somehow i don't think your personal occupation is entire relevant, except in that it brings a different prespective on the music industry (a prespective, which i lack, is valubale in itself) but the details don't seem useful except to provide ammunition for ad hominem attacks (which don't serve the conversation at all) hmm. </pointy tangent>

ok, so some artists don't make enough without royalties to reliably cover a pension, then perhaps society shuld offer them a public pension. (being a socialist i would argue for this in any case)

And though i would be willing to see a 10 year limit on copyright, i do feel this is a compromise of my principles, that creative works should be available to all (for the cost of distribution, and perhaps a commission could be added on top of the distribution cost and paid back to the author) And that by treating ideas as if the are abundant we will better inspire new artists and creative designers to produce more ideas. (instead of preciously guarding our information, and preventing others from accessing it)

That the film/video industry would suffer is not a problem for me, one industry's destruction for the benifit of society feels like a cost worth paying. (and with less money available the industry would be forced to be more inventive, and stop wasting millions on crappy films which may become 'blockbusters' i don't think of this as much of a lose - destroying one thing will always make room for another)

@ orathaic: "somehow i don't think your personal occupation is entire relevant"

I was asked!!! Tantris asked me, so I answered him.

As for your comments on the film industry, I don't have so much knowledge of that industry, so perhaps someone else can comment...

I do think that 10 years is probably a bit too short, but I do think that copy write law is badly in need of reform to shorten it's life. (I do like the idea someone mentioned earlier about having to renew it every 10 years, with a slightly higher cost each time, and I would assume with some eventual point at which it could no longer be renewed).

I certainly do see the value in copy write, (Not to assure that we have music and books and movies, and everything else, because people will always make those, but to assure that we have people who can devote their lives and time to doing so and get paid enough to make that worthwhile, thus ensuring we have *better* music, books, movies etc.), but I don't think it's current state is reasonable. I do think things eventually need to enter the public domain, and it needs to be within a reasonable period of time.

Hmmm... seem to be having trouble posting...

Oh there it is. Odd didn't show up the first couple times I refreshed...

Copyright. Not "copy write".

I'm glad copyrights were invented. as we all know there were no musicians or writers o artists of any kind before them. they couldnt exist without copyrights as they, obviously, would have starved to death

Strawman fallacy! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! HIGH-CLASS REASONING ITT

Copyrights are just. It's simple schoolyard morality:

"But I came up with it firrrrst!"

So yeah. We need them. What we don't need are all the weird laws. I don't know where to draw the line, it's all a bit over my head, but I think they should preserve their basic function whatever we do, which is to give credit where credit is due.

Shakespeare's plays are not copyrighted. Does he not have credit for Romeo and Juliet?

I'm afraid he's long dead, Tantris. Take a minute.

Plagiarism is plagiarism whether the work is copyrighted or not. I do not want people to start plagiarizing. This doesn't mean that authors need copyrights to last forever to protect against it. It doesn't mean authors need copyrights to disallow it.

apparently Shakespeare was able to defend the owernship of his work, though perhaps that was by keeping the script secret, and i'm fairly sure he was paid to be a playwright by the theatre his plays were performed, (until the globe was built which he part owned)

There is a lot missing from most versions of shakespeare's play, mainly the stage directions (without which you can't really reproduce his play, and there are endless arguements about what he may have meant, for example 'does she wink?' in the last scene of 'taming of the shrew') So while the law didn't protect his work, he did.

The fact that his works are now in the public domain and form a part of the culture of english is valuable. The fact that modern culture is owned by big corporations who push for extensions to the time which these copyrights are applicable is not neccesarily in the interest of our society.

also, a nice little article i just came across: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8330633.stm

also regarding books and copyright:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8233324.stm

I agree with orathaic. There are no modern scientific discoveries that are not based on thousands of years of research and you could argue the same for cultural works. I think we all agree that ideas and inventions become collective property at some point. The real question is when? Shakespeare's descendants do not receive royalties but Tolkien's descendants do. Where do we draw the line? I personally feel that at the very least copyrights should not extend beyond the creators lifetime and possibly for a much shorter duration.

I agree that they should not extend beyond the creator's lifetime.

Has anyone considered that alot of literature and music is created because of the *potential* for great riches? People write novels imagining them to be the next best seller, practice guitar because they want to be a rockstar. Creating the opportunity for greatness leads people to reach for their potential. This is a fundamental element in our system.

Also Sicarius, you aren't going to convince anyone with your "cave men didnt have copyright, cavemen played drums, thus the modern music industry doesn't need copyright" argument.

@Centurian:
So, you write a best seller and you hold the copyright for 10 years, renewable for 10 year periods. Do you believe your best seller will be making big sales for 20+ years? 30+ years? Are you going to write more books, such that having some of your old best sellers available for free would perhaps increase later sales?

Libraries already loan books to people free. Yet, people buy books anyway. Unless you think your book is going to be assigned reading in school forever, your sales will probably go down over time. You can be great without copyright.

How many of you have bought a book from 10+ years ago lately? 20+ years? Oh, we have all bought some classics, but what about the bestsellers of the time. Forget the bestsellers for a minute, what about the moderate sellers. They often get lost and disappear. Wouldn't it be amazing to have the ability to download all these old books for 50 cents a book, as ebooks? I actually spent a summer trying to find a book out of print from 20 years ago. I finally found it, and bought it. Don't get me wrong, it deserves to be out of print and is kind of crappy, but...I wanted to read it again.

This is just one bonus of this change. You can also have works grow out of other works. Although, this is the controversy right? Why should you be able to write about stories in the Star Wars universe, without Lucas' permission? Why should you be able to make a show based on those ideas? Well, ignore Star Wars, what about the Time Machine. Was that story harmed with the remake of the movie in 2002? The story is out of copyright. What about a video game based on it? That should be up to the great grandson of HG Wells, who must give permission and get $20 million for it?

I was responding to no copyright. As for 10 years, if I wrote a masterpiece I wouldn't think its fair for some movie company to wait 10 years and then butcher it on film. I don't know if Shakespeare would have approved of the modern romeo and juliet (you know, where they are in LA and they have sword 9mms and stuff like that?) but if something like that happened to my book, I would like a little veto power over it, so it has to be lifetime.

Well, you can just stop that by paying more and more money to hold the rights. I don't think we can eliminate copyright. As it is said in the US Constitution, we should make a "limited monopoly" to promote useful arts. I agree with that. 70 years + the life of the author is insane.

But see, you only think of the author, you don't think of society. Does it benefit society to have you being able to hold the movie from being made for 100 years, because you don't like the way it will be done? There is a balancing act between the two sides. There has to be a benefit to the author and to society.

Can we at least pass a bill specifically revoking the copyright on "Happy Birthday to You", so we can stop hearing stupid made up substitutes in restaurants worried about being sued?

The last time stuff came into the public domain was like 1923. Nothing since then. Works are not usually registered, so no one even knows who owns the copyrights on many things. In fact, I would be careful about copying any of my words here...they are copyrighted at this point until 70 years past my death. Assuming we don't extend them again. Woo! Quite the amazing legacy I have to leave to my kids.

Tantris said: "In fact, I would be careful about copying any of my words here...they are copyrighted at this point until 70 years past my death."

that's ok i'll cite fair use in my copying of your words, or the failure of our copyright system to properly account for modern technology.

have i bought a book recently from 10+ years ago? Yes, it was second hand and cost me €4 - none of that cost went to the authors as royalty.

I don't see why you should have the right to controll your own universe, ten years later someone decides to make a film, yeah i see the problem that some film studio waited precisely 10 years before making the film, that's the issue with an artificial limit like 10 years, people act to take greatest advantage of it.

That said, i don't see why you would care. Sure some fans will be up in arms that the film wasn't the same as the book, or aybe they will be up in arms that the author wasn't involved in the creation of the film.... but i'm sure many authors have found themselves signing contracts and making money only to have a film made which they didn't have final creative decisions on, it's not too big a deal in my mind.