Slashdot Mirror
Fair IP Laws?
epsalon asks: "Most of us are against the current status of Copyright and Patent law, and
are outraged from stuff like the DMCA, SSSCA, et al. We know that this system is wrong, and must be changed. However, nullifying all IP laws is IMHO a bit too strong, because there will be no incentive to create anything for mass market sale except out of
goodwill, or for leveraging other revenue (aka Linux). Assuming you could rewrite the entire world IP law, and even create a new
social system, my question is: What laws can be written that will be fair both to content creators and to users, while cutting the middleman?" Here's your chance to do something other than complain about the current state things. How would you revise or restructure IP and copyright law to make both sides of the fence happy?
A peer review of intellectual property before protection is in place? Why didn't I think of that?
Music/Software: 5 years - Enough time to get return on your investment and a big incentive to continue to innovate so you have something better to sell when the original product falls into the public domain
In the first place, it was created to protect individuals against corporations. Now it's used by corporations to take advantage of individuals. There are just too many advantages to having no restriction on the flow of information. As the poster put it 'leveraging other business' should be the only way people who make information, be it text, code, music, etc... make money. It's the way I and everyone I work with makes money.
It's also the way I spend a great deal of my free time.
Patents, copyrights, and 'intellectual property' has got to go. If not, then when we, as a society, manage to convert fully to a non-scarcity based economy, those who have the ownership rights to information will be kings and everyone else will be paupers.
I wrote an essay for my website about this subject some time back. You can find it here:
http://www.furinkan.net/display.php?pageid=75
The one exception that I would make to getting rid of all IP laws is the use of Trademarks. These are less in the way of making a piece of information which *should* be able to be copied freely uncopiable, but is a lot more about an individual or a business uniquely identifying themselves.
Other than that, IP law has got to go. End of story.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
We'd be fine if we went back to the Patent and Copyright law as it existed before the recent (last 20 years) unwarranted expansion of both.
We'd go back to the 17 year copyright with 17 year renewal, and eliminate "soft" patents including "software" patents, business process patents, etc...
Going back to the basics on both fronts would eliminate most of our current problems.
Our founding fathers had it right in the constitution: "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;"
Currently, patent law as it sits is half of the problem. People can patent software that does absolutely mundane and boring tasks that have been written for years. (see form posting patents) Clearly, that's not new, nor innovative, yet someone convinced the PTO that it was.
As I see it, step one is to ban software patents. Given that you can't patent a formula for a soft-drink, how is that any different than say, an algorithm? By extension, most software is just creative algorithms for solving a specific problem (or, as a tool for abusing small companies), and thus, shouldn't be patented.
On the other hand, most processors are now sold as synthesizable VHDL cores. Those could be patented, as they can at least be sythesized to a physical prodouct. (Much like how old processor designs at the gate level were patented.)
But the existing properties of of USPTO that allow something to be patented can still apply to technology, just not in software.
One last remark: The research staff for determining prior art before a patent is even issued needs to be increased, and they need to be trained to understand what technology.
We know that this system is wrong, and must be changed. However, nullifying all IP laws is IMHO a bit too strong, because there will be no incentive to create anything for mass market sale except out of goodwill, or for leveraging other revenue (aka Linux).
This is an assumption that is stated so often it has become arguably an axiom of intellectual property proponents.
But, the history of the human race, indeed of our own civilization, doesn't bear it out. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Ulysees, Shakespear, Van Gogh, Michaelangelo, and other artists too numerous to mention had all the incentive they needed to create the greatest works our civilization has ever known, all without the existence of copyright or any other form of "intellectual property."
There are other ways to insure artists are compensated, without granting them (or, more likely, their publishers) an exclusive monopoly on their work, for any length of time.
It is unfortunate that our society never even discussed, much less considered, alternatives to copyright when the republic was founded, instead saddling us with an approach whose original conception was designed to facilitate censorship of the press, a design flaw which a little tweaking to help give something back to the artist is insufficient to alleviate.
We should be discussing alternatives to copyright which can be implimented to insure that artists get compensated for their work, without imposing artifical, government mandated monopolies upon our society, monopolies which are antithetical to free markets, to freedom of speech, and ultimately, to freedom itself.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
All copyrights must be held by a private individual. No corporate entity may hold a copyright.
Copyright terms may vary up to a period of 17 years (depending on content type -- To Be Specified), with a single renewal for the same period of time
Copyright expires upon the death of the copyright holder.
Copyrights cannot be assigned to another entity
If a work has some form of access control, that access control must be disabled when the work enters public domain
Reverse engineering any sort of access control is legal
Patent
Patents must be held by individuals, not corporate entities
Only physical objects and processes may be patented.
(Corrolary) No patent shall be granted for algorithms or business processes
A working implementation of the patented process must be provided (upon request of USPTO)
Naturally occuring results of processes may not be patented (ex: DNA)
The USPTO must conduct a good faith search for any prior art
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
I agree with this but I'd go a bit farther. Software patents should be good for 2 years. I could be persuaded that 5 years might be okay. Anything longer than that is just goal tending. With the way things change rapidly in internet time, I believe a software patent should not last longer than 2 to 5 years.
I believe other types of IP might be allowed longer life. A copyright on a piece of music or literature should not extend beyond the life of the author or composer.
Software copyrights are another matter. I'd like to see things go into the public domain after they are no longer being marketed. I think a 10 or possibly 20 year copyright should be long enough.
My point is that the people who create IP should get some benefit from their work. However, the point of copyright laws should also reflect the interests of the general public.
A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
The problem with your plan is that there would be no sharing of information. If you outlaw intellectual property, then there is very little incentive to share ideas with others. That would basically mean that companies and people would hide their ideas, and much time would be wasted by having multiple companies repeatedly inventing the same things.
The idea of intellectual property laws is to encourage sharing of ideas by granting exclusivity to the creator for a limited amount of time. I believe that idea has been corrupted by corporate interests, but I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bath water.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
All laws and systems exist, in the end, to ensure the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number.
Thus the goal should be to ensure sufficent renumeration for the creators to have an incentive to create while ensuring that the products of their creativity are made available as soon as possible to serve as the foundation of further creativity.
The question, of course, is quantification of the length of time; 3,5,7 or 99, years.
Secondary question: should all forms of IP have the same protection? Arguably, a patent should expire, but what about a Trademark?
IMHO the Constitution got it right with 7 years for a patent. I cannot see ANY justification whatsoever for Copyright to extend past the life of the author. Trademark *IS* important, if you buy a Plextor drive or drink Jolt you have a right to be sure that the product you get is the product you expect to get; otherwise it's fraud. But I do think that Trademark should be subject to Fair Use, especially in the realm of satire and product review.
"Our" core geek mantra is sound "Information Wants To Be Free". The greatest good for the greatest number is best served by erring on the side of too free a dissemination of information rather than too restricted, if err we must-and err we will!
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Ever heard of "patent pending"? Many companies release products before the technologies are actually granted a patent. Since companies are often awarded damages when a product or whatever infringes on their patent, there's no reason why a company couldn't get damages if a company steals an idea from a patent application if that patent is eventually approved.
I think the peer-review / public comment idea has some serious merit. It could potentially be abused, but the current system is already being horribly abused. At least this gives the public a chance to say "hey, this isn't worthy of a patent" or "hey, this has been done already." Remember, patents and IP protection are not divine rights, they're tools our society invented to promote creativity. Right now, they stifle it instead. Society has the right to change the system to best benefit society as a whole overall. In this case, patent and IP law has become skewed in favor of large corporations and is damaging the rights and interests of the majority of society (even if they don't really realize it...). It's time for a drastic change.
Your "no-labor, no-money" thesis sounds awfully flawed.
So you're telling me that if two people enter into a private agreement, where one person gives a thing or idea to another, and in return, the other agrees to pay that person money, in exchange for the use of that thing or idea, for the rest of his or her life - that the government should make a law making such agreements illegal? Such a law would surely be unconstitutional, as well as impractical (how would you enforce it?)
Also, I can think of one specific instance of a pretty good musician who would starve with your plan. Andy Partridge of XTC, writes pretty good music, and records some pretty good music, but he has an anxiety disorder which pretty much precludes public performances. How can somebody like that make a living? I guess he better get a job flipping burgers or something, society can do just fine without his Art, right?
You're trying to turn this into an ideological argument of black or white, right and wrong - placing the whole notion of copyright as wrong and evil. When clearly there's a middle ground that could be found which would be beneficial to all. The problem with the broken IP Law system as it stands today is that the original interests of "public domain" are not represented by the current American zeitgeist of "Capitalism above all else". Because Capitalism was our sword of vengence in the holy war against Communism. As it turns out, it's a double-edged sword, and it's been turned against us by greedy corporations who exploit the concept of "Freedom" for their own personal gain. The middle ground, the balance has been lost. We've fallen down the slippery slope on the side of the giant corporations who wield too much political influence.
The root of the problem is the influence. Remove that, and the voice of the people will be heard instead, and a balance will be restored. We should not tread down the other slippery slope of elimination of the concept of intellectual property, because things are different today - today's world, with today's population, and a technically advanced race of humans, NEEDS capitalism to survive. It NEEDS the concept of intellectual property. People need to profit from their ideas. We just need reasonable, balanced limits to be set. Quite departed from where we are now, and where you seem to want society to head.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Once a patent application is published, anyone can send prior art to the relevant patent office. This is one of the reasons that patent applications are generally published.
However, you've got to provide the evidence.
On Copyright:
Copyright should last 25 years maximum.
Copyright should be non-transferable and non-extendable.
Copyright should always allow fair use and duplication by individuals.
Copyright should only prevent outright mass-distrubtion.
Copyright should only prevent this with law, not with technology (which means if someone's violating copyright, you notice them doing it and track them down and prosecute... you don't hopelessly try to manpiluate technology to prevent it in the first place)
On Patents:
Patents should last 10 years maximum, ever.
All patentable things must meet the following criteria:
1) Non-obvious - a technical person (or technical review board perhaps?) in the field in question wouldn't consider this a trivial and obvious solution.
2) No prior art - it has never been done before.
3) No inclusion of prior art - The work being patented must be the sole intellectual work of the patentee. It cannot contain intellectual work of others, even if those others didn't patent their work (example, patenting a peice of software that relies on algorithms you got from a programming magazine... you could still patent portions of your software, but not that portion, and no "portion" that contains those algorithms).
11*43+456^2
Didn't the patent office used to more-or-less do their job correctly back then too?
Unfortunately, no (not if your conception of what they should be doing is anything like mine). The difference is this: a few decades ago, it was not generally thought that you could patent software or methods of doing business, so very few patents were applied for, and granted, for these things. Today, these areas are patented quite regularly, these areas impact the growing information technology sector, and people are up-in-arms about it.
The problem, however, is not that there is something intrinsically worse about patenting software or methods of doing business, it is just that the impact of patents (which is to screw lots of people for the benefit of a few) are felt by many more people today, given the widespread patenting in these areas. While it may have seemed like the patent system worked a few decades ago, you likely wouldn't think that if you were one of the people who had their entire business taken away because of a patent you had never heard of (and had no reason to know of). Before we jump to the conclusion that patents are just fine over there, in that other field where we don't try to make our living, stop to think how you'd feel if you were one of the folks working in that field.
I am happy to see people waking up to the fact that something is terribly wrong with the patent system, but just because fewer people got ensared by it back in the good 'ole days doesn't mean that it was any better (structurally) than it is today.
-Steve (a former patent attorney)
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
How about making copywrites non-transferable. The creator of something retains the original copy write. If they decide they want to be paid for their product, they can sell a copy of such a product to someone. They can arbitrarily decide whether or not a certain use of their invention violates the copywrite. That way, those people that want to keep their ideas to themselves can, and those that want to allow their stuff to be availible can. Instead of RIAA deciding that downloading the songs is bad, let the artists decide. And let them take the people to court. Everyone should be able to decide what happens to their own inventions, not some corporation, not some publisher, the individual. And when the individual dies, the item becomes public domain, none of this stuff where Michael Jackson owning the rights to the beatles music.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I don't understand why some software is covered by patents (i.e. Unisys) while some is copyrighted (i.e. GNU). I'd like to see that resolved, one way or the other.
I think software patents are bad simply because programs are expressions of ideas in a form that should be copyrighted. The ideas expressed are not dissimilar from those in books or recipes and other "idea" things that are usually copyrighted. Things that are patented are typically some material good or manufacturing process, or a "physical" thing, more or less.
In other words, programs are more suitable for copyright than patenting. It seems that patents are counter to my notions of programming. It seems entirely unreasonable to me that I can't implement an algorithm because it is patented. It seems much more reasonable to say I can't plagiarize, but if I create my own implementation I can copyright it and so can the first guy and so can anyone else who creates an implementation.
Well, I'd tell you some constructive criticism, but it's patented, you see, so we'll have to arrange a licensing fee before you start building your software patent litigation career based on the mind-blowing information I have to tell you.
Or, let me put it this way. Imagine where humanity would be today if 300,000 years ago, Oog the caveman had been granted a patent in perpetuity on his wonderful invention, FIRE. And that this patent was enforced. For the next 300,000 years, people might try to find ways around licensing Oog's invention, and probably fail miserably, because they have no sound foundation of knowledge to back up any other way to heat things. Possibly leaving things in the sun on a hot day, but those aren't really times you want stuff to be hot anyway.
Without free use of fire, we'd be eating raw antelope meat and dying from parasites and whatnot. But that's beside the point. Nobody would have invented bronze, or iron, or any metal for that matter. Hell, we couldn't even fire mud-bricks to build houses, so we'd be living in tents made of animal skins and sticks, that is, when we weren't running from predators attacking our villages at night because we couldn't chase them away with fire.
Oog becomes the richest man in the stone-age, with many wives. But he's not living in a mansion. He's still living in a fucking cave.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
What we need is mandatory licensing. This provides a balance of control between the property owner and the potential consumer, encouraging innovation while maintaining freedom.
Heh, Trademarks are the only "IP" that actually are analogus to property, they have scarcity value. Others can't copy them without damaging thier value, to both merchant and customer.
Copyright and Patent, on the other hand, are flat out monopolies. And they were never intended to protect the individual vs. corporations. Which is good, because they never have.
Patents could still serve the original purpose (getting people to contibute useful inventions that they hold secret into the public domain), though the system badly needs reform. (example of why: The Patent King) Copyright is just plain obsolete, as far as the original purpose goes; Any author can publish themselves on the Internet for neglible cost, publishers are no longer needed as gatekeepers. As for insuring that authors get paid, Stephen King has tried variations on The Street Performer Protocol with satisfactory results (he was satisfied, he's the author, his is the only opinion that counts).
Intellectual property is a corporate (or individual) asset used to obtain revenue, just like computers, desks, chairs, etc. As such, it is treated as a capital expense under Internal Revenue Code. The full cost of producing the IP must be amortized according to the Code, and amortizations are a time-limited period chosen when the property is first claimed for deduction.
So, why not just tie the protection of said IP to its amortizations? Once the IP has fully capitalized, it should no longer qualify for protection and then fall into the public domain.
This would make IP holders think *very carefully* about how long they want to take to amortize -- it would make them choose a balance between tax savings and IP protection.
This ignores (and/or perpetuates) one of the biggest practical problems with the current system -- it is not possible to determine if copyright on a work has expired simply by looking at the work in question.
It used to be the case that copyrights were granted for a fixed period of time, and that in order for a work to be copyrighted, it had to have the copyright notice affixed. Said notice had to contain the year the work was produced and the titular holder of the copyright. Thus, by looking at the notice and applying simple arithmetic, you could tell instantly whether a work was in the public domain: "Hmm, this was copyrighted in 1950, copyright lasts for 50 years, so now it's in the public domain and I can copy it at will." [note purely hypothetical number.]
Even with the varying lengths of fixed copyright that came into being as a result of the various early extensions passed by congress, it was still relatively easy for the lay researcher to figure out whether something was freely copyable; all one had to do was consult a table that matched year of publication with the then-extant term of copyright. In other words, if in 1918 copyright was 28 years, and in 1939 congress passed an act that extended subsisting and future copyrights by 10 years, then in 1941 a work that had been published in 1918 would still be under copyright, but a work from 1916 would have ascended into the public domain in 1938.
But with things based on the life of the author, it's an absolute mess -- our would-be researcher has to start investigating death records, just to figure out whether it's OK to slap an essay on the photocopier. Have you ever tried to get official records for the date of someone's death? Even for people who've died recently it can be a royal farking pain. For an author who died many years ago, good effing luck!
Copyright terms should be standard lengths, one-size-fits-all regardless of when anyone dies, is born, gets incorporated, or achieves spotted purple enlightenment with bells on.
Need a UNIX/Linux/network guru in the Boulde
Without big corps there would have been no, Unix, no C, no Linux. Nuff Said.
Later,
Phil
We dislike software patents because we do not see software as a product. We do not pay for the software that we use, and we do not charge for the software that we write.
Patents make (some) sense when a product is involved: if you want to produce my invention as a product, then you have to share some of profits with me. If the product is a physical thing, then it is produced and sold in a market, so there is always money involved. Since our software is not sold (many of us (see other posts) don't even believe it makes sense to treat information as something that can be sold) there is never any money involved: none for us, and none to share with the patent holder.
In essence, there are two different ways of looking at software: as product that can be sold, and as community developed and Free. These two dichotic attitudes can coexist right now because for the most part there is little intersection: my computer does not run a single proprietary program, and I have no need to. I don't bother people who do sell software, and they don't bother me. But software patents break this boundary: they are legal invasions by those who view software as a product into the world of us who don't. If an algorithm that we need for that program is patented - that does not compell us to play fair with the patent holder, that restricts us completely from having anything to do with it.
Ask us what we feel about software patents if they affected only proprietary software and left free software alone, and I think most of us wouldn't really care. The business people can play there little games ad infinum for all I care.
Also, you ask for "CONSTRUCTIVE" criticism against software patents - but the person in support of patents is the one asking for proactive legislation. Why don't you give "CONSTRUCTIVE" reasons why software patents are needed? Most studies have found that they are not economically beneficial at all, and there are many examples of how software patents hold entire fields back (look at encryption - modern encryption was invented in the late 70s, yet it was nearly unused when the patents expired in the late nineties, only to have become an everyday thing today).
What if current copyright/patent law allowed lawyers to patent a particular defense if it worked well in court? Wouldn't that make it more difficult for you to do your job if you had to pay someone to use a particular tactic to defend one of your clients? Or even to prosecute a particular case of infringment?
That's what it's like for software - You make a comment about how Talented programers "don't want any impediments whatsoever", how is that special treatment? Do Carpenters need to pay for a license before they put up an A-Frame house? To do math, do you have to pay extra to use the square-root key?
Patented software takes away fundemental tools and solutions available to developers. It may be true that the solutions may not be discovered until a problem is encountered, but just because someone was the first to file a patent for a new problem should not give them the right to deny others use of it.
I'll admit that I have my doubts about some forms of software patents - certain video and sound compression algorthms especially. These take a lot of work and time, and can be truely inovative (and easilly copied once discovered), but I have never seen another "inovative" software patent.
1. Time Limit
The pace of change in software is radically different than that of, for example, heavy industry. Software companies that cannot recoup their software R&D investment within a few years are malfunctioning, and should not be protected from the free market. They should die and their resources should be incorporated into faster companies. Software is one of the most aggresively self-catalyzing fields of research in history. To assume that the patent time frames that make sense in material sciences are equally valid in information science is irrational.
2. Novelty / Non-Obviousness
I would assume that this is most related to the quality of examiners. My personal example is the one click patent. When I was developing an online computer hardware sales sites in 1996, my boss asked if we could use cookies to store a person's information, allowing them to checkout more rapidly. He didn't get the idea from Amazon, and wasn't an expert in the field. The solution was obvious to anyone who knew anything about online shopping and cookies.
I am not sure if the standard is obviousness to laypeople or obviousness to those in the field. If it is obviousness to the layperson, I would also find this to be counterproductive. Computers are such a rapidly advancing field that even IT professionals rarely have a solid comprehension of areas which are outside their specialty. To expect a layperson to even understand what a software patent is talking about strikes me as highly dubious, let alone using them as the standard of novelty and obviousness.
Patents are most necessary in areas where it is EASY to copy inventions. If everyone needed a few million $ worth of hardware to make the invention, the patent doesn't add that much value against the masses of people who want to copy your invention, it only protects you against the few who have the actual resources to do so.
I completely agree with this, and think you have left out a significant correlary. Patents are least necessary in fields where research and development costs are low or easily recouped. That is, if the cost of developing a new technology is low, or the speed with which the investment can be recouped is high, the length and/or force of a patent should be reduced.
Patents are not intended to be an unquestionable monopoly in the Ayn Randian / solipsist sense. They are intended to maximize the economic benefit from R&D investment and from dispersal of technology.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I believe the fundamental reason why software patents are viewed as flawed is cultural. Software developers are taught from day one that modularity is the best way of creating software. You start with your toolbox of parts (perhaps the functions provided by the OS and standard C libraries), and you build them up into more useful parts, which you then package as a new library. You then integrate those parts together into a program, which solves a problem in a useful way.
The software engineer builds up a toolbox over time -- perhaps by creating lots of programs, by sharing with other engineers, or by purchasing libraries from other companies. It is assumed that if you write some code starting with just what you think up and what you find in your (legally acquired) libraries you end up with a piece of work that is yours to use and sell. Under copyright law this is true -- you only break the law if you copy someone else's code without their permission. Since it is clear who owns each piece of code, you know clearly if you are breaking the rules.
Patents don't work this way. It is possible for an average programmer to write a program and not know they are violating a patent. The program can be used and/or sold for years without any clue that a patent is being violated. If the patent owner finds out, they can sue! If patents were only granted for truely novel software techniques that were not likely to be independently re-invented, then this would not be a problem. But this is not the case -- programmers have a valid fear that any piece of code they write might be violating somebody's patent.
The software design process (as we know it) has no easy way for incorporating a patent search. Fear of being blindsided by a patent violation can fundamentally change how software development is currently done, by adding significant extra time and manpower to any project to ensure it is not infringing on any patents.
As an attorney, would you like it if you could be randomly hit by lawsuits from other lawyers even though you are just doing your job? If for every case you prosecuted or defended you had to think up entirely new arguments on behalf of your clients, out of fear of re-using a patented argument that someone else has used before? Programmers like to create software, and like to use available techniques for doing so. Having to constantly worry about which techniques are currently "allowed" or "forbidden" just detracts from the real job to be done.
i think this is an excellent idea.
now it just needs to be brought to the attention of people with actual power, instead of a crew like minded dorks.
have you considered submitting this as a proposal to your elected reps? assuming you're not planning to copyright the concept ; ) i may do so myself, perhaps with a bit more formalism and examples....
-k
Only because the goals he wished to achieve, namely the four freedoms the Free Software Foundation stands for, are denied everyone by default because of copyright. He had no other choice but to use copyright to subvert itself ... the alternative was to be unable to insure others the 4 basic freedoms he holds so dear ... indeed he was in the same quandary an artists would be in if they followed the suggestion to just dump their material into the public domain, which copyright then allows others to pilfer without giving back.
A world in which everything is in the public domain can place no restrictions on how works are derived, or how to redistribute those derivative works. The GPL goes quite a bit beyond just negating copyright, it demands that derivative works must include specific types of documentation and source code. In the absence of a copyright, nothing can prevent microsoft from using gcc, making changes, and redistributing it as Visual C++ in a binary-only format without the source code. This of course negates the entire point of the GPL.
I find it fascinating that I am being shouted down for having the audacity to suggest we might include in our discussion the possibility that there might be other regimes that would work better than government mandated monopolies for compensating artists. It is even more interesting now that, when I point to historical examples that exemplify this, you are saying we shouldn't think about those examples.
Of course, patent law goes back to the 15th century so most of the artists you cite worked under an assumption of intelectual property in which plagarism for profit was discouraged, if not forbidden.
No, what I'm saying is more subtle than that. I am saying that, if Time-Warner takes my work and incorporates it into their work, aspects of my work become inaccessible to others because of the TW copyright on their extentions. An example: TW makes a space opera based on my work, using my characters, etc. Now, if someone else wants to make a space opera based on my work and characters, they are confronted with a series of legal landmines they must avoid, lest the infringe on TW's copyrights. As there are only so many ways one can take a particular work and change it around, the danger of stumbling onto one of these landmines, even by accident, is sufficiently great that anyone with any sense would avoid the possiblity altogether ... meaning that my work has thus become less accessible to those who would like to build upon it as a result.
But lets take a look at the view without copyright. Time-Warner can take your work without having to pay for it (because it is in the public domain.) They convert it into a movie that grosses millions of dollars (charging reasonable costs for distributing the derivative work in a high-quality format to cinemas) and you end up without a red cent.
Most people would consider this blatantly unfair.
Granted anybody else can create their own derivate work from that derivative work but still, they don't have the money, the contracts with cinemas, or the networks to compete.
As a result, the public domain suffers from a failure of the commons. The biggest voice with the most money gets the credit. Furthermore, look at what the public domain has done to our conception of Grim's fairy tales. Your original work gets weighed not on its own merits, but against the Disney version.
In other words, it isn't an admission of approval of copyright laws, it is a repudiation of copyright law at its most fundamental level.
Wipe out copyright law. How can a public domain enforce the restrictions of the GPL to publish derivative works with source code? Without copyright law it simply can't. Without copyright law anyone can fork their own version of GCC without source code.
Try and sell this idea to the software vendors if it's so great. I think you'll see few takers.
Remember if even one patch, security enhancement or minor improvement is made after initial purchase, the vendors will probably try to extend the Copyright by the date of the change. That would certainly be the what would happen if it were part of the Copyright law. Sure, the initial package's Copyright expired in 5 years, but the enhancements you wanted, those expire in 20 years.
This seems overly complicated and fraught with loopholes. Just make the Copyrights expire in a fixed amount of time and be done with it.
Remember, that IP law isn't about letting the Markets decide, or making inventors/authors rich, it's about promoting progress. A simple system, applied consistently is the best way to do this, I think.
1. Eliminate software and business method patents.
2. Strictly limit the timespan of copyrights. Holywood has a habit of getting the expiration of copyrights pushed out whenever they come close to their expiration date. That sort of nonsense has got to stop. Copyrights should be granted for 50 years to the original creater, his estate or assignee. Period. That's all. Finito.
3. A media consumer's bill of rights that formally states that a consumer may do *ANYTHING* with a copyrighted work for which they have purchased a copy, *except* for distributing additional copies of same. Too often the debate has centered around what rights should be granted to copy owners (as opposed to copyRIGHT owners). BS. They should have *all* rights *except* for a short list.
4. Note that case number 3 talks about the simple sale of a copy. It does not preclude a seller from including restrictions in the purchasing contract on the use by the recipient. But such restrictions *must* be part of the contract agreed to by *both* parties *before* performance of the contract. Click-through or shrink-wrap licenses or other shenanigans that are tacked on *after* both parties have performed the simple exchange of money for a copy *explicitely* should not be allowed to be binding.