Just remembered that I'd meant to go into angry old man mode on my blog over the Helprin piece, thanks for reminding me.
Releasing something under a creative commons license after the copyright has expired would probably be redundant, Shri -- when the copyright expires, the work is in the public domain. The challenge with a lot of corporate media (as Cory Doctorow found out when he released his first novel under a CC license) is that there are a bunch of parties (publishers, investors, etc.) besides the creator who have to get accustomed to the idea of an open license. But as Cory and others are demonstrating, for individuals or companies who aren't dominant in their fields, getting their work distributed is far more important than having absolute control over the IP. When people spontaneously create audiobooks of your work and translations into languages you never heard of, you know you've done the right thing -- for culture in general as well as for your own business.
Shripriya
· 2 years ago
Jeffrey - excellent point re: CC and copyright, especially since copyright is now life of author PLUS 70 years!! I will make the change (another reason not to write posts at 1AM :) ).
megha
· 2 years ago
This post reminds me of the painfully obvious fact that I don't even have a Creative Commons copyright on my blog. Sigh.
August
· 2 years ago
I'm with you Shri, extending the copyright duration is a bad idea. And most of the pro-artist/pro-strong copyright groups are against Helprin's proposal. Don't worry, there will be no effort or momentum to move this forward. It has a lot of flaws. The zero-sum argument isn't even one of the bigger ones (and has some flaws of its own as a counterpoint).
With copyright and trademark logic very similar in legal justification, think of the cost if trademarks were made perpetual. No more generic brand pharmaceuticals, etc...
>>"...for individuals or companies who aren’t dominant in their fields, getting their work distributed is far more important than having absolute control over the IP."
August
· 2 years ago
My last post was cut off:
>>"...for individuals or companies who aren’t dominant in their fields, getting their work distributed is far more important than having absolute control over the IP."
August
· 2 years ago
Something is wrong with the software, trying again:
"...for individuals or companies who aren’t dominant in their fields, getting their work distributed is far more important than having absolute control over the IP."
Well said. Of course current copyright law does not interfere with this goal at all if that’s a creator's objective. A creator can always permit wide, liberal usage if he/she chooses. Creative Commons is great for this purpose, and works well hand-in-hand with copyright law.
Krishna
· 2 years ago
Generally agree with you.
The one thing that Lessig doesn't pick up on in his (otherwise excellent) article is that patents are protected for a far shorter period of time than copyrights are!
I think Lessig was awesome in clearly outlining how Copyright is a merely Government mandated largess to promote sharing creative work. In fact, with that in mind, shouldn't we have higher taxes on copyright related payments?
Why should a copyright last any longer than a patent? It demonstrates an ill-deserved respect for art over science/engineering. An society which values a TV show or a movie more than something that's concretely useful and productive will end up with a population that wants to become performers rather than engineers - Oh wait! The US has just that problem, doesn't it?
Shripriya
· 2 years ago
@ Megha - you should do it. Takes a couple of minutes. Really very simple.
@ August - I agree that Creative Commons is a great tool for artists but I think using it in concert with current copyright won't work. The thing is that current copyright laws are so onerous that in order to really free up "creating", I think that they need to go back to the historical limitations - 28 years. Seems more than enough to me. I am sorry you had problems posting your response (will investigate).
@ Krishna - First let me disagree with your underlying premise that science is more important than art. I think for a truly evolved society both are equally important. In fact, great art can motivate scientists to be even more creative etc. That said, I agree with you that valuing copyright more highly than a patent is a fundamental flaw. Good point.
Nilu
· 2 years ago
Will someone please explain why everyone who thinks permanent copyright is a bad idea, refers to 'few years', 'reasonable time' et al?
