• 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
Harry Guerrilla said:
Actually they don't.
The copyright act of 1976 eliminated the need to register a work.
Click to expand...

That will surprise quite a few working IP attorneys.


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
Click to expand...

Ownership affixes at creation. Access to courts requires registration.

17 U.S.C. 4 Sec 411:

(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A (a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b),[1] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.
Click to expand...

United States Code: Title 17,411. Registration and civil infringement actions | LII / Legal Information Institute


Rather Than Fixing The Problem Of Orphaned Works, The Authors Guild Wants To Play 'Gotcha' | Techdirt
Click to expand...

I don't have a lot of sympathy considering how many authors were "found" with a bit of diligence.
 
People who don't live off their intellectual property debating when they should have the right to appropriate the work of someone else because they don't feel like paying for it.

Next on MSNBC:

We ask bank robbers when they should be allowed to break into vaults.

__________________________________________________________

The most disingenuous bit here is that the OP is asking people whether "20 years" is enough. As if the overwhelming majority of people are stealing 60 year old music and Jean Claude Van Dame movies from the early 80s.
 
Last edited:
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...

In the case of the company, it should be the average age of the specific group or department that created the IP
 
Harshaw said:
That will surprise quite a few working IP attorneys.




Ownership affixes at creation. Access to courts requires registration.

17 U.S.C. 4 Sec 411:



United States Code: Title 17,411. Registration and civil infringement actions | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...

Can you not register the work, after you find someone infringing and then sue for infringement?

Harshaw said:
I don't have a lot of sympathy considering how many authors were "found" with a bit of diligence.
Click to expand...

Authorship does not denote ownership.
IP can be transfer and sold, from the original author to another.
 
Hatuey said:
People who don't live off their intellectual property debating when they should have the right to appropriate the work of someone else because they don't feel like paying for it.
Click to expand...

So when do you think copyright should expire? Or should copyright survive in perpetuity and original works never enter the public domain?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Authorship does not denote ownership.
IP can be transfer and sold, from the original author to another.
Click to expand...

Yes and what? A lawnmower can be sold, transferred whatever from one neighbor to another. It doesn't mean you get to claim the lawnmower as your own because you live across the street or that you get to claim to have invented the lawnmower.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
People who don't live off their intellectual property debating when they should have the right to appropriate the work of someone else because they don't feel like paying for it.

Next on MSNBC:

We ask bank robbers when they should be allowed to break into vaults.

__________________________________________________________

The most disingenuous bit here is that the OP is asking people whether "20 years" is enough. As if the overwhelming majority of people are stealing 60 year old music and Jean Claude Van Dame movies from the early 80s.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that:

Little IP creators who won't likely see anything substantive from their works, live on the hope that they will and want the extended protection based on that hope.

The big guys, who make most of the money, want to extend ownership as long as possible, regardless of the valued added behavior in relation to the works.

Some artists suffer from the "special little snowflake" problem.
They think their profession is more deserving of legal protection because, "art" is "special."
 
I like the way things work now. Life of the creator + 70 with option to renew, if the family/company is stupid enough to let a core technology or piece of work lapse they don't deserve the residuals.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Can you not register the work, after you find someone infringing and then sue for infringement?
Click to expand...

In some cases. Different issue.


Authorship does not denote ownership.
IP can be transfer and sold, from the original author to another.
Click to expand...

And then the author can tell you who he sold it to.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes and what? A lawnmower can be sold, transferred whatever from one neighbor to another. It doesn't mean you get to claim the lawnmower as your own because you live across the street or that you get to claim to have invented the lawnmower.
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about lawnmowers.
We're talking about orphaned works and how finding the author doesn't necessarily mean we find the owner of the copy protected work.

Try to stay on topic.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
So when do you think copyright should expire? Or should copyright survive in perpetuity and original works never enter the public domain?
Click to expand...

As long as my descendents can claim a legitimate/direct line to me ie. children, grandchildren/great grandchildren. :shrug:
 
Harshaw said:
In some cases. Different issue.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
If the owner can not be identified but can still sue, with registration, after the fact, that still means we have a problem.

Harshaw said:
And then the author can tell you who he sold it to.
Click to expand...

And if he or she is dead and has no easily identifiable heirs?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Wrong.
If the owner can not be identified but can still sue, with registration, after the fact, that still means we have a problem.



And if he or she is dead and has no easily identifiable heirs?
Click to expand...
I think there needs to be a legal "best effort" to identify patent/copywrite owners and if documentation proves it's not possible to do so then that should be an exception allowing for public use.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I think there needs to be a legal "best effort" to identify patent/copywrite owners and if documentation proves it's not possible to do so then that should be an exception allowing for public use.
Click to expand...

It should be an affirmative defense in court, that nullifies the legal damages, which are substantial.
I think it's $150k per infringing incident.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
We aren't talking about lawnmowers.
We're talking about orphaned works and how finding the author doesn't necessarily mean we find the owner of the copy protected work.
Try to stay on topic.
Click to expand...

I poked a giant hole in your supposed argument about IP and you revert to your usual nonsensical defense of IP theft. Here I'll make it easier for you sweetie since you're adamant about debating copyright. "Orphaned" works, whatever the hell that means, don't fall under the same guidelines of the modern IP debate. Some vase made 1600 years ago, or some folklore story told by the Roma from Bulgaria doesn't fall under what the copyright argument consists of. What the IP debate is about, is your ridiculous defense of stealing that which you haven't put a single hour of effort into and enjoying it because you don't feel like paying for. Your defense of that act and the arguments you use to defend it is about as valid as taking the thief's argument for why he stole a wallet as a serious point of discussion. :shrug:
 
Hatuey said:
I poked a giant hole in your supposed argument about IP and you revert to your usual nonsensical defense of IP theft. Here I'll make it easier for you sweetie since you're adamant about debating copyright. "Orphaned" works, whatever the hell that means, don't fall under the same guidelines of the modern IP debate. Some vase made 1600 years ago, or some folklore story told by the Roma from Bulgaria doesn't fall under what it the copyright argument consists of. What the IP debate is about, is your ridiculous defense of stealing that which you haven't put a single hour of effort into and enjoying it because you don't feel like paying for. Your defense of that act and the arguments you use to defend it is about as valid as taking the thief's argument for why he stole a wallet as a serious point of discussion. :shrug:
Click to expand...

No you didn't.
You made a comment unrelated to the specific topic of discussion.

We're talking about orphaned works and how finding the author, doesn't mean we've found the owner.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It should be an affirmative defense in court, that nullifies the legal damages, which are substantial.
I think it's $150k per infringing incident.
Click to expand...
Not sure about the damages, I had to learn the legal premises when I was in my major. I think 150k is the patent max. and I know 250k is the copywrite max. per incident. The extent of my knowledge is that they usually work out a loss of income settlement and they get pricey.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Not sure about the damages, I had to learn the legal premises when I was in my major. I think 150k is the patent max. and I know 250k is the copywrite max. per incident. The extent of my knowledge is that they usually work out a loss of income settlement and they get pricey.
Click to expand...

It's generally some ridiculous sum.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Wrong.
If the owner can not be identified but can still sue, with registration, after the fact, that still means we have a problem.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't mean that registration is no longer required, which was the point I was speaking to.

"We" don't really have a problem, though. A few people think they do, but that doesn't make it an actual problem worthy of diminishing copyright for.

This argument is similar to those who insist that if it's hard to find the owner of land to ask permission to be on that land, then it isn't really trespassing -- or shouldn't be.


And if he or she is dead and has no easily identifiable heirs?
Click to expand...

Then let it go, man; that particular one's not for you. Find something else to work from.

You have this hypothetical down to such an infinitesimal likelihood that it's absolutely not worth upsetting IP over.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The problem here is that:

Little IP creators who won't likely see anything substantive from their works, live on the hope that they will and want the extended protection based on that hope.
Click to expand...

So the **** what?

The big guys, who make most of the money, want to extend ownership as long as possible, regardless of the valued added behavior in relation to the works.
Click to expand...

And what? That is their right.

Some artists suffer from the "special little snowflake" problem. They think their profession is more deserving of legal protection because, "art" is "special."
Click to expand...

I don't even know what the hell it is you're talking about mostly because it's the same old nonsense from people who simply want to be allowed to download Cowboys and Aliens without paying for it. Here I'll make it simple for you. If you don't want to pay for the work of other people, that's fine. However stop being so ridiculously dishonest with everyone here and simply admit it. Don't act as if there is some sort of serious ethical argument and some little 15 year old who made a worthless app is going to be the most affected. The overwhelming majority of downloads are of modern music, modern movies and mainstream entertainment. People aren't exactly lining up to torrent the entire works of Jose Marti or Plato. They're downloading Twilight, Justin Beiber and whomever else is famous today.
 
Harshaw said:
Which doesn't mean that registration is no longer required, which was the point I was speaking to.

"We" don't really have a problem, though. A few people think they do, but that doesn't make it an actual problem worthy of diminishing copyright for.

This argument is similar to those who insist that if it's hard to find the owner of land to ask permission to be on that land, then it isn't really trespassing -- or shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

There are legal provisions that allow adverse possession of land. :shrug:

Adverse possession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Harshaw said:
Then let it go, man; that particular one's not for you. Find something else to work from.

You have this hypothetical down to such an infinitesimal likelihood that it's absolutely not worth upsetting IP over.
Click to expand...

If it were so small, then why are there libraries of such works?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There are legal provisions that allow adverse possession of land. :shrug:

Adverse possession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

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.



If it were so small, then why are there libraries of such works?
Click to expand...

Of works where the copyright was transferred with no record, the author is dead, and no heirs can be found? Where are these?
 
Hatuey said:
So the **** what?
Click to expand...

It's just funny, because a lot of the support comes from people trying to make a living from it, but likely won't.

Hatuey said:
And what? That is their right.
Click to expand...

It's there privilege, amenable by law.
I want to change the law.

Hatuey said:
I don't even know what the hell it is you're talking about mostly because it's the same old nonsense from people who simply want to be allowed to download Cowboys and Aliens without paying for it. Here I'll make it simple for you. If you don't want to pay for the work of other people, that's fine. However stop being so ridiculously dishonest with everyone here and simply admit it. Don't act as if there is some sort of serious ethical argument and some little 15 year old who made a worthless app is going to be the most affected. The overwhelming majority of downloads are of modern music, modern movies and mainstream entertainment. People aren't exactly lining up to torrent the entire works of Jose Marti or Plato. They're downloading Twilight, Justin Beiber and whomever else is famous today.
Click to expand...

I haven't DL'ed anything in quite some time, so you're incorrect.
I don't have a problem paying for some things like this.

I just don't believe in rent seeking. :shrug:
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Typically 7 years.
You're still trespassing, before adverse possession takes place.




Harshaw said:
Of works where the copyright was transferred with no record, the author is dead, and no heirs can be found? Where are these?
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Shared Digital Future | www.hathitrust.org
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's just funny, because a lot of the support comes from people trying to make a living from it, but likely won't.
Click to expand...

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

It's there privilege, amenable by law.
I want to change the law.
Click to expand...

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

I haven't DL'ed anything in quite some time, so you're incorrect.
I don't have a problem paying for some things like this.
I just don't believe in rent seeking. :shrug:
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom