Alternate System for US Copyright

[Pingfah]

I can't see a single good reason why a person should have to pay to establish copyright over their own work.

Right off the bat you have the problem of somebody surreptitiously copyrighting your work before you get the chance to, rather than it simply existing from the moment you can prove your creation of it.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I can't see a single good reason why a person should have to pay to establish copyright over their own work.

Technically, you don't.

Right off the bat you have the problem of somebody surreptitiously copyrighting your work before you get the chance to, rather than it simply existing from the moment you can prove your creation of it.

Your copyright happens from the moment of completion. You are registering your copyright with the government--that's where the fee comes in.

Registering it provides some benefits. 1. It very clearly establishes when the copyright happens (and no, you don't have to send yourself a letter with your novel in it.). and 2. it qualifies your for statutory damages. Like in the CBS v. Axanar stuff. Without the registration, you can still sue, and sue for damages, but, I believe, then, you have to prove your damages to get a specific sum.

So. You don't HAVE to pay to register, you can still sue if someone rips you off, but, it's probably better to register your copyright with the government.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I assume Pingfah was criticizing the OP's proposal.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I assume Pingfah was criticizing the OP's proposal.

Oh. i thought they were criticizing the filing fee.

 

[Pingfah]

I know how copyright is established, as Robert said, I was criticising the proposal.

If you HAVE to pay to copyright something in order for it to be yours, as proposed by the OP, then copyright no longer intrinsically exists in your creations. A situation ripe for abuse.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I know how copyright is established, as Robert said, I was criticising the proposal.

Didn't know, it wasn't clear to me. Apologies then.

If you HAVE to pay to copyright something in order for it to be yours, as proposed by the OP, then copyright no longer intrinsically exists in your creations. A situation ripe for abuse.

there is already a fee for registering, the OP's suggestion isn't different from it, as I recall. His suggestion to KEEP paying in order to prevent it from falling into the public domain is.... no.

Edited to add: actually the OP's suggestion for the initial filing fee is cheaper than the government currently asks.

 

[Pingfah]

No, he didn't say to register, he said to establish. As we have discussed, copyright already exists in something you create, you don't have to establish it.

In his proposal, I believe, you have no exclusive right to your own work until you have paid for it, which sounds like a nightmare.

 

[Professor Zoom]

No, he didn't say to register, he said to establish. As we have discussed, copyright already exists in something you create, you don't have to establish it.

In his proposal, I believe, you have no exclusive right to your own work until you have paid for it, which sounds like a nightmare.

Yeah. that's bullshit. You should have it from the moment of creation. Period.

 

[Magellan]

I'm starting to feel like a flat 50 years is pretty fair. Half a century is a long time.

I'm definitely not a fan of the lifetime + x years. Use the money you made during your lifetime to take care of the kids. Or they could go and get jobs like regular folks.

 

[RJDiogenes]

There should simply be perpetual copyright. Intellectual property is not inferior to physical property.

 

[USS Triumphant]

No, he didn't say to register, he said to establish. As we have discussed, copyright already exists in something you create, you don't have to establish it.

In his proposal, I believe, you have no exclusive right to your own work until you have paid for it, which sounds like a nightmare.

Yeah. that's bullshit. You should have it from the moment of creation. Period.

I agree. And I chose the wrong word in my original post.

There should simply be perpetual copyright. Intellectual property is not inferior to physical property.

Okay, so, this is... unwise. First of all, "intellectual property" is a fiction permitted only by the human constructs of copyright, patent, and trademark law, whereas physical property is permitted by physical limitations of the universe - there's an object, I have it, you don't, you want it, we can barter, and then you'll have it and I won't.

Perpetual. Are you seriously suggesting that a licensing fee needs to be paid to the descendants of Thomas Paine, for example, for distributing the text of "Common Sense"? Or that companies should still be licensing a patent in order to make, for instance, basic cookware? You would grind civilization down to a slow crawl to benefit IP holders, most of whom aren't even the people who came up with the idea in the first place.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Copyrights, specific to characters and settings, etc. should last forever. Come up with something new, your own thing, rather than trying to redo what has come before.

You mean nobody should be able to make a story about Frankenstein or Dracula?

I'm sympathetic to both arguments. It seems absurd that Marvel could publish a Superman story or WB a Mickey Mouse story. On the other hand, plenty of iconic stories are in the public domain and that's a good thing. Short of specialized treatment, I can't solve the problem. On the other hand, while I'm sympathetic to Mickey Mouse, I think it's crazy that, while Snow White is in the public domain, her Seven Dwarves are not. I'll also point out that trademark law still offers Disney some protection for Mickey Mouse, but I'm not sure the specifics.

Does the copyright only begin from the moment of the initial creation, or does it get extended if the author does more with it? If they write a sequel using the same property, does the copyright start over?

It doesn't start over but keep in mind it's story-specific. Just because Steamboat Willie enters the public domain (and anyone can recreate that story) doesn't mean the Sorcerer's Apprentice does.

 

[J.T.B.]

Copyrights, specific to characters and settings, etc. should last forever. Come up with something new, your own thing, rather than trying to redo what has come before.

OTOH, couldn't we say generations of heirs should come up with their own thing, rather than kicking back and cashing in on something great-great-great-granddad did?

There should simply be perpetual copyright. Intellectual property is not inferior to physical property.

It's hard to weigh superior/inferior because they are inherently different. There is no physical limitation on the IP; anyone could duplicate it a million times and it would not deprive the creator of the ability to use it.

Copyright (and patent) laws are intended to benefit society, not individuals. The mechanism used to encourage people to create works that are useful to the public is to secure for them the monetary benefit of the work for a period, but that is a byproduct, not the goal.

With the news covering things like extending patent on old medicines to jack up the price, tech patent trolls, lawsuits over the "Happy Birthday" song, etc. I would have thought that the benefits to society of the public domain would be pretty obvious by now.

Perpetual. Are you seriously suggesting that a licensing fee needs to be paid to the descendants of Thomas Paine, for example, for distributing the text of "Common Sense"?

The heirs of the Shakespeare estate would probably have a reality show today.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Copyrights, specific to characters and settings, etc. should last forever. Come up with something new, your own thing, rather than trying to redo what has come before.

You mean nobody should be able to make a story about Frankenstein or Dracula?

Y'know, shortly after posting that I thought, specifically, of Dracula and Frankenstein. And while I don't have an ironclad rebuttal, I do think it's safe to say that stories about vampires and man-made monsters are all fair game - without relying on calling them "Dracula" and "Frankenstein." (In fact, I would argue that the interpretations of Frankenstein that can't simply replicate the story are all the more compelling - because they adapt the central premise to a more contemporary time and audience).

My other conflict on the issue comes from the works of Tolkien and the stance of his estate v. the PJ films (all six of them). On the one hand, I appreciate his estate's desire for (even excessive) quality control, while on the other, I simply adore the LOTR films (and genuinely like the Hobbit films). Still, Tolkien himself was the one to sell the filmmaking rights. So good (if you like PJ) or bad (if you are part of the Tolkien Estate) the current state of the story world is the result of the decisions of its creator.

As, IMO, it ought to be.

 

[RJDiogenes]

There should simply be perpetual copyright. Intellectual property is not inferior to physical property.

Okay, so, this is... unwise. First of all, "intellectual property" is a fiction permitted only by the human constructs of copyright, patent, and trademark law, whereas physical property is permitted by physical limitations of the universe - there's an object, I have it, you don't, you want it, we can barter, and then you'll have it and I won't.

I couldn't disagree more. That's like saying freedom of speech is a legal fiction. The law doesn't create (or destroy) rights, it only acknowledges (or denies) them. That's as true for creator's rights as with anything else.

Perpetual. Are you seriously suggesting that a licensing fee needs to be paid to the descendants of Thomas Paine, for example, for distributing the text of "Common Sense"? Or that companies should still be licensing a patent in order to make, for instance, basic cookware? You would grind civilization down to a slow crawl to benefit IP holders, most of whom aren't even the people who came up with the idea in the first place.

Well, I hardly think you have to worry about any changes in the law being retroactive 250 years. Or at all. You can't change the past, you can only cultivate the future.

OTOH, couldn't we say generations of heirs should come up with their own thing, rather than kicking back and cashing in on something great-great-great-granddad did?

What about a house that's been in the family for a few generations? Should the government kick them out and tell them to get a job and buy their own house?

There should simply be perpetual copyright. Intellectual property is not inferior to physical property.

It's hard to weigh superior/inferior because they are inherently different. There is no physical limitation on the IP; anyone could duplicate it a million times and it would not deprive the creator of the ability to use it.

No, but it's depriving them, even theoretically, of income and it's taking away their right to control what they created. Bill Watterston has chosen not to take advantage of licensing opportunities for Calvin & Hobbes, based on his own personal principles. If someone makes money with C&H products without his permission, they are both stealing from him and misusing his property. Scott Adams, on the other hand, will do anything to make a buck from Dilbert, so if someone makes money with Dilbert products without his permission, they are compromising his income and stealing his property.

Copyright (and patent) laws are intended to benefit society, not individuals. The mechanism used to encourage people to create works that are useful to the public is to secure for them the monetary benefit of the work for a period, but that is a byproduct, not the goal.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need?

With the news covering things like extending patent on old medicines to jack up the price, tech patent trolls, lawsuits over the "Happy Birthday" song, etc. I would have thought that the benefits to society of the public domain would be pretty obvious by now.

There's always a benefit to free stuff (and always people trying to sue for money they don't deserve), but that doesn't mean it's okay to steal from someone.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Copyrights, specific to characters and settings, etc. should last forever. Come up with something new, your own thing, rather than trying to redo what has come before.

You mean nobody should be able to make a story about Frankenstein or Dracula?

Y'know, shortly after posting that I thought, specifically, of Dracula and Frankenstein. And while I don't have an ironclad rebuttal, I do think it's safe to say that stories about vampires and man-made monsters are all fair game - without relying on calling them "Dracula" and "Frankenstein." (In fact, I would argue that the interpretations of Frankenstein that can't simply replicate the story are all the more compelling - because they adapt the central premise to a more contemporary time and audience).

My other conflict on the issue comes from the works of Tolkien and the stance of his estate v. the PJ films (all six of them). On the one hand, I appreciate his estate's desire for (even excessive) quality control, while on the other, I simply adore the LOTR films (and genuinely like the Hobbit films). Still, Tolkien himself was the one to sell the filmmaking rights. So good (if you like PJ) or bad (if you are part of the Tolkien Estate) the current state of the story world is the result of the decisions of its creator.

As, IMO, it ought to be.

My point is that there are tons of great stories in the public domain and we're better off for that. What about the Brother's Grimm? Hansel and Gretel should be off limits?

 

[J.T.B.]

Y'know, shortly after posting that I thought, specifically, of Dracula and Frankenstein. And while I don't have an ironclad rebuttal, I do think it's safe to say that stories about vampires and man-made monsters are all fair game - without relying on calling them "Dracula" and "Frankenstein."

Would that be safe to say under a regime of eternal copyright, though? Or would it have to be determined in court each time the copyright holder thinks a work might infringe? With all that implies, such as possible abuse of legal threats in hopes of monetary settlement out of court.

What about a house that's been in the family for a few generations? Should the government kick them out and tell them to get a job and buy their own house?

Not comparable. Only a limited number of people can use the house.

No, but it's depriving them, even theoretically, of income and it's taking away their right to control what they created.

Right, and that's why copyright infringement and theft are legally different.

Copyright (and patent) laws are intended to benefit society, not individuals. The mechanism used to encourage people to create works that are useful to the public is to secure for them the monetary benefit of the work for a period, but that is a byproduct, not the goal.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need?

I don't follow. That implies no copyright/patent protection at all, which I certainly do not favor.

There's always a benefit to free stuff (and always people trying to sue for money they don't deserve), but that doesn't mean it's okay to steal from someone.

Nobody's saying it is. Stealing deprives someone of physical property. Intellectual property, again, is different, and has the potential to benefit great numbers of people, not just a few lucky inheritors. Few people disagree with the principle of IP eventually becoming public domain. There are reasonable disagreements over periods and mechanisms, but "there should be no copyright" and "there should be eternal copyright" are extreme positions that have no realistic chance of enactment. In the US, "for limited times" is right there in the Constitution.

 

[Leviathan]

I've filed a Copyright on the term 'Copyright'. You all owe me fifty bucks.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

That would be a trademark, no?

However, I've patented the process for filing for a copyright. You owe me money for filing for that copyright.

 

[Ion]

Copyrights, specific to characters and settings, etc. should last forever. Come up with something new, your own thing, rather than trying to redo what has come before.

I have some seriously mixed feelings about most IP issues, but this particular opinion ("come up with your own thing") tends to bug me.

To take it back to Trek fan films, let's say I write a hypothetical screenplay. The screenplay tells a story that has never been told before in the Trek universe, or perhaps in any fictional universe. Did I not create this? That I based it in the Trek universe is immaterial; I told a new story. I created a new thing for people to watch that they haven't seen before.

Unique creation is not limited to shiny new universes; that way lay madness. Everything is based on something else if you only look hard enough. Our art is informed by our experiences.

These days I lean toward the idea that the universe should be fair game, but specific stories and even characters should be off limits. How that could be codified legally, however, is a virtually impossible intellectual exercise, at least for me.

Maybe I'm just not that smart.