Microsoft to take down Linux and OpenOffice

[The Yosemite Bear]

Not to mention that they stole the Windows format from Apple, and won because the code was math based...

[Darth Holbytlan]

how about preventing someone from copywritting something that was already public domain. So that say one writter can't sue another for stealing the plot of a shakespear play....

That's already the case. You can make a derivative work based on something in the public domain (such as making 10 Things I Hate About You based upon The Taming of the Shrew), but the copyright only covers the original elements you added.

[Xisiqomelir]

Oh good, I was afraid Cravath, Swaine and Moore wouldn't have anything left to do this year after destroying Boies Schiller.

Addendum, I was also afraid that Groklaw would just become a frozen archive. Now I can keep reading PJ.

[General Soontir Fel]

Copyright should be split into profit rights and other kinds of copyright, and the profit rights should be limited to 17 years, just like patents. That would solve a lot of this software copyright nonsense, not to mention making a shitload of music royalty-free (and really, why the fuck should musicians get lifetime royalties when inventors don't?)

Could you clarify what you mean by "other kinds of copyright"? Why wouldn't simply limiting copyright terms to 17 years be sufficient?

One issue is the right to produce derivative works. I can write a sequel to a Jane Austen novel, and the only problem with publishing it would be finding someone to accept the deal. If I tried the same with Lord of the Rings, I'd get sued by the Tolkien estate. The official copyright standard (US) is 75 years or the lifetime of the author, whichever is later, but the law has been changed through lobbying efforts to extend that (the best known case of that is Disney's Mickey Mouse).

[Darth Holbytlan]

Copyright should be split into profit rights and other kinds of copyright, and the profit rights should be limited to 17 years, just like patents.

Could you clarify what you mean by "other kinds of copyright"? Why wouldn't simply limiting copyright terms to 17 years be sufficient?

One issue is the right to produce derivative works. I can write a sequel to a Jane Austen novel, and the only problem with publishing it would be finding someone to accept the deal. If I tried the same with Lord of the Rings, I'd get sued by the Tolkien estate. The official copyright standard (US) is 75 years or the lifetime of the author, whichever is later, but the law has been changed through lobbying efforts to extend that (the best known case of that is Disney's Mickey Mouse).

I don't think you understood my question. If copyright terms were generally limited to 17 years, that would cover derivative works rights and let you write all of the LotR sequels you want. (You are arguing that the Tolkien estate suing you in your hypothetical is a bad thing, right?)

I'm not seeing what "other kinds of copyright" wouldn't need the same time limitation, nor what kind of copyright (which are just rights to exclude others from copying, distributing, preparing derivative works, etc.) wouldn't be a "profit right" (exploited by selling licenses to those otherwise excluded rights). I'm hoping that DW can explain the distinction.

[General Soontir Fel]

(You are arguing that the Tolkien estate suing you in your hypothetical is a bad thing, right?)

No, I am not. I was just giving an example. "I'd get sued by the Tolkien estate" is a factual statement, with no opinion attached.

17 years may be just too little for a really long, ongoing series. Not to mention that with derivative works, the derivative has its own copyright. That's the only real difference--if we do as you say, Miramax Studios and Peter Jackson get all the profits they earned from the Lord of the Rings movies and the Tolkien heirs get zip.

[Darth Holbytlan]

(You are arguing that the Tolkien estate suing you in your hypothetical is a bad thing, right?)

No, I am not. I was just giving an example. "I'd get sued by the Tolkien estate" is a factual statement, with no opinion attached.

17 years may be just too little for a really long, ongoing series. Not to mention that with derivative works, the derivative has its own copyright. That's the only real difference--if we do as you say, Miramax Studios and Peter Jackson get all the profits they earned from the Lord of the Rings movies and the Tolkien heirs get zip.

So you're saying that derivative rights should last longer than other aspects of copyright? I don't agree with that. Why would it make sense for the Tolkien estate to lose their ability to collect royalties on the actual books, but still get them for a movie based on them? Or even sillier, an unrelated movie that happens to contain an extended quote from the books? I do think 17 years is too short, but that's Darth Wong's number, not mine.

In any case, collecting royalties is still arguably a "profit right", so I don't think derivative rights were what he meant.

And just to be nitpicky, the Tolkien heirs are getting "zip". The movie rights were sold off ages ago.