THE PAVILION ANNEX

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Wed May 25, 2011 5:34 pm

David Silver wrote:That's funny, Frank, I don't recall your prior comments about a 50 year limit on copyright, and it's something I would have remembered because I have a slightly similar point of view. Of course, I've vanished from here for months on end at times, so I've missed a LOT of what you're written...

it may actualy be only the 1st or 2nd time he's said it.
frank says sooo many things (on the record).
abundant contradictions
FrankChurch wrote:Limit copyrights, don't end them. More liberal rules for speech that has a social/political bent. Instead of giving copyright holders 90 years of protection, only give them thirty, forty. Hell, Jefferson, as I said, only wanted copyrights to last 14 years.

FrankChurch wrote:... 30 years sounds fine. Harlan may not like that, but I like that number. Public use after 30 years seems sane....
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed May 25, 2011 5:51 pm

Fifty years, Mike. That's my final offer. haha.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed May 25, 2011 5:54 pm

Imagine a fifty year copyright. Disney's classic movies would be transfered to a special Libary of Congress viewing site, where you could see Bambi or Fantasia on high def for free. Disney couldn't control the dvds, blackmailing kids with fears that they will put the movies back into their hallowed vaults. That way they can sell more dvds. I guess when you loose or your dvd gets scratched your fucked.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed May 25, 2011 5:55 pm

Lose. You're, not your. jeez.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Moderator » Wed May 25, 2011 5:56 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Fifty years, Mike. That's my final offer. haha.


And perhaps surprisingly to some of you, I'm good with David's "Lifetime or 60".

The artist should get return on their investment, with perhaps an asterisk regarding spousal rights. The kids get the estate, why should they get an annuity?
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Moderator » Wed May 25, 2011 5:56 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Lose. You're, not your. jeez.


Am not.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed May 25, 2011 6:01 pm

A compromise: life or 60 years for people who make under a million dollars. Fifty years for Disney? Yessss.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Wed May 25, 2011 6:12 pm

Barber wrote: The artist should get return on their investment, with perhaps an asterisk regarding spousal rights. The kids get the estate, why should they get an annuity?
an estate may not always exist...an annuity may be all that is left.
should the artist, or any other successful person be denied the right to have their children benefit as they wished?
must the society at large be offered the right to pick over the bones; at the expense of the people closest to the source of that wealth?
might those offspring have as good, or better capacity to carry on a legacy ?
how does the battle to benefit over what is left behind look ?
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Moderator » Wed May 25, 2011 9:58 pm

The government does not pay heirs a parents' social security benefits. Pensions do not revert to children.

But if copyrights survive 60 or 70 years -- a time period which exceed patents, btw -- then children must plan accordingly.

I will cash the inheritance check, but never in the world would I expect my parents' social security or pension checks on an ongoing basis...
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

David Silver
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:07 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby David Silver » Wed May 25, 2011 10:26 pm

cynic wrote:an estate may not always exist...an annuity may be all that is left.


Some sort of estate MUST exist when the creator dies, unless the creator was homeless in a ditch somewhere, but we're only concerned with the specific continuing rights to that person's creative works, not his financial worth, and if his children are still in need of such a financial necessity 60 years beyond the origin of that work, well, I'm really not feeling sympathetic. And please consider how long 60 years is. Example. Famous writer writes his first financially successful book when he's say 30, and that's about the time he also has a (first) child. He writes say five more bestsellers spread evenly over the next 20 years, and then retires, one of the rare few with plenty of royalties from continued sales to make him (plus his wife and a couple of kids growing up) VERY comfortable. He dies at 80. If his wife survives him, she will continue to own the rights for his first novel for another 10 years, but moving through his catalog, she has a good 30 years to cash in on his last novel. But lets say the wife dies 15 years after her husband. At that point, the children (the oldest now being 65, officially a senior citizen!) still have an additional 15 years to rake in profits from the exclusive rights to dad's last work, plus whatever earlier works are still winding down on their 60 year run.

cynic wrote:should the artist, or any other successful person be denied the right to have their children benefit as they wished?


See above; the children WILL benefit, they'll inherit an estate or annuity or both free and clear from the accrued financial success of the creative parent, and they'll also potentially earn more from the exclusive rights to their parent's work, possibly well into their senior years, because 60 years is a long friggin' time. If there isn't an estate to inherit up front, then either the parent did a crappy job of capitalizing on the success of the creative work (probably indicating the last thing on his mind was any wish for the benefit of the children), or the creative work was never that valuable in the first place.

cynic wrote:must the society at large be offered the right to pick over the bones; at the expense of the people closest to the source of that wealth?


After 60 years?! If the creative work had merit or market viability, they should have already made a profit to pass down through several generations. If not, it's probably too late anyway.

cynic wrote:might those offspring have as good, or better capacity to carry on a legacy?


No. Absolutely not. Offspring rarely honestly give a crap about "legacy", unless they can abuse it for a profit. Tell 'em to get a job like everybody else...
We don't stop playing because we grow old.
We grow old because we stop playing.

-- George Bernard Shaw

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Thu May 26, 2011 10:11 am

well in my view, even 60 years could be too arbitrary a number.

social security and pensions have absolutely no relevance in this regard.
they are a prepaid contract; copyright protects specified holders property.
(thus earnings, potentialialy into the future, which i thought was the point of the discussion)

a surviving spouse and the offspring of the creator of property should be the primary beneficiaries (after settlement of estate debt of course).
pehaps especialy if they are screw-ups.
The responsibilities (for dependants the deceased created) can best be fulfilled by profit from the originators legacy, and should not be directed elsewhere.

it's fine that you have no sympathy; mine has limits as well.
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Thu May 26, 2011 2:29 pm

Most numbers are arbitrary.

AP also shouldn't have the same copyright protection Harlan or Cris has, because vital news should be freely used. Give credit, fine, but that only.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Moderator » Thu May 26, 2011 5:16 pm

FrankChurch wrote: AP also shouldn't have the same copyright protection Harlan or Cris has, because vital news should be freely used. Give credit, fine, but that only.


Nonsense!! Selective enforcement of copyright would be thoroughly unethical, not to mention absurd.

AP operates as a paid news source for virtually every major American news organization. To deprive them of copyright protections destroys their fundamental business model, virtually bankrupting them overnight.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Fri May 27, 2011 12:49 am

Aaaaw frankie;
"Look up the name Henrietta Lax. Will frighten you."
I give up big guy, who is Will; how did they frighten you ?
Is it "Lacks" ?
don't be ascared pal, what's wrong?
Is it the screwy stuff over human genome patents?
Scared you won't live forever, or just pissed off that someone with $ might live a little longer?
Is that what's troublin' you fella ?
"The Old Philosopher Eddie Lawrence "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOhKqWMhVVI
follow your bliss,mike

Grayson
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:39 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Grayson » Sat May 28, 2011 11:56 am

So, what the Hell has happened in the last three months, y'all?


--Grayson


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests