Article/Editorial: Why I love patents and copyrights

Discussion in 'Home Theater Lounge' started by Michael, May 18, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael

    Michael Junior Geek

    An editorial/article on copyright and patents. Let the first 20 page HTL thread begin!

  2. I don't disagree with anything he said in the article.

    This part, quoted below, did make me laugh though since it is still the preferred way for many industries to grow profits via new laws like the DMCA. :wink:
  3. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    I like patents because they are how I earn my living. ;)

    I'll read the article tonight.
  4. cjd

    cjd New Member

    So, just take all the people that have those strong negative reactions against patents and copyrights, line 'em up, and let me at 'em with a big hammer.

    These people are simply saying they don't want any illustrations in their books, magazines, they don't want pictures of their favorite sports events, they don't want people to take time to innovate. Except that they're not, they're just saying they want all this crap for free because they want to be rich, they want to have everything for themselves, who the heck cares about anyone else.

    They want to be king.

  5. Is there anyone that doesn't think we need patents and copyrights? Not me.

    My only concern with them is the inequities which exist between and among them. The existance of these differences are due primarily to political contribution bribery and prejudice, and should be done away with.

    For example, why should one artist/creator get to collect on his art/creation forever, while another only gets 7(or so) years? There is no reason I can think of why all creations shouldn't be protected for the same period of time... like say 10 years?
  6. cjd

    cjd New Member

    grumpy day for me, add like a dozen smilies to everything I typed for the day, I think. :)

    Copyright vs Patent: Patents usually become obsolete technologically. Copyright expires if it's not renewed, by the way.

    Works that are copyrightable tend to be works that don't fade, that are as valuable in fifty years as they are when they are created. There's also the difference in what they are, how they're used.

    Let's say, rather than being able to listen to any Beatles songs done by the originals, all you get now is covers. No one does anything new, they just do covers. Old stuff, but it's now free. It's a bad analogy as I'm tired. But it's a very very different world.

    Maybe differently. No copyright? You can now sell my work to companies, claiming it as your own. Copyright no longer protects me. It already happens, but the law that protects is copyright law. How do I identify something as MY creation and protect against such things? (Sure, at that point, said company could have used it for free too...)

    I think that copyright perhaps needs to be split so that a totally different set of laws applies to things like film and studio recordings and stuff, than applies to a photographers work or an illustrator...

    I'll try to put together a blurb on some of my experiences trying to do some work as an independent artist. Michael has asked such in another thread, and it might give you insight into why copyright is what it is, and why it's important that it not be gutted to deal with big studio idiocy. Some relative to stock photo places, some to straight-up commission for photographs and/or illustrations. So far I've never bothered - it wasn't worth the time, energy, and angst.

    Corruption is a different fight, by the way. To me. It goes way beyond just this stuff too.

  7. Paul E. Fox II

    Paul E. Fox II New Member

    But isn't the expiration of Copyright something like "Life plus 80 Years"?

    In my opinion, If I create something and copyright it, then I should be protected but even in that sense, I shouldn't get a blanket Life Plus copyright. It should take action on my part to make sure that I'm protected...say renewal every 10-15 years. If I don't do my work, the material falls into the public domain.

    It's it important enough for me to protect, I should have to make sure it stays protected.

    There is a lot of conversation going on about this now and while these are only MY opinions...I think the points are valid.
  8. DYohn

    DYohn Well-Known Member Donor

    Top Poster Of Month

  9. Paul E. Fox II

    Paul E. Fox II New Member

    Thanks David.
  10. I just don't think that anything deserves to have lifetime protection. And, I think everything should have an equivalent protection which allows them all suffiecient time to recoup costs, and make a living for the creator without any prejudical extra allowances or protection for any specific industry or creation type. What could be fairer than that?
  11. Paul E. Fox II

    Paul E. Fox II New Member


    By your statement, do you mean that if you create and copyright something, you get blanket protection for "XX" amount of time with NO option of renewal?

    This is not a point of contention, I just want to make sure I understand what you mean there.

    If that's the case, I could get behind that as well. How long does it stand to reason that the copyright can be considered valuable?

    At any rate, I think the system, as we have it now, is flawed and archaic by nature. Things move fast and for innovation to flourish, things need to be used, modified, taken apart and examined or it will rot and die on the vine.
  12. Michael

    Michael Junior Geek

    That is exactly why patents have a different standard than copyrights.
  13. cjd

    cjd New Member

    Screw that

    I don't have the time to constantly renew copyright on every damn thing. Copyright, as it applies to the things that existed when it was created, is actually very well put together as a set of laws.

    The problems with copyright we're all seeing exist when the actual artist ultimately is NOT the copyright holder, but some big business whose sole intention is to make money.

    I DO believe works created under this paradigm need to work differently.

  14. Dan S.

    Dan S. New Member

    Just thought this ^^^^ should be here twice. :)
  15. Yes, I don't think any type of creation/invention should have an advantage over any other, and yet, some creations/inventions need to expire for the good of mankind. So, in order to not give prejudicial preference(or deference) to one creation over another, all patents and copyrights need to expire and be of equivalent lengths.

    I think a copyright/patent ought to live long enough to allow the creator to make a profit from their creation, but, not so long as to allow them to live forever off of that one invention. I think that overall 10-12 years would be plenty?

  16. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    I was going to say this myself but haven't had time to post recently. Copyright's "soul" so to speak is to motivate and then protect artists. The system where a large music studio owns the copyright and the musician ends up under a mountain of debt after the album is cut isn't in line with this IMO.

    This is fundamentally flawed. Maybe we should cap your income too. Enough to recoup actual expenses + $5k a year. The rest goes to charity. Sound fair?
  17. DYohn

    DYohn Well-Known Member Donor

    Top Poster Of Month

    HEY WAIT A MINUTE! I thought I was the only comie pinko socialist liberal bastard in this forum??!

  18. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    While I understand your frustration at the obvious power certain large companies (read: Disney) have managed to exert on copyright laws, this needs to be balanced by bearing in mind the function copyrights were intended to provide. While copyright duration may inconvenience you, it does not, IMO, harm society in any way.

    On a more philosophical note, it might be far healthier for you if you just "let it go." This falls into the category of things we need to accept because we cannot change them.

  19. No, but I doubt you'd like the alternative any better since that would mean never having anything like a generic drug either. I'd that that a fair and equitous system would allow for a patent/copyright length to allow ALL creators/inventors to have an equivalent opportunity to profit from their inventions without granting any one creator an advantage over another. If a common length cannot be found, then it would make sense to me that the opposite as what exists should be true and someone who creates life saving goods should have more of an opportunity to make big bucks versus someone who writes a song or makes a movie?

    That's just my opinion.

    Do you disagree with that?
  20. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member


    The more value there is in a copyright, the more the creator can demand when selling or licensing it to a third party.

    The law is not flawed; your objection is with capitalism.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page