is bunk.

Also, even for the rare piece of evergreen material that people keep buying in the same quantities year after year, trimming the copyright from the current 95 years to say 50 years cuts the value of a copyright only by about one-eighth assuming one can get a 4% rate of return, and that presumes sales would be the same in the last year of copyright as in the first.  (Assuming a less ambitious 3% rate of return still means that such a trim would cut the present value of a new work by less than one-fifth.)  In short, lengthening copyright terms provides very little incentive to the producers of new works.  The benefits go primarily to the owners of existing copyright material that is still popular and is nearing the end of its copyright term.  When terms went from 70 to 95 years, then assuming a 4% rate of return, the value of a 63 year old work suddenly tripled and that of a 58 year old work suddenly doubled. Whereas the value to the author of a new work increased by less than 4%.  Anyone who thinks the last increase in copyright length had anything to do with incentivizing the production of new material just hasn't looked at the numbers.  It was solely about giving the owners of old copyrights more money.

[AggregateDemand]

Now that we are in a digital age, making perfect copies of a digital original doesn't need a whole lot of incentive.  And Google Books has shown that there is already a sufficient interest in digitizing even the old long out of print and largely forgotten material for certain purposes.  In short the whole idea that we need copyright to make back catalog material available is bunk.

Theoretically true, but probably not true in practice. I'm certain the market would continue demanding streaming services, DVDs, books, pictures, prints, etc.

Also, even for the rare piece of evergreen material that people keep buying in the same quantities year after year, trimming the copyright from the current 95 years to say 50 years cuts the value of a copyright only by about one-eighth assuming one can get a 4% rate of return, and that presumes sales would be the same in the last year of copyright as in the first.  (Assuming a less ambitious 3% rate of return still means that such a trim would cut the present value of a new work by less than one-fifth.)  In short, lengthening copyright terms provides very little incentive to the producers of new works.  The benefits go primarily to the owners of existing copyright material that is still popular and is nearing the end of its copyright term.  When terms went from 70 to 95 years, then assuming a 4% rate of return, the value of a 63 year old work suddenly tripled and that of a 58 year old work suddenly doubled. Whereas the value to the author of a new work increased by less than 4%.  Anyone who thinks the last increase in copyright length had anything to do with incentivizing the production of new material just hasn't looked at the numbers.  It was solely about giving the owners of old copyrights more money.

Is this math based upon the writer selling his work outright? It seems the industry runs on options, licenses, and royalties. Artists are the only owners of intellectual property who sell their works outright, I believe.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Is this math based upon the writer selling his work outright? It seems the industry runs on options, licenses, and royalties. Artists are the only owners of intellectual property who sell their works outright, I believe.

The math is based upon the present value of future earnings from all sources for a copyrighted work, under the admittedly simplistic condition that yearly earnings remain constant until the expiration of copyright.  Since for most works, yearly earnings decrease considerably for the years after the original release of a work has been made, my assessment that the increase in term from 70 years to 95 years increased the present value of a new work by around 4% was if anything overstating the gains made by authors of new works from the last lengthening of term.

Adding 25 years to a copyright that would otherwise expire in 70 years is far less valuable than adding 25 years to a copyright that would expire in 7 years.

If we returned to the 28 year maximum copyright term of the Statue of Anne, then the value of a new copyright would still be at least two-thirds of what it currently is and new authors would be able to make use of our common cultural heritage sooner in making new works.

[politicallefty]

Considering current law, HP. Copyright law needs to be radically reformed (and not in favour of the copyright-holder).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Freedom Property overall, although I think the laws need to be loosened some.

[Goldwater]

Necessary, although they also obviously need reforming.