Should Intellectual Property Laws be Abolished?

[winston53660]

For books, articles, graphic design, music, shows/movies the copyrights imo should last until the original author dies. After that, the copyright should end. UNLESS the spouse is still alive, then it can be extended until they die and no more. Their kids should not get the copyright.

For an artist often time that is what they leave as an inheritance. Also with many many artists passing the value of their work goes up.

 

[Cardinal]

Oh yeah, there are plenty of examples. I know a guy who used to work for a large aerospace firm. He created three things that were patented. All he got was a plaque saying he was the guy. No royalties, no bonus, nothing.

I believe that's unfair, and that the human creator should get half ownership when they do something for their employer, but I can't quite get myself to want to see that codified into law.

Creators are put into the common and awful position of taking the paycheck now at the expense of profit for their creation later. I understand that the artist willingly took that choice, that nobody put a gun to his head and made him sign on the dotted line, but I believe that something can be legal and still be exploitation anyway. If I had my way, the law regarding this type of situation would be changed so that the artist would receive proceeds for his work in exactly the same way that a musician is paid every time his song is played on the radio or in the way that an actor is paid every time his commercial is aired. Artists get screwed harder than anybody else in the creative field and I don't know why.

 

[radcen]

In the photography world the Eiffel Tower is the poster child of intellectual copyright discussions. In short, if you photograph it during the day, you can sell images freely, as the structure is too old and any protection that might have been has long expired.

However, take a photo at night when it is lit, and you could be in serious trouble if you try to sell said photos. The lights are more recent and the creator of the light scheme(s) considers them a work of art.

This, to me, is patently absurd. This type of thing is what needs serious rollback and reform. IMO, if you put something out for public viewing, then it's fair game for photos, paintings, etc., and possibly even advertising. I liken it to walking out your front door and losing your expectation of privacy. Want privacy? Stay home. Want to protect your art? Don't put it outside where people are encouraged to view it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I generally agree with you, but I feel that for artistic creations there's no viable reason that it can't last longer. You're not prohibiting the development of music, art or performance in the same way that you would be stunting important scientific development. While I'm obviously looking at this from an angle of self interest, I can very easily accept the notion of the copyright my work as a form of inheritance for my children.

That's what all that great money you made for that artistic talent is for.

I don't agree with passing inheritance of copyright to children because some stories are just too good to not expand upon which cannot be done unless one has permission to do so or the CR expires.

I might agree with you on such things as paintings and graphic designs. Each painting/graphic design should always be different from another and it can't really be expanded upon once done. But books and movies? They can always be expanded upon. Even music could be expanded upon imo.

Even then, it should only be expanded to the children no more than 20 years. And only for those select things.

 

[foadi]

IP is not real property. IP laws should absolutely be abolished.

 

[Cardinal]

IP is not real property. IP laws should absolutely be abolished.

Read the thread.

 

[Henrin]

Read the thread.

I don't see anything that debunks what he said. Unless there is a contract with the buyer that says otherwise full transfer of property rights are transferred with the property on sale. Ideas however are simply not property and protecting ideas amounts to thought control.

 

[radcen]

That's what all that great money you made for that artistic talent is for.

I don't agree with passing inheritance of copyright to children because some stories are just too good to not expand upon which cannot be done unless one has permission to do so or the CR expires.

I might agree with you on such things as paintings and graphic designs. Each painting/graphic design should always be different from another and it can't really be expanded upon once done. But books and movies? They can always be expanded upon. Even music could be expanded upon imo.

Even then, it should only be expanded to the children no more than 20 years. And only for those select things.

I'm fine with inheritance to children, but 20-30 years is plenty.

How would you handle the owner of said intellectual property were to sell it prior to their death? A 70 yr old guy could sell his hit song for $1m, or he could sell it to his young nephew for $1. After all, what's the point of owning anything if you can't control it?

Personally, I would say the "death of the creator" standard still applies. Someone can sell it or resell it, but 20 years after the creator died it's done, no matter who owns it or when they bought it.

 

[Cardinal]

I don't see anything that debunks what he said. Unless there is a contract with the buyer that says otherwise full transfer of property rights are transferred with the property on sale. Ideas however are simply not property and protecting ideas amounts to thought control.

As I told you, if you made creations that you benefited financially from, you would see this differently. Intellectual property is how creative people actually survive and why they don't starve to death in even greater numbers than they already do. And don't point to wealthy artists in an attempt to debunk that. The artists that strike it rich are in an infinitesimal minority. And the ones that can get rich do so because of, get ready for it, intellectual property.

 

[nota bene]

No, but ownership shouldn't last 70 years after the death of the person, or whatever the crazy laws are now. The post-death expiry date keeps getting extended because of companies like Disney who don't want to release their grip. It's not right.

I don't know why, if an artist/writer/composer/lyricist has heirs, that intellectual property shouldn't remain in the family forever.

 

[Paleocon]

if you . . . you would see this differently.

