Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
A reasonable change to copyright law would be to require that copyright holders must retail market their copyrighted product on an annual basis to a certain dollar amount, or else they lose their government protection.

I don't think that idea is reasonable at all. The concept of private property means you can use or not use what you own as you see fit. Furthermore, copyright law exists to protect all manner of intellectual property, much of which is not created to be retailed. Corporate logos and sales slogans are two cases in point. The purpose of copyright law is not to force owners to sell what they own.

10 posted on 05/17/2008 2:53:54 PM PDT by Wolfstar (Politics is the ultimate exercise in facing reality and making hard choices.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: Wolfstar

In a sense, it is this way already. Every few years, Disney donates to various Congressional campaigns, and the limit on copyrights after the author’s death gets extended another few years....but then a lot of stuff that should revert to public domain gets protected along with Mickey Mouse.

I like the idea though. Maybe give a few years free for newly created works, then the copyright owner would have to pay an annual fee to keep the copyright.

Now once a copyright is expired it ought not be allowed to be renewed. “It’s A Wonderful Life” used to be public domain. It would never have become a popular movie if TV stations hadn’t been allowed to show it for free. Then NBC or somebody donated to somebody’s campaign (Clinton’s for sure, probably many others) and poof! It was proprietary once again.


11 posted on 05/17/2008 3:33:50 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar

Wolfstar - Your comment is wrong on 2 counts.

1. You cannot equate “intellectual property” to private property. One has scarcity and the other does not.

2. Corporate logos and sales slogans are protected by trademarks, not copyrights.


12 posted on 05/17/2008 3:40:07 PM PDT by Levine2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar

No, but copyright is a government monopoly license. It shouldn’t be given away to an individual just because of the niceness of their smile. Just as the government shouldn’t be expected to provide free locks and a policeman just to guard your house.


17 posted on 05/17/2008 4:58:57 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfstar
Here I go on my crusade against the term "Intellectual Property" again.

The concept of private property means you can use or not use what you own as you see fit.

Copyright is not property. It's a limited monopoly right. That right can be bought and sold like property and you can make money off that right like poperty, but it's still not property.

Furthermore, copyright law exists to protect all manner of intellectual property, much of which is not created to be retailed. Corporate logos and sales slogans are two cases in point.

By logos and slogans I take it you are talking about trademark and service mark. The authority for trademark doesn't come from the Copyright Clause, and there is no legal relation (although trademarks are registered by the same office that does patents). It is a trade law designed to eliminate confusion in the marketplace. This is why unlike copyrights trademarks have to be constantly renewed to show you're still using them, but they can last forever.

28 posted on 05/19/2008 8:39:21 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson