The Copyright Fuss Revisited 235
mpawlo writes "I was going to clean up my apartement, but instead I wrote a piece for Greplaw introducing a framework for the debate on how we should obtain a balance between users and authors where the author has good incentives to innovate, but where society at large is not too restricted due to the author's previous
innovations. I am afraid that I personally have few practical solutions to introduce, but you might find my text useful as a quick introduction to what the copyright fuss is all about and why you should care."
Wasn't there a song? (Score:3, Funny)
No... I don't think that was it...
Re:Wasn't there a song? (Score:2)
You misspelled "gianormous." You know, "giant" plus "enormous?"
Plurals do not have apostrophes.
Except plurals indicating an interval, such as "the 1970's."
Re:Wasn't there a song? (Score:2)
In this case, the University of Chicago Press.
If you don't want to follow the rules, fine. But to deny that there are rules, or to assert that they are "silly," is just foolishness.
Oh, and by the way, "shall" in the second or third person indicates a necessity originating from the person speaking: "You shall not pass." In the first person it indicates the opposite: a necessity originating from outside the person speaking: "We shall see."
"Will," on the other hand, indicates simple futurity with no particular indication of the motive of the futurity.
After a conditional conjunction, "shall" is used to indicate simple futurity in the subjunctive mood: "If he shall go...."
These meanings have changed over time. When the King James Bible was published in 1611, "shall" was used to indicate simple futurity. In the 20th century, "shall" began to fall out of favor in American English in all but the most formal situations, such as legal writing. Over time, the meanings of "shall" and "will" may shift further.
Until then, the words "shall" and "will" have very different meanings, and there is a right way and a wrong way to use them.
My introduction to the current copyright fuss: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My introduction to the current copyright fuss: (Score:2, Funny)
Comments like that tend to inspire Jeff Foxworthy style jokes.
1.) If your mom...
2.)
3.) ????
4.)
5.) ????
6.)
heavy writer (Score:5, Funny)
wow... when I skip cleaning my apartment, I usually end up playing a game of BF1942 or perhaps watch a bit on the tube. This guy goes out and writes a rather long essay on intellectual property that actually reads fairly well.
Re:heavy writer (Score:2, Funny)
Re:heavy writer (Score:2)
The main thing I'd like to see no-matter what (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The main thing I'd like to see no-matter what (Score:2)
"I only get exclusive rights for 90 years?!? I don't think that's enough. OTOH, 15 years from now, the term will be increased to 110 years. So yeah, I guess doing this work is worth it, after all." ;-)
Terms are already infinite (Score:2)
Re:The main thing I'd like to see no-matter what (Score:2)
Re:The main thing I'd like to see no-matter what (Score:2)
Credit, Plagiarism (Score:2)
Re:Credit, Plagiarism (Score:2)
Option Explicit
Type Credit
End Type
Function Respect(Money as Currency) as Credit
End Sub
And then in the immediate pane...
? Respect($20)
Resulting in a popup window...
Error: Type Mismatch
Framework? (Score:2, Interesting)
While the article has lots of good information, I did not come away with an understanding of the author's "framework."
Perhaps a diagram, or an outline summary would help.
Art, not innovation. (Score:5, Insightful)
PATENTS protect ideas, innovations, and inventions. Copyright should be pared back by whatever means necessary so it can stop doing the job of Patents (or trademarks!).
Re:Art, not innovation. (Score:2)
Re:Art, not innovation. (Score:2)
Re:Art, not innovation. (Score:5, Informative)
No, but copyrights do protect the creators. If not for copyright, who's to say that Tolkein's books would ever have been written?
For what it's worth, in the 60's, Ace Books used loopholes in the US copyright law to legally publish the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, without concent of JRR Tolkien (or Allen & Unwin) and with no intent to pay royalties.
Tolkien had no legal stand to fight the publishing, but spread the word that the Ace edition was unauthorized, and that he was receiving no royalties. Ace was eventually pressured by the publicity backlash to pay him royalties and to cease publishing.
Ironically, a good deal of his popularity in the United States could be argued to be due to the swarms of college students buying the cheap (75 cent) unauthorized Ace Books versions.
As for whether or not the books would be written, the Hobbit was written for Tolkien's children, the decision to publish it came later. the Silmarillion seems to be written for himself, without regard to publication (he occasionally attempted to get it published, but nobody was interested until his death). The Lord of the Rings trilogy, however, was written at least partially due to the encouragement of Allen & Unwin (the publishers of the Hobbit in England), and thus copyright could easily be considered one of the motives. Likewise with his short stories.
Re:Art, not innovation. (Score:2)
Re:Art, not innovation. (Score:2)
Re:Art, not innovation. (Score:3)
As for Tolkien, I don't know any details, but the law is not self-executing. Private parties have to litigate it. Perhaps Tolkien did not discover "trade dress" and the C&D letter in time. I have no doubt the copyrights on his books are intact. Anyway, he consciously ripped off much from older traditions in Welsh and Anglo-Saxon mythology himself. Imitators are not necessarily derivative of his version. Disney the copyright nut received many of its stories from Hans Christian Andersen, Grimm tales, and so on -- public domain.
