Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35658

It has only recently occurred to me quite how artificial copyright and patent law is (even more than most law). Ownership of ideas and their implementation is a pretty weird thing, in some respects; if I look at what you are doing, and see that it is better than what I am doing, it would be natural to change what I am doing in accordance with that, for example. And normally I can, unless you have applied for and recieved a patent, or can prove copyright. So it isn't just that you own your brilliant idea automatically, you have to take some administrative steps to ensure the protection of your ownership that the law provides for.

So, the reason normally given for these laws is to encourage inventiveness, by protecting the revenues that come to the inventor from their successful invention, or to protect the revenues from the creativity of the author, or the musician, or whatever. That seems fair enough, as that is an argument about the public good, ie, that we all benefit, on average, if people are encouraged to produce this stuff. The length of tiem that this protection lasts for would then be the contentious issue; in the US, copyright (for example) is extendable to 95 years from the death of the author, I think (in the UK, it is 75 years); medical patents, however have a much shorter lifespan (is it about 20-25 years?).

What do people think would be an appropriate length for the different protections? Should some things not be protectable, in the intellectual property sense (for example, discovery of human genes)? I personally think that copyrights last way too long, for example.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

I was gonna post something about this in relation to music. Apparently the US is lobbying the EU to have the copyright restrictions on music lengthened. In the EU (including Britain) copyright exists for 50 years after original recording. Once 50 years has passed then anyone is legally allowed to reproduce recorded music and sell it themselves, in the US it is 95 years (as with written work). The US industry ie RIAA have an issue with the EU laws, because basically it means that an EU based outfit can start to undercut the record companies and supply cheap mass produced music of what is officially still copyrighted material in the US. This will be true for example, for the Beatles soon and Michael Jackson will not be able to do anything about it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 6971

I don't think the EU could sell those albums in the US since they'd be violating US law. It depends on how the law is worded. If no one can release copyrighted music/literature in the US for 95 years except for the owner of that music then there will be no effect in terms of what is sold and distributed in the US. It would be illegal to do so in any way, shape, or form in the US. I'm sure the RIAA is thinking in terms of international sales as well.

I don't know about a time length. Look at the Doors, they refuse to sell their music to advertisers. They don't want "Break on Through" associated with a shaving razor or "Hello I Love You" associated with eBay. I think that's so admirable in my mind. It should have to do with artist's death. As soon as the artist is dead, give it maybe 10 years, if that's how it works. That I think is the only way to do it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

>>>> I don't think the EU could sell those albums in the US since they'd be violating US
>>>> law.

Yes they can, they can sell them as imports. Thats why EMI and the RIAA are currently lobbying the EU because they stand to lose shitloads of money in the next few years.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35658

Even if they can't sell them as imports, the fact that huge potential markets (the EU, China, etc) won't play ball will hurt; although the US is the primary market right now, I guess, the potential of other markets must be attractive to RIAA members. They won't be too happy if those markets don't conform to the copyright values that the RIAA hold dear.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: A New England
Posts: 9187

I think the music should be deleted on the death of the artist. Now that would make for an interesting underground trade in deleted music recordings.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goatboy
I think the music should be deleted on the death of the artist. Now that would make for an interesting underground trade in deleted music recordings.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35658

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
While simultaneously creating a huge incentive for people to hunt down and murder bad musicians.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

I remebered an intersting thing about patenting and stuff that I listened to on the World Service the other week. It was basically a discussion about pharmaceutical patents and how they must be protected internationally to stop people making generics. Obviously there is an argument, particular in the AID and HIV arena that this simply punishes poor countries that cannot afford them in the firts place.

What I thought was most interesting though in this discussion was a point made a British particpant (some patent type lawyer) towards the American participant (another lawyer I think) who was arguing strongly in favour of internationally enforced protection of patents, along the lines of being able to sue nations that allowed patent theft to occur of patents held elsewhere etc.

This British guy made the point that if one was to go down that road America herself would have to pay a colossal fortune out to Britain in due of the patent theft that it engaged in at the end of the 19th century and the industrial revolution. Things like railroads, steam engines, civil engineering techniques etc all had British patents on them at this time but no due was paid to patent holders when the intellectual property was appropraited by the US as it built its internal infrastructure.

Now obviously something like this is never going to happen, but I thought the point that the lawyer was making, that patent theft is only wrong in some cases and in others is ognored was an interestng one.



Something interesting from the Hosue fo Commons about copyright from 1841. This speech single handedly crushed the bill proposing copyright terms be extended to 60 years in the UK.

http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm


Personally I think a lot of patents, particularly software patents, stifle innovation.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 6971

Patents are a bitch of a topic. A group of people work their asses off to achieve something and they patent it to prevent others from using their new idea. It does slow overall innovation and is counterproductive to an advancing society but at the same time those that fund the endeavors to create new products are not being compensated in any way besides being the exclusive seller. Innovation would be even slower if this wasn't the practice.

At the same time, I don't see why a company would not sell rights to use the idea contained in the patent to others around the world. The company would recuperate a significant amount very quickly and still be the only source in their own country. Ideally this would provide the idea to everyone around the world at a lower price instantly and the creators would certainly make their money.

But that's just ideally.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged