Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How long should copyrights last?

Rate this topic


Copyrights  

39 members have voted

  1. 1. How long should copyrights last before becomng public domain?

    • There should be no copyrights. Information should be free!
      0
    • 1 Year
      0
    • 5 Years
      1
    • 10 Years
      2
    • 25 Years
      4
    • 50 Years
      3
    • 75 Years
      3
    • 100 Years.
      2
    • Copyrights are property just like anything else. They should never expire!
      14


Recommended Posts

A specific character or a specific type of character is as copyrighted as the novel, story, play or movie as a whole.
Well, what part of US law supports your statement? Let me point out that if it's not a statutory statement, then the willingness of courts to silently accept a jury's finding is meaningless, because silence is no precedent and thus is not making law. If a sufficiently high court has ruled that "type of character" is copyrightable, despite the actual written law of the land, then I buy that.
Therefore I can write a story invovling sapient warrior cats, as long as I don't call them Kzinti, and as long as they are different enough from the Kzin.
Uh, why? Are you saying that names can be copyrighted? (Suggestion: no, they cannot. The copyright office actually embarrasses itself by the extent to wich is say this over and over). So then the rest of this is the undefined and dubious area of "character copyright", which at present I don't buy.
Fanfic is often done for publication, but not for payment, fanzines usually don't pay (they're done for fun) and neither do fan sites.
Right, but now you're playing into the hands of the evil "copyright is just a way of protecting corporate profits" vermin. Who cares? Make a million bucks, make nothing -- property is property, and doesn't change the (im)propriety of the underlying act.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Make a million bucks, make nothing -- property is property, and doesn't change the (im)propriety of the underlying act.
While I appreciate the perspective of current law on the subject, what I'm really trying to get a handle on is what constitutes intellectual property, by what standard one judges it, how one can own an idea outside of its physical implementation, and at what point ideas derived from the first are no longer part of said first; that is, I want to understand the moral base. (Kudos to the very strange space warrior cats reference, btw!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what part of US law supports your statement? Let me point out that if it's not a statutory statement, then the willingness of courts to silently accept a jury's finding is meaningless, because silence is no precedent and thus is not making law. If a sufficiently high court has ruled that "type of character" is copyrightable, despite the actual written law of the land, then I buy that.

If it isn't law, it should be. The characters in a story are as much the author's invention as the story itself. It is as morally wrong to take characters and claim them as one's own as it is to rip off a story and take it as one's own.

Uh, why? Are you saying that names can be copyrighted? (Suggestion: no, they cannot. The copyright office actually embarrasses itself by the extent to wich is say this over and over).

No, names can't be copyrighted. However, if I used aliens that look like Kzinti, act like Kzinti, and call them Kzinti, I'm ripping off Larry Niven. Likewise if I were to write stories about John Galt and Howard Roark and Ellsworth Toohey and Andre Taganov.

BTW invented names, such as a corporation's name, can be trademarked. And, as far as I know, trademarks don't expire. I can't trademark a common name or word. Therefore I couldn't trademark, say, Henry Rearden. But Walt Disney could, and did, trademark Mickey Mouse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is as morally wrong to take characters and claim them as one's own as it is to rip off a story and take it as one's own.
We're talking about copyright, which has a more specific meaning. The principle you just identified ties the right to copy to giving credit. Copyright says that you cannot copy even if you give credit.
No, names can't be copyrighted. However, if I used aliens that look like Kzinti, act like Kzinti, and call them Kzinti, I'm ripping off Larry Niven.
Morally speaking, I'm not persuaded that it is necessary to explicitly mention who created the tabbies, although there may be someone on the planet who's totally clueless. The question is whether it is, or should be, legally permissible to use another person's idea. While particular expressions are (rightly) protected by copyright, general ideas (rightly) are not subject to copyright. This is the kind of restraint on man's mind that I believe James was concerned about, and which the law does not allow. So before extending the concept of intellectual property, I want to see the argument that it is necessary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, so roundness, wheels, motors, hard drives, or high yield corn are all discoveries and should not be patentable?

Not as such. Roundness is as unpatentable as redness - it is metaphysically available and perceptually evident.

"The wheel" is unpatentable because it is a concept, not an existent. "A wheel made of solid stone with a hole bored in the center for an axle" is patentable. "A wheel of wooden boards joined by straps" is patentable. "A wheel of forged steel-molybidenium" is patentable.

For the same reasons, "motors" is not patentable while "the reciprocating piston engine", "the Wankel rotary engine", "the direct current motor", "the direct durrent brushless motor", "the alternating current motor with exciter field", "the alternating current induction motor", "the centrifugal compression gas turbine", "the axial compression gas turbine" are all patentable.

"Hard drives" can't be patented, specific ways of storing data on physical media can. "High yield corn" can't be patented, specific strains can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're talking about copyright, which has a more specific meaning. The principle you just identified ties the right to copy to giving credit. Copyright says that you cannot copy even if you give credit.

I know. What I'm arguing is that it's morally wrong to use other author's characters in your stories, whether you give credit or not. Look suppose I were to write a novel about John Galt, his whole life from birth to death, would that be morally permissible if I skipped all his actions in Atlas Shrugged? I maintain it would not be.

The question is whether it is, or should be, legally permissible to use another person's idea.
Of course it is. Morallya nd legally. Largely because two authors would do very different things with the same idea.

There's a common ploy in publishing that does exactly that. Authors are asked to write a story absed on a quotation, say, or a photograph, or a painting, or a line of dialogue, or a background. And usually they come up with radically different stories. In a more general way, lots of writers copy other writers ideas, to the point these become cliches, or formulas.

So before extending the concept of intellectual property, I want to see the argument that it is necessary.

Let me think it over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The wheel" is unpatentable because it is a concept, not an existent.

I understand that. I meant specific types of those things.

I was responding to brass dragos response to my previous statement:

I am a bit fuzzy on the differentiation. I can see how roundness is a metaphysical existent, but I haven't seen any naturally occuring wheels. So what makes wheels different from motors or hard drives? Also if I were to breed a new type of high yield corn, would that be a discovery(of a new gene combination) or an invention?

added italics.

What I am trying to understand is the differentiation presented between a discovery and an invention as the basis of patentability. Roundess is discovered but it seems to me that a wheel is invented and built, particular or otherwise.

On the discovery end, a type of high yield corn which is discovered in the form of a mutation and then bred seems to me like it should be protected as a property. His statements imply otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look suppose I were to write a novel about John Galt, his whole life from birth to death, would that be morally permissible if I skipped all his actions in Atlas Shrugged?
I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by this "character". If you write a novel about Joe Palooka (not the same name), who expresses the same philosophical ideals as John Galt, and does not include a repetition of things expressed in AS, would that too be protected? Or how about a novel featuring Bill Jones, a captain on a large interstellar spaceship set out the explore the universe at faster than light speeds (anybody know any novels that worked that way)? The problem is that you seem to be relying on the name, e.g. John Galt, which we agree is not protectable. Now you later say that it's morally and legally okay to use an authors ideas -- such as the archi-Objectivist scientist who withdraws from a corrupt society. What is this "character" that you're claiming should be protected by law? Exactly what are you claiming I have no legal right to do, and what is the justification for such a restriction? Those are the central questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Lately I have been writing a mock constitution that I am basing on Objectivist ideas(note: I do not consider myself an Objectvist but instead a market liberal) and I am writing a rough outline of a legal code. I have gotten to the part on intellectual property rights and am totally stumped. What are your thoughts on copyrights and their duration?

The lifetime of the holder, just like all other property rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unclear about what you're saying, in context of this conversation. Normal property rights are persistent after the lifetime of the original holder, who deeds his property to others upon death.

I know about how long they last. I am writing a book so I made sure to know about it. I was saying that copyright (and other intellectual property rights) should last until the holder dies (with the exption of validly inherited intellectual property rights). I say "holder" because the original holder's lifetime should not be the deciding factor. The current holder's lifetime should be. So if the rights were sold or inheritied validly then the period of the rights should change to that holder's lifetime. Does that clarify it for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep! :lol: Forgive me for not trusting that you for meaning exactly what you said.

It's OK. So many people don't mean exactly what they say that it can be easy to do that. However, I tend to mean exactly what I say. I speak at face value. Of course that leads to many people misunderstanding me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's OK. So many people don't mean exactly what they say that it can be easy to do that. However, I tend to mean exactly what I say. I speak at face value. Of course that leads to many people misunderstanding me.

Sorry are you saying that you dont think intellectual copyright laws are valid? :-P...nah I know what you mean.

"validly inherited intellectual property rights" indeed. Anyone that chooses to have somone inherit their said rights without them being known to be a suitable heir that has a good chance of putting it to good use is a fool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry are you saying that you dont think intellectual copyright laws are valid? :-P...nah I know what you mean.

"validly inherited intellectual property rights" indeed. Anyone that chooses to have somone inherit their said rights without them being known to be a suitable heir that has a good chance of putting it to good use is a fool.

Exactly my sentiment, down to the last fraction of a letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...