• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How long should a copyright last before it becomes public domain?

How long should a copyright last before the I.P. becomes public domain?


  • Total voters
    51
The above is just one long run-on sentence with so many ambiguities it's not even worth addressing.

So.
It's the truth.

You talk about how people who don't support current IP terms being those who don't make their living from it.
I'm just interjecting that a lot who do support are merely being sheep to those that make the most from it.

Nonsense. It's called a COPYRIGHT - not a COPYPRIVILEDGE. Copyright laws pertain to defense of intellectual property as the right of the author.

Yea and supporters of the Patriot act are patriots.
It's a privilege, extended by legislation.

Still being dishonest huh Harry? So here let's put our cards on the deck - what is it you downloaded? 40 year old music? 50 year old movies maybe? Maybe you were searching for a e-Book version of Coptic scrolls from Egypt? What was it you were illegally downloading that you couldn't purchase at your local Wal-Mart?

I haven't downloaded anything recently.
I don't know what else to tell you.
 
You really should stop using legal terms you don't really have a grasp of and using Wikipedia as backup.

Adverse possession takes a LONG time and requires quite a few specific things. It's nothing whatever like mere trespass.


Of works where the copyright was transferred with no record, the author is dead, and no heirs can be found? Where are these?

And just to add, we have an inconsistency in the law.

With physical property, one must exert their ownership over it, to continue to own it.
With IP, one can abandon it for 20 years, then come back and legally claim ownership.
 
As long as my descendents can claim a legitimate/direct line to me ie. children, grandchildren/great grandchildren. :shrug:

Fair enough. I think that runs contrary to the intended purpose of copyright law in that it stifles the creation of original works.
 
Probably at least 50 years from the time of creation from the creator or his family. You create it, you should own it for a good long time.
 
Fair enough. I think that runs contrary to the intended purpose of copyright law in that it stifles the creation of original works.

I disagree. I think the overwhelming majority people who are opposed to IP laws in their present form are simply trying to get **** for free and have ZERO interest in using IP to create their own original works. Case in point: Harry Guerrilla and pretty much everyone I've ever encountered on this forum against IP laws. They are people who don't really have their own livelihood threatened by punkass 16 year old kids who just want to get the works of others for free. This allows them to "support" movements like those of Anonymous when the government shuts down entities like Limewire. It's no skin off their backs so why shouldn't they be allowed to steal?
 
As long as my descendents can claim a legitimate/direct line to me ie. children, grandchildren/great grandchildren. :shrug:

Do you feel that way about patents? If I invent a new mode of transportation or a cure for some disease should my descendants be able to hold a patent as long as they can claim a legitimate line to me?
 
Whoa, those are really long options in the poll. I would go with 1 year.
 
Do you feel that way about patents?

Sure. Why not?

If I invent a new mode of transportation or a cure for some disease should my descendants be able to hold a patent as long as they can claim a legitimate line to me?

Why the **** not? This is of course excepting rare cases for diseases which are in what could be considered "global scale" forms like AIDS or cancer. It would also involve things like the common cold where it's simply impractical to try and exercise patent laws. However if you invent a cure for the mumps or shingles, why the hell shouldn't you and your descendents be paid for use of the IP involved as long as you can lay reasonable claim to it? I'm not saying some cousin 4 times removed should get to claim it if you have no descendents, but I don't believe Jerry Whomever should get to reap the profits of your work if you or your direct kinship have something to say about it.
 
So.
It's the truth.

You talk about how people who don't support current IP terms being those who don't make their living from it.
I'm just interjecting that a lot who do support are merely being sheep to those that make the most from it.



Yea and supporters of the Patriot act are patriots.

It's a privilege, extended by legislation.



I haven't downloaded anything recently.
I don't know what else to tell you.

just saw that. lol what a title for such an unpatriotic and unAmerican piece of legislation. SOPA is basically just as bad since it is so broad.

Recently, Pirate's Bay made a statement about SOPA:

Renowned piracy advocate The Pirate Bay has issued a lengthy statement saying that the proposed SOPA legislation would do nothing to stop it operating.

“They want to make the internet into a one way pipe, with them at the top, shoving trash through the pipe down to the rest of us obedient consumers,” it reads.

“The public opinion on this matter is clear. SOPA can't do anything to stop TPB. Worst case we'll change top-level domain from our current .org to one of the hundreds of other names that we already also use. In countries where TPB is blocked, China and Saudi Arabia springs to mind, they block hundreds of our domain names. And did it work? Not really.”

The somewhat questionable finger of accusation then turns on the rights holders themselves.

“To fix the ‘problem of piracy’ one should go to the source of the problem. The entertainment industry say they're creating ‘culture’ but what they really do is stuff like selling overpriced plushy dolls and making 11 year old girls become anorexic. Either from working in the factories that creates the dolls for basically no salary or by watching movies and TV shows that make them think that they're fat.”

It even goes as far as to suggest that the movie industry is underpinned by an inherent hypocrisy as it, itself, was built on ‘piracy’.



“Over a century ago Thomas Edison got the patent for a device which would ‘do for the eye what the phonograph does for the ear’,” it explains. “He called it the Kinetoscope. Because of Edison’s patents for the motion pictures it was close to financially impossible to create motion pictures in the North American east coast.

“The movie studios therefor relocated to California, and founded what we today call Hollywood. So, the whole basis of this industry, that today is screaming about losing control over immaterial rights, is that they circumvented immaterial rights. They copied (or put in their terminology: ‘stole’) other people’s creative works, without paying.

“The reason they are always complaining about ‘pirates’ today is simple. We've done what they did. We circumvented the rules they created and created our own. We crushed their monopoly by giving people something more efficient. We allow people to have direct communication between each other, circumventing the profitable middle man, that in some cases take over 107% of the profits (yes, you pay to work for them).

“It's all based on the fact that we're competition. We've proven that their existence in their current form is no longer needed. We're just better than they are. And the funny part is that our rules are very similar to the founding ideas of the USA. We fight for freedom of speech.”

Pirate Bay: SOPA can't stop us | Games industry news | MCV

Just look at the hypocrisy. Ironically, Hollywood turns to the government to enforce laws that it never bothered to follow at its inception. May Hollywood burn. If it turns into a smoldering pile of ashes, America would lose nothing. Very few movies these days are even worth watching.
 
Sure. Why not?



Why the **** not? This is of course excepting rare cases for diseases which are in what could be considered "global scale" forms like AIDS or cancer. It would also involve things like the common cold where it's simply impractical to try and exercise patent laws. However if you invent a cure for the mumps or shingles, why the hell shouldn't you and your descendents be paid for use of the IP involved as long as you can lay reasonable claim to it? I'm not saying some cousin 4 times removed should get to claim it if you have no descendents, but I don't believe Jerry Whomever should get to reap the profits of your work if you or your direct kinship have something to say about it.

At least your are consistent in this matter. I have mixed feelings on this issue.Part of me says the copyright or patent should last as long as the person who created it is still alive I do not believe people who had nothing to do with your work should be able to profit from it just because they are related to you. But copyrights and patents lasted until the creator died then there would be no generics and if there are generics it would be more costly.
 
Last edited:
Why should artwork be treated different than an invention?
Well because things like a painting or a song are not generally of any useful purpose. While an invention may help society in great ways.

Let me point out that I have band and I am also an artist. And as unlikely as this sounds I am also an inventor. Artwork itself has many variables to consider. If I make a piece of artwork and sell it to an individual they own the piece but do they have the right to reproduce it? On the other hand if I invent something and that invention in part can be used to invent something even better should it be stopped because I want my cut? And those are just some of the basic problems.

But as an artist i think that if I own and never sell my artwork to someone else that would own the rights that I would no longer own, that I should be able to own the rights to my work forever. Not just an certain amount of time.
 
I disagree. I think the overwhelming majority people who are opposed to IP laws in their present form are simply trying to get **** for free and have ZERO interest in using IP to create their own original works. Case in point: Harry Guerrilla and pretty much everyone I've ever encountered on this forum against IP laws. They are people who don't really have their own livelihood threatened by punkass 16 year old kids who just want to get the works of others for free. This allows them to "support" movements like those of Anonymous when the government shuts down entities like Limewire. It's no skin off their backs so why shouldn't they be allowed to steal?

Again, you ignore all my points of reference and create a straw man.
Seems to be a reoccurring problem with you.

Anything I could bring up, that would show I too have used art to make a living, would be quickly dismissed by you.
 
Last edited:
Whoa, those are really long options in the poll. I would go with 1 year.

So if I write a book, I should only get paid for its sales in the first year? By the time it's ready for a paperback release, the publishing company should be able to sell it without paying me?

I'm sorry, but that's completely ****ing ridiculous. I believe we need reforms of our copyright laws, but we do need to maintain some kind of copyright protection.

I disagree. I think the overwhelming majority people who are opposed to IP laws in their present form are simply trying to get **** for free and have ZERO interest in using IP to create their own original works. Case in point: Harry Guerrilla and pretty much everyone I've ever encountered on this forum against IP laws. They are people who don't really have their own livelihood threatened by punkass 16 year old kids who just want to get the works of others for free. This allows them to "support" movements like those of Anonymous when the government shuts down entities like Limewire. It's no skin off their backs so why shouldn't they be allowed to steal?

At the same time, copyrighted works must enter the public domain at some point or else we would still be paying royalties on every dose of penicillin and every performance of Shakespeare. I already believe that author's life plus 70 years is far too much-- and as soon as Mickey Mouse threatens to enter the public domain, we can expect another increase. It's getting ridiculous. Copyright laws exist to promote culture, not stifle it.
 
At the same time, copyrighted works must enter the public domain at some point or else we would still be paying royalties on every dose of penicillin and every performance of Shakespeare. I already believe that author's life plus 70 years is far too much-- and as soon as Mickey Mouse threatens to enter the public domain, we can expect another increase. It's getting ridiculous. Copyright laws exist to promote culture, not stifle it.

Precisely, it's nothing but a form of rent seeking, in it's current form.
Where the "creators" get to exclude competition and derive a profit, with no further economic benefit to the consumers.
 
Most folks here already know where I stand, but I'll restate. IP copyrights should extend the life of the author or creator, plus 50 years. Some of my novels that were sold 20 years ago are still bringing me revenue. They'll be bringing in revenue after I die, and that is part of my estate, the legacy I leave to my family. To those who believe that people who create novels, works of art, movies, games, etc., should simply let everyone on the planet have it for free within a few years, I say that's just greed talking, the greed of wanting for free or wanting to profit off what other people have created.

That's my position, it will always be my position, so I'm not going to make the mistake of trying to defend my position, which is based on copyright law over the 15+ years that my novels were written. I'll just get upset, so take this for whatever it's worth, and know that ha-ha, my family will continue to receive any revenue generated by my work for 50 years after my death whether y'all like it or not.
 
If I were to draw a line, I think I would have to say either for the duration of the author's life or twenty-five years from first publication, whichever is later. Corporate works would be protected for twenty-five years. And I don't believe that there should be criminal or civil penalties for non-commercial infringement.
 
If I were to draw a line, I think I would have to say either for the duration of the author's life or twenty-five years from first publication, whichever is later. Corporate works would be protected for twenty-five years. And I don't believe that there should be criminal or civil penalties for non-commercial infringement.

I disagree with the duration, but at least you're reasonable enough to see, that there is a gross discrepancy with the current law.
 
I disagree with the duration, but at least you're reasonable enough to see, that there is a gross discrepancy with the current law.

Let's put the ball back in your court, then. Without long duration copyrights, how do you propose that I make my money from creating intellectual properties, and how should the law protect me?
 
I disagree. I think the overwhelming majority people who are opposed to IP laws in their present form are simply trying to get **** for free and have ZERO interest in using IP to create their own original works. Case in point: Harry Guerrilla and pretty much everyone I've ever encountered on this forum against IP laws. They are people who don't really have their own livelihood threatened by punkass 16 year old kids who just want to get the works of others for free. This allows them to "support" movements like those of Anonymous when the government shuts down entities like Limewire. It's no skin off their backs so why shouldn't they be allowed to steal?

Yes. This. Very much. All the "high-minded" talk is just smokescreen.
 
Let's put the ball back in your court, then. Without long duration copyrights, how do you propose that I make my money from creating intellectual properties, and how should the law protect me?

If you want copy protection, you must opt in (registration or something of that sort), within a reasonable time frame.
Once opted in, no one else can reproduce your work, for profit, within the duration, without your permission.
 
If you want copy protection, you must opt in (registration or something of that sort), within a reasonable time frame.
Once opted in, no one else can reproduce your work, for profit, within the duration, without your permission.

And why only "for profit"?

That's not much protection at all. People who pirate and upload all over the place most often don't have any profit involved.

(Preserving your ability to get free stuff, I suppose.)
 
If you want copy protection, you must opt in (registration or something of that sort), within a reasonable time frame.
Once opted in, no one else can reproduce your work, for profit, within the duration, without your permission.

Copyright protection by law comes from the point of creation. Now then if one wants to really protect their copyright they should file with the Library of Congress at least on a yearly basis.

Courts do also look at if one is a artist or not as well. IOW is it just a snap shot or is it a work of art and what is the history of the creator.
 
Last edited:
And a ton of other requirements.

Not really.
The general qualifications are pretty simple and much more logical than current IP law.




So? Has nothing to do with what I said.

It actually does.
One can acquire the property of another, if they don't maintain said property.

The same should be true for IP, except "another" should be "the public."


And . . . where does this show what I asked for?

That's one of the libraries of orphan works.
Finding all the owners of each individual IP, would be dauntingly expensive, more so than what it's worth.
 
Back
Top Bottom