What is the cut-off? Is it the creator's death? Or is it the absence of a certain revenue number? Either way, I can think of a million examples to counter this argument. I am sure, they are apparent to you too. So, will you let me know how your optimization works? And what your corresponding weights are for 'public good' and ownership?
he reason I ask is, if one were to accept your argument, one can sufficiently extend it to say, there must be no copyright. I know you don't mean to say that -- but the argument begs the extension.
Shripriya
· 2 years ago
Nilu - Currently the copyright is the creator's death plus seventy years. The issue comes down to what is reasonsable - a period that allows the creator of the work to extract value, but also allows culture to build by allowing the use of that work as a building block.
Just FYI, when copyright started, it used to be 28 years. By the same token, patents are covered for 14 years. There are lots of publications about the length of patents (copyrights) and innovation. Like this one. Alternatively, you could read Lessig's book :)
Personally, I believe that Creative Commons is a better option than copyright.
All Comments
Releasing something under a creative commons license after the copyright has expired would probably be redundant, Shri -- when the copyright expires, the work is in the public domain. The challenge with a lot of corporate media (as Cory Doctorow found out when he released his first novel under a CC license) is that there are a bunch of parties (publishers, investors, etc.) besides the creator who have to get accustomed to the idea of an open license. But as Cory and others are demonstrating, for individuals or companies who aren't dominant in their fields, getting their work distributed is far more important than having absolute control over the IP. When people spontaneously create audiobooks of your work and translations into languages you never heard of, you know you've done the right thing -- for culture in general as well as for your own business.
With copyright and trademark logic very similar in legal justification, think of the cost if trademarks were made perpetual. No more generic brand pharmaceuticals, etc...
>>"...for individuals or companies who aren’t dominant in their fields, getting their work distributed is far more important than having absolute control over the IP."
>>"...for individuals or companies who aren’t dominant in their fields, getting their work distributed is far more important than having absolute control over the IP."
"...for individuals or companies who aren’t dominant in their fields, getting their work distributed is far more important than having absolute control over the IP."
Well said. Of course current copyright law does not interfere with this goal at all if that’s a creator's objective. A creator can always permit wide, liberal usage if he/she chooses. Creative Commons is great for this purpose, and works well hand-in-hand with copyright law.
The one thing that Lessig doesn't pick up on in his (otherwise excellent) article is that patents are protected for a far shorter period of time than copyrights are!
I think Lessig was awesome in clearly outlining how Copyright is a merely Government mandated largess to promote sharing creative work. In fact, with that in mind, shouldn't we have higher taxes on copyright related payments?
Why should a copyright last any longer than a patent? It demonstrates an ill-deserved respect for art over science/engineering. An society which values a TV show or a movie more than something that's concretely useful and productive will end up with a population that wants to become performers rather than engineers - Oh wait! The US has just that problem, doesn't it?
@ August - I agree that Creative Commons is a great tool for artists but I think using it in concert with current copyright won't work. The thing is that current copyright laws are so onerous that in order to really free up "creating", I think that they need to go back to the historical limitations - 28 years. Seems more than enough to me.
I am sorry you had problems posting your response (will investigate).
@ Krishna - First let me disagree with your underlying premise that science is more important than art. I think for a truly evolved society both are equally important. In fact, great art can motivate scientists to be even more creative etc. That said, I agree with you that valuing copyright more highly than a patent is a fundamental flaw. Good point.
What is the cut-off? Is it the creator's death? Or is it the absence of a certain revenue number? Either way, I can think of a million examples to counter this argument. I am sure, they are apparent to you too. So, will you let me know how your optimization works? And what your corresponding weights are for 'public good' and ownership?
he reason I ask is, if one were to accept your argument, one can sufficiently extend it to say, there must be no copyright. I know you don't mean to say that -- but the argument begs the extension.
Just FYI, when copyright started, it used to be 28 years. By the same token, patents are covered for 14 years. There are lots of publications about the length of patents (copyrights) and innovation. Like this one. Alternatively, you could read Lessig's book :)
Personally, I believe that Creative Commons is a better option than copyright.