Ideal copyright law

[fuelair]

Define publication (btw the definetion I'm useing is the one that british libel law uses but that really wouldn't work for your approach)

The probalem with what you want to do is that it really favors the big guy over the little guy. The big guy (Major film makers, publishers, getty images, Major media companies) would be able to psudo-publish their entire cataloge every 5 years. The little guy not so much.

The reason I want to do it is (and this is only one example): Cheneys' wife was able to prevent re-publication of her book by pressure and the fact that she/or company hold copyright. If that provision was in, as soon as either refused (since publication was done over 7 years ago, anybody willing to annoy Cheneys , Bush etc. and make a point could issue it. I do not like material being able to be supressed that way, so........ For films and music, it would specifically have to be made available to the general public in reasonable quantity and usaable format. Otherwise, free piracy with no lawsuits or other reprisals allowed. Actually, that would also extend to theatrical performances ( to the extent that if any agency chose to do a theatrical performance, they must record an audiovisual performance of it that must be made generally available to the public in sufficient quantities to meet reasonable demand within five years of the initial performance of the work or all rights would be lost (and it must be available for performance by any group paying a reasonable fee for performance rights within five years of initial performance or all performance rights would be lost). The idea is that the copyright holder should have rights for the material and its' use BUT the public, including scholars, should have rights of access to that material in a timely and non-preventative way. By default, I would also include the part where photographs of art works could not be copyrighted but add that they could not be used publically for money or the generation of money without permission of the copyright holder unless the copyright holder refused to produce his/their own photographs for use by scholars, students, related within the 5 year period.

 

[Elizabeth I]

You asked about the "ideal" copyright law, since I believe inheritance should be scrapped an ideal copyright law shouldn't contain such a provision.

[DERAIL]You believe inheritance should be scrapped? In other words, I have no right to leave anything to support my family, or as a memento, or for any other reason? Things that belonged to my mother and grandmother and which might have some significance for my children or my brother's children should be...what?

Not to be rude, but you is weird, honey.[/DERAIL]

 

[geni]

The reason I want to do it is (and this is only one example): Cheneys' wife was able to prevent re-publication of her book by pressure and the fact that she/or company hold copyright. If that provision was in, as soon as either refused (since publication was done over 7 years ago, anybody willing to annoy Cheneys , Bush etc. and make a point could issue it. I do not like material being able to be supressed that way, so........ For films and music, it would specifically have to be made available to the general public in reasonable quantity and usaable format.

Oh that's trivial to game. Everything in your back cataloge is availible for the nominal sum of $1 billion a time. Music turns up on wax cylinders but they are useable if you have the right kit.

Otherwise, free piracy with no lawsuits or other reprisals allowed. Actually, that would also extend to theatrical performances ( to the extent that if any agency chose to do a theatrical performance, they must record an audiovisual performance of it that must be made generally available to the public in sufficient quantities to meet reasonable demand within five years of the initial performance of the work or all rights would be lost (and it must be available for performance by any group paying a reasonable fee for performance rights within five years of initial performance or all performance rights would be lost).

Define reasonable. So if I'm a poor struggeling playright and I manage to get one of my plays performed but only once and I don't record it will be PD withing 5 years?

The idea is that the copyright holder should have rights for the material and its' use BUT the public, including scholars, should have rights of access to that material in a timely and non-preventative way.

This is generaly covered by the provision that a certian number of copies must be placed in some centeral libiary.

By default, I would also include the part where photographs of art works could not be copyrighted

So despite the creative efforts that went in to the photos on this page none of them should be subject to copyright:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Victoria_Memorial,_London

but add that they could not be used publically for money or the generation of money without permission of the copyright holder

You didn't by any chance write the copyright policy for the government of the philippines did you? You see their policy makes the same mistake. You can't impose conditions on something that is in the public domain.

unless the copyright holder refused to produce his/their own photographs for use by scholars, students, related within the 5 year period.

What if no one asks? How are you going to show If I have produced them or not?

 

[fuelair]

Oh that's trivial to game. Everything in your back cataloge is availible for the nominal sum of $1 billion a time. Music turns up on wax cylinders but they are useable if you have the right kit.



Define reasonable. So if I'm a poor struggeling playright and I manage to get one of my plays performed but only once and I don't record it will be PD withing 5 years?



This is generaly covered by the provision that a certian number of copies must be placed in some centeral libiary.



So despite the creative efforts that went in to the photos on this page none of them should be subject to copyright:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Victoria_Memorial,_London



You didn't by any chance write the copyright policy for the government of the philippines did you? You see their policy makes the same mistake. You can't impose conditions on something that is in the public domain.



What if no one asks? How are you going to show If I have produced them or not?

Possibly I was unclear in my phrasing (if the law was being actually written, I would be - and there would be a lot more detail - this was turned out in about 5 minutes in a discussion forum). To be considered published, it would require that the price be consistent with the current, general price of similar materials available to the public - and there would be provision that if there was no functional demand for the item (say under a hundred people wanted it) then they would be able to have copies made by the cr holder for a higher rate that was consistent with the actual costs of that copying (per ex- BBC offered to make me a VHS -NTSC copy of a show that is not available in the US for ca. 25.00 pounds. And that's for one copy for one person. Quite fair and doesn't keep me from getting a legitimate copy while maintaining copyright.) Obviously - as stated above, this would require some minor adjustments - but the ultimate consideration is that data (books, art, music, etc.) needs to be preserved/studied/ provided and copyright should reflect that (also the reason I would require deposition of copies, including performance copies where appropriate in order to obtain copyright. Left that out originally. Yes I recognise the technical problem there - it would be worked out by allowing non-deposition for a limited time without losing copyright - but that time would not be long (six months or so).

 

[geni]

Possibly I was unclear in my phrasing (if the law was being actually written, I would be - and there would be a lot more detail - this was turned out in about 5 minutes in a discussion forum).

You would either end up with a system invovleing vast amounts of red tape and lawyers or something massive loopholes could be found in inside 30 seconds.

To be considered published, it would require that the price be consistent with the current, general price of similar materials available to the public

First lawsuit claiming that wikipedia is equiv to britannica therefor it is not legal to charage for britannica and mentain the copyright starting in 5..4..3..

- and there would be provision that if there was no functional demand for the item (say under a hundred people wanted it)

Painfuly open to abuse. You just fine a group of 100 people who agree to say that they want anything.

then they would be able to have copies made by the cr holder for a higher rate that was consistent with the actual costs of that copying (per ex- BBC offered to make me a VHS -NTSC copy of a show that is not available in the US for ca. 25.00 pounds. And that's for one copy for one person. Quite fair and doesn't keep me from getting a legitimate copy while maintaining copyright.)

Who gets to specify the storage medium? because I'm going to go for gold plated punch cards. Should keep the number of peopel who can afford coppies down.

Obviously - as stated above, this would require some minor adjustments - but the ultimate consideration is that data (books, art, music, etc.) needs to be preserved/studied/ provided and copyright should reflect that

Why? In any case fictional works are not data (this is rather important because it means that over extensive plot summeries are copyvios).

(also the reason I would require deposition of copies, including performance copies where appropriate in order to obtain copyright. Left that out originally. Yes I recognise the technical problem there - it would be worked out by allowing non-deposition for a limited time without losing copyright - but that time would not be long (six months or so).

You really hate the little guy don't you? Automatic copyright has been one of the biggest equalisers in the IP game.

Your think is horibly 1950s. The days when media consited of easy to identify publications is long gone. Any archive doing what you suggest would likely be snowed under with coppies of student reports lecture material photos of work by low level artists. A million picture postcards.

How would you pay to store this let alone arganise it in any reasonable manner? It would be worse than the The Library of Babel.

Moveing on how would you deal with 3D works? Complete Copies? Photos (which are never going to give you full detials). What about art works that move?

On top of that you have knocked out a fundimental tenent of law. The purchaser makes an offer to buy. The seller does not make an offer to sell.

In practice you appear to have decided to rip apart normal priciples of capitalism in order to deal with a rather rare situation. The book was probably availible to you in any case. Go to your state's biggest libiary and there is a fair chance you will be able to get a copy. A few people being jerks is not a reason to rip a system apart and replace it with something that is basicaly going to be a lawyer's paradise.

 

[geni]

bump

 

[casebro]

I'm creative. I design and build custom furniture. Having built a chair, should I get a royalty every time somebody sits on it? That is the way Musicians work- record once, get paid every time somebody uses the record.

How long before music will all be copywrited? 88 notes on a piano gives a finite number of permutations. Seems that as short a riff as three notes have been used for suits...

Should Ford sell you a license to use a car, rather than sell you the car outright? How are the poor going to afford to go places?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"Ideal copyright" would be about making clear who is, or was, the intellectual author. Thats it.

When you make it a business you create interests that have NOTHING to do with protecting the notion about the author.

But anyway, we have to go beyond the economic driven society before this things change.

 

[geni]

I'm creative. I design and build custom furniture. Having built a chair, should I get a royalty every time somebody sits on it?

No you should get a payment every time someone copies the design.

That is the way Musicians work- record once, get paid every time somebody uses the record.

Nope I can play the old 45 of "Quinn the Eskimo" I have here as many times as I like with paying a penny to Dylan.

How long before music will all be copywrited?

Never. Gilbert and Sullivan's work is unlikely to cease being PD.

88 notes on a piano gives a finite number of permutations. Seems that as short a riff as three notes have been used for suits...

The end to music has been a long running debate. Hasn't happened yet.

Should Ford sell you a license to use a car, rather than sell you the car outright? How are the poor going to afford to go places?

Car leases are hardly unknown. People get by.

 

[geni]

"Ideal copyright" would be about making clear who is, or was, the intellectual author. Thats it.

Have you any idea how anoying the credit the author clause is in CC-by is? The problem is comeing up with a way to force author credit that doesn't create in invariant section.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Have you any idea how anoying the credit the author clause is in CC-by is? The problem is comeing up with a way to force author credit that doesn't create in invariant section.

Sorry, didnt understood. CC? invariant section of what? Maybe you are talking about legal terms, I dont know, Im talking about that, when somebody listen to some song, or read some book, or use some software... "ideal copyright" is closer to the GNU than to current "RIAA type" of abuses.

 

[geni]

Sorry, didnt understood. CC?

Creative commons. A family of lisences some free some not free. Figureing out which is which can be a fun sport for copyright nerds

for example

CC-by-sa-US-3.0 is free (mostly it's messy)
CC-by-sa-fr-3.0 isn't
cc-by-sa-fr-2.5 is free (except it can be converted to the 3.0 version) but may become illegal in the future under certian proposed french laws.

The upshot of this is that normal people are left hopelessly confused.

CC-by is the lisence that is closest to "you have to credit the author" although there are some issues with derivatives.

invariant section of what?

The work which is a real pain when it happens to be a watermark on an image. I think there is a work around but that is still under debate.

Maybe you are talking about legal terms, I dont know, Im talking about that, when somebody listen to some song, or read some book, or use some software... "ideal copyright" is closer to the GNU than to current "RIAA type" of abuses.

The pure GNU Free Documentation License sucks. It allows for invariant sections and if you tried to use it for a song you might have to read the licence aloud at the end.

It is said there is a LGFDL in the works that will fix most of these problems. We shall see.

The update of the creative commons lisences to version 3.0 hasn't gone to well.

 

[Mephisto]

I can't say much beyond, I'm happy with the way copyright law currently exists (at least in the U.S.) I feel the time span is just about right and will allow my grandchildren to some financial gain should my art become more valuable after my death. I feel the current laws protect my original work fairly well.

Having said that, I'm far less concerned with corporate copyrights. They are often the most fervent in pursuing copyright infringement and because of their corporate budgets can afford better lawyers. I'd go along with cutting the time limits on corporate copyrights. The artists or designers rarely make much beyond the intial fee anyway.

 

[Skeptic]

You asked about the "ideal" copyright law, since I believe inheritance should be scrapped an ideal copyright law shouldn't contain such a provision.

That would significantly reduce motivation to innovate, since one of the most important motivations people have to work and invent in the present is to provide for their descendants in the future, even if they themselves are dead.

 

[Darat]

That would significantly reduce motivation to innovate, since one of the most important motivations people have to work and invent in the present is to provide for their descendants in the future, even if they themselves are dead.

Something often claimed.

 

[geni]

I can't say much beyond, I'm happy with the way copyright law currently exists (at least in the U.S.) I feel the time span is just about right and will allow my grandchildren to some financial gain should my art become more valuable after my death. I feel the current laws protect my original work fairly well.

Given current life expectancy the odds of your dieing before any grandchildren are born are limited. 140 year copyright terms are unreasonable.

Having said that, I'm far less concerned with corporate copyrights. They are often the most fervent in pursuing copyright infringement and because of their corporate budgets can afford better lawyers. I'd go along with cutting the time limits on corporate copyrights. The artists or designers rarely make much beyond the intial fee anyway.

You can't cut them. If you do the companies will respond by technicaly asigning copyrights to a 7 year old girl with exclusive rights lisenced to them.

 

[Mephisto]

Given current life expectancy the odds of your dieing before any grandchildren are born are limited. 140 year copyright terms are unreasonable.

But I already have a grandchild and with current life expectancy she might just be getting ready for college when I die (if I'm lucky enough to die of natural causes). You'll have to admit, that would actually be perfect timing for her to reap any benefits from my copyrighted work.

You can't cut them. If you do the companies will respond by technicaly asigning copyrights to a 7 year old girl with exclusive rights lisenced to them.

You could conceivably shorten the length of copyrighted work for hire ten to twenty years from its inception WITHOUT allowing those rights to be transferred to an individual. Corporations would have to hire artists, writers and designers more often and innovation would be encouraged.

 

[geni]

But I already have a grandchild and with current life expectancy she might just be getting ready for college when I die (if I'm lucky enough to die of natural causes). You'll have to admit, that would actually be perfect timing for her to reap any benefits from my copyrighted work.

The odds are that if you live long enough for that to happen she will die before the copyright on your work expires.

Triumph of the Will was shot in 1934. It will enter the public domain in 2073. That is a 139 year copyright ("The Blue Light" racks up at 141 years but is less well known).

You could conceivably shorten the length of copyrighted work for hire ten to twenty years from its inception WITHOUT allowing those rights to be transferred to an individual. Corporations would have to hire artists, writers and designers more often and innovation would be encouraged.

That same argument would apply to saying that descendants of the artist would have to come up with their own works and thus innovation would be encouraged

 

[Merko]

I'm not particularly interested in ideals. Everything is entangled
into other nasty stuff and theorising about some ultimate ideal were
everything is nice just gets unrealistic.

However, I would support a copyright that lasted for 30 years, period.
Authors of great works should be richly rewarded, but not infinitely
rewarded. There's no reason why someone should expect to live for more
than 30 years from one single work.

While I'm opposed to unlimited inheritance, I think it is neither
realistic or desirable to eliminate inheritance altogether. So 30
years even in the case of the author's death sounds fine by me.

 

[geni]

However, I would support a copyright that lasted for 30 years, period.

30 years from creation or 30 years from publication?