Should Copyright Be Abolished?

[HardOCP News]

I thought this guy had a rather interesting angle on the whole copyright thing. Basically, his argument is that you can’t be against copyright and support open source at the same time.

The problem with a large part of the anti-copyright crowd is that they don't understand or won't admit what copyright entails as a concept. That is the right of the creator of a work to exert some control over how it's used, who can copy and distribute it, and a right to have their authorship acknowledged.

 

[fairlane]

I have to agree with him. Getting rid of Copyright altogether isn't the answer. Reassessing it is. It will make all parties happy (hopefully) and still allow the creators some control over how their works are handled..

 

[stabilep]

I also agree. I think it is well written and holds some good points.

 

[Stoly]

Unfortunately the author is the one less protected by copyright.

The copyright holder is the one who can enforce it, and in most cases it's not the author.

 

[InorganicMatter]

There is not a single reason that copyrights should not be equal with patents. In fact, copyrights should be WORSE than patents. Patents cost millions of dollars and years of R&D, and are only good for 20 years. Copyrights take almost zero talent or money, and last for 50+ years?! Something is not right here.

 

[GoHack]

I'm not sure where software lies, whether it's copyrighted or patented. All I know is that it doesn't take much to cross the line when writing software. We're always reading about someone sueing someone about it when it come to software. While I'm sure lawyers are hired, or on staff to study these products before releasing them, but it can, and probably does boil down to interpretation. That's when the courts comes in, costing someone big money over something very trivial.

What's really suck are companies, or people who intentially wait until they see the big money someone may be getting for a product, and then go for the juggeler.

What's even worst are the companies who buy up all these patents and copyrights, and who never had anything to do w/the development or the writings, just for the royalties, or potental ones.
.

 

[stabilep]

There is not a single reason that copyrights should not be equal with patents. In fact, copyrights should be WORSE than patents. Patents cost millions of dollars and years of R&D, and are only good for 20 years. Copyrights take almost zero talent or money, and last for 50+ years?! Something is not right here.

If I wrote a book I would want to be in control of it for as long as possible. Copyrights protect the actual work while patents only protect the idea so the time lines appropriately reflect that.

 

[stabilep]

I'm not sure where software lies, whether it's copyrighted or patented. All I know is that it doesn't take much to cross the line when writing software. We're always reading about someone sueing someone about it when it come to software. While I'm sure lawyers are hired, or on staff to study these products before releasing them, but it can, and probably does boil down to interpretation. That's when the courts comes in, costing someone big money over something very trivial.

What's really suck are companies, or people who intentially wait until they see the big money someone may be getting for a product, and then go for the juggeler.

What's even worst are the companies who buy up all these patents and copyrights, and who never had anything to do w/the development or the writings, just for the royalties, or potental ones.
.

Software is supposed to be protected by Copyrights however the system was never set up for software and i think software needs to be protected under something different (maybe even a whole new system)

A lot of the lawsuits you see typcially involve patents things like:

"Oh I patented the idea of using an optical medium with reflective backing with data that can be read with lasers"

and then if someone makes something similar to that they can be sued where a copyright lawsuit is like:

"I own this code I wrote that. This program is mine. I authorized the selling of it through SoSo Publishing Corp. for a royalty system where each copy sold gives me $X. However ThisThat Publishing published my program and sold it without me saying they can and I am therefore not being properly compensated for it"

 

[fairlane]

Software is supposed to be protected by Copyrights however the system was never set up for software and i think software needs to be protected under something different (maybe even a whole new system)

A lot of the lawsuits you see typcially involve patents things like:

"Oh I patented the idea of using an optical medium with reflective backing with data that can be read with lasers"

and then if someone makes something similar to that they can be sued where a copyright lawsuit is like:

"I own this code I wrote that. This program is mine. I authorized the selling of it through SoSo Publishing Corp. for a royalty system where each copy sold gives me $X. However ThisThat Publishing published my program and sold it without me saying they can and I am therefore not being properly compensated for it"

Um.....YEAH! WHAT HE SAID!

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

The Founding Fathers intended a copyright to have a lifespan of only 25 TWENTY FIVE years.

I'm all for that being re-established as the norm. You get 25 yrs to benefit from the work, then its fair game.

 

[fairlane]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought current copyright was life plus 70 years?

 

[Catweazle]

Duration depends on your country, but in most countries it is life of the author plus 50 to 70 years.

Wiki provides a reasonable overview of copyright in general, and people wanting to make statement about it would do well to begin informing themselves by reading it. It is quite obvious that many people making statements about copyright have no understanding of what it actually is.


Suggesting the 'Copyright' should be abolished is nonsensical.

 

[sovs]

The Founding Fathers intended a copyright to have a lifespan of only 25 TWENTY FIVE years.

I'm all for that being re-established as the norm. You get 25 yrs to benefit from the work, then its fair game.

totally side with this. There is so much material that is unavailable because it's out of print & under copyright.

patent laws have got the timespan correct. take the .gif file format (LZW patent) - its enough time for the inventors to make some money, but then it is gifted to the world.

 

[stabilep]

The Founding Fathers intended a copyright to have a lifespan of only 25 TWENTY FIVE years.

I'm all for that being re-established as the norm. You get 25 yrs to benefit from the work, then its fair game.

Lifespan for people during the 1700's are not what they are today. Back then if you lived to 15 then you could be expected to probably live until you were 50.

Either way copyrights I think are quite fair. They are not the same as patents.

 

[stabilep]

To add on my post (sorry but there is no editing) Copyrights I think are fair because if the owner can distribute it however (s)he wishes to distribute it. Just because it is copyrighted does not mean no one else can use it. If the author wants they can release it to the public or limit it through a license (similar to how GPL and GNU are software from those software devolpers can be copyrighted and still distributed under those licenses in fact like the author of this article says thats how they are indeed able to do that) so just because its copyrighted does not mean it cannot be freely distributed that is up to the content creator.

 

[sovs]

I will use the following as a bad example, simply because it happened yesterday.

Now I seem to remember reading (probably in CJ Date's book) that rule zero of Codds dbms rules, was that all 12 rules had to be met.

So I hit google, to confirm, and find out - Ted Codd published in the 80s a computerword article on 12 rules of rdbs design. ok, but what it says on wikipedia disagrees with my recollection, the magazine is under copyright, its nowhere online...

Ted Codd is dead (first point), computerword has no way to make any money out of the article (2nd point), the article is of great importance and should be in the realm of the people.

A 25yr rule, would mean that article could be scanned in by someone & put on wikipedia, additionally I could throw away all my computer books from the 80s

 

[[Spectre]]

Copyrights take almost zero talent or money, and last for 50+ years?! Something is not right here.

I am guessing you have never produced anything worth copyrighting otherwise you would realize that to produce something that is covered by copyright quite often takes a large amount of time, effort, skill, and talent.

 

[shadowwyvern]

At this point in our technological evolution, anything that should be patentable (but the patent system is horribly broken, like how Microsoft somehow managed to patent the idea behind sudo in 2003), is more likely than not far more valuable than almost anything that would fall under copyright. Although I am not entirely opposed to lifetime copyrights, what it is now (I think life + 75 years) is totally ridiculous, and intended to primarily benefit content distributors not the individual authors, who IMHO are the ONLY ones that deserve to make money off of their creation.

If the terms are going to be long, then it should be required that the creator be reachable. If you cant be reached within a reasonable period of time in this world, then, frankly, your friggin loss, you clearly don't care enough to deserve reward.

 

[fairlane]

I am guessing you have never produced anything worth copyrighting otherwise you would realize that to produce something that is covered by copyright quite often takes a large amount of time, effort, skill, and talent.

From what I remember from my research on copyright for graduate school (which was a few years ago and the law has in all probability changed since then but to what degree I am not sure) it depends on the medium the work was created so for the sake of argument I will use the written word.

What I can remember, any written piece that has the author's name and date is immediately copyrighted, there is no application to fill out and submit, no authority that has to validate it. So, in our example, I can sit down, write a one page poem, print it out with my name and date and it is covered by copyright, but it must have a name and date - otherwise it is not covered since you cannot prove that you wrote it. On the other end of the spectrum, I can write a whole LOTR type work and all I would have to do is sign and date the work and it is copyrighted.

So with that said, I think you both are correct. Anyone, no matter their talent or skill level, can produce, create or develop a work with some notation that they are the author, it is considered copyrighted.