Ayiekie Wrote:1) It is perfectly legal to make derivative work for profit if you attain the rights to do so. If you don't, I believe you should be able to do it for free (though I understand the legal difficulties in making that law, as opposed to now where certain derivative works are legal and others are not).
I don't fully understand the difficulty in being allowed to do it for free, that is what's happening in spain.
i think you are conflating nice and the law, it is nice to ask for permission before making a derative work, but having that backed up with the full force of law is a bit much. It's not nice to be an asshole but it is perfectly legal.
And it is currently allowed in the US at least to make parodies, otherwise wierd al would be in deep trouble. but that is because when it was written the current system was not expected and it was expected most people could get permision by just asking nicely (and possibly revenue sharing). Allowing something like that nowadays would be a nightmare with a multimillion dollar ip lawsuit waiting to happen. But few people want parodies made of them and so that is explicity legal, because it was expected people would say no.
Quote:2) Because they deserve it. The benefit to the artist outweighs the purported benefit to society. Incidentally, there is no hard scientific data about the subject so you could kindly stop pretending this is somehow proven rather than economic theorising based on different situations in different countries at different time periods, where you have cherry-picked an opinion that you conveniently happen to agree with.
I have no problem quoting from scholars who happen to argue that the ideal copyright term should be infinity, I just happen to think that the scholars arguing for that have missed something or are optimizing the wrong thing. the most compelling argument for potentially infinite length copyright terms I have read involved a case study on mikey mouse, and the basic argument was that the company should retain copyright while they spend money on it.
If you can find a peer reviewed paper supporting your position I would be more than happy to take a look at it and think it over.
Quote:After the last five years, we all should be well aware of the fact that there is no such thing a proven economic theory, especially about something as esoteric as the overall benefit to society of copyright laws of differing lengths.
Economics as a science relies heavily on mathematical models, which don't precisely fit the real world. In the case of the financial crisis it was known that some of the models where a bit of, but they where also propreitary and highly secret, but everyone was essentially using the same flawed model. Add in fraud and having the system very highly leveraged (Which any economist could have told you was a bad idea from a system perspective but made some sense from an individual organizations perspective.)... yeah problems, the good news is that this will give a lot of information to eoomist to better refine macroscale models.
There are predictions about what a shorter copyright term would do, and until we run the experiment it's hard to say for sure if they are correct. For what it's worth by and large the same models are being used, the main disagreements being on how people value certain things, eg the inputs to the models. there is no real consensus, but few argue for anything longer than 15 years, and most are in the 6 to 2 years range.
I have read several of the peer-reviewed papers in this area, which I imagine is more than you have done. Of course the way to settle this would be to limit copyright to 50 years, which would be a significant shortening, and then look at what happens over the next 10 years. That should give plenty of data to come to some better conclusions.
Ayiekie Wrote:3) It isn't only for creative works and it is flatly dishonest to suggest it is.
unfortunately the united states copytight law disagrees with you.
Quote:(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Even if i wrote the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, but that wouldn't give me copyright over newtons laws, just over that particular book (well the fact that it was in public domain etc is a bit of a problem but...)
Ayiekie Wrote:For one thing, patents are essentially copyright for inventions.
if copyright worked like pattents no-body would have copyright anymore, and if patents worked like copyright there would be no entertainment industry. They are different no matter how often people try to conflate them.
Ayiekie Wrote:And if Bill Gates does NOT sell his stock (which is analogous to releasing work in the public domain), shockingly, his children do get a share.
nooo, selling stock is very different from releasing it to the public domain, releasing it in the public domain is closer to distributing the stock to everybody in the whole world. there is no good real world anaglogy because in the real world the cost is mostly in the thing, not the design. If I give you my phone you have a phone but I don't, but if i give you a copy of my phone we both have a phone, which also raises the worth of the phone I now have since I can call more people.
Ayiekie Wrote:6) Because it seems a reasonable number, ensuring that even if the artist dies while their heir is in infancy, they will be able to profit from the artist's work until they have reached full adulthood.
If I die while my children are in their infancy why are my children not taken care of until they are adults? Artists should do it the same way other people do it, by leaving them money and their property, which would include unexpired copyrights, which should last a fixed amount of time so those copyrights don't just suddenly drop in value.
---
I imagine with your arguments so far you also have an issue with compulsory licenses?
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."