Comment Re:Length of Copyright (Score 3, Interesting) 243
Yes, the whole mess with the current system was created because the copyright cartel has perverted traditional copyright law. The intial comment with the story Congress is making an effort to reconcile traditional copyright law with the realities of digital copying just shows how far the real pirates (Hollywood) have succeeded in framing the debate.
Consider "traditional" copyright law:
* Copyright restrictions only applied to publishers.
* The length of copyright was 14 years and could only be held by the author not the publisher.
* Copyrights could be renewed once for an additional 14 years for a few.
* Copyrights could not be transferred, not even to one's heirs.
* To receive a copyright, an archival copy was required to be sent to the Library of Congress.
* Copyright did not apply any grant to derivative works.
* Copyright did not apply to public speeches, music (the notes not the words), and a whole host of things it now covers.
So we're in a situation where copyright has become a grant to cartels with no quid pro quo. The publishers are no longer even required to deposit sources with the Library of Congress, so they can receive copyright on films, embargo the product after it's first few runs, and before the lengthy term expires the original doesn't even exist (defeating the entire purpose of copyright in establishing a public repository of knowledge).
The extension of copyright to derivitive works coupled with the lengthy terms has allowed publishers to amass portfolios that cover the entire landscape of popular culture. While Hollywood likes to complain against "government regulation" it couldn't survive in it's current form in a truly capitlist competative environment. George Lucas is insulated from competition. He can produce 'Attack of the Clones' without any worry about competition because he can resort to the heavy hand of government to censor any alternative 'Star Wars' story. Traditional copyright law would protect that first publication only for the sole purpose that it would encourage alternate and competiting stories.
Public officials, corporations, and even religions (Scientology) have used the perversion of copyright law to outright censor political speech. A public speech or statement should be just that public and traditional copyright law would never allow Martin Luther King's heirs to extort those wishing only display history, nor would it allow current politicans to censor their opponents by prohibiting the rebroadcast of speeches seen on CSPAN.
Consider "traditional" copyright law:
* Copyright restrictions only applied to publishers.
* The length of copyright was 14 years and could only be held by the author not the publisher.
* Copyrights could be renewed once for an additional 14 years for a few.
* Copyrights could not be transferred, not even to one's heirs.
* To receive a copyright, an archival copy was required to be sent to the Library of Congress.
* Copyright did not apply any grant to derivative works.
* Copyright did not apply to public speeches, music (the notes not the words), and a whole host of things it now covers.
So we're in a situation where copyright has become a grant to cartels with no quid pro quo. The publishers are no longer even required to deposit sources with the Library of Congress, so they can receive copyright on films, embargo the product after it's first few runs, and before the lengthy term expires the original doesn't even exist (defeating the entire purpose of copyright in establishing a public repository of knowledge).
The extension of copyright to derivitive works coupled with the lengthy terms has allowed publishers to amass portfolios that cover the entire landscape of popular culture. While Hollywood likes to complain against "government regulation" it couldn't survive in it's current form in a truly capitlist competative environment. George Lucas is insulated from competition. He can produce 'Attack of the Clones' without any worry about competition because he can resort to the heavy hand of government to censor any alternative 'Star Wars' story. Traditional copyright law would protect that first publication only for the sole purpose that it would encourage alternate and competiting stories.
Public officials, corporations, and even religions (Scientology) have used the perversion of copyright law to outright censor political speech. A public speech or statement should be just that public and traditional copyright law would never allow Martin Luther King's heirs to extort those wishing only display history, nor would it allow current politicans to censor their opponents by prohibiting the rebroadcast of speeches seen on CSPAN.
