Copyright: Forever Less One Day

[Phillyman]

A good video to watch, where do you fall on this issue?

and a second more recent stab at the debate....

[tcaud]

I don't think it's really an issue. Trademark has largely usurped copyright as the primary means of protection anyhow. Even if Disney's character copyrights expire, you still won't be able to use them because trademark is forever unless renewal lapses. If you really want change, you reform trademark law, not copyright. Fiction franchises are protected by both copyright law, which protects the relationships between the characters, and trademark law, which protects the world's elements including the characters. I do think reformers were right to criticize Disney for lobbying for the extension bill, because Disney clearly saw the extension of copyright as a barrier/distraction to reform of trademark law, which is their true fear.

The danger with copyright comes with copyrighted products being seen as necessary. Then the copyrighted product becomes an institution in itself, a source of power and constraint on opportunity, because requisite goods always have priority over non-requisite goods. People buy the necessary good at whatever price is offered, giving its producer all the wealth. I would cite Adobe's graphics suite as an example of such a good: it's hugely expensive and a barrier to entry for entreprenuers, but many professionals won't join an effort that doesn't have access to it. Adobe makes use of software patents to prevent cloning attempts. This brings us to patents, which are the -real- thorn in the side of innovation in our times. Patents are particularly obstructive when there are two strongly competing parties which juxtapose themselves against each other using competing, opposite technologies.

Many of the problems people have with copyright are of their own making. They develop attachments to copyrighted works and grow accustomed to living in their context, and so lose their intellectual and emotional independence. They become slaves to the machine by their will, and then complain about their slavery. Independent people don't complain about copyright because they are able to find value in alternatives which offer better value. Patents are another story: the best methods are always those most easily understood by the brain, and once those methods are seized, it becomes very expensive to create practical alternatives.

I do think the sale of rights somewhat a negative, because it means that people can be bullied into giving up their IP and independence. The development of holding companies, which focus on obtaining IP, is discouraging innovation from taking hold and concentrating wealth; this along with increased automation is creating growing unemployment and technological misdirection. I think much of the scholarly attention to IP reform is on that point, of it being one means to weaking the 1%.

[te72]

Tcaud, I've found some of your posts somewhat grating, but I appreciate the insight in your above post. Well said.

Personally, I think that anything that infringes on a creator's output is generally a bad thing. For example, a lot of fan made video games using existing characters, whether they be true to the original story of a game, or more along the lines of fan fiction, get shut down by the rights holders.

Now, if someone were trying to profit off the creativity of another person... shut it down. If someone is making something using your characters and putting their own spin on it, with no intention of selling it? Leave it alone. Worst case, it gives your property a bit of a bad image. Best case, they do a fantastic job, your company can buy it for a reasonable price, then sell it to the masses who would be happy to pay for it.

Imagine if Chuck Rock had patented the wheel... we'd all be walking today.