• 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?

  • There should be no such thing as a copyright.

    Votes: 4 7.8%

  • 1-20 years after intellectual property is created

    Votes: 15 29.4%

  • 21-40 years after intellectual property is created

    Votes: 2 3.9%

  • 41-60 years after intellectual property is created

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • The copyright should last as long as the creator of the intellectual property is still alive

    Votes: 4 7.8%

  • 1-20 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died

    Votes: 5 9.8%

  • 21-40 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died

    Votes: 3 5.9%

  • 41-60 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died

    Votes: 3 5.9%

  • The copyright on the intellectual property should last forever (a perpetual copyright.)

    Votes: 3 5.9%

  • other idea or I do not know(please specify)

    Votes: 11 21.6%
  • Total voters
    51
jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Anytime the issue of online piracy comes up so does the issue of copyrights.So I decided to make a poll.

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

There should be no such thing as a copyright.
1-20 years after intellectual property is created
21-40 years after intellectual property is created
41-60 years after intellectual property is created
The copyright should last as long as the creator of the intellectual property is still alive
1-20 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died
21-40 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died
41-60 after the original creator of the intellectual property has died
The copyright on the intellectual property should last forever (a perpetual copyright.)
other/I do not know
 
I can see arguments all the way from 20 years to the life of the creator.
 
I'm more concerned with how enforcement of copyright law is carried out. In particular, I am extremely disturbed by how corporations can sick the government on internet sites that host millions of users, confiscating their domain and their hard assets; yet when individuals claim copyright infringement or stolen ideas against corporations, they almost never stand a chance.

The people of the U.S. should demand that corporate personhood be revoked. It was decided by five supreme court judges, not the legislature, and certainly not the people. Copyright law does need reform, but what needs reform even more is the way copyright law has been abused by conglomerates that are controlling the government and restricting freedom of speech.

I have already decided that if SOPA and PIPA pass, I will not be returning to live in the United States after the next work term and my family will remain ex-pat.
 
Like Temporal, I am far more concerned about the implementation. But that's for another thread.

Copyright tries to ensure the creator has some means of getting paid, and choosing the presentation of the work. If we are assuming that the implementation of this is reasonable, I think it should last for the life of the creator. Not a day more, not a day less.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Less than 10 years.
There is no reason why a patent generally gets 20 years or less and other forms of IP get life + 70 years.
Click to expand...
This is a fair point, and I can't argue against it, but I generally feel "1-20 yrs after death of the creator" is fine. With some nuances...

- If the creator is a business, then the business could conceivably keep it forever if the business lasts forever. Even that has some nuances, in my mind...

- The human creator would legally be the "co-owner" if created on company time... and no ability to sign away fully to the company through coercion as is often the case now with patents.

- If co-owned, upon death of the person(s)/co-owner(s), full ownership would revert to the company after the estate has its 20 year co-ownership period expire.

- The company could keep it forever through mergers and acquisitions, and it could sell the copyright, but if outright sold, a strict 20 yr limit would be in place for the new buyer.
 
radcen said:
This is a fair point, and I can't argue against it, but I generally feel "1-20 yrs after death of the creator" is fine. With some nuances...

- If the creator is a business, then the business could conceivably keep it forever if the business lasts forever. Even that has some nuances, in my mind...

- The human creator would legally be the "co-owner" if created on company time... and no ability to sign away fully to the company through coercion as is often the case now with patents.

- If co-owned, upon death of the person(s)/co-owner(s), full ownership would revert to the company after the estate has its 20 year co-ownership period expire.

- The company could keep it forever through mergers and acquisitions, and it could sell the copyright, but if outright sold, a strict 20 yr limit would be in place for the new buyer.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this because it inhibits growth of more IP.
Ideas, whether they manifest themselves in the physical or artistic, aren't formed in a vacuum.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Less than 10 years.
There is no reason why a patent generally gets 20 years or less and other forms of IP get life + 70 years.
Click to expand...

The terms of a patent are somewhat more restrictive. Copyright can be all over the place.

For example, I usually use a Creative Commons copyright for most of my projects. I couldn't be paid enough to use DRM. Copyright covers a wide variety of different uses and terms.

I don't support copyrights that restrict fair use. And for me personally, I always allow adaptations with attribution. Sometimes I also allow copying and distributing. I usually don't allow commercial use, but may on an individual basis. I take this sort of loose approach to it because I believe in open information, and I have seen enough evidence to be convinced that restrictive copyright/DRM actually discourages potential buyers. Leaving things more free encourages them. It's a better business model to be less restrictive.

In other words, all I ask is that people have some way of getting back to my original work. I don't want to discourage other people's creativity in the least - and copyright doesn't HAVE to do that.
 
Temporal said:
I'm more concerned with how enforcement of copyright law is carried out. In particular, I am extremely disturbed by how corporations can sick the government on internet sites that host millions of users, confiscating their domain and their hard assets; yet when individuals claim copyright infringement or stolen ideas against corporations, they almost never stand a chance.

The people of the U.S. should demand that corporate personhood be revoked. It was decided by five supreme court judges, not the legislature, and certainly not the people. Copyright law does need reform, but what needs reform even more is the way copyright law has been abused by conglomerates that are controlling the government and restricting freedom of speech.

I have already decided that if SOPA and PIPA pass, I will not be returning to live in the United States after the next work term and my family will remain ex-pat.
Click to expand...
Agree fully with this. Enforcement has become way too dependent on the word of a corporation (most often), whom are no more likely to be earnest and honest than anybody else, and then the results are way too heavy-handed.

Part of it is simply the fear of litigation. For example, John Smith posts something on eBay. Microsoft tells eBay it belongs to them and/or violates the user agreement. eBay takes it down for fear of litigation from Microsoft and does ABSOLUTELY ZERO in the form of investigation that Microsoft is actually correct. eBay leaves it to John Smith, who has not the resources Microsoft has, to prove he was correct.

These are actual scenarios I have read in the past regarding eBay's Verified Rights Owner Program (VeRO). Problem is, eBay doesn't actually verify anything... they just take the corporation's word for it. Sure, eBay makes them certify that they're being honest, but that's just corporate legal CYA.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
The terms of a patent are somewhat more restrictive. Copyright can be all over the place.

For example, I usually use a Creative Commons copyright for most of my projects. I couldn't be paid enough to use DRM. Copyright covers a wide variety of different uses and terms.

I don't suppose copyrights that restrict fair use. And for me personally, I always allow adaptations with attribution. Sometimes I also allow copying and distributing. I usually don't allow commercial use, but may on an individual basis. I take this sort of loose approach to it because I believe in open information, and I have seen enough evidence to be convinced that restrictive copyright/DRM actually discourages potential buyers. Leaving things more free encourages them. It's a better business model to be less restrictive.

In other words, all I ask is that people have some way of getting back to my original work. I don't want to discourage other people's creativity in the least - and copyright doesn't HAVE to do that.
Click to expand...

For IP we could do, what you have to do, when you write a paper, citation.
 
radcen said:
I don't understand how this would inhibit anything regarding growth or R&D.
Click to expand...

Legal wrangling, licensing fees, etc, etc.

There needs to a be a point, in a reasonable amount of time, where a person can use your work, to create new work.
The thing is, most if not all forms of new IP, are based on old forms of IP.

Also, copyright should be an opt in system, not an automatic opt in.
 
The only patent I have a problem with are process patents, especially those that can be reverse engineered. Its the single most restrictive thing in the computing field today. Drug patents also fall into that category a lot of the time, but its kind of a different kettle of fish.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yes but, if a work is orphaned and someone wants to use it, while having no way to verify the owner, they open themselves to legal problems, if they do.
Click to expand...

If the work is "orphaned" there's no worry.

Besides, to prosecute on a copyright claim, the work must be registered, and the owner is listed in the Library of Congress.

Now, if a copyright holder wants to remain anonymous, it's their own business. Someone else merely wanting to use the work isn't enough to upset that.
 
The constitutional basis for copyright is to provide an incentive for creating new works. Profit on the part of creators provides financial motivation for creative efforts, but they are not entitled to a government granted monopolistic gravy train. Copyright right length should be specific to the circumstances of a given market. If you look at the theater run for a film or airing a season of a television show, the vast majority of money is made within the first year. Reducing copyright length to 1 year for video media would still provide ample financial incentive with minimum restriction on public rights. By comparison, the 7 year process for bringing a pharmaceutical drug to market would probably require around a decade to be worth it. Overly long length of copyright not only tramples on the rights of the public, but they also lower the number of works by allowing people to simply coast forever on royalties and syndication.
 
Harshaw said:
If the work is "orphaned" there's no worry.

Besides, to prosecute on a copyright claim, the work must be registered, and the owner is listed in the Library of Congress.

Now, if a copyright holder wants to remain anonymous, it's their own business. Someone else merely wanting to use the work isn't enough to upset that.
Click to expand...

Copyright works don't need to be registered, it's automatic opt in for all works.
Orphaned works go unused in the real world because of the legal liability to the user of the work.
This is a real world problem.

I strongly disagree with the last statement.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Copyright works don't need to be registered, it's automatic opt in for all works.
Orphaned works go unused in the real world because of the legal liability to the user of the work.
Click to expand...

They do in order for the holder to have access to the courts to prosecute infringement, which is the "trouble" and "liability" you're referring to.

This is a real world problem.
Click to expand...

Do you have examples?

I strongly disagree with the last statement.
Click to expand...

Noted.
 
Harshaw said:
They do in order for the holder to have access to the courts to prosecute infringement, which is the "trouble" and "liability" you're referring to.
Click to expand...

Actually they don't.
The copyright act of 1976 eliminated the need to register a work.

A work has copy protection, "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression."

Orphan works in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harshaw said:
Do you have examples?
Click to expand...

Rather Than Fixing The Problem Of Orphaned Works, The Authors Guild Wants To Play 'Gotcha' | Techdirt
 
Temporal said:
I have already decided that if SOPA and PIPA pass, I will not be returning to live in the United States after the next work term and my family will remain ex-pat.
Click to expand...

I wish I had that option. As far as I can tell, this is the only government on Earth that I could live peaceably under.

To answer the OP, I'm trying to make my living by creating IP. Copyright laws are in a very real way essential to my career. However, I don't think that it is economically realistic for creative professionals such as myself to rely on current laws and current business models to sustain our industry in the face of digital piracy; we're trying to sell our products in a market in which our competition is giving them away for free, and then applying DRM and other measures that mean our competition is giving away superior versions of our products for free. I'm a big believer in GNU and CC and the OGL and other "copyleft" licenses that allow for various forms of re-distribution and adaptation of intellectual property, and "ransom" and "kickstarter" models that allow creators to make their money without competing with piracy-- that actually benefit from free distribution. I believe that's where the future of the publishing industry lies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom