Copyright vs patent

[BlkHawk]

If I invent a product I can get a patent that lasts 20 years.

If I write a book it is copyright for my life time plus 70 years.

They are both things I dreamed up, both things I created, both products of my imagination; so why the different time frames for legal protection?

Especially that variable of life time, it creates a confusing mess. For example Stieg Larsson's Girl With the Dragon Tatoo was published in the 2000's after his death, so it will be protected for 70 years, 2070. Harper Lee published To Kill a Mockingbird in 1960, already 53 years. If she dies this year and I hope she doesn't, her book will be protected until 2083, 123 years.

Why isn't it just 70 years? If you write your book in your 20's, that will cover most life spans. If you die before your work is published your family will still inherit the profits from your work.

Why the difference, why does one form of creativity get such greater protection? I do believe all works deserve a term of perfection for the creator to profit, before those works fall into the public domain.

These are USA copyright/patent lengths.

 

[Jack Davenport]

If I invent a product I can get a patent that lasts 20 years.

If I write a book it is copyright for my life time plus 70 years.

They are both things I dreamed up, both things I created, both products of my imagination; so why the different time frames for legal protection?

Especially that variable of life time, it creates a confusing mess. For example Stieg Larsson's Girl With the Dragon Tatoo was published in the 2000's after his death, so it will be protected for 70 years, 2070. Harper Lee published To Kill a Mockingbird in 1960, already 53 years. If she dies this year and I hope she doesn't, her book will be protected until 2083, 123 years.

Why isn't it just 70 years? If you write your book in your 20's, that will cover most life spans. If you die before your work is published your family will still inherit the profits from your work.

Why the difference, why does one form of creativity get such greater protection? I do believe all works deserve a term of perfection for the creator to profit, before those works fall into the public domain.

These are USA copyright/patent lengths.

Simple

A product such as a marketable invention tends to breed other inventions and spark ideas for an improved product. The USPTO understands this as technology and manufacturing means change over a period of time. To give indefinite protection would undermine advancement and improvement and research and development.

A novel, song or writings etc.. are considered art and becomes part of the popular culture and also can be used for educational purposes as well as entertainment purposes. They are exclusive to the creator and are not intended as tangible products such as tools of a trade, machinery, pharmaceuticals that could be used by the population in general on a everyday basis.

This is the rationale behind the distinctions.

 

[lurkingdirk]

We seriously live in the twilight copyright law as it currently exists. It can not continue to exist as it does. I say that with 100% certainty.

Part of the problem is that as copyright law developed, and the needs for it evolved, the law wasn't re-written. It was amended. And then amended. And then amended. And then amended. Current copyright law has absolutely no ability to cope with current demands.

Here's an example. A church uses a song in worship. They project it on the screen, and print it in their bulletin. The service is then put up on their website in the weekly podcast. Now, according to current copyright law, they need to have licensing for that song from 1. the people who published it, 2. the people who wrote it, 3. the people who hold publishing rights for reprinting it, 4. the people who hold publishing rights for projecting it, 5. the people who hold publishing rights for recording it. That's just ridiculous, and is an example of how a law that should have been rewritten has just had bullshit amendments tacked on to it.

All copyright law needs be reevaluated.

:2 cents:

 

[assari]

The patent is a deal between the inventor and the goverment and the goverment thinks that 20 years is an appropriate time and it not change if no one does not do anything I guess.

 

[Jack Davenport]

We seriously live in the twilight copyright law as it currently exists. It can not continue to exist as it does. I say that with 100% certainty.

Part of the problem is that as copyright law developed, and the needs for it evolved, the law wasn't re-written. It was amended. And then amended. And then amended. And then amended. Current copyright law has absolutely no ability to cope with current demands.

Here's an example. A church uses a song in worship. They project it on the screen, and print it in their bulletin. The service is then put up on their website in the weekly podcast. Now, according to current copyright law, they need to have licensing for that song from 1. the people who published it, 2. the people who wrote it, 3. the people who hold publishing rights for reprinting it, 4. the people who hold publishing rights for projecting it, 5. the people who hold publishing rights for recording it. That's just ridiculous, and is an example of how a law that should have been rewritten has just had bullshit amendments tacked on to it.

All copyright law needs be reevaluated.

:2 cents:

But none do it and the creator knows this. The main concern for people that seek copyright protection is to insure that if someone profits from their work, that they receive their royalties and proper accreditation. Most people or entities that hold a copyright that is of value receive remuneration through publishing companies and licensing agreements.

 

[BlkHawk]

Simple

A product such as a marketable invention tends to breed other inventions and spark ideas for an improved product. The USPTO understands this as technology and manufacturing means change over a period of time. To give indefinite protection would undermine advancement and improvement and research and development.

A novel, song or writings etc.. are considered art and becomes part of the popular culture and also can be used for educational purposes as well as entertainment purposes. They are exclusive to the creator and are not intended as tangible products such as tools of a trade, machinery, pharmaceuticals that could be used by the population in general on a everyday basis.

Thanks, never thought of that before. Why does it apply to software though? I can see a video game as artistic impression, but what about an application such as MS office? This is a marketable product, a technological innovation, that could be modified, or improved upon, or spark further ideas. Yet it and other applications fall under corporate copyright of 90+ years, instead of patent.

What about a math textbook you can change how the information is presented, but basic math hasn't changed in thousands of years.

 

[BlkHawk]

We seriously live in the twilight copyright law as it currently exists. It can not continue to exist as it does. I say that with 100% certainty.

Part of the problem is that as copyright law developed, and the needs for it evolved, the law wasn't re-written. It was amended. And then amended. And then amended. And then amended. Current copyright law has absolutely no ability to cope with current demands.

Here's an example. A church uses a song in worship. They project it on the screen, and print it in their bulletin. The service is then put up on their website in the weekly podcast. Now, according to current copyright law, they need to have licensing for that song from 1. the people who published it, 2. the people who wrote it, 3. the people who hold publishing rights for reprinting it, 4. the people who hold publishing rights for projecting it, 5. the people who hold publishing rights for recording it. That's just ridiculous, and is an example of how a law that should have been rewritten has just had bullshit amendments tacked on to it.

All copyright law needs be reevaluated.

:2 cents:

But none do it and the creator knows this. The main concern for people that seek copyright protection is to insure that if someone profits from their work, that they receive their royalties and proper accreditation. Most people or entities that hold a copyright that is of value receive remuneration through publishing companies and licensing agreements.

Some do abuse this though, there was a case in the Netherlands a few years ago where a publisher threatened to sue public libraries for have story book readings. A volunteer would read a childrens book out loud to groups of children, the publisher felt this violated the public display part of copyright, and wanted addtional royalties for this practice to continue. The sad part is under the law he was correct. Hell my 1st grade teacher broke the law when she read Pippi Longstocking out loud to a class of 20 kids.

That just seems like a set of laws that really need updated.

 

[Jagger69]

Simple

A product such as a marketable invention tends to breed other inventions and spark ideas for an improved product. The USPTO understands this as technology and manufacturing means change over a period of time. To give indefinite protection would undermine advancement and improvement and research and development.

A novel, song or writings etc.. are considered art and becomes part of the popular culture and also can be used for educational purposes as well as entertainment purposes. They are exclusive to the creator and are not intended as tangible products such as tools of a trade, machinery, pharmaceuticals that could be used by the population in general on a everyday basis.

This is the rationale behind the distinctions.

:thumbsup: This. I've been through the patent gauntlet personally and the fashion in which Blue C explains the reason for the difference is right on. I guess that matchbook law school he attended paid at least a few dividends after all!

 

[Jack Davenport]

This is not my area of expertise. Some of the brightest people I know are patent/ trademark/intellectual property lawyers. We covered just enough about this in law school to let me know that I neither had the patience or the desire to deal with USPTO examiners and the mind boggling paperwork involved submitting initial applications and the (almost always) re-submissions and the tedious work involved in searches. They truly earn every penny they make.

 

[BlkHawk]

This is not my area of expertise. Some of the brightest people I know are patent/ trademark/intellectual property lawyers. We covered just enough about this in law school to let me know that I neither had the patience or the desire to deal with USPTO examiners and the mind boggling paperwork involved submitting initial applications and the (almost always) re-submissions and the tedious work involved in searches. They truly earn every penny they make.

You did have a good explanation, and for that I thank you. Sounds like you believe it can be a bit mess at times. I would like to see the current laws streamlined. Right now a layman like me has a hell of a time figuring out what is fair use and what isn't.

 

[Spreeuw]

Although there might be a logic behind this distinction in time, I still think there is something fishy about copyright/patent laws in several countries.

For example, there are great international problems surrounding the patent on medicine. These patents and copyrights all have a western "scientific" bias in them, in that they are awarded to single entities who "invented" the product at a certain moment in time under specific circumstances. (Think about the doctor in the lab with the "eureka" moment cliche).

Due to these standards, several (mainly South/South-East Asian) communities who had developed certain medicine in their communities (multiple people/generations) over time could not make any claims of copyright on this medicine. Thus, what happened is that businesses traveled there, practically stole the medicine and patented it. Afterwards, they could sue that community for copyright infringement and it could not create the medicine again. This was possible because they altered the medicine (adding a simple color, taste or texture) in a lab and for the law this company is one single entity.

This was all possible under TRIPS (Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) and due to several large scale diseases (both in and outside the U.S.) some things have started to change. Nevertheless, this example shows that Intellectual Property Rights are also very much an instrument of power and control. There is a trade-off here between private and public benefit. Furthermore, although they might contribute to innovation by allowing one to reap the benefits of one's work in peace, they might as well stiffen it. It is funny that only a few decennia ago the U.S. government mainly thought the latter. It was not until later on, under the influence of private lobbies, that they became convinced of the former.

Any thoughts on this?

(Note: I know this post is kinda vague in the sense that it does not list data or concrete names. I will look this up of course, but I don't have the material at hand right now).

 

[Jack Davenport]

Although there might be a logic behind this distinction in time, I still think there is something fishy about copyright/patent laws in several countries.

For example, there are great international problems surrounding the patent on medicine. These patents and copyrights all have a western "scientific" bias in them, in that they are awarded to single entities who "invented" the product at a certain moment in time under specific circumstances. (Think about the doctor in the lab with the "eureka" moment cliche).

Due to these standards, several (mainly South/South-East Asian) communities who had developed certain medicine in their communities (multiple people/generations) over time could not make any claims of copyright on this medicine. Thus, what happened is that businesses traveled there, practically stole the medicine and patented it. Afterwards, they could sue that community for copyright infringement and it could not create the medicine again. This was possible because they altered the medicine (adding a simple color, taste or texture) in a lab and for the law this company is one single entity.

This was all possible under TRIPS (Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) and due to several large scale diseases (both in and outside the U.S.) some things have started to change. Nevertheless, this example shows that Intellectual Property Rights are also very much an instrument of power and control. There is a trade-off here between private and public benefit. Furthermore, although they might contribute to innovation by allowing one to reap the benefits of one's work in peace, they might as well stiffen it. It is funny that only a few decennia ago the U.S. government mainly thought the latter. It was not until later on, under the influence of private lobbies, that they became convinced of the former.

Any thoughts on this?

(Note: I know this post is kinda vague in the sense that it does not list data or concrete names. I will look this up of course, but I don't have the material at hand right now).

The greatest expense in securing patent and trademark protection are the countless hours of patent search and cross referencing of existing patents. No doubt big pharma have deep pockets and can spare no expense in acquiring protection for a potentially lucrative new drug. I am sure there is corporate espionage taking place and boils down to who can develop the drug and who can absorb the expense of the development. Not to mention international patents and the process involved in receiving FDA approval as well as approval from international agencies.

This is not limited to just pharmaceutical companies but anything that has the potential to generate large sums of revenue. Snuffing out smaller companies and research is unfortunately how the game is played. Survival of the fittest. It doesn't make it right, but I honestly don't know how to make it right. Even automobile manufacturers disguise a new product from their competition in fear that their ideas will be stolen. I am not sure there is a concerted effort by government agencies to assist companies in the patent process but anything is possible.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

Some do abuse this though, there was a case in the Netherlands a few years ago where a publisher threatened to sue public libraries for have story book readings. A volunteer would read a childrens book out loud to groups of children, the publisher felt this violated the public display part of copyright, and wanted addtional royalties for this practice to continue. The sad part is under the law he was correct. Hell my 1st grade teacher broke the law when she read Pippi Longstocking out loud to a class of 20 kids.

That just seems like a set of laws that really need updated.

Unfortunatelly culture has become synonymous with creating profit. Where copyright should be the backbone to protect the rights of a creator it has become the backbone for large corporations for economic blackmail.

 

[Spreeuw]

Unfortunatelly culture has become synonymous with creating profit. Where copyright should be the backbone to protect the rights of a creator it has become the backbone for large corporations for economic blackmail.

Well, those with advantageous position can always try to exploit them. I was wondering whether it would help the democratization of intellectual property if the costs for acquiring patent or copyright were lower. However, that trial of thought reminds me of the domain name gold rush a few decades ago. This was the time when domain names were handed out first come, first serve. Many citizens made big bucks my quickly registering domainnames associated with big companies (including slogans etc.) for a small fee, and selling them for huge profits to those companies. On the one hand, one might see it as people power. On the other, it is very fleeting and temporary.

 

[Elwood70]

Why is this thread in this section?

 

[BlkHawk]

Why is this thread in this section?

I debated if it should go here, I finally put it here since the length of copyright is determined by politicians and lobbying. The issue will come up again shortly in 2019 maybe a little later I need to research it again. Sonny Bono extended the current copyright protection act in the 1990s also called the Mickey Mouse law. It prevented Mickey from falling into the public domain, by extending copyrights again. Disney spent quite a lot of money lobbying for it and will most likely do so again when Mickey nears public domain again.

I personly believe the terms need to be reduced as I see no purpose in protecting a dead authors works. The patent system protects inventors with a 20 year term, and it works by assuring income and allowing innovation. Why not the same with copyright?

The two links provide additional information, the Washington post article is quite good I highly advise reading that one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...t-of-the-public-domain-will-they-do-it-again/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

 

[Petra]

We seriously live in the twilight copyright law as it currently exists. It can not continue to exist as it does. I say that with 100% certainty.

Part of the problem is that as copyright law developed, and the needs for it evolved, the law wasn't re-written. It was amended. And then amended. And then amended. And then amended. Current copyright law has absolutely no ability to cope with current demands.

Here's an example. A church uses a song in worship. They project it on the screen, and print it in their bulletin. The service is then put up on their website in the weekly podcast. Now, according to current copyright law, they need to have licensing for that song from 1. the people who published it, 2. the people who wrote it, 3. the people who hold publishing rights for reprinting it, 4. the people who hold publishing rights for projecting it, 5. the people who hold publishing rights for recording it. That's just ridiculous, and is an example of how a law that should have been rewritten has just had bullshit amendments tacked on to it.

All copyright law needs be reevaluated.

:2 cents:

Think the Happy Birthday song is a better example.

 

[Jack Davenport]

^ smart

 

[JesusWasGay]

Interesting that someone holding on to 2000 year old writing as solid foundation in today's world would openly discuss time limit reasoning for advancement and progress due to research and development. Seems a bit of a contradiction in way of thinking.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Interesting that someone holding on to 2000 year old writing as solid foundation in today's world would openly discuss time limit reasoning for advancement and progress due to research and development. Seems a bit of a contradiction in way of thinking.

And this is relevant to my statement how?

Obviously God built a pretty good product. His patent ran out a few years ago and nobody has been able to improve upon it. But you are welcome to give it a shot.