SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the preparing-for-talk-like-a-pirate-day? dept.
In The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind Professor of Law James Boyle writes about the history of copyright, patent and trademark laws, and their application. What is the public domain? What are orphan works? Why should somebody own an idea? Boyle makes the case for result-based evaluation of how well the current laws serve us and (re)introduces his idea of information environmentalism.
I think the book makes fascinating reading and since all our contemporary culture and technology is governed by these rules, we should know them and understand how they came to be.
The book is available for download under the CC BY-NC-SA license.
“In this beautifully written and subtly argued book, Boyle has succeeded in resetting that framework, and beginning the work in the next stage of this field. The Public Domain is absolutely crucial to understanding where the debate has been, and where it will go. And Boyle’s work continues to be at the center of that debate.” — Lawrence Lessig.
What say you Soylents? Do you think copyright protection lasts too long? Do you have a problem with patents? Download this book and weigh in for an informed discussion.
(Score: 1) by jbWolf on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:03PM
Trying to steal my idea [jb-wolf.com], huh? ;) I have to admit, I think one extension may be too much, but I'm open to a good argument for it. As for trademarks, I think it would be good to incorporate that into the copyright and patent system more tightly. The idea being that there are things trademarked that I think should be in the public domain. Star Wars is an example; why can't we write our own epic sagas using lightsabers? (Lightsabers are trademarked.) I go over some of that in my link I provide.
It's not the first time I've peddled my idea and some people here on Slashdot have said they'd rather a patronage [wikipedia.org] kind of system. I've given that some thought. While I'm not opposed to the idea, I think it would be better if we let a decently balanced capitalistic idea that drives the general system (like in when writing video game code). Letting capitalism run the show does not necessarily exclude the idea of patronage.
The book mentioned in the article clocks in at 788 pages. It will take me a while to go through it, but I look forward to some of the things it has to say and altering my point of view.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 16 2014, @11:10PM
Patronage is a funding source.
Its orthogonal to a copyright. Patronage is simply another word for "work for hire", and historically the Patron Owned the product. It is only because everyone involved is deceased that people look upon patronage with such rosy glasses.
(Of course people try to claim that crowd funding is patronage, but it isn't even remotely the same thing. Kickstarter is no different than selling stock to start your company. Some kickstarters promise to be opensource and patent free, but that has nothing to do with the fact that crowd funding is, at the end of the day, just an alternative funding mechanism.
So we are back to the original problem, that is that copyrights are simply TOO LONG. They got too long by trying to protect franchises like Disney who want to own Mickey Mouse forever.
To a lesser extent protecting the rights t music and writing was involved, but lets face it, it really comes down to Media conglomerates trying to hold on to their creations essentially forever.
There is almost nothing else under copyright that is like Disney, Starwars, Startrek. Not music, not literature, not paintings or sculptures. Most creative works are produced, marketed, then DONE. Usually never revisited, except for the occasional sequel.
There probably should be a special class of protection for those things where complete companies have formed around preserving and ACTIVELY marketing a creation, and let the rest terminate after some short number of years, 10, 17, what ever.
But trying to fight Disney is not going to be productive. Better to give them their own little island, at great annual expense (tax it), and stiff entrance criteria. Create new category of property just for them, make it expensive enough to encourage them to give it up when they aren't using it any more.
Then, and only then can we let society benefit from all the books, songs, and artwork, software, architectural designs, etc. that would flow into the public domain in less than a lifetime.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by jbWolf on Wednesday September 17 2014, @04:42AM
I almost agree with you. You certainly have a very strong argument when you say that fighting Disney is not going to be productive. The problem is that all the big companies are doing it (like Marvel, DC, and even the BBC). The little guys then all point to them and say "But they're doing it!" It keeps it ugly at all levels.
I want to define an end game that people -- including the big boys -- can rally around. I mean, let's face it, you're right on some level. It won't magically change overnight and in the beginning, we'll have to chip away at it slowly. An intermediate point may look a lot like your idea. As we chip, though, bigger chunks will begin to come off and then (probably unexpectedly), a huge ice berg breaks. We will need to be ready with a real plan that is fair to all parties -- both big and small when that happens. Being fair to the big boys is why I want to tackle trademarks at the same time as copyrights and patents. With my idea, the big boys can still out market anyone else and they can still produce "the official" Star Wars, Star Trek, Iron Man, Superman, Doctor Who, etc. through their trademarks. They just wouldn't be able to prevent anyone else from making their own version of it.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]