[tialaramex]

When these rules were invented, the ostensible concern really was about destitute artist families.

Today it's just an excuse, wheel out Jimmy and have him say about how his grandfather just wanted to do right by the kids and imply that people using Jim's granddad's story idea now it's entering the public domain are "stealing" from him and this is an outrage.

Copyright is by its nature rent-seeking, you get income from owning something, and not by actually contributing anything of value. Even in the rare cases where it really _does_ keep some artist's recently bereaved family out of poverty we ought to be asking why aren't we keeping _everybody_ out of poverty?

The original argument tried to justify this rent-seeking by saying we are getting something from it, these brilliant ideas might never get published if Copyright doesn't ensure there's a reward. And if they're not published we'd never know about them, you can't riff on Mickey if nobody has ever seen a Mickey Mouse cartoon. And you know what, I don't agree but if the bargain had stuck at 28 years I'd hold my nose. But of course it didn't. We managed to get _Big Pharma_ to put up with a genuinely limited exclusivity period for their drugs, and a world where generic medicines not only exist but thrive - yet somehow Big Content got extension after extension for some guy's idea for a cartoon mouse (among many other things).

[crankylinuxuser]

That is true, initially with extensions past the creator's death. But as you also point out, it is very much rent seeking behavior by companies.

However to understand why we even have copyright, you have to know your renaissance European history. Prior to copyright/patents, you had the guild system. Knowledge was hidden, obfuscated, and destroyed. Those whom wanted to share the secrets of the guild were imprisoned and/or killed.

Fast-forward to the creation of the USA - most of the people here were second sons whom had little to no claims on European riches. They also knew of the guilds, and the danger they have. So, they posited copyright, trademark, and patent. It wasn't cause they were the best tools, but they were better than the guilds that preceded them.

It's about time we revisit the idea of copyright, patent, and trademark and how they apply in the 21'st century.

[angus-prune]

Your IP history is wrong.

Patents originated in 15th Century Venice and Copyright in 17th Century Britain and trademarks in France in the (iirc) 19th Century.

Patents were, indeed, a way to encourage people to share their inventions rather than keep them as trade secrets, but this doesn't apply to copyright (rampant book piracy after the invention of the printing press) or trademark (consumer protection and counterfitting).

I have never heard of any link the the USA or second sons etc, and the way these laws developed doesn't support your hypothesis.

Absolutely with you that these things need modernising though (and not in a Digital Millenium way)

[tialaramex]

Yup, Trademarks are fine, the insistence on muddling Trademark, Patent and Copyright together is bad mojo and people (even lawyers!) need to cut it out.

The same principle as Trademarks even pre-date the formal existence of registrable trademarks, because everybody can see that if "Jameson Beans" are considered to be good quality beans then buying some crap beans and selling them on as "Jameson Beans" is clearly not OK. English law has a tort of "passing off" which is committed when you trick customers in this way, and you can still use it for unregistered marks today, it's just harder than the Registered Trademark law.

[contras1970]

copyright was a british invention to limit proliferation of "uncomfortable" works.