Do IP Laws Stifle Popular Culture? 134
A reader writes: "This could probably fit under 'Patents' as well. Anyways, here's a long but very intelligent essay on the abuse of copyright and trademark laws we see today, full of examples showing that these laws are being used to restrain enterprise and free speech instead of
promoting them. Writing in Reason Online , Jesse Walker concludes that the 'culture industry' just wants us to 'shut up and get back on the couch.'"
Re:Vivaldi copyright (was:Interesting topic) (Score:1)
Yes, and there are a few available sound recordings of Vivaldi that have become public domain. Works created before 1970 fell under the 1909 Copyright Act and required explicit renewal after 28 years. The Bono extension retroactively affects only works still under copyright by Jan. 1 1998.
Radio broadcasts of performances were not generally recorded for redistribution, but transcription discs were made for linechecks or (more rarely) airchecks. Unless the performance was also transcribed for the consumer market, the copyright was almost certainly not renewed. So, many surviving recordings of broadcasts prior to 1952 are public domain, if the score itself is also in the public domain (as with Vivaldi). In fact, most surviving linechecks were made prior to 1948 or so, since after WWII Ampex had acquired the German magnetic tape technology, which made linechecks rewritable.
Nowadays, things have been 'cleaned up' and radio broadcasts made today will not be granted into the public domain until 2090 AD if not later.
Re:this is an economic problem... (Score:1)
This is not to say that pay per use couldn't work, just that pay per use with extreme fair use restrictions would have a hard time working.
Re:Constitutional justification for IP law (Score:1)
Re:Constitutional justification for IP law (Score:1)
First off, if your position was defensible on its merits alone, then you wouldn't need to resort to tactics like attacking my education level. Can we keep this conversation civil please?
If the founding fathers had wanted to give authors control over their works, solely for the purpose of giving authors control over their works, then the Constitution would read more like:
The Constitution does not read this way. The line about promoting "progress of Science and useful Arts" was very deliberately added to indicate that the act of giving authors rights to their work is not an end in itself (as you so stubbornly insist), but rather a means towards the greater goal of promoting progress.I don't object with the idea of giving authors control over their work. I do object to the way you focus solely on guaranteeing authors control of their work, with utter disregard for whether such control promotes or hinders progress. Authorship rights are good if they provide incentives and foster creativity. Authorship rights are bad if they are so restrictive that they choke off further creativity. As obvious as all this may seem, you continue to insist that authorship rights are always good, never bad. That's wrong.
The point the original article was trying to make (which you seem to have missed) is that these days copyrights are increasingly being used to stifle instead of foster creativity.
Re:Constitutional justification for IP law (Score:1)
I am getting the sinking feeling that you haven't even read the section of the Constitution that I quoted. The Constitution says (and I quote):
Nobody is twisting anything. The very words "limited Times" appear in the Constitution itself.Control promotes progress.
That, my friend, is where we disagree. A limited amount of control promotes progress. Excessive control hinders progress. Our founding fathers realized this fact. That's why they added the word "limited" to the Constitution.
Re:Interesting topic. (Score:1)
Another cultural hero of mine destroyed by the facts!
Next I'm going to find out that Richard Stallman is actually some ranting bearded madman.
Re:Clarification on Gilber O'Sullivan vs. Biz Mark (Score:1)
Corruption through the backdoor? (Score:1)
[...]
There is no better example that I can imagine, literally, of Congress caving in to small, highly focused special interests.
Hm, that does put those recent statements of the ex-Echelon guy about corruption outside of the US in a rather ironic light, doesn't it?
Argathin
Use of Copyright for Censorship Ins't New (Score:1)
Re:The McCoffee Incident (rant) (Score:1)
Re:Open ears, open eyes, open mouths, clodes minds (Score:1)
LK
Re:Why not create a new, free, culture? (Score:1)
You program something wrong, it doesn't work or it gives back invalid data. You can test for things like that. You can create an artistic piece which you may like, but no one else does, and you'll never know until it's released upon the world.
Yes, I'm sure some programmers would fancy themselves artists, but in this context, I don't htnkn they are.
There's a great articles in either this months or last months macworld, which explains to all the iMac DV buyers that there's a LOT more that goes into the production of a movie than just camera's and editting software. There's scripts, storyboards, gaffers, technicians, lighting, etc... Get any of those wrong and you've got an amateurish creation.
Likewise, giving anyone who wants it SoftImage, 3D studio, or lightwave, or a free subsitute if one could even be created, will not create animations like you've seen on star trek, star wars, babylon 5, etc... There's artistry involved that can't be instilled within a program or wizard.
Lastly, who will start in your movies? Who will direct them? Starving actors and directors? There is a reason that many of them starve, you know. Yes, people have to put in their time before they see their big break, but too often people don't realize that their opportunity has passed... I hope that doens't come out wrong, but to shorten, I doubt we'll ever see something like The Matrix, Forest Gump, Jurassic Park, or anything else like that come from a "free content" type scheme.
Those budgets were immense because of all the man hours involved. With no guarentee that they'ed make money. Which is why movie studio's act to protect their investments.
Re:Why not create a new, free, culture? (Score:1)
I agree that some programmers are indeed artists, but I still stand by my point of the fact there's a much finer line of distinction between success and failure in programming than there is in any of the mass market "mediums" which I gave as examples somewhere in there.
But in the end, the free tools, protocols and storage standards make up such a small slice of the budgets or costs of putting out a theater or broadcast quality program, that they're essentially zero.
I mean, yes, you spend $15,000 on the animation software, but you've also spent $500,000 on the render farm, pay the artist $75,000+, sit him at a $10,000 machine, etc... If you start cutting those others costs down, you're going to attract lower skilled workers, using weaker desktop machines along with much less rendering power, so in the end your film is going to need an extra 12-18 months to reach distribution, all so you can save $15,000 on the software.
In the end, I think the amount of $$$ spent on proprietary software and formats is SUCH A SMALL SLICE of the actual production costs, that it really just isn't worth it. Talent and hardware cost so much more than the software.
Re:Copyright laws are complex (Score:1)
Trademark law is evil, it claims.
Because people have sued under trademark theories, and _LOST_ for things that are in the public domain.
Let's make a quick parallel here.
Perjury law is evil, it would claim.
It stifles your right to free speech, if you want to lie under oath.
Cripes.
Jesse Walker for President... (Score:1)
Interestingly enough, without even commenting on the DCMA vs. DeCSS litigations, Jesse makes it clear that the mega-corps in the entertainment industry have absolutely no morals when it comes to extracting every last dime from their song libraries, film vaults, etc. and controlling not only the profitable distribution of materials, but what is distributable at all.
Coupled with all of the recent attacks on the Internet as a communications medium by the RIAA, MPAA, etc., and you realize we really are in a war with the corporations to retain our civil rights regarding freedom of expression. The problem is, the companies are also in a justifiable and intense war with rip-off artists. Too bad that little things like rights and justice are getting trampled in the middle, and the government being bought by special interest monies to insure that big corporate rights win out.
Well, I'll stop complaining and do something about it. I'm emailing a copy of this article to every state and federal legislator, judge, and executive branch member that I can think of. Anyone else care to join me in this crusade?
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:1)
Sorry to say, this is arrant nonsense. People have been expressing themselves through created beauty since the beginning of time. Take the cave paintings in Spain and France... I wager no money changed hands to stimulate that creator, even though his/her living standards were hundreds of times worse than today's "starving artists".
If there's anything worse than misunderstanding the laws which protect creativity, it's misinterpreting the creative impulse itself. For creators, it's not about money, it's never about money. It's about expression. Assuming that artists will stop creating because there are no laws to protect their work (and thus, income) is assuming that all creators are whores, hawking their wares for money. True creators seem to prosper in adversity and overcome it, not to chafe against it. Sacrifice and hard work is the daily bread of artists, and anyone who doesn't care for either should just find a cushier job. Sorry.
We seem to think artists are some sort of species on the verge of extinction, when in reality they're alive, prosperous, and doing quite well.... with and without these laws. Because, hey, these laws don't work for them. They are clearly meant for the media giants, and if you think they are acting in the best interests of artists everywhere, well, there's this bridge I'd like to sell you....
The article is not about the rights-and-wrongs of IP law (as it were), but about what rights the creators have in a culture that has been, for the most part, co-opted from sources in a way that the creators themselves are no longer allowed to co-opt. Nobody will deny anybody's right to attempt to profit from their creations, but where's the greater good in locking the cultural and artistic value of said creations away instead of allowing them to serve as raw material for the next generation of creators?
What really frightens me is the time limits on these laws. If I want to write a derivative work now, I have to find a novel written during the 1870's. If I live to be 80, I just might be allowed by law to publish my extensions of Asimov's Foundation....
Another point that Americans should be aware of is how many countries world-wide follow the American lead in legislating IP. The parts of the world most closely tied to the US will do as the Americans do in this matter, and NOT to protect its own creators, but to keep from angering our rich neighbors and be labeled "a haven for pirates".
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:1)
Incorrect, sir. Money is ENERGY, not life. Those people who are getting money because their fathers or grandfathers did something worthwhile.. are they giving up life in exchange for that money? And I don't just mean the idle children of the rich, but also the idle children of the artists. What are they giving up to obtain that money which others pay for with labor?
Your analogy does not stand, because capitalism allows (nay, requires) a certain elite class that gets its money through means other than work.
And you think that if I give a symbol of my life to a man for his creative work that I denigrate him to a WHORE?
You clearly misread my meaning, or you believe being a whore is somehow denigrating.
There is nothing wrong with a man profiting by the fruits of his creativity. I said as much, almost word-for-word, in my previous post. What I find exceedingly vile is that creators of limited talent (to put it charitably) can and do contribute more to our common culture... only because they purposefuly angle their work so it appeals to the same lowest common denominator that constitutes the target audience of the media corporations.
Not only that, but they are rewarded handsomely, not only monetarily, but also in terms of social rank and standing, whereas so many creators who remain true to their visions can never leave 'cult' status because their views are unpopular, or, godforbid, dangerous to the bottom line.