GUI -- microsoft stole from apple stole from xerox. We're probably better off they got away from it. The look and feel thing was novel and shaky from the start. Other models [haledorr.com] are probably superior to copyright.
Music -- Patent? Trademark? Really? Enforcement of copyright and, lately, interferance with illegal duplication, are the usuall routes.
"Intellectual property" is misleading (Score:2, Informative)
Copyright, patent, and trademark are all just forms of IP law.
The use of the term "intellectual property" as a blanket term for copyrights, patents, and trademarks is misleading because copyrights, patents, and trademarks are more different than similar. They are covered in separate Titles of the United States Code. They have nothing to do with one another other than that they grant monopolies to a person or corporation to produce a specific sort of good or service and can be sold or licensed to other parties.
Richard M. Stallman, founder of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation, has something to say about this phrase [gnu.org].
Perhaps Tolkien did not discover "trade dress" and the C&D letter in time.
Or perhaps, " In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work" (17 USC 102 [cornell.edu]). This doesn't apply to trademark law (the foundation for trade dress), but trademark law kicks in only when there's a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of a good or service.
microsoft stole from apple stole from xerox.
Apple licensed from Xerox. Microsoft initially licensed from Apple, but then after Lotus v. Borland weakened look-and-feel copyright, Microsoft borrowed "ideas" (17 USC 102) from Apple.
Re:"Intellectual property" is misleading (Score:2)
RMS is arguing for a new, improved definition. That's fine, though probably unproductive. Calling IP a "fad" because it is mere 35 years or so old is odd. But I'm not too caught up in the linguistics thing and "what is a word."
Of course copyright, trademark, and patent have different groups of laws and precedent. That's why they're called copyright, trademark, and patent.
Being in separate titles of the USC is of no weight. The USC is not a statute, it's just a convenient compilation of different statutes.
Tolkien, if alive and aggressively marketing today, would copyright and trademark the whole lot of his creations. Trademark would "kick in" for his original signature creations -- didn't he come up with orcs?
As for GUI thing, no one really benefitted from those who lifted their concepts. I stil don't understand what tthe heck happened, but I haven't tried, either.
ANYWAY, this all started with "Copyright does NOT protect innovation." I disagree. I've thought of being a writer, but sure as heck wouldn't/couldn't publish work for free for a living.
Re:"Intellectual property" is misleading (Score:2, Informative)
Intellectual property simply is an umbrella term.
I didn't claim very strongly that an umbrella term was not convenient but just confusing at times. I gave the two qualifications for that term. However:
I (possibly mistakenly) took this to mean "Copyright, patent, and trademark are similar in nature." Assuming that the subject matter of copyrights is in any way like the subject matter of trademarks solely because they share the "intellectual property" (a monopoly on an idea or expression that can be sold) is a fallacy.
OK, now that that's out of the way:
Trademark would "kick in" for his original signature creations
It may not be possible to obtain perpetual copyright-like restrictions through trademark law. See my other comment [slashdot.org].
didn't he come up with orcs?
Such goblins have been around for a long time. Tolkien may have been the first to call them "orcs" but that's about it.
Earlier you wrote:
the law is not self-executing. Private parties have to litigate it.
Actually, copyright law is more "self-executing" than trademark law or patent law because in the United States, copyright infringement is not only a civil offense but also a crime. The FBI can come after you even if the copyright owner takes no action, heck even if the copyright owner doesn't know that he owns the copyright.
Re:"Intellectual property" is misleading (Score:2)
I wouldn't try a line of Mickey Mouse characters anytime soon, even if Disney may have some technical defect (I don't have time to research it). The paper you cite in the other post is an argument against copyright, but not necessarily compelling one, plus it was written by a mere student. The highest stack of academic journals is not very persuasive to a court. I know Disney is vicious in enforcing its copyrights -- even the local cake shop has a warning letter from Disney posted, warning not to try putting any Disney characters on its custom cakes! Mickey Mouse is so entwined with the Disney image, I have no idea how the copyright/trademark will play out. It may be a moot point if Disney keeps lobbying Congress for extensions (and assuming the Lessig case doesn't pan out). Regardless, if Mickey isn't Disney's trademark, what is? Think they'll switch to Tinkerbell? Pluto?
Orcs -- definitely not invented by Tolkein, maybe.
Re:"Intellectual property" is misleading (Score:2)
I'm a writer with a finished novel looking for a publisher. (interested in looking it over? e-mail me.)
I have no intention of publishing it for free except as a last-ditch effort to generate a groundswell of publicity--and even then I'm going to rely on copyright law to maximize my slice of the theoretical pie that my artistic work generates.
I was also the one who said "copyright doesn't protect innovation," and I stand by that remark. Art is universally a sharing of innovations and ideas, and the chilling effect of protecting those innovations is vastly outweighted by the worth of the variety of different implementations of said idea.
Like I said, copyright protects ART, not innovation.
Re:"Intellectual property" is misleading (Score:2)
By art I think the law encompasses both copyrightable "fixed" stuff and performances, etc. So copyright plucks out part of the whole.
As for innovation, I think of that as synonymous with creativity. Innovative, creative, similar? And the copyright -- it's a double-edged sword, limiting use of other people's work while also forcing people to come up with something new, to innovate. Just another way of looking at it.
But I don't know anything about art, I just know what I l---
What's the book about? Why don't you just post it here?
Re:Art, not innovation. (Score:2)
Computer software lands in that fuzzy land on the border between art and science, but the business interests of software were smart enough in the early days of software to see to it that their works fall under copyright law where they enjoy 95 years of ownership instead of patent law where they would get a mere 17-20 years of ownership. Nothing creates an incentive for you to build a better mousetrap than to have your old mousetrap flooding the market against you.
Re:If the entire space of art is occupied? (Score:2)
That "finite" is a rather large number. Especially when factoring in linquistic evolution.
But more to the point, the same principles that apply to software (which is a MUCH smaller set than even the shortest poetic theme) can save you. If you can prove that you didn't sample the extant copywritten work, you've done a "clean room" bit and can get off, if not scott-free, at least without losing your shirt in the matter.
It's possible to get sued for a coincidence and lose
It's possible be get sued for a burglar breaking into somone else's house and being wounded and lose.
There may be only 50,000 possible melodies--but there are at least 500 years of public domain prior art. And Disney et all seem unlikely to win another extension even if the 1997 extension survives.
In short, the odds of filling the "entire space of art" within a theoretical 150 year copyright maximum are about as good as the odds that O.J. Simpson's freak unrelated genetic & physical twin randomly decided to commit two murders and blame O.J., all the while escaping any attention from anyone at all, even in a small town in the middle of nowhere.
open source + ransom model (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway - I believe this model makes open source the good solution for cases in which it has previously been thought not to be suitable. Such as cases where companies need to invest huge amounts of money just to get the "seed done" - I believe that the ransom model really for example enables co-operation between research companies to produce something that requires huge resources and capital - and get paid for doing it - and still eventually have the solution released under open source - developing it even further.
Re:open source + ransom model (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, it's not the gross revenue I would care about, it's the net. Lets say I release a product under a ransom model and I've priced the ransom with the assumption that maintaining and enhancing it will take half my time. I budget the other half the time for lucrative consulting. Unfortunately, the product ends up sucking down nearly all my time just to get enough buyers, and the sales aren't enough to yield a good salary. At some point the buyers dry up completely because they figure it's easier to wait for the time limit than to pay.
Re:open source + ransom model (Score:2)
True - I don't believe the ransom model or any model is the magic solution for everything :) But, I think it might work very well for examples in cases in where for a group of companies in the same business have made pre-agreement to utilize this model. Assume, that one company has initially invested $42 million dollars in research required to create software. They invite new members to a coalition to speed up or to make the development possible. Each new member pays $4 million. The first 10 companies to joing the coalition get early access to the technology, then 1 month after the 11th company has joined, the technology is released under open source. Increasing market, and bringing new players. The implementors of the technology have acruired significant benefit from paying extra.
Not magic, but works in some cases.
ps. (That "coalition price" model was simplified, in reality it might be so that the price per joining company would go down for example per each new member or per time)
Re:open source + ransom model (Score:2)
Re:open source + ransom model (Score:2)
protection vrs freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright isn't just about software and MP3s. (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is not to say that copyright law in itself isn't screwed up. But the whole MS problem isn't a copyright issue, it's a monopoly issue. And the music industry will eventually either die or adjst with the times.
The real problems with copyright lie with things like the insanely long copyright period and the narrowness of 'fair use' rights for *everything*, not just music. There are middle schoolers out there getting lawsuit threats over fan art galleries. Disney's never going to have to come up with anything new, because they'll just keep getting extensions for Mickey Mouse. These are big problems, and things that seem to not be well addressed by the article.
Re:Copyright isn't just about software and MP3s. (Score:2, Interesting)
Not even that. A Copyright is by its definition a limited monopoly. It's a profit issue. If you an figure out a way for the fat cats to get richer and fatter without strangling everyone else, then you have a solution. Any solution that does not involve the fat cats getting righer and fatter is not a solution (according to the fat cats).
the insanely long copyright period and the narrowness of 'fair use' rights
The limiting of rights, the extension of limits, all of that are just by-products of the fat cats trying to get righer. To cure the disease, go after the the scum at the center. Don't just tackle the symptoms. Take out the Corporate greedfest. The rest will clear itself up.
We need to replenish the public domain (Score:5, Insightful)
And therein lies the dilemma. Disney has made several fortunes by taking something that was already in the public domain and building on it. I don't know if the Brothers Grimm even get mentioned in the credits of the Disney films that are based on their stories. Now we see Disney purchasing politicians and legislation to extend their copyrights in perpetuity.
I wonder if anyone at Disney recognizes the irony of it all...
Re:We need to replenish the public domain (Score:2)
Re:We need to replenish the public domain (Score:2)
Aye, but you don't have the right to create animated works based on Disney's classic tales, even those that are nearing 100 years old and clearly a part of our culture. There's the problem.
I have a problem with companies that are perfectly willing to take from the public domain but unwilling to give back to it. It's greedy and wrong.
Re:We need to replenish the public domain (Score:2)
The dilemma is that in the current copyright climate, there are not likely to be any more "classic tales" in the future because the public domain is deliberately being starved. Disney has legitimately used what is in the public domain, and Disney has spent a lot of money to ensure that their own works will not end up in the public domain.
The fact that you don't doesn't mean Copyright is broken, it means you have failed to take advantage of the same opportunities afforded to all.
What opportunities will Disney afford me (or anyone else for that matter) to derive new works based on Mickey Mouse? Had they not bought the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, Micky would be in the public domain by now. As it stands now, it is unlikely that Mickey will ever enter the public domain. So yes, I believe that in it's present form, copyright is indeed broken.
Re:We need to replenish the public domain (Score:2)
As for Disney not putting back in the public domain, well, duh. These stories are ALREADY in the public domain. Disney has not affected the underlying themes and morals these stories impart. You can still make an animated version of Beauty and the Beast, regardless of whether Disney's own version is ever released into the public domain or not. Same goes for the Jungle Book, Snow White, Cinderella and a slew of other classics made popular once more by Disney.
If Disney is only rehashing classic literature as animated films, then their releasing them back into the public domain in no way enriches our lives in the way you seem to think it should.
TMs don't cover cartoon characters that strongly (Score:2)
Mickey Mouse will NEVER be in the public domain because his likeness is protected by Trademark law.
There has to be a likelihood of confusion of origin of the product. For instance, one company sells inexpensive VHS video tapes of "Bugs Bunny" short cartoons whose copyright Warner never renewed under the two-28-year-terms system of 1909 law. They get away with it by conspicuously disclaiming any connection to Warner on the package: "This video cassette contains audiovisual works in the public domain. XYZ Video is in no way affiliated with the author of these works."
But actually, Disney lost copyright on Mickey Mouse when it failed to provide a copyright notice [asu.edu] on works first published when notice was required. Of course, Disney could file a frivolous lawsuit, but then the company and its retained lawyers risk a countersuit for barratry.
Re:We need to replenish the public domain (Score:2)
Then again, everyone rips everyone else off in this industry so I don't know how upset I should be.
Re:What Disney allegedly stole for Atlantis and TL (Score:2)
A few years ago, they hassled the city of Winnipeg for putting up some plaque for Winnipeg the Bear. Which was named for the city. Which was donated to a zoo in England. Which inspired the Winnie the Pooh stories in the first place. Disney said that it couldn't mention Winnie the Pooh. (Canada Post is now doing commercials about the story -- hopefully they told Disney to pound sand, but probably some deal was worked out.)
Re:We need to replenish the public domain (Score:2)
In the older movies Disney did credit the public domain books the stories started from. I have not noticed this in recent movies, but this is probably because it is no longer 1 of 20 some odd titles in the front of the movie (and is now lost in the hundreds of credits at the end of the movie, amongst mention of the caterer's booking secretary's dog
Re:Copyright isn't just about software and MP3s. (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course there need to be differences. For example, current US copyright law explicitly gives permission for a legitimate owner of a copyrighted program to create a backup copy. There is no such permission for books.
However, you do have a point, in that we need to firmly (re-)establish the "first sale" doctrine for programs and electronic files. If I buy a book, I can't copy it without permission, but I can sell my copy without getting permission from the copyright holder. The "content industry" would dearly like to get rid of that concept.
Re:Copyright isn't just about software and MP3s. (Score:2)
On the contrary, I feel there should be no differences in the law. Why don't I have the right to make a backup copy of my books in case originals are destroyed/stolen/accedentally used to line the bird cage?
I can't copy it without permission, but I can sell my copy without getting permission from the copyright holder. The "content industry" would dearly like to get rid of that concept.
Sick, sad, and true. Just wait until the concept of "Pay Per View" becomes more than a cable televeision special concept.
Re:Copyright isn't just about software and MP3s. (Score:2)
I do agree on the "first sale" doctrine, however.
Re:Copyright isn't just about software and MP3s. (Score:2)
I don't care if only one person, Joseph Heller (RIP), has a monopoly on releasing "patches" to "Catch 22", because it's not something I want anyway. I care a lot if only one person is allowed to fix bugs in the software that I run.
Software isn't just passively enjoyed, like books and movies. It has function too, like machines. That makes it so that someone who buys it, can have very good reasons for wanting additional rights that they wouldn't have with a book.
and again.. (Score:2)
Re:and again.. (Score:2)
Re:and again.. (Score:2)
Amen to that. C'mon, being a Student Who Has Been Reading Geek News Web Sites for Gosh Maybe Three Years Now is not any kind of qualification to be a legal mouthpiece.
The Slashdot PAC? (Score:2)
I think Slashdot should create a political action committee, with the goal of furthering the politcal viewpoints reflected by the 5-Insightful posts around here. It can collect donations simply by holding out its hand around here, and maybe with tie-in items at ThinkGeek. If we want to beat the corperations, we have to play their game first.
When this group needs guidance, it can simply pose questions in an Ask Slashdot format. Remember, any troll can post here, but you have to read Slashdot posts for quite a while to become a moderator, and disagreed with moderators get ejected via M2. Quite simply, it takes far too many people to corrupt Slashdot's moderation system.
It is possible that two or more completely opposing positions can get modded up to +5 in the same thread, but I would suggest that reflects that the Slashdot community is devided on the issue, so the Slashdot PAC should take no position on that issue (although, it could direct Congresspeople to the +5 comments so they can make up their own informed opinions for once...) and move onto the issues where there appear to be a near-unanimous verdict on Slashdot.
We don't need to convince ourselves anymore, we need to start reaching the people who haven't even heard of Slashdot.
Mandatory Spelling-Nazi comment (Score:3, Funny)
I hope you also skipped cleaning the bathroom, and took the time to spell check your article.
Correct page width link (Score:5, Informative)
Some troll, apparently looking for something to do after calling people to check if their refrigerator is running, threw a page widening post onto the greplaw article. Thanks for the maturity. I'm sure your family is so proud ("John is lawyer, Chris is a doctor, and Billy Bob wastes the time of hundreds of people a day.")
To read the article without the comments (thus avoiding the troll and allowing you to see the article correctly formatted), try this link [harvard.edu].
Its getting even worse (Score:5, Interesting)
two churchs were also sued on copyright infringement for singing Chistmas hymns....
the story is here [ananova.com].
I would have posted this as a story, but seeing as how my approval rate is 1:50 its not worth the time or effort anymore
Add one more a little closer to home... (Score:5, Informative)
"Starting this summer, the American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers has informed camps nationwide that they must pay license fees to use any of the four million copyrighted songs written or published by Ascap's 68,000 members. Those who sing or play but don't pay, Ascap warns, may be violating the law."
the story [s-t.com]
At least they're honest. (Score:2)
At least they have the honesty to use the word "may". Unlike the RIAA and MPAA which have issued letters and press statements which give the impression that they write the laws, the ASCAP at least uses the word "may" indicating they are aware that they are not the ultimate authority on this issue.
I guess it depends on what constitutes a "public performance". Given that the Boy Scouts were determined to be a private organization by the courts, and hence are allowed to exclude gays, then I don't see how singing songs at their camps constitutes a public performance subject to royalty payments.
I'm curious to see how this plays out in the courts.
Re:Add one more a little closer to home... (Score:2)
Anyone know if using the tune with "Underwear" (if someone doesn't own the rights to those words!) would be exempt since it's a sort of parody?? Or to ask the same question in a more accessable way, does Weird Al have to pay royalties for the tunes he uses behind his original parodies??
They should try this: (Score:2)
The harder the entertainment industry make it, the faster they will expire.
Yeah, that's the ticket. (© Jon Lovitz, SNL Entertainment and NBC Broadway Video).
If it were me... (Score:5, Funny)
If I was this guy, I would be the most prolific contributor to Greplaw. Legal scholars would be citing my works as I am always looking for ways to put off cleaning my apartment.
Thank heavens for slovenliness, or we would have one fewer article to throw on the copyright flame-heap here.
Page Widening Troll (Score:2, Informative)
Picking a few nits. (Score:2)
There are compulsory license rules for the songwriter's copyright. Any artist can cover another artist's work, provided he or she pays the compulsory license fee. I agree with the original article that there should be compulsory licensing for the physical and digital recording. It would also clear up issues with "sampling" as done by rap and other artists.
Re:Picking a few nits. (Score:2)
Easy Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
NO, this is not a troll, just a clear headed statement of fact. If you want to press an audio cd and sell copies, fine. Just realize there's going to be 'shrinkage' from maximum profit and you can cuss and stomp, beg for govt assistance, try to get consumer devices banned, mandate DRM in every electronic device, but the genie is already out of the bottle and everybody has one now. Artists and publishers are just going to have to adapt to the new environment or go extinct.
Re:Easy Solution (Score:2)
Go to Hell. Ease of duplication has nothing to do with the worth of a product.
I was going to... (Score:2)
No you weren't.
Weird (Score:2)
Scary IP Protection (Score:2)
These people claim to own/control any representation of Albert Einstein. This would fall under Trademark protection, right?
The Roger Richman Agency, Inc., specializes in representing entertainment and historical personalities for a variety of licensing applications, including advertising, merchandising, premiums, promotions, film & television programming, theatrical productions and look-alike/sound-alike services. Exclusive licenses are available in most product and service categories. Licenses include full persona usage, consisting of name, voice, signature and image (photo, illustration, animation and/or look-alike).
The Author isn’t the problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Author isn’t the problem... (Score:2)
Whose death triggers the experation?
Copyright vs. Drug Companies patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Things are definitely screwed up around here. But make no mistake, I am not defending the big druggies either, just pointing out the oddity.
Re:Copyright vs. Drug Companies patents (Score:3, Informative)
As Paxil starts to expire, we see Paxil CR which lowers the dosage frequency which is a very useful advancement in cases where the patient is responsible for remembering to take it, but useless when there is somebody else there to see that it is taken on time.
Allowing these new modifications to enjoy patent protection for their 17-20 year lifespan is a good thing, it rewards the work needed to create them. However, since these modifications have to compete against the classic version, their value is little compared to the value of a medcine that cures a previously uncurable disease. Still, at least the value is greater than zero.
He missed one part (Score:4, Interesting)
If anyone could copy freely any executable file published without source code, programmers would have the strongest incentive to leave their secrets to posterity.
Re:He missed one part (Score:3, Informative)
Ok fine/ (Score:2)
Staring an article off "I was going to clean my appartment, but instead I wrote this" is NOT a good way to get more writing jobs.
The fundamental problem has not been exposed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Property, as we know it, is a legal definition set down in our tradition by John Locke. It is confined in Locke's conception as things which can be found in the common, improved by individuals, and which also become scarce when they are used. Locke's example is apples growing on trees become a man's property when he "mixes his labour" with them in the process of collection. A collection of shiny apples is surely improved over scattered apples amongst bruised and wormeaten ones. When another person happens on the collected nice apples, it would be wrong to deny the first man the benefit of his "labour" by taking apples from his pile. (maybe I remember this totally wrong.. correct me if so)
If I set some music down on digital media, I have surely improved the media, and it would be wrong to deprive me of the fruits of my labour by taking my improved media from me, but if you improve your own blank media, indistinguishable from mine, by setting music down from memory as you remember hearing it on mine, you have not deprived me of the fruits of my labour.
Intellectual property is a fabrication and an illusion. It does not perform the same as the concept of material property. There is no ethical base for an Intellectual Property Right. Maybe, in a teleological sense we can justify an Intellectual Property Privilege, but we should all just stop using "IP" and Intellectual Property terms until we are sure we all agree exactly what they mean. We should understand them at least as well as the basis for "life, Liberty, and property" which became the model philosophy for American politics.
Information does not have the property of scarcity like Locke's apples. The more you share information, the more there is! (Let's not split hairs, I can demonstrate this aside..) Good or bad, news or propaganda, sharing magnifies it. This is opposite of real property. The more you share a bowl of rice, the less there is to go around. Our laws should not gloss this fundamental difference over.
Re:The fundamental problem has not been exposed. (Score:4, Insightful)
If I have no control or ownership of my writings, paintings, songs, etc.. then where the hell is my incentive to share them with you? For what possible reason would I ever release them? I wouldn't. I would hide them away and never let anyone see or hear them for fear that they would be given away to anyone without any sayso on my part and no chance of my reaping any reward for my labor.
Is that the world you want? A wiorld where no books are published? A world where no music is made available? A bleak, artless world brought into existance by people with your narrow-miinded and self-serving mindset?
That's not a world I want to live in.
Re:The fundamental problem has not been exposed. (Score:2)
You are not being denied anything, you still have everything you worked to create. By copying your works, I'm not taking anything away from you, I'm just not giving you my money, which you won't have anyway, if you insist on charging prices which I consider absurd.
where the hell is my incentive to share them with you? For what possible reason would I ever release them?
Admiration. Adulation. Applause. Fame. Isn't that what artists crave? If all you wanted was money, you would be a stock broker.
A world where no music is made available?
That's the world where we live today. Music is not made available, it's sold, at $25 / CD.
A bleak, artless world brought into existence by people with your narrow-minded and self-serving mindset?
That's exactly what I fear and exactly what's being created right now, a bleak, artless world brought into existence by narrow-minded corporations whose self-serving mindset considers only their own profits as relevant.
Re:The fundamental problem has not been exposed. (Score:2)
But nothing compared to the lots and lots of books created after the existence of copyright laws.
That isn't historically accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
When copyright was created, the number of published books plummeted to merely a third of their former diversity. That is a clear situation where one can compare apples to apples: the current state of the artistic environment immediately before, and after, copyrights were imposed.
Anything else is extraordinarilly disingenuous, ignoring the effects of a geometric climb in population, deployment of new and more effecient publishing technologies, and so forth, which are orthogonal to the effects of copyright.
Indeed, later increases in published material have more to do with increases in human population and deployment of technology than it does with copyright, and even those increases are dwarfed by the amount of derivative 'fan fiction' and unpublished works that have been created with no desire for profit whatsoever (many of which are technically illegal under current copyright law, as is, by the way, having a few friends over to watch a movie).
There are all kinds of alternatives to the absurd situation we have now, in which cartels dominate entire artforms by leveraging a system of government entitlement monopolies designed to favor publishers over artists, and both over the rest of society. These alternatives include tax incentives, small punitive taxes on anauthorized works with some or all of the proceeds going back to the orignial creater, etc. and require neither monopoly entitlements nor wealthy patronage.
Copyrights in the digital age must be reformed. To enforce the kinds of entitlement monopolies publishers have enjoyed since the British Crown created the first publishing cartel in the 15th century will require legislation so draconian as to make the former communist eastern block appear liberal in comparison, governance equipment in every home, office, car, and every portable electronic device that both monitors and reports a user's data usage habits, and a crippling of new emergent technologies that would have made any luddite of the 19th century, and every buggy whip manufacturer of the early 20th, proud.
Indeed, that is precisely what Disney and others are advocating, to which the only sane response of anyone who values any of the freedoms our forfathers died to create and protect must answer: if the choice given is one between the artists and publisher's profitability, and everyone elses privacy and individual liberties, then the artists will have to go out and get day jobs.
Of course, that false dichotomy is one Disney et. al. presents because they do not wish to see copyright reform, and would rather trample upon our privacy and liberty rather than adjust their business models to a new technology. In truth artists could make a perfectly fine living in an environment where they were not granted exclusive monopoly entitlements
Re:The fundamental problem has not been exposed. (Score:2)
I would appreciate an intelligent discussion on intellectual property rights, not an uneducated one such as yours.
Re:The fundamental problem has not been exposed. (Score:2)
Troll, this is not the first time I've had to teach someone *how* to argue, but unless you are retarded or careless I think it is the first time you were taught how to argue. BTW: What part of any person's education would be most relevant here? Hrm?
All flames aside --I know: it IS fun-- though: The fact that I have to ask "What in the hell are you talking about?", whereas you did not, proves that my argument is more effective than yours. Please read carefully: I need help understanding what you mean.
Now, I *think* you are suggesting that there is a proof that my argument is false based on French history, and then you suggest I am uneducated. I would like to know which idea of mine won't work, and a reference to the history that you allude to. I would also like to know what you mean by "uneducated" and "intelligent" so that I can satisfy the (thus poorly worded) criteria of your appreciation.
BTW: I have a BS in Political Theory and Comparative Politics, minored in Philosophy, so while I may not be able to meet *YOUR* expectations, you are a fool for expecting MORE education in these matters from people you do not know. You are the father of your own discontent! I can help you achieve more realistic expectations though, so revenons a nos moutons! (That's a french expression which means "let's get back to the business at hand." You can get the rest from Babelfish [altavista.com])
Re:The fundamental problem has not been exposed. (Score:2)
Go back to 1789... The Declaration of the Rights of Man freed the presses, but in so doing they eliminated any copy protections that had been previous granted. Keep in mind that their intention was to remove the monopoly that had been previously granted to a select few by the aristocracy, and it was a noble cause. But by 1793 it had become a crisis and as such the National Assembly passed a law which would resemble what we now regard as modern copyright.
You wish to eliminate copyright.
The point is, that's been tried before, and it was an abominable failure. What's sad is that the French did it accidentally, as a byproduct of a more noble cause. You wish to do it purposefully and with malice.
Sigh...
my thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
For the greatest benefit of the society at large, we want the "limited times" to grant just enough incentive to the inventors to invent at high rates (my idea would be to have the copyright term be a function of the average amount of time taken to invent something). One can assume rather assuredly that the length of a copyright should most certainly not be as long as a generation, otherwise entire generations would never know the free access to the idea.
As is, the terms are something like life+50 years. Life plus 50 years?? look at it like this: people who were born after Mickey Mouse was copyrighted and have died since then (there's a lot of them, 1920's-) never benefitted from any of Disney's creations in the public domain. Does this benefit society as a whole, or the corporate monopolies who own the copyright?
Slight Misconception (Score:2)
"To ensure that the record companies still obtain revenues, it is important that the developers in the post-Napster era create commercial alternatives to the user-driven free beer networks."
The reason this troubles me is that it's based on a misconception that there is any inherent relationship between record companies and copyrights. There is absolutely no reason for record companies and copyrights to be connected. People in the record business could have chosen to conduct their business as most people do, by performing services and moving on. They didn't have to extort copyright ownership from musicians in exchange for these services. Doctors who save your life with surgery don't demand a share of your income for the rest of your life. Truckers and railroads don't demand a share of the cargo they haul, or attempt to regulate what you do with it after they deliver it.
Record companies are pretty much the only ones who make money from record sales. Standard recording contracts take all production and promotional expenses out of the musician's share of the profit, usually leaving nothing. What record sales do for musicians is provide exposure, which translates to performance gigs, which is how musicians actually do make money. Musicians have tolerated this arrangement for a century because they had no reasonable alternative. Now they can get that exposure by distributing their music freely. I believe musicians will gradually move away from physical CDs, and electronic distribution will become the norm.
There will still be a need for promotional services, but they need not be connected to copyrights. The multi-billion dollar advertising industry has managed to thrive without demanding ownership of the rights to the products they sell. There is certainly no reason to artificially maintain any business advantage record companies got from technology that is becoming obsolete.
Copyright vs. Trademark (Score:2)
Everyone says Disney is the heavy here, so let's use them as an example. If Mickey Mouse falls into the public domain, he is so synonymous with Disney the corporation that any derivitive use of him would affect Disney's reputation. Porno Mickey or Mickey as anti-hero would tarnish their reputation as a family-friendly company. Is this fair?
In other words, at what point does copyright stop and trademark begin?
Re:Copyright vs. Trademark (Score:2)
Practical solutions (Score:2)
Principles:
* Creators should be credited and rewarded for their work.
* Works can be incorporated into new creative works.
* When they are, all source works should be credited and rewarded.
* Customers should pay a known price.
* Successful promotion of work should be rewarded too.
* Individuals can play multiple roles - Creator, Promoter, Customer
* Prices and sales figures should be open
* Relationships are based on trust and reputation
* Copy protection destroys value
Goals:
* Creators have 3 main goals - getting heard, getting credited and getting paid
* Customers want to find works and pay a fair price
* Creators set the price, customers decide to pay it (or not)
* Promoters have an incentive to promote Works, but not to compete with other promoters for the same work
* Working within the system is more attractive than subverting it
Code as Law (Score:2)
Now, consider that the law is tracking about twenty to thirty years behind the pace of computing and communication. I don't expect law to catch up. Technology evolution is too fast and law
I'm working to use open software, to support open software law, and to promote the use of open software by others. Why? It's not because I hate Microsoft. It's because I see us going through something similar to 1776. There are great minds at work here, trying to carve out space for freedom. I can't do much (I don't have the brains for it) but I support those who are looking out for me.
Code is law. Code is becoming law. Either way, this is powerful and important stuff.
One last thing: how come the majority of computer/internet users don't give a damn?
Does anyone actually FILE copyrights on source?? (Score:2)
This brings up a Serious Question: how many programmers actually get the form from the copyright office, pay the fee, and file for copyright *on their source code*, as one would normally do with a literary work such as a novel??
I don't recall the details offhand, but you must file to be eligible for certain protections.
Re:Does anyone actually FILE copyrights on source? (Score:2)
Re:Does anyone actually FILE copyrights on source? (Score:2)
Difference apparently being not whether the material is copyrighted (that being the default state for any publication), but rather whether said copyright is *registered* so you can protect it (by prosecuting or suing infringers).
Occurs to me that if copyright for GPL'd source has not been *registered*, this could severely weaken its case in the event that a GPL-breaking lawsuit ever arises. I realise that not everyone can cough up $30 to file every time they release updated source. But it might behoove major projects to register final versions.
I'm not clear on the legal details, because my client rattles on about copyright issues while I'm head and shoulders inside his computer and not really paying attention. (We have a wee difference of opinion about the DMCA.. he thinks it's wonderful and is sure I would too if only I knew it better; I think it should be hauled into the street and summarily shot.)
Re:Copyright laws don't need to change (Score:3, Insightful)
Who's to decide what 'greatly' means in your context? Will it end world hunger? No. Will it cure cancer? No. Will I be able to show my (grand)children the entertainment I grew up with, in an uneditted non-PC form, without owing anyone anything? Yes.
>> Who cares if it's going to be 120 years (or whatever the number is) before John Irving's novels fall in to the public domain? You want to read one - check one out of the library, it's free.
Well, not only are you then limited by what happens to be in the library, it won't be free for much longer. More and more books are appearing on shelves shrinkwrapped with a pretty EULA borrowed from the new 'digital' legislation. The contract of first sale is no more. As it happens more and more, without 'whining', it becomes more acceptable. Libraries will soon be museums, nothing more.
You ever seen a digital library? Where I can check out a video game, word processing app, etc for free, borrow and return it?
>> You pissed because music is more expensive than you'd like? Listen to the radio - it's free!
Not for long! Digital radio! XM Band! W00t! They can embed a digital copyrighting bit right into the stream, that'll tell you if you can record it or not, or even hear it or not. HDTV - same thing!
Re:Copyright laws don't need to change (Score:2)
You're right, If I don't like the terms, I pirate it.
It's THEIR product.
Well, if you put it in those terms, it's MY copier, and I copy whatever I want with it.
The licensing won't affect libraries
Oh, yeah? What if the licensing forbids library lending? If I need to open a spreadsheet now and then, can I go to the library and get a copy of MS-Excel for a few days? Do you think digital books are any different?
Use your own money to commission a book and give it away for free.
I have done better than that. I have written a software and published it under the GPL.
Get over it, when I copy something I'm not taking anything away from the author. The reason for copyrights is not the same reason as for anti-burglary laws. Copyrights exist to make sure the creative works will eventually go to the public domain.
Holy shit! (Score:2)
Dipshit.
Re:Explain it to me, please.. (Score:2)