Comments on: No term extension? http://www.adamgiles.com/blog/2006/11/27/no-term-extension/ Temporary home of Adam's blog Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:49:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: TigerDunc http://www.adamgiles.com/blog/2006/11/27/no-term-extension/#comment-32 TigerDunc Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:03:18 +0000 http://www.adamgiles.com/2006/11/27/no-term-extension/#comment-32 I shall spend the weekend sharpening my sledgehammer. I shall spend the weekend sharpening my sledgehammer.

]]> By: Adam http://www.adamgiles.com/blog/2006/11/27/no-term-extension/#comment-28 Adam Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:17:59 +0000 http://www.adamgiles.com/2006/11/27/no-term-extension/#comment-28 I'm aware of the argument from the other side - it boils down to "I want to keep receiving money on work that I did 50 years ago" and "Artists are put at a disadvantage by less copyright". I've got a couple of counter agruments, but they're bigger than a comments box allows - I'll write up something more comprehensive over the weekend, but here are a few points to get started with. Public Domain is the default. No one owns the copyright on a tree, no one holds the rights to lying on your back looking at the stars and being inspired" Inspiration comes from the society in which you grow up in and are immersed in. This basically makes all 'new' creative works a derivative work of the culture of society. Society knows that these new works will spend most of their life in the public domain, and the the culture of sciety is enriched as a result of this, and society is grateful. As a reward to the artist society grants a limited period government aprroved monopoly on the right to copy and perform this `new` work - a copyright of limited term. At the end of the term, the work returns to the public domain. Very few other industries have government granted monolpolies - in a captitalist society we tend to see competition as a good thing! and these were the terms under which the work was originally produced - it's in bad taste to wait till the end of the term and then try and change the rules. Very few other professionals are also granded the right to earn money on work they did last year - an engineer doesn;t get a dollar every time a car drives over the bridge he designed last year. Any why aren't artists acting like everyone else and putting some of their royalties in a pension fund? Copyright was even shorter 50 years ago - why the big surprise that it runs out. That's the way it's always been - right from the start. As for artists being disadvantaged, a recent study has show that younger artists have started to choose to distribute their work under CC licences - see here http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/28/uk_artists_instincti.html and given by the number of kids starting bands in their garage, it doesn't seem to be hurting the number of up-and-commers. A more conherent argument over the weekend - I promise! I’m aware of the argument from the other side - it boils down to “I want to keep receiving money on work that I did 50 years ago” and “Artists are put at a disadvantage by less copyright”.

I’ve got a couple of counter agruments, but they’re bigger than a comments box allows - I’ll write up something more comprehensive over the weekend, but here are a few points to get started with.

Public Domain is the default. No one owns the copyright on a tree, no one holds the rights to lying on your back looking at the stars and being inspired”

Inspiration comes from the society in which you grow up in and are immersed in. This basically makes all ‘new’ creative works a derivative work of the culture of society. Society knows that these new works will spend most of their life in the public domain, and the the culture of sciety is enriched as a result of this, and society is grateful. As a reward to the artist society grants a limited period government aprroved monopoly on the right to copy and perform this `new` work - a copyright of limited term.

At the end of the term, the work returns to the public domain.

Very few other industries have government granted monolpolies - in a captitalist society we tend to see competition as a good thing! and these were the terms under which the work was originally produced - it’s in bad taste to wait till the end of the term and then try and change the rules.

Very few other professionals are also granded the right to earn money on work they did last year - an engineer doesn;t get a dollar every time a car drives over the bridge he designed last year. Any why aren’t artists acting like everyone else and putting some of their royalties in a pension fund? Copyright was even shorter 50 years ago - why the big surprise that it runs out. That’s the way it’s always been - right from the start.

As for artists being disadvantaged, a recent study has show that younger artists have started to choose to distribute their work under CC licences - see here http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/28/uk_artists_instincti.html and given by the number of kids starting bands in their garage, it doesn’t seem to be hurting the number of up-and-commers.

A more conherent argument over the weekend - I promise!

]]> By: TigerDunc http://www.adamgiles.com/blog/2006/11/27/no-term-extension/#comment-27 TigerDunc Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:55:05 +0000 http://www.adamgiles.com/2006/11/27/no-term-extension/#comment-27 That's one way of looking at it. Here is an alternative point of view. http://www.jtull.com/news/ukcopyrightlaw.cfm That’s one way of looking at it. Here is an alternative point of view.

http://www.jtull.com/news/ukcopyrightlaw.cfm

]]>