Slashdot Mirror
Copyrights and Copywrongs
Skywise writes: "MSNBC has a very good article looking at the history of copyrights, their implementation into law by the founding forefathers to protect democracy, and the extreme danger the DMCA will be to our country."
The list goes on. The television? That was us. Radio? That was us. The car? That was us. The computer? That was us. The microwave? That was us. The cooker? That was us. The vacuum cleaner? That was us. Modern furnature, from futons to coffee tables? That was us. Was the printing press not invented by the American Thomas Paine in the 1700s? Pre-revolutionary it might have been, but no invention has made a more significant contribution to the fields of learning and democratic participation than Paine's famous "Caxton Printing Press", used to print his famous pamphlets such as "The Rights of Man" and "A modest proposal". And it was invented on this side of the Atlantic by a good, honest, native of these lands. If it wasn't for Americans, people would not be reading books.
If it wasn't for Americans, British "Archers" would still be using crossbows and darts to make war, without the American invented guns, bullets, and gun powder that serves to protect democracy in the modern world.
Coal, oil, and other fossil fuels would lie underground as people continue to use wood to heat their homes and cook their food. The oven & fridge would be absent from the domestic kitchen.
It's thanks to America that democracy has spread throughout the civilised world. Invented by the founding fathers, America proved that democracy could world, and in doing so, resulted in the democratisation of Europe. If it wasn't for America, the French would never have seen the light and revolted against their cake-eating aristocratic rulers, and Britain would today be a monarchy.
Europeans need to grow up and learn that they're not number one. In the entire 1,000 year history of the EU, starting from William's conquering of Normandy in England, the EU has contributed less to the world than any one of the 50 states of the USA has in the last three centuries.
I salute Kalbajoui and dmenstuate: Put the ignoramis Eurotrolls in their place. It's both off topic to whine that the original article didn't contain enough historical context: that they then try to rewrite history to portray something as Yorpean when it was clearly an American invention, just takes the biscuit.
I'm an American, but I think that at this point, Germany in general is _wiser_ than we are on the subject. They have reason to be. The question is, do 'we' have sense enough to learn from history, or are 'we' going to be the ones repeating it this time around?
If we do, I am certainly not going to sit back and let it happen without an argument. So: no, it is NOT invariably 'OK to be proud of your country'. Not without taking responsibility for the actions of your country- and doing so may temper that pride with some wisdom and levelheadedness that are terribly valuable.
National pride can so EASILY be a problem that acknowledging this is extremely important. Ignoring it is dangerous- because the emotion, like mob mentality, _does_ come naturally to people, and horrible things can happen as a result.
There is nobody who would be _more_ in favor of all forms of costless digital copying than Thomas Jefferson. It's the final, beautiful realisation of an ideal he had hundreds of years ago, and didn't have the capacity to truly bring to fruition.
Jefferson wouldn't have encouraged shoplifting, stealing of physical goods. But if you told him that it would be possible for anyone to grab a copy of every word, verbatim, of any book, without depriving the original person of their copy, and without costing significant money for labor or new materials involved with the copying? He would think that was _heaven_. And if you see things his way, it is... we owe it to Jefferson to see to it that this heaven of freely copyable data continues to be a reality, and I don't mean just napster, I mean stuff like Project Gutenberg AND napster AND search engines that can turn up all that information...
One might as well make my .emacs patentable -- it's valuable, after all, speeds up my development time, and I'm sure I could convince some patent examiner that some elements are innovative. Or how about the nifty new route I found from Chico to Placerville? I spent a great deal of time off work finding it, and so lost money in the process, and it's probably not intuitive to anyone looking at a map, so it should be patentable too.
Your criteria (even counting in innovation) would leave those rediculous business plan patents within the realm of legality. It might support musicians patenting a particularly striking progression which they discovered, or artists patenting the techniques they've worked to protect.
If patentability is decided around the expendatures and potential financial gains of the patent-seeker, society as a whole will not profit. Patents must be issued only inasmuch as they benefit the public by encouraging growth in the "sciences and the useful arts" -- and no more. If a discovery would become available to the public without the use of a patent, it must not be patentable -- in this case the monopoly benefits only the patentholder and nobody else. Of course, handling this on a case-by-case basis would grant far too much discretionary power to those charged with such responsibility, as well as requiring specialized knowledge in more fields than is practical to find; thus, general guidelines must be set. However, they should be set with the goals of the public good, not the wealth of the few who make use of the patent office most directly.
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Somebody *please* mod this troll down.
Labelling something 'Opinion' doesn't relieve the author or responsibility to do research. It's not nit-picking to say that the author jumped to a very pro-American conclusion. He made it sound as though the US took wicked British censorship laws and fashioned them into powerful tools for democracy.
Look, the US deserves plenty of credit for establishing a country based on powerful ideals. But it didn't invent every idea or tool of democracy - the Rest of the World has thought some of this stuff through too.
Hey, what's with the anti British side swipe in the first paragraph? Is this 4th July national fervour or something?
From: http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html
"Copyright law as we know it began in England in 1710 when the British Parliament enacted the Statute of Anne. The Statute of Anne contained, for the first time in copyright law, legal protection for consumers of copyrighted works by curtailing the term of a copyright thus, preventing a monopoly on the part of the booksellers. It also created a "public domain" for literature by requiring the creation of a new work in order to obtain a copyright, by limiting the length of term of a copyright, and by limiting the rights granted to the copyright owner (print, publish, and sell) so that once purchased the copyright owner does not control the use of the work. The statute also provided for an author's copyright - although the benefit to authors was minimal because in order to be paid for a work an author had to assign the work to a bookseller or publisher. "
Hardly the monarchist instrument of repression the MSNBC starts with...
Jon 'Whingeing Pom' Peterson
-----
Honestly, MSNBC is less biased than say, slashdot ;)
(Not that there haven't been cases where
they have made MS look better than deserved)
This is one of the most short sited replies I've ever seen. The history of European Copyright summerarly rejected in the US because it was viewed universally as an abuse used by European Monarch and the Church to give out special favors or impose censorship. The sheet music copyright issues which occured in Europe AFTER the American Revolution demostrated everything wrong with European copyright. The copyright neither encorauged publication or guaraneteed libert. It was strictly treated as an abused priveledge to be extended to the advantages of despot rulers. The result was gas house gang riots, beating and abuses. It wasn't until the break with European tradition that American Copyright Law realized the political implications, where are ENORMOUS. In a word, American Copyright has NO BASIS in European Common Law and was an intentional break from the abuses inherent in it. Just for the record, Eupean Copyright STILL SUCKS Ruben http://www.nyfairuse.org
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
In terms of Copyright, American DID turn a tool of censorship and privledge into a tool for Democracy.
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
That's COMPLETELY not right.
... TO ENCOURGAUGE publications....as OPPOSED to protect the PROPERTY of the AUTHER.
Go back and read the Federalist Papers idiot!!
You miss represent the American Position on Copyright and screw over American protections of Liberty at the same time.
American explicitly and purposefully REJECTED The Queens Anne legal basis for Copyright...in PLAIN ENGLISH in the Constitution....
The English can STILL read English....is that right.
They CAN READ the part about
Ruben
http://www.nyfairuse.org
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Poetic, but wrong.
If I spend a year writing a book, that book cost me a year. If you copy the book without just compensation, you're stealing some portion of my time, and my work, directly.
Face up, folks. Copyrights, properly applied, are necessary.
The notion that any of this copying is "cost-free" is utter nonsense. The cost was borne by the creator, who has every right to control and charge for access to the material.
So you can 'wheel that one' right back into its barn.
Can't resist this-
If the Europeans don't see themselves as superior, then why don't they try to improve themselves? Why would anyone want to live in a second rate state? Seems to me like the Europeans want to drag the US down with them. Superiority by tripping. I remeber that from middle school.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
The English sorted this out when we were still colonies.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/cpu_b.
Toward the bottom:
The plot of the booksellers was, however, ultimately defeated in 1774 by the decision of the House of Lords in Donaldson v. Beckett. It was this decision that established the basic concept of Anglo-American copyright. When an author fixed his creation on a tangible medium, he obtained a common law right that is eternal in nature. However, he lost this common law right with publication, or, ?dedication to the public?. In effect, the House of Lords accepted the dissenting opinion and reasoning of Justice Yates in Millar v. Taylor:
? Mr. Justice Yates had very clear and definite notions as to the limits of property, but a reference which he makes to the civil law throws a stronger light on his view of the whole subject than any of his direct reasoning. What the Institutes have to say relating to "wild animals," he observes, "is very applicable to this case." And he then proceeds to draw a comparison between these two singularly related subjects. Animals ferae naturae are yours "while they continue in your possession, but no longer. " So those wild and volatile objects which we call ideas are yours as long as they are properly kenneled in the mind. Once unchain or publish them, and they "become incapable of being any longer a subject of property; all mankind are equally entitled to read them; and every reader becomes as fully possessed of all the ideas as the author himself ever was." (Sedgwick 1879)
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
That's how it started, where the idea came from. Past that, the evolution has been different in each country.
In England, there was a famous case in the 18th century through which some publishers tried to assert a common law 'property right' to copyrights. They failed. The States inherited the English Common Law, sans copyright. That's about all you need to know.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
Sorry.
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
As American law is directly derived from English law (excluding Louisiana), the copyright practices in the rest of Europe are irrelevant to a discussion of American copyright law. If that offends you, too bad.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
This discussion of Disney etc cartoons always gets me a little confused. In my understanding, the copyright on what you call "Mickey Mouse" is actually the copyright on the first cartoon that Mickey appeared in. If and when that goes into the public domain, it means nothing other than TV stations can rebroadcast that cartoon for free.
Meanwhile, Mickey Mouse(tm) is a trademark for the Disney Corporation, no? If so, it effectively prevents Pepsi from digitally altering "Steamboat Willie" so that Mickey is drinking a Pepsi and telling us how delicious it is.
Note that we don't have to wait until 2025 to figure out -- several old Popeye and Superman cartoons have gone into PD apparently and are legally for sale on VHS down at the dollar store for $1 a tape. I assume that does not mean that the character of Superman is public domain or that you can start your own chain of Popeye's Fried Fondue resturants.
This is all pretty much out of my ass -- please straighten me out if I got it wrong.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Copyright was originally invented by early christian Irish monks in the dark ages -
(from www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/columba-l.html
Columba went north and founded the church of Derry. Tradition has it that after founding several other monasteries, Columba copied St. Finnian's psalter without the permission of Finnian, and thus devalued the book. When Finnian took the matter to High King Dermott for judgement, Dermott judged in favor of Finnian, stating "to every cow its calf; to every book its copy" (I am borrowing this quote from Cathach Books in Dublin). Columba refused to hand over the copy, and Dermott forced the issue militarily. Columba's family and clan defeated Dermott at the battle of Cooldrevny in 561. Tradition further holds that St. Molaisi of Devenish, Columba's spiritual father, ordered Columba to bring the same number of souls to Christ that he had caused to die as pennance. In 563, Columba landed on Iona with 12 disciples, and founded a new monastery. After founding several more monasteries, confounding the local druids, and participating in another battle (this time against St. Comgall over who owned the church of Colethem), Columba died on June 9, 597.
Choice of masters is not freedom.
To be honest, if you look at the (dwindling) list of British colonies here, and then look at a map of the world, you will see that Britain still has colonies spread far enough apart such that at any time of day one of them is under sunlight. This, of course, is the meaning of the phrase, "The sun never sets on the British Empire". It is often misunderstood - many people seem to think it means that the British Empire will never end.
The phrase refers to how far spread the empire is/was, not how long it was expected to stay or how powerful it is/was.
What happened in Louisiana?
Not trolling or taking the piss, I am interested. How did things turn out differently there?
Please do not tell everybody else what everybody else means based on your own narrow interpretations
Narrow interpretations, otherwise known as what I was taught at school in Britain when discussing such things. Then again, I suppose us Brits know nothing about the British Empire and everyone else knows everything.
I have had this discussion with friends (it was brought up by a friend who went to live in the US and was amused be people's misinterpretation of it). It seems obvious (to my peer group) what the phrase means, as if it meant "The British Empire will never end" the sentence would most probably have been structured differently. Something like "The sun will never set on the British Empire".
pretty much all the companies that were split from Standard Oil are once again a single company.
The difference is that now there are a lot of OTHER oil companies too. Back then there was SO and then.....
Personally I don't have a problem with people owning copyrights. The image of a strugging artist expecting to get paid for their efforts seems just to me. The problem for me comes with the current system which so strongly favors the "distribution channel" over the artist.
Fortunately, the good guys in the DMCA case have more sense - check the DMCA Amicus Curiae brief - search down for "Statute of Anne" (1694) and note how the "our content forever" lobbyists were beaten off in 1774.
Anyway, Happy July 4!
alex
Far from simply failing to flatter 'us', the writer is storming into his piece on the back of the allegation that this important American freedom was a reaction against the situation prevailing in Britain. This is, as a number of not-exclusively-Euroweenies have pointed out, completely wrong.
cheers alex
The Felten case is very interesting.
In the MPAA vs 2600 and DVDCCA vs the entire world, the media companies chose the fighting ground. The issues in both cases are not perfect if you want to challenge the constitutionality of the DMCA.
However, the Felten case goes directly at the DMCA stifling academic research. See the complaint, where they do a good job of pruning away all issues not related to the publishing of the research material. This could be the case that blows the DMCA out of the water. It could just carve out a more sensible exemption for encryption research, though. Or Felten could loose, and we have a bad case of precedence to fight the next time.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Owning "intellectual property" may be similar to owning people, a little ownership is good but a lot of ownership is bad.
You argument breaks down at this line and switches tracks randomly. You're comparing two completely separate objects.
Just thought you should know.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I seem to remember the TV and telephone being invented over here
No, buddy, telephone was Alexander Graham Bell. Canada, the United States, and Britain all have a claim on him... I believe he was born in Britain, lived in Canada, and did his research in the US. You guys used to be scientific powerhouses, but that distinction, along with the dubious title "Leaders of the Free World", has transfered to the US.
But it didn't discuss English law either. They jumped over 200 years of history, without any acknowledgement that the concepts fundemental to the US copyright system were derived from English law. Where was the discussion of the 1662 printer licensing Act? The 1709 Statute of Anne?
http://media-in-transition.mit.edu/forums/copyrigh t/index_transcript.html
enough.
:wq
> Ah, the requiste whining about how America ain't that great, we did it first in england, you really didn't save the french from germany two times in the first half of the century, blah, blah, blah....
/Dread (prides to Love/Hate the US)
Oh? SO we should still bend over and let us be fscked, because some ancient American Warmonger decided it was cool to kick the butt of Japan?
You DO remember Pearl Harbor do you? There is an excellent "lets twist history a bit HOLLYWOOD flic" about that now, you should view that. You did not get in the war for Europes sake, do not claim so.
Yes, US presence in the Allies helped ending the 2nd WW but there is really no telling what would have happened if Nippon did not bomb PH now is there? Should we thank Japan?
>Incidentally, it's the Fourth of July. If you don't recall, it's 225 years ago today that we told you (the British anyway) to bugger off.
Hey, more power to you, now YOU bugger off.
> Oh yeah, why do you folks bitch every time a quasi-historical movie comes out that doesn't kiss European ass? If you don't like American studios making movies that portray the Good ole USA in a very positive light, then why don't you create your own movies that are worth distributing world wide? Can't compete with Hollywood on their terms? Thats really sad.
Have you ever realized that perhaps, oh I dunno, the fact that Europe has 20 odd LANGUAGES, and thus 20 odd MARKETS for MOVIES has some effect on that?
> Sure, there are a few foreign movies wich win well deserved acclaim here in the states (Trainspotting, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon)But for the most part, your film industry can't hold a candle to Hollywood, in terms of raw popularity.
AH! Ever heared of *Bollywood*? They release more and for a bigger "raw sale" they Hollywood. Too bad you apparently do not speak Hindi. The world is quite some bigger then Europe and the US you know.
> Great Britain had their time at the top of the world food chain, and pissed and stomped their way accross the world, claiming every spit of land you beat the Spainards to for the Crown. Remember "The sun never sets on the British Empire?"
Yes, we remember, actually Im Dutch, we fought the British quite harsh on that claim. Both Britain, and Holland got sorta modernized you know, we actually understand now that Slavery and Colonies are bad. Talking about "slavery", and "minorites" in the states. Wasnt there some internal fuss about in the US? Civil War ring a bell? Looking at all the racial conflics in the states, I have to conclude that about half of your country is still confused over this.
> Well, now it's our turn to be leader of the pack, and if you don't like the privileges that come with that -like painting things in a pro US light, and not giving a rats ass what you Europeans think about it- well, too bad.
Well, you may WANT to be the leader of Pack. You may actually think you Deserve to be the leader of the Pack. You actually may think you already are, so is THIS why the US got voted out of many a UN comittee lately? Is THIS why the merger between Honeywell and GE was stopped BY THE EC. That does not fit.
This kind of phrasing actually used to be coined by our 2nd WW Neighbours. But guess what? Europe does not agree. We will lead our own pack thankyouverymuch.
> I know the US ain't perfect, and we like to color history to benefit ourselves
And you think thats a "good thing"?
(seriously, do you honestly believe the scholars in your country don't?)
Seriously, I do. We do not ban Evolution Theory from schools for example.
Greetings
Hey are you saying brittany spears is not culture?
War is necrophilia.
Speaking of MapBlast, I was redirected today from www.mapblast.com to home.vicinity.com.
Has the MapBlast web site gone away entirely? I had 25 map pages I used, and none of the URLs seem to work any more, it just hangs there with a grey screen indefinitely.
What a shame, I found MapBlast much easier to use than MapQuest.
DZ
World Wide Web, a now popular bastardization of a once U.S. DoD network.
What do you mean? The WWW is made possible by an application protocol, a certain document specification, and a media descriptor database. ARPANET consisted of physical connections between computers and a transport protocol to shift bytes around. The only way that you can argue that the two are connected is by saying that the application protocol of the WWW is usually implemented over a transport protocol like the one used by ARPANET.
Is this what you meant to say?
For the record, I'm an American citizen and think that this whole thread has become pretty silly.
____________________
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
I mean really... It's not like software can be innovative or original! I mean, hell, next they'll be handing out patents for drugs and teaching mechanisma! I mean how dumb is that, It's not like it actually took some one considerable time and money to develop a product!
------------------------------------
The EU decided that their antitrust laws apply to US companies, since GE and Honeywell do business in Europe, even though th companies are US based, and the US approved the merger (not to mention other companies the EU is after such as Intel and Microsoft). So if the off-shore web-sites do business in the US (i.e. if they have customers in the US who viw the pages) they will definitely be subject to US law. What probably would happen is the web site would not allow US customers.
This was such a post. That ridiculous stupidity about the U.S. being all great, totally ignoring that you ARE Europeans. Yes. You are. The culture is, anyways. (Yes, tes, there are the other etnicities.)
The U.S. is a whole bunch of cultures mish-masehed together. The patriotism crap is added on later. Think a bit before you post. What language do you speak? How is your government made? How are your cultural customs? It seems so different for you.... but if you look upon it with objective eyes (I'm Brasilian) there is SUCH a difference!
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
Make a google search. He made the first seelf-propelled airplane, which first flew in Paris with witnesses and all. He was originally Brazilian. I know who they teach here (U.S.) and in Brazil. What do they teach everywhere else?
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
It's along the same lines as the MSNBC piece, but the history and the analysis are much sharper.
This is what she has to say specifically about the 1710 Statute
The rest of the paper, which analyses the contrast between this history and current recent developments, is strongly recommended.
This created the legal status quo in the Colonies which continued largely unchanged by the US Founding Fathers.
From Britannica:
For further information see this discussion by Brian Forte.The full text of the Statute is online here
However, I have one bone to pick. Where was this article when the Sonny-Bono act (the one that extended the copyright term retroactively) and the DMCA were being debated in congress? Now... that might have made a difference.
Americans are much like Nazis actually.
it's in my head
We do ..
it's in my head
Thanks for proving my point about the cluelessness of Americans :)
it's in my head
[1] Well, one can also take action, like supporting the EFF or even do some lobbying oneself. Unfortunatelly, if you live in another country it's very difficult to have any influence on the American government.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
You have an opportunity to sound off by writing a letter to the editor. I'm posting here what I wrote to the editor.
I feel that this editorial hits the nail on the head. I'm wondering if the Founding Fathers would like the idea behind Open Source licensing (aka "copyleft"). With Microsoft attacking the GNU General Public License, I believe that Open Source operating systems (like Linux) and other freely distributed software packages are forcing Microsoft to rely on it's name alone. The public is wanting more reliability in software than who can better promote the bells and whistles packaged within the software.
Actually, according to the article Jefferson would probably have considered GPL too restrictive.
Ciao
----
FB
What we fail to understand is your unability to understand that Europe do not exists (yet). There is still Italy, France, Germany, Spain and so on. With a hell of a lot of more diversification than, say, between Utah and California.
Just to reply to a stereotype with a stereotype : germans are proud and responsible people. They are still ashamed of what they did in the first half of last century, so they prefer not to declaim that they are proud of their country (but they are, and with some reason).
And, adding yet another stereotype, we spaghetti people instead already forgot that most of us where on the wrong side during WWW2. So we are less shy with our patriotism (though one could argue that there are at least three ofr four different Italies around here).
And French people still calls computers 'Ordinateurs' and software 'Logiciel'. Does that tell you enough about their patriotism?
I could go on, but I want to avoid alienating the whole Europe, less I will have to emigrate in Cina.
Ciao
----
FB
haha!
of course!
There was never any art before copyright. No music, no writing, no painting, no NOTHING.
And if we let Napster and such go free and share copyrighted ideas, then we'll be back into the dark ages with absolutely no creativity, original thought, or art.
Yey Yey for the DMCA!
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
(Disclaimer: I'd rather see a regulated market for narcotics than a police state where senior citizens can get themselves killed in a bungled bust attempt. But such is life.)
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
What are we supposed to do, anyway? Pull a Clear and Present Danger on the drug barons' asses? I'd argue yes, since that would make it a real war on drugs instead of a war on the personal freedoms (Norte Americano and otherwise). But unfortunately, if we were to try, we'd see an international backlash like you wouldn't believe. What to do? Do keep in mind that to get legalization, its advocates would have to stoop to similarly distasteful tactics. Politicians and law enforcement have a cash cow on the line here, and they won't give it up without bloodshed.... Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Once you have been exposed to an idea there is no known means availbable to purge yourself of it. Furthermore, unlike a book, once the idea is passed on, you are not poorer for the passing. Ideas make themselves part of your consciousness whether you will it or not. Consequently, it might be just as reasonable to argue that I can charge you storage fees for your idea if you it express it my hearing. "Intellectual prpoerty" is an oxymoron.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Drivel. Jefferson was talking about the propagatio of ideas. One look at a usenet news group shows that the produciton and propagation of YOUR ideas is just as "costless," if you want it that way. Also, the fact that a business is based upon an "intangible" does not make the intangible into "property" in Jefferson's terms. He states that the only means of protecting an idea is to keep it to yourself. His response to a complaint that others were profiting from your idea would be along the lines of "Tough. Get a new one, or keep your yap shut." Property is limited to tangibles. Jefferson had a very tough minded viewpoint. It was TJ who said the tree of liberty must be watered at intervals with the blood of patriots and tyrants. You really can't think that someone willing to be counted among the patriot and tyrant donors to the tree, is going to sympatize with someone who wants to exercise a little petty tyranny over an idea and its recipients, do you?
