Slashdot Mirror
Reason Magazine on Copyright Legislation
Bob Kopp writes "The libertarian magazine Reason is running an article about the clash between corporations that own copyrights and 'grassroots, participatory culture.' The article discusses the effects of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, which extended the life span of copyrights by 20 years, as well as the dangers of information monopolies in general."
Did you know that MLK's family try to prevent people, including civil rights activists, from using Kings speaches and stuff? MLK would be much more of a cultural icon today (and we would probable have less racism) execpt for the efforts of his children.
The amazing thing about this is, it was only a quirk under the old law that prevented them from succeeding. Shortly before the "I have a dream" speech, MLK distributed the text to several journalists without a copyright notice.
Under the current law, that no longer matters. If MLK gave his speech 10 years ago, his estate could require teachers showing a video of the speech (beyond fair use soundbites) to pay a liscense fee!
Robert Wilde
If only King James had remember to scrawl "Copyright 1614 His Majesty King James of England" on the inside cover, along with adding a few clever laws, then poor ol' Queen Lizzie wouldn't be reduced to living on Microsoft Noodles these days.
At least slashdot allows you to retain copyright for the words your write - most commercial magazines don't!
This has to do with the fact that Slashdot wants to avoid the issues with retaining copyright to submitted posts; namely accountability. Most online magazines wouldn't *dream* of letting the rabble keep their own copyrights because that means they wouldn't be able to censor at a whim!
Thank god for "common carrier" status... otherwise public discussion forum like this would not exist. Imagine what it would be like if all public forum had to be monitored for "content abuses". Private censorship is as bad if not worse than public censorship.
I think you hit the nail on the head though - copyright serves a purpose when it encourages people to be creative (and who would bother if they felt anyone could 'steal' the result of their effort and claim it as their own), but it should prevent the work being used. If a publisher refsues to reissue a book, surely they should not be allowed to retain the copyright - after all copyright is the right to make copies, if the publisher is not exercising that right, why should they be able to withold it from others.
Absolutely.
The only point I disagreed with in the article concerning "old" copyrights is that I have no problem with Disney wanting to retain the copyright on Mickey Mouse. Mickey is still used to promote the company and is important to their public image so for the sake of consistency in my personal opinion I say "more power to them". I have problems, however, in how "fair use" is being bullied into non-existance. If an artist or political cartoonist wanted to use Disney as an icon of overcorporatization by picturing Mickey holding an iron fist over Disneyland, that's something that goes beyond mere copyright issues and enters the realm of political commentary. The hypothetical artist wants to make a statement about corporate power abuses and the "Disneyfication" of the world, but chances are that artist will get contacted by lawyers reaaaally quick (after all they want to protect their corporate image).
Oops, I've strayed off-topic... well, on to the next point...
In general I must say I consider copyright to be a good thing, it allows limited control over your own work, but in general doesn't stop others from using your ideas for themselves.
Ah, and there's the really nasty part about copyright law: It sucks when it applies to major corporate powers, but it's nice when it applies to yourself. I imagine the corporate powers in question feel the same, just the other way around.
And of course, what exactly is "using the ideas for themselves" anyways? For example, just recently I played a couple of songs at an open mike event at a local cafe. One of those songs was my own, but the other was a cover of the Red Hot Chili Peppers song "Breaking the Girl". Now, I don't seriously expect anyone to get riled up about this; I didn't profit from it, and the venue was pretty small (about 40-50 people). In fact I see local bands do this sort of thing all the time at gigs they get paid for. No one bothers them about it.
But now let's say I recorded that event and release it on the internet. Now I've published a copyrighted work. I still don't profit from it, and the audience may or may not be bigger (the potential audience would be huge though). I'd think it much more likely the record companies would be down on my back almost instantly. What's really changed though? The medium, basicly. Instead of using direct communication through sound waves and the like, I'm using electrons and electronic equipment to broadcast my musical talent (nearly null, by the way :^).
Copyright is a nebulous creature. It applies here, but not there. It's okay to copy, but only if you critique or satirize it. And so on. The problems we tend to talk about here is that corporate powers have taken advantage of this nebulosity to their own ends. It's gotten to the point where I don't even know if I'm violating copyright law by playing the cover of a popular song by a well-known band!
But in the end, one thing won't change: human nature. We're all corrupt to some degree. It's just how much that corruption will trample on the rights of others. If I keep control over my copyrights, it's personal freedom in action. If a corporation does it, it's an outrage.
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
Why not just get rid of them? No, not kill them (although that has it's advantages, too), but just put them out of work altogether.
Enact a "Plain English Amendment" which basically states that any law which cannot be understood by a person of normal intelligence and education is not valid. After all, if you have to hire an expert to interpret a law for you, how can you reasonably be expected to comply with it? Of course, since the lawyers control the legal system and Congress, this will never happen. Fun to think about, though.
--------------------
--------------------
Earth first? Oooh, and I was thinking of paying the rent.
I think what was being gotten at is this: If a company or artist, or whoever created some work uses that work on an active basis, then that work should be protected. Taking the Disney example, just because Mickey is old, even by copyright standards, does that mean that he should become public domain? Disney should have an incentive to keep those things that it created and still uses. Disney should not, however, be able to use some character in 1930 four times and then never let it out again.
I want a rock.
Damn Right! Another thing that everyone seems to miss is that the framers of the constitution intended for copyrights and patents to be *individual* rights, not a corporate monopoly structure. What other constitutional right requires you to hire a lawyer and pay a maintanance fee to invoke? The present perversion of the original intent really sucks.
What does copyright have to do with 'censorship', in this case? If one of Slashdot's operators wanted to delete a comment, they could legally do so - it's their server. The fact that they don't own the copyright is irrelevant.
Now if what you're trying to say is that Slashdot leaves copyright to individual posters so that they can maintain common carrier status, you're probably right. (And as I understand it, if they did delete something, as I suggest in the preceeding paragraph, they would lose this status. But copyright still doesn't enter into the picture.)
I agree completely with this idea. It really doesn't bother me that Disney still holds the copyrights on all their movies that they rerelease every few years.
What does bother me is that they can prevent someone from rereleasing a movie that they have no intentions of rereleasing themselves. I remember seeing Song of the South about fifteen years ago and as a kid, I thought it was a great movie. I can also understand that due to the racist parts of the movie, they wouldn't want to release it as a "Disney" movie. They have other outlets such as Touchstone through which to rerelease it. They could just rate it up to PG-13 or something to send the message that maybe the movie isn't for kids.
That's still no reason to hide it forever. Does anyone remember the Dark Ages? Exactly.
Jesus may love you, but I think you're garbage wrapped in skin.
A choice of masters is not freedom
Well put. I think an important development is the concept of narrowcasting. While the infrastructure of disseminating information was highly centralized, and easily monopolized, lowest common denominator was the word of the day. The best examples being broadcast TV and Radio. Since there can only be a few radio and tv stations in a given market, they all are fighting for the largest slice of the pie.
.sig? Ubik sigs tickle the funnybone, and never fade. Get a shiny new Ubik today. 100% safe when used as directed.
So they all fit with some formula, sitcoms and top-forty.
But to have a webcasting station takes significantly less infrastructure, and no FCC licensing. So places like Spinner can have a number of channels to chose from. Me, I like progressive rock, and Spinner has a progressive channel which has a lot of music I like, some I don't like, and a lot that I've never heard. I've bought music based on things that I have heard there.
The same is true for digital cable/satellite systems. Who'd have imagined a 24hour history station being at all popular 10 years ago? Now we've got the History Channel.
PBS is losing its monopoly. And unfortunately, they are learning the wrong lesson, and going for Lowest Common Denominator stuff like Eagles and Rolling Stones reunions and Riverdance. But by and large, I think that while information overload is a legitimate concern, and the "Play-it-over-and-over-again-Sam" syndrome may expand in some areas, there is some cause for hope.
Looking for a clever
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
sounds like a decent idea, except I do not agree with the donations thing. This may not be such a good idea for schoolbooks. The way I see it, schoolbooks should be free of commercial messages, even voluntary donations to a good cause. schoolbooks should be neutral and unbiased. If this is done for the MLK legacy, the same can be done for less 'worthy' causes.. things like Hitler's speeches. Senator McCarthy's speeches. etc. One can include some 'Write here for more info' but I would strongly urge to keep the3 information unbiased.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
"You make it too onerous for them to seek legal redress, they will seek illegal means to do so. You will not want a rich man coming after you!"
I don't think asking the rich to pay for the opponents legal fees is onerous. It's a drop in the bucket for them. Also there is really nothing stopping the rich from killing you now. The rich don;t go to jail.
War is necrophilia.
the answer is simple,
...but if you are one of those libertarians who doesn't give a shit about the movement, but likes hyping people up to sell books and tapes bashing anything federal - the you are for copyrights.
if you're true to the libertarian philosophy of it being self-evident that all individuals are endowed with certain inaliable rights - then you are against copyrights, because they are a government granted monopoly.
if the libertarian party doesn't change their attitude about copyrights - sooner than later all the people who are making things happen are just going to go away somwhere else.
Sonny Bono, the musician, had a very financial interest in extending copyright.
:-)
I still voted for him, but, for different reasons.
We are seeing a repeat of many of the things that led to the Civil War. But rather this time, the argument's are not about slaves being a property right, but about information being a property right. The issue of who own's information has never been an issue before the United States, because when governments controlled the content of the press - who owned that content was never at debate. Today it is, and we should worry about the consequences (with patents too).
One more thing about the Civil War. Many have said it was more "bloody" than all the wars since. The reason why was that society had just developed the technology for new types of weapons (like machine guns and gas) but had evolved no defences for them as of yet. A grim prospect for the future if we can't controll copyrights and patents before they get out of hand.
The original manuscripts are not published, however. Instead, compiled and edited texts of the Hebrew and Greek are published. These show the editors' best judgment as to the original readings. All of the recent original language texts are copyrighted by their compilers/editors.
The Civil War was about North vs South, but if a modern day civil war breaks out - there will be no clear boundries. There are people who suffer and benefit from copyrights and patents in every local region. In addition many things that are in the interest of patents are at odds with the interests of copyrights. It would be very broken and territorial - perhaps anarchy like.
However, if any place can survive, or make peacefull resolution. I believe America can. Americans seem to have a much better ability for speaking up for their rights, and standing up for them (guns). But, America will also be the first place to suffer the "test" - because this is where all the peaks in technology, internet, and information are. It is scary, but interesting. I still have a lot of hope. But, people who look down on the right-to-bear arms may not be so arrogant (or alive) if problems do break out.
[sorry, couldn't resist...]
Nope...there is a project to produce a totally copyright free, modern English bible known as the World English Bible which I think you would be interested in.
As far as I know, a person could also derive a new modern translation from previous sources (such as the Gutenberg Bible, the KJ, the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims (spelling?) and not have a bit of legal trouble in doing so.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
It's a little late to respond, but ...
Copyright Law has been successively extended to ever greater periods of time, primarilly to protect Disney's ownership of Mickey Mouse. (Why else would so much Disney money be flowing into congressional coffers?)
It its day the Catholic Church was nearly as powerful as the modern Media Whoremongers are today. Had the concept of intellectual ownership existed, they would most certainly have either extended copyright indefinitely, or granted a special exception to the Bible, making it owned in full by The Church in perpetuity.
Not unlike what a little weak encryption does with a video recording, under the new order of the DMCA which makes countering that encryption 500 years from now in order to view the contents of that file/disk as illegal as it is today.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
No "King" there. I'm sure you know that. It is an easy to make given his namesake's prominence.
The cake is a pie
The funny thing is, with information travelling so quickly these days, copyrights should be shortening rather than lengthening. A Hit movie can pay for itself in a single weekend. Others may do so in a month. Within 6 months, profits are dwindling to nothing as it enters the dollar matinee showings. Then it hits video/pay-per-view and premium cable. Within 5 years, it's on prime time network TV. Shortly thereafter, it disappears completely (at one time it would be a late-night movie on TV, but that time slot is reserved for infomercials now). Surely the profits from that 5-10 year time slot will be adequate incentive to create. The original 14 years with option to renew would more than cover it.
With the current limits, to anyone living when a work comes out, it will NEVER hit public domain. The animated movie you saw at age five will be under copyright for longer than you could reasonably expect to live. As the article pointed out, by the time it finally does pass into the public domain, it may have crumbled to dust.
Can we truly claim to even HAVE a culture if it's all owned by corperate entities and will stay that way until after we die?
> The increasingly important struggle over copyright is a beautiful example of freedom being
> not necessarily aligned with property rights.
The acts of copyright holders are only made possible by the fact that the government grants them the monopoly in the first place...
I think that what everyone is so upset about is that "big corporations" are using their financial muscle to do what they want with the copyrights they hold.
I don't think people are as much upset about the financial muscle as they are that often the copyrights are not controlled by a works creater(s). Not allowing the transfer of copyright rights might solve this.
>it was only a quirk under the old law that >prevented them from succeeding.
What are you talking about? They did succeed in copyrighting IHAD. And the King family does prohibit no-cost usage of it. It's the family moneymaker.
If Mickey Mouse and associated works went into the public domain at 34 years (copyright grant + 1 renewal), Disney would be out of business in 18 months. Everything they've done in the last 5 years has lost big bucks. It's just the past work of Walt that keeps them in business.
And that bankruptcy would have a huge impact on today's culture. I think it would be positive, but almost no one agrees with me.
note: I think you mean Martin Luther, not Martin Luther King. Copyright law at the time of Martin Luther King would be unlikely to affect the reformation. ;)
I like your point, but I think it's only partially right. AFAIK current copyright law protects a work for up to 95 years. The Bible was written well over 1000 years before the time of Martin Luther. I still think it's true that copyright law as it currently exists tends to stifle inovation, but this isn't a great example.
No. Not any REAL culture. The only culture we will have will be created by corporate entities, spoon fed to us by corporate entities, and we'll pay coporate entities for every spoon full.
And if the flavor we want is no longer offered by the corporate entities, we'll have to choose one that is. Even if they all taste suspiciously like shit sandwich.
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
I don't really agree. The purpose of the copyright is not to grant a monopoly just because something is still in use, but to promote advancement. Where has Disney advanced? They've let Mickey Mouse stagnate for some reason, they're clearly not letting anyone else write stories involving him (before Disney was as family-friendly as they are now, Mickey used to be a trickster character similar to Bugs Bunny - I'd like to see some of that again), and a great deal of the stuff that they are doing is either licensed from someone else (101 Dalmatians) or itself takes advantage of Public Domain material (Little Mermaid, Cinderella, etc).
Obviously the arts can be advanced by adapting public domain stuff as they themselves have proven. But what advancement is there in a permanent monopoly? What encouragement is there to be anything but a one-hit wonder, if it's your hit forever?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Share and enjoy.
People are always getting "Copyright" and "Trademark" mixed up.
Characters (such as Mickey Mouse) cannot be copyrighted. They can be trademarked .
What does this mean?
If Disney had let the copyright expire, people could have released copies of "Steamboat Willie" and other such cartoons on tape, the way people can print the earlier Sherlock Holmes books or other classic works. But as far as I know, they couldn't have created "Mickey fanfic" because the character is still a trademark of Disney, and would continue to be for as long as Disney's around.
At least, as far as I know. IANAL and all.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
That's a fantastic piece, congratulations. You'd be doing us all a favour if you try to get it published in as many different places as you can.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Reason != The Libertarian Party (and not all Libertarians agree with what you'd claim to be their point, either).
Anonymous anarchist.
You're correct, 'Happy Birthday to you' was written by the Hill sisters and under copyright.
But it is still sung in gatherings, large and small, without payment. The heirs have obviously been reasonable, seeing only that the song is protected and royalties/permission only required in commercial ventures (ie, sung in a movie, etc).
Can you imagine if it'd been written today? Hmm. We'd have likely never seen Marilyn singing it in Madison Sq to JFK.
If it'd been written today, you probably couldn't sing it at your own birthday party unless you made sure it was in your own home, doors/windows locked and barred. You likely couldn't have a birthday cake from the corner bakery saying 'happy birthday to you' without paying a royality. As the distribution mediums increase, the holders of copyrights wring every dime, and work to tighten control more.
I wonder when we'll have to develop a new language because the Jack Valenti's of the world will work to copyright every word in the dictionary, and have it protected by Congress like the word 'olym****' (since I don't think I can even write that without the USOC's permission). (I think I'll start by copyrighting the words 'a', 'and', and 'the' to start.
An ammusing little project... computer generate every three or four word combination, and copyright them all as titles. True, it'd be millions (and I'll be the first contributor to the non-profit set up to do this). It'd be about impossible for Valenti's crowd to come up with ANY movie title, without paying for permission. (I'd LOVE seeing every movie made from 2000 on having to carry in credits 'title used by permission of the Internet Freedom Protection Foundation'. Everyone would be rolling in their graves 100 yrs from now, from Valenti to Eisner to Mickey Mouse.
(And yes, I'm a right wing conservative, not some flaming liberal if you DCA types out there watching. I'm all for capitalism. But there IS a limit, and one of those of a conservative is protecting individual freedom. When it goes from capitalism to arrogance and stifling individual freedoms, you've greatly crossed the line of anything the founding fathers ever envisioned. You, meaning DCA and MPAA, do realize if you lose your suits, which I believe you will just like Sony v. Universal Pictures, you'll be opening floodgates of which you cannot imagine, from starting with fair use, meaining I can see whatever I want wherever I want on what equipment I want, as long as I legally obtained your movies. Region coding will probably be next to go, becuase if you lose, that's probably finished as well. Have you really looked at the downside here?
you can moderate down... as sorry i got a little off topic here going back to MPAA/DCA
Private coercion is also known as crime. No guns, no threats of violence, no fraud, no deception, -- no coercion. Some corporations have committed fraud and deception, and as such have commited crimes.
The US Libertarian Party has always been against government and private coercion. However, to refresh your memory on what coercion means, corporations are not a coercion. Natural monopolies are not coercion. Even though you might want the LP to be opposed to big business, property rights and market forces have nothing to do with coercion.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"Reason != The Libertarian Party"
Of course not. And Linux != Free Software.
However, Reason Magazine is the only magazine that you could find at a newsstand that even comes close to expressing libertarianism.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
According to the guests on the show, MLK's estate is asking Congress for $20 million before they are willing to transfer his collected papers and writings to the Library of Congress.
At present, the "I Have a Dream" speech is not commonly reprinted in textbooks and the like because -- as has happened with the few books that DO publish King works -- the copyright license fees increase the price of each book by $10 to $20.
Obviously, the King family suffered a terrible tragedy and loss, and certainly everyone sympathizes with their natural desire at least to assuage some of that pain by managing his legacy and estate as they have.
But I'm wondering whether everyone (the King estate included) might not be better off if the King estate were to look to the computer software industry for licensing ideas. Perhaps the licensing terms could be changed to something like shareware or even the GPL: So, for example, "Anyone can republish the I have a dream speech so long as (1) the speech is published in its entirety, (2) the terms of the license accompany the speech, and (3) following the speech, the publisher must also publish a paragraph discussing the tragedy of King's assassination and an address to which readers who find the speech inspirational can send donations to the King estate."
I think this might reverse the incentives -- essentially by creating an incentive for everyone to broadcast the MLK message as widely as possible, instead of an incentive for the estate to exclude others from free access to the MLK legacy.
Haven't asked them whether they are willing to consider this option. But is anyone else interested in starting a petition drive or something similar for the purpose of encouraging Dr. King's family to "Copy-left the MLK Legacy?"
Eric C. Grimm
CyberBrief, PLC
320 South Main Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48107-7341
734.332.4900
Nevertheless, trademark/copyright-laws are crap (the way they are now) and "buying laws" is utterly evil, and people doing so would surely go to hell (if it did exist).
twy
Reread that carefully. Congress may change the rules under which patent litigation may take place, but the patent must stand as if the old law was still in place.
The court then found that, under the law that existed in 1835, the patent was void. (The court also found that the defendant had an implied license to use it since the plantiff had not previously contested such use.)
Seems to me that this case clearly supports the conclusion that congress can not grant IP rights retroactively. I fail to understand how Judge Green could come to the opposite conclusion.
BTW the case cites 8 Wheat. 493 - Does anyone know where I could find a copy of that case?
Looks like you got bit by the "preview" bug.
FWIW, the index to Melancholy Elephants (at least when I just went searching for it) is 39.
Pax -- Ob
Sonny Bono, as a Scientologist at war with the net, had a very personal interest in extending copyright. Randy Chase
At least slashdot allows you to retain copyright for the words your write - most commercial magazines don't!
I think you hit the nail on the head though - copyright serves a purpose when it encourages people to be creative (and who would bother if they felt anyone could 'steal' the result of their effort and claim it as their own), but it should prevent the work being used. If a publisher refsues to reissue a book, surely they should not be allowed to retain the copyright - after all copyright is the right to make copies, if the publisher is not exercising that right, why should they be able to withold it from others.
In general I must say I consider copyright to be a good thing, it allows limited control over your own work, but in general doesn't stop others from using your ideas for themselves.
Part of the problem surely, is the habit of publishers and broadcasters of claiming copyright for anything they put out. I have always had a problem with the traditional magazine clause that claims copyright for anything you send in to them, and it sounds like in the Buffy case, if the writer had not assigned his copyright to Fox then there would not have been a problem. Time to insist that copyright remains with the originator NOT the publisher.
Sizzle sizzle
Sonny Bono is screwing us in death. The beat goes on!
The Rest © 1997-2000 Andover.Net.
A tad ironic, don't you think ?
Anyway, that's besides the point. The point being, that even "Happy Birthday to you", is under copyright.
It is not a bad thing per se. Artists have the right to profit from the fruits of their intellectual labour. What is wrong is this over-zealous greed to hold on it for ever.
A good book, they say is a treasure. That term should not be taken too literally. It is a treasure for what it contains. Everybody should be allowed to share the thoughts contained between the two covers, without undue hinderance.
Copyright it, because what you create belongs to you. But please do make it available to the world. If you do not, your efforts are in vain.
George Orwell made a statement in his book 1984. It boiled down to "Those who control the past, control the present, and therefore the future." It's sad--not to mention scary as all hell--that this work seems to now serve not as not as a warning, but as a handbook to those who desire to gain power and wield that power to obtain and maintain obscene amounts of wealth, and prevent others from getting a share without their permission. This is one art that life should never imitate.
Mary Poppins be damned; there's not not a spoonful of anything that can help this medicine go down.--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
The site http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/ has a lot of information about the Sonny Bono Copyright Act and the disgusting lobbying that went on to get the legislation passed. It also has sample letters to Congress and Congresional addresses.
I urge everyone to write their representatives complaining about the subversion of copyright and intellectual property rights that the industry is in the process of conducting. It is worth also mentioning the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which allows even the terms of access to copyrighted works to be dictated, and the resulting assault by the MPAA on our rights to view DVDs we purchased.
To those who say your voice is not heard, most members of Congress and people in government are ordinary folk looking to continue in their jobs. Both soft money industry donations and your voice matter. If you think your voice cannot match the lobby funds of industry titans - you are mistaken.
Taking a cynical view that public interest plays no role, in a purely economic analysis, their is a cost to every vote. Given the money spent on campaigns and the number of votes actually up for grabs - that is a significant conversion price, probably comparable to a $500 donation.
A thousand letters from constituents to every representative addressing will make a difference. So please put a fraction of the time spent reading Slashdot into efforts to inform Congress and the media about the abuse of IP laws!
In addition, the trademark authority is local to such a defense. For example, to enforce a federal trademark, a person or company must prove that the trademark is used in advertising or marketing on a national level, and not just in a particular town or state.
A restaurant in Oklahoma named 'Food Palace' couldn't sue a restaurant in Washington state for trademark infringment. However, McDonald's, which operates worldwide, can 'defend' its trademark globally.
I believe copyright should be the same way. Use it or lose it. It is patently wrong, immoral, stupid and counter-intuitive to allow companies to maintain large archives of unused, unpublished materials sealed off forever from public domain.
In this respect, I agree with companies like Disney being able to maintain their copyrights indefinitely. If Disney invests as much time and money on these characters as they do to keep them 'alive', they should be encouraged to do so. That is their business. If they ever give up this business, however, then it should immediately (being a reasonable couple of years, perhaps) go into the public domain.
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/d
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/char
I've got to, ahem, keep a copy of that article - some good, uh, pointers in there!
About redubbing, some of my favorites are "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" w/ Steve Martin and "J Men Forever" by Firesign Theatre - old films chopped up with a new, improved soundtrack.
On taking movies out of circulation, I was peeved to hear Bill Cosby bought up all the old "Our Gang - Little Rascal's" movies and taken them private, probably for the same reasons "Song of the South" is out of circulation - This I heard from a guy who does "Amos & Andy" recreations, which ARE in circulation, and, by the way, almost any RADIO programs before 1960 are fair game, free and pubic - you can even set up shop and sell tapes, cd's, etc of those if you want, and many people do. Also, (was going to put this in the 'usenet' article) there are many available in alt.binaries.sounds.(mp3,oldradio something like that) - perfectly legal.
Lastly, I think at some time courts are going to have to address the intentions of the Constitution copyright laws to advance arts and science, not make neverending gold buckets for ancestral estates. Quote,
"... they now can use videotapes, camcorders, Photoshop, digital film editing, recordable CDs, MP3 files, and the Internet. The result has been an explosion of amateur films, fiction, and music, all of which can be "published" for a minimal investment by putting them on the Web."
<SARCASM> Now we wouldn't want THAT now would we?</SARCASM>
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
If the person being sued's income is less than $150,000 a year... the company suing must pay all of the person's legal fees. If the MPAA wants to sue the DeCSS coder, then they should have to pay 100% of his legal fees. Such a law is constitutional because it doesn't restrict the right so redress of grievences, it just makes it costly to sue. If a person is suing a company and the person's income is less than say $300,000 the company must pay its own legal expenses. However if BG were to sue a company he would have to pay their legal fees. Let's make the rich pay for the not rich's legal fees since it is usually the rich suing the non-rich over rubbish like the DeCSS case.
This kills me, about trademarks:
"Under this rule, it is illegal to produce, say, Microsoft brand ramen noodles, even though that other Microsoft isn't in the noodle business, lest the lousiness of your pasta undermine the software company's reputation."
That's backwards - the lousiness of Msft would ruin the noodle business! Everyone would start to think they contained worms or "This noodle product is provided with no warrenty, express or implied, as to merchantability or fitness for human consumption"
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
....Reason taking a libertarian view that isn't just a coded form of "if it interferes with profit, it's bad," even when it's the profit of an 800lb gorilla sucking at the public -- not necessarily governmental -- teat. Witness some of the "libertarian" arguments against anti-trust actions.
One of the things that made me turn my back on US Libertarian Party, pwofit-is-your-fwend style libertarianism is how the word "coercion" gets applied only to guvmint, while private coercion doesn't exist -- it's "property rights" and "market forces." The increasingly important struggle over copyright is a beautiful example of freedom being not necessarily aligned with property rights.
"You mean the whole time Darth Vader was such a badass, it was because he missed his mother?"
Someone mentioned "The Book People" from Fahrenheit 451's
end in a DeCSS discussion. It seems as thought the government is
being paid by corporations in to developing a group of firemen
like in the book Fahrenheit 451, whose job was the reverse of our
firemen today. They burnt all unauthorized books. Yeah, that is
pretty drastic, but really they are more or less paving the way
for that to happen. Of course, our "firemen" are using law to
stop publication. By stopping the circulation of a movie here or
there, and this book or that book, some one is gaining control on
the past.
I think that capitalism is great, but for it to be great you
need competition. They are giving money to the congressmen, and
the congressmen need the money to buy air get elected. More than
that, they need votes. You can use your power of vote to not
re-elect the guy next time around when he upholds some stupid law
when you wrote a letter. (DMCA anyone?) A look back just about
100 years shows what happens when big corporations aren't
regulated to some degree. With no minimum wage companies drove
wages DOWN which goes counter to logic. People would of coarse
gravitate to the higher waged jobs. The companies made deals, and
broke up unions and their strikes.
I think a possible legal set up is that if the defendant of
a case wins, the plaintiff has to pay his legal fees. Solutions
based on who has how much money will never work because of the
change in world markets, inflation, and most other economic
things. Corporations may just sue individuals who have over the
dollar limit on them paying, and then a few suites later, their
standard of living is below someone who makes $30,000 per year.
Now how many copyrights did I mention in this posting? Well first
Fahrenhe.....
There are exactly 42,935,718 letter sized sheets in a square mile.
Spider Robinson, a fine science fiction writer, author of the Callahan's Crosstime Saloon series wrote a short story back in the early 80's called Melancholy Elephants about precisely this problem. He pointed out that carried to it's ultimate conclusion, extending both the scope and duration of copyright protection would simply result in an environment that stifles creativity rather than promoting it. Every story, every melody, every character name would have the potential to violate the copyright of someone long dead whose heirs could of course sue. He makes his living as an author. He stands to lose royalties for his heirs down the line for opposing longer terms for copyright protection. But he also stands to lose by having copyrights that should long since have expired used against him.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
i thought your email addy was billg@microsoft.com...oh well..
Better handling of representation...
Attorneys' fees and court costs are paid by the non-prevailing *attorney.* Lawyers accept or refuse cases with the knowledge of the risk-hedge necessary to avoid they prevailing party's fees.
Malpractice firms would extend insurance into "non-prevalence coverage," and "meta-lawyers" would pre-evaluate cases before filing.
Model it on Underwriters Laboratories, and let insurance companies manage all the risk. It's what they do best.
Fight corporate megaliths with better-incented corporate megaliths.
This would grant an automatic 10-15 year copyright provided adequate diligence, and predecate the extension of such copyrights on the continued economic success (i.e. useful amount of entertaining derivative works) the original work provides.
Disney could keep Mickey Mouse, but they might not be able to afford to hold on to, say Cinderella (who wasn't really theirs to begin with)
While I'm not a huge fan of copyrights, there is nothing about them per se that couldn't be accomplished with contractual licensing. *Patents* are necessarily government granted, *trademark protection* is a derivative of fraud, but must be granted by govt. *Copyright* could be established in any system of strict contractual liability.
Mind you, this would prevent utterly the copyright of something like MLK's "I have a dream." However, it would protect any kind of standard media publishing.
Ponder this standard for copyrights: copyrights can only be upheld when their application *can* be established by contractual licensing. Ex: "By purchasing this book, the buyer assumes the responsibility for preventing unauthorized reproduction of this work for commercial benefit." You don't want to take responsibility, don't buy the book.
I agree with the above comment. This is a great comment, better than most of the "fives" on Slashdot. More importantly an excellent example of the "right way" to be an advocate of something.
> If todays intellectual property laws were in force at the time of
> Martin Luthar King
> the Catholic church would have been able to prevent the translation
> of the Bible into local languages (German, later English, etc.)
> and would have been able to prevent its being published at all.
Even without copyright laws, the Catholics tried pretty hard to prevent vernacular translations of the Bible. At one time, for example, it was an offense in England, punishable by execution, to distribute or even possess an English translation of the Scriptures. That's one of those little factoids that most modern religionists not only don't know but refuse to believe when told, but you can look it up in a history book.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Scientology is trying to prevent scientologists who have left the offical organization to practice their beliefs.
This of course has nothing to do with the offical organization charging thousands and tens of thousands to practice, while the ex-scientologists charge very little.
Microsoft [tm] brand Ramen noodles??? Do you really think that would work? I mean, it's not that bad an idea, but will people buy it?!? Hmmmm...
By the way, what do you mean the "lousiness of Msft would ruin the noodle business"?!? I take great exception to that. We would not only NOT ruin the noodle business, but perhaps bring together previosly seperated noodle eaters. No longer will people wonder wether or not their noodles will fit into their bowls, because I'll be marketing MICROSOFT[tm] brand bowls, specifically compatible with MS[tm] brand Ramen Noodles.
It's beautiful, I love it... Now to just get the DOJ off my back for ONE lousy minute. Sheesh, they're bloody everywhere.
Sincerely,
Bill Gates
What kills me is that a corporation has a 95 year copyright while an individual has 70. So that means that John Lennon's imagine is protected for 70 years, but the Old Spice theme song is secure for 95. What warped thinking! I am surprised, if most people in the creative community aren't incorporating themselves. Here's a scenario. You write a song in 2000,and incorporate yourself, protecting your song for 95 years. You die that year, as your first and only son is born. In 2018, your son, has a son, in 2036, he has a son, in 2054, he has a son, 2072, this son has a kid, who has a kid himself in 2090. There is an accident that kills the father. For the next 5 years until the copyright expires, the great great great great grandson has control over your work, making money off of it, and authorizing its public usage. Yes. This is so totally fair. NOT!
Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
every restaurant that dared to sell any brand of Noodles other than Microsoft® noodles would still be required to pay their supplier for a serving of Msft noodles for every dish sold, whether the customer ordered Msft noodles or not;
other food companies that seek to establish 'strategic alliances' and 'marketing tie-ins' with Msft noodles would eventually find themselves a subordinate division of Msft Oriental Noodles International (MONI);
Msft noodles contain secret patented ingredients that react with the ingrediants of noodles from other companies, resulting in severe cramps and indigestion if eaten together, the implication being that "if you would only eat Msft brand noodles exclusively this wouldn't happen", or else other noodle companies would have to 'license' the secret patented Msft noodle formula to maintain gastronomic compatibility.
But seriously, interesting that the article mentions that copyrights are essentially "govt. granted monopolies". I've often thought the Msft situation was the result of the govt. allowing the company to 'get away' with things, permitting if not encouraging the buildup a domestic monopoly in order to promote US global competitiveness (competing with the 'Japan Inc' of the 80's) - but has gotten out of hand altogether now.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Wow, nice to see you here hobnobbing with the masses (virtually speaking, that is) - sorry about the bash there, I was just, haha, trying to fit in this crowd, you know, gain their confidence then start subtling plugging our products. Actually I'm trying to convince my current employer to spring for a Windows 2000 Advanced Server, that would be so kewl! Also, sorry I let my TechNet subscription lapse; will get a check in the mail ASAP.
Yours Devotely
MCP/MCSE # 7199832
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The article is great. I love the little blurb about Microsoft ramen noodles - you could just imagine -
okay, so that was a bit of a stretch, I couldn't do justice to it, but I'm sure someone else could...
The following is a letter I wrote several months ago to the editor of "Performing Songwriter" magazine about a column written by Bill Parsons" about the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" and the "Fairness In Music Licencing Act". I make a number of points that I believe are valid and would like to share them with a larger number of people. The editor never responded.
We've been subscribers to Performing Songwriter for a number of years.
In general, we enjoy the content, especially Janis Ian's column. But one item has always bothered me. Your lack of a letters column. I realize that your publishing schedule and limited editorial space might make this a bit more difficult, but the fact is that you don't do so even on your web site, where space is for all practical purposes unlimited.
This lack has kept me from writing about something else that has annoyed me to no end for quite some time: Bill Parson's "Legislative Update". I realize Parsons is a performing songwriter, but I suspect that is not his primary source of income. He is singing from the RIAA/ASCAP/BMI songbook, and in the interest of full disclosure perhaps you should reveal who he has received a paycheck from this year. My point is, he sounds exactly like a lobbyist. His web page on songs.com states that he is "...a former aide to consumer advocate Ralph Nader". I have no problem with that...just with who is he *currently* aiding?*
Now, I have no problem with political debate, but you have provided no forum for anyone to respond to Parson's ill-considered attacks on the public domain, and passionate defense of the rights of huge publishing empires under the disingenuous guise of "protecting the rights of songwriters".
But this latest, an attack on Eric Eldred is the worst. As the editor, did you bother to visit the Eldred Press web site? Parsons paints Eldred as a commercial publisher, trying to weasel out of paying for work. This is so far from the truth that it verges on libelous.
Here's Eric Eldred's web site:
http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/
Does this look like the commercial entity that Parson's implies? I quote Parsons:
The implication is that Eldred has a commercial interest (a reasonable assumption from someone I assume to be a lobbyist). The truth is, he does not, and never has. Also, the use of the loaded term "fallen into the public domain". Read the Constitution: the public domain is the intended repository of all creative works. Copyright is a limited right, granted for a limited period of time. For 28 years to be extended to 150 years is a mockery.
Perhaps this is hard to grasp, the intention of the framers that everything should naturally fall into the public domain. I find it useful to imagine that Benjamin Franklin had never invented the public lending library. Imagine that tomorrow, someone tried to do so. Imagine the uproar from copyright holders:
This modern day Franklin would never get away with it...they'dcrucify him.
Also, I'd suggest exercising some editorial discretion and rein in Parson's annoying habit of referring to the "(Un)Fairness In Music Licensing Act". It might have been "cute" the first time, but lacking a balancing opposing viewpoint, it's just childish.
And frankly, childishness is the major issue here. It takes children some years to learn to share, and to realize the greater good for all accomplished by sharing. And that's what this is about - the desire of one man (Eldred) to share works that are no longer producing income for their original creators, as the very grown-up framers of the Constitution intended. Here's the passage fromArticle 1:
You can find a lot more about this from the following page:
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension act was bought and paid for by a group that contributed more lobbying money than the tobacco companies combined. Parsons claims that it benefits performing songwriters. This is a damned lie. It extends the term of copyright from 50 years after any songwriter is dead and gone to 70 years after their heart has stopped beating. In what possible way does this benefit any songwriter? That, in the unlikely event one of your songs remains popular for 70 years after you're dead, your great-grandchildren rather than your grandchildren will be on the gravy train? And it is a nice train..."Rhapsody In Blue" sold to United Airlines for a cool half-million - providing a lot of money to use to ensure the train keep right on running.
Parsons is appealing to songwriters, none of whom will receive the any benefit from it, that this act is a good thing. Do you believe that there is some great social good accomplished by making a few "trust fund babies" that outweighs the vast social good accomplished by having a large and thriving public domain? Because, that's the ultimate goal of the copyright extensionists. The elimination of the public domain.
Try to imagine a world where Stephen Foster's songs had never entered the public domain. Public domain keeps songs alive, by making it easy for publishers to keep them in print, to provide a world of tunes that songwriters can use to embroider into their own work.
Because the truth is, songwriters do not create melodies. They discover them. In western music, there are a finite number of possible melodies, even fewer in the popular keys. Every songwriter "creates" a melody at some time, only to later find out that Mozart had used it while he was still in diapers. Try to imagine that the basic 4-bar blues riff was copyrighted; that's the world that Parsons wants for us.
A good example of how overly long copyright periods inhibit artists: Kate Bush wrote a song using Molly Bloom's speech from "Ulysses". The song fit the words beautifully and it was nearly ready from release when the Joyce estate refused permission. No amount of bargaining could get Joyce's grandson to relent, and Kate had to "re-write the speech" into her song "The Sensual World". James Joyce didn't refuse Kate permission, his grandson did. He's proven to be the bane of Joyce scholars his entire life, and now will for generations to come.
There's a lot more I could write about this, but the fact that you have no avenue for your readers to respond, to present the opposing side of a political lobbying effort, makes my effort seem pointless. I can only hope that you'll make an effort to see the entire picture, and not just the one that some people are paid to promote. When looking at political issuse, the phrase "follow the money" is apt: look to see which side has a large amount of money to promote it's effort; the side that has less money is the one more likely to have the public's best interest at heart.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
... is to create a cult following. OK, perhaps not the normal negative stereotypes of drug-crazed messiatic hipsters but more along the lines of creating a long-lived mental franchise (think Mozart, think Lennon & Elvis). Big media studios don't make much (enough?) money from individual hits/movies, instead they're looking for the next long-lived brand series (e.g. Star Wars, Trek, DisneyWorld, etc) that they can flog merchandise, game-tickets, theme memorabilia, etc to the "adoring" (and prefereably mindless e.g. WWF) fan base. This is akin to the classic Catholic church business model of create a cult/philosophy, sell indulgences (no comments on religious flak please, it's just an illustrative example). Very profitable for the church but rather tortuous for the peasants (the inquisition was very much driven by the profit motive). Perhaps it's a rather cynical way of looking at the modern world but in this context, retaining copyright for 95 years (perhaps forever would be their preference) makes sense.
The problem is that while anti-trust laws guard against domination of the world of atoms, what protection is there in the world of ideas? The whole concept of branding is exactly that, to condition the consumer into a purchasing pattern that excludes competitors through natural exclusion. For the long run, would you want your grandkids and downstream generations to be dominated by the same cultural motifs of yesteryear? While having a common semiotic (symbol based) basis to communicate is good, the problem of cultural atrophy does spring to mind.
IMHO, there is a growing problem in that with digitalisation and permanent storage, any media (given enough care) can persist forever. Economists have always warned about cogestion effects, think of extending the mental traffic lanes to a century out. Given that we can access any book, any performance, any recordable event for the last 100 years, this creates an exponential explosion of information and experiences that will continue to saturate the consumer. In this situation, big dominates as flash and spin will crowd out slow and substance due to the speed of delivery and dominance of the attention span. The unintended side-effect is that the longer the copyright laws are enplaced, the lower the incentives studios have of developing NEW talent as it is easier and less risky to go with the current lineup of (fading?) stars rather than take a gamble on unknown. People have commented/complained previously of how the top 40 list is dominated by the same artists week after week. This is not a conincidence.
What can be done when you are competing with history (e.g Elvis, Lennon, etc) as well as the shadow of your own past? Selective amnesia is not a technological option. Weakening copyrights will bring howls of outrage from vested interests. Perhaps the only suggestion is that for enlightened self interest, new multimedia artists, especially for the new web media adopt a business approach of OpenContent or self-destruct after x years (where x < current 95 legal limit). Afterall, destruction can only lead to renewal of new ideas.
LL
Actually, virtually all modern translations of the Bible are in fact copyrighted. Only the King James Version is public domain, to the best of my knowledge. I presume the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic manuscripts are as well.
--
The shareholder is always right.
Incidentally,
Quite a good cautionary tale.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
The companies that are most interested in "defending" their copyrights seem to be the same companies that don't understand copyright law.
Several of the examples in this article represent "fair use" of copyrighted material. A lawsuit filed against these individuals would likely be summarily dismissed because the plantiff simply has no case.
AFAIK, anything used for "academic" or "research" purposes is fair use. Its black letter law. Filing lawsuits in the face of this fact is a waste of time.
Copyright law needs to be updated.
If todays intellectual property laws were in force at the time of Martin Luthar King, the Catholic church would have been able to prevent the translation of the Bible into local languages (German, later English, etc.) and would have been able to prevent its being published at all.
No Reformation.
No Renaissance.
No Science.
No Industrial Revolution.
No exponential growth of knowledge and technology.[1]
What have we already denied ourselves and our children, in subscribing and adhering to this atrocity? What will the media lobby and our so easilly (and cheaply) sold congress take from us next?
[1] IMHO this is what we are on the cusp of losing now, along with the usual targets of such attack: civil liberties, freedom of speach and expression, and so on. How can you do any science if the cost of "standing on the shoulders of others" eats up the bulk of your research budget? In the areas of applied science and technology we already live with this to a large degree - there is a reason airplanes and automobiles have changed little in the last several decades, and it isn't because we've perfected the technology by a long way.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Maybe slightly off-topic but on Saturday, February 5, C-SPAN will air a speech by Jacob Hornberger, President of the Future of Freedom Foundation and one of the finest speakers in the libertarian movement.
Hornberger's speech is entitled "Exploding Myths about Open Borders."
However, it is far more than a speech on immigration. Hornberger begins by speaking directly to the C-SPAN audience -- describing libertarianism and the libertarian movement.
AIRING TIME:
The speech will be broadcast as part of C-SPAN's "American Perspectives" program. Jacob's speech is scheduled to begin "approximately" ten minutes after 10 pm, Eastern Standard Time, Saturday, February 5.:
C-SPAN tells me your best bet is to tune in at 10 pm, where you'll see the concluding minutes of another speech, which will be immediately followed by Hornberger's speech.:
REPEAT AIRING:
The speech will be repeated three hours later, beginning "approximately" ten minutes after 1 am, Eastern Standard Time, early Sunday, February 6.
Intellectual property has long been an unresolved issue among Libertarians. For instance, here is an article by a libertarian about why copyright is a bad thing.
http://www.freenation.org/fnf/a/f31l1.html
Here is an article by another why it is a good thing.
http://www.freenation.org/fnf/a/f32h3.html
This debate has been raging since the 19th century and has to do mainly with the fundamental issue of what is property and what is protected free speech. I of course, being a slashdot reader , think that intellectual property is mostly a bad thing and should be much more limited than it currently is today because I see the totalitarian deficiencies of an over interpretation of copyright laws.