Will there come such a time when copyright laws get so extreme,

[Deja Q]

nobody will WANT to try to create anything anymore?

[Occulus]

1. no

What will happen is, people will more and yet more cut out the middleman. The internet is already helping to do this.

Then there are those who create and immediately donate their creations to the public domain. All my compositions, for example, are placed there when finished.

I don't want to profit from what I create- I want others to, either by simple exposure to the work or by selling a compilation or performing somewhere for profit. I don't much care; it's a talent that's free for me, so why can't it be free for everyone else?

[Deja Q]

3. If you developed for Linux; would you like it, having noted that

IBM and other behemoth companies are buying into Linux and every half-related patent?

I love public domand and the concept of. But, as always, the corporate fraudsters want to HIJACK it for their own use and profit.

And it's all free to them. Free. Slave. Labor.

In a partiipatory society, those jackals would be hung out to dry.

In society as we live in it today, WE are hung out to dry.

[FreedomAngel82]

4. I think that's why

a lot of the artist's go on tour a lot of the year when they aren't working on a production and sell outrages ticket prices. A few years ago I wanted to go and see *Nsync and so I did and went with a friend. The tickets then were $20 and I was on the floor and had GREAT view. Now days they're a lot more pricey and the merchandise too. I think that's where they get a lot of their money along with the record sell prices of course. I wouldn't be surprised if the prices go up even more throughout the years because of downloading and things like ITunes. Do they still get royalty fee's from stuff like Itunes?

[Atman]

7. iTunes is a GOOD thing. It is LEGAL.

Please don't cofuse the issues of "downloading music" and "illegally downloading music." Nothing irks me more than when people automatically assume my iPod is filled with stolen music. I don't think I have anything on it I didn't legally obtain, either through FREE artist-showcase sites like Epitonic.com or by paying for them via iTunes, or burning copies of my own discs. iTunes, being a legal arrangement with the record companies, pays royalties. There is still the issue of whether or not they get paid enough, but Apple is not cutting the artist in the transaction.

Also, I am a perfect example of why free downloads (legal ones) are good business for the artists...I own several discs I simply would not have purchased had I not heard free sample downloads.

Finally, I am a holder of hundreds, if not thousands, of copyrights. It burns my ass to see my work stolen and re-used without permission. All an artist can do is take means to protect himself. Clearly put an identifying mark on your work, don't put hi-res reproducable work on the web, don't give away your work. But, as for your original point, don't bash iTunes. If anything, they STOPPED a lot of illegal downloading by making it somewhat "cool" to pay for music.

[SmokingJacket]

6. No pay, no eat.

Some of us are good for nothing but creating stuff. If we put in a good day's work doing it, and others are willing to pay for it, why get a drone job to buy the groceries?

I'm not saying that *every* creative work ought to turn a profit -- but honestly, if people get paid for the time they put in, MORE creative work will be done.

In a culture where only noncreative work is paid for, and all creative work is unprofitable...well, that will ultimately squelch creativity.

[spanone]

2. Or get so lax that intellectual copyrights make no money for the owner

Copyright laws are in effect to protect the owner of a copyright just as home invasion laws protect home owners. If people can't own what they create maybe they'll just keep their creations to themselves, such as songs, movies, video games, etc..

[Deja Q]

5. Excessive laws can have the people hoarding their things too. Worse,

Greed has an effect on people.

If I invented something, I sure as hell wouldn't give it to "The Inventions Submissions" company; which takes the gold and gives you the shaft.

As people will patent waterproof dust these days, I find the system excessive and tacky.

Worse, when you work for an employer, the things you create become their property. (I also have a shit-fit over actors who get sheer amounts of royalties because the money they make is what the company pays for in order for them to do the work that becomes THEIR property. Actors do indeed sell their faces to the companies they work for yet they want to have it both ways.)

Again, participatory society or buy-a-gun-and-defend-yourself society. I like the former. The latter is no different than how jackals and vultures live.

[murielkane]

8. Copyright laws work best when they're leaky

Overall, it's a good thing for everyone if a certain number of songs get traded around on a hey-you-gotta-hear-this basis. It increases sales far more than it cuts into them. But it's a bad thing for both the artists and (ultimately) the audience if a CD is pirated wholesale to the point of competing with the original.

It's a good thing if poor college students use pirated copies of programs like Adobe Photoshop. It helps develop their creative abilities, and it also means that when they become older and more established they will buy the current versions of those programs or encourage their employers to buy them.

The copyright system has almost always worked this way -- leaky on the level of individual use but well enforced on the business and wholesale level. "Fair use" covers many of these tolerated leaks, though not all.

What's happening now is that things are getting squeezed from both directions. On one hand, individuals can redistribute large numbers of digitally-perfect copies instead of a few fuzzy tapes or xeroxes. On the other, publishers have more technology available to track down those infringements or to prevent them from happening in the first place -- even if that comes at the cost of legally-protected fair use.

I think the first thing we have to do is to figure out if we can recreate a leaky system of tolerated exceptions that will maximize distribution of creative works, still offer the possibility of a living wage for artists, and not criminalize indivual file-sharers.

And if we can't do that -- if the technology has just gotten too perfect to allow any gaps -- then we may have to forget about copyright altogether and start treating creative works as services rather than as goods. There are downsides to that, but they're far weaker than the downsides of allowing the creative heritage of humankind to be locked down in perpetuity by large corporations.

[Nevernose]

9. Personally, I worry about copyright expirations

It used to be the 50 years, then it was the life of the author, then moved to the life of the author plus 50 years. Last I checked, it was life of the author plus 75 years -- which still doesn't seem so unreasonable, since life+75 = the author and his grandchildren. Someone told me, though, that the reason for the growing length of copyrights is largely due to the Disney Corporation; apparently every time Mickey Mouse's copyright comes up, they lobby to have the law extended. IIRC, copyright laws apply to everything created after 1918 or so.

So when do Faulkner and Hemingway become as cheap and available to the masses as Twain and Shakespeare? When can early blues and jazz enter the realms of valuable and approachable history instead of commercial profitability (like classical, although one still pays the orchestra)?

[murielkane]

10. Even life + 75 can get kind of extreme

There's a science fiction writer named Jack Williamson. His first story was published in 1928, when he was 20. He recently turned 97. So that story has already been under copyright for 77 years and hasn't even started on the +75 part.

Since George Lucas already ripped off about half of what's in the Star Wars movies from stories Williamson wrote in the 30's (everything from evil galactic empires to disgustingly cute alien companions), Williamson isn't even getting much benefit from those copyrights on his early stuff.

There has to be some better method of handling things.