Slashdot Mirror
Copyright and Copy Rights
neocon writes "Today's National Review Online has an interesting
piece from John Bloom of UPI on the origin of Copy Rights (what Copyrights really are) and the
current attacks on them in Congress and elsewhere."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The article is an excellent summary of the issues, what's happened, and how ridiculous some of this is.
Copyright was a legal system for protecting a creator's opportunities and placing things in the public domain. A win-win situation in the minds of the founders, I'm sure.
It's been turned into a way to hold onto information for a ridiculous (eternal?) amount of time. Something comes up, a few more campaign donations go out, and it gets changed again.
'nuff said.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
http://illegal-art.org/
This was a recent show in NYC which displayed works which have almost been suppressed out of existance by Corporate culture. You can find articles on copyeahright, music, videos and other forms of expression.
Uhhh, Sonny Bono was a Republican. Sorry.
The reason we have a Republican Nation is that Americans "do give a shit" and voted for the Republicans.
Well, let's be fair. Most Americans who could vote, didn't. About a third of the voters in this country cast a ballot in the midterm elections. So I think it's more accurate to say that of the Americans who do give a shit, a slim but notable majority voted for Republicans.
And I think it's fair to say that most Americans don't give a shit whether Disney holds on to the copyright for "Steamboat Willie." I know I couldn't care less about that. It makes absolutely no difference to my life one way or another, except in principle.
Can somebody convince me otherwise? I feel kind of bad about being so indifferent about the Bono act. Can somebody give me an example of a situation in which a work's not being copyrighted-- that is, being in the public domain-- led to some kind of wonderful thing happening?
I write in my journal
If you're interested in a very good description of where and when the idea of copy( )right went wrong, I highly recommend this book. It was written by a professor at NYU, but he's not a law professor - so the book isn't written in legalese.
National Review is an embarrasment to conservatism and Constitutionally-limited government. It's gone downhill ever since WFB fired Joe Sobran, the best columnist in America, as senior editor.
Now it's just an Israel-First rah-rah rag for GOP hacks with that intellectual paperweight Jonah Goldberg at the helm.
If you want real conservatism (and libertarianism, for that matter) check out
The American Conservative
OR
Chronicles
OR
The New American
For those of you who don't know who John Bloom is, check it out.
You've also seen him in the movies.
No blood, no breasts, one beast (Disney). Copyright-fu, literature-fu, argument-fu. Four stars. Joe-bob sez 'check it out.'
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
That said, what in the hell do you need an assault rifle for?
How do you define 'assualt rifle'? Do you mean something like the AR-15, a single-shot carbine that shoots 5.56mm (.223) ammo and whose outer body is patterned on the M-16? Well, target shooting with them is a lot of fun...
Most the anti-gun people are after the insane automatic high-power weapons.
Unless you happen to live in Washington, DC, New York, California, Australia, England, and most of the rest of Europe...
No one is saying you can't have a hunting rifle
Except for wackos like the one in California
Nor do I see a problem with having to register if you own a rifle or handgun.
"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
--Adolph Hitler, 1935
Never in the history of the world, has gun registration NOT led to confiscation and democide.
I have never seen a valid argument for this gun nut crap.
Here's one for you:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
I was under the impression that NR and NRO were conservative publications, as opposed to being Republican publications. Not exactly the same thing.
If you look at the political definition(s) of the word conservative, instead of how conservatives are often portrayed, it makes more sense
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation as opposed to change
--something witty
It happens to also be an affirmative defense codified in statute. The statute actually says that Fair Use is not infringement. If you make Fair Uses, you are not infringing the exclusive rights of the author. It follows that you can quote this as a defense if you are accused of infringement, but it is more than just an affirmative defense.
It is more than a statutory right because Fair Use was originally a judicial ruling that the balancing of the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment required that people be allowed to make uses of Copyrighted materials in their speech otherwise the purpose of promoting progress in the Copyright CLause would not be met. We have Fair Use, not because Congress wrote it into statute but becuase the Constitution requires it.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
The Declaration of Independance speaks of "inalienable rights" -- rights which you can not surrender. The Constitution codifies some of these Rights in the Bill of Rights -- the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Amendment 10 specifies that the previous nine are not an exclusive list of rights -- there exist rights retained by the people which are not enumerated there. The Supreme Court relied on the 10th Amendment in Griswold which ruled that there existed a right to privacy as it struck down laws outlawing contraception.
In addition there are Statutory Rights -- rights which you get by virtue of statute. You can go to court to have these rights enforced, though Congress is free to amend the terms of the rights. The right to receive a Social Security pension if you meet the qualifications is a statutory right. If an official tries to deny you your benefits, you can go to court to force them to be paid, though Congress can and does set the amounts payable. Copyright is another statutory right -- it exists by virtue of a statute.
Property rights are rights which behave like tangible property. You can sell, lease, transfer and assign these rights. You can leave them to your heirs. They are alienable (in contrast to the inalienable rights in the beginning of this reply) becuase you can transfer them to another.
Copyright is property-like in this sense -- you can sell your copyright for cash, use it as collateral for a loan and leave it to your heirs (if it hasn't expired). As such, it's appropriate to describe Copyright as a property right.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i