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Worse and worse.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Hmm. Actually, Jefferson probably would have sanctioned exactly that. In several letters to Madison during the time when Madison was drafting the Constitution, Jefferson opposed the provision of any kind of protection for intellectual property.
I'm always amazed by the adulation the Jefferson gets among educated people. TJ wasn't a very nice man -- he supported and encouraged the atrocities of the French Revolution, supported laws requiring that freed slaves be required to move out of Virginia within a year of their manumission, etc. Hell, he didn't even write the Declaration of Independence -- he was merely the lead draftsman among the committee of five.
...about the article. First, it's on MSNBC and they are championing causes that run contrary to their own interest. MS is so large that its right hand doesn't know what its left hand is doing. Either that, or they have journalistic integrity.
Second, the first part of the article did a good job of explaining the concept of a balance between consumer and producer. It's this lack of understanding about the balance that makes me wary of the anti-IP movement.
The article had a poor finish, stooping to the same old boosterism for Napster that I see all too often. I wonder how such authors would feel about their works being circulated on such a filesharing system.
Happy Independance Day everybody.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
You mean there were no artists before copyright, or that they didn't get paid?
Interesting that the MSNBC story about /. was in the "Business" section while this MSNBC story about Thomas Jefferson's concerns about monopolies is located in the "Opinions" section.
Just struck me as funny.
I'm a musician, and I plan on entering all my work into the public domain 14 years after it's initial release. Why? Because after 14 years, I'd like to see what other artists will do with it. After 14 years, I don't want to have to be bothered with licensing fees, legal issues, and repackaging old creations that I'm probably quite tired of. If I haven't made any money off an artistic release within 14 years, I don't want to keep trying to make money off it. I'd rather invest my time and energies in being creative in a new way.
And finally, my creations will be released after fourteen years because the pushing drive in my life is not to accumulate as much money as possible. It is not to maximize my profits or to increase my holdings. My life is not a game of numbers and margins. I can always pay my rent/mortgage and put food on the table. I live comfortably. I would much rather grow intellectually and creatively, and allow others to do the same, than to simply wallow in a pit of uneding profits and live a life of greed.
Corporations, driven by profits and quarterly reports, will almost never feel with way. Politicians, driven by a want to stay in office, may be persuaded to feel this way, although it is doubtful given the power of the Corporate Lobbies. I'd like to think that individual artists, musicians, and authors would feel this way, since it is in their best interests to grow as creators, and to have a wide body of work from which to build upon, explore, and reinterpret in the name of creation. It's too bad that we've become a country bent on profits rather than a nation striving for intellectual development and artistic expression.
This is the first time the Commission has made this sort of judgment against two non-EU companies. Put another way, every previous judgment has blocked a merger or cartel which would have enabled some European business or other to become big enough to compete in a globalised economy. a few examples are probably in order here:
- Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz - pharmaceuticals
- Shell and Montedizon - polypropylene
production
- Guinness and Grand Metropolitan - alcoholic beverages
- Roche AG and Bayer - sale of vitamin supplements
- Blokker and the Dutch subsidiary of Toys-R-Us - toy retailing
- Bertelsmann and Vivendi - media and telecomms
- that's quite enough.
So basically the Commission's been doing its job for a decade or more. Stopping mergers or anticompetitive arrangements which took too much business away from European companies. This is simply the first case in which both parties to the proposed merger were non-European.They've been shafting our businesses over here for years. Just because they've finally started shafting yours, don't whine about it.
And I'll restate the point about this being the law here, as decided by our elected representatives in the European Parliament, and by a Commission appointed by our elected national governments.
Democracy at work. What's that repulsive americanism that seems to be so much in vogue at the moment? Oh yes, though it chokes me to even use it...
get over it.
TomV
No-one said they couldn't merge. The commission simply said that if they did merge, then the merged company couldn't trade in various sectors (particularly avionics) within the EU.
Thing is, it's been said a million or so times here in respect of M'oft that "having a monopoly isn't illegal, it's abusing it that's not allowed", but that's the US legal position.
In the EU, having a monopoly is illegal, so once the Commission established that the merged company's market share would be above the defined threshold for a monopoly, they were hardly in a position to act any differently.
What you have here is a governmental body implementing a law put in place by a set of elected representatives. 'Democracy', I believe it's known as. Often posited as a credible alternative to imperialism.
TomV
Well, I made a Google search. The Wright brothers flew a powered airplane in December 1903, Dumont flew his in October 1906. Dumont was the first to do powered flight in Europe, but the Wrights still flew before he did.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
It's shocking how touchy some non-Americans are being about this story. They glossed over the history of copyright? It's MSNBC, what'd you expect-- a history lesson? It's not about Europe. It's about copyright in the U.S., hence the discussion of the DMCA. Yeah, maybe the writer gets a little nationalistic to make his point. It's still a decent article, despite the occasional manipulative phrase.
Every time a story comes up that says the least bit wrong about Europeans (or, worse-- forgets to mention them), they get in a tizzy. Do we need a warning? "WARNING: this article may contain no flattering commentary about Europe. If you're not American, read at your own risk. Oh, and if you're neither European nor American, you don't count-- even the Europeans don't think you exist."
On a side note-- and this is totally irrelevant, really-- where in the article does the author "rewrite history"? I just ask because you mention it twice.
All this, of course, is no help to those companies being screwed by Amazon.com's "One Click Shopping" patent.
What I'd like to know is how in the heck do you get a patent for ANY software? That's like getting a patent for a song due to the sequential process and timing involved with strumming strings on a guitar.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
In l870, begging bankers for more loans, he formed Standard Oil of Ohio.
Standard Oil was the basis for the same Sherman Anti-Trust Act that Microsoft was getting sued under. Due to this act, Standard Oil was split up into multiple companies.
The only reason I mention this is that while the world has been watching what all will happen with Microsoft, pretty much all the companies that were split from Standard Oil are once again a single company. This may not be all that relevant considering the state of the oil industry today as compared to Rockefeller's time, but it is kind of interesting just the same.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
If the DMCA unconsitutional, why doesn't someone challenge it in court?
I was wondering the very same thing when President Clinton signed in a budget that kicked in a retroactive tax. Sad truth of the matter is that the US Constitution has become more of a guideline then the law of the land.
Part of the problem has to do with two schools of thought concerning the Constitution. On one hand you have folks who believe that it should be interpereted along side the arguments and writings of those men who wrote it. On the other hand you've got those who see no value in the historical context and look at it from a purely here and now stand point.
In addition, it's important to consider that this shift in attitude towards the Constitution seems to rest far more with the Supreme Courts of late then the legislature. Seeing as how any challenge would go there if accepted, those looking to challenge would have to have a firm belief they'd win such a case. Losing at that level is actually far worse then a new restrictive law, because now you've got precedent working against you on any future case.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
Seeing anyone lament "Why can't xxx be more like patent law" on Slashdot signals the start to an interesting day.
What's next? The imagination boggles.
>should use this article to pubicise our point of view.
Pendejos! All of you!
Hmmmn. Do USA legislators and judiciary have both the clout and the audacity to effectively pursue extraterritorial legislation and censorship?
(Hint... ask Jon Johanassen of decss fame.)
The factors that must be balanced to decide the appropriate level of ownership for "intellectual property" are extremely complex. My view is that the decision should be based on what is best for the general public which, at least in theory, is how tax levels are determined. In particular, neither total communism (100% tax) or total anarchy (0% tax) lead to optimum levels of economic progress. Similarly, the optimum level of intellectual property ownership is probably somewhere between absolute private ownership and absolute public ownership.
So, when it comes to people, a little ownership is good (most people want jobs) but a lot of ownership is bad (most people don't want to be slaves). Owning "intellectual property" may be similar to owning people, a little ownership is good but a lot of ownership is bad. In particular, as with the need to balance tax levels between communism and anarchy there may be a need to balance private and public ownership of "intellectual property".
Prosecuting Microsoft for anti-trust violations is like prosecuting a slave trading organization for anti-trust violations. The real problem is that over the years "intellectual property law" has evolved to allow absolute private ownership of "intellectual property". Microsoft can say that what they do is legal and profitable and provides a useful service but 150 years ago a slave trading organization could have said the same thing.
I gotta go watch some fireworks...
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
...what effect does the DMCA realistically have on you? Does the US government have the right to tear apart foreign web sites?
Two words: Jon Johansen
---
DOOR!!
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Melissa...who would name a goat melissa?
Patriotism and owning a national flag is something that only the skinheads do.
Increasingly it's like that at home too though, at least out on the west coast where I live. I know a lot of otherwise-normal people who are extremely suspicious of anyone who displays any hint of national pride. I had no idea that this was a problem not unique to the States.
It's OK to be proud of your country, even if it happens to be Germany!
An appropriate case needs to be made, and it needs to work its way through the lower courts. Hey, it may be happening already; the great DCMA challenge may be underway though unreported yet. The court system is huge.
Too bad there aren't packs of pro-bono constitutional law lawyers looking for this kind of case to take on. At least we have the EFF/ACLU/etc.
I agree that BLIND nationalism can be really dangerous. But too many people seem to be of the mind that saying, "yeah, we're OK!" and putting out the flag once a year is some kind of dangerous obsession. There's a big difference between your basic national pride and a Hitler rally.
And here's the really ironic thing: the people who want to take responsibility for the country's actions -- the people who are politically motivated, and write their legislators and all that -- those are the people that are most likely to be tarred with the "crazy patriot" brush.
Mindless patriots can do a lot of damage, but conscientious patriots are the only thing stopping the whackos from taking over, in every nation. Please don't confuse the two groups.
Read the nice little banner at the top of the article. Opinion
Great effects, since the EU has this me-to policy: US does it, so we have to do it also. (And already we have a DMCA in the EU, but so far not in each country.)
Computer technology has made it possible for citizens to publish freely on the net and debate the ideas that are central to the U.S. poltiical democracy. The ideas of the U.S. Founding Fathers were never so important as today.
At the same time, monopoly capitalists have seized contrrol of this technology and are buying legislators to prevent such free publication. Witness the DMCA, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, granting software patents and for business practices, UCITA, and the impending database protection bill the author notes.
If we who understand technology and who treasure our freedoms do not speak out and convince our neighbors of these problems, then the revolution will be reversed.
You can help by joining the discussions at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw where online briefs are openly prepared in an effort to fight these new laws.
By the way, Siva Vaidhyanathan is the author of the forthcoming book, "Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and how It Threatens Creativity ," ISBN: 0814788068,
Publisher: New York University Press,
Pub. Date: August 2001
Jefferson's point is that you still have the book. Therefore it is not "stolen". It would be stolen if you had only say 3 copies and I broke in and took them. This is completely different from copying, as you have lost your year of time. You have defined these situations as equal, thus missing Jefferson's distiction between property and ideas.
Then print the article, make some 500 copies and hand them out in the street, or put then under windshield wipers at parking lots. An urge to join the EFF wouldn't hurt either.
Jefferson proposed specific language for an amendment that would have allowed copyrights and patents, despite his doubts, but forbidden any other type of commercial monopoly. "For instance," Jefferson wrote, "the following alterations and additions would have pleased me: Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding _____ years, but for no longer term, and no other purpose."
There are advantadges to having broad market controls, but there is a price as well. Take a look at a history of the Oil industry before Rockerfeller took it over. The PBS film (transcript here) on the Rockerfellers is enlightening.
As the oil gushed skyward, fantastic stories appeared of instant fortunes. Among the Cleveland businessmen lured to the region was John D. Rockefeller. He was no wildcatter. He saw that drilling for oil was a very risky business. Refining, not drilling, he decided, was where the steady money was to be made. Soon, a new rail line linked Cleveland with the oil region. Rockefeller built his refinery right beside it.
Rockefeller's future, however, was harnessed to an industry in trouble. "So many wells were flowing," he lamented, "that the price of oil kept falling, yet they went right on drilling." He saw an industry plagued by over-production, and his own success threatened by what he described as "ruinous, cutthroat competition."
John D. was shrewd enough and he was analytical enough that he realized that in order to figure out a way to save his own firm and his own newly-won fortune, that he had to figure out a solution for the entire industry. It was at that point that John D. began to conceive of the oil industry as one big interrelated mechanism. And you couldn't just change one component, you had to control the entire machine.
In a move that would transform the American economy, Rockefeller set out to replace a world of independent oilmen with a giant company controlled by him. In l870, begging bankers for more loans, he formed Standard Oil of Ohio. The next year, he quietly put what he called "our plan" -- his campaign to dominate the volatile oil industry - into devastating effect.
Jefferson would have been alarmed by this is the extreme. and it is something that far surpasses what they had experienced with industries in there day.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I agree with you wholeheartedly...Whenever the big corps get an extension on copyright, you really have to ask yourself how they can justify life + 70 / 95 years as being effectively able 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.'
Color me crazy, but last time I checked, it was rather difficult for an author / inventor to spend much time creating new works AFTER THEY'RE DEAD!
Now, I don't think the US should expire copyrights the instant an author dies, but I see the current scheme to be DETRIMENTAL to the progress of art and science. An author/inventor can create one invetion, and if it happens to hit it big, they can rest on their laurels and collect licensing fees for the rest of their natural lives..and a good chunk of their children's too...It's sick.
Personally, I feel the term for a copyright should be significantly reduced, perhaps back to the original 5 years. The key to copyright being effective lies in the "limited term" which was framed into the US constitution...
I just want to take over the world...Why does that automatically make me EVIL?
It's important to distinguish the copyright from the book, and the patent from the invention. I have no problem with the copyright being a piece of personal property (though in fact not all aspects of the law are consistent with this.) But the copyrighted work itself is an intangible. It is not anyone's "property" unless it is the public's.
Law professor Julie Cohen has made the analogy of copyright to what is called a "contingent remainder". On this analogy (if I understand her reasoning correctly) the rightsholder is a "tenant" in the work, but it is the public that "owns" the work itself, and it is to the public that the work reverts fully once the tenancy has expired. This analogy is tucked away in a footnote in her paper "Lochner in Cyberspace".
I prefer anarchy, but only under a strong & wise anarch
Vaidhyanathan writes: At its birth in England, copyright was an instrument of censorship...In contrast, the American copyright system since 1791 has reflected American republican values.
The statements are correct, but the use of the phrase "in contrast" is misleading. In England, the Star Chamber (which had assisted the enforcement of the Stationers' monopoly) was abolished in the mid-17th century. The licensing acts, which were the legal basis for the Stationers' monopoly, expired in 1694 and were never renewed. The "Act for the Encouragement of Learning", passed in the 8th year of Queen Anne (1709-1710), reformed English copyright on the basis of the same enlightenment values that are incorporated in the U.S. Constitution's monpolies clause. So the beginnings of U.S. copyright may indeed be contrasted with the beginnings of English copyright, but by the time the U.S. constitution was adopted, English copyright had come far from its beginnings. The U.S. Constitution's monopolies clause owed a great debt to the English experience.
Vaidhyanathan writes: Copyright was created as a policy that balanced the interests of authors, publishers, and readers. It was not intended to be a restrictive property right.
This is slightly misleading, since it doesn't make clear the difference between means and ends. The means of copyright are limited monopoly privileges, and these privileges are sometimes reasonably thought of as balancing various interests. The end, or goal, of copyright, is to enlarge the public domain. There is no need for "balance"; the public interest in having an expanding public domain is paramount. The means of copyright might balance interests, but they must always be consistent with the ultimate goal of enlarging the public domain.
Vaidhyanathan writes: James Madison, who introduced the copyright and patent clause to the Constitution, argued in The Federalist papers that copyright was one of those few acts of government in which the "public good fully coincides with the claims of individuals."
Madison's remarks in The Federalist Number 43 are actually misleading, and don't accurately refelect his thinking on matters of copyright and patent. His essay (never published in his lifetime) entitled "Monopolies. Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical Endowments" is a better source for his ideas on these matters.
Vaidhyanathan writes: Madison did not engage in "property talk" about copyright.
Actually, he did. In the above-mentioned essay on monopolies, he likened books and inventions to public property. Madison wrote:
"Monopolies, though in certain cases useful, ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness against abuse. The Constitution of the United States has limited them to two cases--the authors of books, and of useful inventions, in both which they are considered as a compensation for a benefit actually gained to the community as a purchase of property which the owner might otherwise withhold from public use. There can be no just objection to a temporary monopoly in these cases; but it ought to be temporary because under that limitation a sufficient recompense and encouragement may be given."
Madison is likening a book or invention to a piece of land that the public buys from its holder. The copyright is likened to the payment made in exchange for the land. Hence on this analogy, after the copyright or patent is granted, the inventor or author "owns" the monopoly (for as long as it lasts) but the public "owns" the book or invention.
It's true, though, that Madison didn't confine himself to the limits of this public land analogy. His starting point, as Vaidhyanatham shows by citing Madison's correspondence with Jefferson, was that copyrights and patents are monopolies which might be useful, but must be carefully regulated.
Vaidhyanathan writes: Jefferson proposed specific language for an amendment that would have allowed copyrights and patents, despite his doubts, but forbidden any other type of commercial monopoly.
Jefferson's chief fear hear seems to have been abuses of the commerce clause, not the copyright and patent power. But as Vaidhyanathan points out, and as the wording of Jefferson's proposal clearly shows, Jefferson was also well aware (more so than Madison was in 1789) of the dangers of abuses of copyright and patent.
Jefferson's own proposal for the term of copyright and patent was sent to Jefferson a few days later after the above-cited letter. He proposed 19 years, the half-life of an adult generation in his time. (It took him two tries to work this out, and as a result there are two different versions of this letter in his published works, one without the 19 year proposal, and one with it.) Possibly he would have allowed a renewal for an additional 19 years if the author had been living after the original 19 years, but the phrase "their own productions in literature" suggests that he would not have approved of posthumous renewal.
Vaidhyanathan writes: Significantly, the founders did not argue for copyrights or patents as "property."
This is an important point. The phrase "intellectual property" was not yet in existence, but the phrase "literary property" was known. Some readings of the famous case of Donaldson v. Becket, decided by the English House of Lords in 1774, view it as a rejection of the entire notion of "literary property". To what extent copyright law should incorporate property principles was not agreed on all hands. Adam Smith classified copyrights and patents as "exclusive privileges" (not property rights). Mr. Justice Yates, the dissenting judge in the famous case of Millar v. Taylor (King's Bench 1769), classified copyright as a tort right, not a property right. The framers' choice of the words "the exclusive right" in the Constitution's monopolies clause shows that they were aware that the status of copyright and patent rights as "property" was not a matter of fundamental right, but of policy. By specifying "the exclusive right" they gave Congress freedom to incorporate, or not incorporate, property principles in U.S. copyright law as it saw fit. By specifying "limited times", the framers made it clear that property principles could be imported into copyright and patent law only to a limited extent.
Vaidhyanathan writes: Jefferson wrote of copyright, "Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
Jefferson was writing about patent law, not copyright law, in his 1813 letter to Isaac McPherson.
Vaidhyanathan writes: Fearing, justifiably, that copyright might eventually expand to encompass idea protection, not just expression protection, Jefferson wrote in 1813, "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispose himself of it."
Jefferson's use of "idea" in this 1813 letter is not a reference to what is now called the "idea/expression dichotomy" of copyright law. This distinction was known at the time (though 18th century authors used other words for it). But Jefferson here was writing in a patent-law context. If he means "ideas" as distinguished form "exression" (as we now style it), still he was referring to what lawyers call "the subject matter of patent". And patents, unlike copyrights, protect "ideas". If we map his patent-law comments into a copyright context, then we must substitute "expression" where Jefferson uses "idea".
But Jefferson, though writing in a patent-law context, was writing at a high level of generality. By "idea" Jefferson was referring to any work of the human mind, not to "ideas" as distinguished from "expressions". The same applies to Mr. Justice Brandeis's statement that "the general rule of law is, that noblest of human productions--knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions and ideas -- become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use." By "knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions and ideas" Brandeis meant "all works of the human mind", not simply "ideas" as distinguished from "expression".
Nevertheless, ideas and expression are not completely separable. Copyright that is too broad in scope or too long in duration eventually inhibits freedom of "ideas", even "ideas" as distinguised from "expression."
Vaidhyanathan writes: Jefferson might not have been happy with the recent trajectory of the law. But he would have gotten a kick out of Napster.
In Jefferson's time, copyright only applied to printed books as published. Public performance and display, and creation of derivations, were public rights.
On the other hand even under a Jeffersonian copyright term of 19 years, or a neo-Jeffersonian term of 30 years (arrived at by applying Jefferson's formula to modern conditions), many of the works swapped over Napster would be under copyright. So even if we scaled back the scope and duration of copyright to reasonable levels, there might still be a compliance-problem involving Napster. If we are going to view copyright as a bargain between the public and the monopolist, the public must hold up its end of the bargain in good faith. And that might mean refraining from file-swapping in some circumstances. I agree with Mr. Vaidhyanathan, though, that the chief problem in copyright today is not infringement by private citizens, but the overreaching greed of the rightsholders.
I prefer anarchy, but only under a strong & wise anarch
It's easy to understand your confusion, but here is why Disney will lose Mickey Mouse if the copyright to "Steamboat Willie" expires.
Mickey Mouse isn't a particular drawing that Disney can trademark - he's a character. Specific drawings of characters may be trademarked, but the character itself cannot be. And a character becomes Public Domain the moment the FIRST work it appeared in becomes Public Domain. Therefore, Mickey Mouse will become Public Domain when the movie "Steamboat Willie" becomes Public Domain.
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
I think that the basis of this court case is that the DMCA can be used by corporations to stifle academic research. That goes very much against the intents of the founding fathers' idea of copyright.
My spoon is too big.
Kinda surprising that it's ok to use the word "Monopoly" on MSNBC. Let's just wait until this article get's withdrawn from the site.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
IIRC, most of the concepts of copyrights, even in the rest of Europe, were based on the concept of Natural Law. That is, what your create is naturally yours because you wrote it, period. It might have been good to mention that in the article to show how novel the Constitution is on this subject.
The Framers broke with this tradition in actually preferring no copyright at all, but realized that some concessions need to be made to creators of works in order to give them incentive to keep creating.
