• 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
Its your choice. Thankfully, western civilization can probably live without your wood carvings. Not to mention that nobody cares enough to copy your designs anyways.
Yea that was helpful. Are you psychic or something?

You don't understand what you are talking about. Copyright exists to serve society. The government temporarily restricts the natural rights of everyone to distribute works as they by granting a monopoly on distribution on a specific work. The financial incentive from that monopoly promotes the creation of new works. Copyright expires, the work then enters the public domain and society is enriched by having access to new creative works. Copyright, like all government granted monopolies, is simply a practical requirement not granted because you are special snowflake who is morally entitled to it.
I am not a fan of the moral police thank you. Morality isnt even the right concept, the right term is liberty. It is my liberty to own what I create.


Copyright exists to allow an author to make a living writing books rather waiting tables, or recoup production costs on a film. You don't need 120 year copyrights to make a living being an artist, its simply a way for heirs or corporations get money without doing any work by getting a government handout.

So somehow my wood carvings are going to make corporation take government handouts? Arent you jumping to conclusions there just a little? And why exactly should my child be deprived the benefits of my life long work? Seems a little selfish on your part to steal my families inheritance just because you are jealous that I did something with my life and you did not. And where does this ultra fair philosophy of your stop? Will you be calling me immoral because I do not share my earnings with everyone? Which isnt true since I pay tax's.
 
Yes they should be prevented from using my design without asking for permission. My work is a part of my identity I put my personal touch on my products. Someone taking my decisions to me is not much different then someone taking my name, that is why my style is my signature. No one else carves in the exact way that I do. In order for someone to take my design they have to steal my signature and my identity as a carver with it.

So someone making your design better shouldn't be allowed to?
How does that help society at all.

It totally contradicts the purpose of IP law.

Void now thats an interesting choice of words. I did not draw from anyone elses designs, all my designs were thought of by me alone.

Yes, did your ideas come from a void?
We all know your answer is not true.

Wood carvings are one of the first art designs, ever.

Well that is your opinion and that is all that it is. My designs are my own, no one thought them up but me.

They were certainly inspired/influenced by something/someone else.
Whether it be nature or another's work.

Anyways you are cherry picking trying to apply a universal philosophy to a world that is anything but universal. The part of the equation that you are leaving out is liberty. It is my liberty to own what I create. Which is a major factor in the liberty that this nation was built on.

You can only own an idea, if you never tell it.
 
Don't be ridiculous. Every last thing you have ever designed was influenced by the works of artists that came before you.

Hell, how would you even build your designs if not for tools that others designed before you? Shouldn't you be paying them?
That is a weak argument. I make all of my knifes and chisels. Some of which were designed for a small piece of one carving I literary have hundreds of knives. And the tools that I bought I only own the tool not the design to the tool. I dont need to buy a copywrite to use a tool. Is that what you think, that we have to buy the rights to every tool that we buy? Tool manufactures are business to make and sell tools not horde them. Which is the something that I do with my carvings. I sell my carvings but not the rights to the designs. But I have sold artwork to post card companies and sold the designs to them outright. They own the designs and can reproduce them at will. I get no royalties from them.
 
So someone making your design better shouldn't be allowed to?
How does that help society at all.

It totally contradicts the purpose of IP law
From an artists point of view you are not making sense. None of my artwork realy is of any help to society. Yea they look cool and I take pride in my work. But the reality is that none of it is of any real use. It just sites there and takes up space.



Yes, did your ideas come from a void?
We all know your answer is not true.

Wood carvings are one of the first art designs, ever.
I already said that your choice of the word void was begging the question. I thought for sure you would have figured that out.

Wood carving was a bit behind scraping designs on rocks.



They were certainly inspired/influenced by something/someone else.
Whether it be nature or another's work.



You can only own an idea, if you never tell it.
Again you are jumping to conclusions based on an obvious nativity of the arts.
 
From an artists point of view you are not making sense. None of my artwork realy is of any help to society. Yea they look cool and I take pride in my work. But the reality is that none of it is of any real use. It just sites there and takes up space.

So if your art is so worthless, why does it need to be protected so much?

I already said that your choice of the word void was begging the question. I thought for sure you would have figured that out.

Wood carving was a bit behind scraping designs on rocks.

Where else would you draw your ideas from?
Your mind, while likely full of imagination and wonder, cannot be the sole wellspring, for all your inspiration.

Again you are jumping to conclusions based on an obvious nativity of the arts.

I finally "got" art in college.
I enjoy some of it, although I do think some artists are a bit "special little snowflakish."
 
I am not a fan of the moral police thank you. Morality isnt even the right concept, the right term is liberty. It is my liberty to own what I create.

Your idea of "liberty" involves getting the government to prosecute everyone who exercises their natural right to share ideas?

So somehow my wood carvings are going to make corporation take government handouts? Arent you jumping to conclusions there just a little?

120 year long copyrights are definitely being used by corporations to get handouts.

And why exactly should my child be deprived the benefits of my life long work? Seems a little selfish on your part to steal my families inheritance just because you are jealous that I did something with my life and you did not. And where does this ultra fair philosophy of your stop? Will you be calling me immoral because I do not share my earnings with everyone? Which isnt true since I pay tax's.

You aren't being deprived of anything. You are more than welcome to save the cash from selling your carvings and then gift to your child, just like everyone else. Regular Americans work their entire lives and don't get to give their kids an eternal government handout and neither should you.
 
Your idea of "liberty" involves getting the government to prosecute everyone who exercises their natural right to share ideas?
Your argument is out of context. As I pointed out my carvings are of little societal consequence. No one will be out of something for not being able to steal my designs.



120 year long copyrights are definitely being used by corporations to get handouts.
Thas great but what does it have to do with my carvings?


You aren't being deprived of anything. You are more than welcome to save the cash from selling your carvings and then gift to your child, just like everyone else. Regular Americans work their entire lives and don't get to give their kids an eternal government handout and neither should you.
That is a straw man argument and constructed from an ideological standpoint that I do not subscribe too. So your appeal to morality only works for the believers of which I am not.

Royalties are payment for work that an individual or a group have done. Those royalties are limited by the popularity of the work done. No one is guaranteed that a copywrite will eventually pay them anything. So your one size fits all argument has a lot of holes in it.
 
So if your art is so worthless, why does it need to be protected so much?
My worthless art does not affect you.



Where else would you draw your ideas from?
Your mind, while likely full of imagination and wonder, cannot be the sole wellspring, for all your inspiration.
Your arguing that if a person was inspired by an idea that was not solely theirs then that means nothing is theirs? I am an individual and my thoughts are individual thoughts. My lifes observations come out in a personally muted fashion. What influences are in my works? What influences are in any masters style? And yes I just asserted that I am an master wood carver.



I finally "got" art in college.
I enjoy some of it, although I do think some artists are a bit "special little snowflakish."
Your implications are ad hominem and pointless. There are flakes in all walks of life. Unless you are calling me a flake, I can see no other point in your observation and what it has to do with intellectual property..
 
Why can't you judge the latter?
If someone thinks it's better, then it is, at least to them..

Because books and art and such is opinion based, whereas you can scientifically prove that a gun shoots better and is more accurate or more durable and that medicine treats better.
 
Because books and art and such is opinion based, whereas you can scientifically prove that a gun shoots better and is more accurate or more durable and that medicine treats better.

Oh I've seen people argue various opinions on weapons right here on this board.


And art can be quantified in various similar ways. Advertising art for example.
 
Oh I've seen people argue various opinions on weapons right here on this board.


And art can be quantified in various similar ways. Advertising art for example.

You can have various opinions on weapons, but when it boils down to it one weapon is going to be more accurate than another.
 
However long Micky Mouse lives.
 
You can have various opinions on weapons, but when it boils down to it one weapon is going to be more accurate than another.

And by the same notion advertising art can be quantified in a similar manner.
 
And by the same notion advertising art can be quantified in a similar manner.
But differences in the same ad aren't going to make a difference, that's why when ads don't work they use completely different ads.
 
You can have various opinions on weapons, but when it boils down to it one weapon is going to be more accurate than another.

Accuracy is hardly the only metric by which a weapon can be evaluated. You have reliability, weight, caliber, rate of fire, sights, ergonomics, noise and plenty of other factors that matter.
 
Accuracy is hardly the only metric by which a weapon can be evaluated. You have reliability, weight, caliber, rate of fire, sights, ergonomics, noise and plenty of other factors that matter.

Which can all be measured scientifically, whereas books and art are subjective.
 
Which can all be measured scientifically, whereas books and art are subjective.

Not so. The "stopping power" of a given caliber cannot be scientifically measurable, because of the ethical prohibitions against shooting humans in a controlled manner. Not to mention that even if the qualities of a firearm can be objectively measured, how one values such qualities is still subjective. I'll grant you that one can evaluate the technical merits of a physical object much more objectively than a piece of art, but it still is somewhat fuzzy.
 
Yea that was helpful. Are you psychic or something?


I am not a fan of the moral police thank you. Morality isnt even the right concept, the right term is liberty. It is my liberty to own what I create.




So somehow my wood carvings are going to make corporation take government handouts? Arent you jumping to conclusions there just a little? And why exactly should my child be deprived the benefits of my life long work? Seems a little selfish on your part to steal my families inheritance just because you are jealous that I did something with my life and you did not. And where does this ultra fair philosophy of your stop? Will you be calling me immoral because I do not share my earnings with everyone? Which isnt true since I pay tax's.

Because your child should have to earn his own living.
 
Because your child should have to earn his own living.
Just because they may get the benefits of my work does not mean that they will not work.

At any rate who are you to tell another human being what to do? That is exactly what you are doing, for some reason you feel its unfair that someone else Had a family member that did more than just clock in and be someones wage slave. Guess what right now its a free country and you could earn some royalties yourself. But even then your kids are not guaranteed to never have to work.
Your entire assertion is naive at best. Somethings just don't sell themselves. And someone at anytime mat make something that makes your product obsolete. Its a rare case that I single copywrite will continue to make lots of money. Many successful people have hundreds of copywrites that cost them thousands of dollars to get. Yet maybe one or two has any value.

Here is a little reality while yes some rich people exploit Intellectual property, It is the small guy (or small gal) that Intellectual property protections help out. You act as if everyone is evil greedy bastards and need to be kept from be greedy. Just hedge a little more of that liberty away until we are all wage slaves.
 
Because your child should have to earn his own living.

Sounds like you'll be one of those old folks with a million dollar motorhome with a bumpersticker reading "I'm spending my children's inheritance" - calculating how to spend down to your last dollar on yourself.

That is your logic anyway. If a person's own children shouldn't receive their parents' inheritance, certainly everyone else should earn their own way and no one directly or indirectly through the government should get it either.

"Everyone should earn their own way," very extra conservative of you. Shut all social programs down!!! Do or die!!!
 
At any rate who are you to tell another human being what to do?

Who are you? Copyright laws are a restriction on liberty; they legally define imaginary objects as property in order to restrict what private citizens do with their own tangible property. They are absolutely necessary, and I support them, but you're on the wrong goddamned side of the argument to be using libertarian logic.
 
Who are you? Copyright laws are a restriction on liberty; they legally define imaginary objects as property in order to restrict what private citizens do with their own tangible property. They are absolutely necessary, and I support them, but you're on the wrong goddamned side of the argument to be using libertarian logic.

How does one spend years of their life working on imaginary objects? And how does something imaginary affect tangible property?

Copywrites have their place. Think about this; do we need a better Mickey Mouse? Or do we need a new and improved Rembrandt painting? There is absolutely no integrity in copying artwork. Even artwork that is now in public domain. Hollywood remakes classic stories and butchers them all to hell.

But I also make wood carving tools some pretty specialized that I sell to other wood carvers. Anyone is free to copy them if they like. I have even emailed people that requested the specs.

My point is that there are situations where it is justified to protect ones intrests. Assigning a universal philosophy that says that X amount of time is the maximum that these protections can exist is just naive and ignores reality. The reality is that not everyone is out to screw everyone; and not everyone is honest. Intellectual property laws are just regulations that protect individual liberty so that other individuals or collectives do not take advantage of another persons liberty (and in some cases collectives but there is some controversy in that fact and it really has nothing to do with me personally).
 
How does one spend years of their life working on imaginary objects? And how does something imaginary affect tangible property?

Only by the intervention of the law, which is what I just said.

Copywrites have their place.

I absolutely agree. Copyrights and copyright law serve a vital function in society.

But so do the limitations on copyright. And that's what we are discussing here-- whether the best interests of society, both in encouraging the creation of intellectual property and in making use of it, would be better served by more copyright restrictions or less. I'm arguing in favor of less, but I can't stand with the people that are arguing for none at all, anymore than I can stand with the people that are arguing for more restrictions.
 
Sounds like you'll be one of those old folks with a million dollar motorhome with a bumpersticker reading "I'm spending my children's inheritance" - calculating how to spend down to your last dollar on yourself.

That is your logic anyway. If a person's own children shouldn't receive their parents' inheritance, certainly everyone else should earn their own way and no one directly or indirectly through the government should get it either.

"Everyone should earn their own way," very extra conservative of you. Shut all social programs down!!! Do or die!!!

At least come up with a cohesive response instead of this babble. This debate isn't about inheritance taxes, welfare, or anything else other than Intellectual property laws. Please get back to me when you can respond with something relevant.
 
Back
Top Bottom