Copyright Consultation Nears Conclusion

[Phaneufenstein]

Nopefully not a fata

http://torrentfreak.com/canadians-ca...lusion-090908/

Pretty interesting... wouldn't want our laws changed to something US like

[Bob]

Definitely don't want anything close to the crap the US has. Hopefully the recent swath of minority governments has the parties too concerned about a re-election rather than trying to pass some new DMCA-North.

[bcb]

Nothing like trying to extract 3 million dollars from a college student

[Phaneufenstein]

Or a single parent
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...aa-jury-finds/

[Bob]

I would not be surprised at all to see the government blow off anything suggested by Canadians and just blindingly accept whatever mandates the industry lobby groups present.

*sigh*

Hopefully I'm dead wrong.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Bob

I would not be surprised at all to see the government blow off anything suggested by Canadians and just blindingly accept whatever mandates the industry lobby groups present.

*sigh*

Hopefully I'm dead wrong.

Well the Liberals and CPC have both introduced copyright legislation that has been a media company's wet dream, only to have their legislation die on the floor when an election was called.

I agree with the original intent of copyright - that it should provide an incentive to have people create artistic works. Artists should be paid for what they create.

But where I don't agree is that copyright should be able to be used as a way punish users who want to listen to the CD on their computer or their DVD on their iPhone. I don't agree that when they are 65 they should still be milking the hit(s) they wrote when they were 20. I don't think if someone writes a tune that has a similar few bars, or writes a book that has a similar theme, that they should expect to be sued. I don't think if someone creates a product that might be used to infringe that it should automatically be banned.

Intellectual property laws have gone beyond merely providing an incentive and have gotten to the point where innovation is now occurring in spite of these laws. It is wrong when the laws are hampering the exact activities they were designed to promote.

/soapbox

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I don't agree that when they are 65 they should still be milking the hit(s) they wrote when they were 20.

Why not? They are still alive so why shouldn't they continue to profit from their work? What do you propose the window of opportunity should be for profiting from one's intellectual/artistic property?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Why not? They are still alive so why shouldn't they continue to profit from their work? What do you propose the window of opportunity should be for profiting from one's intellectual/artistic property?

A couple of reasons. One is that copyright is supposed to be an incentive to create intellectual property, be it music, photographs, paintings, novels, etc. but if you are earning a living off the residual value of prior work then there is less incentive to create new work. Another reason is to allow others to build upon the work that has already been created. If an artist decides he doesn't want anyone else to ever build upon his work (for whatever reason) then with a long term copyright he could block that. The purpose of copyright isn't to block others, it is to provide an incentive to create. Another reason is most works retain little value over the full length of their copyright term. While some like Beatles recordings or other seminal recordings maintain a value, the vast majority do not; yet they also are monopolized by the copyright for the full term.

There was a British study that looked at the costs and benefits of extending copyright, and came down heavily in favour of not extending.
http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helb...IPR_2008_5.pdf

I have read studies that say the optimal balance for copyright is a short as 18 years, but that is a pretty tough economic analysis and I'm sure there are other studies with widely diverging suggestions.

[twotoner]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Intellectual property laws have gone beyond merely providing an incentive and have gotten to the point where innovation is now occurring in spite of these laws. It is wrong when the laws are hampering the exact activities they were designed to promote.

You know something is wrong when there are only two music stores left on the planet - Wallmart and ITunes. Disney buying Marvel comics using patent royalties from Mickey mouse that still haven't expired. Is the artist that drew Mickey or their estate seeing any of this?

[bcb]

I heard that "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted.