Fark.com

wikipedia.com

[To meet our quality standards, this post may require cleanup.]

[This post does not cite its references.]


Paying $100 million to free an arbitrary number of copyrights is a band-aid solution to a much larger problem. Sure, there are individual copyrights out there that would benefit the public if they were freed, but copyright law itself is what is need of serious reform. Current copyright law generally specifies a term of life plus 70 years ^{[citation needed]}. That is absurd.

My view is that if you want to keep being paid for creating, you should have to keep creating. And, Walt Disney's great-great-great-great-great grandchildren do not deserve to profit off of his work. Heck, his children (once they are grown and out of the house) don't even deserve to profit off of it. Copyright terms need to be limited, and with the way laws keep being passed to extend them ^{[citation needed]}, they may as well be unlimited.

You would be much better off spending the $100 million to buy yourself some influence in Congress.

How about a decent encyclopedia?

Happy Birhtday to You.


...the potential for change would go through-out all media types
......and it could make the world a better place

Diebold source code.

Though if they were patriots they would offer it willingly. So we'll also need to fine Diebold $100 million for being traitorous douchebags.

It's an interesting question, but I can't begin to answer it because I'm drunk and my brain is not working properly at the moment.

Although I'm intrigued by the (theoretical) possibility that Wikipedia could have $100 million to spend. How do they make money? I use the site all the time and I can see no clues as to where they might be pulling in revenue.

AntiNorm: You would be much better off spending the $100 million to buy yourself some influence in Congress.

That wouldn't even buy you a bridge in Alaska...these days.

The Beatles catalog, but only because Michael Jackson doesn't farking deserve them.

Any medical copyrights. Medical copyrights and patents keep medicine tech from inventing/developing all sorts of new medicines and therapies that could help humanity

Mickey Mouse, just because I want to see the Disney corporation throw a huge fit.

Are patents in or out? If they're in, there's a few AIDS medicines still under patent that would do a lot of good right now in Africa...

WKRP in Cincinatti.

Wait, is it too late to copyright myself?

AntiNorm While I conceed with the basic idea behind your argument, i know that if I created soemthing that turned out to be popular, i'd want any money from merchandising and licensing to go to MY family instead of some random coorperation which bought up all the rights the second i croaked.

70 years IS a bit too long though. One generation should suffice for these sorts of things.

for that kinda money they can have all my check stubs and doodles

Do my unborn/unconceived children deserve to live off my largess if I make some uber-awesome contribution to society? Let copyrights die when their holders die.

All the Disney movies older than 50 years.

weazelbeater

That wouldn't even buy you a bridge in Alaska...these days.

I'll give you a quit-claim deed to any bridge in Alaska for one-tenth of that. You pick the bridge, and if you act within the next 48 hours, I'll add any second bridge of your choice on the same quit-claim deed, and even cover the filing fees.

Jabber, I was going to say the Beatles catalog also. However, Michael Jackson doesn't own it anymore. He only owned 50% to begin with, but he sold it to Sony because he was broke. They own the whole thing now.

Use that 100 Million to get us some decent copyright laws. Something like 30 years if a corporation owns a copyright, or lifetime of the artist.

I'd buy the rights to the Nike swoosh and replace it with:


8=========>.
:
:

Mickey Mouse should be considered priority #1
That rat bastard of a mouse and Sonny Bono have together farked our copyright system into the abomination it is today.

And the Beatles Catalogue.
Just how many times will I have to buy the White Album?

In fact, the more I think of it, I think $100 million would be better spent on PACs to lobby Washington into severely reforming the copyright system... Or perhaps more urgently needed, razing it to the ground and starting from scratch.

The copyrights on texts and computer software for mathematics, medicine, chemistry, physics, and all other sciences.

Make it easier to learn, make it easier to research.

Buy the copyright to this stuff:

Artificial Intelligence

This company has a GREAT technology for making new products, using a form of neural networking. Unfortunatly, they're run by a guy who's driving the company into the ground due to INCREDIBLY bad management and business practices (I know a guy who worked there).

This is the software that designed the Oral-B Soicare toothbrush - Oral-B gave them a list of things they wanted the tooth brush to do, the software crunched on it for a bit, and spat out the finished design. It's GREAT STUFF with truely revolutionary capabilities, but it needs to be open sourced because the guy in charge is a douchebag.

How about freeing up some medicine copyrights (or patents, whatever. Aids medicine anyone?

Hmm maybe 100 million dollars is not enough for even one but hey! :)

P0rn. There just isn't enough public domain p0rn out there.

works that we are not doing a good job of generating free replacements for

Star Trek: The Original Series.
They've never replaced that show, free or otherwise. The combination of classic science fiction concepts with 1960's Batman TV production values deserves to be set free upon the world.

I saw a good answer on digg.com: several senators

bbickel: It always amazes me that people can believe that intellectual property should belong to the masses, while personal ownership of physical property is okay.

Apples, oranges.

Intellectual property deals with intangibles.

A physical building should belong to someone or a group that will (for example) be responsible for taxes and its upkeep.

The Led Zeppelin catalog. If the whole thing isn't possible for $100mil, at least the 1st album.

Menudo, I mean come on, they keep replacing them, they will never let the copyright expire

Why would someone want a particular intellectual property freed up? The only reason is that it still holds value OR would allow you to acquire some kind of monetary gain on your own.

People want Mickey Mouse freed up so they can use its likeness on their own products without having to pay for it. Get over it - the thing has value to Disney and they have a right to keep it.

Dickie Montaine

Can we add the original Battlestar Galactica?

Simply so fans of the original can continue that version
without fear of being sued?

/Except Richard Hatch.
//His proposal was worse than Moore's.

Intellectual property is a misnomer. Get over it.

JayAndSilentBob



This guy agrees.

That Guy...From That Show!
A physical building should belong to someone or a group that will (for example) be responsible for taxes and its upkeep.

Explain how that is any different than say, mickey mouse?

Like it or not, it is a part of americana, and by disney retaining control, they both maintain the image and pay taxes on the revenue generated by him.

The Star Wars trilogy. Because I'll end up paying close to $100 mil anyway by the time I finish buying all the special editions Lucas plans to whore out.

2006-10-23 07:12:04 AM bbickel

My view is that if you want to keep being paid for creating, you should have to keep creating. And, Walt Disney's great-great-great-great-great grandchildren do not deserve to profit off of his work. Heck, his children (once they are grown and out of the house) don't even deserve to profit off of it.

And if you build a building, why should your children and grandchildren own it after you die? After all, you only created it once.

It always amazes me that people can believe that intellectual property should belong to the masses, while personal ownership of physical property is okay.


Oh...Oh.... Let me take that one.

When you make a building, there is only one of that building, in one place.

Thomas Jefferson was opposed to any copyright or patent system because as he descibed it, and I'm paraphrasing, and idea is like a candle flame - if you use it to light your own candle, I have lost nothing in the process.

Our culture is not physical property. When book or song or whatever is created and pushed out to the general public and it becomes part of our culture, a mechanism if you will, by which we relate to one another.

Should you be rewarded for that for a limited time? Certainly. But at some point the people also have a right to freely use what has become part of their commonly shared culture.

Simply put, do you REALLY think it's right that technically you are or may be breaking a law whenever you sing happy birthday to someone? Really think about that. Especially if you are at a restaraunt or somewhere in public with a bunch of people. That may very well constitute a public performance of that intellectual property, and at least in theory, you could be completely liable for copyright infringement.

I shouldn't have to pay a corporate or other troll somewhere for my own shared culture.

Anyone who can defend this practice as-is has definitely swallowed the blue pill.

/oops - did I just infringe the Washowki brothers' copyright?

rcain
Just how many times will I have to buy the White Album?

Once?

/still has the original lps
//converted them to mp3s
///too cheap to buy any music more than once
////except "Dark Side of the Moon"...
//SLASHIES!

Sorry my grammer's so crappy btw - I been up all night. Should've previewed.

Jabber The Beatles catalog, but only because Michael Jackson doesn't farking deserve them.

I'll drink to that.

/but it's 8am
//ok just one

Mexico

One word: Microsoft.

/probably need a lot more'n 100 megabucks tho.

I want to be able to say DY NO MITE without getting sued.

The copyrights to the Monkey Island series. We so badly need a Monkey Island movie.

The first thing that came to mind was the Birthday Song. We must have the Birthday Song for free use!
I am sick of restaurant/tv/movie/private company birthday songs - they all suck (except maybe the Futurama version that ends in, 'lets all eat some cake!')
Birthday song please.

Person who wanted public domain pornography should visit a museum sometime.

Easy: All of Scientology.

I shouldn't have to pay a corporate or other troll somewhere for my own shared culture.

And how did that song somehow enter your consiousness? It was the creation of someone else, and you let it become something upon which you rely. No one is forcing you to sing "Happy Birthday" just because that's what you're accustomed to. You have every right to write your own song and sing that. There is no justification for taking the property from the creator, or whomever he designates as the ownership sucessor and placing it into the public. The short and skinny is "revoking ownership from the OWNER to the masses", which is a rights violation of the worst kind. There is no "apples, oranges" comparison between tangible and intangible property. Property is property. If I own it, it's mine, and if I wish to pass ownership down to my children upon my death indefinitely, no one has the moral right to stop me.

You're effectively saying that just because you like or want fruits of my labor, that you are somehow justified in owning it. That's moral bankrupty at it's finest.