Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Nick1911 on March 25, 2011, 10:54:16 AM
-
Lets say I buy an MP3 on amazon.
Tomorrow, the disk I put it on crashes.
I download it from an illegitimate source.
Is this action legal as I still am a copyright holder for that work?
-
The right to use a file you've paid for and your choice of source are two different issues. That's like asking if it's okay to break into the bank to get your stuff out of the vault.
Having the file is fine, presuming it's the exact same version of the file you had before. Getting it from less-than-reputable sources is something to be avoided.
Brad
-
Lets say I buy an MP3 on amazon.
Tomorrow, the disk I put it on crashes.
I download it from an illegitimate source.
Is this action legal as I still am a copyright holder for that work?
It's certainly within MORAL boundaries of acceptable. With the RIAA/MPAA pushing the legality window as they do, it's hard to say if it's legal. It would probably depend on if it was the EXACT same MP3 file. You know how some bands release 5 different copies of the same song... the single that plays on the radio, the slightly different mix on the album, a remixed/remastered version on a Greatest Hits album, a "live at [insert stadium here]" version, and so on.
If you have the purchase receipt (perhaps a confirmation email in your inbox) I'd say it's defensible.
-
The right to use a file you've paid for and your choice of source are two different issues. That's like asking if it's okay to break into the bank to get your stuff out of the vault.
Brad
I disagree with your analogy. One is victimless, one isn't.
-
I realize this is a hypothetical, but Amazon will let you download the file again :) - at least they do with videos.
-
I realize this is a hypothetical, but Amazon will let you download the file again :) - at least they do with videos.
Guess it stands to reason, if you downloaded it using your account then there's a record of it within their system. No reason for you not to be able to duplicate the file download.
-
I disagree with your analogy. One is victimless, one isn't.
If you can break into the bank without harming anyone or anything, it is just as victimless.
Say, like a catburgler through the skylight.
(Not supporting nor detracting from the argument, but pointing out it can be victimless, too.)
-
If I was an a-hole lawyer I would say that you could have made a legal backup copy before your drive pooped itself. That said, all vendors should allow multiple downloads to the same IP address at no additional charge.
-
If I was an a-hole lawyer I would say that you could have made a legal backup copy before your drive pooped itself. That said, all vendors should allow multiple downloads to the same IP address at no additional charge.
That assumes:
-You don't change ISP's
-You don't move
-Your DHCP pool on the ISP doesn't change, or your DHCP lease in the pool doesn't expire
Each and every blessed one of them CAN ALREADY track who bought what MP3 and make it available for repeated download.
-
Lets say I buy an MP3 on amazon.
Tomorrow, the disk I put it on crashes.
I download it from an illegitimate source.
Is this action legal as I still am a copyright holder for that work?
First, by downloading (buying) a legitimate copy, you are NOT a copyright holder. You are an owner of A legal copy. The copyright is still the sole property of whoever holds the copyright.
If you lose your copy, you are not entitled to replace it from an illegal source.
The direct analogy is you buy a book from Barnes & Noble on Thursday. On Friday you realize you left your book in Starbucks. Are you then allowed to shoplift a replacement from Borders Books?
-
The direct analogy is you buy a book from Barnes & Noble on Thursday. On Friday you realize you left your book in Starbucks. Are you then allowed to shoplift a replacement from Borders Books?
Yet again, victimless vs not.
-
Good point, Az, I should have said account number.
-
First, buy downloading (buying) a legitimate copy, you are NOT a copyright holder. You are an owner of A legal copy. The copyright is still the sole property of whoever holds the copyright.
That's an interesting thought.
Do I only own rights to one particular copy?
I want to say clearly not, as I am legally able to make copies of the work for my own use/backup.
But if not, what do I actually own rights to?
-
. . .The direct analogy is you buy a book from Barnes & Noble on Thursday. On Friday you realize you left your book in Starbucks. Are you then allowed to shoplift a replacement from Borders Books?
Not quite a direct analogy - downloading a copy leaves the master intact from whatever source you downloaded it from, whereas shoplifting a replacement - taking possession of a physical object - doesn't.
-
The direct analogy is you buy a book from Barnes & Noble on Thursday. On Friday you realize you left your book in Starbucks. Are you then allowed to shoplift a replacement from Borders Books?
No, the analogy would be taking a scanner or camera to Borders (or the library, etc) and creating a duplicate image of each page of the book. Then going home and formatting into whatever usable context he desires. Print, compilation into PDF, eBook, etc.
No loss of property from Borders. No loss of revenue from Borders.
But, Borders is a retailer.
A torrented MP3 is not the same as Borders. It's more like a library, or a friend's copy of a book.
Nick's analogy is like that $100 college textbook that you bought and then lost or had stolen. So, you borrow a friend's textbook and photocopy it.
-
[Booklyn accent] Aye gahts ya's anaalagee right heeyah..[/Brooklyn accent]
Brad
-
If you walk into the store, buy a CD, and then lose it a week later, do you then have the right to go to the store, take the CD off the shelf and take it home?
I would argue that you do not have the right to reaquire the song from any source without paying for it.
I don't buy the photocopy analogy. Property is still property, no matter what form it arrives in when you purchase it.
-
How is this different from the old analog days?
I could record the song I wanted from the radio on my cassette recorder, was that an infringement of the performer's copyright? Or if I bought the LP and transfered the songs to my 8-track to play in the car?
And how many times do I have to pay for music/movies as the technology changes. LPs to CDs, VHS to DVDs to BlueRay?
[popcorn] for the movie.
-
First, I think our intellectual property laws are messed up. Copyright especially.
This may be why theft of copyright is not viewed badly.
Copyright should exist for a VERY short period of time. If 20 years is enough for a patent which I would argue represents something FAR more valuable (to our society) than anything protected by copyright, 20 years should be enough for copyright.
Copyright is the life of the creator PLUS SEVENTY YEARS. That's stupid. I'm sorry Walt, but as good an idea as Mickey is, he should be public domain now.
-
Copyright is the life of the creator PLUS SEVENTY YEARS. That's stupid.
Is not... :P
=D
-
The direct analogy is you buy a book from Barnes & Noble on Thursday. On Friday you realize you left your book in Starbucks. Are you then allowed to shoplift a replacement from Borders Books?
No. That is not a direct analogy. It isn't even close to a direct analogy. Furthermore, everyone here is capable of understanding the original question. We do not need analogies in order to bring the concept into our understanding by relating it to a process which we understand already.
But, if you insist on making analogies then I will put one out for you:
I buy an MP3. I lose the file. I then attempt to remember the song in my head. Is my brain an illegal copy? I turn on the radio and find the song to refresh my memory. Is that theft?
-
Is my brain an illegal copy?
You sure you want us to answer that...? *snicker*
Brad
-
Short answer:
Most legitimate music download sources will keep a record of your transactions and allow you to re-download a song file you've purchased previously. So the question is moot.
Long answer:
When you buy a copyrighted work, you aren't buying the copyright itself, you're buying permission to use the copyrighted work in certain specific ways. What you're allowed to do with it depends entirely on what you bought. For instance, the rights I acquire when I purchase an album for my own personal use are entirely different from the rights a radio station acquires when it purchases a new album for broadcast on the radio.
I don't know the specific rights associated with downloading a song from Itunes or somesuch, but I think it's a safe bet that record companies aren't handing out permission for end consumers to obtain their copyrighted work from any ol' internet site that feels like making it available. More likely, they're simply selling you the rights to obtain that specific music file from that particular website, and to play that song for your own personal enjoyment.
-
Short answer:
Most legitimate music download sources will keep a record of your transactions and allow you to re-download a song file you've purchased previously. So the question is moot.
???
Can I download another copy of my MP3 files after the initial purchase?
Your Amazon MP3 Music purchases can only be downloaded once. After you have successfully downloaded the file to your computer at the time of purchase, we recommend that you create a backup copy.
We are currently unable to replace any purchased files that you delete or lose due to a system or disk error. If you encounter a problem with an MP3 file immediately after purchase, please click the "Contact Us" button in the Customer Service box in the right-hand column of this page so we can determine how to help you.
-
???
You can download them more than once if you still have your AMZ file from Amazon. Load that into your Amazon MP3 Downloader tool and it will download again.
-
You can download them more than once if you still have your AMZ file from Amazon. Load that into your Amazon MP3 Downloader tool and it will download again.
Ah, I don't use the application.
-
Hmm, ok. I've been told by folks that you can replace lost files, but I've never used these services myself so I don't have any experience with it. After a bit of digging, it seems that many of the major providers don't let you replace lost files.
-
don't know the specific rights associated with downloading a song from Itunes or somesuch, but I think it's a safe bet that record companies aren't handing out permission for end consumers to obtain their copyrighted work from any ol' internet site that feels like making it available. More likely, they're simply selling you the rights to obtain that specific music file from that particular website, and to play that song for your own personal enjoyment.
Nope, I, the publisher, pay royalties to either ASCAP or BMI for every copy of a previously copyrighted tune I sell. This cost is of course incorporated into the final selling price. It IS, however, up to me to maintain records and make sure that as I sell copies I pay the royalties. It's 9.7 cents for a song under five minutes long and ~17 cents if it goes over five minutes.
-
Nope, I, the publisher, pay royalties to either ASCAP or BMI for every copy of a previously copyrighted tune I sell.
but... but... but...
Sharing MP3s is a VICTIMLESS crime. Why, it's not even a crime at all. There's no such thing as intellectual property.
Everything belongs to the state. Or at least it should. Except for MY stuff.
-
It ain't victimless when I sink 20 G into a project and then can't break even on it because it's out there being passed around for free. ;)
Although, that is a bit different than someone trying to replace a lost file so not really applicable here.
-
Nick's analogy is like that $100 college textbook that you bought and then lost or had stolen. So, you borrow a friend's textbook and photocopy it.
Which is completely, unquestionably illegal copyright violation.
Computer software is the better analogy. Back when software actually came on "media" instead of downloading it, the fine print typically said that you had bought the right to load the software on your computer and to make ONE backup copy.
If you failed to make the one backup copy you were allowed to make, and lost or trashed your original install disc -- you were screwed. I'm absolutely certain that innumerable people solved such dilemmas by making a copy of a friend's copy, but that only means a lot of people were breaking the law, it doesn't mean it was legal.
No loss of property from Borders. No loss of revenue from Borders.
Of course there is loss of revenue from Borders. If he didn't copy the pages, he'd have to buy the book. Borders is (or was) in the business of selling books. If you go in, copy or photograph the contents and walk out -- they have obviously lost revenue.
-
Nick, I'll burn you another copy of A Fistful of Oboes.....anyone else want a copy ?? If I'm making one I might as well make 200,000.
:P
-
Of course there is loss of revenue from Borders
I lost $34,000 in revenue yesterday because nobody bought my screen door off craigslist.
-
Another thought:
I buy a CD. I later sell it in a garage sale.
Who holds rights to enjoy said media?
-
Another thought:
I buy a CD. I later sell it in a garage sale.
Who holds rights to enjoy said media?
Are you asking about a commercially recorded music CD, or a blank CD?
If you're asking about a commercial music CD, the answer is whoever buys it from you at the garage sale.
-
There isn't any copyright police out there btw. Generally unless it is a massive quantity of copies that you've bootlegged you will not be caught unless the artists themselves stumble across you. BMI and ASCAP don't really worry about peanuts like one lost copy someone tries to replace. It's kind of like winning the lottery. There's a slight chance but it's not likely anything will ever happen.
BTW, I've heard one of those nootleg "Fistful Of Oboes", the sound quality sucks compared to the original. ;)
-
There isn't any copyright police out there btw. Generally unless it is a massive quantity of copies that you've bootlegged you will not be caught unless the artists themselves stumble across you. BMI and ASCAP don't really worry about peanuts like one lost copy someone tries to replace. It's kind of like winning the lottery. There's a slight chance but it's not likely anything will ever happen.
Thought: Is copyright violation a criminal offense in the US? Is it a civil matter - ie breech of contract or something?
Even if someone was running a massive copyright infringement ring, could they be arrested for it, or just sued?
-
I'm not sure wo I wiki-ed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
See if you can make heads or tails out of it. ;)
-
I lost $34,000 in revenue yesterday because nobody bought my screen door off craigslist.
Heh.
-
The position of the RIAA is a lot trickier than you'd think: you don't actually own a copy of the music. What you buy is a license to listen to it on their terms. The copyright, or the right to reproduce the material (on whatever terms), always remains with them.
Nick, it is both a criminal and a civil matter.
Personally, I don't believe copyright law serves any purpose, and I think that every argument about "junk lawsuits" and "bogus civil claims" applies to modern copyright practice. It's an invented class of property, and it was originally sold by the same people who used government monopolies to promote the exploitation of colonial resources.
Morally, I think the only legitimate purpose of copyright is to promote development. If some law can't, in hard numbers, demonstrably improve development of new works, it should be discarded.
Legally, however, the current state is pretty clear on this point. It's illegal and tortious (with junk penalties attached to promote junk lawsuits) to replace music files from an unauthorised source.
-
Personally, I don't believe copyright law serves any purpose, and I think that every argument about "junk lawsuits" and "bogus civil claims" applies to modern copyright practice. It's an invented class of property, and it was originally sold by the same people who used government monopolies to promote the exploitation of colonial resources.
So you think that if you spend a year or two or three writing a book that turns out to be very popular, it should be perfectly okay for any printer who wants to get in on the action to roll the presses and start producing and selling copies of YOUR book without paying you any royalties?
-
"nootleg"? :facepalm: :lol:
What it boils down to is there are numerous ways to infringe on copyrights and good luck to the person trying to collect on the infringement. Especially when places like Asia are involved. They are the kings of bootleg everything.
However, there are those out there who truly respect the rights of others in terms of their needing to make a living too and therefore support them by purchasing legitimate copies. Don't ask me how few and far between these people are.
-
So you think that if you spend a year or two or three writing a book that turns out to be very popular, it should be perfectly okay for any printer who wants to get in on the action to roll the presses and start producing and selling copies of YOUR book without paying you any royalties?
Actually, after a certain amount of time, yes - if copyright law were 500 years ago what it is today we might not have shakespeare or any number of classics of our language.
The purpose of copyright was originally to let people recover the year or two or three writing - not to give absolute legal control over a story that, over time, might take a thousand different paths in a culture.
The amazing thing is that before all the corporate lawyers got involved, the position I've just put forth was uncontroversial. If you went back 500 years and tried to stop someone from singing your song, you'd have been treated like a child crying "don't copy me" at law.
Copyright is not something that's traditionally been treated as property. It was invented by the same people who brought us Government monopolies, and has become what it is today largely because of the Disney corporation's demands. It ought to be treated as such.
-
Personally, I don't believe copyright law serves any purpose, and I think that every argument about "junk lawsuits" and "bogus civil claims" applies to modern copyright practice. It's an invented class of property, and it was originally sold by the same people who used government monopolies to promote the exploitation of colonial resources.
So my wife writes an article and gets paid of course. The magazine publishing is granted FNASR and non-exclusive re-use. Some website copies the text whole cloth and sticks it on their page. So hey, they've got content to get people on their site, my wife already got paid, everything is cool right? Not quite. Somebody didn't get paid to develop content for that website. They stole from somebody by not contracting that job out. My wife in particular by "borrowing" her work. Happens all the time.
Next up, Google books.
Theft is theft, no matter the property.
-
Next up, Google books.
Theft is theft, no matter the property.
No one is saying your wife shouldn't get paid. Imagine, though, twenty years from now someone wants to use that article in a history of these times. That's a useful product which under current law, your wife could interrupt by demanding fees she never would have foreseen at the time of writing. That makes copyright law potentially inhibiting to development and innovation.
Copyright is not property like any other. It was invented by statute for a specific purpose; its reach should be limited by that purpose.
-
Copyright is not something that's traditionally been treated as property. It was invented by the same people who brought us Government monopolies, and has become what it is today largely because of the Disney corporation's demands. It ought to be treated as such.
Although it may not have frozen over, it did snow in DC last night. I suppose that's close enough since, for once, I find myself in complete agreement with SnS.
-
No one is saying your wife shouldn't get paid. Imagine, though, twenty years from now someone wants to use that article in a history of these times. That's a useful product which under current law, your wife could interrupt by demanding fees she never would have foreseen at the time of writing. That makes copyright law potentially inhibiting to development and innovation.
Copyright is not property like any other. It was invented by statute for a specific purpose; its reach should be limited by that purpose.
Fail. They either cite it like a properly scholarly work, quote it under fair use or they call her up and buy rights to it in whole. If you build a mud fence that you're right proud of and I stop by one day 20 years later and take it are you going to be mad? I just committed theft. Creators of intellectual property put real work into creating it and often backed it with very real capital risks to make their job happen. Abuses like DRM in music and such do not warrant the removal of all copyright protection.
-
Fail. They either cite it like a properly scholarly work, quote it under fair use or they call her up and buy rights to it in whole. If you build a mud fence that you're right proud of and I stop by one day 20 years later and take it are you going to be mad? I just committed theft. Creators of intellectual property put real work into creating it and often backed it with very real capital risks to make their job happen. Abuses like DRM in music and such do not warrant the removal of all copyright protection.
Copyright should not be removed, simply limited.
Why should someone (and their heirs) who writes an article have control over it for 120 years when someone who creates an invention that has far more value to society only gets a patent for only 20 years?
-
The purpose of copyright was originally to let people recover the year or two or three writing - not to give absolute legal control over a story that, over time, might take a thousand different paths in a culture.
The amazing thing is that before all the corporate lawyers got involved, the position I've just put forth was uncontroversial. If you went back 500 years and tried to stop someone from singing your song, you'd have been treated like a child crying "don't copy me" at law.
Copyright is not something that's traditionally been treated as property. It was invented by the same people who brought us Government monopolies, and has become what it is today largely because of the Disney corporation's demands. It ought to be treated as such.
Fail. Copyright law existed LONG before Disney, Mate. Maybe not 500 years, but it IS written into the Constitution. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Granted, the time limits have changed, but they are still limited.
Why should someone (and their heirs) who writes an article have control over it for 120 years when someone who creates an invention that has far more value to society only gets a patent for only 20 years?
Your information is flawed. 120 years applies only to corporate authorship. For individuals it's the author's life plus 70 years -- and that's to protect the heirs of an author who may die soon after the work is created.
-
Hawkmoon,
Patent and copyright were relatively new when included in the Constitution, and they were included because of the same theory behind Government monopolies - to encourage development. That's what copyright is, a Government-backed monopoly. For example, French's mud fence analogy isn't really the case with copyright. Copyright is more like saying that if someone else built a mud fence on his own land, you get to force him to pay you for it because the government gave you a special licence to profit from every mud fence out there. That's what copyright is; it's not property the same way that your car is your property. It's a monopoly that allows you to deprive other people of the fruits of their own labor, because you thought of doing that same work first.
Neither Mak nor I are saying that's entirely inappropriate. The point is that it should be limited to relate strictly to incentives. If a copyright law can't be demonstrated to promote further innovation, it shouldn't be on the books.
Mak brings up a good starting point for comparison - patents. Government monopolies of this sort ought to be handed out lightly.
-
Why should someone (and their heirs) who writes an article have control over it for 120 years when someone who creates an invention that has far more value to society only gets a patent for only 20 years?
Just a SWAG, one can assume, given the rapid advance in technology, that in 20 years a particular design has become obsolete? If you think about it, it PROMOTES advancement because you design something and know that it will be public property in 20 years there is an added incentive for you to improve on it and patent the improvements or completely redesign this thing so that you yourself make the previous one obsolete.
Then, when it comes to writings and the like, intellectual property, when does it EVER become obsolete? I mean right now turn on the radio. The classic rock stations are still playing stuff that was done in the 60's and they're still making $ off it. Same with the oldies stations. Only they play even older stuff.
Is Shakespeare obsolete? How about the weapons of his day, are they obsolete? =)
My damn computer is 7 years old, it's a friggin dinosaur. :lol:
-
FYI, I ain't never read no shakepeare. Never liked it. I am right now struggling my way through the last few philsophically based pages of W&P. The thing just won't END! :laugh:
-
Just a SWAG, one can assume, given the rapid advance in technology, that in 20 years a particular design has become obsolete? If you think about it, it PROMOTES advancement because you design something and know that it will be public property in 20 years there is an added incentive for you to improve on it and patent the improvements or completely redesign this thing so that you yourself make the previous one obsolete.
Then, when it comes to writings and the like, intellectual property, when does it EVER become obsolete? I mean right now turn on the radio. The classic rock stations are still playing stuff that was done in the 60's and they're still making $ off it. Same with the oldies stations. Only they play even older stuff.
Is Shakespeare obsolete? How about the weapons of his day, are they obsolete? =)
My damn computer is 7 years old, it's a friggin dinosaur. :lol:
So the Internal Combustion Engine is obsolete?
Heck, every engine out there is a derivative of the original patent. That family is getting SCREWED!!!
Or, perhaps, we ought to let others use works and reinterpret them. Otherwise we would never have had a Shakespeare- he reinterpreted a great number of Greek/Roman plays.
Just because something is still valued doesn't mean we should continue to grant a monopoly over it.
Further, to turn your argument back on you:
If you think about it, it PROMOTES advancement creativity because you design something and know that it will be public property in 20 years there is an added incentive for you to improve on it and patent copyright the improvements or completely redesign this thing create a whole new work so that you yourself make the previous one obsolete out of fashion.
-
Fail. Copyright law existed LONG before Disney, Mate. Maybe not 500 years, but it IS written into the Constitution. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Granted, the time limits have changed, but they are still limited.
Your information is flawed. 120 years applies only to corporate authorship. For individuals it's the author's life plus 70 years -- and that's to protect the heirs of an author who may die soon after the work is created.
Yes, prior to Disney, copyright existed. It was granted for 14 years with a possibility of extension for another 14 years, making 28 years the total possible time under copyright, as passed by the authors of our constitution.
The 120 years was my estimate for 50 years of life + 70 years after death. I'm sorry, that's stupid. I'm all for giving a family time to hold the copyright should the author die, but his lifetime should have no bearing. The copyright should be granted for a limited time, period. If the author survives during that time, great for him. If not, his family will retain the rights.
On what grounds can you suggest that a copyrighted work ought to have a monopoly for a longer period of time than THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE or a drug that cures cancer!?
-
So the Internal Combustion Engine is obsolete?
The original one? Yes, it certainly is. ;)
If you think about it, it PROMOTES creativity because you design something and know that it will be public property in 20 years there is an added incentive for you to improve on it and copyright the improvements or create a whole new work so that you yourself make the previous one out of fashion
Is 70's classic rock "out of fashion"? Not if it can support whole radio stations it isn't. Copyrights and patents are apples and oranges I'm afraid.
-
The original one? Yes, it certainly is. ;)
Is 70's classic rock "out of fashion"? Not if it can support whole radio stations it isn't. Copyrights and patents are apples and oranges I'm afraid.
Yes. 1970's classic rock is "out of fashion." Yes, some people still like it (me, for example), but that doesn't mean it is not "obsolete."
There are plenty of opportunities for niche markets. Why should we grant a lifetime+ monopoly to "artists" that create merely aesthetic value, while we only grant inventors a few years?
We want inventions to have their patent protections fall away so that others may study them and improve them and innovate.
We should want the same for copyright protections. Instead, we've created a situation where someone singing karaoke in their living room or at a wedding are violating the law, even if they're singing songs that are 60 years old. How stupid is that?
-
We want inventions to have their patent protections fall away so that others may study them and improve them and innovate
In most cases someone else WILL study the product and develop improvements on it and then guess what? They get to patent the improvements. Not the case with the copyright. If you redo a previously recorded tune by someone else, you must pay them royalties per copy sold, in turn YOU may copyright YOUR version of the song and now anyone that uses THAT particular arrangement also owes YOU royalties.
we've created a situation where someone singing karaoke in their living room or at a wedding are violating the law,
Also not the case, whoever put out the karaoke material would be responsible for paying royalties on copyrighted tunes that were included which would in turn be passed on to the consumer in the final price.
Again, the point is nearly moot except in the biggest of cases. I was JUST having this conversation with someone who has a lot of songs registered. There are no "copyright police" other than the owner of the copyrights themselves. They can sue you in civil court but as soon as you involve laywers, who wins? The LAWYERS. Not you. ;)
-
Some owners of copyrights DO hire people to search for unathorized users/copiers but again, is it worth it over a few copies? Millions of copies? yes, then it becomes worth it. or maybe someone used one of my recordings in a blockbuster movie without my permission. Worth it again.
-
Is Shakespeare obsolete? How about the weapons of his day, are they obsolete?
Ask the maintenance guy I chased off with a battleaxe.
Considering I was naked and screaming at the time, one could even safely state that not even the tactics of the Celts have become obsolete.
-
:lol:
Fortunately he did not have the presence of mind to reply with something a little more modern. ;)
I have an old Arisaka with bayonet, I've thought about keeping it it the bedroom with bayonet attached just so I can try a good old fashioned banzai charge if the neccesity ever arose. =D
-
In most cases someone else WILL study the product and develop improvements on it and then guess what? They get to patent the improvements. Not the case with the copyright. If you redo a previously recorded tune by someone else, you must pay them royalties per copy sold, in turn YOU may copyright YOUR version of the song and now anyone that uses THAT particular arrangement also owes YOU royalties.
Which is exactly my point. They don't have to pay the original patent holder when they derive improvements to the originial idea. That was my point about the ICE and how people aren't paying royalties to the family of the inventor since everything since is but an improvement on his intellectual property.
Also not the case, whoever put out the karaoke material would be responsible for paying royalties on copyrighted tunes that were included which would in turn be passed on to the consumer in the final price.
Only if you purchase a karaoke machine or other such devices. How about if you just played the song and sang along with it at a wedding? Copyright violation.
Again, the point is nearly moot except in the biggest of cases. I was JUST having this conversation with someone who has a lot of songs registered. There are no "copyright police" other than the owner of the copyrights themselves. They can sue you in civil court but as soon as you involve laywers, who wins? The LAWYERS. Not you. ;)
Unless you successfully re-interpret the song in a way that people like. Then you'll get slammed with the lawyers, posthaste.
In other words, although it's illegal, we allow people to break copyright. But if anyone does anything valuable with the work, we'll attack them. That's the exact opposite of the idea for promoting creativity.
-
How about if you just played the song and sang along with it at a wedding? Copyright violation.
Generally, the establishment you have your wedding at pays ASCAP, BMI and another one a yearly royalty fee so that all copyrighted songs can be reproduced at that establishment under that blanket agreement. If they don't they arte subject to being sued by thise organizations and they make it very clear they have oodles of lawyers on retainer just to ruin your life if'n you don't pay up. My friend says that in reality they have no jurisidiction or way to actually collect but the fear factor they impart is enough to keep most honest folks honest.
-
Unless you successfully re-interpret the song in a way that people like
If you don't do that you won't sell copies and once again the point becomes moot. =D
Which is exactly my point. They don't have to pay the original patent holder when they derive improvements to the originial idea
They can patent the IMPROVEMENT because after all, it is their invention. That doesn't give them any rights to the original product.
-
They can patent the IMPROVEMENT because after all, it is their invention. That doesn't give them any rights to the original product.
And re-interpreting a song can be argued as an "improvement" as people make it popular. You'll still get sued into oblivion by the bloodthirsty copyright lawyers of the record companies if you did that, even to a song 60 years old.
But I could come up with a new invention that improves, say, the polaroid camera that makes people suddenly start wanting film again. I wouldn't have to pay royalties to polaroid to sell my new polaroid+my invention camera.
-
And re-interpreting a song can be argued as an "improvement" as people make it popular. You'll still get sued into oblivion by the bloodthirsty copyright lawyers of the record companies if you did that, even to a song 60 years old.
Not if you pay the royalties. Put it this way, if you are going to substantially change the song. improvement or not, you have to ask the publisher's permission to do so. Even if you do or do NOT change it substantially it is completely subjective for one person vs another whether you have "improved" the song. You might improve the arrangement which causes people to take to your version more than the original but at the basic level you have not done anything to the song itself to improve it over its original form.
But I could come up with a new invention that improves, say, the polaroid camera that makes people suddenly start wanting film again. I wouldn't have to pay royalties to polaroid to sell my new polaroid+my invention camera.
No, because the patent has run out. =D
-
Fortunately he did not have the presence of mind to reply with something a little more modern.
I measured it off later; we were 12 feet apart at the start of my charge, and he was 4 feet in from the door. According to the Tueller Drill, running backward and shutting the door on his way out was pretty much the only intelligent choice. (Too bad there's not a naked, screaming, hairy, axe-wielding smiley)
-
Just a SWAG, one can assume, given the rapid advance in technology, that in 20 years a particular design has become obsolete?
Is the circular saw obsolete? Table saw? Claw hammer?
-
Not if you pay the royalties. Put it this way, if you are going to substantially change the song. improvement or not, you have to ask the publisher's permission to do so. Even if you do or do NOT change it substantially it is completely subjective for one person vs another whether you have "improved" the song. You might improve the arrangement which causes people to take to your version more than the original but at the basic level you have not done anything to the song itself to improve it over its original form.
If people like my version better, than I've done something to improve it. (Otherwise, why do people like it?)
No, because the patent has run out. =D
That's my point. The patent could have been granted in my lifetime AND, in my lifetime, I can use that patented item to make money for myself!
-
Is the circular saw obsolete? Table saw? Claw hammer?
They've all certainly been improved upon since they were first introduced. And I'll bet those improvements were patented by each successive developer. I mean, the first hammer was a rock, then someone tied the rock to a stick, then someone else sharpened the rock and now we have an axe. Then bronze comes along etc etc... Now you want to patent the hammer?
I'll bet stanley has a patent on that newfangled shock absorbing handle they sell. And I'll bet the Chinese already have a knock off on it even though they're violating the patent rights. Of course, US patents don't necessarily apply to them until they try to sell the knockoffs in the US. Ever see a Rilex watch? :laugh:
I still say we're talking apples and oranges trying to compare physical property vs intellectual property.
-
I still say we're talking apples and oranges trying to compare physical property vs intellectual property.
And I still say if you don't think the law is fair -- get it changed. Until then, it IS the law and we're supposed to follow it.
-
I still say we're talking apples and oranges trying to compare physical property vs intellectual property.
Patents aren't physical property. They are intellectual property bound in a physical item (usually).
-
And I still say if you don't think the law is fair -- get it changed. Until then, it IS the law and we're supposed to follow it.
I don't know about the rest of us, but DeSelby and I are arguing that. We're not suggesting that we break it because it's stupid. (As much as I may want to make a new Mickey Mouse movie, for some reason, I don't feel like taking on Disney's fire-breathing lawyers. "Now, shall you deal with ME, O Makattak- and all the powers of HELL!")
-
Forget the lawyers, I'd be worried about this guy a little more... NSFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKgpKH2AH3s
-
Patents aren't physical property. They are intellectual property bound in a physical item (usually).
That doesn't change the differences between what can be copyrighted and what can be patented. Two different animals. Let's go back. So you're saying it's possible for someone to improve "Hamlet" for instance? I'm not thinking too many folks will buy that one.
-
That doesn't change the differences between what can be copyrighted and what can be patented. Two different animals. Let's go back. So you're saying it's possible for someone to improve "Hamlet" for instance? I'm not thinking too many folks will buy that one.
They are fundamentally similar - it's the concept or idea that's protected, not any particular physical manifestation.
A copyright is just a Government monopoly. It's the same as a mining monopoly, a railroad monopoly, or any other such government prohibition on people doing something they otherwise would be perfectly capable of doing with their own property.
I think a rational starting point for copyright reform would be to adopt two basic principles:
1. No copyright should be granted unless the evidence shows that granting copyright under the circumstances, and for any given amount of time, is a proven method of promoting creativity; and
2. Any person bringing a lawsuit to enforce copyright should be required to prove damages, just like any other litigant.
-
They are fundamentally similar - it's the concept or idea that's protected, not any particular physical manifestation.
A copyright is just a Government monopoly. It's the same as a mining monopoly, a railroad monopoly, or any other such government prohibition on people doing something they otherwise would be perfectly capable of doing with their own property.
Doesn't a monopoly require that the monopolizer profit exclusively from the monopoly? How do copyrights produce profit for the government? When did the .gov monopolize mining or railroading?
I think a rational starting point for copyright reform would be to adopt two basic principles:
1. No copyright should be granted unless the evidence shows that granting copyright under the circumstances, and for any given amount of time, is a proven method of promoting creativity; and
Why? You seem to forget the fact that people gotta eat, people SHOULD profit from their work and if the work that provides for you is of an intellectual nature protecting it so that it can continue to provide for you is a basic right I would think.
2. Any person bringing a lawsuit to enforce copyright should be required to prove damages, just like any other litigant.
I do believe that if the plaintiff can somehow prove monetary damages they would certainly introduce evidence to that effect but I believe proving that the defendant was in fact selling unauthorized copies would indicate some kind of damage was incurred. Then it's up to the court to decide how much.
Besides, noone is barred from reproducing anybody elses work. They are only required to pay the originator a fee to compensate that originator for use of his or her idea(s). The laws provide a legal basis for them to do so.I don't have a problem with that. From my perspective I'd argue that the patent people should lobby for changing the law to allow for longer patent length. 20 years does seem short but then again, in 20 years your invetion might join the ranks of old POS so nobody really cares about reproducing it anymore, they're all on to newr and better things MEANWHILE. I could copy Hamlet, put it on a shelf and chances are someone will buy it. I'm starting to think thast's not a bad idea. :laugh:
-
from the front page over at Yahoo...
The camcorder is one of many tech devices that are quickly becoming obsolete.
I got an idea, you start a camcorder manufacturing company, I'll start a company printing out of copyright classic books and we'll see how sales go. ;)
-
Exclusive profit = copyright. The .gov granted monopolies in past times (as did many European governments) to promote industrial development. Copyrights and patents are the exact same economic device.
The key feature of a copyright isn't the ability to profit from your work - it's the ability to ban other people from doing the same work without paying you. They can't produce the same book, play the same song, or draw the same picture even if they have the means and inclination because you have a monopoly over that expression.
Note that copyright owners don't have to licence anyone to reproduce - they could just decide they don't want anyone else to have that knowledge/work and keep it from the world. It is not a compensatory system; there's usually nothing tangible enough that could even be used to justify a compensation claim.
-
The key feature of a copyright isn't the ability to profit from your work - it's the ability to ban other people from doing the same work without paying you.
I disagree, it most certainly is the main feature of a copyright. It is a copyright's only purpose. Noone is banned from using my work, they are only required to share with me the profit that THEY drive from MY work. And most people have no problem with that. Going back to the whole people gotta eat thing.
You seem to be grasping at anything that might seem like it remains as a way to prove your point while ignoring the parts of my argument that are harder to refute. Again, camcorders = becoming obsolete vs Hamlet = timeless. Apples do not equal oranges no matter how hard you try to make them do so.
I do not want you obsolete POS camcorder and neither does anyone else therefore I have no desire to copy and sell them. "Catcher in the Rye" however I would certainly both buy and consider reprinting and selling because people WILL buy it. (I chose "CitR" this time because I'm guessing the copyright is still good on that one.)
I say again, your argument seems to lean me more in the direction of wanting longer patent periods rather than shorter copyrights. ;)
-
I disagree, it most certainly is the main feature of a copyright. It is a copyright's only purpose. Noone is banned from using my work, they are only required to share with me the profit that THEY drive from MY work. And most people have no problem with that. Going back to the whole people gotta eat thing.
You seem to be grasping at anything that might seem like it remains as a way to prove your point while ignoring the parts of my argument that are harder to refute. Again, camcorders = becoming obsolete vs Hamlet = timeless. Apples do not equal oranges no matter how hard you try to make them do so.
I do not want you obsolete POS camcorder and neither does anyone else therefore I have no desire to copy and sell them. "Catcher in the Rye" however I would certainly both buy and consider reprinting and selling because people WILL buy it. (I chose "CitR" this time because I'm guessing the copyright is still good on that one.)
I say again, your argument seems to lean me more in the direction of wanting longer patent periods rather than shorter copyrights. ;)
Ok, if Hamlet is timeless, why aren't the heirs of Shakespeare getting royalties?
Also, improving Hamlet: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086373/
You don't seem to be grasping that we already agree with your argument that people should be allowed to profit from their intellectual property. There's absolutely no argument (from me or DeSelby) that copyright should exist.
We are arguing that ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS (life+ 70 years) is far, far, far, too long. Would not most of the profit from an idea be extracted in 14 years, and, if not, definitely in 28? (This is how the founding fathers set it up, 14 years of copyright with another 14 years available with a one-time renewal.) We stifle creativity with the stupidity of how long we lock up works under copyright for over a hundred years.
So, yes, people should profit from their works. No, they shouldn't have control of their idea FOREVER.
-
Well, I argue it is not too long. Can I still print and sell Catcher in the Rye today and expect it to sell? Yes I can! Can I produce a camcorder now and expect it to sell? Not necessarily.
Um, the copyright on Hamlet ran out a couple (hundred) years ago.
related article and you're going to love this one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/business/media/28eminem.html?_r=1&ref=music
“This is life-changing,” said Joyce Moore, the wife of Sam Moore of Sam & Dave, the duo that had hits in the 1960s like “Soul Man.” “If we were being paid a nickel a download, as opposed to 35 cents — that’s a huge amount of money for a guy that is on a fixed income or has to run up and down the road at 75 years old.”
Although current hits get more attention, older music still represents a huge portion of overall music sales, and over time durable hits can rack up significant sales. Last year there were 648.5 million downloads of “catalog” singles in the United States, meaning songs more than 18 months old, compared with 523 million for current tracks, according to Nielsen SoundScan.
How about older camcorders? Are they outproducing the newfangled stuff? Why shouldn't the owner and heirs benefit? So you can instead?
Sorry Charley, grab a TS chit and take it to the Chaplain. ;)
-
Better yet, take 4 years like I did and put yourself together a piece of intellectual property, then tell me again how you feel about copyright laws.
-
How about older camcorders? Are they outproducing the newfangled stuff? Why shouldn't the owner and heirs benefit? So you can instead?
Sorry Charley, grab a TS chit and take it to the Chaplain. ;)
Actually, Hamlet was never UNDER copyright. Many people argue that we'd never have a Shakespeare without copyright, but history argues against them. We HAD Shakespeare without copyright.
You seem fixated on computer technology. They are becoming obsolete quickly, yes. Most technology does not work that way. For example, the bobber in your toilet. Has that had some massive technological advancement that I missed, making the old one obsolete? Yet, it's not under patent protections any longer. The heirs of that inventor are getting SCREWED!
I know you've convinced yourself that your type of intellectual property is SO MUCH MORE VALUABLE than those patent holders who can't create anything timeless, but you're wrong. The purpose of copyrights and patents is not to give the holders the right to extract the entire value of intellectual property. It is to encourage more innovation and creativity.
I'm curious as to why 28 years wouldn't be long enough for you?
-
Better yet, take 4 years like I did and put yourself together a piece of intellectual property, then tell me again how you feel about copyright laws.
Hmmm... 4 years of work, 28 years to profit off it...
I'd take that deal.
-
You must have missed the part about taking your TS chit to the Chaplain. ;)
-
The key feature of a copyright isn't the ability to profit from your work - it's the ability to ban other people from doing the same work without paying you. They can't produce the same book, play the same song, or draw the same picture even if they have the means and inclination because you have a monopoly over that expression.
You seem to forget that if I hold a copyright, I have already done the work. Why should I NOT be allowed to earn a return for MY labor? Nobody is prevented from printing copies of my work, they just have to pay me a few pennies for each copy they sell. Profit? Wake up! The publisher makes a much greater profit on each copy of a book sold than the author.
Play the same song? The copyright doesn't exist because someone played a song. The copyright exists because someone WROTE a song, and should be compensated when other people make money from using the author's creation. The Beatles wrote most or all of their own material, but many other musical artists don't. For example, te song "Early Mornin' Rain" was written by Gordon Lightfoot. He performs it, but I'd suggest that the song is much more famous for having been performed by Peter, Paul and Mary. It was featured on at least one and probably two of their albums, as well as in many of their live performances. THEY were paid for every copy of the albums sold, and THEY were paid for every concert at which they sang that song. Why shouldn't they pass along a few pennies of their PROFIT to the guy who actually wrote the song?
-
I need a cover pic for a car enthusiast magazine. Hey Monkeyleg, that crappy old Jaguar is obsolete and you've probably already made your money off of that pic so I think I'll use your pic. I know I could take as good a pic with my point and shoot but hey yours is already out there and you won't mind right? I asked some jerk that calls himself a professional and he wanted $4000 for one stinking cover photo. Like he thought up the film camera or something! ;/
In a serious vein, that is probably one of the finest pieces of car photography I've ever seen. I don't know that life +70 is unreasonable. Maybe life + 20-50 if you wanted to shorten it. Maybe. Check Jill Faulkner Summers. Nobody really bought her old man's stuff while he was alive. She is not really living high on the hog. I know she did not produce the work, but she certainly had a bigger investment in it than say some Chinese book printer. My wife published a small book of poetry when she was 16. She is not known yet as a fiction or literary writer and of course no one buys unknown books of poetry. So when she gets her big break in the next two decades should an unrelated 3rd party be able to cash in on her name recognition and re-print that book? That's how a 14 year copyright would go down. Maybe we wait for one of those overnight music stars, you know the ones that wrote songs for 25 years before we heard them on the radio. Lets go find their obscure stuff from 2 decades ago and sell it because surely they made money on it by now right?
Here's a byproduct of too short protections. And I'm sure Pharmacology will hop in to correct me. Drug patents are ridiculously short. They are for 20 years but are applied for prior to clinical trials. So, a company spends ten years of FDA fiery hoop jumping and 800 million to get a drug to market. They now have 10 years to recover their investment, cost of promotion, actual cost of production and distribution, and some of that evil capitalist profit. And poof, drugs cost $3 a pill. Then you throw in the fact that due to worldwide socialist medicine that they aren't exactly pulling down huge profits in many parts of the world.
So yay, cheap generic drugs. The copying thief did no R&D, took no shots from the government over product safety, didn't even have to pay to get the word out about this wonder drug, but boy can they sell it. Quick, let's lobby Congress to dilute packaging laws so we don't have to label for country of origin. And you know the sad part? Due to what I think is too much gov't regulation, too many malpractice land sharks, and a short patent I end up often buying generic OTC because I'm broke. I know it's wrong, but I do it.
-
A copyright is just a Government monopoly.
Uh, no. Ownership != monopoly.
Copyright isn't a monopoly any more than home ownership is a monopoly.
And ALL property is protected by the government one way or another, so nothing special about copyright in that regard.
-
Hmmm... 4 years of work, 28 years to profit off it...
I'd take that deal.
Some real world experience in the engineering world my correct that opinion.
:P
-
One of the reasons I did what I did was so that maybe there'd be a little something left behind by me that will help my kids and their kids after I'm gone. So yep, I sure do agree with my heirs being able to continue to profit from my work long after I'm gone and for as long as possible. You do know they only RECENTLY boosted that from life plus 50 to life plus 70 but that was because peoples is living longer these days.
-
Uh, no. Ownership != monopoly.
Copyright isn't a monopoly any more than home ownership is a monopoly.
And ALL property is protected by the government one way or another, so nothing special about copyright in that regard.
No, what is special about it is that it is non-rivalrous. If I were to use your intellectual property, I do not prevent you nor anyone else from using it.
That's WHY we have special laws for intellectual property. Otherwise, isn't possession nine-tenths of the law? Oh, that's right, everyone on earth could still possess the same intellectual property at once.
The monopoly is granted on the rights to use that property.
Some real world experience in the engineering world my correct that opinion.
:P
Maybe so, but I'm still curious as to why 28 years isn't long enough.
For example, does anyone know why "It's a Wonderful Life" is one of the most popular movies around Christmastime now?
-
Because people still watch it. But then again, people still flush the toilet too. =D
-
No, what is special about it is that it is non-rivalrous. If I were to use your intellectual property, I do not prevent you or anyone else from using it.
Sez you.
If it's my property, I will decide whether or not your use of it interferes with mine, not you. You do not get to arbitrarily decide that what you're doing with my stuff is really no bother to me and that I won't have a problem with it.
Crikes, this is as bad as the leftists who think they know better than me how I should spend my own money, or how I should live my life. News flash: What's best for me and mine is not subject to outside opinion.
That's WHY we have special laws for intellectual property. Otherwise, isn't possession nine-tenths of the law? Oh, that's right, everyone on earth could still possess the same intellectual property at once.
The monopoly is granted on the rights to use that property.
Property != possession.
You're an economist, so you should understand that ownership isn't merely about possession, and that neither possession nor ownership represent monopoly.
If possession or exclusive use make for a monopoly, then I exercise a monopoly every time I get into my car or decide where I'm going to drive in it.
-
You monopolize your CAR!?! You bastard! :mad:
:angel:
-
If it's my property, I will decide whether or not your use of it interferes with mine, not you. You do not get to arbitrarily decide that what you're doing with my stuff is really no bother to me and that I won't have a problem with it.
musicians fir example are very serious about this including things like TV using their songs in particular commercials they may not care for and going back to the whole you need their permission to modify their songs. For example Wierd Al must get prior permission to parody and release all those tunes he's done over. He can record a parody but must get pernmission before he can release it.
-
Sez you.
If it's my property, I will decide whether or not your use of it interferes with mine, not you. You do not get to arbitrarily decide that what you're doing with my stuff is really no bother to me and that I won't have a problem with it.
I don't think you know what non-rivalrous means.
Seriously, I'm not trying to screw people out of being rewarded for their intellectual labor. I just don't understand why the intellectual labor of songs, books, pictures, and the like are SO MUCH MORE VALUABLE than the intellectual labor of designing motors, wheels, gears, drugs, and the like.
We grant 20 years to people's intellectual labor in patent law. Why is 28 years of copyright far too little? Patent owners don't get life+ 70 years. Should all drugs be under patent for 120 years? The drug designers invested a great amount of time, why shouldn't they be able to extract the full value of their intellectual labor?
Is it because we realize patent work actually is important and although we grant copyright holders so much longer, it's only because we know their work isn't all that important and we can thus indulge this as a society?
-
We are arguing that ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS (life+ 70 years) is far, far, far, too long. Would not most of the profit from an idea be extracted in 14 years, and, if not, definitely in 28? (This is how the founding fathers set it up, 14 years of copyright with another 14 years available with a one-time renewal.) We stifle creativity with the stupidity of how long we lock up works under copyright for over a hundred years.
So, yes, people should profit from their works. No, they shouldn't have control of their idea FOREVER.
120 years is a bit short of "forever." And only you seems to be advancing the notion that life + 70 years equals 120. It could probably more easily be 71.
And how does a copyright in any way stifle creativity? I'm an architect, so my designs are protected (in theory) by copyright. So I design a bank branch. My design for that branch of that bank is copyrighted -- either I own the rights, or I assign them to my client. How does this in any way restrict another architect from creatively coming up with a different design for a branch of a different bank?
You seem to not understand what a copyright is. You wrote, "No, they shouldn't have control of their idea FOREVER." Under copyright law, the copyright holder doesn't have any control over the idea. What is copyrighted is the specific expression of the idea. Take the cowboy author, Louis Lamour. He wrote probably hundreds of books, all with pretty much the same basic idea. Other authors, such as Zane Grey, also wrote a lot of books with the same underlying idea. Louis' copyrights didn't in anyway prevent any other author from writing a book about a wandering cowpoke who saved a town from a greedy railroad baron. All his copyrights protected were the specific words he used in specific books. And Louis Lamour is a good example of why copyright terms were extended. He lived long enough to actually see the copyrights expire on some of his early short stories, and to see unauthorized editions of HIS short stories being printed and sold by small publishers who didn't pay him a penny for using his creations. Are you going to argue that that's fair?
-
Yup, if I crap the bed tomoorow that's exactly what I'd get, 71 years. ;)
We grant 20 years to people's intellectual labor in patent law. Why is 28 years of copyright far too little?
If I were to step outside of the box a bit I might say that the intellectual property people lobbied themselves a better deal? That IS an interesting question. It is what it is but WHY?
-
120 years is a bit short of "forever." And only you seems to be advancing the notion that life + 70 years equals 120. It could probably more easily be 71.
I am. Given that life expectany is 75+ and the most valuable intellectual property (and also, the most popular) tend to be created by people in their 20's and 30's, 120 years is a pretty good estimate of the normal length of copyright.
I'm using it as an estimate, though. If you'll note, I keep coming back to 28 years as my suggestion (deferring to the founding fathers), so even 70 would be far too long.
-
If I were to step outside of the box a bit I might say that the intellectual property people lobbied themselves a better deal? That IS an interesting question. It is what it is but WHY?
That is exactly the case. DeSelby has it completely right here:
Actually, after a certain amount of time, yes - if copyright law were 500 years ago what it is today we might not have shakespeare or any number of classics of our language.
The purpose of copyright was originally to let people recover the year or two or three writing - not to give absolute legal control over a story that, over time, might take a thousand different paths in a culture.
The amazing thing is that before all the corporate lawyers got involved, the position I've just put forth was uncontroversial. If you went back 500 years and tried to stop someone from singing your song, you'd have been treated like a child crying "don't copy me" at law.
Copyright is not something that's traditionally been treated as property. It was invented by the same people who brought us Government monopolies, and has become what it is today largely because of the Disney corporation's demands. It ought to be treated as such.
-
Ahhhh, the google, ask it anything...
I haven't read it and don't have time right now cause I gots ta get going!
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Copyright-Patents-915/2010/1/copyright-trademark-v-patent.htm
-
That is exactly the case. DeSelby has it completely right here:
Copyrights existed long before Disney, no?
-
Copyrights existed long before Disney, no?
A few hundred years or so ... but who's counting when you need to make a dramatic point?
-
I don't think you know what non-rivalrous means.
Seriously, I'm not trying to screw people out of being rewarded for their intellectual labor. I just don't understand why the intellectual labor of songs, books, pictures, and the like are SO MUCH MORE VALUABLE than the intellectual labor of designing motors, wheels, gears, drugs, and the like.
It isn't about economic rivalry or the consumablility of a resource. It's about who gets to decide what the owner's purpose will be for his property, and whether or not someone else appropriating his rights as owner interferes with his use of his property.
You may not feel that you're interfering with his property when you use or distribute it illicitly, but your opinion mattes for squat. It ain't your property, and it ain't your decision to make how it will be used.
I tell you what, why don't I come by your place today and paint a great big billboard advertisement for my company right across the front face of your house. Personally, I think your use for your property is as a place to eat and sleep, and I don't think my gaudy advertising interferes with your usage. A little bit of extra paint certainly doesn't consume your house as a good, so we're not getting into issues of economic rivalry here. And if you don't like, well, too bad. You're just the owner and you don't get a say in the matter.
-
A few hundred years or so ... but who's counting when you need to make a dramatic point?
Because clearly the scope of copyright haven't been redefined by legislation since then!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F2%2F2f%2FCopyright_term.svg&hash=839d9bb7ea78fc29a3147c1956c3861c9b0b3b96)
-
DeSelby is correct. The sole reason why copyright is at 120 years is due to Steamboat Willie (1928). Each and every time Steamboat Willie has faced public domain, the copyright has been extended via the Mickey Mouse Protection Act of 1998.
We can argue about the semantics of copyright all day long. It however, as it often does, boil down to the Constitution which supersedes all other US law.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The point of copyright, patents, et al is NOT to guarantee you a paycheck off of your IP for the rest of your life, property rights, artistic integrity or any bloody thing else. It is to promote the progress of the science and useful arts. Anyone here may dislike or disagree with this intent. Fine. Go change the US Constitution if you don't like what it says, but don't pretend it's not being clear as day. Don't pull a Brady Bunch tactic and try to deliberately misunderstand the wording.
If copyright laws are not promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts, then it is illegal and needs to be scrapped.
As for the current time ranges, I'm not sure if limited Times could be validly considered "longer than YOUR life expectation". Technically heat death of the universe minus a day is a limited time, thus we should probably use the term within the scope of human mortality. Is it a limited time when it's longer than you will realistically spend on this planet?
-
Headless, you decided that an idea is property how again??? It was not recognized as such until people figured out that monopolies could be useful regulatory tools to promote development.
It's an odd class of property that can be stolen without you ever finding out about it, ever. That's one key difference between IP and traditional property.
Mak's voice is his, yet you don't want to allow him to use it as he sees fit whenever someone else made the same sounds in sequence first. That's an example that clearly distinguishes IP and justifies viewing it through its traditional classification as a Government regulation designed to achieve planned economic outcomes.
IP is not like a house; it's a government granted right to tell other people how they can or cannot use their own property, bodies, and talents.
-
It isn't about economic rivalry or the consumablility of a resource. It's about who gets to decide what the owner's purpose will be for his property, and whether or not someone else appropriating his rights as owner interferes with his use of his property.
You may not feel that you're interfering with his property when you use or distribute it illicitly, but your opinion mattes for squat. It ain't your property, and it ain't your decision to make how it will be used.
If I may, you're arguing against something I've never advocated. Copyright law should be followed. It's simply stupidly long now and I advocate changing the laws. I do not, nor to I advocate, distributing or receiving copyrighted materials illicitly.
I advocate lowering the copyright term to some lower, saner time period. As I said, the founders (in 1790) passed copyright law as granting 14 years with a renewal available for another 14 years. I think that should be plenty. Life + 70 years is far too long and strangles, rather than promotes, creativity.
-
DeSelby is correct. The sole reason why copyright is at 120 years is due to Steamboat Willie (1928). Each and every time Steamboat Willie has faced public domain, the copyright has been extended via the Mickey Mouse Protection Act of 1998.
We can argue about the semantics of copyright all day long. It however, as it often does, boil down to the Constitution which supersedes all other US law.
The point of copyright, patents, et al is NOT to guarantee you a paycheck off of your IP for the rest of your life. It is to promote the progress of the science and useful arts. Anyone here may dislike or disagree with this intent. Fine. Go change the US Constitution. Don't pull a Brady Bunch tactic and try to deliberately misunderstand the wording. If copyright is not promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts, then it is illegal and needs to be scrapped. I'm not sure if limited Times could be validly considered realistically a life's duration. Technically heat death of the universe minus a day is a limited time, thus we should probably use the term within the scope of human mortality. Is it a limited time if it's longer than you will realistically spend on this planet?
The Constitution leaves it up to congress to determine just how long that limited time should be, and that's exactly what congress has been doing via its legislation.
I grok that you don't like how long the periods are, nor the fact that congress sometimes uses it's legal authorities to extend the periods. But you're not liking of it doesn't mean its a violation of the constitution.
-
Part of the problem is that people used to understand what copyright actually was - a market regulation to be implemented only for a specific purpose. That's why it wasn't abused and didn't masquerade as its own financial/corporate religion.
It's now been transfigured into some special kind of property granted by holy writ; there're more resources given, and greater legal protections offered, to protect copyright than to protect people from unfair foreclosures on their own homes. That's just backwards, and it screams "corporate manipulation of the system" like nothing else.
A plain reading of the Constitution makes congressional authority to grant these monopolies clearly related to promoting development. So I'll repeat my outlook for copyright policy: if an IP law can't be demonstrated to promote development, it ought to be repealed.
-
The Constitution leaves it up to congress to determine just how long that limited time should be, and that's exactly what congress has been doing via its legislation.
I grok that you don't like how long the periods are, nor the fact that congress sometimes uses it's legal authorities to extend the periods. But you're not liking of it doesn't mean its a violation of the constitution.
Sigh. That was the entire point of my post. That my opinion or preferences, nor anyone else's, are not the litmus test. The provided litmus test, in the Constitution, is the controlling 'opinion'. If 120 or life + 70 is promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, it is legal. If it is not, it is not legal.
Congress can and does pass whatever they like, and that is not a statement of how Constitutionally valid something is. Congress passes unconstitutional laws on a regular basis. That is a matter for the Courts.
-
But the original constitutional copyright clause can be applied to a timeframe in which an artist can/should be paid for there work.
After all, artists got to eat.
And a good artist who can sell work should be capable of earning his money, which would encorage him/her to make more art.
Part of the reason that the guy who created Calvin and Hobbes quit was copyright violations on his work. He wasn't getting paid for his images, and got upset at not being able to control the images being used in ways he felt were distastful and wrong, so he quit producing.
Also, in regards to shakespeare, he used classic stories which were well known and so old that to find heirs to acknowledge would have been ludicrious. Same goes for him. We can't say who his heirs ARE.
At the sametime, we can now reliably research who's desended from whom, and I would say that intellectial property should become avalible to public domain once the original creators relations can no longer give a reasonable answer about how he/she would want their work used.
I mean, no one can say that shakespeare would not approve of the adaptation of Taming Of the Shrew done as a modern teen flick, but i'm pretty sure that j.d. Salinger and his heirs could give a pretty good account of why his work should not, and when they're all dead, whoever wants can play with it.
I think copyright is less about money as it is creative control. If I wrote a song, I can safely say that I would get nasty if someone wanted to use it to sell something I hate. Because its my expression, and I don't want to be associated with such things.
Thats what I think should be protected.
The how to do it part, I freely admit that I have no clue how to word it.
-
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Think about that phrase again. Almost could be interpreted as .gov LIMITING the time you can hold a patent or copyright. In other words, yes it's yours but not forever. If Ditney is smart enough to lobby their way into longer and lonegr copyright durations, more power to them. much as I hate to say that about Ditney. If you don't like it, go lobby for change I guess.
-
Then again maybe not. =D
-
So you guys are saying every idea that becomes realized in one form or another should immediately become part of the public domain for all to profit from. Sounds like a hard sell to me.
-
ok, another question, looking at this again:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
How DOES securing the rights of the authors and inventors PROMOTE the progress of Science and useful arts?
-
Two interesting reads:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_in_Music_Licensing_Act_of_1998
<--- this one is particularly interesting since ASCAP harrased the hell out of a friend of mine for $600 a year to cover his tiny little coffee shop. Well after 1998, those thieving bastards. Too bad all of us were too stupid to knw about the law. =|
-
So you guys are saying every idea that becomes realized in one form or another should immediately become part of the public domain for all to profit from. Sounds like a hard sell to me.
You are deliberately misrepresenting what I have clarified repeatedly.
-
Uh, no I'm not, I'm asking a question. If your answer is no then that would have been a better way to reply.
So you're saying yes we should have these exclusive rights but you think they way they are now the duration is too long for your tastes. yes, or no?
-
Theother question I asked remains unaswered. How does protecting my rights further progress and creativity in my field (for example)?
-
Uh, no I'm not, I'm asking a question. If your answer is no then that would have been a better way to reply.
So you're saying yes we should have these exclusive rights but you think they way they are now the duration is too long for your tastes. yes, or no?
A question has a question mark at the end of it, as well as a phrasing like: "So ARE you guys saying...?"
To answer your question:
Seriously, I'm not trying to screw people out of being rewarded for their intellectual labor. I just don't understand why the intellectual labor of songs, books, pictures, and the like are SO MUCH MORE VALUABLE than the intellectual labor of designing motors, wheels, gears, drugs, and the like.
We grant 20 years to people's intellectual labor in patent law. Why is 28 years of copyright far too little? Patent owners don't get life+ 70 years. Should all drugs be under patent for 120 years? The drug designers invested a great amount of time, why shouldn't they be able to extract the full value of their intellectual labor?
Is it because we realize patent work actually is important and although we grant copyright holders so much longer, it's only because we know their work isn't all that important and we can thus indulge this as a society?
-
Theother question I asked remains unaswered. How does protecting my rights further progress and creativity in my field (for example)?
There are no rights being protected by copyright or patent. Rights are being granted. Specifically, the right to exclusive profit, for a time, from an idea or expression.
This is advancing the arts and science by encouraging people to innovate and express new ideas. This eoncouragement towards innovation must be balanced against the loss to society of a public good. As such, we have struck a balance with patents where the innovator, no matter how valuable his idea, gets 20 years to profit from that idea. Afterwards, the whole of society gets the benefit.
In copyright we have succumbed to interest group politics and granted an insane amount of time for sole profit owing to the lobbying of the Disney corporation. Given those supporting copyright have no problem with this lobbying for their benefit, what reason should I have to believe copyright will eventually be granted in perpetuity?
Why have a limit to copyright at all?
-
Pardon my mispunctuation. A period works there too. It is a statement of what I thought |I was perceiving.
Anyhoo, yea ok, so we answered that, because Ditney lobbied it so and you won't find a lot of intellectual property onwers arguing against it, why should they? You don't like it? Take up the crusade. As I stated earlier, I lean in the direction of longer patent duration myself. Either it's the obsolescence thing or they need better lobbyists but they're getting the short end of the stick. Maybe they should hire Ditney.
-
Looks like our simulposts match right up. :laugh:
-
Pardon my mispunctuation. A period works there too. It is a statement of what I thought |I was perceiving.
Anyhoo, yea ok, so we answered that, because Ditney lobbied it so and you won't find a lot of intellectual property onwers arguing against it, why should they? You don't like it? Take up the crusade. As I stated earlier, I lean in the direction of longer patent duration myself. Either it's the obsolescence thing or they need better lobbyists but they're getting the short end of the stick. Maybe they should hire Ditney.
Concentrated benefit and dispersed costs.
I.e. the problem of interest group politics.
-
BUT, that still doesn't answer the question HOW DOES this promote creativity etc etc? How? I have an idea but I want to hear what others have to say.
-
BUT, that still doesn't answer the question HOW DOES this promote creativity etc etc? How? I have an idea but I want to hear what others have to say.
Umm... it promotes creativity because it rewards creativity.
We just must be careful we don't reward it beyond the value of innovation and creativity to society.
That is, just because it is good to reward something doesn't mean the rewards should be infinite. There are costs to granting a copyright and we must not ignore the costs and only look at the benefits. That's what bad economists (politicians) do.
-
Umm... it promotes creativity because it rewards creativity.
There you go. Consider MY incentive to create was based on my desire to hopefully provide for my children and even their children. What do you say then? If it ended when I died I'd be more inclined to spend my time and "disposable" money on something like a Harley. >:D
So here we have an example of the lengthy copyright laws both promoting creativity and preventing another 50 something from becoming road pizza. ;)
This is bad?
-
Almost forgot... SFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxkdmL3iMCY
-
There you go. Consider MY incentive to create was based on my desire to hopefully provide for my children and even their children. What do you say then? If it ended when I died I'd be more inclined to spend my time and "disposable" money on something like a Harley. >:D
So here we have an example of the lengthy copyright laws both promoting creativity and preventing another 50 something from becoming road pizza. ;)
This is bad?
I note you ignored the entire rest of my post which addressed the point I forsaw you would make.
-
I don't think I did.
I'm not sure what point it is you have forseen either.
-
ok, another question, looking at this again:
How DOES securing the rights of the authors and inventors PROMOTE the progress of Science and useful arts?
By encouraging smart people to do smart things, of course.
Let's pretend I'm a smart person. (I know, that's a stretch, but let's pretend.) I have an idea -- be it for a book, or a play, or a song, or a great invention. Doesn't matter what. But it's a great idea.
And there's no such thing as copyright protection. Anything that's created is immediately available in the public domain. So why the hell should I bother to spend a year or two years or five years of my life creating my creative masterpiece when I won't realize any return from it because as soon as I release it, anybody who wants to can rip off copies and sell them (or give them away) without my having any say in the matter? There's no point in my being creative, so instead of doing something creative, I'll just take a 9:00 to 5:00 job selling washing machines and ranges at Sears.
That's how securing the creator's rights promotes the progress of arts and sciences.
-
Hawkmoon, your scenario isn't imaginary - you could be Shakespeare, galileo, Aristotle, or any number of people who innovated in ways not matched even today. The ironic part is that if there had been strict copyright systems in those days, we might have lost all that knowledge. Incessant copying is the only reason it was preserved.
-
You're a lot smarter than you look? =D
And there's no such thing as copyright protection. Anything that's created is immediately available in the public domain. So why the hell should I bother to spend a year or two years or five years of my life creating my creative masterpiece when I won't realize any return from it because as soon as I release it, anybody who wants to can rip off copies and sell them (or give them away) without my having any say in the matter? There's no point in my being creative, so instead of doing something creative, I'll just take a 9:00 to 5:00 job selling washing machines and ranges at Sears
Exactly, and what makes most people happy most? Money. Reward.
I thought a bit more about the part of maks post I may not have given as much weight as I could have. Why should I EVER have to give up rights to what is essentially my property. I'd vote infinite. What about family heirlooms? Passed down from generation to generation, generating value over time. At some point should the item suddenly become part of the public domain and my family lose it's valuable heirloom? Isn't a work of art an heirloom as well? Paintings certainly are.
Shakespeare is a great writer back there whever he lived, his stuff is all copyrighted. His heirs are going to forgo their rights and let his books fade into obscurity losing all that potential income. Seems highly unlikely.
I think it's more about courtesy. If my idea helps you make money you should be courteous enough to WANT to give me a little piece. Me, personally. I almost feel like it's a friggin honor to say I'm responsible for putting a few bucks into the pockets of the families of oll those long ago writers. Hoagy Carmichael? yea, I don't mind sharing a little of the scratch with him at all. ;)
-
What if Disney lost the income from the Mickey Mouse copyright as well as the others they have and the subsequent loss of income caused the company to collapse? This would be good? I can see their point in lobbying like hell for extensions.
-
What if Disney lost the income from the Mickey Mouse copyright as well as the others they have and the subsequent loss of income caused the company to collapse? This would be good? I can see their point in lobbying like hell for extensions.
IIRC, they've made most of their money off of works with expired copyrights. Their zealousness in demanding that the rights to their stuff be extended amuses me.
Also, their rights to use Peter Pan are in some dispute in the UK. Over there, Disney is fighting an orphanage. :laugh:
-
Or,,,
Wouldn't the thought that if you somehow turned an idea into a timeless hit that would guarantee your family's solvency for eternity a pretty good incentive to try and be creative?
-
IIRC, they've made most of their money off of works with expired copyrights. Their zealousness in demanding that the rights to their stuff be extended amuses me.
Also, their rights to use Peter Pan are in some dispute in the UK. Over there, Disney is fighting an orphanage. :laugh:
I was completely unaware of all this till this whole thread here so I have no idea how zealous they have been. They are most definitely based on the bottom line, there is no question there. My thought is that knowing they will take a hit in profit from loss of a patent pretty well frosts their asses. Mickey especially, major hit I would think. I bet they have it all calc-ed out.
So the orphanage had Peter Pan as their logo first and big mean old Disney is trying to bully them out of it? Bastards... :laugh:
I remember them in the 70's going after Carvel for making Disney character ice cream cakes. I made many unauthorized copies of them all. The one day "the letter" came and the molds went away. :O
-
Peter Pan was not a Disney creation was he? Crap, now I gotta go look up Peter Pan. ;/
=D
-
yea, by all means read THIS and let's talk some more about limitations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/dec/28/gtormondst
-
I remember them in the 70's going after Carvel for making Disney character ice cream cakes. I made many unauthorized copies of them all. The one day "the letter" came and the molds went away.
I'll let you guess what were the #1 and #2 sellers out of all the characters. =D
-
Sure,, I can have Great-great-great Grandpa's Winchester 1873 but I can't make any money from the book he wrote about the old west that still sells because the general printers are flooding the market with cheap copies that I can't afford to compete with and I get nothing from the bastards. Meanwhile the wife has been feeling poorly lately and we've been spending more money on medicine lately and then last week lightning hit the barn, set it on fire and killed the mule wen it burned down.
I'll be copyrighting that in the morning so don't get any ideas. ;)
[popcorn]
-
...and now the horse and the dog are sad and won't do much of nothing because they miss the mule. It ain't been good around here lately. Just sayin'... :angel:
Yes, I need to find some work and get off this damn computer! ;)
-
Exactly, and what makes most people happy most? Money. Reward.
I thought a bit more about the part of maks post I may not have given as much weight as I could have. Why should I EVER have to give up rights to what is essentially my property. I'd vote infinite. What about family heirlooms? Passed down from generation to generation, generating value over time. At some point should the item suddenly become part of the public domain and my family lose it's valuable heirloom? Isn't a work of art an heirloom as well? Paintings certainly are.
Shakespeare is a great writer back there whever he lived, his stuff is all copyrighted. His heirs are going to forgo their rights and let his books fade into obscurity losing all that potential income. Seems highly unlikely.
I think it's more about courtesy. If my idea helps you make money you should be courteous enough to WANT to give me a little piece. Me, personally. I almost feel like it's a friggin honor to say I'm responsible for putting a few bucks into the pockets of the families of oll those long ago writers. Hoagy Carmichael? yea, I don't mind sharing a little of the scratch with him at all. ;)
Umm... it promotes creativity because it rewards creativity.
We just must be careful we don't reward it beyond the value of innovation and creativity to society.
That is, just because it is good to reward something doesn't mean the rewards should be infinite. There are costs to granting a copyright and we must not ignore the costs and only look at the benefits. That's what bad economists (politicians) do.
-
Hawkmoon, your scenario isn't imaginary - you could be Shakespeare, galileo, Aristotle, or any number of people who innovated in ways not matched even today. The ironic part is that if there had been strict copyright systems in those days, we might have lost all that knowledge. Incessant copying is the only reason it was preserved.
Right. Shakespeare was probably Victorian London's most popular playright. I'm certain if there had been a copyright law in effect NONE of his plays or poems would have survived his death.
-
I'm thinking it's a testament to the quality of his work?
-
That is, just because it is good to reward something doesn't mean the rewards should be infinite. There are costs to granting a copyright and we must not ignore the costs and only look at the benefits.
What costs? other than your sharing what amounts to a very small portion of your profit from my idea somehow costs something? Somehow creativity suffers? I'm not buying it.
-
Right. Shakespeare was probably Victorian London's most popular playright. I'm certain if there had been a copyright law in effect NONE of his plays or poems would have survived his death.
1. Shakespeare predated Queen Victoria by centuries. "Elizabethan" is more accurate.
2. There are plenty of folks whose genius is now acknowledged who, for a time, had very few extant copies of their work survive. Any more disincentive (like a copyright regime) would have caused the disappearance of the work for eternity. JS Bach is just one of them I recall off the top of my head.
So you guys are saying every idea that becomes realized in one form or another should immediately become part of the public domain for all to profit from. Sounds like a hard sell to me.
That is a dishonest presentation of mak's argument and does you no credit.
-
What has Disney holding on to the copyright on Mickey done to thwart creativity? How do you plan to improve on him? What other use would you have for him than to profit? Other people have created cartoon mice, Disney couldn't do crap about that but theirs survived and the others are slowly fading from memory. Whay shouldn't Disney continue to profit from their original creation on into infinity?
-
1.That is a dishonest presentation of mak's argument and does you no credit.
I submit, once again, that it was an honest representation of my misunderstanding of what these guys are getting at. I expected a reply either in the positive or negative "Yes, that is correct" or "No that is not correct and here is what we actually mean" not the one I got.
I'm doing my best trying to keep it light here, but I get the feeling others are not. People want to get all huffy puffy and really, how important is this discussion anyways? So if it's going to turn all snarky we can stop. My copyright is good for 70 years after I die, I think it should be forever, snarkiness will ony make me stand my ground that much firmer so it's useless against me. I never did like long drawn out horse beatings that you just can't exit without a fuss. Which I've tried to do several times. Or at least i think I tried to, I could be wrong about that too.
-
1. Shakespeare predated Queen Victoria by centuries. "Elizabethan" is more accurate.
Ratz.
You're right, of course. I realized my mistake and was hoping to make it back into the thread before anyone caught me but ... no such luck.
-
I advocate lowering the copyright term to some lower, saner time period. As I said, the founders (in 1790) passed copyright law as granting 14 years with a renewal available for another 14 years. I think that should be plenty. Life + 70 years is far too long and strangles, rather than promotes, creativity.
Compromise; the longer of 28 years from publication or the life of the creator. Discuss.
-
Wouldn't the thought that if you somehow turned an idea into a timeless hit that would guarantee your family's solvency for eternity a pretty good incentive to try and be creative?
You can do that with any form of income generation; generate enough that they can live off the interest and leave the principal alone.
-
What about family heirlooms? Passed down from generation to generation, generating value over time.
They may accrue value over time, but unless you're charging admission to view them, you can only convert that value into a liquid asset once; then it's the buyer's heirloom.
-
Ratz.
You're right, of course. I realized my mistake and was hoping to make it back into the thread before anyone caught me but ... no such luck.
Elizabeth may have been Queen of England, but I am King of Pedants!
Would textbook copyright violators be Pirates of Pedants?
-
KD, none of that answers why I should be forced to give up the rights to my creation after a .gov imposed limit expires. See how there are two sides to this coin? But again it boils down to having the courtesy to WANT to continue to compensate the family of someone who has provided you with a means to make money rather than their coattails for free. The orphanage story is an extreme example of what this can lead to. Put yourself in their shoes. If Hoagy's old song makes me a grunch of money why shouldn't I toss his family a few bucks? I'm too greedy?
-
KD, none of that answers why I should be forced to give up the rights to my creation after a .gov imposed limit expires. See how there are two sides to this coin? But again it boils down to having the courtesy to WANT to continue to compensate the family of someone who has provided you with a means to make money rather than their coattails for free. The orphanage story is an extreme example of what this can lead to. Put yourself in their shoes. If Hoagy's old song makes me a grunch of money why shouldn't I toss his family a few bucks? I'm too greedy?
Because them having the right to demand a few bucks includes them having the right to shut down your use of the song at all.
That stifles creativity, it does not promote it.
-
KD, none of that answers why I should be forced to give up the rights to my creation after a .gov imposed limit expires.
Because your right to solely exploit an intellectual abstraction exists only because the COTUS says it does and for the purpose the COTUS says does. RevDisk quoted the appropriate passage. You may not like the passage, but there you are.
The other option is to keep your intellectual abstraction (for sole use over any period of time) a secret. We see that route taken in some cases (KFC seasoning blend, etc.).
Intellectual abstractions have not traditionally had any such protection and those who created them had to scramble to exploit them before others could figure out how to do so. I am glad the COTUS provides for some time for the creator, but I am a strict constructionist in this (as in other matters) and think Congress ought to hew to the written COTUS's time limits.
Perpetual sole right to exploit is contraindicated in the COTUS (by an explicit time limit and purpose statement) and has a practical problem that physical property does not in that if a gov't dissolves, a person can still maintain sole control over their physical property by, say, force of arms. OTOH, if the gov't set up by the COTUS dissolved, all means to exert sole control over one's intellectual abstraction dissolve with it.
Since no gov't is perpetual, any such claims to sole perpetual right to exploit are analogous to a flea claiming it is "king of this dog, now and forever!" Well, maybe the flea can defeat all challengers, but one day the dog is going to die and soon all the flea has claimed will decay into base components.
-
Ok fine, Perpetual or until the USA collapses. Which could be any day now anyways. =|
Because them having the right to demand a few bucks includes them having the right to shut down your use of the song at all.
That stifles creativity, it does not promote it.
Again I counter is there not MORE incentive to create if the creator knows his creation will generate an income for his family until the USA collapses? Taking my material and reproducing it for sale is not creativity. I think it's capitalism. You're capitalizing on my work, why can't you share a little of your profit? =D
See how nice I smile when I ask for $. :lol:
-
I mean, getting back to patents vs copyrights, my thinking would (or could) be gee, for a patent I am rewarded for only 20 years. For a copyright I am rewarded life + 70 years. Maybe I should direct whatever time, money energy and talents I might have available for creating things towards copyrights rather than patents because that's the better deal. Suddenly, the potential for creatvity on the patent end of the spectrum has suffered because of the longer lasting rules covering copyrights. Maybe a great invention of mine will never be realized, the world population might suffer for it and never even know that they are. :'(
=D
-
Ok fine, Perpetual or until the USA collapses. Which could be any day now anyways. =| Again I counter is there not MORE incentive to create if the creator knows his creation will generate an income for his family until the USA collapses? Taking my material and reproducing it for sale is not creativity. I think it's capitalism. You're capitalizing on my work, why can't you share a little of your profit? =D
See how nice I smile when I ask for $. :lol:
No, not in the real world there isn't more incentive - the only real value of that copyright is to a corporate entity, and usually they'll just shelve it until someone else figures out how to make money off it, and then sue that guy for the profits of his efforts. Again, that disincentives new ways to use the old thoughts. There are many more examples of how this can happen. Perpetual copyright does not improve development.
-
I am not a corporate entity yet I see more value in a life + 70 years copyright on a product that survives time and continues to sell than in a patent that expires in 20 years. Where is the incentive? How does you throwing me 10 cents on the dollar from your profit on my work thwart creativity?
And of course I see even more value when you toss the word perpetual in there.
I think that statement in the Constitution is a double edged sword myself. The founding fathers were good at those. ;)
-
You have to wonder if they were at all envisioning an entity such as Disney coming into existence. Might they be rolling in their graves as we speak?
-
I am not a corporate entity yet I see more value in a life + 70 years copyright on a product that survives time and continues to sell than in a patent that expires in 20 years. Where is the incentive? How does you throwing me 10 cents on the dollar from your profit on my work thwart creativity?
And of course I see even more value when you toss the word perpetual in there.
I think that statement in the Constitution is a double edged sword myself. The founding fathers were good at those. ;)
You are arguing that the disparity in patent vs. copyright law places comparative importance on copyright. That is true. However, that does not mean that a greater incentive towards copyrights or patents is better. All it means is it is a greater incentive.
As DeSelby just pointed out, the costs continue to increase as the duration of the copyright/patent increase. For every work that is encouraged, others are discouraged from using ideas. Should they have an idea inspired by a copyrighted work ("derivative of") and pursue that idea, they will be punished.
Creativity need not be totally novel. Stargate would have problems seeing as they are taking characters and ideas from mythology. The new movie "Thor" would have problems (as would the comic book of the same name.)
A person should get a time to profit from their idea. They should not control that idea and anything derivative of it in perpetuity. (Nor for life+70.)
-
Nope, I disagree. Your great GGGG grandaddy opens a hamburger stand in east BF, New jersey. It becomes reknown as the best burger joint in all of East BF, many other stands have come and gone but yours is still there 200 years later (just an arbitrary number don't panic), the family still owns the business and you are now running it. Suddenly, by gov decree, your rights to the name of the stand are stripped from you and all over East BF other people are opening stands with the same name but a cheaper product / final price. Next thing you know, you're out of business. How is a copyright or patent any different other than it's not bricks and mortar? You can open a hamburger stand and sell hamburgers, I don't have a patent on hamburgers, you just can't copy mine and put my name on it unless you follow my guidelines and share a small portion of your profits with me. And with copyrights anyways, these are very loose guidelines, you can rearrange, rerecord and release any copyrighted song you like and as long as you don't significantly restructure the lyrics or chord structure there is nothing anyone can do about it. The only say the artist has is approval or dissaproval of any significant changes that ARE proposed. Again I mention Wierd Al as an example. He significantly changes the lyricsso he must submit them and ask permission to use them, which he apparently receives quite often. The only condition for using the work is that you pay the original creator(s) royalties and again, I personally have no problem with that.
I also already know hamburger stands etc are not exactly comparable in some respects but I'm using them hypothetically to say one family put their efforts in the direction of hamburgers 200 years ago and they are still making $ on it. This other family put their efforts into a copyrighted work that still paid for them but suddenly it is taken away from them at some point down the road. Why should they be the ones to lose out after some arbitrarily chosen number of years?
-
An example of Disney's copyright on Mickey not thwarting creativity at all because there ain't a thing they can do about it.
http://www.tvacres.com/rodents_rats_ricky.htm
-
An example of Disney's copyright on Mickey not thwarting creativity at all because there ain't a thing they can do about it.
http://www.tvacres.com/rodents_rats_ricky.htm
Parody is a fair use exemption to copyright. (Or rather, it can be. There is no set rule on that.)
Weird Al doesn't need permission, he gets it nonetheless.
-
According to what I read at the mechanical rights people's pages he does in fact need the publisher's permission to take, for example, the song "Bad" turn it into "Fat". I don't have a problem with that either, I can see someone coming up with parodies that might offend which is certainly a reason to refuse permission. Fine line though, if the parody makes $ do you really want to restrict its use? Which is how Al plays the game. "You want to take my song, put some ridiculous lyrices to it, sell a crapload and then pay me royalties? SURE!!" Again, where is creativity being thwarted?
-
According to what I read at the mechanical rights people's pages he does in fact need the publisher's permission to take, for example, the song "Bad" turn it into "Fat". I don't have a problem with that either, I can see someone coming up with parodies that might offend which is certainly a reason to refuse permission. Fine line though, if the parody makes $ do you really want to restrict its use? Which is how Al plays the game. "You want to take my song, put some ridiculous lyrices to it, sell a crapload and then pay me royalties? SURE!!" Again, where is creativity being thwarted?
In the same way that if you give someone a greater reward you incentivize them, if you raise the price of being creative and using someone else's ideas as the basis for yours, you lower the incentives for being creative in that way.
Incentive versus disincentive.
That is, if a "10 cents out of a dollar" is enough for you to be creative, why isn't LOSING "10 cents out of a dollar" enough of an incentive for other people not to put in the effort?
-
90% of the profit is not enough of an incentive for you? =D
-
90% of the profit is not enough of an incentive for you? =D
10% of the profit is enough of an incentive for you?
It's a matter of margins. If you make something cheaper, people that wouldn't buy it before will buy it. If you make something more expensive, people who used to buy it will buy it.
We get less creativity when we raise the cost of creativity, just as we get more creativity when we raise the reward. (And you're ignoring the "creative control" many copyright holders will insist upon.)
Copyright and patent should be about finding a balance. I think patent does that pretty well (for anything except drugs given the insane regulation by the FDA). I think copyright is FAR out of balance.
-
10% of the profit is enough of an incentive for you?
For eternity with little further effort on my part? Sure! This is why I would be incentified (I pretty much made that word up unless it's in the dictionary already =D) Incetified to produce more. If I produce 10 such items that each provide 10% for eternity I'm doing better than if I only did one, don't you think. And, as a matter of fact, I AM in the middle of producing my second CD for JUST THAT REASON! Well, except for the eternity part of course, I guess I have to settle for life + 70. =D
I just feel bad for the great grandkids, if there are ever any, that get caught in the lurch when it runs out. =(
Anyhoo the REAL reason I'm back is to present yet another case of a copyright not infringing on creativity, "Screw you guys, I'm going fishing"
yep. that's mine. Put it on a bumper sticker and sell it at fishing derbys and see if you make a buck or two with it. I'll let you all have that one. =D
sidenote, I bought a new Loomis ultralite rod and accompanying shimano almost top of the line reel over the winter that I haven't used yet, its a warm sunny calm day and,,,see ya!! :lol:
-
Because your right to solely exploit an intellectual abstraction exists only because the COTUS says it does and for the purpose the COTUS says does. RevDisk quoted the appropriate passage. You may not like the passage, but there you are.
The other option is to keep your intellectual abstraction (for sole use over any period of time) a secret. We see that route taken in some cases (KFC seasoning blend, etc.).
Intellectual abstractions have not traditionally had any such protection and those who created them had to scramble to exploit them before others could figure out how to do so. I am glad the COTUS provides for some time for the creator, but I am a strict constructionist in this (as in other matters) and think Congress ought to hew to the written COTUS's time limits.
Perpetual sole right to exploit is contraindicated in the COTUS (by an explicit time limit and purpose statement) and has a practical problem that physical property does not in that if a gov't dissolves, a person can still maintain sole control over their physical property by, say, force of arms. OTOH, if the gov't set up by the COTUS dissolved, all means to exert sole control over one's intellectual abstraction dissolve with it.
Since no gov't is perpetual, any such claims to sole perpetual right to exploit are analogous to a flea claiming it is "king of this dog, now and forever!" Well, maybe the flea can defeat all challengers, but one day the dog is going to die and soon all the flea has claimed will decay into base components.
This.
Nope, I disagree. Your great GGGG grandaddy opens a hamburger stand in east BF, New jersey. It becomes reknown as the best burger joint in all of East BF, many other stands have come and gone but yours is still there 200 years later (just an arbitrary number don't panic), the family still owns the business and you are now running it. Suddenly, by gov decree, your rights to the name of the stand are stripped from you and all over East BF other people are opening stands with the same name but a cheaper product / final price. Next thing you know, you're out of business. How is a copyright or patent any different other than it's not bricks and mortar? You can open a hamburger stand and sell hamburgers, I don't have a patent on hamburgers, you just can't copy mine and put my name on it unless you follow my guidelines and share a small portion of your profits with me. And with copyrights anyways, these are very loose guidelines, you can rearrange, rerecord and release any copyrighted song you like and as long as you don't significantly restructure the lyrics or chord structure there is nothing anyone can do about it. The only say the artist has is approval or dissaproval of any significant changes that ARE proposed. Again I mention Wierd Al as an example. He significantly changes the lyricsso he must submit them and ask permission to use them, which he apparently receives quite often. The only condition for using the work is that you pay the original creator(s) royalties and again, I personally have no problem with that.
I also already know hamburger stands etc are not exactly comparable in some respects but I'm using them hypothetically to say one family put their efforts in the direction of hamburgers 200 years ago and they are still making $ on it. This other family put their efforts into a copyrighted work that still paid for them but suddenly it is taken away from them at some point down the road. Why should they be the ones to lose out after some arbitrarily chosen number of years?
Sigh. Your example? That's trademark, as it is brand identification. Trademark != copyright != patent. All are considered subsets of intellectual property law, under most circumstances. For your specific example, you must file for a registered trademark and submit maintenance documents after the 6th year. Or use an unregistered trademark.
Any special blends, techniques or equipment by said company would be patented, for 20 years. Any copyright video, audio or literature by said company would be for 120 years. Each and every single aspect is a separate legal and discreet concept, with real meanings.
Respectfully speaking, I'm noticing a large number of the folks who strongly disagree with the Constitutional limitations of IP tend not to have the firmest grasp of the legal implications of their argument. Next we'll have folks claiming that intellectual property infringement is "theft", which means they have likely never opened a legal dictionary. I have a feeling trying to explain derivatives and fair use would risk exploding heads.
;)
-
Next we'll have folks claiming that intellectual property infringement is "theft", which means they have likely never opened a legal dictionary. I have a feeling trying to explain derivatives and fair use would risk exploding heads.
Aye, and those folks would be right to call it theft.
As we've covered in previous threads, the legal dictionaries aren't a singular and definitive arbiter of language. It's asinine to claim that IP infringement isn't theft merely because the legal dictionaries don't define it as such.
-
http://www.juliansanchez.com/2011/03/26/orphan-works/
More on the harm of copyright.
-
Umm... it promotes creativity because it rewards creativity.
We just must be careful we don't reward it beyond the value of innovation and creativity to society.
That is, just because it is good to reward something doesn't mean the rewards should be infinite. There are costs to granting a copyright and we must not ignore the costs and only look at the benefits. That's what bad economists (politicians) do.
And who decides what amount of reward is appropriate? You?
I'd like to know what these scary costs to society are for granting long term patents and copyrights. Beyond the basic logistics of issuing and adjudicating patents, how much does it really cost society? Put a price on it, justify that price, and demonstrate that the costs exceed the value of incentivizing innovation.
I can tell you how the arbitrarily short time spans for patents withholds progress. I see it fairly regularly working at an engineering R&D company. It's a normal part of our business to do market analyses and use the results to determine what the payback time frame would be for a given development effort. It takes a long time to develop an idea fully, productize it, test it, market it, and begin selling it for a profit. It happens often enough that developing a new idea would pay off over time, but not in the arbitrarily short time span that the government grants.
I can name, right off the top of my head, at least half a dozen great ideas that would advance the state of the art in semiconductor processing and next-gen energy production that we are NOT developing because the development timeframe would be too long, and the legal time limit for profiting on the idea too short.
In that regard, following Rev's logic, the current patent law could be said to be unconstitutional because it's too short, because it fails to protect patent holders enough to promote progress in science and the useful arts.
-
Quick observations / Question:
If I successfully created a cold fusion reactor and then liberated the world of it's dependency on electricity I could patent by product for 20 years and make money off of it exclusively but after 20 years other people get to use the exact same design legally.
But If I write a song that songs protected for 70 years if i drop dead the day after writing it?
WTF?
Oh yea and the imaginary amounts the RIAA and MPAA are allowed to sue for are just outrageous, people don't get awarded that much in damages in wrongful death suits what the frak makes them thing their owed a couple of million dollars because someone downloaded a few songs.
-
Because your right to solely exploit an intellectual abstraction exists only because the COTUS says it does and for the purpose the COTUS says does. RevDisk quoted the appropriate passage. You may not like the passage, but there you are.
Uh, no. The constitution clause on promoting science and useful arts does not create the right to intellectual property. That'd be like saying 2A creates the right to bear arms, and that the RKBA would vanish if the 2A ever went away.
Whether it be IP or RKBA, the constitution recognizes preexisting rights and defines how FedGov is to behave in regards to those rights. In the case of RKBA, the 2A sez that FedGov shall not infringe. Int he case of IP, the constitution says that FedGov (not the states) shall manage the patent/copyright offices.
-
And who decides what amount of reward is appropriate? You?
I'd like to know what these scary costs to society are for granting long term patents and copyrights. Beyond the basic logistics of issuing and adjudicating patents, how much does it really cost society? Put a price on it, justify that price, and demonstrate that the costs exceed the value of incentivizing innovation.
I can tell you how the arbitrarily short time spans for patents withholds progress. I see it fairly regularly working at an engineering R&D company. It's a normal part of our business to do market analyses and use the results to determine what the payback time frame would be for a given development effort. It takes a long time to develop an idea fully, productize it, test it, market it, and begin selling it for a profit. It happens often enough that developing a new idea would pay off over time, but not in the arbitrarily short time span that the government grants.
I can name, right off the top of my head, at least half a dozen great ideas that would advance the state of the art in semiconductor processing and next-gen energy production that we are NOT developing because the development timeframe would be too long, and the legal time limit for profiting on the idea too short.
In that regard, following Rev's logic, the current patent law could be said to be unconstitutional because it's too short, because it fails to protect patent holders enough to promote progress in science and the useful arts.
We're not arguing patents, actually. If you argue patent is too short, I'd not be opposed to lengthening it. I think the work that is done under patent is far more valuable than what we protect with copyrights.
I brought patent into this as it seems absurd that you only get 20 years for creating something tangible and helpful to society, but you get (estimated) 120 years for writing "Everybody Poops".
The disparity is jarring in its folly. Should patent be longer? Maybe. Should copyright be shorter? DEFINITELY.
Edit: Dumb typos.
-
Uh, no. The constitution clause on promoting science and useful arts does not create the right to intellectual property. That'd be like saying 2A creates the right to bear arms, and that the RKBA would not vanish if the 2A ever went away.
Whether it be IP or RKBA, the constitution recognizes preexisting rights and defines how FedGov is to behave in regards to those rights.
Uh, no. The constitutional creation of a power to create copyright and patent is a recognition that no one can own an idea, but as we wish to encourage new ideas, innovation, and creativity, we offer a time where people can benefit from the value of their idea.
-
We're not arguing patyents, actually. If you argue patent is too short, I'd not be opposed to lengthening it. I think the work that is done under patent is far more valuable than what we protect with copyrights.
I brought patent into this as it seems absurd that you only get 20 years for creating something tangible and helpful to society, but you get (estimated) 120 years for writing "Everybody Poops".
The disparity is jarring in its folly. Should patent be longer? Maybe. Should copyright be shorter? DEFINITELY.
I fail to see how patents are inherently more valuable than copyrights. Entertainment and art is no less important, valuable, or desirable than widgets.
ALL ip should be protected better. Patent does indeed have a ways to go to catch up to copyright, but that's no reason to cut back on copyright.
-
I fail to see how patents are inherently more valuable than copyrights. Entertainment and art is no less important, valuable, or desirable than widgets.
Yes, they are. However, that's a WHOLE OTHER argument.
-
Uh, no. The constitutional creation of a power to create copyright and patent is a recognition that no one can own an idea, but as we wish to encourage new ideas, innovation, and creativity, we offer a time where people can benefit from the value of their idea.
No one can own an idea? Really? Let's think about that for a moment.
What is ownership?
I've always thought that ownership is a collection of rights protected by government. Specifically, those are the right to control how the property is used, the right to retain profits from the property, and the right to transfer ownership to someone else.
If this is a fair understanding of ownership, then why on earth can't ideas be owned? We routinely apply these rights to ideas, and government enforces and protects those rights. At least for a time.
I would say that if no one can own an idea, then neither is it possible to own land or any physical good. Ownership merely being rights agreed upon and protected by society, if we refute their existence when it comes to ideas, then we can equally refute their existence when it comes to physical property or land.
-
No one can own an idea? Really? Let's think about that for a moment.
What is ownership?
I've always thought that ownership is a collection of rights protected by government. Specifically, those are the right to control how the property is used, the right to retain profits from the property, and the right to transfer ownership to someone else.
If this is a fair understanding of ownership, then why on earth can't ideas be owned? We routinely apply these rights to ideas, and government enforces and protects those rights. At least for a time.
I would say that if no one can own an idea, then neither is it possible to own land or any physical good. Ownership merely being rights agreed upon and protected by society, if we refute their existence when it comes to ideas, then we can equally refute their existence when it comes to physical property or land.
So who owns the air you breathe?
-
Relevance?
-
you guys are so focused on the monetary implications of IP, but have barely dwelled on the philosophical ones.
A work of artisitic value has very diffrent social implications then one of technological value. It also has a difrent kind of personal value.
An artist writes a song. He plays the song, preforms it and records it. People like the song. The song has emotional/asthetic value to both the creator and the public, but is not definate in terms of meaning. The song can be interperated many ways.
Does the artist have a right to decide how the song he wrote (lets say its about a girl he loves dearly) should be played in public venues? Or who makes money of his personal declaration? I say, yes, he should have some personal control and so should his heirs. His words, his tune, thus his say about what is apprpriate and what is not. The fact that he makes money off the song is secondary.
The distributers of art are the ones really making the money, anyway. However this is getting phased out as social media is playing a part an alllwing the artists to bypas the system and release work directly, which makes they're copyrights more valueable to them and may regain them control, which is another story, but I think, is also a valid reason they should have a good portion of time in which to control their product and collect the friuts of their labor.
On the other hand, we have technollgical creations which can greatly impact human life. Guy creates a super reactor that can power the world. He builds it and makes a buttload of money. But lets say, he's a jerk. He controls his invention with an iron fist. He won't sell his design or allow it to be used, even in places where its really needed. He manages to put other power companies out of business and then has a monopoly on power. If you can't pay his fees, you lose power. you can not go to a second option, cause there is no second option. He has a monopoly on a major comodatie.
Should he have control until well after his death over something that can so greatly impact society? If a company found the cure for AIDS tomorrow, would the public at large be happy if those drugs where not avalible in a timely and affordable fasion?
the inventors should be rewarded and get their money, but society can't afford to let them have it indefinatly. Hell, 20 years is enough time for the controling factor of those two scenerios to do a lot of damage.
I'm not saying its perfect. I'm not even saying its right/fair to the inventors. But it is true.
Note: I know that this is vastly simplified. They're are many factor involved in the production of both. There are also hacks/abusers of both patent and copyright (disney is one) and that most inventions are little enough that the creator could not have that kind of impact. Like I said, its just my opinion on why such things are in place and why such things would have to be in place.
Sure, improvements could be made in the laws, but I have no issue with copyright holders getting a longer hold on their product.
-
So who owns the air you breathe?
Well, I can say that I do, except I imagine that everyone might dispute that and the governemt wouldn't let me, nor would society.
But the gov and society seem to think (for the most part) that I can own an idea.
-
So, by your logic bluestar, if you create something important, you have no rights to it, but if it's something you put a lot of feeling into, you do?
-
Well, I can say that I do, except I imagine that everyone might dispute that and the governemt wouldn't let me, nor would society.
But the gov and society seem to think (for the most part) that I can own an idea.
No, they don't. The government grants you the rights to an expression of an idea, but only for a time.
-
So, by your logic bluestar, if you create something important, you have no rights to it, but if it's something you put a lot of feeling into, you do?
You know, for someone that gets soooo upset about people not reading his entire post or blatently not acknowledging what you said, you sure do it a lot.
;/
Lifes not fair. Deal with it.
-
You know, for someone that gets soooo upset about people not reading his entire post or blatently not acknowledging what you said, you sure do it a lot.
;/
Lifes not fair. Deal with it.
I know you said it was extreme examples. However, your post seemed to place a great deal of importance on a personal connection to the idea.
Copyright/patent rights should be totally independent of the feelings or intentions of the copyright/patent owners and the way we feel about them.
-
uhhhh.. Yeah I do.
It could be because if a kitty litter company decided to use my poem "kitten love" to sell their product, i'd have a fit.
Art has a definate emotional connection that is a major part of its value. Such MUST be taken into account when decideding its legal protections and those of the artist.
-
Copyright/patent rights should be totally independent of the feelings or intentions of the copyright/patent owners and the way we feel about them.
Sounds like an excuse to strip the owner of his right to control his or her property.
If we're to treat the owner as just that, as the actual actual owner, the person who gets to decide how the property is to be used, then we have no choice but to respect his feelings and intentions towards the property.
-
Sounds like an excuse to strip the owner of his right to control his or her property.
If we're to treat the owner as just that, as the actual actual owner, the person who gets to decide how the property is to be used, then we have no choice but to respect his feelings and intentions towards the property.
No. A person's right to property should be independent of how they feel about that property or how we feel about them; the same with ownership of a copyright or patent.
It's not about feelings one way or another.
-
The different nature of IP is simple to demonstrate:
In order to deprive you of traditional property, someone else must use force against you to take it.
In order for your IP to be anything other than a pipe dream, you must threaten and use force against everyone who has ever heard of your idea.
-
Because them having the right to demand a few bucks includes them having the right to shut down your use of the song at all.
That stifles creativity, it does not promote it.
How does my not granting some band permission to play MY song stifle their creativity? Seems to me it would promote creativity -- if they want to sing songs without paying, they can write ("create") their own songs.
-
Intellectual abstractions have not traditionally had any such protection and those who created them had to scramble to exploit them before others could figure out how to do so. I am glad the COTUS provides for some time for the creator, but I am a strict constructionist in this (as in other matters) and think Congress ought to hew to the written COTUS's time limits.
What written COTUS time limits? Section 8 of the COTUS says:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
This is under the things the legislative branch is specifically authorized to do. The Constitution does not establish a time limit, it leaves it to Congress to do so. Which they have done.
-
That's fine, but how does them singing your song affect you? You wouldnt even notice it without some means of monitoring, and to enforce the government granted right, you must use force.
Contrast that with traditional property - all it requires is for other people to leave you alone.
When a "right" can only exist because you use force against other people, its scope and limits should be heavily scrutinized.
-
No. A person's right to property should be independent of how they feel about that property or how we feel about them; the same with ownership of a copyright or patent.
It's not about feelings one way or another.
Agreed. My property is my property, regardless of whether I love it, hate it, or don't give a darn.
However, your argument makes no sense. If it is MY property, that means *I* get to decide how much I want to charge to transfer it or rent it to another party or parties. Doesn't matter what I feel about it, or IF I feel anything about it, it's MY property. If I decide my crappy poem that doesn't rhyme is worth a million bucks, it doesn't matter on what basis I arrived at that figure. Any prospective buyer is free to engage in marketplace tactics and either buy it for my price, make a counter-offer, or walk away.
-
That's fine, but how does them singing your song affect you? You wouldnt even notice it without some means of monitoring, and to enforce the government granted right, you must use force.
So, basically you're saying it's just like when someone trespasses on my land.
Contrast that with traditional property - all it requires is for other people to leave you alone.
When a "right" can only exist because you use force against other people, its scope and limits should be heavily scrutinized.
Tell that to anyone who's ever had to deal with squatters. Leave you alone? Yeah, right. They'll leave you alone when you apply some force to their keisters.
-
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.
-
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. :lol:
And no I didn't catch any fish, but it sure was warm and sunny. =D
-
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? =D
-
Now, a trademark is also a gov allowed monopoly, why is a trademark perpetual and that's ok? =D
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.
-
So? It's still a gov enforced monopoly?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ok, now that we know what we're arguing about, err, I mean discussing, we can start discuussing it. :lol:
=D
-
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.
-
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... :'(
:lol:
-
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.
-
Ask yourself, WWMBD? ;)
-
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/ :P
-
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.