Slashdot Mirror
Copyrights/Patents are Public Domain?
x3 sent us a link to an article running on InfoWorld that talks intelligently about intellectual property and the public domain. Its an extremely well written piece summing up what many readers of this site probably feel about the subject.
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
I think its interesting (Maybe the right word is insane?) how technology (specifically, the internet) is supposed to "bring us together", but laws such as the DMCA, and orginizations such as the RIAA and the MPAA push to limit how we can come together, as far as music (which is held by many to be the "universal language") and movies.
I dunno. Just a thought.
Patents of course last something on the order of 17 years after invention to keep competition off of the idea. Copyrights last the lifetime of the creator plus about 75 years after death. Trademarks can last different periods based on what kind of trademark... Whther it is registered or simply has been in use by the company for a while...
An interesting thing to note is that a lot of institutions like universities are much more concerned over there rights to intellectual property outside of patents... Gatorade for instance has well run past a patent expire date. The trademark and the license to use it by Pepsico is worth millions every year to the University of Florida. 5 million I think...
The aurthor of the letter reprinted in the article forgot something:
The people in power wish to stay in power and they do that by bending to the will of the people that fund them (RIAA, MPAA, Disney, the like). The government does not serve the people anymore, if it ever did, It serves the businesses, the people who make the "campaign contributions," the holders of the intelectual property.
Help I'm a rock.
...lack of copyright protection for authors stifles work and leaves them poor. The same probably holds true for the musicians in a record contract. While the following article is about British authors in America who held no copyright, the result would be the same for any author in any country. (Dickens's 1842 Reading Tour: Launching the Copyright Question in Tempestuous Seas) Greatly limiting the "brief [few years] economic advantage" for authors and inventors would destroy the ability for someone to live off their work, sending brilliant, independant minds back to the doldrums of corporate America.
I will take this opportunity to ask a burning question:
If a work is created in the United States and the copyright is valid for the 75 magic years, what happens in another country where the copyright is only 10 years after the work is created?
Can it be used in that other country?
What happens if a work is created in that other country - can the US Copyright Padlock be used for the full 75 magic years (in the US) or is the originating country authoritative on the length?
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
I've been talking up the problems of extended copyright for a few years now, without much success. My problem? I haven't used the argument that extending copyright law works against creativity and the authors. Copyright law, today, works for the corporation. Corporations, in turn, work hard to control congress which, in turn, controls copyright law. Is it any wonder that most of the complaints about sharing, copying, and otherwise circumventing copyright come not from authors but from corporations?
As for me, I'm a teacher. I break copyright every day. I hand out copies of poems, I photocopy sections of books, I encourage students to read books out of libraries instead of buying them. (I use libraries as an example of defeating copyright because they do what p2p does in a system that is legitimate only because it has been around for a long time.) At the end of last week I saw that kids had been downloading Kazaa and Bearshare to the school computers in order to get music. Good for them.
I like that the author likens this battle to the drug wars. The government has illegalized pot. The kids have no trouble getting it. They get in trouble when they are caught, so they do it surreptitiously. This puts them in more danger than the drug itself--by far. The over-reaching copyright laws, outrageous price-fixing by the music industry, and the control of the radio airwaves have brought about an underground system that works very well, will not likely be stopped, and will, eventually, be legitimate even if it's not legal.
Chalk this up to the short-sightedness of business, the reactionary nature of current politics, and the creative drive of people. The saying goes that information wants to be free. I'm not sure if that means that information wants to be free of charge, but I'm willing to bet that if a major music label started a Napster-style server through which we could download the new Peter Gabriel album for one dollar, there would be a line at the server for quite some time. That they have not done this means that many of us have either copied a friend's disc or downloaded the songs over GNUtella. And exactly how is the copyright law benefiting Gabriel and his label?
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
Many people get this confused and think, congress has the power to grant copyrights. Copyright is a limitation of congress' power, not a power unto itself. If a copyright fails to "promote the progress of science and useful art", then congress is exercising a power it was never granted.
The whole idea behind patents, copyright, etc. was to empower individual inventors, scholars, and other creative people for the public good. Instead, current IP law empowers corporate non-persons (who are only people on paper) for private advantage, totally turning the original concept on its head.
The real question now is, "Can IP as a concept be salvaged to protect powerless innovators, or has it been twisted and exploited to the point where we must get rid of it entirely?"
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
John Lennon and Janis Joplin are "happy" that a new generation is listening to their music
Nice choice of examples.
There are many musicians that have expressed this sentiment, and not via Ouija board. I'm sure that John Lennon and Jani Joplin WOULD be happy to have their music swapped on people's computers, but lets not attribute to the dead what they never ever said.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
So 'the public' owned the telephone, and just leased it to Alexander Bell? The 'public' had no telephone until Bell invented it. It cannot lease him those thoughts, or that creativity. He earned it on his own.
While I have problems with the current system, collectivist nonsense like this is not the answer. When 'the public' thinks it has a right to the product of my effort, then they can try and pry it out of my mind. I'd rather keep it secret than give it to someone who demands it's his.
It's just as bad when RMS complains he has a right to my source, whether or not I want to give it away. This talk does not enhance freedom.
I think it's funny how you magically moded your post to be rated interesting just based on your subject line of "interesting"...
Back to the topic, I think you're right. If you look at musical history, you'll notice a lot of borrowing going on. I mean, even now. Danny Elfman's Batman theme resembles in no small way a piece of music for piano and orchestra by Rachmoninoff. I forget which one, but I think it's the 2nd...
An interesting point of the suppression of ideas created by this: Mozart was accused and had to stand in front of the king (mebbey) when he was a younger child. His crime? He had copied the mass music at church by keeping it in his head and writing it out when he got home. So, could we give Mozart the credit for being the first person to violate some form of artistic licensing? I would've liked to see the RIAA there on that one...
Now, let's think. If artists of that time period weren't allowed to copy from each other (Mozart was commended after he demonstrated how he did it) would we have even heard of any classical European master outside of the Bach family? I'm probably exaggerating (and I'm sure anyone who thinks so will prove me wrong) but the point of the matter is: the same technology (music in their days, computer in ours) that is supposed to bring us together can either do so, or can seriously put a cramp in my style.
Target
There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
Yes, this is true. But consider that the argument being posed in this article (and before the Supremes with Eldred v. Ascroft) is not for the destruction of all copyright but a foreshortening of terms. After all, I won't argue against Gershwin profiting from Rhapsody in Blue but IMO his children shouldn't.
Greatly limiting the "brief [few years] economic advantage" for authors and inventors would destroy the ability for someone to live off their work...
Depends on how you define "life off their work". If you mean "write one story and use those royalties to get filthy rich" then I'm dead set against it-- would you be happy with only one Tom Clancy, Michael Chriton or Stephen King story? But if you mean "write many stories, perhaps spaced a few years apart" then why do you care if copyright on the first book exends past when you write the second or third?
Now, I'm not really arguing about forshortening copyright that drastically-- maybe down to 28 years or so-- you could have 8 or 9 books on the market across that timespan. Surely you can't argue that extending the copyright another ~80 years on top of that will "promote the progress of
Do you like Japanese imports?
IANAExpert, but I think IP as a concept can be salvaged with two simple steps: make it ownable only by individuals and non-transferable.
First, this will keep (say) Disney from directly owning their movies. Instead, they will have all employees sign "exclusivity" contracts: the employees still own their IP, but only the contracted company can use it (or assign further users). This may sound wierd and exploitable (or to the uninitiated like a transfer of IP) but it leads directly into phase 2.
You may not transfer your IP to anybody at any time, not even as part of an estate. When you die, so does your IP. Things with multiple authors (most patents, movies, & music, collaborative books, etc) will of course stay within copyright / patent until the last author dies (or the natural term ends) because all of the authors have IP in the work. However, once all of the authors kick the bucket, the artwork instantly hits the Public Domain no matter how long the natural term is.
This method is of course the most simple as it would have put most of the items at issue in Eldred v. Ashcroft into the PD, while still allowing Disney, RIAA et. al to lobby Congress for longer & longer terms without destroying the whole precarious structure.
Do you like Japanese imports?
Although I agree with the latter positions of the infoWorld article, I did not find it particularly persuasive. I find an earlier MSBNC (admitedly a most unlikely source) arcicle to be far more enguaging and persuasive as it evaluates more even handedly the historical purposes of copyright and whether or not it has served it's purpose. The article was Copyrights and copywrongs , a historical examination of Copyright which is definately worth a read. Along the same lines you might want to read the letters between Jefferson and Maddison on the issue which are archived in various places around the net.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
If they want their property, they can come and rip it out of my brain!
Just make sure they file an Affadavit describing what brain cellls they expect to find it in, but they should expect to find a fight on their hands.
How is this a good article? It looks to me like a very poorly thought out editorial to me, indeed.
For example the author cites the idea that most commercial value of IP is realized during the first three years. Maybe for a pop tune, or a movie, but certainly that is not the case for the vast majority of patents. New drugs take several years to pass FDA certification; the average time to market for an industrial invention in most industries is 7 years. A shorter term for patent coverage is not appropriate in most cases.
Perhaps the current period of copyrights is over-long, but how does that translate to the concept that such laws don't serve a useful purpose? It's a complete non-sequetuer.
The fact is that the history of the industrial revolution, and in particular the great lengths that were taken by companies to conceal the technologies they were using prior to the development of the patent system clearly show the value of a contract between govenrment and the inventor where public disclosure is exchanged for an exclusive right to practice the invention.
The alternative is to go back to the practices of the time where technological instrumentailities were kept as secret as possible by their inventors, to the great detriment of technological progress, and indeed society as a whole.
The public needs to be reminded that the purpose of copyright is to help spread new ideas, not make money.
The purpose of copyright (and patent) laws isn't to spread new ideas--that goal would be done much easier if it was simply illegal to hide an idea.
Copyrights (and patents, but not trademarks) exist so the creators of new ideas / written works CAN make money, and thus are encouraged to keep on making new things.
Ergo, the often-quoted balance between "public good" and "private benefit" that is copyright. The private party wants to enjoy as much economic beneift as possible from their works. The public wants to just enjoy the works, as cheaply as possible and as often as possible.
Copyright is how we pay authors, artists, and computer programmers. (Let's just ignore the GPL for this ONE argument, can we?). It's not that it's main purpose isn't to make money; it's that we as a society are "hiring" IP producers to make IP, and if they don't continue to produce a re-evaluation of their agreement (copyright law) might be in order.
Bullshit. First of all, an automobile is a physical thing that you can be deprived of the use of by someone taking it from you. You can't deprive someone of the use of an idea, song, book or newspaper by copying it.
Bullshit, an automobile is NOT a physical thing.
An automobile is not more physical then a music CD.
90% of the money you pay for an automobile is:
o Savtybelts, invented by Saab. Patented. Granted to the public without fee for use without licens fee.
o Airbag, invented by ???
o Electronic stability system, invented and patented by Bosch.
o Anti blocking brakes, invented and patented ??? Bosch, I asume.
o Electronic ignition and electronic injection
o Robotic manufactoring lanes, manufactoring technology and know how,
o modern material like plastics -- hard inflamable, carbon fibres and aluminium alloys
o engines made from magnesium and aluminium alloys
o Steel mixtures, steel plants for production
o aluminium frames
o unbrakable glasses, sunlight blocking, anti heating
o tiers by Bridgestone, lasting 50k miles
I do just stop here. You can continue the reign of topics which are nearly non physical and cover only KNOWLEDGE, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and similar stuff nearly endless.
I repeat: 90% of the costs of a car. 90% of the price you pay for a car, you do not pay for that few kilograms metal and plastics. Neither do you pay it for the look or the name of the brand. You pay it for the astronomic high number of working hours spend by scientists and engineers in labs to figure minimal improvements showing up each year in a new product line of a car maufactor.
90% of our economy is based on "making knowledge to money". Without intellectual property, 90% of YOU all would be out of job. The only working jobs currently needed are: farmers, medical, truck drivers, house builders, craftmen. Just count the number of farmers needed to feed 1,000,000 people. In all industries you probably know about, the amount of workers is astonishing low. It decresesd to 1% of the amount it had around 1900.
We are no longer a workers society, in fact we are not a workers society since the end of world war II. We are a society of people offering service to other people, like booking a journey and booking a flight or dishing a meal in a restaurant.
And how do we come to be able to offer such a service? Bu having the knowledge how to do it! By having the knowledge to build up "machines" taking over a hughe amount of "work".
However a lot of services are dying right now. The get replaced by pure knowledge. The knowledge of a business man knowing how booking should work and the knowledge of a programmer who knows how a monkey can book a flight via the internet.
Second, the whole idea of copyright was to promote the publication of ideas to further science and the arts, not to create an artifical market for economic gain.
In our days the whole idea, and the soule necessity of IP laws is: to create an artificial market. Indeed. Without that market we had riots in the streets, as only a few of us had a job, a income and money to spend for food.
You only see that your "god given right" to take a DVD movie is covered by IP laws. You only see: "I like to have a movie for $5
You hate comunism
As long as you only see the tip of the ice berg
Its intersting that so many people are concerned about that stuff. So easy to circumvent: don't by music from RIAA corporations anymore. Don't buy DVDs of Time Warner or who ever you dislike. Don't go into the movie theatres.
Just buy private sold music and private made movies. And then? No money for the big business
Its easy to stand up and to go for change. But no: you want the stuff those guys make. You only do not want it for the price they charge.
Alternative: stop using your internet connection
Stop using electric current. The plants producing the current are 30 years old, surely payed off. The lines bringing the current are old, either. The oil is incredible cheap
For what do you pay electric current, then? For nothing of course. According to your logic at least.
Regards,
angel'o'sphere
P.S. a better IP law surely is needed, but abolishing IP laws is not the way to go
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.