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."
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
-----
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?)
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.
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
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.
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.)
...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...
The TJ quote was talking about ideas. From the article it looks like TJ saw a distinction between the idea and the *expression* of an idea, which is copyrightable in his mind. I think the original poster may have not used the quote 100% correctly... TJ would not have sanctioned ripping off your book, but I don't think he would have had a problem with someone else using the original ideas in your book to create their own work.
As a "content creator" myself this sits fine with me.
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"
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
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!
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...
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.
Good fluff article for Americian, rewriting history to suit thier egos.
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
As such, the founding fathers didn't invent some untried concept, but adopted (if for slightly different reasons to those of the UK government, which was aiming to protect authors rights) existing codes which were adapted for US needs. The story of how this happened and the logic involved would make a good story all by itself.
Elsewhere in this thread, you express anger at the suggestion that your post is either a troll or flamebait. Indeed, one moderator sides with you and tags it "Insightful". Insightful, perhaps, as in "Incites a riot"?Seriously, what exactly is the point of the above comment. What does it have to do with the origins of copyright law?
Again - what does this have to do with the article to which your respond? What, indeed, does it have to do with the origins of copyright law? And are you sure the allegation makes any sense anyway?Do Europeans ridicule Hollywood for not "kissing ass", or do they ridicule it for constantly and monotonously casting actors with British accents as the bad guys, in a way that betrays a lack of originality (as do black hats/boots, and moustaches) coupled with a kind of nationalism that's off-putting to the audiences the moviemakers are usually trying to target? And, for what it's worth, do UK movies exclusively portray Americans as "bad characters" - movies that do certainly exist, but are they even the majority of those movies that have American characters?
Added to this somewhat juvenile rant about the movie industry is a comment about the British Empire. Again, what exactly does this have to do with copyright law? Or even the movie industry? British Imperialism is dead. It was regarded with increasing moral repugnance throughout the 20th Century, with national leaders like Mahatma Ghandi holding up imperialism for what it is: A nasty system that enslaves whole nations and whole peoples, cold and abusive, and an affront to modern liberal values. Britain had the courage to ditch it, which is something to be welcomed.
And here we start to doubt the sanity of the poster. A comment adding more flesh to an article which left out interesting and relevent history is ruled "invalid" because, well, because Americans should be able to write what they want and if they leave out history, no matter how stupid, they shouldn't be told what that left out history is.Small wonder, I guess, that the US is the only Western Democracy that refuses to teach many of its children basic science.
But worse, there's an overtone in both the last paragraph and the paragraph before it - that America is now the imperialist force, and therefore its version of history is the valid one. It's as if the last 300-400 years of European history, one of bloodshed and enslavement, has taught us nothing about imperialism - or even that that bloodshed and enslavement is somehow right, because a country has to exist to do those things, and by-gosh if dfenstrate doesn't believe that the US should be that country.
To sum up: If your posting is to be believed, you take it as an outrage that anyone should provide more information in response to a version of history presented by an American, and you believe that because you believe that America is some kind of new imperial power, and you believe that is right.
I find that point of view utterly, completely, abhorent and evil. If you seriously believe what you've written, you need to get a reality check. If you were writing it for the purposes of winding up other people, well, congratulations, you've succeeded, but at the cost of putting yourself in the same fellow-travellor category as most brutal of 16th Century Spanish conquistadors, or of 19th Century South African Mining Engineers. As a course onward to popularity, you might just want to start walking about with a swastika tattooed to your head. You'll get the same results.
--
KMSMA (WWBD?)