How long should a copyright last before it becomes public domain?

Alyssa · Jan 25, 2012

FreedomFromAll said:
Just because they may get the benefits of my work does not mean that they will not work.

At any rate who are you to tell another human being what to do? That is exactly what you are doing, for some reason you feel its unfair that someone else Had a family member that did more than just clock in and be someones wage slave. Guess what right now its a free country and you could earn some royalties yourself. But even then your kids are not guaranteed to never have to work.
Your entire assertion is naive at best. Somethings just don't sell themselves. And someone at anytime mat make something that makes your product obsolete. Its a rare case that I single copywrite will continue to make lots of money. Many successful people have hundreds of copywrites that cost them thousands of dollars to get. Yet maybe one or two has any value.

Here is a little reality while yes some rich people exploit Intellectual property, It is the small guy (or small gal) that Intellectual property protections help out. You act as if everyone is evil greedy bastards and need to be kept from be greedy. Just hedge a little more of that liberty away until we are all wage slaves.

I'm not sure how people will become "wage slaves" simply because lifetime IP is reduced to something more reasonable.

rocket88 · Jan 25, 2012

The one thing Sonny Bono did right was to lengthen copyrights. Granted, he was trying to protect his "I Got You Babe" money.

Quick question. Whenever somebody says to raise taxes on rich folks, it's jealousy over their success. Of those arguing for really low numbers, how much intellectual property do you have?

DiAnna · Jan 25, 2012

evanescence said:
Because your child should have to earn his own living.

So you think every time, say, a Kennedy, a Rockafeller, Bill Gates or any other rich dude on the planet dies, all of his money should be confiscated and given to the government, so his children will be left penniless? Does that go for everyone else as well? A man puts away money for his kids' college, but dies before they go to college so swooop!... the government leaps in and takes the man's assets, leaving his family penniless? Really?

You clearly haven't thought this out. Everyone in this country has a right to work hard, earn money, create a business that generates income, and have the right to dictate who will inherit what he leaves when he dies. Everyone. ...except authors, artists and others, who do NOT have the right to the fruits of their work, which instead should be stolen by the government and given away free so that strangers can profit from it.

Can you not see the dichotomy here?

Alyssa · Jan 25, 2012

DiAnna said:
So you think every time, say, a Kennedy, a Rockafeller, Bill Gates or any other rich dude on the planet dies, all of his money should be confiscated and given to the government, so his children will be left penniless? Does that go for everyone else as well? A man puts away money for his kids' college, but dies before they go to college so swooop!... the government leaps in and takes the man's assets, leaving his family penniless? Really?

You clearly haven't thought this out. Everyone in this country has a right to work hard, earn money, create a business that generates income, and have the right to dictate who will inherit what he leaves when he dies. Everyone. ...except authors, artists and others, who do NOT have the right to the fruits of their work, which instead should be stolen by the government and given away free so that strangers can profit from it.

Can you not see the dichotomy here?

Wrong. Just because you don't agree with my opinion doesn't mean I haven't "thought it out." I have. And no, I never claimed that the government should confiscate anything. Where are people getting this? All I have said thus far is that Intellectual property rights should be limited, and the time span varies, but 10 years is average.

Real Korimyr #9 · Jan 25, 2012

evanescence said:
All I have said thus far is that Intellectual property rights should be limited, and the time span varies, but 10 years is average.

Average for what? All of the multilateral copyright agreements have the author's lifetime plus fifty years as a statutory minimum-- and between them, they cover almost all of the countries on Earth.

Alyssa · Jan 25, 2012

Viktyr Korimir said:
Average for what? All of the multilateral copyright agreements have the author's lifetime plus fifty years as a statutory minimum-- and between them, they cover almost all of the countries on Earth.

I'm thinking of different industries. Some companies may need more time than others to profit.

Lethargic Aptitude · Jan 25, 2012

Viktyr Korimir said:
Only by the intervention of the law, which is what I just said.

I absolutely agree. Copyrights and copyright law serve a vital function in society.

But so do the limitations on copyright. And that's what we are discussing here-- whether the best interests of society, both in encouraging the creation of intellectual property and in making use of it, would be better served by more copyright restrictions or less. I'm arguing in favor of less, but I can't stand with the people that are arguing for none at all, anymore than I can stand with the people that are arguing for more restrictions.

Perhaps intellectual property rights should be more on a case by case status. I am not saying this is the fix all, just throwing it out the since there really doesnt seem to be a universal fix. Someone may only need the protections for a short period and really have no need for anything that is decades long. While someone else may need a much longer protection because of the nature of the item.

But IMO drugs and medical procedures are a special circumstance. One of the drugs that I take is really expensive, which is about all profit since I found out it costs them less then a cent to make each pill. Now I realize that it was difficult to develop the drug but I am paying near 10 bucks a pill. I know that some of the drugs that my mom used to take we similar priced and when the generic came out they went down to less than 20 bucks a month.

So yes there is some type of reform needed, but there are so many factors to hash over I really do not think this conversation has even broke the surface yet.

Real Korimyr #9 · Jan 25, 2012

evanescence said:
I'm thinking of different industries. Some companies may need more time than others to profit.

I believe the standard for patents, which apply to all forms of IP except copyrights, is twenty years with no extensions.

After talking with some other creative professionals-- men more successful than I've been-- I'm thinking that copyrights should apply for 20 years and that original creators (not corporations) should be able to apply for 20 year extensions for the rest of their natural life with an automatic 20 year extension of all active copyrights at the time of their deaths. This allows sufficient time for original creators and even their heirs to profit from their work, while eliminating orphaned works and indefinite corporate copyrights. This also encourages creators to release works that are no longer generating income for them-- putting them into the public domain sooner-- and ensures that the creators of mega-successes are paid fairly for the value of their work.

Jerry · Jan 26, 2012

jamesrage said:
How long should a copyright last on I.P.before it becomes public domain?

The copy-write should last for as long it's creator, however;

The creator should be required to do something with the copyrighted material, not simply invent something and let it sit on a shelf forever. After a set amount of time of inactivity, the material should be public domain;

There should be ways to challenge a copy-write and/or force exceptions on a case by case basis. Sometimes a copy-write may help establish a monopoly, or different people came up with the same idea at the same time unwittingly, or the material serves a public interest which the state has a compelling interest to regulate.

Provided the material never meets a successful challenge and the owner is doing something with it, I see no reason why it should mandatoraly (new word) expire after an arbitrary amount of time.

Alyssa · Jan 26, 2012

Viktyr Korimir said:
I believe the standard for patents, which apply to all forms of IP except copyrights, is twenty years with no extensions.

After talking with some other creative professionals-- men more successful than I've been-- I'm thinking that copyrights should apply for 20 years and that original creators (not corporations) should be able to apply for 20 year extensions for the rest of their natural life with an automatic 20 year extension of all active copyrights at the time of their deaths. This allows sufficient time for original creators and even their heirs to profit from their work, while eliminating orphaned works and indefinite corporate copyrights. This also encourages creators to release works that are no longer generating income for them-- putting them into the public domain sooner-- and ensures that the creators of mega-successes are paid fairly for the value of their work.

That sounds fair except maybe just 10 year extensions.

Real Korimyr #9 · Jan 26, 2012

It's "copyright"; it is literally the right to copy.

ronpaulvoter · Feb 14, 2012

The problem with lengthy copyrights is CENSORSHIP. The whole purpose of a patent or a copyright is to grant a TEMPORARY monopoly to encourage creativity and production and then turn it over to the public domain so everybody can use it.

I cannot verify it, but I have heard rumors that the song "Happy Birthday to You" is under a current copyright, even though it was written over 100 years ago and nobody even knows who wrote it; that's why it it is so seldom sung anymore in public places.

How long should a copyright last? No more than about 30 years for anything (novels, for example). But critical fast-developing items like software should be much shorter (no more than 5 or 10 years) There is no rational reason to copyright daily newspapers more than 1 year or monthly magazines more than 5 (A few decades ago, these items were seldom is ever copyrighted).

Piracy should be defined as multiple copying with the willful intent to make a monetary profit, not casual copying for personal use or to show to friends.

People should not be prohibited from downloading videos, music or whatever from the internet as a general rule.

American · Feb 14, 2012

Harshaw said:
If the work is "orphaned" there's no worry.

Besides, to prosecute on a copyright claim, the work must be registered, and the owner is listed in the Library of Congress.

Now, if a copyright holder wants to remain anonymous, it's their own business. Someone else merely wanting to use the work isn't enough to upset that.

I don't believe this is necessarily true.

Alyssa · Feb 14, 2012

I think I posted this statement from Pirate's Bay earlier, but it's still relevant:

Over a century ago Thomas Edison got the patent for a device which would “do for the eye what the phonograph does for the ear”. He called it the Kinetoscope. He was not only amongst the first to record video, he was also the first person to own the copyright to a motion picture.

Because of Edison’s patents it was close to financially impossible to create motion pictures in the North American East Coast. The movie studios therefore relocated to California, and founded what we today call Hollywood. The reason was mostly because there were no patents. There was also no copyright to speak of, so the studios could copy old stories and make movies out of them – like Fantasia, one of Disney’s biggest hits ever.

So, the whole basis of this industry, that today is screaming about losing control over immaterial rights, is that they circumvented immaterial rights. They copied (or put in their terminology: “stole”) other people’s creative works, without paying for them. They did it in order to make a huge profit. Today, they’re all successful and most of the studios are on the Fortune 500 list of the richest companies in the world. Congratulations – it’s all based on being able to re-use other people’s creative works. And today they hold the rights to what other people create. If you want to get something released, you have to abide by their rules. The ones they created after circumventing other people’s rules.

The reason they are always complaining about “pirates” today is simple. We’ve done what they did. We circumvented the rules they created and created our own. We crushed their monopoly by giving people something more efficient. We allow people to have direct communication between each other, circumventing the profitable middle man, that in some cases take over 107% of the profits (yes, you pay to work for them). It’s all based on the fact that we’re competition. We’ve proven that their existence in their current form is no longer needed. We’re just better than they are.

If people want their works protected, they need to do it themselves instead of crying for government intervention.

Paschendale · Feb 15, 2012

If the lifetime of the creator is any factor in the length of a copyright, then copyright must not be transferable, so that the creator always stays as a human being who actually has a lifespan, instead of a corporation, which is not human.

Kandahar · Feb 16, 2012

jamesrage said:
Anytime the issue of online piracy comes up so does the issue of copyrights.So I decided to make a poll.

How long should a copyright last on I.P.before it becomes public domain?

There should be no such thing as a copyright.
1-20 years after intellectual property is created
21-40 years after intellectual property is created
41-60 years after intellectual property is created
The copyright should last as long as the creator of the intellectual property is still alive
1-20 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died
21-40 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died
41-60 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died
The copyright on the intellectual property should last forever (a perpetual copyright.)
other/I do not know

This is a good question, and I think that anyone who favors either extreme (i.e. no copyrights at all or eternal copyrights) is simply being impractical.

In my view, the length of intellectual property should be proportional to the public necessity for it to be in the public domain. So I'm OK with certain things (e.g. novels or songs or cartoon characters) having copyrights that last the entire lifetime of the creator, but no more. For other types of intellectual property (e.g. medical patents) the window of time should be much shorter because there is a major public interest in getting those products into the public domain. For example, I think medical patents typically last 11-14 years, which sounds about right to me.

The really ridiculous IP laws are the copyright laws that last for decades after the creator has died. These are wholly the invention of rent-seeking lobbyists, and do not benefit the public interest in any way whatsoever. Walt Disney's grandkids didn't do a damn thing to earn the rights to Mickey Mouse, and they're already plenty rich without continuing to earn royalties every year.

winston53660 · Feb 16, 2012

Let's say I create the cotton gin. Manufacture it and sell you one of these cotton gins. Do you have the perpetual right sell this cotton gin and or pass pas it down to your family?

jamesrage · Feb 16, 2012

Kandahar said:
This is a good question, and I think that anyone who favors either extreme (i.e. no copyrights at all or eternal copyrights) is simply being impractical.

I would also think the other extreme would be for perpetual copyrights or unlimited copyright.

In my view, the length of intellectual property should be proportional to the public necessity for it to be in the public domain. So I'm OK with certain things (e.g. novels or songs or cartoon characters) having copyrights that last the entire lifetime of the creator, but no more. For other types of intellectual property (e.g. medical patents) the window of time should be much shorter because there is a major public interest in getting those products into the public domain. For example, I think medical patents typically last 11-14 years, which sounds about right to me.

So the consensus among different people seems to be that the more valuable or useful something is the less time a copyright should last,but if its not that valuable(art,animation,songs, novels and other literary works and etc) then the copyright should last a long time. Seems kind of warped or backwards.

Kandahar · Feb 16, 2012

jamesrage said:
So the consensus among different people seems to be that the more valuable or useful something is the less time a copyright should last,but if its not that valuable(art,animation,songs, novels and other literary works and etc) then the copyright should last a long time. Seems kind of warped or backwards.

I don't think so; if it's something very useful, you want to get it into the public domain as quickly as possible so that more people can make use of it (while allowing a long enough patent so that the creator can make a profit from creating such a useful invention). For example, 11-14 years is a good length of time for medical patents because it encourages continuous innovation while also allowing people access to cheap generic drugs relatively quickly. If the patents lasted much longer than that, there would be less of an incentive to innovate for fear of cannibalizing existing drug sales. If the patents lasted for shorter than that, there would also be less of an incentive to innovate because it would be harder to recover the R&D costs and turn a profit. Furthermore, it forces people to buy drugs from the creator for a while to help them recoup their costs...but not such a long period of time that the drugs remain unaffordable and lots of people die. 11-14 years strikes a pretty good balance IMO.

Compare that with, say, a novel. IMO it's less important that a novel's copyright expire relatively quickly. No one "needs" to read the novel, so it isn't as important to have it in the public domain. I'm OK with it lasting the entire lifetime of the creator; let them enjoy the fruits of their labor. I do not think that it should normally pass on to their descendants though; they didn't do anything to earn it. Disney Corporation has been notorious for lobbying Congress to extend copyright laws so that their earliest works don't expire. This behavior is pure rent-seeking and doesn't actually advance the public good in any way.

Real Korimyr #9 · Feb 16, 2012

winston53660 said:
Let's say I create the cotton gin. Manufacture it and sell you one of these cotton gins. Do you have the perpetual right sell this cotton gin and or pass pas it down to your family?

The question is, how long after inventing the cotton gin should you have the sole exclusive right to build and sell cotton gins, before other people are allowed to do so?

How long should a copyright last before it becomes public domain?

How long should a copyright last before the I.P. becomes public domain?

There should be no such thing as a copyright.

1-20 years after intellectual property is created

21-40 years after intellectual property is created

41-60 years after intellectual property is created

The copyright should last as long as the creator of the intellectual property is still alive

1-20 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died

21-40 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died

41-60 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died

The copyright on the intellectual property should last forever (a perpetual copyright.)

other idea or I do not know(please specify)

¡Selah!

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Hooter Babe

¡Selah!

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

¡Selah!

Political Parties = Corruption

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

¡Selah!

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

Well-known member

Trump Grump Whisperer

¡Selah!

Uncanny

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency