How would our life looked if copyrights and patents were invented 2000 years ago

[Sirotnikov]

I just thought about something - todays copyright and patent laws, don't promote the world in any way.

Sure, an inventor needs to know that he can profit from his invention. But giving him a monopoly for his invented art or science or whatever creation, for the time of his life + 70 years (in music) is completely nuts.

Just think about the best things you have today which are free, and think what would have happenned, if you had to pay for them.


Imagine you would have to pay to someone who invented HTML and HTTP and TCP/IP.

Imagine if you would have to pay , like in finland, everytime you hum a tune.

Imagine, that in guitar lessons, everytime you play a folk song, you'd have to pay someone.

Imagine, that you have to pay tax to the Tessla family for every electronical appliance you own , or make in science class, since he invented AC current.

Imagine how poor our language would be, had we had to pay everytime we cite something from shakespeare or Mark twain or the bible.

Imagine having to pay to Edisson's family, for using DC current.

Imagine you would have to pay someone who patented tea making (ie boiling plants in water and drinking the extract).

Imagine you would have to pay tax to DeVinci's family for using screws.

Imagine if you would have to pay tax everytime you reproduce the theory of relativity.

Imagine you'd have to pay tax to the playboy channel, everytime you employ a certain sexual position or technique.

This is just silly!!

The length of time that patents and copyrights are given today is crazy and only creates stagnation since it prevents competition.

Copyrighting code, as if it was literature is stupid. Copyrighting formulaes is just as stupid. It creates a monopoly, and an inability to share valuable knowledge to better the world.

[ranskaldan]

We have to find the middle ground.

Copyrights, I think, serve as an incentive for innovation in the first place.

[Sirotnikov]

Btw, yes I am aware I made a whole mesh out of copyrights and patent laws. I'm aware of it. That was done with the intention of showing you how silly those things are.

and my grammar is poor at 5 am

[Switch]

I agree, 70 years are a bit much. I also agree we need a middle ground. Maybe 20 years AT MOST after death of the creator would be good. Although I think that it should last AT THE LEAST as long as the creator is alive.

I'm assuming you got inspiration for this thread from my post about WIPO?

[Sirotnikov]

yeah

but it's all accumulating.

in finland, people are paying tax when they listen to radio on taxis. this is crazy.

[Zkribbler]

I don't know whether you guys heard but, due to pressure from the movie industry, Congress increased the length of American copyrights by 20 years to prevent valuable properties like Mickey Mouse and the Wizard of Oz from being part of the public domain.

This sets up an interesting internet problem. Say, someone produces something in the U.K. using public-domain material there. What happens when it's downloaded in the U.S. where it's still protected?

[Dinner]

How about a flat 20 years period. If he can't make his money back in 20 years then to damn bad.

[Ramo]

IIRC, at the time the Constitution was instituted in the US, IP protections didn't exceed several years. Ever since, Congress has continually extending and extending these periods. I'd say that there should be a maximum of 10-15 years of protection, with most IP extending for considerably less time. But every situation ought to be looked at individually, and one should have a very good claim to a get a patent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imagine you would have to pay to someone who invented HTML and HTTP and TCP/IP.

Um... all of this came about AFTER copyrights and patents were started. Somethings you just can't patent things.

[MrBaggins]

Disney needs to be stopped... PERI D

[Urban Ranger]

Siro,

Imagine that you have to pay $ every time you write on a piece of paper, or uses a compass, or uses gunpowder (this is getting less and less in importance, but one can always attempt to claim that all explosives are just derivative works ).

I basically said the same thing in another thread, so I, er, agree with you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imagine that you have to pay $ every time you write on a piece of paper, or uses a compass, or uses gunpowder

But you do... unless you can make pencils, paper, compasses, and gunpower from scratch .

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Imagine that you have to pay $ every time you write on a piece of paper, or uses a compass, or uses gunpowder

On the other hand, why should anyone invent anything if the nearest large company will immediately snatch the idea up and make millions, while paying the inventor nothing?!

[Urban Ranger]

That's complicated. While it is indeed true that the nearest large company can snatch up an idea, it is also true that everybody can do the same thing. Take for example, HTML. Tim Berners-Lee invented HTML and he let everybody use it for free. The result? A World Wide Web that is so big it is beyond imagination (almost), and a healthy industry sector that makes HTML editors. Compare that to Flash, which doesn't have much of an impact in the overall scheme.

It's the same idea as OpenSource Software (or Free Software if you prefer) - you make money on the service, not on the product.

[Dis]

Disney is indeed a bad offender.

Who gives a **** about Mickey Mouse anyways. When is the last time they put out a cartoon? It was always their weakest character.

I guess if they had no patent someone could dress up like Mickey Mouse for childrens events and make money. But why should Disney have total control over that?