Beyond Conspiracy: US Patent Laws Designed To Crush Social Economic Mobility

a reply to: Phage

Jesus Christ, it goes up to Life + 125.

That isn't for people. That's for companies.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
That would be because copyrights can be sold, as well as inherited.

a reply to: Phage

Yes, and that's stupid. 25-50 years is more than enough time for an individual or their descendants as well as companies to profit from their work. A potential 225 years of copyright is ridiculous and harms the creative field more than it helps it.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I don't know. I think that Bob Dylan and heirs should own his work until people get tired of it. My hunch is, that will be more than 200 years. If we're still around, that is.

a reply to: Phage

Oftentimes it's not the artist or their heirs though, it's a company. DC is probably going to own Superman until the end of time, but the artists who actually created him got totally shafted.

I am fine with the originator owning it throughout their life, but once it has been passed on it should only last for 20 or 30 years before becoming public.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
Superman, pfft. If my Mom hadn't dumped my Marvel collection I'd be wealthy. Well I might have a bit more wealth than I do. If I had sold them. But I couldn't. Because she dumped 'em.

A copyright means an idea is a commodity. To be bought, sold, and inherited.

And to point out that this is on topic, not much different from a patent.

a reply to: Phage

I hate it when parents do that. My mother likes to burn things rather than throw them out, though.

Anyway, point being that the way things are going the duration of copyright is eternity less one day. Over time it's going to get to the point that it's almost impossible to create anything without infringing on copyright by accident.

It's on topic or I wouldn't have started talking about it. Copyright is essentially a patent for creative works rather than physical designs. It's more open ended though, not as hard to get in to, not quite as stifling but still crushed by corporate domination.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Over time it's going to get to the point that it's almost impossible to create anything without infringing on copyright by accident.

That's a valid point.
We absorb and regurgitate (unknowingly in a lot of cases) things that make an impression on us. That's where the courts enter the system (as with patent infringement). Though it can get ridiculous at times.

a reply to: Phage

Right, but not I'm not even talking about unintentional regurgitation via influence, I'm talking about making something that infringes totally by accident and not caused by an outside source. It's admittedly likely that human society will have gone beyond the need for copyright or have wiped itself out by that point in time, but if the duration that copyright lasts for keeps getting extended (and it will if Disney has anything to say about it) we'll end up with a situation where the vast majority of new work infringes on someone's copyright unless you make it apply only extremely specifically (as in you can copy someone's work word for word if you change 300 words, or five plot points, or etc.) which would defeat the purpose of copyright in the first place.

My internet's busted so I can't listen to the video, but is that the lawsuit over Stairway to Heaven sharing a similar riff to another song?

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

"Another song?" Another song?
No. Not just "another song." An awesome song.

I'm talking about making something that infringes totally by accident and not caused by an outside source.

There are not all that many original sources. But Bach, Mozart, Rembrandt, Titian, Gainsborough. They were inspired by others. Did they copy them?

a reply to: Phage

"Another song?" Another song?
No. Not just "another song." An awesome song.

Forgive me then, I'm not from that time period. Too young.

There are not all that many original sources. But Bach, Mozart, Rembrandt, Titian, Gainsborough. They were inspired by others. Did they copy them?

To copy from one is plagiarism, to copy from many is inspiration. Perhaps, perhaps not, but I'd like to think not.
None of them had a potential thousand plus years of copyright to avoid accidentally being too similar to, however.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Forgive me then, I'm not from that time period. Too young.

That's your fault.
(And if you don't know the reference, it is indeed your fault)

a reply to: Phage

Even if the reference is relatively modern (2014+) I'm almost totally isolated from pop culture when it comes to music. Also, Australian, so if it's an American thing I'm also unlikely to understand.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Even if the reference is relatively modern (2014+)

It's not.

so if it's an American thing I'm also unlikely to understand.

It's not.

Here it is. Admittedly patronizing, in this case literally. But a very, very good tune as well as original.

a reply to: Phage

What would a rapper be doing using David Bowie to begin with I always wondered.




But wait!

The current US and EU patent system was invented by Venice. It is designed not only to prevent social mobility, but also to prevent any kind of technological development and breakthrough. The intention is self-evident and has always been that.