Comments on: Copyrights as patents

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:31:20 +0000

I absolutely agree that a patent to protect creative work is a dangerous suggestion. What I was trying to get across, was that a patent has a limited lifespan – in certain circumstances, and that once that patent has expired there is no longer protection to the original creator….

Copyright is an essential mechanism to protecting creative works, but it has definitely been manipulated to ensure that the copyright holder maintains an indefinite hold over the income generated from their works. There is nothing wrong in an artist making money, just the fact that it has become a license to print money.

The point of my article is stimulate thinking. I don’t want it to be seen as a dogmatic standpoint.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:11:40 +0000

This suggestion takes two very narrow issues, a more limited term and the need for registration, and then compares copyright to patents. Copyright is an exclusive right to do certain things (produce, reproduce, distribute, communicate to the public, perform, etc) with an expression of an idea.

Patents are extremely different — they aren’t a right to do something, but a right to stop someone else from doing something. If a given invention includes 50 patented methods then everyone (including the inventor) must get the permission of all of those patent holders in order to manufacture the invention.

While I agree that copyright should require registration (after possibly a short term of automatic protection), and should have a far smaller copyright term. There have also been suggestions that different types of works should have different terms.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:56:24 +0000

Another thought: When a book, record, or movie goes “out of print” (the distributor has decided not to sell (or make) any more copies) then the copyright (if held by anyone other than the original author or composer) automatically expires. In this case, the rights would typically belong a corporation or an estate that has decided that the work is not commercially viable and there is no further revenue to be derived from it. The public should be allowed to freely copy, trade, and (especially) creative derivative works from the works that the rights holders deem to be ‘worthless’.

–TG

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:44:49 +0000

“Congress should recognize that artists are making far more than reasonable compensation with the current laws.”

Not so my friend. A few artists are making millions, far more than they deserve while many, far more talented are not making any money and are dying in poverty.

Just ask the composers and heris of my country, Puerto Rico or of Cuba. These died peniless while the ganster American publishers made millios off the back of the composers. A good article about the fate of Cuban composers can be read here: Writers of Buena Vista Hits Were Paid With a Few Pesos and Rum – http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-10-2005-69765.asp

and here:
http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/cubaandpeer.htm

My father was to many the greatest popular song compose, but never many any mmoney off his songs. Just visit my page.

There are about 75 records in the market with his songs and no one has paid us heirs a single cent in royalties in the past 12 yeas since my father died. RIAA’s Sony alone has 16 of these records.

The system is a huge fraud that is destroying creativity and the American congress (that passes laws that run my country) gives a damn. The American courts care even less.

In a few words, artists get the shaft, in America.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:10:58 +0000

and the goverment is seeing some of this money by way of lobby groups and taxes…so why would they want to change it??

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:10:04 +0000

What we really need is to ABOLISH both the copyright and the patent system at ALL. They outlived their purpose and now are just an excuse to install a worlwide fascist plutocratic dictatorship.
Anarchy now !

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:34:16 +0000

Copyrights were intended to encourage creative works. An artist/actor has a right to see some financial gain from there works without the world copying there idea before they can make a buck. However, I mean a reasonable financial gain. The current copyright laws need to be adjusted to that reflect that. Most people would pay a reasonable amount for a DVD or music CD, but they are not willing to pay the outrages inflated prices that the Music and Movie companies have to offer. This has lead society to use P2P networks to get copyrighted materials. Congress should recognize that artists are making far more than reasonable compensation with the current laws. They should recognize that current law criminalizes thousands if not millions of people in the US who would prefer to obtain copyrighted materials leagally but dont support the outrages prices. The copyright laws need to be adjusted to balance the needs of the artists with the needs of the society, while promoting creativity. The current scheme has the scale tilted against normal citizens and gives far more than reasable compensation to the artist. The MPAA and IRAA love the current tilt in the scale and are fighting to the death to keep that tilt. The government should not take the same approach as the IRAA and MPAA of fighting against thousands/millions US citizens.

Open your eyes congress, the american people have a need. Stop dancing to the tune of the MPAA’s and IRAA’s flute. Make things balanced again.