Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 32 of 32
  1. #26
    right about pizzagate Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    83,642
    comes back to why IP is govt-protected anyway. the question is whether, why govt would protect IP forever
    My question is if you're gonna look at it as tangible property, why do you want to take it away from the family after the original owner dies?

    Might as well confiscate Walt's Ming vase if he has one and stick in a museum.

  2. #27
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    My question is if you're gonna look at it as tangible property, why do you want to take it away from the family after the original owner dies?

    Might as well confiscate Walt's Ming vase if he has one and stick in a museum.
    Because Mickey Mouse is an idea. It turns in actual tangible Ming vases when you turn that idea into the merchandise.

    It makes sense that you would want to reward Walt for the time he invested into coming up with a successful idea, for a limited time, by breaking one of the most fundamental basis of our economy.

    The Cons ution recognizes there's an implicit benefit to society as a whole by letting those successful ideas fall into the public domain after limited times.

    It allows for historians and archivists to do ent them, and everyone to learn about what went right and wrong. We evolve as a society on the shoulders of previous successes and failures.

    These extensions make a mockery of that and simply slows us down. Mickey might now be the litmus test for advancing "useful art", but it's not just Mickey getting an extension, there's million of useful IPs out there that we could be dissecting an learning from.

  3. #28
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    100,825
    Both the copyright and patent systems grant a cons utional, government sanctioned monopoly for what's supposed to be a limited time.

    "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

    Patents have been generally kept within 20 years, but the situation with copyrights is absolutely disgusting.

    It's not just that they're looking to extend it for almost 2 lifetimes, but they're also trying to restore retroactive rights to material that was already in the public domain.

    If you love capitalism, then you gotta love compe ion and innovation, and this kind of bas ization of an otherwise useful system should really tick you off, IMO.
    that's incomprehensible

  4. #29
    right about pizzagate Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    83,642
    Because Mickey Mouse is an idea. It turns in actual tangible Ming vases when you turn that idea into the merchandise.

    It makes sense that you would want to reward Walt for the time he invested into coming up with a successful idea, for a limited time, by breaking one of the most fundamental basis of our economy.

    The Cons ution recognizes there's an implicit benefit to society as a whole by letting those successful ideas fall into the public domain after limited times.

    It allows for historians and archivists to do ent them, and everyone to learn about what went right and wrong. We evolve as a society on the shoulders of previous successes and failures.

    These extensions make a mockery of that and simply slows us down. Mickey might now be the litmus test for advancing "useful art", but it's not just Mickey getting an extension, there's million of useful IPs out there that we could be dissecting an learning from.
    Yeah I'm still not seeing how Mickey needs to be public domain for the greater good, komrade.

  5. #30
    Believe. Fabbs's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Post Count
    15,577
    "Because it apparently isn't bad enough already, Congress is looking to extend the copyright term to 144 years,". "Please write to your representatives and consider donating to the EFF." American attorney Lawrence Lessig writes via Wired: Almost exactly 20 years ago, Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended the term of existing copyrights by 20 years. The Act was the 11th extension in the prior 40 years, timed perfectly to assure that certain famous works, including Mickey Mouse, would not pass into the public domain. Immediately after the law came into force, a digital publisher of public domain works, Eric Eldred, filed a lawsuit challenging the act [which the Supreme Court later rejected].

    Twenty years later, the fight for term extension has begun anew. Buried in an otherwise harmless act, passed by the House and now being considered in the Senate, this new bill purports to create a new digital performance right -- basically the right to control copies of recordings on any digital platform (ever hear of the internet?) -- for musical recordings made before 1972. These recordings would now have a new right, protected until 2067, which, for some, means a total term of protection of 144 years. The beneficiaries of this monopoly need do nothing to get the benefit of this gift. They don't have to make the work available. Nor do they have to register their claims in advance.
    Could you give a working example of this?

  6. #31
    Believe. Othyus Lalanne's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    2,150
    My question is if you're gonna look at it as tangible property, why do you want to take it away from the family after the original owner dies?

    Might as well confiscate Walt's Ming vase if he has one and stick in a museum.
    Should NBA players pay tax for moves they take from other players?

  7. #32
    right about pizzagate Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    83,642
    Should NBA players pay tax for moves they take from other players?
    Excellent analogy!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •