Congressional Budget Office Studies Copyrights 117
gorbachev writes "C|Net is reporting that The Congressional Budget Office has published a study on digital copyright issues. The study basically recommends not changing the copyright legislation in favor of any particular stakeholder, including consumers or lobbyists. It's refreshing to see a governmental agency coming out with a study on copyright issues that appears to take consumers' concerns into consideration." Granted, this is merely the CBO, not Congress itself, but it is one of Congress' first places to turn to for information.
highest bid wins! (Score:2, Interesting)
maybe they plan to drive the price tag higher. who ever with the most money wins the law?
Re:highest bid wins! (Score:1)
That's nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
uh, duh? Our government is pretty pathetic if it needs a study to tell it to be fair and balanced.
Re:duh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:duh? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not sad--what's sad is that there is a NEED to make such a movie. Its sad that people can't connect the dots on their own. Its sad how stupid many people are willing to be--even WANT to be. It is also sad that some people truly believe that government is a reflection of its citizens. If that was ever true, it certainly isn't now. For one thing, it assumes that citizens are basically the same and that each wield the same power, which is ludicrous.
Re:duh? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:duh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now yes, I'm vegetarian and haven't touched burgers and frys and the like in years and you may know better too, but does the general populus know? Obviously not looking at the increasing waist sizes of Americans. Go to sit-down restaurants, the portions have absolutely ballooned in size, most restaurants serve entrees with enough for 2-3 people, and that's just dinner alone, not counting appetizers and desert, I have no idea how people can eat that much.
To me, it would seem that after a while you would catch yourself, you'd wake up one day and wow, boy am I fat or your health starts to seriously degrade and you'd start thinking about all those Big Macs, but obviously not.
The obvious, obviously isn't obvious enough for many.
Re:duh? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're looking at it from the wrong angle. Think "three meals for the price of one".
Daniel
Re:duh? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought fair and balanced was the prerogative of the Fox News channel.
Re:duh? (Score:2)
Fair and Balanced (tm)
Re:duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I see it, consumers should take precedence in almost all cases, and copyright is no exception.
Re:duh? (Score:1)
Re:duh? (Score:2)
Re:duh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Would he still have liked what he likes if the companies that produced what he likes weren't spending those millions on it?
Consumers? (Score:2)
I think that's a scary thought right there. There's far more to this battle than consumers and lobbyists. There are non-consumers, and they deserve just as much governmental protection as consumers.
If I don't buy a movie, but I want to make use of a short clip of it, I should have just as many rights as a "consumer".
Then there's that whole "open source" thing, where copyrighted works are produced, but no consumption is involved. There are no consumers, but that doesn't mean open-source copyrights
Not quite accurate ... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not entirely accurate. The preface to the study states that the GAO, by definition, does not make any policy recommendations. Thus, the lack of recommendations in the study does not mean that the data contained in it won't be used by one side or the other to push for change.
Gotta read those source documents before submitting!
Re:Not quite accurate ... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, regardless of what they claim about making official policy recommendations, they certainly do make recommendations:
(from the source document)
An inability to make official policy recommendations shouldn't be taken to imply that they can't express any opinion at all.
Re:Not quite accurate ... (Score:1)
Yeah, my bad. Had a little screw-up with my TLA's.
An inability to make official policy recommendations shouldn't be taken to imply that they can't express any opinion at all.
While true, most of the sections in the document say things like, "eliminating fair use could hurt the consumer, but it could also help the consumer by encouraging conte
Re:Not quite accurate ... (Score:2)
Which says nothing at all.
One could argue that copyright terms should be reduced to, say, ten years, in order to force distributers of creative works to be as efficient as possible in bringing them to market before the copyright expires, ensuring a broad and rapid distribution.
Conversely, one could argue that copyrights be extended further so that creators of such work can
Might have been even better... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Might have been even better... (Score:1)
Yes, what 70 years [life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms] after the death of the person who first claimed the copyright?
Still, it only seems to bother the living, some of whom foolishly allow some great works to go to hell [imdb.com] within years of the creators death.
Nothing Wrong Here (Score:5, Funny)
Moe: "See anything, boys?"
Curly: "I don't see nuttin'"
Larry: "You're supposed to open your eyes."
Curly: "But if I do, I might see something that upsets me!"
Larry: "What could upset you?"
Curly: "Computer mice! Nyuk nyuk nyuk!"
Moe: "You knucklehead *smek* we're supposed to be finding anything wrong!"
Larry: "There's nothing wrong with this (holds up fold-out pin-up girl, Miss CBO 2003)"
All: *wolfwhistle* "There's nothing at all wrong with that!"
Moe: "Then it's agreed, we find nothing wrong at all wrong with anything, let's leave our findings and get back to painting this room."
Larry: "Yeah, that committee that left us in charge should be back from their lunch with all those 'good friends' any time now."
Three Stooges (Score:2, Interesting)
I had a part-time job at Eddie Bauer last Christmas season and worked with 5 or 6 high-schoolers. Whenever I cracked a Stooges joke or quoted one of their famous lines, they would look at me like I had six heads. They all had NO IDEA who the Three Stooges are. Why is that? If you are around my age (mid-30s) your memories of the Stooges are probabl
Re:Three Stooges (Score:1)
I agree, the copyright extentions and DMCA should be thrown out. But it is more important that Disney keep Mickey
And who has gone mad with the mod points? Why is the parent at zero? The main point is about copyright, and the parent post is talking about copyright. Its not flamebait. Wassup with this?
Good!!! (Score:2, Flamebait)
But I probably shouldn't bring all that up, I know the comments people will leave will turn into a anti-political/anti-corporate bashing slugfest. But in the end, I hope people see this as the governments way of starting to
Re:Good!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good!!! (Score:2)
If you really think they are dishonest, have you ever voted for any of them? And if so, why would you vote for someone who you find dishonest.
Ted
Re:Good!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
And the answer to your second question is- because there's nobody else to vote for, at least yet. Eventually there will be- I'm involved in the process of a new political party based on middle class morals and middle class finances- but our website won't be out until November (and our maximum donation limit is $10 per person, $500,000 total for our Presidential Campaign, just to show that we aren't bought and
Re:Good!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:3, Insightful)
This means nothing, they change nothing and make no concrete recommendations. The merely recommended a "set of principles" with the goal of "avoiding being tied too closely to past practices"
Speaking of real change check out: On Drawing Lines in Copyright Law [cato.org]
about copyright, RIAA and the cirsumstances leading to 321 Studio's "Death of a 1000 Paper Cuts"
Patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
- Raise the application fee so that the patent office can do a decent job. - Shorten the length of the software / business process patents (better yet, ban them).ation fee so that the patent office can do a decent job.
- Shorten the length of the software / business process patents (better yet, ban them).
Re:Patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
<p>
I must dissagree on this count. Raising the application fee puts patenting solely in the domain of the corporate r+d labs. It would keep garage inventors and other small time inventors out of the process.
Re:Patents? (Score:2)
Well I disagree to your disgreement. Raising patent costs won't stop garage investors from getting a patent on something worth investing in. Say $1,000 to file for a patent. If your idea is worth patenting, it's worht payin
Re:Patents? (Score:2)
Uh, if you actually want that patent granted, it'll take more than $1000, today. The time to get the filing done is worth more than $1000 of labor (and if you don't have and are not an IP lawyer, it'll take longer).
The fees themselves [uspto.gov]: currently $385 to start and $43 per claim, then $665 when the patent is accepted. Patents can easily have 10+ claims. So we're already
Re:Patents? (Score:2)
So, lifting the base price from $375 to $1000 isn't that big a deal. Ironically, this supports your original point - garage inventors already need serious investment to get a patent filed. So, patents are pretty much already solely the domain of corporations.
Furthermore, the problem alluded to in an earlier post in this thread is that all the corporations are patentin
Re:Patents? (Score:1)
Re:Patents? (Score:2, Informative)
Their patent on their mechanism for lateral stability (wing warping) was found by a really foolish judge to cover the entire CONCEPT of controlled, powered flight. Glenn Curtiss (who invented ailerons, which is what practically all aircraft use to maintain lateral stability) fought them for years for the right to innovate in the realm of aeronautics.
The Wrights were greedy, monopolistic hacks. They stood on the sh
Re:Patents? (Score:1)
If you get a chance to go on a Finger Lakes wine tour, or any other reason to visit the area, definitely stop by the Curtiss Museum in Hammondsport. They
Re:Patents? (Score:1)
Basically, the Wrights are buttheads.
Re:Patents? (Score:2)
Greedy, but also overoptimistically pacifist. They tried to prevent the transformation of airplanes into killing machines with their patent.
They stood on the shoulders of giants, and then presumed to own all the work of those giants. Utterly reprehensible.
I find the Wright Brothers to be a great example of how patents were often harmful, even 100 years ago. The US government eventually overthrew their patent (by fiat, and without paying them as was legall
Re:Patents? (Score:2)
This article [centennialofflight.gov] talks about the Wrights' courting of the military, without bothering to mention Selfridge's death. Interesting, what? Can
Re:Patents? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, no need to raise those fees. All you need to do is stop the siphoning off of those fees.
Polititians found that they could fund unpopular or pork projects without needing to get a new tax passed by skimming "profits" from places like the patent office. Of course any alledged "profits" are then unavailble to pay patent examiners. And of course those "profits" available for skimming can be arbitrarily expanded by reducing the amount paid to examine and process patents. Those "profits" are also expanded by encouraging more patent applications. You can encourage increased applications by increasing the range of what can be patented and by lowering standards to get an application approved.
-
Re:Patents? (Score:2)
Let the market do the due-diligence to determine how much a patent is worth (obviously, an idea with prior art, obviousness, or hard-to-enforce won't be deemed worth much). Patent examiners won't have to be so important using this scheme.
A few other possible ideas: patents have to be reauctioned every few years of their life, so that each owner has to keep paying for their monopoly, with some kin
But that's just it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Where were these guys in 1996? (Score:3, Insightful)
But I'd recommend rolling back some of the goofy stuff (especially 1201) before I'd call for maintaining the status quo. The status quo is already unbalanced by relatively recent thoughtless meddling.
Copyright Classic (Score:3, Insightful)
They coked you.
In the late 20th century, mankind considered getting rid of copyright, in favor of the "information age." The powers that be, introduce New Copyright (DMCA). Everyone hates it. So a little while later, they can introduce Copyright Classic and totally rake it in, thanks to the nostalgic backlash. Instead of advocating copyright reform or abolishion, you're advocating a return to the old ways. Got you.
The only trouble... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd personally like to see a differentiation between corporate copyrights (short) to personal copyrights (longer, but shorter than present).
Its a sad day when just keeping the current unfavorable copyright laws are considered a "win" by the voters.
Re:The only trouble... (Score:5, Interesting)
Today's status quo is not good for consumers. Copyright terms are far too long.
I'd personally like to see a differentiation between corporate copyrights (short) to personal copyrights (longer, but shorter than present).
Copyright takes ideas and works away from general use and duplication by society for the good of the copyright holder-- presumably to the ultimate benefit of society. If we're going to have long terms for copyright, the copyright holder needs to give back to society throughout the term.
Lots of ideas have been floated-- copyright renewal fees (potentially increasing as the term grows), automatic return to the public domain if works are no longer sold or "maintained", shorter terms for specific types of work, etc. I don't know what the "answer" is, but I think that it's vitally important that these proposals for "revision" to copyright become the fodder of discussion with lawmakers, not just between concerned citizens / geeks on Slashdot .
Its a sad day when just keeping the current unfavorable copyright laws are considered a "win" by the voters.
The public needs to be more involved, and better informed. If we, the concerned few, can figure out how to get the strength of public ire behind us-- e.g. if we can really make the public see how evil the copyright cartels are, we might just get somewhere. We need to work to teach the public the truth-- that copyright infringement is not "piracy", that the public's opinion of what copyright should be should define what copyright is, and that there are business models we haven't even thought of yet that can work for compensation content creators w/o requiring the leeches that are the "publishing industry" to exert their "tax" on the system.
Re:The only trouble... (Score:2)
Re:The only trouble... (Score:2)
The problem with this reasoning is that almost all copyrighted goods get the vast majority of their sales within a relatively short time. There is actually very little demand for 50 year old information goods, compared to the demand for new and modern content.
So even if you shortened copyright from 100 to 50 years, it would not add much value to consumers. The vast majority of what people consume is much newer than that. Being
Re:The only trouble... (Score:2)
Re:The only trouble... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that is exactly his point. How much profit is there in maintaining a 70 year old work locked under copyright? There just is no justifcation for it. The creation of copyrighted works is funded by profits in the first few years. If it's produced enough profitable within a few years to justify/finance its original creation then it's not likely to ever do so.
The origina
Re:The only trouble... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to consumers directly. But Artists would benefit. Characters like Superman and Sam Spade would become free, so that new authors can reinterpret the stories they grew up on.
the value of shortening copyright terms would be minimal.
That's actually a big part of the argument in favor of shortened terms! Because the creators hardly ever earn much profit past 7-15 years, they won't be losing much to sho
Prediction for the future (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that anyone is afraid of piracy so much that they will accept government royalty schedules.
Consumers? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's refreshing to see a governmental agency coming out with a study on copyright issues that appears to take consumers' concerns into consideration."
It would be more refreshing to be acknowledged by the government as a citizen and not an entity that merely spends money.
Re:Consumers? (Score:3, Funny)
Of course you're not! You're also an entity that earns money, which is where the friendly folks at the IRS come in!
Just in time, too! (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't this a little LATE?!
Re:Just in time, too! (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't this a little LATE?!
What, you think Congress was done passing copyright-related legislation? If this recommendation prevents the Hollings bill, the INDUCE Act, Congressional endorsement of the broadcast flag, or any of the other proposals on the table now/recently, it will still be useful.
I'd love to see the DMCA and the CTEA (the Sonny Bono act) repealed, but stopping future copyright madness is still better than nothing.
Re:Just in time, too! (Score:3, Insightful)
What, you think Congress was done passing copyright-related legislation? If this recommendation prevents the Hollings bill, the INDUCE Act, Congressional endorsement of the broadcast flag, or any of the other proposals on the table now/recently, it will still be useful. I'd love to see the DMCA and the CTEA (the Sonny Bono act) repealed, but stopping future copyright madness is still better than nothing.
I agree that "stopping madness" is a Good Thing, but we shouldn't be content to "stop madness". We sh
Re:Just in time, too! (Score:2)
-
Re:Just in time, too! (Score:5, Interesting)
Those of us who are arguing for revisions of copyright law need to stop using Mickey Mouse as the example. Without the Sono Bono copyright extension, Mickey Mouse would not have entered the public domain. The cartoon the Mickey debuted in, Steamboat Willie, would have entered the public domain, not the mouse himself.
What's the difference? Well, for one, Mickey Mouse is also protected as a trademark. If Steamboat Willie had become public domain, then you could have probably distributed copies of the original cartoon or used small bits of it in a larger work without getting Disney's approval. But you'd quickly be in hot water if you created and distributed a "new" Mickey Mouse cartoon, since Disney could rightly argue that you're infringing their trademark.
Furthermore, Disney could claim that a new Mickey Mouse cartoon is a derivative of one of their more recent Mickey Mouse cartoons that is still within the copyright period. I suppose this would be a gray area. I've never heard a discussion of how copyright terms apply to a series of works that are derivatives of each other. Certainly the newer works are entitled to their full copyright term even after the original one expires. So unless the hypothetical new cartoon was demonstrably a derivative solely of Steamboat Willie and nothing newer, Disney could make a case.
