Pro-Copyright coalition seeks to influence election

[richlevy]

From here

Each of the five questions rests on the premise that copyright protection is vital to the U.S. economy, and they're clearly worded with an eye toward eliciting a certain response. (As one reporter on a conference call about the announcement remarked, the approach seems a bit like asking the candidates whether they like Mom and apple pie.)
One question, for instance, asks: "How would you promote the progress of science and creativity, as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, by upholding and strengthening copyright law and preventing its diminishment?"

It appears that the pro-copyright contingent is putting on an election year blitz and we all know they have the money to do it. I'm not against copyright and patent, but I will argue against the idea that more protections are automatically better for creativity or society. I think we have seen enough look-and-feel patent suits in the software industry to recognize that.

While the industry invokes the Constitution and the founding fathers, they conveniently forget that the original copyrights covered limited materials for a limited time. In exchange for this protection, the copyright would expire and the work would enter the public domain. This concept is brought to life in our Constitution.

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

Of course, there is a "whatever is good for business is good for the US" group that finds a 100+ year copyright (death of author + 70) too short and are doing their patriotic best (sarcasm alert) to change the status quo.

And they have the money to do it.

From Wikipedia

In 1998 the length of a copyright in the United States was increased by 20 years under the The Copyright Term Extension Act. Disney lobbied extensively for this legislation which protects its exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse.

The holy grail of copyright holders is the Common Law Copyright

Common law copyright is the legal doctrine which contends that copyright is a natural right and creators are therefore entitled to the same protections anyone would be in regard to tangible and real property. The doctrine was repudiated by the courts in the United Kingdom (Donaldson v. Beckett, 1784) and the United States (Wheaton v. Peters, 1834)

Conversely, while the United States Congress is prevented by the Copyright Clause from doing such things, the Supreme Court has ruled that limits on copyrights already granted can be extended.

Yes, but with a pro-business president and a stacked Supreme Court the interpretation of 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 could be changed.

[Cloud]

I'm pretty sure all special interest groups seek to influence elections, so can't get too upset about that.

As far as intellectual property laws go, I believe this legal area will be in flux for a long time, as media evolve. The law always lags behind technology.

[Drax]

Whatever is good for business is good for the US? Tell it to the billions of people who can't afford healthcare.

I like mike.

[ZenGum]

I can't imagine this being a vote-turning issue for more than a tiny number of people.

[Aliantha]

well all those creative type liberal lefties don't vote in the US anyway do they?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I can't imagine this being a vote-turning issue for more than a tiny number of people.

The best time to steal something is when noone is looking.

It really is sad that everyone is so apathetic. Sometimes I wonder if we haven't been conditioned this way on purpose.

[Aliantha]

It's a conspiracy rich. The government is going to copy everyone's work and claim it as their own. (ummm...don't they do this already)

You're right though, it is important that people are given credit for their work. I just hope no one that takes this issue seriously has ever downloaded music illegally online etc. Or copied someone else's answer on a test, or presented as their own, an idea they heard from someone else.

I guess it's a part of human nature to cheat and steal and lie. That's why these laws are required.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I guess it's a part of human nature to cheat and steal and lie. That's why these laws are required.

At issue is how extreme these protections are. Originally, it was while the author was alive. Then it was death + 50 or 70 years. Then extensions were added. If we had extended this much protection a few thousand years ago, the descendants of the guy who created the wheel would rule the planet.

[Aliantha]

So what do you think is a reasonable amount of time then? What's wrong with someone's children profiting from their parents brilliance? Surely that's what any parent would want for their kids?

It's an interesting issue, and I'd bet that the guy who invented the wheel profited from some time by making wheels for other people because his were the best, and perhaps he passed that secret down to his kids, and I suppose that's the issue for me.

for example, if someone comes up with the best recipe ever (let's use KFC as an example). Is he dead yet? When do we get to know what the secret herbs and spices are? Why shouldn't we have access to that information?

The reason is that his descendants are making a profit from the 'secret'.

Maybe it's not exactly the same thing, but I think it's pretty close.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

So what do you think is a reasonable amount of time then? What's wrong with someone's children profiting from their parents brilliance? Surely that's what any parent would want for their kids?

Copyright is a contract. In exchange for 'a limited' period of protection, the work goes into the public domain. Our forefathers were smart enough to understand that unlimited protection would lead to a monopoly or oligopoly and actually discourage innovation.

Wanting unlimited protection is simply greed.

[Aliantha]

Or maybe unlimited protection would encourage even greater innovation. People would have to find an even better way of doing things, which generally seems to be the case anyway.

I don't really know what is best morally. From here, I think there's a good argument for both sides. I definitely can see your point though, but on the other hand, I don't think other people should be able to profit from someone else's idea just because they're dead or a specified period of time has elapsed.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Or maybe unlimited protection would encourage even greater innovation. People would have to find an even better way of doing things, which generally seems to be the case anyway.

I don't really know what is best morally. From here, I think there's a good argument for both sides. I definitely can see your point though, but on the other hand, I don't think other people should be able to profit from someone else's idea just because they're dead or a specified period of time has elapsed.

It's not a matter of profit, it's a matter of government interference. In a purely libertarian society, the creator would only have the advantage of being first. Copyright is a government shelter to allow a limited (and the Constitution uses that word) time to exclusively profit from a work. In most cases, the 'limit' is two generations. This is more than enough time to profit from a work.

If anyone thinks a 100+ years is too short a time, they're just being greedy.