cc wrote:Could the problems you mention be solved by using different copyright lengths for movies/binaries vs books/movie scripts/source code?
martinbudden wrote:As I mentioned in my post, good law captures the underlying problem. If a law has special cases then it indicates that it has not captured the underlying issue. So no, I don't think the right way to solve the problem is to have differing copyright lengths for different media. (In this case there's also the practical issue of how to produce a comprehensive list that unambiguously deals with all existing and future media types.)
rancidpunk wrote:Inferring that artists only create for the financial rewards offered is surely more likely to be the attitude of the company that is marketing the creation and stands to make most of the money, as opposed to artists creating art for arts sake?
rancidpunk wrote:The recent Christmas battle between the X factor winner, a product created by the media industry purely to make money, and RATM, their song written to protest against racism are good examples of the sort of thing I'm on about. I know that they both made money for the same company and that is part of the problem with the large companies owning artists copyrights. If we have to keep copyright why could it not be made non transferable from the original creator and then the media industry would have to work for the artist instead of seeing the works created as treated as a commodity to be squeezed for as much profit as possible before their monopoly runs out.
martinbudden wrote:If you don't believe that a book author should have any rights over a film based on that book then my arguments about films are, of course, irrelevant. I don't share your point of view.
On the subject of OSS - it's not my argument. Richard Stallman has written on the issue: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html. The Pirate Party, as I mentioned, has recognised the issue, there are many threads discussing how to protect OSS, for example: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=402. OSS is certainly not a "non-issue".
Richard Stallman wrote:So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years? This would not require the developer to release source code, and presumably most will never do so. Users, still denied the source code, would still be unable to use the program in freedom. The program could even have a “time bomb” in it to make it stop working after 5 years, in which case the “public domain” copies would not run at all.
Thus, the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source code, not after 5 years or even 50 years. The Free World would get the bad, but not the good. The difference between source code and object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright — one that free software does not share.
I could support a law that would make GPL-covered software's source code available in the public domain after 5 years, provided it has the same effect on proprietary software's source code. After all, copyleft is a means to an end (users' freedom), not an end in itself. And I'd rather not be an advocate for a stronger copyright.
So I proposed that the Pirate Party platform require proprietary software's source code to be put in escrow when the binaries are released. The escrowed source code would then be released in the public domain after 5 years. Rather than making free software an official exception to the 5-year copyright rule, this would eliminate proprietary software's unofficial exception. Either way, the result is fair.
cc wrote:It's a good enough assumption, though. We live in a capitalist country, and I see nothing wrong with artists making money (and/or a living) off their art, don't you agree?
rancidpunk wrote:I completely agree, further to that I feel that an artist should be allowed to grant the licence to market their work to as many companies as they see fit to and then each company would be subject to the same market forces that products are subject to in a capitalist country.
The company that produces the best value version of that product will make the most profit instead of one company being able to charge what they like for low quality product because nobody else is allowed to sell it.
We, the consumers, will benefit from such competition and the artist will reap the financial rewards. I can't help feeling that treating creative works the same as any other product is the way to go, as at present our arguments against copyright can be countered by the media industry with artistic arguments and commercial ones.
samgower wrote:This 'escrow' idea was adopted by the copyright working group and their report was okayed by RMS himself, despite some suggestions (I believe the report/emails are available on the wiki/forum, respectively).
davidmww wrote:If there was no reasonable length of copyright (and I don't think a lifetime is unreasonable), many creators would be literally afraid to publish their work. Years of sweat and pain only to have their baby thrown into the public domain? No thanks.
As far as money is concerned - it is a rare thing for someone to create something of beauty and lasting value to the world. Why shouldn't they continue to reap the benefits for as long as people derive pleasure from it?
Authors who rest on their laurels and expect money to keep coming in can get stuffed.
The very existence of institutionalized slavery in the U.S. goads us to question how it was possible, and ask ourselves how we would have behaved in a slave society. What would we have done if we had been slaves? Would we have risked our lives to gain freedom? What if we had owned slaves? Would we have freed them? Would we have risked our own safety to help the enslaved gain freedom? Or would we have labeled antislavery activists as extremists, as excessively sentimental, irrational, and emotional? Would we have maintained the status quo, or tried to change it? How much would we have been willing to risk to do the right thing? These questions should haunt us. We can't go back in time to find out, but we can look at ourselves today and wonder, How will the future judge us?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest