Copyright

[De Selby]

A physical invasion of your land leaves you with measurably fewer resources - namely, that spot occupied by the squatter.  Every inch taken is taken by force, and you need only try to use that piece of land to discover it.

What does someone singing a song in another county leave you without???  How does you singing that song let you know that someone else sang it?

Trespass is a terrible analogy to IP.  

[280plus]

What does someone singing a song in another county leave you without???

The question is did this person profit somehow through the use of my material? If so I should profit as well. This is how the writer makes his living, he writes songs and sells them. That's his bread and butter. He does not write them to give away for free just like you don't give away your widget.

I remember a locker room discussion between a do gooder and a lawyer over some feel good legal issue and they lawyer using his skills to do something about it. The lawyer's reply was, "You know how some people go into law because they want to better the world? I didn't do that, I went into law to make money so I'll help you any way you want but you'll have to pay me for it." The do gooder clammed up right about then.

Another analogy that goes toward lobbying and lengths of things. The only reason copyright lengths are where they are is because of Disney's lobbying. Here's one you may not know. And I don't know if it still holds true but way back when the transportation industry got together and lobbied for something and got it. Did you know that if your job involves traveling across state lines that every time you cross into a state it becomes a NEW DAY? In other words if you just spent 8 hours driving across PA and cross into NY your clock goes back to zero and regardless of how many hours over 40 you put in that week you will still be paid straight time rather than overtime after 8 hours? Just an example of the power of lobby and I see where De Selby is going in his rails against being able to lobby things like that out of the .gov.

Interesting though because as a driver I would not support the lobbying of that particular hours issue because I want my OT but as a copyright holder I am all for the longest CR length I can get. 

And no I didn't catch any fish, but it sure was warm and sunny. 

[280plus]

What is a copyright?
According to attorney Don Passman’s authoritative book, All You Need to Know About the Music Business, a copyright is a "limited duration monopoly." When the founding fathers first established copyright in intellectual property, the term of that exclusive control was fourteen years. Since that time, copyright duration has been extended, to the point that today, once you properly register your song’s copyright, you and your heirs will have exclusive control of it for your own life, plus seventy more years.



Read more: Copyright Basics: Exclusive rights, licensing lingo, and more — Echoes - Insight for Independent Artists http://blog.discmakers.com/2011/03/copyright-basics/#ixzz1IBW6cVbB

[Jerry Stiller] DOUBLE EDGED SWORD BABY!![/Jerry Stiller] So ok, a copyright or patent is a monopoly that I want to keep forever. The .gov grants me my monopoly but only for a limited time because we don't like monopolies even though I DO like mine which is why I want to keep it. DISNEY on the other hand has figured out how to worm their way around it while taking the rest of us with them and you think I'm going to argue with them? Not this time.  

Now, a trademark is also a gov allowed enforced monopoly, why is a trademark perpetual and that's ok?  

[makattak]

Now, a trademark is also a gov allowed monopoly, why is a trademark perpetual and that's ok? 

Because a trademark does not represent an idea or an expression. A trademark represents you or a company. For someone to use your trademark, they are pretending to be YOU. For someone to use your idea, they are using information.

A trademark contains no information but the person/company it represents. Using someone else's trademark is fraud and a type of identity theft.

[280plus]

So? It's still a gov enforced monopoly?

[makattak]

So? It's still a gov enforced monopoly?

And?

My argument has always been about the cost to society of locking up works for an average of 120+ years, not government granted monopolies.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Because a trademark does not represent an idea or an expression. A trademark represents you or a company. For someone to use your trademark, they are pretending to be YOU. For someone to use your idea, they are using information.

A trademark contains no information but the person/company it represents. Using someone else's trademark is fraud and a type of identity theft.

How is someone using a my trademark a form of fraud/identity theft but not when they use my idea/expression?

I'm pretty sure you can get kicked out of school for that. Its called plagerism.

[280plus]

And?

My argument has always been about the cost to society of locking up works for an average of 120+ years, not government granted monopolies.

Oh, I think we have two lines of thought going at the same time here. I thought De Selby's beef was the fact that the gov mandates and enforces copyrights etc in the first place and that you can lobby the gov to adjust these mandates to your own liking. Special interest groups and that they can sway legislation. Your saying it's ok for the gov to do this but that they hold it too long on copyrights for your tastes. Have I got it now?

[Hawkmoon]

Because a trademark does not represent an idea or an expression. A trademark represents you or a company. For someone to use your trademark, they are pretending to be YOU. For someone to use your idea, they are using information.

You still do not understand copyright, or intellectual property law.

A copyright does not protect information. It protects expression. If I write a song, it is not "information." Information cannot be copyrighted, but the specific order of words used to express information (a textbook, for example) can be copyrighted. The theorems in trigonometry are information. They can't be copyrighted. If I write a trigonometry textbook, I can copyright it -- not because of the information conveyed, but because of the words I chose to express the idea. You can also write a trigonometry textbook. As long as you don't reproduce the same words I used in the same order I used them, you probably won't be infringing on my copyright.

Maybe photography is your bag. One of the most photographed lighthouses in the U.S. is at Portland Head, Maine. If I take a photo of Portland Head lighthouse at 5:47 p.m. on July 16, 2011, I can copyright that photo and sell prints of it. If you buy one of my prints and start selling reproductions of my photo, you are infringing on my copyright. You are taking money out of my pocket by selling MY image. However, you can set up your camera right next to mine in Portland at 5:47 p.m. on July 16, 2011, and take your own photo. It'll look an awful lot like mine, but it'll be yours -- and you can sell prints of your photo without infringing on my copyright. Why? The "information" contained in both photos is exactly the same. What's being copyrighted is not the information, it's the expression.

[makattak]

Oh, I think we have two lines of thought going at the same time here. I thought De Selby's beef was the fact that the gov mandates and enforces copyrights etc in the first place and that you can lobby the gov to adjust these mandates to your own liking. Special interest groups and that they can sway legislation. Your saying it's ok for the gov to do this but that they hold it too long on copyrights for your tastes. Have I got it now?

Yes, that's my problem with this.

I think it is right for people to have exclusive rights to profit off their intellectual property for a limited time. I believe that time is too long right now.

[280plus]

Ok, now that we know what we're arguing about, err, I mean discussing, we can start discuussing it. 

 

[KD5NRH]

I think it is right for people to have exclusive rights to profit off their intellectual property for a limited time. I believe that time is too long right now.

This.  IIRC, one of the reasons for the short limits on patent and copyright in the first place was to encourage continued creativity from those who had already demonstrated the ability; you did it once, now instead of resting on your laurels forever, go do it again.

[280plus]

What if you cut off my funding by removing my monopoly and the subsequent drop in income results in my not being able to continue being creative and I have to get a job flipping burgers at that 200 year old still in business burger stand, again... 

I hate working at that place... 

 

[Scout26]

This.  IIRC, one of the reasons for the short limits on patent and copyright in the first place was to encourage continued creativity from those who had already demonstrated the ability; you did it once, now instead of resting on your laurels forever, go do it again.

I also thought that it was to allow others to build on and improve your original idea or design.

[280plus]

Ask yourself, WWMBD? 

[KD5NRH]

What if you cut off my funding by removing my monopoly and the subsequent drop in income results in my not being able to continue being creative and I have to get a job flipping burgers at that 200 year old still in business burger stand, again...

Consider it an incentive to learn better money management.  He can help: http://www.daveramsey.com/ 

[280plus]

What if I am? I'm living off the money plus there'ssome left over for research or materials or in my case studio time for new projects and then suddenly that income goes away. That's going to hurt no matter how well you manage your money. Ask Disney.