Re:Just in time, too! (Score:1, Interesting)
I do think that we focus too much on Mickey Mouse, though. He's not that big a revenue source for Disney. At least not compared to the thousands of other works they are locking up in near-perpetuity that we think of as little more than a
Re:Just in time, too! (Score:4, Informative)
That sentence is incorrect. Words like "Windows" and "Apple" are in the public domain, even though they're also trademarked in some contexts. "Public Domain" is not applicable to trademarks one way or the other.
you'd quickly be in hot water if you created and distributed a "new" Mickey Mouse cartoon, since Disney could rightly argue that you're infrin
It's only trademark infringement if you induce consumer confusion as to the provider of a good. Slapping "Not authorized by or affliated with the Walt Disney Corporation" on top will keep you perfectly protected.
Today unauthorized authors write non-fiction books on TV series like Star Trek or Buffy Vampire Slayer, or software like Oracle and Excel. It's legal for them to use the name of the show/product in their title, as long as purchasers are unconfused as to provenance (and no other copyright infringement is happening, beyond fair use)
But if the new author refuses to sully his title page like that, then you get into unexplored legal territory. Disney could make the same trademark argument you did, but the author could respond that (a) the company is "Disney", not "Mickey Mouse", and (b) interpreting trademarks that way renders the expiration of copyright meaningless, which was not the intent.
Back a few centuries when the concepts of copyright and trademark were first created, individual characters of a fictional work weren't trademarked. Now, Mickey Mouse and Luke Skywalker have changed all that (following the lead, actually, of Raggedy Ann)
I've never heard a discussion of how copyright terms apply to a series of works that are derivatives of each other.
It's pretty simple, and just as you'd predict. The newer works are fully protected, the older ones are not. For obvious practical examples, look at most any Disney movie. The copyright on Hercules expired 3700 years ago, but that has no effect either on Disney's Hercules or Kevin Sorbo.
There is a risk, of course. An artist who intends to only derive from the older PD work may inadvertently have taken in concepts from later versions. That could lead to some nasty lawsuits focusing on subtlties. For example, if the Sonny Bono extension hadn't passed, then Superman would be public domain today. But the original Superman couldn't fly (only "leap tall buildings").
So if the creator of a new Superman story makes him fly, then he's vulnerable... the argument "I decided to add flying to the original version, because it was a sensible change" could work, but it'd enrich both sides' lawyers.
Re:Just in time, too! (Score:2)
I was referring to a graphical depiction of the character, not his name. His image is trademarked.
More of the same... nothing changes... (Score:5, Informative)
I haven't read the entire paper-- but I did skip right to Section 4 [cbo.gov], to see the "conclusions", and read that in some detail. I love this bit (below), from section 4, describing the "Effects on Equity" in revising copyright law in favor of the copyright holder:
In the near term, copyright owners would benefit at the expense of consumers. However, if the additional revenues to copyright owners enabled creators to undertake more projects, consumers could also benefit from the greater availability of creative works in the long term.
Yes-- I'm sure the copyright holders would "undertake more projects". Oh-- and, certainly, those works are going to available in the "long term"-- or at least until they're not so profitable as to be sold anymore, at which time they'll be allowed to "fall out of print", will become unavailable to anyone, and will be "protected" for another 100 years (at which time the media they're stored on, and the compression and encryption algorithms used to encode and encrypt them will probably be vastly outdated and outmodded).
The public grants copyright as a social contract to the creators of content. It is a CONTRACT, and it "goes both ways"-- or rather, it did, in the United States, under the original terms of copyright set forth in the Constitution. The amalgamation of shit we have today bears little to no resemblence to the "founder's copyright", and is skewed heavily in favor of the copyright holders.
Copyright is granted BY THE PEOPLE. If we don't like the current copyright system-- if we want to "trade music files", or download movies "P2P"-- if the public really belives that's the right thing, we need to CHANGE THE FUCKING LAW.
Personally, I believe it's time for the contract to be renegotiated. Public outcry is a good start. Tell your friends, tell your coworkers. Talk to them about the DMCA and the abuses we've all seen. Talk to them about the efforts, past and present, to outlaw digital versions of technologies that are "protected uses" of analog technologies. Talk about "broadcast flags", and "fair use".
Re:More of the same... nothing changes... (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sure the copyright holders would "undertake more projects".
Hell, if anything, overly-long copyrights would *discourage* creators from creating.
Imagine - you write a one-hit wonder, and know that you will have a steady income from it for the rest of your life.
Imagine - you write a one-hit wonder, and know that you will have a steady income from it for ten years, but nothing after that.
Which scenario is more likely to make you create more music?
Re:More of the same... nothing changes... (Score:2)
Hell, if anything, overly-long copyrights would *discourage* creators from creating.
That's what I said. It's called sarcasm... can't you smell it?
Re:More of the same... nothing changes... (Score:2)
So let me see if I got this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
So in a nutshell, this report is sort of like the 9/11 Commission's report: "Nothing seriously wrong here, let's just talk about it to placate the public and then the public will go back to debating which Superbowl commercial is better..."
Re:So let me see if I got this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
So the report says do nothing. Ignore the fact that the public domain is slowly drying up as Corporate America constantly lengthens copyrights. Ignore the fact that we have college students getting sued by giant mega-corporations for swapping a song with some friends. Ignore the issues of concern and don't make any major decisions, right?
And that's where we need to come in. If these things really are important to you, talk to other people about them, organize an effort to communicate with your lawmakers, and try to affect some change.
I speak with anyone who will listen, IRL, about issues of "intellectual property" and copyright. I think we need "Joe Sixpack" to understand that the things he does today, w/ his VCR, aren't going to be possible in just a few years. Cases like the Wisconsin high school 'prom' that gave out burned CD's [usatoday.com] tell me that the public is really under-informed, and there are opportunities for education.
The RIAA / MPAA / copyright cartels are using this ignorance to brainwash the public into believing that the system as it is today-- the one that force-feeds consumers crap, strips them of their fair use and first sale rights, and defauds artists and creators of their negotiated compensation-- is the only one that can exist. We need to be informing people that current system of copyright isn't "just how it is", and that they have a say in changing it.
Re:So let me see if I got this straight... (Score:2)
Corporate America does not lengthen copyrights. *Congress* lengthens copyrights. (ok, often at the behest of Corporate America, but they are two separate entities) Corporate America has, of late, put several proposals on the table for even more egregious grabs of power. This is a report from within *Congress* (remember, the guys who actually have the authority to adjust copyright law) statin
Re:So let me see if I got this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hi, pedants. I realize the CBO is not quite Congress, but the point is that this report is a recommendation from within the government to at least temporarily hold up the "copyright über alles" trend in Washington.
Daniel
To paraphrase Flava Flav (Score:1, Interesting)
They come out with numbers that cannot be relied upon.
Remember Ross Perot's pie charts 12 years ago?
They were based on CBO numbers and look how wrong they turned out to be.
They are also behind the myth that the social security trust fund will go bankrupt. A few years ago, they said it would go broke in 2039. Now they say 2047. Next year it will be 2055. It's all based on bogus assumptions of low productivity growth and the senior citizen demographic being completely unwiling/
Ok then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we do X, then Y is likely to happen, which in turn results in Z.
Now all we need to do is come up with some sort of copyright scheme that manages to do all of the following:
1) Provides the best possible benefit for consumers.
2) Provides the most reasonable compensation for copyright holders.
3) Causes the least possible harm to copyright holder, consumers, and technology creators.
The problem with attempts to acheive the above goals, as I see it, is that 'best possible benefit for consumers' and 'least possible harm' is not guaranteed to be something that can be boiled down to a dollar value. Also, ultimately, the reasonable amount of compensation for IP is ultimately determined by the consumers who consume or not consume copyrighted works.
So while this is far from providing any answers, it does help us arrive at the correct questions.
END COMMUNICATION
RIAA is the tail that wags the dog (Score:3, Interesting)
[i]The gross revenues of the core copyright industries totaled $441.4 billion in 2002 and were distributed as shown in Figure 1-1. Nearly a third of that total ($143.4 billion) came from the newspaper, periodical, and book publishing industries. [b]The music industry[/b], which generated $13.9 billion in gross revenues in 2002, [b]is the smallest segment[/b]. (See Box 1-1 for details on the interpretation of data on gross revenues.) [/i]
(emphasis mine)
The "Box 1-1" referred to is here: http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/573801.gif
They got one thing right... (Score:3, Insightful)
From the standpoint of equity, the effects of revising copyright law in favor of consumers of creative material would be to transfer control from copyright owners to consumers. However, for some incumbent copyright holders, losses suffered from diminished control over their creative works may already have been compensated, at least in part, by recent legislation that extended the duration of copyright protection.
--AC
Not as benign as it looks on the surface (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the poster is a little more optimistic about this study than the content actually warrants.
norbert
A horse. A barn. A door. (Score:4, Funny)
Slanted wholly towards business interests by DMCA, (Score:5, Insightful)
To put it in other words, "now that the power has been shifted solely to one side, just keep it that way forever."
Fair and equitable, reasonable and well-balanced, huh?
Certainly from a pigopolist's point of view, but I'm not so sure about how this status quo is supposed to benefit the rest of "us the people."
The missing detail in this report. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The missing detail in this report. (Score:2)
In any case, the point being made by the report is that maximized economic efficiency should be the goal of copyright law. It makes a good argument that this is so because the
Re:The missing detail in this report. (Score:1)
Exactly. And the location of this maxima is "no enforcement at all."
The output of the "maximized efficiency" is decreased by the existence of enforcement mechanisms, but it's still the maximum output.
Incorrect, the cost of enforcement mechanisms mean that a different set of rules with fewer enforcement costs could and probably do produce the new maximum output.
By your logic, legal systems to prevent murder are do
Opus #183,193,472,294,274,394,123,423,045,123,785 (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's say that I create a computer program to compose music.
Can I copyright the original music it creates? I mean, of course I can, right? - I just submit it as created by me.
I ask, because it seems to me, theoretically, that I could create every possible permutation of 4 to 8 bar melody (heck lets even go to 16 bar non-repeating). wouldn't that be neat? I could own the copyright to every possible piece of copyrightable music that could be created (well, maybe not EVERY piece, but a whole crapload).
i suppose my algorithm would need to have the musical notation for every song yet-copyrighted (so as to exclude those possible melodies from generation). But I wouldn't actually need to pay for the copyright on the musical notation for those songs which I am excluding, would I? I mean, it's not a crime to transcribe a song you hear on the radio - so long as you don't preform, distribute or record it. right?
Imagine a fed ex trailer pulling up to the copyright office with millions of pages of musical score.
I mean, I could claim me and 10,000 other slashdotters worked together to compose it
"only 24 hours in a day. only 12 notes a man can play. "
Re:Opus #183,193,472,294,274,394,123,423,045,123,7 (Score:2)
It's even easier than that. There's no formal submission process anymore. You just publish it anyplace (maybe to Google Groups or archive.org), so that in the future you can demonstrate the date you did the song.
Re:Opus #183,193,472,294,274,394,123,423,045,123,7 (Score:1)
This post copyright 2004, by Sexylicious.
Now this post is copyrighted.
Re:Opus #183,193,472,294,274,394,123,423,045,123,7 (Score:2)
However, I don't believe the "infinite monkeys" argument would be upheld by any reasonable judge. Amongst other things, you'd have to get people to listen to all of your generated music, otherwise they'd be able to claim parallel development. Since this would take hours, most people will not be prepare
If it ain't broke.... (Score:2)
Why should they change a system that already overwhelmingly favors their corporate masters, regardless of the cost from chipping away at the foundations that this country was built on? Besides, the US Constitution is all but dead and forgotten. The US goverment bears almost no resemblance to the founding government, to say nothing of its principles.
The ide