Alternate System for US Copyright

[USS Triumphant]

I couldn't disagree more. That's like saying freedom of speech is a legal fiction. <snip> From each according to their ability, to each according to their need?

Honestly, freedom of speech is, if not a legal fiction, then a legal construct - it requires that it be acknowledged by society and protected by society's laws in order to be real. Without that being true, your "freedom of speech" goes about as far as my ability to beat you with a tubesock full of wood screws if I don't like what you say. (Rule of might, in other words.)

And implying that a reasonable limit on the duration of copyright for the general good (something the Constitution was supposed to provide for) is akin to Marxist Communism is absurd. Just like the above freedom of speech, the natural state of things would be that you would write/record/sing/etc something, and everybody would copy the crap out of it right away if it was any good. (See also: much of Asia ) It requires society to enforce a copyright for a work's creator in the first place - and it is not unreasonable for society to do that in a fashion that benefits society as well as that creator, in the process.

I'm not an information-must-be-free guy. If the law still said 20 years, I'd probably be arguing for 30 - I have friends who live off of what they make from producing works of several kinds, and lifespans are longer than in the 1790s. But there has to be a limit for the good of us all - and it is unacceptable that almost nothing enters the public domain each Jan 1st, anymore.

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.

Unfortunately for you, I have determined that holding patents is against Gene Roddenberry's original vision for the future as seen in TOS, and so we will all be proceeding with our copyright applications (which Gene approved of, obviously, since he had some) without your approval. #IStandWithSelfServingNonsense

 

[RJDiogenes]

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?

Well, they are underage.

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

It's a matter of principle. For the sake of discussion, the house is a TARDIS.

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

But, no, that's why copyright infringement and theft should be legally the same.

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

I wasn't implying that; just making the point that somebody's livelihood or physical property would not be treated so shabbily as their intellectual property. The "greater good of society" is not a valid argument for taking somebody's property (in most cases-- sure, there's eminent domain and so on, but that has to be justified and compensated, not just "you've had your stuff long enough").

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.

The Constitution also has an Amendment process, which has been used before (and needs to be used again, for a couple of reasons). Intellectual property only seems different, because it's more abstract than physical property. And I don't consider acknowledging creator's rights to be an extreme position, but you are right that perpetual copyright will not be something we see for a long while.

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

I've patented language. I win.

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.

If you can write a story, you can create characters and a setting. That's generally how it's done. One work inspires another. But the new creator makes the work their own. If Star Trek gives me ideas for stories (which it does), then all I have to do is create my own Space Opera universe (which I've done) and write them. Of course, when I read a story or watch something on TV, I have a tendency to say, "That was pretty good, but I'd do it this way...."

Honestly, freedom of speech is, if not a legal fiction, then a legal construct - it requires that it be acknowledged by society and protected by society's laws in order to be real. Without that being true, your "freedom of speech" goes about as far as my ability to beat you with a tubesock full of wood screws if I don't like what you say. (Rule of might, in other words.)

Freedom of speech is a Natural Right (i.e. inalienable). Of course, like anything else, it requires that it be acknowledged and protected by society because people are imperfect. But the right of a creator to their own creation should also be acknowledged as a Natural Right.

And implying that a reasonable limit on the duration of copyright for the general good (something the Constitution was supposed to provide for) is akin to Marxist Communism is absurd.

As Dogbert says, "Sometimes sarcasm makes us think more clearly."

Just like the above freedom of speech, the natural state of things would be that you would write/record/sing/etc something, and everybody would copy the crap out of it right away if it was any good.

The natural state of things in a perfect world would be that you would create something and everyone would respect that it is yours. But we don't live in a perfect world and thus we have laws.

But there has to be a limit for the good of us all - and it is unacceptable that almost nothing enters the public domain each Jan 1st, anymore.

Why do you think so? What bad things will happen to destroy society if intellectual property is treated equally with physical property.

 

[Ion]

If you can write a story, you can create characters and a setting. That's generally how it's done. One work inspires another. But the new creator makes the work their own. If Star Trek gives me ideas for stories (which it does), then all I have to do is create my own Space Opera universe (which I've done) and write them. Of course, when I read a story or watch something on TV, I have a tendency to say, "That was pretty good, but I'd do it this way...."

I don't disagree that one can set their story in a new universe. That doesn't, in my mind, make it any less of a unique creation if it's set in someone else's. I also don't think it detracts from either the work, or the talent of the creator. Some stories just beg to be told in certain universes, and just don't work as well in others.