I loved this quote from Thomas Jefferson (from the article) on the notion of "Intellectual Property". I think it really captures the essence of the "free information" side of the debate - why many people find the comparisons of Naptster and ab* to "theft" and "piracy" puzzling:
"Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
Wheel that one out the next time someone tries to tell you that IP laws have to be toughened because nobody could have conceived of cost-free information sharing before the digital age.
Kill, Tux, kill!
It strikes me as patently stupid, more like.
Incidentally, it's the Fourth of July. If you don't recall, it's 225 years ago today that we told you (the British anyway) to bugger off.
Oh yeah, why do you folks bitch every time a quasi-historical movie comes out that doesn't kiss European ass? If you don't like American studios making movies that portray the Good ole USA in a very positive light, then why don't you create your own movies that are worth distributing world wide? Can't compete with Hollywood on their terms? Thats really sad. Sure, there are a few foreign movies wich win well deserved acclaim here in the states (Trainspotting, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon)But for the most part, your film industry can't hold a candle to Hollywood, in terms of raw popularity. Great Britain had their time at the top of the world food chain, and pissed and stomped their way accross the world, claiming every spit of land you beat the Spainards to for the Crown. Remember "The sun never sets on the British Empire?"
Well, now it's our turn to be leader of the pack, and if you don't like the privileges that come with that -like painting things in a pro US light, and not giving a rats ass what you Europeans think about it- well, too bad. I know the US ain't perfect, and we like to color history to benefit ourselves (seriously, do you honestly believe the scholars in your country don't?)
But quit yer bitchin. It's tiresome.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
And what kind of statement is "you can continue tracing origins of work back to Africa?" So what? Of course everyone's work is based on someone elses. Do we really need to reinvent the wheel everytime we want to make a breakthough? I never claimed everything was invented in America, only Slashdot. Some others seem to have think I implied that discussion and debate was invented here too; but I think that predates even Athens.
Anywich way, I love my country, Toad. Today, we're blowing up lots of stuff to celebrate it, flying American flags, having Barbeques, and getting together with friends. Independance day, Toad. I'm sure whatever country you're from has a concept of actually celebrating a holiday, rather than just thinking of it as a day off. Anyway, I'm off to a barbeque.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Actually, it might - although you may live in a country which does not have the DMCA, the multinationals which are based in the USA can extend their philosophies outside of the US laws to pressure ISPs (which may be partially owned by the Forces Of Evil (FOE)) to drop your page.
They do have lovely legal forces in their Branch Offices (BO) which can make use of local laws to make your life difficult.
It is scary though, that the BO of the FOE can render you out of commission...
I donate all spillover Karma to the charity of my choice... Ada was still a babe despite what people may say...
Disney's not alone in the cartoon world in trying to evade the 75-year rule. Warner Brothers would have seen its cartoons and characters start to go PD in 2005 (Porky Pig in 2010, Daffy Duck in 2012, Bugs Bunny no later than 2015). WB got out of this bind starting about five years ago, before the extension was passed, by creating what they called "dubbed" cartoons, cleaning up the old audio track and formatting it into stereo, for the ones they wanted to keep out of PD. They then reapplied for copyrights for the 'dubbed' versions. All in all, a very creative way around the copyright problem, but a bastardization of classic cartoons.
If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?
You will find the rest of the UK-US story in my book. The MSNBC article was condensed from a long chapter. Sorry about the fallout from condensation. It happens.
Siva Vaidhyanathan is the author of Copyrights and Copyrwrongs (2001) and The Anarchist in the Library (2004).
Of course, the most heinous destructive power of the DMCA is allowing ridiculous (in my opinion, unAmerican) outfits like the Southern Building Code Congress International to write laws that are copyright-protected and thus cannot be republished by citizens freely on the web.
When I recently wrote the SBCCI one of my lovely nastygrams, I got back a reply that basically said "we are proud and the DMCA backs up our every shitty attack on the American way of life".
In the Veeck vs. SBCCI circuit court decision, District Judge Little provides a powerful dissent. Judge Little states: "The minute burden that might befall the standards-writing organizations because of the actions of Veeck and others like him is outweighed by the benefit of Veeck's act of enhancing unfettered access to the law."
It's *our* law. All law must be public domain. Period. If there's anything that steams me so much, it's private entities working to effectively hide the law from the citizenry.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
I do find it astonishing that such an article should have been permitted on MSNBC.
How long before it gets taken off?
------------------
Finally, a brilliantly written article that exposes cleanly and briefly the fundamental failures of the DMCA.
The DMCA slipped in and undermined the Constitution of the United States almost without public awareness. Other criticisms of the DMCA are too hard to understand by non-technical (non-Slashdot-like) readers!
We here on Slashdot and other sites who know about and agree about this should use this article to pubicise our point of view.
Put a link to it on your website!
------------------
According to the Hague Treaty, they have the total right to do that. Let's hope it doesn't get ratified.
---
I agree. That's exactly why I was not required to learn any foreign language while growing up. I'm a university student right now, and I still am not required to learn a foreign language. Of course, then there's demographics that say that Spanish speakers will outnumber English speakers in America in just a couple decades...
he copyright practices in the rest of Europe are irrelevant to a discussion of American copyright law Reading the article, one would think that copyright, as we know it, was an American invention, which is is not. Therefore I think it is relevant.
Since the article appears to be a discussion of the Founding Fathers v. the DMCA, a US-centric view is to be expected. European copyright law isn't mentioned because it's really not relevant. I challenge you to find for me one sentence in the article that says ANYTHING about US copyright law outside the boundaries of the US.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Have you heard of the WTO? The USA has many trade agreements and treaties with other countries that allow American laws to affect people in other countries and visa versa. Though I think the effect tends to favor American interests and corportations. Remember Johansen and Dcss? Those paranoid conspiracy theorists may be on to something when it comes to our world evolving towards one world government. The only good thing about this is that nation states will probably not see as much erosion of sovereignty that individual states within the USA have gone through since the formation of our country.
but by some Freudian slip, in fact telling us
"I AM ANAL"?
Or both?
Well, the US somehow has the right to invade nearby countries and burn fields of cash-crops from under the feet of poor subsistence farmers.
All in the name of the 'War on (some) Drugs'
-Nano.
Louisiana, if I am not mistaken, was French owned and developed for a large part of its pre-USA history and so probably inherited a French system of copyright laws. More than that, I really don't know.
The author wasn't writing a novel or anything....they had a limited amount of time to get to the DMCA...and as it was I thought they spent a little too long on the Founding Father stuff (although it was pretty interesting history).
Read carefully the following paragraph quoted from the article: "Monopolies have the power to enrich themselves by evading the limitations of the competitive marketplace. Prices need not fall when demand slackens, and demand need not slacken if the monopoly makes itself essential to the economy (like electrical power or computer operating systems). "
Quiz now: Look at the last paragraph, which computer operating system is MSNBC referring to?
¦ ©® ±
Yes, but the statements, [a]t its birth in England, copyright was an instrument of censorship. and, [i]n contrast, the American copyright system since 1791 has reflected American republican values mislead the reader into believing that copyright as we know it today, is a US invention, which it is not.
News articles shouldn't misrepresent the truth, period.
Next on slashdot, USA invented the republic, democracy, government, freedom of the press, Karma Sutra, and the printing press.
Reading the article, one would think that copyright, as we know it, was an American invention, which is is not. Therefore I think it is relevant.
see this comment for more insight than I can give.
The US founding fathers didn't take a law used for censorship and make it into something good. They took contempory law of their day (200 years after Tudor), British stance of copyright and embedded it into their federal government.
The US founding fathers had a lot of deep thought and did a lot of good with their stance on copyright, balancing public good, and promote the progress of science and useful arts. It seems silly to imply that they did so without some previous basis.
Difference between civil and common law
Good fluff article for Americian, rewriting history to suit thier egos.
The insidious thing about the DMCA is that it shifts, rather inelegantly, the balance toward encouraging, and in many cases forcing, individuals to sign away their Constitutional rights to access material they pay for and obtain legally. They did it by basically handing control from the state (which cannot force you to "volunteer" to give up your rights) to private companies, to whom the Constitution does not apply. In effect the state is saying, "well, they can do anything to you they want, including forcing you to relinquish your rights, and we're no longer going to get involved." Look at this crap with Windows XP, for example. How dare M$ demand that I call their frickin' nasal phone operators just because I end up having to reinstall their POS a dozen times to deal with flaws they created themselves? (Yeah, yeah, I know, but for a lot of droids in this country the inability to use MS "software" equates to an inability to use a computer, much as an inability to drive, in most places, equates to an inability to go anywhere at any time). Worth pointing out again is that the US Constitution is solely an agreement between the state and individuals (or corporations, who have been given far too many opportunities to be treated the same as a natural person). It is not and has never been an agreement between citizens. This is not well understood. Turtle
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
Of course, I feel like MS (still holding the legal status of monopoly) will sue me for having read it as part of their protest against the Jackson verdict.
Is MSNBC less biased than Slashdot? Slashdot allows me to freely post any thoughts I have that do not relate to the "church" of Elron. MSNBC would prefer I had no thoughts. I'm seeing a bias here, and I don't think it's Slashdot's.
"You know, the golf course is the only place he isn't handicapped."
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
No doubt you wanted to be the first ;-)
--
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
There probably isn't any news
--
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
Too bad our law makers don't pay any attention to it anymore. If they did stuff like the absurdly ridiculous DCMA and the newest copyright law (95 years after death? Give me a break--if my kids can't make their own way without sponging off of me after I die, then ta hell with 'em.)wouldn't happen in the first place.
The answer to the question "Who's yer daddy?", to politicians, is--The government.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
I think so. A patent describes a process that other people can use to produce a final product. Even when the patent expires, there's still effort involved to create your own particular interpretation of the final product.
Copyright directly protects a single final product. When the copyright expires, anyone can copy the fruits of your labour verbatim with minimal cost and effort.
That said, I do agree that copyright terms are way too long, and that eternal copyright is abhorent. And I'm an author.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Because the DMCA allows content providers to regulate access and use they can set all the terms of use. And much like the database protection proposal, the de facto duration of protection under the DMCA is potentially infinite. While copyright law in 2001 protects any work created today for life of the author plus 70 years or 95 years in the case of corporate "works for hire," electronic gates do not expire.
The recent 20 year extension to copyright pushed through by legislators under the Clinton administration was heavily backed by big business. Disney was about to lose copyright on Mickey Mouse and they could't allow that to happen at any cost. Many other large corporations had similar concerns.
DMCA is being pushed by the same players, for the same reasons. This time though, they want their "extensions" up front. Or, in other words, they don't want ever to have to let go.
Why copyright law can't be more like patent law I don't understand. Is the work of an author or an illustrator really that much different from that of a designer?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
If the DMCA unconsitutional, why doesn't someone challenge it in court?
... to bring up on a 4th of July. Dontcha think? ;)
-- B.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
I certainly hope it'd cause an international backlash (though in the whole 'drugs are bad' mentality, it might not).. that Clear and Present Danger Stuff sounds like an invasion of a foreign country to me. That's an action of war. This would be inexcusable for anyone else but the US, 'cos well the US do whatever the hell they want.
The US are probably hoping they'll be some sort of invasion or internal conflict in Colombia, so they've got the excuse to go there with the UN and get imperialist on some colombian ass. (I do support the UN's work as a global police, but I've noticed that the US seem to jump quickest when it's their interests being compromised - compare the US response to Kuwait compared to, say, East Timor).
-- This post is about truth, beauty, freedom, and above all things, Karma
They did have awfully good foresight ... just a pity that they didn't have the foresight to realize how useless a 'well-armed millitia' would be in a couple of centuries.
But apart from that, they did a pretty good job.
--This post is about truth, beauty, freedom, and above all things, Karma
-- This post is about truth, beauty, freedom, and above all things, Karma
it is so lucky that the framers of the constitution had such foresight. the article makes me both happy and sad. happy that the constitution, which americans hold very dear, contains many truly democratic protections, and sad that some current governments seem to be shifting away from democracy, and the constitution needs to be used to protect individual freedoms.
perhaps its time to discard this whole nonsense of long-enduring "intellectual property", and limit all copyrights to a period of months, not years, as info now travels so rapidly...and yes, copylefts too...
I'm not waving a flag around today, I'm ashamed of my country.
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
In the original legislation, copyrights lasted just 14 years, with the copyright holder can opt for one 14 year extension, bringing the maximum to 28 years.
Isn't it typical of a huge capitalist monopoly corporation (that abuses its monopoly) to rewrite history in their own best interests?
.. or top down democracy.
... an astute and lucid political thinker whose views largely prevailed] and others with intellectual roots in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism--pre-capitalist, and anti-capitalist in spirit
The rights to life, liberty and property as were written in the constitution actually mean the rights OF property
Briefly, the rights OF property means that the wealthy and the powerful (the minority) have rights under the constitution to protect their property (holdings) from the masses.
The growth of the industrial economy, and the rise of corporate forms of economic enterprise, led to a completely new meaning of the term. In a current official document, "Person" is broadly defined to include any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust,corporation or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), or any government entity," a concept that doubtless would have shocked Madison [the leading framer of the constitutional system
These radical changes in the conception of human rights and democracy were NOT introduced primarily by legislation, but by judicial decisions and intellectual commentary.
Corporations, which previously had been considered artificial entities with no rights, were accorded all the rights of persons, and far more , since they are "immortal persons," and "persons" of extraordinary wealth and power.
Furthermore, they were no longer bound to the specific purposes designated by state charter, but could act as they chose, with few constraints. The intellectual backgrounds for granting such extraordinary rights to "collectivist legal entities" lie in neo-Hegelian doctrines that also underlie Bolshevism and fascism: the idea that organic entities have rights over and above those of persons.
In Noam Chomsky: Market Democracy.
Also good reading: Profits Over People, neoliberalism and global order. Noam Chomsky (1999).
"speaking their jive French"
I think you may be referring to Acadienne (Acadians) who's dialect was a mixture of French and English.
Happy Independance Day.
Yeah, yeah. The real reason is that these companies were taking away too much business from their European counterparts.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
That depends on whether you are a US citizen or not - and if not, whether you want to go to the US (be it for holiday or for work) or not.
Hmm... gotta come up with a decent
Copyrights are a very difficult thing to understand. When you look at it from a very logical/rational personal view, you can clearly argue for "ownership" of almost anything. Its only when you put it into a broad perspective you see the dangers. All our ideas, productions etc, are based upon what we have learned. And what we have learned we have from those who came before us. If they had protected their ideas and knowledge all progress would stop...
Unfortuneally what we have seen in resent years, is a legistration on all areas (not only copyrights) that tent to become sidetracked compared to the original ideas and values in the constitutions in many countries (I come from Denmark). The justice systems become legal systems, moving from justice to law. Where justice relates more to values of right and wrong, relates law more to definitions of right and wrong.
Saggi
-:) Oh no - not again.
www.rednebula.com
...what effect does the DMCA realistically have on you? Does the US government have the right to tear apart foreign web sites?
http://www.themeparks.ie
It's about as interchangeable as n!gger is to african-american. Go down to Abbeville, LA and call someone a coon-ass. See what happens. You can say it if your Cajun, you cain't if you ain't.