Comments on: Can conservatives break the copyright stalemate?

By: Tracey Steele

Tracey Steele — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:05:04 +0000

You may agree that artists have that “legitimate expectation,” but as you point out in the opening sentence, that is NOT the original basis for copyright protection. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 is very clear on this: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

Copyrights and patents exist to benefit the consumer, not the creator. They benefit the consumer by incentivizing creation, which does benefit the creator but that is not the reason our Constitution sanctioned this “exclusive Right”.

By: Theli

Theli — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:50:19 +0000

“I can’t figure why if I invest my money in a house or a piece of land, my heirs will be able to exploit them forever, while if I invest the same amount in a film, a recording or some other form of intellectual property, my family will be deprived of its heritage on a set date. It’s unfair and preposterous.”

Yes, your kids might have to go out and get a job just like everyone else. How unfair!
Clearly they deserve a heritage, and royalties for work they didn’t perform. And the kids of working parents should pay for the enforcement of this heritage. Anything else is clearly preposterous.

By: Theli

Theli — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:08:54 +0000

“And why shouldn’t copyright extend after my death so I can benefit my heirs or a charitable foundation?”

I don’t get payed for the work my parents did.

“Have they spent years working on their craft to make it worthy enough to offer to an audience?”

In a lot of ways, yes. I have spent years studying and stacking up student loans to get the job I have.

By: Jeff John Roberts

Jeff John Roberts — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:20:19 +0000

Well put, Tom. The underlying issue is encouraging the arts. That said, I don’t think regulatory schemes (like copyright) to pay artists are incongruous with that goal. While a degree of abuse is inherent to any such scheme, that doesn’t mean they’re a bad idea in the first place.

By: jose j

jose j — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:59:23 +0000

I’m very happy to leave in a country that respects Human Rights. No, it is not the US, where, one would say after reading pieces like these, they are widely ignored.
Copyright is not a bargain, a pact between creator and user. It is there to insure that the rights of the creators are respected. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 27. Whatever I create with my work and my wits belongs to me and my rights have to be protected. Text like these are as false and manipulative as a speech on the 2nd amendment delivered by a crooked gun salesman.
I am a content creator, I pay a lot for underlying material, share earnings with authors as I should, I work for other producers, etc. and I expect my investment and my work to be protected by the state in the same way it protects any other. I can’t figure why if I invest my money in a house or a piece of land, my heirs will be able to exploit them forever, while if I invest the same amount in a film, a recording or some other form of intellectual property, my family will be deprived of its heritage on a set date. It’s unfair and preposterous.
I won’t bother to answer the smearing of the big entertainment companies, I take it as a proof of the intellectual limitations of those who profer them, as I watch them simmering in their own bullshit. Just grow up.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:51:14 +0000

>> Royalties benefit hard working artists who want their creative works to benefit their families even after their death. <<

By that logic, hard-working plumbers, carpenters, auto manufacturers, dress-makers, etc. should collect royalties every time you use or wear their products, even decades after they've died.

Why would a plumber fix your toilet unless he can be assured of his heirs collecting royalties every time your heirs flush in the year 2100?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:45:39 +0000

>> And why shouldn’t copyright extend after my death so I can benefit my heirs or a charitable foundation? <<

Because you (and your heirs) richly benefit from the works of Dickens, Shakespeare, Aristotle, Doyle, and so many others whose works have entered the public domain. Time to "give back."

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:44:45 +0000

>> And why shouldn’t copyright extend after my death so I can benefit my heirs or a charitable foundation? <> Degrading copyright too much is not an incentive to work harder. It’s an incentive to give up. <<

Please. When you consider all the time it takes to write, re-write, and edit a novel, most novelists earn less than burger flippers. Yet it doesn't stop them from writing novel after novel, decade after decade. If you want to give up, do so. Most won't.

novel, decaded one ne

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:37:29 +0000

>>I guess I don’t really understand why it seems so obvious to the author here that the 28 + 70 year term is absurd…? Most people that earn any money in any profession try to provide for their children or grandchildren.<<

Let me help understand.

Plumbers, carpenters, etc. also want to provide for their children and grandchildren. They do so by saving their earnings and building a trust fund. They do NOT collect royalties — for 70 years after they're dead — every time you flush one of their pipes, or sit in one of their chairs.

By: Kevin Koloff

Kevin Koloff — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:21:15 +0000

Some good points are made here, but you’ve left out a critical fact: the $150,000 damages provision is only for those cases where the plaintiff can prove that the infringement was willful. It’s not so much about compensating the copyright holder as it is about deterring criminal activity, and if it were brought to bear more often on mass pirates, I for one would be happy about it. It’s one thing to copy too much of a song, believing naively that you didn’t take “enough notes” to really constitute infringement, or to use a popular cultural figure like Mickey Mouse in a mistaken belief that he’s in the public domain. It’s quite another to deliberately thumb your nose at content creators and owners. The burden or proving willfulness is not an easy one, and while every lawyer threatens willful infringement damages, they aren’t actually granted very often by the courts. We could discuss making the criteria for what constitutes willful infringement more clear, or other reforms. But this blog gives the impression that every act of infringement is worth $150,000. In most copyright cases, the plaintiff does in fact have to prove damages.