Copyright as Cudgel 304
kongstad writes "In an issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Siva Vaidhyanathan has some interesting things to say about the concept of Copyright: 'Back in the 20th century, if someone had accused you of copyright infringement, you enjoyed that quaint and now seemingly archaic guarantee of due process. Today, due process is a lot harder to pursue, and the burden of proof increasingly is on those accused of copyright infringement.'" A very good academic look at the recent expansions of copyright law.
Trivia. (Score:5, Interesting)
Any lights going on out there?
Its too bad really... (Score:5, Interesting)
So why aren't most people doing anything about it? Since they don't know what is going on. The local 10 o'clock news doesn't carry this stuff. Do you want to take a stab at why? Well, most local tv news stations are owned by big corporation and they cannot afford to criticize the DMCA since they can weild it around so freely. Articles like this are good, but what slashdotters don't understand is that there needs to be a concerted effort to write editorials in the papers constantly to make sure that the rest of America sees this for what it is.
Changes to CS courses? (Score:1, Interesting)
Another good reason for open source!
Unfortunately, folks in media studies, art, music, social sciences, humanities, etc. will continue having problems...
Let's Get Back Our Access to the Courts (Score:5, Interesting)
But for the past 20 years, the right-wing in America, funded by their deep pocketed friends in Big Business(TM), have mounted a legal, political and social assault against individuals' right to sue. Sometimes they use the moniker "tort reform." Othertimes, they talk about "greedy lawyers" and "runaway lawsuits" that inevitably hurt those poor, small business owners out there that can't afford to defend themselves against the tassel loafer set.
In the real world, it is the small business owner, the independent contrator, the worker and the consumer that gets screwed. When Big Business(TM) infringes upon on traditional rights, we are the ones who need the courts to come to our aid, to make up for the unfair advantage that wealthy campaign-contributing businesses enjoy in the Legislature and with th executive.
In this case, the minions of Big Business(TM) have enacted a law that places the burder of proof on the accused, rather than the accuser. Which perverts the system of checks and balances, and instead turns the full weight of all three branches of government against the little guy.
We are almost all in favor of gutting the DMCA on this site. But let's not forget this broader issue the next time some slick Republican starts carrying on about the need for tort reform, judicial appointments and restrictions on lawsuits.
When Big Business(TM) owns the Congress and the White House, the courts are our only hope don't let them take that away from us, too.
Cudgel...tool...same idea, different slant (Score:5, Interesting)
So while I think the title of the blurb here on
Of course, there are many people that dislike the GPL, and so might feel that the word "cudgel" is appropriate.
How to take care of the situation you describe (Score:2, Interesting)
Why does it seem (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe inventors should get the ability to be credited for their work, but the current copyright laws just seem to favor the collective might of those with lots of lawyers and good lobbyists.
IMHO, a better system would be that as soon as something is copyrighted anybody can use the label or product, but the inventor (or creator) should be reimbursed in some way. (This system has inherent problems, but so does our current one)
Medevo
Not quite restricted... (Score:2, Interesting)
I vote (heh) we do the same with the goverment that we would with a computer with this much kruft:
C:\ Format Washington_D_C:
yes yes yes.
Damn, that would be nice.
the history of media... (Score:4, Interesting)
The example is poetry... At one time poets were well paid and could achieve a certain amount of fame and occaisional hefty profits for their work. Nowdays very few poets can "make a living" solely from their art. People still write poems, but the high availability of cheap publishing ensures that they won't make much money at it.
Music is going through the same kind of schism... rock and roll music is a cheap commodity these days, as proven by the big labels that invent bands from thin air dozens of times a year. Distributing music via the internet is shockingly cheap, so naturally the profit motives will be lessened and the artform thinned out.
The problem is when the record companies buy laws to stave off the decline of their art as a cash cow. There interference merely delays the evolution of the artform and introduces serious questions about art, freedom, and copyrights.
Personally, I realize that record companies have legal grounds for trying to stop music sharing, but I don't believe they'll have much success in doing it. They might have an easier time of it searching for a new business model on which to rebuild the artform...
Re:Let's Get Back Our Access to the Courts (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it (the federal government) does work on checks and balances within itself, but the framers of our constitution didn't see that these huge corporations would have the power via money they now have.
The framers also didn't anticipate institutionalized graft as a political way of life. They thought those running for office would be like them; educated, landed gentlemen with enough self-interest not to sell out their country, its ideals and its future for chump change just to get re-elected every time until they dropped dead.
Face the music: we're seeing a serious push by big corporations to make an end run around our freedoms so that Disney can keep making money from Mickey Mouse forever. The restrictions on the federal government do not apply to corporations. So what you say? Think which has more impact on your daily life.
Stephenson wasn't just joking when he painted in Snowcrash a society where the federal government was still functional, just irrelevant in the face of the huge corporations. I really hope we don't go there.
copyright and the sciences (Score:3, Interesting)
On a brighter note, I was quite pleased last week when I received the first issue of a new journal called The Journal of Biology [jbiol.com]. This publication aims to be a top rank journal on par with Science and Nature, but follows the "open access" approach. Specifically, there will never be a subscription fee, all content is available online for free, and most importantly, authors retain copyright of their papers. I think this is a huge step in the right direction. Harold Varmus, the former director of the NIH, was a big supporter of open access, and I think the time is ripe for this kind of change. This journal's publisher BioMed Central [biomedcentral.com] seems to be leading the way in this direction. Good for them! I hope to be sending lots of papers their way!
-margaret
ps if I posted part of this before, I'm sorry. My hand accidentally bumped the enter key. New keyboard.
Raw power struggles (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to me that battles over Intellectual Property Rights are part of the continual struggle for power and influence between Big business and the individual / consumer.
I remember from a discussion with a politics student some 20 years ago that power was defined as the ability to break an agreement/promise with impunity. She thought there were 4 types of power relationship:
Physical: Give me that valuable resource or I cudgel you!
Knowledge/Skill: Do as I say, I'm an expert in this area and I can run rings round you
Positional: I am your line manager and I don't care what I promised, you work for me and don't forget it.
Systemic: You don't even know that you are losing out because I write the rules of the game and there is no mechanism by which you can protest.
The first three powers can be held in check, controlled and balanced to some extent, well enough for us all to get some benefit. The last is more of a threat.
Big Money has always been keen to use systemic power because they can and lest such power be used against them. Setting the terms of trade, aggressive lobbying of government, aggressive use of legal muscle in SLAPP suits(strategic lawsuits against public participation) are all well honed tools.
It is not clear to me that such battles are winnable. In the end Big Money does have more money and any new development will eventually be brought under control. But . . . .
Some have compared the grabbing of IP to the enclosure of common land (dates vary in different countries but it was back in the 18th Century in the UK) but generally land was less productive when held in common. The reverse is true of IP and copyright. When closely held, it produces less wealth for society. The more this is seen to be the case, the less interest Big Whatever will have in pursuing it
Maybe the aim should be to demonstrate the benefits of free sharing of Knowledge. If a country or group of people share IP freely and reap so much benefit then people will start asking why don't we do this too.
Lets have some more seminal Cathedral and Bazaar articles!
Missing, Important Felton Case Information (Score:2, Interesting)
That's some damn important information to leave out.
Except for that, this is a great read.
Re:Microsoft Lawyer (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see why. To my reading, the framers have included copyright provisions in the Constitution as a means of solving the Tragedy of the Commons. That is, they seemed to desire to maximize common good, rather than recognize a natural right. If there was a fundamental right to control the use of your art, I can't imagine why it wouldn't last indefinitely. This could not possibly maximize common good. It would give artists a miniscule increase in projected revenue from their artwork. This would not inspire the creation of better/more artwork.
Why is copyright a natural right? I just don't get it.
Anyway. A million
Re:Trivia. (Score:2, Interesting)
IMHO, defeated by a simple observation,
that whatever they REALLY intended to be
the law was written into the Constitution.
Yes, there were a lot of compromises, but
why would you base your law on original intent
of your favorite thinkers without considering
the opposing view, which is built into the
product of compromise that is the Constitution?
Re:Let's Get Back Our Access to the Courts (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, it's off topic, but I think it's funny.
Re:How to take care of the situation you describe (Score:3, Interesting)
Proposals for the next Congress (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:the history of media... (Score:3, Interesting)
Uhm... when exactly was that?
Historically, only a few poets, who happened to be favoured by their respective sovereign (and had to write in support or at least not in opposition to them) could make a decend living off their art. Otherwise they would die as a pauper. This goes back till the dark ages. Walther von der Vogelweide, medvial "rock star", was paid by souvereigns (several of them, depending who paid the most; and naturally, he would write poems in their favour), because the poor people hanging around on the city's market place - his main audience - could never affort to pay this guy.
Same goes for music. Haendel was a merchenary of the British crown; Mozart, who wasn't, died a pauper (albeit a famous one).
Bottom line: at any time and age, only a very few artists could survive by their art alone and make a decend living. This has nothing to do with expensive or cheap distribution channels.
Otherwise, pre-printing press authors would all have been insanely rich, because copying (manually!) was an enourmously expensive and time-consuming effort. Or just think about the pre-record musicians - they must have been like Rockefeller (or Gates
(BTW calling copyright infringement "piracy" is a quite tasteless belittlement of actual piracy, which is accompanied by bloodshed and murder. For copyright infringement, even "theft" is technically incorrect since the producer isn't actually lacking anything they formerly posessed - they lost the chance of one more sell, so in a sense, it's "virtual theft" or "potential theft".)
Re:Write YOUR congressman (Score:3, Interesting)
Your first proposal *can not work* (Score:3, Interesting)
Laws are not permitted to be retroactive, if they take something away from you. Such a law is called Ex Pos Facto -- "after the fact".
This is the same reason that, if you spit on the sidewalk, and they enact a law against that, they can not come arrest you for breaking the law for an act which occurred before the law passed.
The nominal effect of this is that reducing the terms of copyright protection will only have an effect on works copyroghted after the change to the law. Prior copyright terms can not be reduced.
In fact, this is the basis for the challenge to the copyright extension act of 1998: by extending the term of the copyright 20 years on works copyrighted before the act became law, the public has been robbed Ex Pos Facto.
This works because the copyright protection granted works is made *in trade* for the disclosure of the copyrighted information.
I expect that there is room for challenge for the patent reform act of 1996, which changed patents from 17 years from date of issue to 20 years from date of filing, and grandfathered patents filed but not issued at the time of enactment in law to the later of 20 years from date of filing or 17 years from date of issue. Technically, they are only permitted to take grant date into account on legal reform affecting such patents: the act of filing the patent was the inventor entering into a contract with the public to obtain protection for a limited term in exchange for disclosure to the public.
What it boils down to is that rewriting a contract without the consent of both parties is illegal. In the copyright extension act case, the argument is that it was done without the consent of the public.
Effectively, the only way a term can be shortened for a copyright or patent, once the agreement has been entered into, is through the exercise by government of The Right Of Emminent Domain: basically, by siezing the property in the name of the public.
I'm not adverse to a shortening of terms and siezure of property granted under the pervious terms as a means of making the terms retroactive; however, you should be aware that that's what you are advocating, if your plan is to be workable at all.
-- Terry
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Your first proposal *can not work* (Score:2, Interesting)
That depends on your jurisdicition. As a bare minimum, the governments of Commonwealth countries have this power.
In addition, an act to shorten copyright would not be retrospective as it would only affect future behaviour. An act which stated, for example, that all works written before 1980 went out of copyright in 2000 would be retrospective but an act stating that all works written before 1983 will go out of copyright in 2003 would not. What might be a problem is seizure of property. I say might because, first, intellectual property is not necessarily a proprietary right - once again this is a legal system question. Second, depending on jurisdiction, seizure of property may or may not be a legal problem. Some constitutions permit legislation allowing this.
> This works because the copyright protection
> granted works is made *in trade* for the
> disclosure of the copyrighted information.
This is simply wrong. Copyright still applies to non-published works. For example, if I send you a letter, I own the copyright in that letter without me generally disclosing it. Further, even my own diary is copyright even if I don't show it to anyone. For example, if you enter my house (as a guest or as a trespasser) and open it up without my permission, your use of it is still restricted by copyright.
> What it boils down to is that rewriting a
>contract without the consent of both parties is
>illegal. In the copyright extension act case, the
>argument is that it was done without the consent
>of the public.
Sorry, wrong again. In legislating, parliament (presumably also congress) is not bound by previous acts of parliament. It might be politically difficult to go back on a leislative deal, you might even feel it's morally wrong but it's not illegal (which is to say beyond power, in this context).