I only see it as a legal difficulty -- where must the line be drawn to protect the livelihood of the creator? The answers to that are many and varied depending on your perspective. Thus the problem.

JMHO, of course.

 

[suarezguy]

This was almost a post in another thread related to the Axanar mess, but I didn't want to derail it with this tangent. The subject is an alternative system to the current copyright system used in the US.

To establish a copyright, you pay a filing fee of like $25 - something reasonable. After 10 years, you have to pay $2 to keep it. You then pay double the amount from the previous year, every year, to maintain it. After 20 years, that's about a grand - probably not too much for someone to manage, even a small business or individual that is making money off of it. After 30, it's around a million - so you'd better really be making dough off of it to want to keep it.

I would hope a Trek fan would realize there's value to an old product being officially owned and published even if its a niche product. In my view both Trek and Marvel comics series were making good, entertaining, even reasonably-priced products 30 years after they began even though they weren't making huge financial returns and it would be a shame if the owners lost the rights and, because they lost the exclusivity, you got no more professionally-made products.

Life of the original creator + 30 or 50 years seems a good compromise between respecting the importance of property and inheritance rights and not having perpetual exclusivity.

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.

Sure but, from using someone else's universe without authorization, you shouldn't be able to financially profit from it.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I don't disagree that one can set their story in a new universe. That doesn't, in my mind, make it any less of a unique creation if it's set in someone else's. I also don't think it detracts from either the work, or the talent of the creator. Some stories just beg to be told in certain universes, and just don't work as well in others.

I only see it as a legal difficulty -- where must the line be drawn to protect the livelihood of the creator? The answers to that are many and varied depending on your perspective. Thus the problem.

JMHO, of course.

Sure, the story is unique, but you're hurting yourself by using someone else's creations. You may have the ability to build a beautiful statue, but if you do it on someone's front lawn they may not appreciate it.

 

[Ion]

Sure, the story is unique, but you're hurting yourself by using someone else's creations. You may have the ability to build a beautiful statue, but if you do it on someone's front lawn they may not appreciate it.

That would tend to imply that enjoying someone else's creation would also be hurting myself. Watching/reading/listening is not the only way to enjoy something. There's also writing.

Besides, nobody gets off my lawn, so why should I get off theirs?

 

[mos6507]

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.

What tends to happen is nobody ever creates something new. They just file off the serial numbers and call it something new which is OK legally but isn't really new.

If you want to go down the rabbit hole of questioning copyright. Google Lawrence Lessig.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Still better than glorified fanfic.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Why does the fee double after every year after the initial year?

 

[Leviathan]

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.

Sadly that patent only helps you if I create a similar process and profit from it. I noticed you used copyright again....you're at $100.

...in Lieu of the $100 I'll take 5052 Quatloos. I believe that's the current USD exchange rate to the QTL.

 

[Overgeeked]

It should be automatic as it is now, but it should be limited as originally intended. Something like 30-50 years max, instead of the insanity that it is now.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Freedom of speech is a Natural Right (i.e. inalienable). Of course, like anything else, it requires that it be acknowledged and protected by society because people are imperfect. But the right of a creator to their own creation should also be acknowledged as a Natural Right.

That makes no sense at all and betrays a tremendous misunderstanding of what natural rights are.

Freedom of speech is a natural right because all humans, generally speaking, are inherently capable of communicating, and for anyone to take that away or suppress it is an injustice.

Of course, we also all have the ability to tell stories and create works of art. To physically take a person's work of art is theft--there's no need to debate that; it should be self-evident. But what if someone tells you a story, or lets you read a story they wrote? For you to duplicate it to the best of your recollection, or produce it in another form (say, a movie or TV show) does not deprive the original storyteller of his or her creation. It does not diminish their freedom of speech. However, giving that person the power of copyright so you can't simply knock off their work for your own purposes is itself an imposition on your natural right to free speech. You would retell this story your way, but you aren't allowed to because the law forbids it.

This does not make copyright law (or IP laws in general) fundamentally unjust, but it's utterly backwards to claim that IP laws are protecting a natural right. They are doing just the opposite. They present limits on free expression, to say, "if someone else created this, you may not use it you as wish without the creator's permission."

It would be impossible to treat copyright as a natural right because it doesn't exist without legal protection--literally, without such laws in place there is nothing stopping people from manipulating and riffing on your work as they please, consistent with their natural right to free speech. Your demand for perpetual copyright is essentially the opposite of what you're saying you want (respect for natural rights).