Not only that, but existing IP law protects and defends the livelyhoods, not only of the hacks, but of their children and grandchildren.... AND it forbids others from contributing to the common culture in exactly the same way as they did, though exactly the same methods. Namely import, synthesis, paraphrasis, recontextualization or reconstruction of existing works.
The injustice of this situation is apparent, I believe?
You are a disgusting beast.
I resent this, sir. Retract, or apologize, in the name of civil discourse.
Pop culture VS folk culture and your imagination (Score:1)
In the long run, some artists will realize (as the Grateful Dead did) the value that derivative works add to the original, and those artists will thrive.
Hearing Disney describe one of their, admittedly rather nice, works as "beyond your imagination" opened my eyes to exactly how arrogant the corporate pop culture industry is. What do they know of my imagination? I think I can imagine beyond a sequel to Alladin.
Go to a movie now and then. But when you walk out that theater door, fly your imagination so far beyond what was on the screen that what you create isn't recognizable.
You can do better. And when you do, you will make the bastards irrelevant.
...let's forget you, better still" - The Who
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad
Re:Interesting topic. (Score:1)
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:1)
I beg to differ. To quote:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Now as someone who apparently supports long patent and copyright terms, you probably construe this to mean, "If you create something, you can control it for as long as you can get away with. Here's your incentive to do so."
This is patently (ha ha) false. "To promote the progress of Science and useful arts." Say that with me again. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." One more time. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts."
In what way do long patent and copyright terms promote science and art? Yes, a single artist has a monetary incentive to produce useful work. The key word being a SINGLE artist. By your definition of the intentions behind this article, NO ONE WOULD BE ABLE TO FOLLOW IN THAT WORK for as long as the patent was enforcable.
In what way do you promote science if Newton patents the laws of motion? Or better yet, "Well, yes, you can use calculus, but we require a licensing fee of $50,000, plus a $20,000 a year support agreement."
This is stagnation NOT progression. Whoever gets to the starting line first wins the race.
Role reversal? (Score:1)
Wow....how times have changed...now the coporations are opressing the individual (which, to a certain exten, they have always done....). Do they deserve millions because they copied somebody first?
A few suggestions:
1. As the article said, the loser should pay the winners legal costs. Though, I only thingk that should happen if the defendent wins. The plaintif should pay his/her own no matter what. (this means, I could get the absoule bets lawyers for millions of $, win the case, and make them pay the legal cost
2. It's actually good for popularity, and therefore sales. Look at the Greatful Dead, they _encouraged_ people to record their concerts. And, they have become somewhat of a legendary band. Same with Star Wars/Trek (in the past)....I mean, what are they going to do, keep the trekkies from wearing costumes from the show? I take Nirvana's point, "When Weird Al did 'Smells like Nirvana', we knew we had made it then"....
3. We need to enforce the trademark laws as to _only_ protect the company/consumer from being decieved. We need to enforce the copyright laws _only_ to protect people profiting from selling copites of said work. The extent of these laws shuold stop there.
Then again, who would listen to a 14 year old Libertarian who thinks Al Gore _didn't_ invent the internet.... (c'mon people Al Gore is _not_he candidate and true geek would want....)
Grades, Social Life, Sleep....Pick Two.
companies are people too! (Score:1)
1) Bob Dylan (to refer back to the original article) is not a corporation.
2) Corporations can own things. Look around you, they own nearly the whole freepin' world! That is not a mere legal fiction. (To be perfectly pedantic, neither is the legal personality of the corporation. The corporation is deemed to be a person, hence it acually is. A legal fiction is something like describing a trespass as a trespass vie et armis, even in the absence of violence, in order to bring it into the common law courts; the use of the dummy lessee 'John Doe' and the dummy lessor 'Richard Roe' in actions of trespass de ejectione firma; or criminal writs which asserted jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by the device "... in the city of Paris, in the county of Sussex." OK, I'm being just too pedantic here, corporate personality could be described as a legal fiction. It's a bit steep to describe corporate ownership in that way though.)
4) The argument about the nature of corporate personality is largely impertinent anyway, because it is always natural persons who actually do the intellectual work. Corporations can buy (say by paying wages) or otherwise acquire intellectual property and hence own what is (if you swallow this line) a piece of natural property.
Look, I actually agree with you up to a point. Clearly corporations are creatures of the legislature, which as you point out are subsidised in the form of the extraodinary legal protection they enjoy. As I indicated, I don't buy the propertarian argument in favour of copyright. I just had to put it, because the discussion here is so one-sided. With even Reason abandoning them, I felf that property owners needed some representation.
Where I think we probably differ is that I don't believe in any natural proprietary rights whatsoever. I believe in power. If you have the power to assert your ownership, you are a property owner. There may have existed, (or still exist,) a `warlord society' where such power was spelt out in a brutishly simple manner. In democracies subject to the 'rule of law,' the power to assert ownership, might be mediated by law, but it is ultimately enforced by the coercive state apparatus. This is the source of intellectual property, it is the reason corporations can own things, and moreover it is the reason that natural persons can as well.
Re:Constitutional justification for IP law (Score:1)
Control promotes progress. The entire explanation is far too lengthy to discuss here, email me privately if you really want to know the entire story. But it breaks down to the fact that people are motivated to create by passion. They are not motivated to duplicate and distribute by passion, and without some form of protection, they are not motivated to duplicate and distribute their works at ALL.
Esperandi
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:1)
Your analogy does not stand, because capitalism allows (nay, requires) a certain elite class that gets its money through means other than work. "
Nope, laissez faire capitalism does not require such things, and inheritance is wrong in a capitalist system. It is also morally wrong. Its easy to judge, if you didn't earn something, its immoral for you to have it. And taking it by force does not qualify as earning.
You say that money is energy and not life. Huh? So you think that the theory that money is energy explains inheritance? I don't see how...
Yes, I believe it is denigrating when you call aritsts whores because that is exactly how you meant it. In your original post, you wanted to say something along the lines of "the artist who accepts money for his work is much lower than the artist who lives in squalor and does not get paid".
"What I find exceedingly vile is that creators of limited talent (to put it charitably) can and do contribute more to our common culture... only because they purposefuly angle their work so it appeals to the same lowest common denominator that constitutes the target audience of the media corporations. "
You've gone from proposing out-and-out slavery of artists to considering yourself supreme judge of taste over the majority of humanity along with deciding that the greatest number of humanity is the lowest common denominator. Who is seeking to erect an elite class? It certainly sounds as if you are. You do not justify your position at all, note, you simply say that since the majority of people like it, they must be the "lowest" common denominator of people. Do you know why that group of people and the audience of the big corporations are the same group? it is not because they have been brainwashed or they are "easy pickings" as you paint them, it is because they chose to buy from those corporations. Why on earth would you support a corporation turning its back on what its customers want? You do realize what comes next, right? As soon as they don't take the customers dollar as their gold standard, they create their OWN standard. *That* is the difference between target marketing and censorship and control.
My belief as posted here on Slashdot is that IP laws should end upon death of the artist as the artist sees fit. If the artist wishes his work destroyed and not expanded upon, so be it. if he wishes to release it to the public domain, it is his free choice. If he signed that choie away to a record company, he has already made his choice. I don't think it should ever fall to inheritance, simply coming from the same genetic soup does not qualify you for benefits from someones talents. Likewise, being born on the same planet and into the same species does not entitle anyone ELSE to those benefits, either.
I guess I'll apologize for calling you a disgusting beast even though your views are quite disgusting to me. I believe that the ability to produce is our most valuable ability and what gives us an advantage over every animal on the planet. I know that if you do not protect the most outstanding creators by allowing them to control their own lives and the products of their lives as they choose, they will choose not to produce. You cannot force someone to have a good idea. Every dictatorship has experienced brain-drain, all their best scientists leaving or stopping from producing, I think history teahces the lesson well as to why to protect IP.
Esperandi
Re:Interesting topic. (Score:1)
The Importance of Being Original (Score:1)
Over the years I too have found that Williams is not the most creative of composers. But you have to admit he takes from the best. His soundtracks are the best of their time.
I don't know what your opinion is on this kind of reuse, but I've come to realize that it's natural and healthy. My personal moment of realization: I'd loved Vivaldi's Gloria. It came as a great shock for me to learn that the double fugue was lifted bodily from an earlier work by Ruggieri. But back then people had very different attitudes about originality and borrowing from the masters.
Around the 19th century (what with Beethoven and all) critics seem to have got the idea that to be a work of genius, art must be original. Of course, everyone wants to be a genius, so by the early 20th century most stylish artists (such as Schoenberg and his followers) were more interested in the avant-garde than the enjoyable. But no matter what you do, there will only be a few ground-breaking geniuses per century. Most artists are only good at producing mediocre work. If everyone tries to be a genius, then all the good, enjoyable, but mediocre art is replaced by crap that almost no one likes or understands.
And don't even get me started on the so-called idea (not expressed by you, I know) that derivative works by their nature steal from original authors. "Hamlet" is not in any way diminished by "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead," nor does Joyce's "Ulysses" steal from "The Odyssey." On the contrary, the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. (And the theft that is plagiarism is of course an entirely separate matter.)
I for one am glad that Williams is content to create enjoyable and fitting scores, even though some snobs may look down upon him as a mere hack. Although he is certainly not another Mozart, the scores he has made are among the best in the 20th century.
(Further listening: Prokofiev's music for "Alexander Nevsky" -- simply amazing. Also, the theme music for "Lost in Space" (aren't you glad Williams didn't reuse that for "Star Wars"!))
Re:Quantity != Quality, Volume != Creativity (Score:1)
Becuase at the time copyright law was originally devised it was not likely that the lawmakers saw that there would be any value to work manufactured in the distant past. I oppose the government taking away someone's property, intellectual or otherwise.
The point is, why was copyright *explicitly* granted for only "a limited time." You fail to explain this.
Well, lets see, Shakespeare didn't have copyright, and he hardly died a rich man. I'd say they are legitimately asking to be rewarded for their works. If people are still willing to pay for them, the artist or copyright owner should still get their cut.
Actually, Shakespeare did have copyright, although he in fact did not die rich. Most authors of copyrighted works do not rely on them for financial support. Furthermore, people buy more copies of Shakespeare's plays than ever before. If his descendents can be located, should they be getting a piece of the action?
