Forum - View topicINTEREST: World Copyright Watchdog Publishes Piece on Manga Piracy
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TheAncientOne
 Posts: 1886 Location: USA (mid-south) |
|
|||||
Prior to 1886, at least in the United States, corporations could not hold a copyright in their name. Given that copyright existed well before then, how could it "obviously" have been written for corporate interests?
The content of the magazine belongs to you, but not the right to disseminate copies as you see fit. If you live in the U.S., and don't agree to that, you need to ignore or amend the constitution, not simply ignore or change a law. From section 8 of the United States of America Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Like it or not, when you purchase a copyrighted work, you are bound by a contract created by copyright law. If copyright law didn't exist, but the author required that you sign a contract first stating you wouldn't distribute copies of their work to others without their permission, would you blithely ignore that as well? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
HeeroTX
Posts: 2046 Location: Austin, TX |
|
|||||
|
Since no one responded to it before, I'd like to reiterate:
So, I ask again ESPECIALLY since these are both under the same constitutional statute, why are patents "only" 20 years but copyright is "life of artist" PLUS 70 years? (in America) |
||||||
|
||||||
Charred Knight
 Posts: 3085 |
|
|||||
Most technology advancements make having a patent last longer than 20 years useless. Apple doesn't care if you can make a Macintosh now since no one would buy a computer that's 30 years behind the one Apple currently sells. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
HeeroTX
Posts: 2046 Location: Austin, TX |
|
|||||
You're focusing on computer technology, what about drug patents? Or what about the patent for "refrigeration" (Einstein) or the telephone (Bell)? Or any other numerous advancements? One could ask, does an artist deserve to profit off his/her work? I say definitely, but does an artist deserve to profit off his/her work INDEFINITELY? I say no, or why is his/her work more "valuable" than a scientists? I would argue it is actually LESS so. But even if you say an artist IS allowed to profit from his/her work for the entirety of his/her life, why does that copyright extend for 70 YEARS beyond their lives? Now the artist gains NOTHING from the work (because they are DEAD) and it is only benefiting someone that paid to own the copyright. (in today's world you can even argue that the shelf life for most "art" is even BRUTALLY less than for the technologies you're speaking of. Do you feel ANY impulse to buy DVDs for movies from 5 years ago? There are a VERY small number of "evergreen" anime, but how many of those still have value? Heck, there's a few that people will hold up as exceptions that only have value because they were NEVER SOLD and likely WILL NEVER BE SOLD, somehow I don't think revocation of copyright would lead to an explosion of Ranma 1/2 knock-off DVDs or Big-O) |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Charred Knight
Posts: 3085 |
|
|||||
The Einstein refrigerator is a specific type of refrigerator that most people don't use. Keep in mind that refrigerator technology also changes and improves over time. I do buy a lot of anime over 5 years old, and I don't think they had anime in mind when they created the copyright laws. For example because of those long copyright laws, the Tolkein estate made a ton of money of those Lord of the Rings movies. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Yoda117
Posts: 406 |
|
|||||
Everything you stated was correct (and covered internationally by the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works), save for the "Fansub Code of Ethics". It's actually the "LaMaccia Loophole" as established in US v. David LaMacchia (CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 9410092-RGS) that the "Fansub Code of Ethics" was drawing itself from. Unfortunately, they ignore the Berne Convention and the NET Act. Within the US it's the NET Act that becomes important, as it closed the loophole that Fansubbers had been using (done in 1997). /sorry... letting my legal nerd come out |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||
Yes, and so do millions of people every year. Yeesh. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
HeeroTX
Posts: 2046 Location: Austin, TX |
|
|||||
You're really going to use the Tolkien estate as a great example of the merits of copyright? So, a wealthy family was made more wealthy by the artistic work of modern directors, actors and movie workers adapting a novel over fifty years old. At least use an example like Peter Pan, where the creator left the copyright to a children's hospital.
I grant that 5 years was too flippant, but I think the TWENTY years that patents get is totally reasonable. But to support MY point: http://www.the-numbers.com/dvd/charts/annual/2010.php There's the top 100 DVD sales of 2010 (I don't know if longer list is publicly available). Of those 7 (SEVEN) predate 2010 by more than 5 years. All 7 were what American audiences would classify as "children's movies" (which admittedly is largely irrelevant) but at least 2 were re-release Disney films which are only available for sale every 5 years or so when Disney artificially creates demand for them. But let's say all seven are representative of an average year. (edit: And for reference, in 2009 (the previous year) THREE (3) of the top 100 DVDs in sales were from 5 years prior or earlier. Of those three, two were "Disney Vault (limited release/fake demand)" titles.) If we extrapolate that out, approx 7% (and that's being generous since the #100 DVD sold 7.5% the number of units as the #1 DVD) of DVD sales are of movies within the last 5 years or so (realistically, movies from within the last 3 years, also, for the record, ZERO percent of the top 100 DVDs in sales from 2010 were older than 20 years, you may get an aberration in a given year like a 50th anniversary "Wizard of Oz" or "Gone With the Wind" but generally nothing outside that range will sell in appreciable numbers) That's not to say that artists do not deserve to profit off their work, but the bulk of the profit from their work (except in a few EXCEPTIONALLY rare cases) will come in the first 5 years, but even if we extend that out to twenty, what is the merit of not only letting an artist profit and completely control his/her work for the entirety of their lives, but ALSO give that right to someone else for the same twenty years patents get PLUS an additional FIFTY years on top of that? Give me one reasonable reason why copyright should not go to public domain upon the death of the artist. To use zac's example, I work in IT and no one of my choosing gets any derivative income off my work after my death. I also wonder how many artists (especially manga artists) even OWN the copyright to their work. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Charred Knight
Posts: 3085 |
|
|||||
A lot of mangaka own their own characters, that's how Oda makes 20 million dollars a year, in her prime Rumiko Takahshi was one of the richest woman in Japan. A famous example of this is when Tokuma Shoten cancelled Shonen Captain, Yasuhiro Nightow went to Shōnen Gahōsha and asked to continue Trigun, which he was able to under Young King Ours as Trigun Maximum. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
BassKuroi
|
|
|||||
Are you implying that copyright laws didn't change since 1886? Come on, be serious! |
||||||
Kikaioh
 Posts: 1205 Location: Antarctica |
|
|||||
|
To address the topic of patents vs. copyrights ~ my understanding is that the duration of a patent has traditionally been shorter than a copyright largely due to the importance that patentable works hold for society at large.
By shortening the lifespan of a patent, the government is helping to make more quickly available to the public those ideas that are potentially important for the overall well-being/survival of society. The reasoning is that the more quickly the ideas are made available to the public, the more likely those ideas can be improved upon by economic and public engines, to the betterment of society as a whole. This perceived balance between the needs of the individual and society at large doesn't exist for copyrights, which typically cover creative (i.e. non-essential) works. Copyrightable material isn't viewed as material who's worth is necessarily improved by public availability of the copyright. So it boils down to the balance of the needs of the creator vs. those of society as a whole. Government primarily functions as an intermediary between the needs/wants of the individual versus those of society at large. In the case of patents, the perceived benefit of shortening a patent is viewed as more important/beneficial to society at large, which isn't the case for copyrights. Edit: My understanding is that copyrights extend for 70 years after an author's death so that the author's estate (e.g., family, business, etc.) can continue to benefit from the work after the author's death. It also acts as a default protection of the work and the author's legacy if the author did not intend for the work to be available to the public domain following their death (diaries, private papers, etc.). |
||||||
|
||||||
|
TheAncientOne
Posts: 1886 Location: USA (mid-south) |
|
|||||
Because that is in fact driven by corporate interests. Apparently anything less than infinity is "limited" in the eyes of the Supreme Court, as they have failed to rule against continuing copyright extensions. They tend to overlook that it says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...", and not "To assure authors and their immediate heirs a continuing income". It has been proposed that the optimum length for copyright is 14 years (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/07/research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years.ars). Oddly enough, that was the length of the copyright term of the first federal law (although it allowed for a single renewal). Even with the law that was in effect for more than half of the 20th century (28 years, with an option to renew for another 28), one didn't see people or corporations shying away from creating new works due to lack of income. That said, length of copyright has little to do with this topic in the forum, as it relates to works no more than a few years old.
Your criticism appeared to be of copyright itself, not of some specific change. Most of the onerous changes to copyright law since then have had to do with ever increasing term length, which as I noted above in my response to HeeroTX, has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, as the works involved would fall well within the duration of even the earliest federal copyright terms. Please respond with what changes to copyright law you were referring to when you stated, "A law of this kind obviously was written for the benefit of corporative interests". |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||
|
The term limit argument never made sense to me when it comes to entertainment.
Art and entertainment aren't the same thing as science. Where you could very reasonably argue that a patent expiring on a particular advancement in science could help other scientists build on that creation and, without having to pay the original patent holder, further advance in their field as a result, the same logic just doesn't apply to entertainment. Just what is it that you're going to do with Mickey Mouse that wouldn't either be simply selfishly profit-motivated - IE, "I should be able to make money on Mickey Mouse because Walt Disney's been dead for a long time" - or that wouldn't be covered by the existing, very lenient parody laws? If you want to comment on or satirize Mickey Mouse you can do so to your heart's desire and no harm nor fee will come to you. If I created a beloved cartoon character, one that generated untold millions, I'd want my entire family line taken care of for as long as possible. It's not like I'm denying scientists the ability to innovate on my original work and make the world a better place - I made a cartoon mouse or a dog or whatever that resonated with a lot of people, and have secured that as my lasting legacy. Why should you be able to profit from my creation? Ever? I made it. You didn't. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Paploo
Posts: 1875 |
|
|||||
Very good points Zac. I'd say a lot of the diatribe going online w/tech sites is "I don't get super awesome rights, so your means of an income should be destroyed!". Maybe these peoples time would be better spent fighting for better patent rights and working conditions for that industry, than trying to destroy the way another provides a living for it's members. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
TheAncientOne
Posts: 1886 Location: USA (mid-south) |
|
|||||
It is interesting that as an example you hold up Disney, which has profited from many stories that were based on the works of others that had entered the public domain. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group