Why Does Copyright Last 70 Years After Death... But Licenses Expire At Death?

from the questions-to-ponder dept

Tue, Sep 4th 2012 9:15am — Mike Masnick

Last week, we were among the group of folks who wrote about some articles highlighting the fact that, when you die, your library of digital goods likely dies with you, thanks to ridiculous licensing terms and DRM (and ignoring unauthorized copies). Over the weekend, there was a silly -- and quickly proven bogus -- story claiming that Bruce Willis was so incensed by this that he was going to file a lawsuit on the legality of passing down his digital content to his children. While that story appears to have been a work of fiction by the UK's Daily Mail, it did lead to a great observation by Kevin Marks who compared the lifetime of copyright to the lifetime of the licenses you get:

How is it that copyright lasts 70 years after death, but licenses expire at death?

The simplest answer is that the big legacy entertainment industry players have lobbyists. And their customers do not. So we've created a system that massively favors one side over the public -- despite the fact that, if we believe the US Constitution, copyright is supposed to be for the benefit of the public.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, death, licenses, lobbyists

162 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 9:21am

For the same reason that money only goes up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 9:22am
  
  Re:
  No, money goes up imaginarily.
  
  It's all about the feelings, man.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kh (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 3:31pm
  
  Re:
  For the same reason that money only goes up.
  
  And doesn't trickle down...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 9:29am

And their customers do not!
That's because we were under the mistaken belief that those in congress *WERE* our representatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 9:35am

Dude, with all the money being thrown around, the constitution itself isn't even "for the good of the public" anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 9:38am

'copyright is supposed to be for the benefit of the public.'

but until the revolving door between government and the copyright industries gets bolted closed, it's for the benefit of anyone except the public!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 9:45am

>The simplest answer is that the big legacy entertainment industry players have lobbyists.

That's the problem with 90% of the bullshit in politics these days anyway. Big money buying legislation to fuck the people over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 9:47am

The simplest answer is that the big legacy entertainment industry players have lobbyists. And their customers do not. So we've created a system that massively favors one side over the public -- despite the fact that, if we believe the US Constitution, copyright is supposed to be for the benefit of the public.

The correct answer is that copyright lasts for lifetime + 70 because that's what's provided in the Copyright Act. And if you agreed to license works with a condition that the license terminates at death, then that's what you agreed to and that's what happens. If you don't like the license, don't do business with the licensor. This isn't rocket science, and your trotting out the Constitution--again--is just stupid. This has nothing to do with the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 9:53am
  
  Re:
  Got it. Piracy it is then.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    average_joe (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 9:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm sure you and many TD regulars are pirates. You're Mike's bread and butter--his target demographic. Personally, I respect other people's rights like a grown up. You wouldn't understand.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Respect: It's a two-way street.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        *gasp* What?? You mean getting bent over and fucked in the ass by a group of people who never have to do the same isn't 'respectful'? What a sense of entitlement! You must be a freetard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Sheogorath (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 10:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Respect: it's a one-way street in government.
        Fixed that for AC.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're probably right. We are Mike's bread and butter.
      
      People who would love to buy stuff. That's the part you don't seem to be able to get your head around.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        average_joe (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yep, pirates are Mike's bread and butter, and TD is home to many pirates. Glad we agree.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Man, I wonder how Mike gets bread and butter from people that just pirate content! Hell, why do we even bother to come here when we can just freely steal all of his stuff that he doesn't protect??
        
        WHAT BLACK MAGIC IS THIS?!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's... It's almost like he's giving us a reason to stick around!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What? No, that's impossible. No one would ever get content from a legitimate source when they are given free pirate alternatives.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        martyburns (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 1:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and TD is home to many pirates
        
        Maybe it is..Maybe it isn't...
        
        What it definitely IS home to is a couple of annoying industry shills who have little to no reading comprehension and can't image anything outside the fucked up, out of touch, greedy cunt faced corporate box they live in.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 5:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        Maybe it is..Maybe it isn't...
        
        What it definitely IS home to is a couple of annoying industry shills who have little to no reading comprehension and can't image anything outside the fucked up, out of touch, greedy cunt faced corporate box they live in.
        
        There's no maybe. Just look at the shit storm Mike stirred up with this silly post. And the one's living in the "greedy cunts" are the pirates who think it's OK to take what they want without paying. There is no excuse for violating other people's property rights, and if you've drunk too much of Mike's Pirate Kool-Aid and believe that the victims are to blame, then you're the one that's "out of touch."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 6:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the "greedy cunts" are the pirates who think it's OK to take what they want without paying
        
        We (geeks) were here (internet) before (
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 7:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        1995) you (content industry shill=CIS), playing with IPs and ports. When the road (internet) became big enough to disrupt your distribution model you wanted this thing (internet) for yourself. You want to enact laws (and you succeded with some) that impose selfcensorship on intermediates (ISP, blog owners) with 0% cost for you and 100% cost for them.
        
        So you want us (geeks) to "fix" our playground and workground (internet) so that it becomes dumbproof (apple products, TV) and with that almost unhackable. You want us to do your work for you. For free. I'm reminded of a quote a man once wrote:
        And the one's living in the "greedy cunts" are the pirates who think it's OK to take what they want without paying
        
        hypocrisy, much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sheogorath (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 10:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        @ average_joe: Well, I think it's OK to take what I want without paying for it when it's offered for free by those with the right to distribute, especially CC licenced and Public Domain epubs. Does that make me a greedy 'pirate'? I don't think so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't agree to the license works with that condition. Thus I pirate.
      
      Simple and everyone is happy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I respect other people's rights like a grown up.
      
      Give me a second..
      
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHHA
      
      Okay, I'm done.
      
      You wouldn't understand.
      
      Nope. I really don't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The key difference between you and myself: I respect individuals and their rights. You respect authority and their insistence on taking those rights away from individuals.
      
      I respect the rights of everyone to speak freely, to express themselves freely, even if I disagree with what they say. You want there to be limitations on speech and expressions, so that a few can profit monetarily by those restrictions.
      
      I respect the right of everyone to freely benefit from ideas and knowledge that are infinitely copyable at no cost. You want that knowledge locked up and restricted until the few can profit at the expense of all others.
      
      I understand you well enough. You don't seem to have the slightest idea of what I respect.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 1:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Your avatar is from the movie DodgeBall, did you respect 20th Century Fox's rights and obtain permission to use their image?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        People have pointed this out to him before. Prepare to hear this incredibly long winded bit about fair use and blah blah blah. And the law is on HIS side for this one thing. But the rest of you are just thieves!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 9:53am
  
  Re:
  However, it is an interesting dichotomy, don't you agree? That copyright agreements last longer than license agreements.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    The duration of copyright is what Congress has set it to be. The duration of a contract is what the contracting parties agreed to. Two different things entirely.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The law is good because it's the law. Brilliant.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's not what I said. I said that Congress decides the term for copyrights. Like it or not. And the parties to a contract set the terms of the contract. If you don't like the licensor's terms, don't contract with the licensor. That's the way the real world works. Strange how you guys constantly whine about it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Trying to make things better is whining?
        
        You can't complain about piracy when people take you up on: "If you don't like the licensor's terms, don't contract with the licensor"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        piracy is no the only way to avoid doing business with the licensor
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Greevar (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Piracy is just the problem du jour. If it wasn't that, they'd blame something else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sheogorath (profile), 7 Sep 2012 @ 11:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Greevar said: "Piracy is just the problem du jour. If it wasn't that, they'd blame something else."
        Quoted for truth. On that note, there's a new law going to be passed, forcing us to purchase media whether we want it or not because if we're not buying it, we're obviously 'pirating' it. /s
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JEDIDIAH, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:33am
        
        So called choice.
        It's like trying to avoid corporations that force you to give up your right to sue. The only way you will avoid such corporate abuse is to just give up and buy a farm from some old Amish guy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:04am
        
        Re: So called choice.
        Well, it might not be that bad, but its' true that in order to take advantage of many of the nice things in modern life, you have to agree to many things you might like to avoid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not. It's not even one I use.
        
        The point is, there's some distorted view of the world where people would like to believe that piracy is magically not a viable solution for consumers.
        
        Businesses make choices within that distorted reality which negatively impact consumers; driving more people to piracy.
        
        People like average joe come here practically brow beating people to piracy.
        
        If we try to offer different ways to get our money, that's a non-starter.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, certainly businesses need to make decisions with their eyes open. Simply hoping for 100% enforcement/compliance with IP rights is not a sound strategy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        velox (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "piracy is no the only way to avoid doing business with the licensor"
        You forget that copyright is a monopoly, so you can't just turn to a competitor when you don't like the unilaterally imposed terms with a license. Your only option is choosing not to purchase. That isn't really negotiation. If it was, then Adam Smith would never had any any problem whatsoever with monopoly. After all the victims of monopolistic excess have always had the "option" to not purchase. It may be a very, very, very bad option, but nonetheless it is always an option.
        
        The ability to unilaterally impose terms of "negotiation" are exactly what is wrong with a monopoly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 12:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not forgetting any such thing.
        
        First, copyright owners license out their works through different sublicensors, which may apply different terms. So there is (potentially) competition there.
        
        Second, many copyright-protected works are available in many forms, some of which require no license whatsoever, so there is nothing to terminate upon your death.
        
        Third, not consuming the licensed content is an option.
        
        Now, I'm not saying any of there are great options for any particular situation. I'm just saying that "don't do business with the licensor" is tantamount to "engaged in copyright infringement."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I meant NOT tantamount.
        
        I'm having a horrible time typing today
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Piracy. Strange how you guys constantly whine about it.
        
        FTFY
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I said that Congress decides the term for copyrights. Like it or not.
        
        We don't like it and we in this world we don't have to blindly accept it.
        
        Civil disobedience against unjust laws is corner stone of the American way.
        
        The way you act like just because it's a law that it's the only way to do things makes me think you're just a brilliant troll trying to see how quickly you can get someone to invoke Godwin's law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        art guerrilla (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 12:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        1. well, we *do* have to 'accept it', at least as far as dealing with a bad status quo...
        2. the kneejerk authoritarian acceptance of below-average joe is the most disconcerting aspect... i don't think he realizes that with *that* attitude, he would have been a loyalist/royalist back in 1776, NOT a revolutionary...
        (nota bene: about 25% of the population are abject authoritarians -its a survival of the stupidest thing- and the authoritarians are obstacles -or worse- who need to be worked around...)
        3. as you are pointing out, thisy here dysfunctional small-dee democracy ain't not working for us 99% for quite some time... the 1% make laws to enrich themselves by ripping us 99% off ALL THE TIME... and below-average joe calls that 'justice'...
        4. the one-sided nature of these 'rights' is just about SOP for kapitalist imperialists: socialize the costs, privatize the profits...
        when granny's PC gets used by junior and he downloads an 'illegal' song, the 'damage' done to society is incalculable; but her life destroyed has no 'value', no 'worth'...
        here is a question i've asked before: IF this so-called 'intellectual property' is so valuable; do the 'owners' pay taxes on that property, like i do -and you, too- on the REAL property we own ? ? ?
        i have to pay taxes on the 'stuff' i own to run a bidness that are 'assets', does the MAFIAA and their media overlords pay taxes on *their* property ? ? ?
        why am i guessing that -if they do- it isn't a billion dollars a song, as they pretend it is worth when copied ? ?
        hint: it ain't got NOTHING to do with 'fairness', 'equity', and 'equal justice under the law'...
        art guerrilla
        aka ann archy
        eof
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        velox (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 2:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " the kneejerk authoritarian acceptance of below-average joe is the most disconcerting aspect... i don't think he realizes that with *that* attitude, he would have been a loyalist/royalist back in 1776, NOT a revolutionary"
        Absolutely correct!!
        I don't believe art guerrilla has around been here long enough to fully realize just how much of a Tory Average Joe is. Over the period of several years on Techdirt, there has been sparring over the nature of justice, freedom, constitutional rights and the founding fathers' original intent, etc, etc. Average Joe has disputed many things here even he can't question the fact that much of what drove the American Revolution was the belief that the British had enacted unjust laws.
        Average Joe considers the 'natural law' theory which powered the Am. Revolution, and was essential in dissolving the force of monarchy in Europe to be at best meaningless, and at worst propaganda. The only thing Average Joe respects is the law as it is explicitly written. The idea that a law can be unjust, immoral, or plain wrong doesn't live in his mind.
        If it is legal, then it is right is the short version of most arguments Average Joe has made here.
        
        AJ -- if I'm wrong about this, do make a correction. I'd love to hear it
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 3:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If only the British Empire embarked on an education campaign to explain to the colonists that their rule is fine and they should just sit back and like it...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's not what I said
        
        Oh, yes it is!
        (Panto season's not that far off folks... get your practice in now.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 12:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "That's not what I said. I said that Congress decides the term for copyrights. Like it or not."
        
        Yes, and like any open appeal to authority shill, the law is the law and the end-all, be-all in your eyes. Because they can never be wrong after all.
        
        With people like you in the world, we get the following historical examples of "the law" in action:
        
        "Get to the back of the bus, old negro woman! Go where you belong!"
        
        "Get off these school grounds little negro girl! Go to school with your own kind! Stop infecting our white children!"
        
        "Back to work n*gger! Pick that cotton or I'll have you beaten some more! The law says I can do what I want with you!"
        
        What a world you live in. It's no wonder you support anything that extends or expands authority of those at the top at the expense of everyone else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 5:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "That's not what I said. I said that Congress decides the term for copyrights. Like it or not."
        
        Yes, and like any open appeal to authority shill, the law is the law and the end-all, be-all in your eyes. Because they can never be wrong after all.
        
        With people like you in the world, we get the following historical examples of "the law" in action:
        
        "Get to the back of the bus, old negro woman! Go where you belong!"
        
        "Get off these school grounds little negro girl! Go to school with your own kind! Stop infecting our white children!"
        
        "Back to work n*gger! Pick that cotton or I'll have you beaten some more! The law says I can do what I want with you!"
        
        What a world you live in. It's no wonder you support anything that extends or expands authority of those at the top at the expense of everyone else.
        
        Wow. Are you really comparing your need to not pay for recreational content on par with slavery and institutionalized racism? You guys get more deluded each day. We're talking about someone's property rights in a work that they spent time, money, and energy creating. Practically every country on this planet recognizes these rights, and many consider them to be human rights. And you think that since there was once slavery, that means you are justified in ignoring these property rights? Wow. Just wow. You guys are really quite pathetic. Mike's bread and butter, but pathetic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 1:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Practically every country on this planet recognizes these rights, and many consider them to be human rights. "
        
        Please provide evidence of any country that considers copyright to be a "human right". Seriously, tell us who genuinely thinks that way, or publicly retract your ridiculous claim that is an insult to actual important rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 5:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please provide evidence of any country that considers copyright to be a "human right". Seriously, tell us who genuinely thinks that way, or publicly retract your ridiculous claim that is an insult to actual important rights.
        
        Try Googling it yourself and spending five minutes reading what you see. There's apparently a lot to this world than you are aware of.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 8:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I did the googling. I found a link or two... would you mind telling us of your sources ("google it, stoopid" is not a source)? Also could you do it without your favourite logical fallacy, ad hominem?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Shmerl, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The whole point was about the lack of choice (in both cases). I.e. there is no choice to get contracts for ownership which match the rulers set by the congress for the copyright.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Shmerl, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The whole point was about the lack of choice (in both cases). I.e. there is no choice to get contracts for ownership which match the rules set by the congress for the copyright. This obvious discrepancy is the point of the post. Whether they are differently set (by congress or companies) is completely irrelevant.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " I.e. there is no choice to get contracts for ownership which match the rules set by the congress for the copyright."
        
        That's not always true. You can choose to buy an older Aretha Franklin CD on ebay instead of downloading it from iTunes, for example.
        
        The fact that different entitites (Congress v. the contracting parties) set the duration of the two different things we're talking about is very relevant to discussing why they are of differing lengths. The notion that "lobbyists" are somehow setting the length of your license is absurd.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Shmerl, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually I'd even argue that they are different. Contract written by the media companies sets the ownership duration, and congress driven by the same media companies sets the copyright duration. So here you have it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We're talking about licenses, not ownership, though. If you buy an Aretha Franklin CD, you own the physical CD and aren't dependent on any license term.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Shmerl, 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nope, you own the data, which you can for example copy from CD to some other media (for personal use, back up and etc.). Physical medium is irrelevant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think you know what you're talking about. That's really the nicest way I can put it. Unless maybe we're having some serious miscommunication.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Shmerl, 4 Sep 2012 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think it's you don't know what you are talking about, thinking that one can sell the medium but not the data. Those who propose such kind of idea are lunatics if they think it works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 2:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you buy a CD, you own the medium. You may (or may not) have received a license to do certain things with the coyright/protected data/content embodied in the medium.
        
        The distinction between the medium and the copyright-protectable content is copyright law 101.
        
        Here's a page from the U.S. copyright office website including the statutory language, if you're interested:
        
        http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#202
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 2:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        * copyright-protected data and/or content
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Two different things entirely.
      
      Since both terms are being set by the same entities (the major content corporations), they two are not completely unrelated.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How so? I didn't sign the "contract" of copyright. Why should I have to abide by a contract I didn't agree to?
      
      NOTE: "Because it's the law" isn't a valid reason.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How so? I didn't sign the "contract" of copyright. Why should I have to abide by a contract I didn't agree to?
        
        NOTE: "Because it's the law" isn't a valid reason.
        
        I didn't vote for or agree to or sign the law in your state that makes it illegal to hit you in the face with a baseball bat, so under your logic, I can hit you in the face with a baseball bat. See how that works? [Copyright isn't a contract, it's a law. All people have the duty to follow the law. A license, on the other hand, is an agreement. You agree to abide by the contract when you agree to it. This stuff isn't hard.]
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 12:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, sure. I don't need a face anyway. I digitised my mind last week, so I'm fine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I didn't vote for or agree to or sign the law in your state that makes it illegal to hit you in the face with a baseball bat, so under your logic, I can hit you in the face with a baseball bat."
        
        Okay, fine, but you can't complain when I shoot you with my shotgun then.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 3:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright is a perfect example of why monopoly is absolutely never a good idea. Give an exclusive privilege to a certain group and that group will exploit the privilege to its fullest extent; and when they reach the limits of exploitation they will demand further privilege.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - anonomous, 4 Sep 2012 @ 1:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      A contract is the result of a negotiation between to parties where they both sign up to a final agreement, If one party presents a document only discovered after purchase, claims that is a contract porporting to be a aggreed license, wrong
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 8:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Got that contract in writing?
      
      I've never seen it in a disc. Not even a box set.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 5:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I've never seen it in a disc. Not even a box set.
        
        If it's on a website, usually there is a link to the small print. Or if it's a shrinkwrap license, the terms are in the software or in a brochure or on the internet. The terms are out there. Just because sometimes the terms aren't known until after the purchase is made doesn't make them any less enforceable or agreed to. There's tons of case law out there about contract formation, and fact is that contract law is centuries old. Most of the stuff is governed by state law or the UCC. Just because you don't understand it, don't assume that it doesn't make sense. This stuff is well-settled as commerce has been around way longer than any of us.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2012 @ 7:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Contract law is totally valid even when one party is not informed of the contents of the contract, or even that there is a contract. Case law totally supports this.
        
        I'mma totally accept you at your word, without any kind of demonstration of proof on your part.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2012 @ 7:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Try doing your own research and learning stuff for yourself. I'll get you started: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=86+f3d+1447&hl=en&as_sdt=2,19&case=118110098054 58694240&scilh=0
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - sheenyglass (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think the difference is that copyright is a statutorily granted right to prevent others from copying, while a license is a contract which gives you permission to copy. I think the analogy would be that if you own your house you can pass it on to your children, but if you rent you can only do it if the lease allows that. License agreements can survive death, they just aren't drafted to include these provisions b/c content owners haven't needed to.
    
    Its not a constitutional issue, its a leverage imbalance issue. Its the same problem you face with "Terms of Service" agreements - you can't negotiate, so your choice is basically to accept this agreement or to not use the service. Suck it Facebook, I'm going to MySpace, which is still...terrible.
    
    I'm glad this issue is getting some traction; its a problem whose scope exceeds copyright. As our day to day activities become more and more dependent on services based on contractual privileges rather than rights, they become far more fragile - aside from the obvious privacy issues, if your email or Facebook account is terminated, what can you really do? Not much. I think the termination would have to be extremely arbitrary for an arbitrator (likely mandated by the TOS of course) to find in your favor.
    
    And good luck emailing everyone on your no longer accessible contact list to tell them your new address! (Especially if you are lazy like me and just search in gmail w/o making a formal contact list.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 5 Sep 2012 @ 10:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    Only apparently so from one perspective, but really if you think about it copyrights and licenses benefit opposite parties. Copyright benefits the creator-owner. License is a good held through a transaction in which the owner may be compensated but which benefits the licensee (the licensor being the copyright holder, at least generally speaking). Licenses are - and should be - subject to contingencies and conditions, although they can be set up to be irrevocable. But, in any case, having a license expire at the death of the licensor/copyright holder would be beneficial to the copyright holder, presumably, just as much as the rule that the copyright itself does not end at death. Personally, I think that transfers should be allowed for a certain number of times for a purchased file, extending past the death of the owner. But whether or not that's the case should be left to contract, free market competition and antitrust rules.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Shmerl, 4 Sep 2012 @ 9:54am
  
  Re:
  To follow your line of logic, the public never agreed to any Copyright Act either. But for some reason the public has no option of "not doing business" with its enforcers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    The Copyright Act is a duly enacted statute. We live in a representative democracy. If you want a direct vote in what statutes get passed, run for office. If you don't like the terms Apple or others use, don't do business with them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Exactly, there's always piracy. Now you're coming around.
      
      You either want our money or you don't. Sounds like you don't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You will rationalize it any way you want. But at the end of the day, when you take something that's not yours to take, you're no better than a common pickpocket. Of course there will always be piracy, as there will always be heroin addicts, thugs, and thieves. And there will always be good people like me who respect the system and play by the rules. Unlike the pirates, I value everyone's rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And then there's those of us who want to make the system better for artists and consumers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        when you take something that's not yours to take, you're no better than a common pickpocket.
        
        I didn't "take" anything. Copying =/= Stealing.
        
        But you have taken my rights copy. You're worse than a common pickpocket, you're a mafia lord demanding "protection" money.
        
        And there will always be good people like me who respect the system and play by the rules.
        
        If you mean good as in "good at screwing people over" you're totally right! The entire system and rules are set up in your favor, of course you respect it!
        
        I value everyone's rights.
        
        You support copyrestriction, you support no one's right except your own to restricts other's rights.
        
        You will rationalize it any way you want. But at the end of the day, you're still a goddamn MAFIAA shill.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But at the end of the day, when you take something that's not yours to take, you're no better than a common pickpocket.
        
        Tired, disproven trope. Don't you have anything new?
        
        When a pickpocket takes your wallet, you no longer have the wallet, or the money inside. When I pirate something, nothing is stopping the copyright holder from still offering that thing for sale.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't forget the fact that some people who pirate would have never even bought the item to begin with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ah! ha ha hahahaa ha ha hahahahaha ahahahaaaaaaa! Oh god that's the funniest thing I've read all week.... Thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And there will always be good people like me who respect the system and play by the rules.
        
        And there will always be good people like me who respect the system and seek to have unjust laws changed or overturned.
        
        And that starts with debates, discussion, public awareness and, yes, sometimes civil disobedience.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        HAHAHA, 4 Sep 2012 @ 2:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This quote from PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN may apply. Said by Governor Swann "Perhaps on the rare occasion that the right course demands an act of piracy; piracy itself can be the right course"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 4:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and i'll just leave this here....
        
        http://w-shadow.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/piracy-is-not-theftreally.png
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Shmerl, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      We live in a representative democracy.
      
      That's questionable, as the post points out. Since those who have heavy lobbying (i.e. in this case companies interested in extending copyright) have an unfair advantage which creates disbalance. No point for silly claims that everyone is equal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ed C., 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, if you want statues passed, you give millions in political financing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ed C., 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Some of the rules that need to be changed are "requirements" that our government agreed to in international treaties. It would be impossible to change the laws without breaking those treaties. The only way to change them now would be to sign new treaties. That kind of influence takes BILLIONS and years of effort across multiple continents to reach that level of influence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      We live in a representative democracy.
      
      I don't think this is entirely true anymore, since the representatives in congress largely don't represent the citizens. We live mostly in a representative oligarchy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ed C., 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sounds like a plutocracy to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, you're right. I got my ocracies confused. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 1:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The copyright act came around before I was born, why should I listen to it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 4:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm sorry but your pretending the cartels aren't bribing officials to get changes made to the law to screw the citizens, one of the old slow ones admitted this in public.
      
      Do not pretend it was duly enacted and expanded or that the "representative" government gives a crap about the little people until its time to get votes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 12:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    the public never agreed to the constitution either, taken to the extreme end of that same logic
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 1:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "the public never agreed to the constitution either"
      
      ACTUALLY...
      
      That's not true.
      
      The public DID agree to the constitution.
      
      How do you think states became states?
      
      They had to ratify (that is, agree to it) the Constitution.
      
      And State Constitutions take after the federal one, so...
      
      yeah, the public DID agree to the constitution.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ed C., 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:07am
  
  Re:
  If you don't like the license, don't do business with the licensor.
  
  Oligopolies are a beautiful thing, aren't they? It doesn't matter who I go to if they all basically agree to use the same terms. And what if I never agreed to any of the copyright laws? "don't do business with the legislators" isn't an option either. Moving is out too, the publishing industries have pushed these ridiculous rules into international treaties.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Aye. There is no where for us to go. Copyrestriction is everywhere.
    
    Even if we could find a place and/or make our own, pressure will be placed on us to adopt those laws. It's oppression pure and simple.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 1:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I truly wish we as a civilization had an advanced, sci-fi level space program. If there were other inhabitable planets within reach--or even just the technology to create large, comfortable, and self-sufficient space station colonies--I think many of us would happily leave to create a more forward-thinking and innovative society while the rest of planet Earth rotted back into the Dark Ages.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  You are right.
  
  I am the copyright, RIAA, MPAA, et., worst nightmare.
  
  I do not have a radio. I have no phonograph records (remember venial and asphalt), pornographic tapes (remember 8 track and cassette), or content CD either store bought or pirated.
  
  I simply do with out. It is cheaper and saves much time, effort, and money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 1:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I think you meant "phonographic" tapes ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:42am
  
  Re:
  I didn't agree to the copyright Act!
  Death+70yrs only benefits the owner of the copyright and not the public.
  But if I recall, the constitution and copyright are somehow connected.
  But you're right...Its not rocket science so even you should be able to figure this out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    "The Constitution is just a piece of paper" - G.W. Bush
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- velox (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:22am
  
  Re:
  The day I can actually negotiate a EULA is the day I will respect the legitimacy of a EULA.
  Yes I know SCOTUS has ruled that one-sided "take it-or leave it" click-through "agreements" are valid, but the general public isn't convinced. People don't respect EULA's because neither the lawyers who wrote them, nor the companies they represent respect the public.
  And why is the public not respected? It is because lobbyist-written laws have emasculated the rights of the public as pertaining to the purchase of copyrighted material.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 2:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If I've PAID for a product before I am ALLOWED to read and agree to the EULA, I could care less what the EULA says, it's mine, I paid for it, and I will do what the hell I want with it regardless of what your lawyer scum think....
    
    Now if every retailer wants to start reading the EULA at the register, and getting the purchasers approval BEFORE they sell the produce, I'm fine with that (and there could be a great market for people to read the EULA to customers... ok this is prior art if anyone tries this....)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 5 Sep 2012 @ 12:02am
  
  Re: that's what you agreed to and that's what happens.
  What happens with retroactive changes? Did we agree to those as well? Say I bought a Sonny & Cher recording of �The Beat Goes On� under the Life + 50 years rule in 1967. Then in 1998 the Sonny Bono act increased the term to Life + 70 years; did I agree to that when I bought the original recording, only I didn�t realize it at the time?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 4:00am
  
  Re:
  If you don't like the license, don't do business with the licensor.
  
  We don't. What happens? **AA runs to the government whining for new laws cause we stole from them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:21am

Short answer: because there is no logical relationship between the two things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:30am
  
  Give back your Kohlinar necklace.
  Actually they are both licenses. They are licenses on the same "thing". So there is a very clear and obvious relationship between the two. They are the same legal object but viewed from two different vantage points.
  
  However, this entire situation is mostly just the end result of repeated retro-active extensions to a social contract meant to have a LIMITED term.
  
  It's a problem that simply shouldn't be happening.
  
  Bruce's old stuff should be in the public domain. Artificial problem caused by greedy corporations corrupting government solved.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:11am
    
    Re: Give back your Kohlinar necklace.
    Please explain how copyright is a "license" and both a copyright and a nonexclusive license to copy a digital media file are "the same legal object."
    
    I'm inclined to say that's a lot of hogwash, but I guess I'd like to hear your reasoning before saying that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:33am
      
      Re: Re: Give back your Kohlinar necklace.
      Copyright gives a person or group license to copy. Hence, the term, "copyright".
      
      Clue's in the name, man.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Give back your Kohlinar necklace.
        I'm starting to believe your are actually a troll. No one could legitimately be so dense.
        
        At any rate, but for this brief exception, I'm going to continue adhering to my policy of not engaging you in conversation.
        
        Still interested to hear what JEDIDIAH has to say.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Give back your Kohlinar necklace.
        A limited right to be the sole copier of a work. The right to copy fully licensed by a Government.
        
        That is the definition fo a copyright.
        
        Please point to me where there is no license involved at any point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
aethercowboy (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:24am

Does this mean that all of my books must be destroyed when I die?

Hello, viking funeral...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vic, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:25am

Well, yeah! The Copyright IS for the good of the public. Who said that licensing rules should be too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:27am

Of course there's a logical reason for this.

Children of artist collecting royalties from their parents hard work = a parent legitimately handing down their hard earned money & investments to their kids.

You dying and your kids splitting up your music collection = pirates dividing their stolen loot (loot they stole from you).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:48am
  
  Re:
  The copyright is only of value to the children if it has already earned enough money to make them rich already, assuming the work is ten or more years old. In all other cases the copyright is valueless to the kids, the publisher will not publish more copies. It does however damage society as the work is no longer available, and cannot be used for a possible better derived work.
  Society is paying a large cost in unavailable works for the few works that actually make publisher mopney over the long term.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not true! My grandma still gets ASCAP checks for compositions my grandpa wrote, and they certainly were never popular enough to make anyone rich.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 1:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I forgot about mandatory licenses for some types of performances, which is the exception for for music, and by passes publisher control. Are any recording available?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not sure if any commercial recordings of his compositions are available. I think the checks she gets are mostly from live public performances by orchestras, not public performances of recordings.
        
        We're talking about TENS of dollars a year.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChrisB (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:28am

Patents ...
Look at patents for the proper term. Patent terms are the result of corporations fighting corporations and have stayed at 20 years. Copyright terms are the result of corporations fighting ... who? Captured regulators, that's who.

This is why empowering the government in business leads to more corruption, not less. How about we get governments out of business, and leave it to businesses? No more monopolies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:32am

'Tis merely an oversight
Digital media licenses expire with their purchaser only because there doesn't yet exist legislation limiting the duration of such licenses to that of the lifespan of the license holder's four-year-old's first pet goldfish. No doubt this oversight will soon be corrected...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 10:36am

My Mind Wants To Know
Over the weekend, there was a silly -- and quickly proven bogus -- story...While that story appears to have been a work of fiction by the UK's Daily Mail...

Mike, was this story really proven bogus or just too difficult for the ill-informed to comprehend? Do you have a link with proof that it was bogus? Please show proof.

The story also appeared here but with a miniscule amount of additional information.

True, the UK press is famous (yes, it does have a 'u') for spreading gossip and Willie is promoting a new celluloid smash 'em up blow 'em up horror (and as long as they talk about you yadda, yadda), but I've seen as much proof that the story was 'bogus' as bush showed did that Iraq had WMD and/or had something to do with 9/11 (FYI, that would be sfa).

Btw, don't just post the old red herring about Apple iCrap being DRM-free for years - that in no way relates to licensing terms that forbid transfer - it just affects the practicality of said transfer, NOT the legal situation.

How is it that copyright lasts 70 years after death, but licenses expire at death?

Greed, corruption, ignorance, incompetence.

Part of the money that suckers pay the greedy Price-Fixing Noise-Peddler Cartel for a plastic disc full of noise or somesuch goes directly into supremely dumb and corrupt "lawmakers'" pockets to pay them off for bull**** they call laws that favour the greedy bastards. So anyone who pays for that noise is simply giving the bastards more rope to hang them with (and the world is FULL of those dopes).

It does The Mafia proud and makes the MAFIAA filthier rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:16am

Life plus 70 give the publisher the ability to do a reprint on an Authors death, if it looks like the work will sell. It also allow enough time the worrk to become difficult to obtain, as physical artifacts wear-out and get destryed. The alsost eliminates competion between new works, and old works on the second hand market. Not allowing liceses for digital works to be transfered on death does the same for digital copies.
Publishers are under no obligation to make a work available, and therefore remove older works from sale unless creates a large market for the work again, suach as a film of the book. This makes economic sense from a publshers viewpoint for digital works, as profit is accounted against each work. Expect digital works to go out of 'print' once their sales drop off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- velox (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:45am
  
  Re:
  "Life plus 70 give the publisher the ability to do a reprint on an Authors death, if it looks like the work will sell...
  Publishers are under no obligation to make a work available, and therefore remove older works from sale unless creates a large market for the work again"
  Yes, but this incentive for publishers to bring out-of-print works back to market under extended copyright only applies to the physical world where the publisher has to weigh the expense of printing a book against the likelihood of making a profit. In a digital world, there is virtually no expense involved in making file available for download. If a person seeks to find a digital work which has an expired copyright, then it is easy to find that copy from someone who has legally made it available at no expense to themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 12:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Two points:
    How many digital copies will survive life + 70, which could be 150 or more years from original publ;ication.
    What about getting a copy between the time the publisher stops making it available and copyright expiring. Piracy is the only avenue in this case, as license do not aloow resale.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - velox (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 1:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "How many digital copies will survive life + 70, which could be 150 or more years from original publ;ication.
      What about getting a copy between the time the publisher stops making it available and copyright expiring. Piracy is the only avenue in this case"
      Project Gutenberg has more than 40,000 volumes for which the copyright has expired. No-one who submitted these works was paid (AFAIK). All it takes for the entire world to gain access is for a single person who has a digital copy to submit it to a repository such as Gutenberg, or perhaps one of the file sharing sites.
      As for the period between prior to copyright expiration -- yes, you are correct about piracy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:25am

High court, low court. When it suits us it's life plus infinity, when it doesn't suit us it's life and be thankful we aren't shrinking it even further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:30am

A famous authors or artists death can be an opportunity to sell many more copies of his/her work. Life +70 cover this window, and allow the works to become obscure and/or dated before the copyright runs out. With control of making copies available, this allow celimination of competition between old and new works that appeal to the same audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 11:57am
  
  Re:
  Point missed. And that's pretty much what this monopoly is all about, eliminate competition.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 4 Sep 2012 @ 12:27pm
  
  Re:
  So is this an admission that copyright is not about encouraging new works? Because it's hard to encourage someone to make new content when they're dead.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 1:08pm

It really is incredible that people still haven't figured out that copying does not equal stealing. Even the FBI made the claim that copying data does not equate to stealing when they tried to justify why it was ok for them to FedEx hard drives filled with copied data from the Megaupload raid back to the US against explicit New Zealand court orders that the Megaupload data was to remain in New Zealand.

So, which is it, people? Do you agree with the FBI that copying is not theft, or do you disagree with the FBI's actions in this case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DanZee (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 1:22pm

Copyright Hostages
About 95% of everything printed is never reprinted and those works are being kept out of the public domain by the 5% that do get reprinted. And of that, probably less than 1% of works actually generate any substantial income, so 99% of works are being held hostage for 95 years by the 1% that actually generate any money through the years. It's not a fair system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 2:13pm

Wow, Pirate Mike.

Just look at the rabid pack of piratical half-wits that flock to you and your pro-piracy blog. You must be ever so proud. You and your minions are the scum of the earth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RadialSkid (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 3:28pm
  
  Re:
  Your despair is delicious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 3:56pm
  
  Re:
  Oh look, it's another troll with no comment on the article itself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 4:14pm
  
  Re:
  The query is legitimate. The best justification that your ilk can come up with, upon being questioned how the original creator benefits from a system that lasts 70 years after he passes away, is "It's the law, duh stupid." Absolutely nothing to do with piracy.
  
  You're just mad that the FBI couldn't get away with the SWAT team, and people are noticing where you're trying to shove SOPA in behind the public's ass via backroom deals.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 5:41pm

I feel sorry for Average Joe in this thread, he gave pretty much the correct answer, and got jumped for doing it. So let's try again.

Copyright is a law, a constitutional permit that exists in US law. It is defined by the copyright act and all that goes with it, and by law, grants the copyright for a term.

The licensing is part of contract law, with all of it's grants and restrictions. One of those things is that licenses can be contractually limited by the terms of the contract under which it is granted.

It's not really hard. Mike ask the question, but he already knows the answer. He is just trying to stir the crap again with this one.

Judging by the content of the comments here, you guys fell for it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- average_joe (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 5:57pm
  
  Re:
  Don't feel sorry for me. I know what I'm getting into when I speak the unwanted truth in Mike's little pirate den. What I can't ever figure out, though, is why they think copyright is so dumb and that it never produces anything of value, but then they value copyrighted works so much that they're willing to violate other people rights to get them. At bottom, they just want content for free, and they're too selfish to think about anyone other than themselves. They flock to TD where the Lord High Apologist gives them all the absolution they need. But inside, they know it's wrong. Well, at least the non-socipaths do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 8:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If pirates are sociopaths who just want free stuff then why do they need someone to apologize for them? That's just silly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 5:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If pirates are sociopaths who just want free stuff then why do they need someone to apologize for them? That's just silly.
      
      Mike's here day in and day out to convince them that the victims are to blame for their conscious decision to violate the victims' rights. He writes article after article about how copyright is pure evil and how everyone who believes in copyright is wrong. I could on, but it's depressing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 12:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't. I get all my music legitimately. Which is to say, zero from iTunes and Amazon.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 4:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ad hom as much as you want. It's obviour your full of shit, which is why you won't answer the question about why retroactive extension of copyright should make sense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bratwurzt (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 7:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    But inside you know you're wrong. Just believe me (that this is a pirate den and everybody except me and other trolls is Mikes puppet) I am a non-sociopath and I defamed Mike enough that he lost all credibility (since these freetards have an average iq of 100, this was an extremely easy task) and then I threw in some logical fallacies and voila - I won the internets favor. It's a good thing I'm not a sociopath.
    
    FTFY
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 4 Sep 2012 @ 6:04pm
  
  Re:
  The law makes it right ... no matter what - so there. There is no such thing as an unjust law, amirite?
  
  It's not really hard. AC states the obvious, but he already knows the problems with that. He is just trying to dish the crap again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 6:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "The law makes it right ... no matter what - so there. "
    
    You are trying to reframe my answer. I didn't state right or wrong, I stated why.
    
    If you think it is wrong, change the law - but remember that if you want to change contract law, you would be touching many areas of life.
    
    It's not a question of right or wrong here, it's a question of what the law states, and the law is always "right" in some ways.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 4 Sep 2012 @ 7:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "If you think it is wrong, change the law "
      
      What utter bollocks - Is that the best you've got?
      
      I've heard this flippant response before and it is nothing more than a snide remark.
      
      I'm not re framing anything, you stated "copyright is law" and that is "the correct answer". So, yeah - go after orphans and grannies for a civil infraction all the while claiming you are in the right because of the law but don't start whining when people call you a dirt bag. It's pretty simple really, I'm surprised you do not get it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 4 Sep 2012 @ 7:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not re framing anything, you stated "copyright is law" and that is "the correct answer". So, yeah - go after orphans and grannies for a civil infraction all the while claiming you are in the right because of the law but don't start whining when people call you a dirt bag. It's pretty simple really, I'm surprised you do not get it.
        
        Whine all you want about the law, but respect it because it is the law. As JFK put it:
        This is as it should be, for our Nation is founded on the principle that observance of the law is the eternal safeguard of liberty and defiance of the law is the surest road to tyranny. The law which we obey includes the final rulings of the courts, as well as the enactments of our legislative bodies. Even among law-abiding men few laws are universally loved, but they are uniformly respected and not resisted.
        
        Americans are free, in short, to disagree with the law but not to disobey it. For in a government of laws and not of men, no man, however prominent or powerful, and no mob however unruly or boisterous, is entitled to defy a court of law. If this country should ever reach the point where any man or group of men by force or threat of force could long defy the commands of our court and our Constitution, then no law would stand free from doubt, no judge would be sure of his writ, and no citizen would be safe from his neighbors.
        Source: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Speeches/Radio-and-Television-Report-to-the-N ation-on-the-Situation-at-the-University-of-Mississippi.aspx
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 7:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Rising up in revolution would be in defiance of the law, and not even the much-vaunted JFK could tell us we were wrong to do so. We are not a democracy, we are a republic (look up the difference). With over 40,000 statutes on the books it is impossible to NOT break the law on a daily basis. We are no longer a country of MEN, we are a country of laws. The laws have overtaken and control us, and it isn't right nor just. Defiance is the writ of this land, and it will come around, again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        velox (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 9:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " With over 40,000 statutes on the books it is impossible to NOT break the law on a daily basis. We are no longer a country of MEN, we are a country of laws"
        I don't that being a country of laws is the essential problem. I think the problem is that our government doesn't make a prudent effort to evaluate the consequences of law after it has been passed. Perhaps the Congressional Research Service does this, but its data is not generally released to the public, and it is difficult to find any evidence that Congress actually pays attention to the reports they produce.
        In this country, the only way a law gets changed, whether it is unjust, unwise, or just unwanted is by someone claiming harm, and then creating a sympathetic anecdote which can be used in a political forum. Our government only moves in the flow of a constant stream of complaints. It does not proactively evaluate existing law, but is only reactive to complaint (and the campaign contributions which accompany those complaints).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 4 Sep 2012 @ 7:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, if JFK said so than so be it.
        
        Let's enforce all laws on the books with equal fervor, not just the violent crimes known as felonies, but also the little known and long ago forgotten laws we all agree are simply ridiculous - because, you know ... that's the law.
        
        for example, in New York:
        - It is illegal for a woman to be on the street wearing �body hugging clothing�.
        but also a
        - Women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business.
        
        In California:
        - You may only throw a frisbee at the beach in Los Angeles County, CA with the lifeguard�s permission.
        and
        - Nobody is allowed to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.
        
        ref: www.dumblaws.com/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 8:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Well, if JFK said so than so be it."
        
        Just remember this little rant the next time someone brings up that Ben Franklin quote again...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2012 @ 8:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." - Robert A. Heinlein, 1939
        
        "Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive. Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine - too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient. That tension will not go away. It leads to endless wrenching debate about price, copyright, 'intellectual property', the moral rightness of casual distribution, because each round of new devices makes the tension worse, not better." - Stewart Brand, 1984
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 4 Sep 2012 @ 9:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        'The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity'. -Abraham Lincoln
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 5 Sep 2012 @ 6:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        'The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity'. -Abraham Lincoln
        
        Except when they are trivially easy to verify from multiple sources. Through the internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 5:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, if JFK said so than so be it.
        
        Let's enforce all laws on the books with equal fervor, not just the violent crimes known as felonies, but also the little known and long ago forgotten laws we all agree are simply ridiculous - because, you know ... that's the law.
        
        for example, in New York:
        - It is illegal for a woman to be on the street wearing �body hugging clothing�.
        but also a
        - Women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business.
        
        In California:
        - You may only throw a frisbee at the beach in Los Angeles County, CA with the lifeguard�s permission.
        and
        - Nobody is allowed to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.
        
        ref: www.dumblaws.com/
        
        I'm sure there are a few "dumb laws" on the books. Laws are written by humans, and no human-built system is perfect. Moreover, through prosecutorial discretion, those laws aren't enforced. But so what? You throw out the FUD but you don't say what you think it means.
        
        Are you suggesting that if you can find one "dumb law," then that means we can all rightfully violate other people's copyright rights? I think that argument is just sad.
        
        As JFK said, if you put yourself above the law, then you do injustice to your neighbor. I know such talk of duty and honor doesn't ring true with many of Mike's Gang, but I would hope that such notions mean something to you, abc.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        velox (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " through prosecutorial discretion, those laws aren't enforced. But so what?"
        If justice depends on the discretion of prosecutors, then we are right back to a government of men, not a government of laws -- the reverse of John Adams' definition of good government.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 2:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Whine all you want about the law, but respect it because it is the law."
        
        Hell no! Laws are respected and followed when they are seen to be working in a just fashion and reflect the will of the majority at a given time. There are plenty of laws that were changed or repealed because they no longer met those standards.
        
        Copyright law has not been truly just for a couple of decades, and massive widespread infringement proves it no longer reflects what people believe we should and shouldn't be allowed to do. Simply stating "It's the law" over and over is a weak and pathetic argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 5 Sep 2012 @ 4:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whine all you want about the law, but respect it because it is the law.
        
        And how well is that working out? Wanna venture a guess?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]