This is still an ad hominem. You ought to take a logic class.

 

[Henrin]

I don't know why, if an artist/writer/composer/lyricist has heirs, that intellectual property shouldn't remain in the family forever.

If it is property then the government has no basis to stop protecting it after a given amount of years or to bar people from giving it to their children.

 

[foadi]

As I told you, if you made creations that you benefited financially from, you would see this differently. Intellectual property is how creative people actually survive and why they don't starve to death in even greater numbers than they already do. And don't point to wealthy artists in an attempt to debunk that. The artists that strike it rich are in an infinitesimal minority.

Just because you create something doesn't mean you have exclusive right to profit from it. You're not deprived of an idea just because someone copies your idea, IP is not real property.

 

[Cardinal]

Just because you create something doesn't mean you have exclusive right to profit from it. You're not deprived of an idea just because someone copies your idea, IP is not real property.

I am deprived of the idea in the sense that it's no longer exclusively mine. And what that means is that if my ideas are automatically public domain, then making any kind of tangible living from them is essentially impossible.

 

[Sherman123]

No because of the clear practical utility surrounding said laws.

 

[foadi]

I am deprived of the idea in the sense that it's no longer exclusively mine. And what that means is that if my ideas are automatically public domain, then making any kind of tangible living from them is essentially impossible.

I don't care.

 

[Cardinal]

I don't care.

Why? Why is a creator's ability to make a living from his creations so anathema to you? It's an oddly hostile position to hold.

 

[Henrin]

I'm fine with inheritance to children, but 20-30 years is plenty.

How would you handle the owner of said intellectual property were to sell it prior to their death? A 70 yr old guy could sell his hit song for $1m, or he could sell it to his young nephew for $1. After all, what's the point of owning anything if you can't control it?

Personally, I would say the "death of the creator" standard still applies. Someone can sell it or resell it, but 20 years after the creator died it's done, no matter who owns it or when they bought it.

What is with these goofy time limits? Property ownership doesn't have time limits. The very idea that the government can put a time limit on how long you own something is bunk.

 

[winston53660]

In the photography world the Eiffel Tower is the poster child of intellectual copyright discussions. In short, if you photograph it during the day, you can sell images freely, as the structure is too old and any protection that might have been has long expired.

However, take a photo at night when it is lit, and you could be in serious trouble if you try to sell said photos. The lights are more recent and the creator of the light scheme(s) considers them a work of art.

This, to me, is patently absurd. This type of thing is what needs serious rollback and reform. IMO, if you put something out for public viewing, then it's fair game for photos, paintings, etc., and possibly even advertising. I liken it to walking out your front door and losing your expectation of privacy. Want privacy? Stay home. Want to protect your art? Don't put it outside where people are encouraged to view it.

I'm kinda torn on the Paris light thing since it is a temporal display. But then again the light artist probably is or has commissioned a photographer with a deal they share in revenues from sales of the images. So if someone else comes along and tries to sell images it devalues the light artists and photographers revenue.

 

[foadi]

Why? Why is a creator's ability to make a living from his creations so anathema to you? It's an oddly hostile position to hold.

I make a lot of my money ignoring IP laws and using other ppls ideas.

 

[Cardinal]

I make a lot of my money ignoring IP laws and using other ppls ideas.

Ah, your statement then doesn't make sense. You believe intellectual property is real, you just choose to steal other people's intellectual property. Just as a burglar technically grasps that the home he's burglarizing doesn't legally belong to him, and that he must break the law in order to take from it.

 

[Henrin]

Why? Why is a creator's ability to make a living from his creations so anathema to you? It's an oddly hostile position to hold.

Because it has absolutely nothing to do with property claims. Property has to do with the ability to control something and claim it as your own. Since you can't control ideas once they are released to the world they are not property at that point in time.

 

[foadi]

Ah, your statement then doesn't make sense. You believe intellectual property is real, you just choose to steal other people's intellectual property. Just as a burglar technically grasps that the home he's burglarizing doesn't legally belong to him, and that he must break the law in order to take from it.

I am not depriving them of their original idea when I use it. IP is not scarce. The purpose of property is to solve the scarcity problem. IP is not real property.

 

[Cardinal]

Because it has absolutely nothing to do with property claims. Property has to do with the ability to control something and claim it as your own. Since you can't control ideas once they are released to the world they are not property at that point in time.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with property claims, and I don't know why you're bringing it up. As for ideas, you have control insofar as you have legal recourse if someone violates it. Usually. The main snag here being China which is a very large sticking point in our trade relations, since intellectual property is as respected there as foadi here respects it.

 

[Cardinal]

I am not depriving them of their original idea when I use it. IP is not scarce. The purpose of property is to solve the scarcity problem. IP is not real property.

Your position in this discussion is moot as you already recognize that ideas have value, and that you knowingly and happily steal those ideas. Your attempt to rationalize that theft after your point-blank admission isn't especially convincing.