Well, I don't have much sympathy for the "I don't want to pay for stuff" crowd either.
And I utterly despise those who cannot distinguish between the importance of the creative act and mere money. Art is not created in a vacuum. Why are so many of the greatest works so derivative of what came before? Art is the culture of sharing and cross-fertilization. Divide it into neat segments of ownership and it will wither and die. I do not grudge a creator the exclusive rights to his work for a limited time. But in perpetuity, art belongs to humanity.
Re:Interesting topic + MO.. (Score:1)
The article seems to suggest that Congress has been lengthening copyright terms mainly to protect companies such as disney, who make their living from copyrighted characters. If this is really their motivation, I think they should just pass some kind of "mickey-mouse act" which would extend protection on mickey mouse et. al, but stop preventing us from getting access to the thousands of other works which come under the wider law now in place. While this acknowledges the special interests of Disney and its bretheren to a sickening degree, at least we would be honest with ourselves about what is really going on...
(c) clairifications, and John Williams Irony (Score:1)
In general you *can* perform John William's works - you just need to pay appropriate royalties. This doesn't mean you could use this music in your own commericial or movie - I believe you'd need to negotiate a license in that case. But for many other uses (like making a records) there are set mechanical royalities, and for other cases, like public performace, there are set fee schedules. Whatever the case you buy a license, you don't go to 20th century fox!
See ASCAP [ascap.com] or BMI. for more info on public/internet/brodcast licensing.
See Harry Fox [nmpa.org] for mechanical licensing (used when your group records John Williams compositions for release).
Anyhow, the money ends up going to John Williams or whoever own the rights to his catalog (if he sold his publishing).
Re:incentives? (Score:1)
In a completely "information is free" world, peer reviewed processes (EBay, SlashDot) will rule the availability of info-tainment (in the sense of being able to find stuff), and the National Endowment for the Arts (whom we all regard so highly) will be the only way an "info-artiste" will be able to make a living.
Oh boy!
In fact, a significant portion of the SFWA web site seems to be devoted to answering the question "How do I, Joe Sixpackinski-Warlock, brilliant undiscovered(TM, StarTrek) writer get into the club?".
The lament in the 60's was, how you gonna get 'em to buy the cow if the milk is free? The counterpoint is, how ya gonna make a living if people think they are entitled to free milk?
[alert type="Tired old cliche"]
TANSTAAFL
[/alert]
Re:Why not create a new, free, culture? (Score:1)
Yeah! The philosophy behind Open Source should not remain merely in the realm of computers. There should be all kinds of equivalents of "open source", like in music, movies, novels, you-name-it.
On the other side, people who aren't creating stuff and putting it under open-source-like licenses should at least support the people who are doing this. As far as music is concerned, people should definitely support GAMH [www.gamh.cx] and read the Free Music Philosophy [ram.org].
Also check out the CZR Public License [ndirect.co.uk]
The people who want to control the entertainment industry wants to make you a couch potato. If you don't want to be one, do something about it! Go create something new and put an open-source-like license on it. Or at least, go support the people who are doing this. Sitting there on your desk typing messages on Slashdot won't accomplish that much. Save some of that energy and accomplish something.
Re:Oh Suuuuuuure they do.... (Score:1)
One ton of Mills and Boons pulp romances is not equivalent to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet,/i>. Guess what, Romeo and Juliet is a terribly original story either.
Basically, it all boils down to what art is.
- Not all works of art are similarly valued.
- Not all tastes are the same.
- Sometimes, form and style outweigh originality.
- Tastes change over time, and it is an interesting history to keep track of those changes, to document where they arise from.
In view of this, it is very important to keep as much of our cultural heritage as alive as possible.Those who seek to use copyright law to prevent this are precisely contradicting these ideals. On one hand, they desire to contribute to culture and profit from it (nothing wrong with that). But they refuse to contribute to culture in any other ways other than on their own terms, far beyond their own lifetimes.
This is just not what civilization is about.
Re:Why not create a new, free, culture? (Score:1)
What are you going to do about those corporations, who take what you make, make something better, feed that to your friends, and refuse to allow you to create from what they have made?
The McCoffee Incident (rant) (Score:1)
wrong: companies are not individuals (Score:1)
I agree (Score:1)
Karma Police, arrest this man, he talks in maths
He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio
Re:Interesting topic + MO.. (Score:1)
That's sounds to me like a perfectly good and workable suggestion, and wouldn't even be that hard to do; just make a provision in the copyright law that says that copyrights to works involving trademarked characters (where the copyright and tradmark are held by the same entity) last for as long as the trademark is valid plus some number of years (25, perhaps?). I'm sure corporations would prefer that approach to having to pay off Congress every 20 years, but those bodies of work without an active maintainer could enter public domain earlier (back to a 50 year or life+25 span). Everybody gains, or am I missing something?
Re:Interesting topic. (Score:1)
This reminds me of an SF story -- from Analog SF/F magazine, IIRC -- that depicted a future where it had become impossible to compose an original work of music; with a database containing every known musical composition in hostory available, everthing that someone came up with would turn out to match something done before, even if the composer had never heard the work they were "copying". Scary thought, isn't it?
Re:The McCoffee Incident (rant) (Score:1)
--
Make up your mind (Score:1)
On one hand, everywhere you look and everything you see has some corporate logo, trademark, copyrighted something or other on it. Look around your home and count the corporate owned propoganda staring you in the face from that Nike symbol on your shoes to the Levi tag on your jeans to the Mickey Mouse ears on your head. You cannot escape it!
These corporations want to slam all of this crap down your throat and then when *you* try to do something with it, they file lawsuits and C&Ds. Every street in America is visually poisoned by billions of corporate logos, but if you try to do anything with this logo that they do not approve, then away you go. Please.
The worst thing is that every person who watches these shows and buys from the advertisers promotes this sort of environmental pollution and litigative action.
If there's something you want to do about it, TURN OFF THE F'ING TV! Write letters to the advertisers telling them of your intent to boycott their products if they don't try to change Fox's actions. Even if it doesn't correct the problem, you'll feel good bitching at Corporate America.
Re:Jesse Walker for President... (Score:1)
we do want to get back on the couch (Score:2)
look at it this way, if you will: couches are being made and used all over the world. despite advances in bed technology, people are still buying couches. why? because they're multi-purpose. you can watch tv on a couch. you can sleep on a couch. you can fulfill all the activities you would participate in on a bed while you are on the couch. the couch is the center of the household, and if i may, the known universe. there's nothing better than a couch.
in conclusion, yes, we do wish to shut up and get on the couch. but i have dibs . . .
Re:Regarding "Linux" Trademark (Score:2)
Perhaps Disney does have some sort of right to expect everlasting control over its mouse character. It has, after all, put a helluva lot of resources toward developing it. It doesn't make sense that someone else should be able to poach their success.
First of all, I'm curious as to why you think Disney has "put a helluva lot of resources toward developing" its star rodent. It began with cartoons, which made money for Disney. Then came the merchandising and Movies and so forth, which made incredible amounts of money for Disney. Where exactly has Disney poured resources into developing their character? They've done nothing but exploit the recognizability of the mouse character, they haven't done anything risky.
As for whether they should be able to retain sole rights to the character for all eternity, I'm not sure about that yet. It could be a very slippery slope. If we allow them to have a perpetual copyright on their mouse character, why not their theme song? If they can retain their theme song, why not their other songs and cartoons and characters, etc? It wouldn't end.
It's a difficult situation. I'm not so pro or anti-IP that I can see it as a black and white issue. I do feel that currently the law is weighing heavily in favor of corporate IP interests at the expense of the rest of the people in this country. I think that's bad. I think that the lifespan of a copyright should be dramatically shortened. I'm talking about making them last 10-15 years rather than 95 years. Trademarks are a stickier problem. I'll agree with you on that. As for Lifesavers owning the sole right to make little hard candies with a hole in the middle, I find that hard to justify. It's just too restrictive to allow one company to own an idea like that, let alone to control it forever. The whole thing needs to be rethought. It's breaking down already and it's going to get much worse as companies keep pushing for even more broad legislation like the DMCA and UCITA.
Re:incentives? (Score:2)
As an artist, what do you think of the length of the copyright? Is 95 years too much, too little? Why? I'm trying to figure out how such a long timespan can be justified, given the original intent of copyright, so I'm looking for someone to explain it from another perspective.
Re:Quantity != Quality, Volume != Creativity (Score:2)
Becuase at the time copyright law was originally devised it was not likely that the lawmakers saw that there would be any value to work manufactured in the distant past. I oppose the government taking away someone's property, intellectual or otherwise.
What do you mean "government taking away someone's property"? It wouldn't even BE property if it weren't for the government. Copyright is a privilege granted by the government, not a natural right.
Re:great.. now explain this... (Score:2)
50 sounds more reasonable, but I still think it's too long. I mean, it's one thing to provide incentive, but when you're talking about giving someone a monopoly on a creation, I think it should be done very carefully and not for a very long period of time. Think about it, if a band performs a song today while under contract with a record company, it will be covered by copyright until 2095. And that's assuming they don't get copyrights extended again. Is 2050 much better? I think 2020 sounds perfectly fair to the artist. They get the sole right to sell and distribute the work for 20 years. I don't see how it serves the original purpose of copyright to extend them much longer than that. It just let's corporations milk them longer.
great.. now explain this... (Score:2)
Ok, I agree with you here and I think you've given a pretty good justification for copyrights. What I'd like to see is for someone to try to justify a copyright lasting nearly 100 years, and in some cases even longer. That's my real problem with copyrights. They aren't just creating incentives and ensuring profitability, they're creating monopolies that last longer than I will likely be alive.
Vivaldi copyright (was:Interesting topic) (Score:2)
IMNHO, fraudulent claims of copyright should carry penalties at least equal to the penalties for ocpyright infringement.
Read the article. This ain't so anymore! Corporate copyrights went from 75 to 95, and personal ones went from "life+50" to "life+70".Re:The McCoffee Incident (rant) (Score:2)
this is an economic problem... (Score:2)
Information has to be priced in terms of value to the customer, not cost, since it has negligible reproduction costs. When you restrict usage of information, you lower that value for your customer. Similarily, if you allow broad usage of information, you raise the value of the product for your customer, but at the risk of selling fewer copies.
This is the dilemma RedHat has to deal with: by offering their product on the 'net, they're making fewer sales, even though the product is more valuable because the source is open. It's a tradeoff between price ($70 now) and amount sold.
So, I think that in the end, companies will have to find a "sweet spot" of how many rights to restrict. Pay per use is not a sweet spot, it's an extreme.
Constitutional justification for IP law (Score:2)
I hate it when people invent their own legal justifications for IP law. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to repeat this exact post on slashdot to correct someone's ignorance.
I don't know what country you're from, but here in the US the legal intent of IP law is defined in, of all places, the US Constitution, the highest law in the land. You can't argue with the Constitution--its text is the ultimate legal authority in the US.
The Constitution says (and I quote):
Reading it, you will see that IP law exists to promote progress in science and arts, and not, as you say, to give authors control.The incorrect notion that copyright and patent law exists to give the copyright/patent owner rights over their work has been misused time and time again by corporations to justify increasingly restrictive intellectual property laws, even to the point of choking progress in science and arts in a manner contrary to the Constitutional justification for copyright and patent law. But the Constitution is very clear on this point, assuming anyone even bothers to read it anymore. Authors should not be given an amount of control over their work that is so excessive that it hinders instead of promotes progress.
Intellectual property rights are not an end upon themselves, but only a means for promoting progress in science and arts.
Interesting topic. (Score:2)
For example, I think the musical scores of John Williams (Star Wars, et al) are the greatest musical achievement of my lifetime, on par with the likes of Vivaldi or Mozart.
Anybody who has an orchestra can perform Vivaldi, because his work is public domain. Not so John Williams. This effectively makes 20th Century Fox the gatekeeper of American culture.
I once read that once a movie or song becomes 50 years old, it automatically turns public domain. Is this true? Does that mean that copying and distributing "Citizen Kane" or "It's a Wonderful Life" is perfectly legal? What about the VHS or DVD?
Copyright law is BROKEN (Score:2)
So Congress keeps increasing the term of copyright, such that effectively it is not for a limited time, but forever.
In another forum, someone wrote:
And I replied:At this point I would also add that copyright protection on unpublished works such as source code is in fact completely unnecessary, as the unpublished work can be protected by trade secret law. Copyright was not intended to cover secrets, and is ill-suited to doing so.
If I were to take a more radical position, I might suggest that to secure copyright on object code, perhaps it should be required to also copyright the source code it was generated from, and deposit both with the copyright office. This would better serve to guarantee that the work would eventually not just become public domain, but also be usable as a base for further development. Merely having the object code become public domain without the source code is of much less value to society. In this scenario, a legitimate defense against claimed copyright infringement would be that the source code deposited by the copyright owner was incomplete or otherwise unusable to build the object code.
Of course, realistically I realize that there is little chance of getting any sort of copyright reform to restore the intended purpose. But if we don't educate people as to what the intended purpose was, the chance is zero.
Re:Interesting topic. (Score:2)
Without financial incentive, the arts and sciences would die. We all need to eat.
I offer Linux as a science counter-example,
As much as I like Linux, if we had to wait for OpenSource , we'd be in the dark ages ( for example, we'd have no good office suites ). It's also a simple fact that Linus was paid to write Linux ( he was on a graduate stipend ). So no, Linux doesn't "sustain" itself -- people are and were paid to work on it.
When "artists" band together and lobby the government, you know something is SERIOUSLY wrong.
Everyone else "bands together and lobbies the government", so I don't see why artists shouldn't be able to do so.
Re:this is an economic problem... (Score:2)
So how should the costs of compensating the artist be distributed ? Copyright says that everyone pays the same amount, and that amount is usually determined in advance. Prices are kept in check by competition. Between publishers.
Information has to be priced in terms of value to the customer,
It is. The customer sees software package (X) which costs $Y. If the utility of the software is >= $Y , the customer purchases. So the total revenue obtained is equal to the utility to the customers ( as perceived by the customers ). A more valuable piece of information results in greater revenues for the copyright holder. Competition keeps prices down -- if someone prices above the market, someone else can provide the same utility at a lower price and prices will reach an equilibrium.
Its just doing what its supposed to... (Score:2)
The advent of making the patent office into a profit center just realigned them into efficiency and now that things are happening at internet speed, we can see the effects of protectionism in terms of the harm self-interest causes to the greater good. (Namely US!)
That's why the pattern of protectionism in patent and copyright has to be replaced/supplanted by some other method of sharing and equitable distribution...
We'tre coming to an awareness that the system is working like its supposed to and it really, really wants to get in your face.
Good luck.finding a solution but one will be found or its going to be a sadder world full of IP criminals...
Re:Why not create a new, free, culture? (Score:2)
In 18 months the average desktop machine will likely have enough horsepower to do what you are demanding.
More importantly, to those who are making movies and storyboards as hobbies, an extra few months of rendering is OK if it means they can make their movie, the alternative being simply out of their pricerange. We can facilitate a renaissance of creativity by making the tools available to those the media mogules do not, and let the quality of what they produce stand (or fall) on its own.
Of course, with enough content already in an open commons of GPL/BSD open content, any number of people could shoot scenes against a green-screen and overlay already rendered scenery, vastly reducing time-to-market. More likely, most projects would use a mix of their own product and other material, at no cost, with little penalty in time.
Yes, the first projects might go slow, just as the first year Linux development went rather slow, compared to today's breakneck pace. But, unlike commercial efforts, each project would be free to draw on the fruits of other open projects, leading to a synergy of effort and a plethora of products the so-called culture industry could never dream of matching.
In the end, I think the amount of $$$ spent on proprietary software and formats is SUCH A SMALL SLICE of the actual production costs, that it really just isn't worth it. Talent and hardware cost so much more than the software.
Talent is expensive because everyone wants a "big name" in the credits of their movie, be it a well known acter, director, special effects house, or whatever. This is endemic to hollywood, not to smaller outfits wanting to get their product out. Distribution and marketing costs are high, unless, of course, one uses the internet instead.
Most of the dreck on TV, using such expensive "talent" (using the term very liberally), could be produced by teenagers with a camera, a set, and the right editing tools, and would probably have more interesting content to boot.[1] By providing the tools and licensing infrastructure to young talent to do just that, we unleash a whole slew of talented people who are empowered to create their own content and show it to others. A BSD/GPL[2] open content license would give each successive project a growing wealth of ideas and content to draw on. Very quickly we would see the best ideas move forward and improve, in ways that would, in a suprisingly short time, surpass the efforts of large studios and the expensive "talent" they employ. The Actors Union may not like this, but just about everyone else will.
[1]As an example, a show I loved (until its last, dismal season), sliders, suffered from some severly bad acting even in its best days. With the exception of one character, any high school thespian club would be able to provide as much if not more acting talent. Most shows on television don't even rate as highly as that one did, in either content (writing, directing) or acting.
[2]Both philosophies would probably flurish
Copyright laws are complex (Score:2)
Unless you want to steal someone elses idea. If John Williams wants to give away the theme to Star Wars [assuming he still retained the copyright, which I assume he assigned over the 20th C fox] he could transfer it irrevocably to the public domain. If he doesn't want to, he's entitled to fair payment for his work, right? Or you think that there should be a cap on how much money someone can earn on any one of their ideas?
The Federalists didn't like the concepts of EITHER copyright OR patents. Monopolies are abhorrent to a market system. But what impetus do you have to create if you're not going to receive compensation? You can't eat your friends admiration. And don't start with me about the open source revolution - how do you pay for your dinner?
Just because you want it, doesn't mean you have a right to it. If I've got a horse that you really want, does that give you the right to my horse? What if I've got an engine design that I spent years and millions of dollars developing? Am I not entitled to reap what I've sown?
Because that's the stance of the anti-copyright lobby.
It's utterly true that megacorps own your cultural heritage. If you don't like it, don't support them. Start your own open-source music studio, where all music that you make is public domain. See how long you last.
Redundant!!!!! (Score:2)
Way to pay attention, guys!
Re:great.. now explain this... (Score:2)
Just to throw some numbers out, how about fifty years, or twenty five years after the creators death, whichever comes first.
Re:incentives? (Score:2)
If there were no copyright laws, certainly all of the garage bands would still exist. But there is no incentive to distribute those works commercially. A record label isn't going to record a garage band and sell the CDs if it knows that the next label will copy off of them and sell theirs cheaper, and so on down the line. Eventually all the CDs will be sold for the cost of the media, leaving insufficient profits to make the recording to begin with.
But don't discount the incentive to create either. Most garage bands want to create music. But they also want to earn a living. Without copyrights, they would be unable to sell their music for a price sufficient to keep them employed as musicians. Most of them will end up in other professions, taking away from their time to compose new pieces, and away from their time to practice.
Re:Quantity != Quality, Volume != Creativity (Score:2)
I read the article and I realize that.
I am merely suggesting that these laws have been around for a long time and obviously they aren't stopping people from being creative, given the amount of media we find ourselves surronded in.
Take a look around you at what comes out of the movie and music industry. Most of it isn't necessarily bad per se, but much of it does have a bland, cookie-cutter sameness about it.
Sure, if you look at say the Top 40 music or the large movie releases, but they, by necessity have to appeal to the most people. I find that small "arthouse" movies and local bands are as creative and vital as ever.
I'm curious, what do you say to the article's claims that George Lucas will not allow new artists to borrow from Star Wars the same way he borrowed from Kurasawa and from popular myth?
I say the claims are way overrated. What, is Lucas going to complain about someone else's excessive use of wipes between scenes, which he borrowed, or the next space movie that starts with a pan down to a spaceship? No... he couldn't if he wanted to... Should he sue if someone comes out with a Boba Fett movie? Damn straight.
What do you say to the article's claims that for (certain types of) new music to evolve they must be able to sample from previous music the way that music lifted guitar riffs and other musical elements from music that came before?
I say every instance of sampling I've heard in music is horrible and if the practice dies, well, it hasn't been soon enough.
Why, in your own words, is it ok for the current gatekeepers to have borrowed from work that came before, but it is no longer acceptable for anyone to borrow from work that is currently popular?
The so called "gatekeepers" only have "borrowed" from items that have expired their copyright. People in the future will be free to do the same. When copyrights are extended though law they are extended for everyone, not just the "gatekeepers".
Why was it necessary to extend lengths of copyrights?
Becuase at the time copyright law was originally devised it was not likely that the lawmakers saw that there would be any value to work manufactured in the distant past. I oppose the government taking away someone's property, intellectual or otherwise.
Were artists really having trouble making money with the shorter terms, or are they just trying to guarantee their continued dominance into the indefinite future?
Well, lets see, Shakespeare didn't have copyright, and he hardly died a rich man. I'd say they are legitimately asking to be rewarded for their works. If people are still willing to pay for them, the artist or copyright owner should still get their cut.
Try as you might, you simply aren't going to get me to feel sorry for the media compaines.
Well, I don't have much sympathy for the "I don't want to pay for stuff" crowd either.
However, if I don't like the crap they're churning out, I would like an alternative,
You have the best alternative, don't buy it.
But, then, God forbid anyone consider anything besides corporate profit in determining social policy or anything.
I should hope not, the two don't have a damn thing to do with each other.
Oh Suuuuuuure they do.... (Score:2)
Yep, those darn IP laws must be stifling things. Help I'm being repressed! God forbid anyone make money from their work or anything.
No, just the opposite. (Score:2)
Note, I don't think it's a good thing.
IP laws give a) publishers and b) purchasers of entertainment material the ability not only to control the expression of the works they own, but more importantly, the interpretation as well.
On top of that, purchasers of this material also have the power to prevent or limit the release of material, for whatever reason. Maybe they are embarrased by the work because it is poor quality. Maybe they are afraid of it because it is (has become) controversial. Maybe cutting back on production is a convenient way to 'prove' financial damages in court. Or maybe they bought the material in the first place to prevent it's release.
This has the effect of reinforcing popular culture by stifling unpopular culture, and keeping the LCD of pop culture fans pretty common and low.
Re:incentives? (Score:2)
I spent some time in and around the music business, and have several close friends who are professional musicians. And mostly what I observed was that the people who control the publishing seem to have influence and money far in excess of the value they provide. You only have to meet a few coked-out A&R people to figure this out. Or you see situations where one female singer gets ahead by sleeping with somebody, while another doesn't. When merit is replaced by personal whims, it suggests that the influence of those in control is excessive.
Re:Interesting topic. (Score:2)
I'm curious why you don't think art and science are self-sustaining? Or can they only not be given away when something has to be given (i.e. a physical exchange)? I offer Linux as a science counter-example, I don't think art has been given the opportunity yet.
Of course, you could subscribe to the thoughts of Marx and the examples of aberrant implementations by Chairman Mao, Lenin, Stalin, etc. where true art (a la Solzhenitsen (sp?), the guy who wrote the Gulag Archipeligo and thusly expelled) is highly censored but free for all.
Why would it need to be consored here? I would think that free art in a free market would flourish. High levels of competition and all that.
Or, you can deal with privately funded art which is never censored (cf Maplethorpe (sp?), Piss Christ, etc. (I hate LISP as a side note), art produced for a very, very select few to appreciate) but only available at the whim of the owner.
If people want to pay for their own twisted fantasies to be made real that's fine...
I think copyright has been pushed too far. It's been aggegated and exploited and now the original pupose (much like the patent system and software) has been lost, replaced with the unquenchable thirst of corporate profits. When "artists" band together and lobby the government, you know something is SERIOUSLY wrong.
--
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:2)
well, yes, the Internet is certainly is hostile to anything it sees as an error. Secure methods used to leverage a no-cost product into a high cost one are quickly exposed for the useless bits of logic they are. And I daresay the Internet will continue to be hostile to these forms of control for the forseeable future. The Internet makes control of digital media impossible.
Until there is a secure protection of their copyrights, it would make absolutely no sense to publish their music on the Internet.
Then they should keep their precious, precious IP all to themselves...and then see how much it is worth. What copyright was originally setup to do is protect the right to profit from the works. And so it has. It has also protected the right to profit mightily from the distrubution and reproduction of those works. It is these activities that the music industry has leveraged to control access to their product. Under these guidelines there is a good reason to support these large companies, because without them we couldn't get our music. Along comes the Internet, which makes their entire scheme null and void. It's not needed, their profit generating activities, once the only way to get music into the hands of millions, are no longer needed. That's not to say there still isn't money to be made and a profit to be had, but when you take away 99% of the cost of something, the profit margin will go down. These companies don't want that.
They are using the revenue generated from a stranglehold in one era, to strangle the next. That is NOT good for popular culture (unless you think popular culture should consist of what you are TOLD is popular)
Cave paintings and folk stories were not works of art.
I would say the painters and tellers would disagree. Have you ever seen a good storyteller? Nowadays most go by the moniker "actor".
They showed how one hunts. they showed what one hunts,
Kind of like Swingers, no?
they told of what happens to people when they do bad things in an allegorical fashion.
And you're saying this isn't art?! Demonstrating an insight into life through metaphor? You ever listen to any music? (that would be outside the "look at me, I'm young and hot" genre)
Is art a reflection of life, or life a reflection of art?
Realize, I'm not saying copyright and IP should be done away with. I just think they need to be adjusted to be more inline with the reality of the situation. (which is that the Internet makes control of digital media impossible)
--
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:2)
No, you're reading your assumption that I'm a grumpy pirate into your argument. The product itself costs the creator NOTHING to reproduce a billion times over and spread throughout the world. Yes, there are fixed costs on producing content, but given the multiplying effects of digital media, that is the only cost in creating a product. So that is the only cost that needs to be covered to continue production.
I'm amazed at how much contempt for the artist I am discovering in these discussions, it is truly amazing.
No, it is not contempt for the artist. It is contempt for the people who control the artists and convince them to sign over the rights to their own work, in exchange for the promotional efforts and industry ties that all but guarantee a good selling album. They also convince the artists to sign away their next 5 albums, so in case the first one makes it big, the artist can't go and find a better deal. That is where the contempt is.
So by making Lambourghinis $200k, they are "controlling" my "access" to it? Excuse me, but no.
Umm that seems like a pretty good control of access, no? Besides, please don't try and bring products where scarcity is a concern into the argument, they don't apply. Unless you happen to know where I can download a Ferrari...
How does this have any bearing at all on the current discussion?
This is what the current discussion is about. Remember at the beginning of my first comment when I said "You forgot about the Internet." You're trying to do it again.
Instead of being a constructive atmosphere, you choose to represent the Internet as a place where if you want to create, good, we'll steal every single thing you do and rape you dry and we don't give a fuck about your life.
Or perhaps it would be a bit more like that other thing where people have released their creation to the Net. That Linux thing. Where nobody cares about Linus, or Alan, or Richard, or Miguel, or Rasterman. It's a freakin' cult of personality. Kind of like music should be, no? I guess I was raping Phish when I plunked down $175 to get in a gate to see them play (multiple that by 75,000 and tell me you can't make money giving away music). Yea, those idiots, releasing all that music on the Net to make their fans happy. What a crazy idea!
That might work for Morissey, but it won't work for many others.
Give me a list of those that have tried, and I'll believe you. Give me a list of big bands who have made their music free to all (just to listen to, mind you) and has failed because of it. I'll be right here waiting...
You just shot a huge load with that statement. You are assuming everyone is stupid enough to be duped by advertisment, you're assuming people are watching those advertisements, you'r eassuming a whole assload of things which boil down to a simple point: You believe people are stupid and that companies only have to spend a few bucks to get them hooked. I believe this is true for a large quantity of human beings. I also believe that those human beings deserve exactly what they get from the big corporations.
Aah, this is where we differ. I, being the happy-go-lucky person I am, would rather the poor unguided souls NOT support repressive regimes and line the pockets of immoral record executives. You think that's great. It's not your responsibility, or even a worthwhile undertaking, to educate others about the effects of their apathy. I guess if that's where you want to stand , so be it.
The big question here is, what was the last band that failed that the record companies supported?
hmm, Vanilla Ice, Milli Vanilli, New Kids on the Block, Poison, Debbie Gibson, oh, here's a nice list [rockhall.com]
Fine, just ingore my point
No prob, it was a weak point. Unless you think that *every* story was told and every *painting* was done for the sole reason of education.
They'd then stick a nice big spear through your skull when you ask them why they waste time hunting while they could be painting pretty pictures and then letting other people have them without trade.
Wow, they had the Internet back then? Awesome (remember my first sentence waay back when, something about remembering something...).
There will be a future on the Internet of protected content.
Perhaps, but not for music.
You will hate it, you will rail against it, which is why it WON'T happen.
Sit back and wait. Wait and watch.
YOU do that, I've got better stuff to do.
hmmm If you do art for arts sake, well, masturbation is fun but empty.
I saw this on one of your other threads. Now I know why you don't get it.
ALL HAIL THE PROFIT MOTIVE, ITS THE ONLY REASON ART GETS DONE!
--
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:2)
The simple fact is that the first US copyright law [earlyamerica.com] established a fourteen-year term, with a single fourteen-year renewal option. Thus, it is quite evident that the Founders considered limited periods of protection sufficient unto the purpose of protecting the right to profit from one's intellectual creations.
So they put a limit on it. That limit was not some compromise between the two ends of the spectrum, it was something they felt would be enforceable.
Surely you do not seriously suggest that the Founders felt themselves incapable of enforcing the law over a twenty-nine-year period.
I recommend L. Ray Patterson's essay [uga.edu] on the topic for a historical overview of Anglo-American copyright law.
/.
Clarification on Gilber O'Sullivan vs. Biz Markie (Score:2)
- a. Gilbert O'Sullivan vs. Biz Markie: In a 1991 lawsuit, singer Gilbert O'Sullivan sued rap performer Biz Markie, and 8 other defendants for sampling, or including without permission, a small portion of O'Sullivan's "Alone Again Naturally," Markie's song, "Alone Again."
So it's not quite as horrible as the original article suggested.b. The rap song borrowed just 3 words, and 8 bars of the music from O'Sullivan's hit, but what it borrowed, particularly the words, "Alone again, naturally" was an important part of the original tune.
c. Markie's attorney defended this action on the grounds that stealing bits and pieces from songs was common in the music industry, but the court ruled against the rapper.
d. Had Markie used the less recognized, or important parts of O'Sullivan's song, it is possible that there would have been no judgment against Markie.
Re:Why not create a new, free, culture? (Score:2)
What are you going to do about those corporations, who take what you make, make something better, feed that to your friends, and refuse to allow you to create from what they have made?
It's not really free if the corporations don't have the chance to use it also, of course. But they shouldn't have the right to borrow from what we did without letting us borrow from what they've done. They just have to understand that before they get involved - if so many other people can happy participate in that environment, then they can't use their bigger size to change the rules just so they can make their money.
---
Why not create a new, free, culture? (Score:2)
If you don't like it, stop buying it, stop watching it. Instead of writing fan fiction, get together with other people and create your own setting, that you can write about and do whatever you want with. There's no reason we can't have the equivalent of open source in that area. Why not try and make all those laws irrelevant?
---
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:2)
When I first started to read your post, I thought it was sarcasm, but it seems not to be. Patents and copyrights are ESTABLISHED IN THE CONSTITUTION in order to "ensure a rich public domain."
You then go on to explain, with:
Copyrights and patents and such things protect the creators BY keeping them secret
WTF? What planet are you on, or what universe are you in? How the hell does a patent keep something secret? In order to gain the patent, you must publish what exactly it is you are patenting. Copyrights protect published works. How do you keep a published work secret? The two are mutually exclusive.
If, however, you use the term 'secret' to mean 'protected', you are correct to a certain point. Copyrights and patents do exist to create a rich public domain. They do so by giving a creator an incentive to create, by bestowing exclusive rights to their creation for a certain period. After this period expires, the culture as a whole is enhanced by inclusion of this creation into the public domain, free for all to use.
It's a principle that was important enough to be used in the basis for american government, the document that enshrines all essential american freedoms. I think the "framer's intentions" are more than abundantly clear.
MS Ramen Noodles?!? (Score:2)
In part, this shift reflects the increased popularity of "dilution" laws over the last several decades, culminating with the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995. Under this rule, it is illegal to produce, say, Microsoft brand ramen noodles, even though that other Microsoft isn't in the noodle business, lest the lousiness of your pasta undermine the software company's reputation.
Ramen noodles? MICROSOFT Ramen Noodles? What blasphemy! The original Open Source Food for Uber-Geeks should never be tainted by association with the Evil One(tm)! Arm yourselves, geeks! Boycott Microsoft Ramen Noodles!!!
This was a public-service announcement from the SmashDot Team (tm).
Sorry -- Could not resist... =)
Reasonmag goes Socialist?! (Score:2)
We should be aware also of the libertarian line of argument which justifies IP on the basis that it is precisely what it says it is, namely property. Following Locke, (who saw property arising out of the mixing of 'nature' and labour,) it is often argued by copyright holders that the fruits of intellectual, as much as physical labour, give rise to property per se. The source of copyright therefore is not is some grant by the state. Quite the opposite, copyright legislation limits (and infringes upon) natural proprietary rights. Lengthening the period during which this property persists, merely plays around with the borders of what is ultimately an illegitimate appropriation.
I hasten to add that I do not subscribe to this latter view. It's just that hitherto I have not associated Reason(tm) with the a pro-state and public interest, and anti-individual (or company) and property position inherent in the 'copyright is a state granted monopoly for the public benefit' line of reasoning.
Lost Treasures (Score:2)
Likewise there are a lot of books out of print, some of which I'll never have a chance to read and some of which I'd like to read again and am not able to find.
I seem to recall some clauses in physical property where if it's not used for some length of time, it reverts back to the government. Perhaps we need something like that in our current IP laws.
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:2)
As for cave paintings, fireside stories, etc, you show your time. Cave paintings and folk stories were not works of art. They may be considered art now, but when they were created they were works of EDUCATION. They were as our text books and lectures are today, they showed how one hunts, they showed what one hunts, they told of what happens to people when they do bad things in an allegorical fashion. Any anthropologist will tell you that every folk story has a lesson. That lesson is the reason for the story and the reason it was created.
Esperandi
Re:Constitutional justification for IP law (Score:2)
Yes, and if upon reading it you employ the education of a high school graduate to translate it from the english language into an idea you will see that the founding fathers very explicitly stated that in order to foster progress in science and the arts, control had to be guaranteed by law to the authors.
If they didn't believe that control by the authors would create incentive, they would not have come up with the idea of copyright at all.
Esperandi
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:2)
Wrong... you see, the individual is not an evil thing as you try to paint in this rebuttal. The individual is each and every single one of us. Each and every single person in the United States or anywhere where such laws exist have monetary and moral incentive (it is immoral to allow people to have and use your work if they have not earned it, it is also unnatural). Not just one guy sitting in a corner, every single person in the whole country.
Now, you go on to assume things which are blantantly anti-individual and invalid. If I create something amazing and I patent it, that means I can produce that thing for X number of years before you can come along and copy-cat me and ride on MY accomplishment to make yourself money, fame, whatever. If, however, you want to improve on my invention, all you have to do is ask. I can license it to you, I can simply allow you to expand on the patent within bounds (you can't paint it blue and call it your own, etc) without charge, I can do many things.
The person who uses copyrights and patents to stifle progress and prevent people from doing better than they have is immoral and a coward. The person who defends his work from exploitation by those who have not earned it is a hero.
Your examples show your ignorant of patent law, BTW, you can only patent material processes and tangible things. Calculus is not a tangible thing. What about one-click ordering like Amazon you ask? Well, besides that that is prior art and shouldn't have been patented at all, it is a definite mechanical process, not a theory that is patented. Read the patent text and you will see it is painfully spelled out.
Why are we seeing such abuse of patent laws recently? Its very simple, none of the people who understand the issue will get off their lazy asses and apply for a job at the USPTO to review patents such as these. There are quite a few job openings in just this area. They are understaffed and ignorant of the subject area. Until someone elects to do something, it will continue.
Esperandi
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:2)
Yes, isn't it. perhaps you need to do some reading and discover that you only view those cave paintings as "art" because you don't understand the education lesson they were created to teach, things such as animals to hunt, how to hunt, etc. They may be creative, but they were created for the purpose of education which was their incentive. What passed into their hands? Probably some skins, some steaks, etc. They hadn't gotten advanced enough to require money, everyone was still sustaining their own family with minimal to no trade.
Your view of money disgusts me. Money is LIFE, sir. You obtain money by working, by spending a portion of the most valuable thing you own, your LIFE. And you think that if I give a symbol of my life to a man for his creative work that I denigrate him to a WHORE? You are a disgusting beast. I suppose you would prefer that I give him my pity or maybe ignore him completely? I give him the most valuable thing in the universe to me and it makes him a whore... jesus, I'd hate to see the way the world would have turned out if people believed the way you do, that the best way to punish someone is to give them your life.
"If I live to be 80, I just might be allowed by law to publish my extensions of Asimov's Foundation.... "
It is sad that you believe to create something of value you have to piggy-back on someone elses reputation. A reputation that you did not earn and do not deserve until you have earned it. Derivative works must be herculean in the attempt in order to stand on their own merit and not attempt to steal from the original author.
Personally I am not in favor of extending copyrights and patents, I believe they should be relinquished to the public domain upon death of the author. His family has absolutely no right to his talent or proceeeds from it unless he chose to give it to them. As for "megacorps" (that invent everything you use and buy), there should be a set limit on it and I think 25 years, maybe the original 28, is plenty.
However, what would be more helpful would be encouraging certain industries to release their older works into a sort of free domain... you can distribute the materials and such, but may never sell them under any condition, not even charging for media costs. That way they could continue to produce the atom-based versions and the electron-based versions could be free, the people paying for the atom-based versions would probably still have about the same sale rate because at a certain age of a product, the people buying it are collectors or people who have a particular emotional attachment to the thing, and no longer people buying it for its original intended use.
If I pay an artist, and it insults them, and I know that they thrive on discord and pain of every kind... aren't you proposing slavery for the artist population? Using your disgusting, warped logic, this is the prime and supreme condition for artists.
Personally, I like the idea of having patrons. The artists are free to create without worrying about their needs. Instead, however, you propose making sur ethey can never meet their needs, and you somehow think this will encourage them to produce. I happen to have a higher expectation of the mind of a creative man.
Esperandi
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:2)
When you offer your goods up for purchase you are saying "I have used my life to produce this thing. I want this much of your life (money) in return for it." Doing that takes a tremendous backbone. You might be turned down, you might find out that the products of your life aren't worth jack shit to another person.
If you do art for arts sake, well, masturbation is fun but empty.
Esperandi
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:2)
You are completely wrong. Patents and copyrights are established to insure that creators have rights over their work. Without those rights, they would not release their works at all, ever. Your view is twisted and completely against the purpose of the original laws. Read it again, and don't look at it through your rose-colored glasses.
By "keeping secret" I mean it protects people from copying the things and distributing it for free, everyone around these parts seems to read such actions as "withholding" and "keepign secret" because they assume that the people who can afford to buy it are some sort of super elite force against justice.
You seem to catch on near the end of your post with this:
"They do so by giving a creator an incentive to create, by bestowing exclusive rights to their creation for a certain period. "
and then crash and burn right after. You see, the point is the first thing you said, the second part is sort of a "let people off the hook after awhile" thing. The justification is the protection, NOT the "freedom" afterwards.
The framer's intentions ARE abundantly clear, and you're missing them. They wanted to make sure that people had that incentive you talked about, and they knew that they couldn't protect that freedom froever, though they would have preferred it that way. So they put a limit on it. That limit was not some compromise between the two ends of the spectrum, it was something they felt would be enforceable. They fiured the term limit they put on it would make it so when it was up there wouldn't be much profit to reproducing the original works and such, they never intended it to be a mechanism to allow people to copy things.
Think about it, if the point was solely to ensure that the public would get a rich body of culture, why would they protect the idaes for a certain amount of time at all? You think they thought they could TRICK creators into makign things if they let them profit from them and then the public could steal them? That's socialism, not capitalism, and capitalism is what the founders outlined in every single word they wrote.
Esperandi
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:2)
I'm amazed at how much contempt for the artist I am discovering in these discussions, it is truly amazing. You would think that if you enjoyed what someone did you'd be willing to pay them for it, but no, one guy proposes slavery, you claim that no payment is necessary because it didn't cost anything to produce. I guess all you should pay to get into a concert is gas money, right?
"It is these activities that the music industry has leveraged to control access to their product."
Control access? So by making Lambourghinis $200k, they are "controlling" my "access" to it? Excuse me, but no. They are producing a high quality product and they have valued it at $200k. If you can't or won't pay it, you don't deserve it. In the case when you buy it, it should not be grudgingly. You should appreciate the opportunity to purcahse such a superb achievement and be glad to pay the price. If you're not both, you don't buy it, it really is that simple.
"Along comes the Internet, which makes their entire scheme null and void. It's not needed, their profit generating activities, once the only way to get music into the hands of millions, are no longer needed. That's not to say there still isn't money to be made and a profit to be had, but when you take away 99% of the cost of something, the profit margin will go down. These companies don't want that. "
How does this have any bearing at all on the current discussion? You think that if you chop down patent and copyright laws that it will only hurt the corporations? Wrong. Any artist that releases his work independently on the net would also be affected. he knows this and will not release it. Anyone who might create the next wave of record comapnies online (provide banner advertisement, expert website design, site hosting, large bandwidth capabilities, streaming webcasts of concerts, taping and webcasting for-pay interviews, etc, etc, etc, the list goes on) also gets screwed. So you're basically writing the Internet into a corner. Instead of being a constructive atmosphere, you choose to represent the Internet as a place where if you want to create, good, we'll steal every single thing you do and rape you dry and we don't give a fuck about your life. BTW, when's the next album out? That might work for Morissey, but it won't work for many others.
"They are using the revenue generated from a stranglehold in one era, to strangle the next. That is NOT good for popular culture (unless you think popular culture should consist of what you are TOLD is popular) "
Groan, get a dictionary. Pop culture is not an individual revolutionary artist and 3 fans. Pop culture is not the people that I listen to or like. Pop culture is the people who make the biggest sales. You just shot a huge load with that statement. You are assuming everyone is stupid enough to be duped by advertisment, you're assuming people are watching those advertisements, you'r eassuming a whole assload of things which boil down to a simple point: You believe people are stupid and that companies only have to spend a few bucks to get them hooked. I believe this is true for a large quantity of human beings. I also believe that those human beings deserve exactly what they get from the big corporations.
The big question here is, what was the last band that failed that the record companies supported? You see, when a band sells a million records, they get the advertisement and such, not the other way around.
"Cave paintings and folk stories were not works of art.
I would say the painters and tellers would disagree. Have you ever seen a good storyteller? Nowadays most go by the moniker "actor". "
Fine, just ingore my point. Youre still very wrong. The painters and storytellers would have asked you what the fuck you're talking about and say they're teaching their kids how to hunt. They'd then stick a nice big spear through your skull when you ask them why they waste time hunting while they could be painting pretty pictures and then letting other people have them without trade. Actors act. They entertain. They don't teach you how to do something usually. And I don't think I'd qualify those guys in hunting videos as "actors".
"And you're saying this isn't art?! " I'm saying that this wasn't art ***THEN***. Ask an elementary school kid if he thinks his teachers lectures are art. I'm betting he won't. Just liek the people back then wouldn't have. Try time-shifting yourself back to when these things went on, back to the point where nature was shit. it whipped you, it beat you, it hurt you. There was no quality of "getting away" in it at all, it was just hunt or die.
There will be a future on the Internet of protected content. You will hate it, you will rail against it, but it will happen. And when it does I want you to remember me saying this and do something for me. Sit back and wait. Wait and watch. See where the abundance of creativity and quality go to. Judge this quality objectively, don't just say "bunch of people like. Must be shit. Grumpy people like this better, this must be better.".
Esperandi
Public Libraries (Score:2)
Most of popular culture SHOULD be stifiled (Score:2)
(I'm betting any re-make with action figures would be better)
Re:Interesting topic. (Score:2)
Re:Open ears, open eyes, open mouths, clodes minds (Score:2)
In the US "Campaign Finance Reform" is a big issue, people don't understand what it means.
What do people not understand about it?
"Gun Control" is another term for social engineering. Keep the poor and middle class afraid and they will keep voting for you.
How so, explain.
Re:Vivaldi copyright (was:Interesting topic) (Score:2)
this is a fine distinction that bears mention.
can go to the archives somewhere (presumably in Vienna), and with appropriate permission, get access to the original Vivaldi scores. You can then copy these out (by hand, into your computer, whatever, if the curators agree to it), and copyright your transcription of it.
See that? You can obtain a copyright on your expression of a work that is out of copyright. That's why, for instance, you can go to the store and buy a (copywritten) copy of Fanny Hill, or go online and download a plaintext, freely distributable copy of it. The original work isn't under copyright anymore. The expression of it (i.e. a given publisher's edition) can be given a copyright. Does that make sense?
Counter Culture ---> Establishment (Score:2)
For better or for worse, the fact that so many people have access to computers, and that the computers are practically turn-key operations, has turned the personal computer from a novelty for the brave into a household appliance for the masses.
Whether or not rules and regulations are going to be needed is not the issue here; rather it is what form those rules and regulations will take.
The patent issue is a prime example:
The technology has moved so quickly that most people are still in the awestruck stage, and some of these people work in the patent office. If I understand the Amazon patent correctly (and I am not a lawyer), all they did was leverage existing technology to solve a problem. Ordinarily this would get a programmer a pat on the back, but somehow a patent examiner saw this and thought it was a major breakthrough, and awarded a patent. This might not have occured had another, more savvy examiner evaluated the patent application.
The user community needs to be involved in the regulation process as the body of law relating to computing and the internet evolves. How that can occur is another topic, but some members of the Open Source community have gotten their message out.
-----------------------------------------
Regarding "Linux" Trademark (Score:3)
Which leads one to wonder when the Linux community will rise up in arms over the abuses of its trademark, perpetrated by certain IPO-hoax distributors and laundry detergent companies.
Yes, this is mildly troll-like. But, do think: the whole LinuxOne debacle could have been settled by pressing a trademark case against them.
Perhaps Disney does have some sort of right to expect everlasting control over its mouse character. It has, after all, put a helluva lot of resources toward developing it. It doesn't make sense that someone else should be able to poach their success.
And, yet, the cases of fanfic being shut down, and that goofy R&R Museum case... but if the building shape isn't "owned" by them, then does that mean I can start making candies with a hole in the middle? Seems to me that Lifesavers has put enough work into publicizing "the one with a hole in the middle" to own it. And yet... can Michelin make the same claim for tires?
It's a very sticky issue all around, and there are *no* clear answers. Consider Microsoft using the Linux name... even those claiming no trademarks should ever be allowed would probably have a tough time swallowing that bitter pill!
--
Re:Why not create a new, free, culture? (Score:3)
First, I think programming is much more of an art than you give it credit for, and many programmers have artistic leanings in other areas (music, video, painting, whatever).
I guess I didn't make myself clear in my original point, however. The Open Source community could develope free and open tools, protocols, and storage standards for creating and packaging the media. Artists would have access to these tools, and would be facilitated in creating content. Open source projects of this kind could reduce the production costs to a low enough level (effectively zero, modula the artist's time, if "virtual casting" technology were to ever reach a point where human actors become secondary or superfulous -- not something that will happen this decade probably, but will happen eventually). With production costs near zero, many artists would likely release some of their material under an open, collaborative license, for exposure and marketing if nothing else (much like the mp3.com phenominon). Hobbiests would be even more so inclined. As for wizardry, I would submit that for every "discovered" wizard who has "sold out" (as a theater friend of mine put it), there are probably hundreds of equally if not more talented "wizards" who would contribute their talents, if only they had the tools and channels available to them.
One of the real problems right now is that content is rather expensive to create, and this is an area open source could address directly.
And who knows, with a growing wealth of open, free (as in speach) content, we might very well not need to rely on the media moguls as heavilly for our entertainment. Over time Open Content quality would no doubt improve, much as it has in the open source movement, probably surpassing that which is produced in hollywood rather quickly (though that may not be saying much) and hollywood et. al. would find themselves marginalized in popular culture.
Recursive example of copyright censorship (Score:3)
How ironic, that a link [earthlink.net] in this story [reasonmag.com] may have been the catalyst for further censorship via copyright and legal thuggary, as it appears that the 15 minute silent film "Star Wars: The Remake" Parody has now vanished from the net, after receiving a rather glowing review in the aforementioned article.
Remind me to give George Lucus another $8 when his next Star Wars film comes out. (NOT)
Re:Interesting topic. (Score:3)
May I suggest rereading the article posted?
The short answer is (asuming you live in the United States) your congress was bought cheap by media intersts, including Disney and Time-Warner, and copyright has been extended retroactively from 75 to 95 years (for corporate held copyrights), and from life+50 to life+70 for individual copyright holders.
Open ears, open eyes, open mouths, clodes minds. (Score:3)
In the US "Campaign Finance Reform" is a big issue, people don't understand what it means.
"Gun Control" is another term for social engineering. Keep the poor and middle class afraid and they will keep voting for you.
"Family Values" is a way for people to control what you do in your own home. Scare the Christians about the homosexuals and make them angry about the disintegration of the "traditional" family then they'll vote for you.
Americans (although I'm one of them) tend to like quick and easy things. It's easier to let CNN tell you what you should think about issue X than it is to get as much information as possible and decide for yourself.
Look at how many laypersons think that DeCSS is a copy protection issue. Why? Because the AP wire that sparked the story on CNN labeled it as such.
Thinking is hard. Reacting is easy.
LK
incentives? (Score:3)
But the more relevant question is whether the benefits to society from increased creativity outweigh the losses from decreased availability and the possibility lawyers can go around banging on people's doors. It's not at all clear whether this is true.
Certainly in the age of the Internet and increased ease of copying, we are beginning to see the costs of the decreased availability and of legal intervention more clearly.
The one area that gives me pause is the notion of music and of promotion. Imagine a world in which everybody was free to copy music or sing everybody else's songs. Presumably, it would be difficult to be a record company in such a world. But would there be less music made? Would garage bands cease to exist? Would there be fewer of them? Of course not.
But the music industry takes some of those bands (more or less at random) and promotes them to the public. Once a song becomes popular, it certainly adds something to the social fabric. For example, you meet a member of the opposite gender and you can dance to the same song, because you've both heard it on the radio.
So there is definitely some value to the promotion that the music industry does. The real question is whether IP laws are the only way to promote this.
IP laws are a relatively new invention; while most of our laws have evolved from millenia-old religious principles (it is wrong to kill somebody, you shouldn't steal somebody's property), only in recent centuries has the idea surfaced that ideas constitute property. Would we be better off if some prehistoric person had been able to patent the wheel? The idea is preposterous. The public benefits from having wheels, not from a chance to get rich by reinventing the wheel.
Oddly, technology is leading us down the right path. You still can't press your own CD's and sell them to the public as if they were the real thing, and that's good; I think few here will argue for that freedom. At the same time, it has become virtually impossible to prevent people from sharing music with their friends, thus eliminating most of the artificial scarcity that copyright laws cause.
Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:3)
Copyrights and patents and such things protect the creators BY keeping them secret. And we, the public, are the creators. Not collectively of course, nothing is ever accomplished collectively, but individually, everyone can create something. If copyrights and patents did not exist the big companies could just package up whatever Elvis Costello creates, advertise the hell out of it, and completely screw him out of any royalties and everything. The point of copyrights and patents are so that when someone comes up with an idea, they can profit from it. Society as a whole (if you care about this kind of irrelevant crap) benefits as well by getting the opportunity to foster creativity by paying for the works produced by the creative individual.
When it comes to record companies and things of that nature, the artist of his own free will signs a contract. If he doesn't agree to certain portions of that contract, such as them going after people making fan sites and such, he doesn't have to sign it. Once he does, he is locked in. If he breaks the contract, he should be jailed. If he bitches about the contract, he should be ignored, he accepted it.
If we had no laws protecting intellectual property, we would see the production of such works fall off dramatically. Not only because the majority of people in the world understand that their creations are not worthless and want to make a profit from them, but also because of time constraints. Think back on human history. We did not get arts of any kind until people had the ability to specialize in one certain area and through trade of money obtain all of the things they needed which they didn't have time to produce themselves. Money made art possible. Money still makes are possible. If you take money out of the hands of artists in the name of "freedom", you are dooming those artists to working away their lives in menial, unsatisfying jobs, rather than letting them profit from their creations without millions of people ripping them off left and right because they can't see the immorality of theft if its done over the Internet.
Esperandi
Go ahead, repeal IP laws, then don't be surprised when your favorite artists, poets, and musicians have to stop making their art because they've got to get a job at McDonalds to pay their bills.
Note who usually fights these battles.. (Score:4)
This mirrors very strongly with the RIAA case, in which there are several artists under major record labels that want to support MP3s but their record label says no. The true creative owners of the works, because of signing deals with megacorps, have lost the ability to be able to be said what is done with their work. On the other hand, the way that music and creative work distribution has been done before the internet, any creative person that signed with an independant distributor would have quickly faded into obscurity. Along these lines, I would suggest that part of the deal with CSS and the MPAA is that they want to limit the number of films out there that do not go through the MPAA. Up till recently, they've done a good job, but the recent successes of art house films (Blair Witch, Pi) are beginning to push the envelope.
It all comes down to the fact that RIAA, MPAA, the major television networks, the major publishers, all want to be the sole distributor of creative works. If they had there way, most of the money that we spend on our entertainment will go through them, and then they distribute to their respective creative artists, but keeping a large portion for themselves. Sure, before the internet, people made their own works, and distributed them without the help of the major channels, but the audience they would achieve would be very very small compared to major distribution artists. The internet has changed all that, and allows anyone with simple tools to become their own publisher; in some cases, enterprising people have become small distribution houses themselves but certainly without the same cut that the major ones take (e.g. MP3.com, goodnoise.com).
In otherwords, RIAA, MPAA, and the rest appear to be trying to maintain a monopoly.
Sure, there's no strong evidence for that, and a lot of connections would have to be made for that. But if these groups are successful (hopefully not) in their current court cases, it might be easier and easier to prove that such a monopoly exists. Remember one of Judge Jackson's key points on Microsoft and it's monopoly was that the cost of entering the field that Microsoft has set is too high to be overcome reasonably, thus suggesting monopoly powers. Try to get your own film to more than 30 screens accross the country, or a fiction book you wrote yourself in every bookstore without the aid of one of the major companies. Can't do it, can you?
One additional point, however, that was made in the article, and in all fairness is a concern, is the issue of dilution. I know it wasn't mentioned specifically, but I remember hearing that one of the reasons that Disney did not want to give up the copyright on Mickey Mouse was that they were afraid of people placing him in high erotic (and beyond) situations with no ability to protect that. Ok, sure, you and the rest of slashdot readerships would know that if you saw such a picture, you would know for sure that it wasn't by Disney. But this is America, where a woman can win millions of dollars for spilling hot coffee all over herself. We HAVE to think that everyone is stupid, lest we avoid legal problems. I could see a case that if dilution of trademark laws were not in place, that a parent may be able to sue Disney over that pic (even though Disney didn't make it) as it traumetized her child. Such cases are more a concern when the characters and situations are aimed at young audiences, but the concept is still that the distributor must make sure they don't into such a situation. While extending the copyright time is one way, it's a placebo (and a bad one at that); instead, education of the masses on what "derivative works" mean, and co-operation with the various fanbases to help establish guidelines (as has been done for some shows like B5) will help set rules that need not be extended time after time...
Re:Why not create a new, free, culture? (Score:4)
This is an excellent point.
Not to long ago I posted a proposal to forego the products of Hollywood altogether and return to fireside chats and more traditional, noncontrolled forms of entertainment. However, while I have had little trouble boycotting Hollywood (indeed, they have lost hundreds of dollars in DVD sales in the last couple of months from me alone), most of my friends are unable to tear themselves away from their bread and circuses, even knowing the harm the publishers of the material they consume are causing.
Your suggestion is I think much more powerful and interesting. Create our own content and take back our popular culture from the media moguls! With the open video disc project working toward a fully unencumbered digitial media standard, and ever larger storage media emerging (making patented video encoding and compression methods possibly obsolete altogether), the logical next step is to create our own content and completely divorce ourselves from hollywood altogether.
The open source community could take the lead in developing free software which would allow anyone to create digital special effects, and perhaps even digital casting (computer animation instead of acting, with the ultimate goal to be rendering of scenes where one could not tell the difference). Coupled with one of the open content licenses, this could become a very powerful counter-cultural medium which would do to Hollywood, the MPAA, the DVD-Forum, and the RIAA what open source is doing to the likes of Microsoft - obliterating them from the grass roots.
Re:Why IP Laws ENHANCE Popular Culture (Score:4)
That's where the problem comes in. By lobbying to help make barriers of entry harder, and creating an environment where you can't help but sell your soul to get a bit of radio airplay, the established players in the market are trying to make it a CRIMINAL ACT to compete with them. Or at least slow that competition with ridiculous lawsuits based on lobby-writtn laws.
Money made art possible. Money still makes are possible.
This is utter complete and total bullshit. So money made the cavepaintings? Money is why for generations the elders of a tribe would recount their legends? Money is why workers sign in the fields and gather around a campfire to sharet their voices?
Money destroys art because it takes away the passion that lead to its creation. It makes the "best" art the most common, the most profitable, the art that communicates to the lowest common denomenator. Money makes art shit.
--
Quantity != Quality, Volume != Creativity (Score:4)
You say that there are more books, music, movies, and software today than ever before. What does that prove? Would you seriously suggest that we have enough culture, that we don't need to write any more books or record any more music because we already have all we need? A stagnant culture is a dead culture. Or perhaps you are suggesting that we only need a half-dozen or so voices to define our culture, that we have Time-Warner and Disney, so we don't need any more voices? Wrong again. Culture thrives when there are a multitude of voices, each giving its unique perspective. Take a look around you at what comes out of the movie and music industry. Most of it isn't necessarily bad per se, but much of it does have a bland, cookie-cutter sameness about it. That's what happens when you allow a small number of cultural gatekeepers to take over; it all starts to sound the same because it's largely the same people producing it.
The bottom line is that all great works of literature, art, music, science, and film have borrowed themes and ideas from stuff that has come before. The increasing trend toward cutting new works off from what has come before does stifle those new works because a work that is produced in a cultural vacuum is generally irrelevant. It doesn't "speak" to its listeners and viewers.
You seem to have the sarcasm down to a fine art, but you don't do much to refute what the article actually says. I'm curious, what do you say to the article's claims that George Lucas will not allow new artists to borrow from Star Wars the same way he borrowed from Kurasawa and from popular myth? What do you say to the article's claims that for (certain types of) new music to evolve they must be able to sample from previous music the way that music lifted guitar riffs and other musical elements from music that came before? Why, in your own words, is it ok for the current gatekeepers to have borrowed from work that came before, but it is no longer acceptable for anyone to borrow from work that is currently popular? Why was it necessary to extend lengths of copyrights? Were artists really having trouble making money with the shorter terms, or are they just trying to guarantee their continued dominance into the indefinite future?
Try as you might, you simply aren't going to get me to feel sorry for the media compaines. They are doing just fine, and they would continue to do just fine, even if intellectual property law were rolled back to what it was 50 or even 100 years ago. However, if I don't like the crap they're churning out, I would like an alternative, and media companies seem hell-bent on preventing me from having one. But, then, God forbid anyone consider anything besides corporate profit in determining social policy or anything.
-rpl