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)
Everyone bangs their drum about how bad things are in the world today. Then they return to their own little world and do nothing.
I'm sick of reading about the ills of society and corporate america. If anyone actually gave a shit we wouldn't have the Republican Nation.
Americans need to shit or get off the pot. Either we have rights and freedoms or we don't.
It does raise the issue that copyright is not a consequence of natural law, but of positive law (eg, there wouldn't be copyright without an act of the sovereign.
The part of it I disagree with somewhat is his characterization of copyright as not really being about property rights, but about free speech. Copyright is very explicitly a property trade off: "We will give you the following property right in return for that property eventually reverting to the public." Copyright owners often make the mistake of speaking as if copyright exists for their benefit. It doesn't. The entire point of copyright is to encourage the creation of intellectual property for the benefit of the public. The fact that the mechanism by which the creation of that intellectual property is achieved is by granting a benefit to the author is purely incidental.
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
a copyright law that was drafted a few hundred years ago cannot be relevant today without any change. at present, those laws are badly irrelevant to today's culture. as always, the rich and the powerful are just going to take advantage of the lucrative situation they have in their hands now.
the word "copyright" is quickly becoming a farce, at least in corporate and capitolist america. its sad how this issue has been ignored and cleanly swept under the rug. but as always and as mentioned earlier, the rich and powerful will have the last say.
...that a Republican publication is in favor of limiting the earning potential of major corporations (AOL/Disney/etc). Maybe this issue goes beyond money.
This is an excellent article and should be shown to people who have trouble grasping the idea of copyrights moving into the public domain.
I had to have a long, long discussion with my girlfriend about copyright extensions, and why they are wrong before she finally accepted. The public has become so used to large corporations controlling everything that it seems foriegn to them that intellectual property should be released into general ownership after its creator's death. SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE. Mickey Mouse should, and I would argue does, in fact belong to everyone now!
I am fairly anti-copyright and pro-freedom. I use only Free Software such as Linux and KDE, I only listen to music from independent labels or that I can get on mp3, and I refuse to even think about buying region-coded DVDs, though I will on occaision rent them.
There are a lot of good arguments against copyright law, including that it impedes the free exchange of ideas, adds to corporate exploitation of the working class, and contributes to intellectual, industrial, and artistic stagnation in general. It's pretty easy to see the difference between the Rennaisance (pre-copyright) and the 2001 MTV Video Music Awards (post-copyright). We're not even in the same league anymore, and it's easy to see why.
The argument in the article, though, is that copyright law, as originally intended, was designed to protect the rights of media consumers, not media producers. That's all well and good, but it's to some extent a non-sequitor. I mean, we're not living in 1776 and we're not delegates of the Colonial Congress: it's 2002 and we're Linux geeks on Slashdot. Media and copyright have both evolved so incredibly since those bygone days that who's to say *what* the Founding Fathers would think of "ripping" a "mix CD" of "n*Sync?" Look at how difficult it is for the Supreme Court to understand the First and Second Amendments, which are pretty freaking straightforward in comparison; do you really think we have a *prayer* of understanding the original copyright laws?
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
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.
High court weighs copyright law
The point is that bad policy isn't always unconstitutional, and the court may take that as reason to disagree without acting.
In general, this article is very light on the legal specifics behind this case and this law, but there are good resources out there, including specifically:
Opposing Copyright Protection
There's one big issue that I wish had been brought up in this article, but that simply wasn't. How long should a copyright last?
A reasonable idea has been that a copyright should last as long as the author lives, plus a period of time for his estate. No, that wasn't the original law, but it seems to make a kind of sense. As long as an author lives, he has exclusive control of his work, unless he voluntarily transfers that control to somebody else. (In which case the clock starts ticking.)
This idea breaks when you consider that corporations are legal persons, and that they can own copyrights. The copyright for the Mickey Mouse cartoons isn't owned by Walt Disney, the deceased person. They're owned by Disney, the extant corporation. And corporations have no natural lifespan. So how long should a copyright last?
I've never heard a good argument on this question. Everybody seems to propose an arbitrary number-- 28 years, 75 years, 99 years-- without giving any good reason for it.
How's this for an idea. Copyright is granted automatically for a period of 30 years. (Yeah, there's that arbitrary number I just bitched about. But in this case, I picked it because it's more-or-less one generation.) If you want to extend your copyright, you're free to do so for some sort of proportional, sliding-scale fee. The justification would be that the copyright holder is doing society a minor but nontrivial harm by holding on to his work, but that that harm could be offset by the additional revenue to the government. If Disney wants to hold on to the copyright for "Steamboat Willie" forever, they're free to do so if they can cough up the greenbacks.
It would probably take a Constitutional amendment to make an idea like that one legal, but stranger things have happened.
I write in my journal
If Disney wants to hang onto "Steamboat Willy" for perpetuity, I say let them. However, they shouldn't recreate copyright law so that the 99% of works which should be allowed to pass into the public domain are kept locked up, dispite not even being able to trace down the copyright holders.
I think we should change copyright law so that all copyrights last for 14 years, with an option by the copyright holder to extend that copyright for an additional 14 years, for a maximum of some really long period of time (say, 280 years or something silly). That way, if an entity is still around who cares about it's copyrights (such as the Disney Corporation), they can simply get an extension to their copyrights for as long as they like, without fscking up the natural expiration of copyrights on the 99% of stuff whose owners are no longer around.
That's the odd thing about the current copyright regime, by the way: it seems to me that a copyright can survive its author, and without an established estate who can oversee the copyright, the use of such copyrighted works without anyone who actually controls those copyrights is impossible. That is, instead of doing what our founding fathers wanted--to allow these works to pass into the public domain for the larger good--these works, being impossible to legally copy, will pass into oblivion.
That's why I believe someone alive and active needs to step up and file for a copyright extension ever 14 years. (And, in the case where someone screws up the filing, give them an automatic 1 year buffer or something to get the paperwork straight, so something doesn't slip into public domain because a request gets lost in the mail.)
The Weekly Standard has also had a number of editorials on copyright--a writer has even come out in favor of mp3 sharing! This issue is finally coming up on the radar. I was pleasantly surprised when I came across the NR article this morning. I think some political thinkers are slowly starting to realize that this is a very important issue to a number of young adult professionals, and deserves a lot more attention than it is currently getting.
Isn't that Joe Bob Briggs' real name?
is that the reason that "republicans" are generally against efforts to improve voter participation, such as the motor-voter bill? no this was another election with low turn-out and a definite lack of interesting discussion. sad! but, numbers-wise the winning candidates generally won with small majorities, so perhaps this supports the idea that a true democracy will be nearly evenly split. what the idea likely does not intend is that the parties will basically be spouting the exact same ideas.
Then you say...
as always, the rich and the powerful are just going to take advantage of the lucrative situation they have in their hands now
You completely contradict yourself. The situation today is that copyright law _HAS BEEN CHANGED_, and the "rich and powerful" are taking advantage of that.
Copyright law as it was a few hundred years ago would not allow the current situation, and would be much better for today than what we currently have.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I think this is a good article, and ending the progression in 1998 was a typical conclusions since no major events occured after that. But why end it with the Bono Act when you have the DMCA right after it! What could be worse than your right being abused (as the author explains) than having no rights at all via DMCA. This just shows you how ignorat the majority of people are when it comes to this issue. Except for online geeks, this isn't an issue for people who would read that article and feel sorry for authors who died 80 years ago because their work is not released.
From the articule..
The Constitution is quite clear on the matter. It says copyrights are to be granted for "limited times." I don't know any definition of "limited" that would mean 75 years plus a 20-year extension plus the chance of getting another extension later. The whole issue was argued three centuries ago, and it was established as a principle of democracy that, when the author is dead, his work becomes the property of all.
Someone should send a copy of the constitution to our congressmen and senators. It's amazing that things like the Bono extension actually passed.
Anyone else starting to get that feeling that their vote, (and their right for that matter), is a waste when it comes to matters of the fed?
It reminds me of the way my Dad used to change the rules of cribbage to benefit his score counting. It didn't matter that the ruleback said he couldn't ( or shouldn't).
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.
Try this version instead: "We will give you the following monopoly on producing/deciding who produces copies of your content, in return for you creating the content in the first place". The notion that it has anything to do with property at all (including the mere existence of the term "intellectual property") is what causes the misconception, that the author somehow deserves this right as an unaliable right, comparable to the right to own property.
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
This idea breaks when you consider that corporations are legal persons, and that they can own copyrights.
Here's a thought, instead of trying to massage the idea around corporations being legal persons, we remove this silly fiction of corporations being legal persons.
Corporations are a collective of people. Period. They are not persons. They have no right to free speech, they have no right to bear arms, they have no right to vote. Each individual within the corporation has that right, certainly, but when they are acting "as the collective", then those rights go out the window and society can choose to regulate them as much as society wants.
This Legal Persons crap was bought and paid for by the corporations a long time ago. It's time we took it back.
People are persons. Corporations aren't.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
I wrote an article in my journal here on Slashdot on Friday, October 18 outlining "Some Things Copyright Is Good For," to try to address some of the misconceptions about copyright.
Bloom's not saying anything I wasn't saying, nor what Thomas C. Greene from The Register said, nor what a bunch of other writers said about intellectual property years ago.
I don't think, as a writer myself, that the "benefit to the author is purely incidental"; it's the incentive that prompts us to share our stuff instead of trunking it or not bothering to put it down in the first place. The benefit to the author is the carrot encouraging the creator to benefit the commonweal, which makes the benefit essential, not incidental.
(I scooped y'all in discussing Knoppix, too...)
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
Nope. They should not have that option, regardless of the price tag. And such a law would actally require a Constitutional amendment (which states that copyright is granted for limited times). It would bastardize the whole intent of copyright. Remember:
- MYTH - the reason for copyright is to provide protection of the author's works against unauthorized copying (for the greater good of the author)
- REALITY - the reason for copyright is to encourage the production of works (for the greater good of society)
By this, all works *MUST* eventually be returned to the public domain. It is most certainly unconstitutional for it to not be so.
The problem today is that the "limited times" mentioned in the Constitution can be any defined number, regardless of how high. By having ridiculously long durations, it effectively bastardizes the intent of the Constitution even worse than your suggestion does, in the short term. But the really long-term implications of granting a corporation the right to truly "own" a work (never release it, ever) are too dangerous to contemplate.
There really does need to be an arbitrary number given for copyright protections. "Limited times" begs for a defined number. It's just not limited *enough* right now.
(PS. what about different copyright durations for different *types* of works? For instance, surely the authors/publishers of software have recouped all they're going to get by, say, 10 years from the day it was released? What benefit is there to keeping ancient software protected by copyright?)
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Whoever turned "copy right" into one word had to be a lawyer. We don't say "freespeechright" or "gunright" or "assemblyright" or "religionright."
As a result, 99 percent of the public thinks that a copyright is some kind of formal legal document. They think you have to go get it, or protect it, or defend it, or preserve it, or buy it, or hire a lawyer to make sure you have it.
Fantastic point. From now on let's refer to "copyright" as "copy right". It's an informative and accurate meme that need to be spread. Who's with me?
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
I've been suggesting anyone who wants a real understanding of the issues of this case to turn to eldred.cc and lessig.org because until I read this article I'd yet to see a member of the mainstream press comprehend the actual argument for reversal.
Disney's trademark of the character Mickey Mouse will never expire, but the copyrights to creative works in which he is depicted most certainly should. The framers of the Constitution understood creative works to be both an input and output of the creative process, and that copyrights should only be granted for the purpose of contributing to the progress of the arts and sciences. Why should no one be allowed to do to Disney what they continue to do to authors such as Robert Lewis Stevenson (Treasure Planet?!)? This case is not about the length of time, as many misrepresent it. The petitioners agree that Congress has the right to set any length of time for copyright (save infinity), but the question is whether they can retroactively apply extensions (Walt isn't going to create more cartoons cause his copyrights suddenly got a few more years tacked on, so how does such legislation fit the purpose of promotion, which the clause explicitly outlines?), and whether that sort of legislation should be subject to appropriate intermediate first amendment analysis (which the lower courts refused to even consider).
-R
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
Fortunatly, I happen to disagree with you and I will try to quickly explain why.
First the term content producer is something of a misnomer that confuses the issue. So, for this post I will refer to them more correctly as a content arranger.
Fully understanding the rational of the behavior that corporations and content arrangers exhibit in regard to their views on protecting the content they have arranged, it is not just about them and to believe it is ignores critical facts. All works are heavly influenced by the culture that the arranger lived in, for no content can be produced in a vacuum. These arrangers entirely draw upon the wealth of creativity afforded by our culture and have stood upon the shoulders of those that came before them, which we as a society wholly encourage since it adds to the shoulder the next generation can stand on. Thus it can be concluded that the all new works can be considered a proper subset of the public domain and thus inherently also belong to the public domain. But being an enlightened society we realized that aranging content takes great time and the those that heavily contribute to this cause must eat, so we as a society graciously decided to allow the arrangers to for a limited time control the publication of that which they had arranged as encouragement for them to keep working. This encouragement is called copy-right.
So, as you can now clearly see copy-right is not something that belongs to you, it is the loan of a power from society. Which brings me to the point of systematically encrypting content. It doesn't belong to you, your just temporarly in control of it's distrobution. Thus when it reverts back to us, we want to be able to use it and if those that we granted copy-right to keep trying to abuse it, society will just forclose on what's ours anyways.
William F Buckley is an honest conservative. I often disagree with conservative positions, but I often do and almost always can understand and respect their arguments even where we disagree.
In contrast, the Republican party has been seized by so-called conservatives who are pretty much as abhorent to true conservatives as to liberals, progressives, and everyone else with enough sense to come in out of the rain. I haven't been able to find any underlying philosophy other than an adolescent mixture of anti-intellectualism and deference to authority. (The Big Guy above, the wannabe in the White House or governor's mansion.) They may call themselves conservatives, but I've yet to find any true conservative who doesn't grit his teeth at the crap at their antics.
You know, I remember when "tax and spend" was a bad thing. Then I saw the predictable consequences of years of "borrow and spend" politics. It doesn't work for individuals (it's the fastest way to bankruptcy other than "acts of God"), and it doesn't work for nations.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
From the "Project Gutenberg Weekly Newsletter - A Byte About Eldred v Ashcroft"
.....info in Public Domain 100% !!! .....info in Public Domain 50% ....info in Public Domain 25% ....info in Public Domain 12.5% ...info in Public Domain 6.25% ...info in Public Domain 3.125% ...info in Public Domain 1.5625% ..info in Public Domain 0.78125% ..info in Public Domain 0.390625% ..info in Public Domain 0.1953125% .info in Public Domain 0.09765625% .info in Public Domain 0.048828125% .info in Public Domain 0.0244140625% .info in Public Domain 0.01220703125%
.
If the New York Times' estimates of 7 years for information doubling may be considered at all correct, then this is what will happen [to information in the Public Domain] in a United States under the new copyright law, EVEN IF we considered 100 percent of current information now be entered into the Public Domain as an incentive to let this law stand:
[i (unger) modified the lines in the following chart to make them shorter. each line originally said "x years x/x of today's information in the Public Domain x%".]
0 years 1/1
7 years 1/2
14 years 1/4
21 years 1/8
28 years 1/16
35 years 1/32
42 years 1/64
49 years 1/128
56 years 1/256
63 years 1/512
70 years 1/1024
77 years 1/2048
84 years 1/4096
91 years 1/8192
98 years 1/16384 info in Public Domain 0.006103515625%
Plus a small fraction if any of this year's copyrights are allowed to
expire.
Obviously the goal is to have virtually no public domain left at all. . .
Of course, there are people who will try to make this very NOT obvious!
Michael S. Hart
[email address snipped]
Project Gutenberg
Principal Instigator
"*Internet User ~#100*"
EggplantMan writes:
.Net, etc. Sony and Philips have since bought InterTrust, which means that Microsoft now has to face their lawyers in a lawsuit that could take Microsoft out of the DRM game.
> First of all, Microsoft's Pallium aims to secure
> intellectual property from would-be hacker
> thieves, how can you criticise them for that?
The purpose of DRM, which Microsoft won't tell you although they happily crow about it to content creators, is to allow per use charging for media and software. Instead of buying something once, they want to charge you over and over again. The aim is to make it seamless to the user, so that if you try to access something that you haven't paid for today, Microsoft's DRM will charge your credit card quietly and let you use it.
This is getting so ridiculous, that at a recent Seybold, Microsoft was touting the ability of their e book DRM to only allow reading for one hour every second Tuesday!
It should be mentioned that InterTrust has been suing Microsoft for stealing their IP (patents). Infringing technologies include Microsoft's DRM, Windows XP, Office,
> As it is right now, the internet is a waistland
> of pornography, blogs, and hacker filesharing
I guess you haven't noticed Amazon and all the other ecommerce sites, online news sites, and repositories of reference materials?
> I fully support Microsoft in their efforts to
> "clean up the trash" and make computers and the
> internet a safe place to conduct business for
> reputable, long standing business establishments
> such as the RIAA.
My computer is not Microsoft's to "clean up". My computer is my property, not Microsoft's and not the RIAA's. (BTW, the RIAA these days is a lobbying organization. The businesses are the recording labels.)
> When Trusted Computing becomes a commonplace
> technology
The latest word from Microsoft is to remove them from Internet Explorer's list of "trusted publishers". It is the only way to get their latest security patch to work.
> we will all be able to rest at night knowing
> that legitimate, respectable institutions such
> as the RIAA and MPAA will no longer be suffering
> grievous economic losses due to the generally
> subversive nature of filesharing.
I quit my BMG club over the evils of the recording industry, so they are "suffering grievous economic losses" due to my not buying their CDs. I'd rather spend my money on good indie bands and imported Mothra soundtracks.
> due to the generally subversive nature of
> filesharing
Which is, of course, far more evil than the media sharks making artists into work for hire "slaves" while keeping the profits for themselves. Not!
Mothra and her fairy priestesses knew what they were talking about 41 years ago. They do bind the artists' hearts (with work for hire contracts). They do sell them again and again, performance after performance, CD after CD. Heck if the RIAA gets their way, you will be buying separate copies of a CD for your stereo, your car, your computer, etc.
"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming."
From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of Mothra (1961).
It's also important to point out that unlike all other property rights, copyright originally only limited duplication rights for professional publishers. The general public was exempted as long as they didn't mass produce copies of the copyrighted work for payment. So, an individual could hand copy a book as often as he/she wanted, but a publisher could not set up a printing press to mass duplicate and sell the work without permission from the copyright holder. This is an important distiction and is the basis for todays "fair use" provisions in copyright law. --M
If you think there's a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats, think again. The only difference is in their selection of corporate sponsors. Congress is divided into the ones who are in somebody's pocket and the ones who won't survive the next fundraising cycle, er, I mean "election".
Revenue is up since September 11, 2001. See Through the Night With a Light from a Buck for details.
This was a great article, especially since it comes from a "right wing" publication and perhaps will be taken seriously by some conservatives politicians that will soon control the government.
The author makes some good points that I think are often overlooked and always obsfucated by the entertainment industry. Most notably, the assertion that copyrights do not equal property rights is founded not only by parsing the language of the Constitution or common law. By looking at the foundation of property rights in the philosophical roots of modern democracy we can see that copy rights have been miscontrued and manipulated -- Emperor Rosen has no clothes.
John Locke, who had profound influence on the Framers and on modern political thought, first asserted that property rights were derived from the "State of Nature" in that we first own ourselves, and second, improve what we take from nature and transform it into our property. However, the very methods of creation were never sacrosanct. In the state of nature, Locke would have to imagine that others would see the very methods that others used to "improve" and collect their property. Surely there were composers and writers during his time, Locke himself published under the auspices of proto-modern publishing industry, but he makes no mention of "intellectual property" and certainly not copy right as such. I read about the Lessig theory in a previous post, and the idea that copyright is/should be only the granting a monopoly on the means of creation for a specified and limited amount of time goes along well with this. Both Locke and Lessig agree that there is no absolute conversion of ideas into property, and the more people write about this discourse the more society and hopefully politicians will recognize the great harm infinite copyright does to our polity and our society.
GetTheJob.com : Nothing but Real Jobs.
until people get the message, and stop mistaking copyright for a divine right of authors, the message needs to be repeated. That goes double for Congress.
:)
Well, either that or if people stop mistaking "copyright" and "copy protection"; and if they start understanding that "copyright" isn't a single monolithic right, but simply a guarantee to a creator that they are the first assignee and exerciser of the huge group of rights subsumed under the large umbrella term "copyright" (until they decide otherwise), we'll be better off. Involvement of various lawmaking bodies is, of course, determined by the sociopolitical jurisdiction in which you live.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
The ammount of adherance to the Constitution is inversely proportionate to the ammount of cash donated by PACs.
Unfortunately, they have a lot more money than we have Constitution.
Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
It originally came about as a method for the Crown to limit the printing and publication of material. Two reasons: as a means of censorship (copyright was simply withheld), and as a means of revenue. Since then, the term has been borrowed, with 'copyright' now meaning the exclusive right of the original creator to their work. Some of the history still lives on, hence the word 'royalties' for the monies paid to the copyright holder (as it used to go to the Crown). Just a little bit of history. In this case, things actually got better - they're getting worse now though, just to make up for things. Ah well. Don't get me started on 'intellectual property'.
The networks only "predict" the winner. The official selection is ONLY after the electoral college casts their votes which is long after the election night. Yes that is right, the person whom you chose could be over ridden.
Our founding fathers did not have a whole lot of confidence in the American people
--Joey
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 difference being: a hostile government won't round up the list of registered car owners, label them "enemy combatants", and take their cars away.
The things that pass for insightful now days.... You have assualt weapons? Morters? A recoiless rifle? A T-72? A MiG-29? Yeah, fat lot of good those seem to be doing those who choose to face off against a 1st world military. One would think that if one were familiar with the "plight" of the so called "enemy combatants", one would also remember that before they before they met their end, whatever it happened to be, they had at least an assualt weapon.
Red Dawn was a movie. Get over it. Hey while you're at it, why not spend some of that free time familiarizing yourself with the first part of the second amendment.
How did Charelton Heston manage to convince everyone that invasion from a Cuba ruled by man-eating movie watching apes was not only possible but likely? That's a lot of charisma, even for a guy wearing a neckerchief.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
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
how long is a reasonable time to set copyright? here's a suggestion - how about no period at all
yes - abolish copyright completely
as a poster noted earlier in this slashdot discussion, copyright is not a natural right belonging to authors that is being recognised by the government
it is instead a process by which the government seeks to encourage creation of material and transfer of that material into the public domain by rewarding 'creators' with a limited exclusive right to publish their works
i would argue that this incentive is no longer necessary in the modern world where there is a huge surplus of creativity and intelligence
truly creative ppl will always express their creative urges
we live in a world now where the wonderful creations of these truly creative ppl is mostly drowned out by 'cookie-cutter content' which is produced mainly for economic - i.e. copyright reward - reasons and not for reasons of responding to 'the muse'
in summary, trying to incentivise the creation of art and intellectual activity by economic reward has the opposite effect of rewarding mediocre 'content' that is created soley for economic gain, while the true art gets stifled and suffocated by the legal framework and control that was (originally) set up to nurture it
3 word summary -
no more copyright
(ever)
...I lost all respect for this author's argument here, "There was no argument ever made for a third- or fourth-generation royalty, much less a perpetual assignment of royalties to a corporation that never dies."
US Copyright law limits the duration for corporations to 96 years from date of creation. Had Mr. Bloom done a little bit of research he would have discovered this tidbit of info.
Here's my stupid idea regarding copyrights:
1) No copyright should ever under any circumstance exceed 100 years. A nice round figure that's easy to compute and no one can really complain that it's too short. Personally I'd like it much shorter, but this is a figure I think everyone can agree on as an absolute maximum.
2) If a copyrighted work is ever out of publication, then a clock starts ticking: depending on the class of material, if the total time out of publication exceeds the time for that class, then the item becomes public domain. These times are cumulative to keep a company from thwarting it by offering items for 1 day every few years or so. Such categories might be 20 years for books and other printed material, 10 years for audio and video, and 3 years for computer programs. The idea here is to get abandoned stuff into public domain before it totally loses all value. (This would also have the result that Microsoft would have to keep selling Windows 98 or else 3 years later everyone could copy it for free.) After all, does anyone have any doubt that PKZIP will be totally useless in 2101 except for historical purposes?
3) If an author sells the copyright on his works, and it subsequently goes out of print, all copyrights revert to said author immediately. This will let said author possibly get some value out of it before the copyright expires due to inactivity.
There are some details that would have to be ironed out in a system like this (e.g. what's to keep a company from having something 'in print' but only sold at some exorbitant rate), but hell, it's much better than what we have now.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
I mean does AOLTW really believe that all of the other networks will all start showing The Wizard of Oz as soon as they don't have to pay royalties for it? or Disney believes that the cartoon network will pull current stuff and run Steamboat Willie over and over instead of their usual content? That's nuts. I mean there is only so much of a market out there for "classic" movies, books, cartoons, etc. To use another example, why is it that we continue to see copyrighted plays created for Broadway when all the works of Shakespeare are in the public domain? Yeah, there are Shakespeare festivals, etc. but somehow I don't see them cutting into the audience for the latest Andrew Lloyd Webber mega-musical.
So the real question is, why are these companies so afraid of their older works entering the public domain?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
People who are creative have every right to maximize their return, just as any other entity with a potential for gain in a free market. I think what Congress has done to our system of copyright, however, is repugnant, as it is allowing exactly what its framers wanted to avoid.
I say we return the copyright to its original form - a creator holds a right for a specified period and no longer. Disney can go suck eggs.
Point taken, dumbass---but your implication that the modern era has some sort of monopoly on twisted copyright laws is still invalid. Nor is it the least bit credible that a different copyright structure is somehow causally related to the quality of the work being performed at the time.
to present yourself, very firmly, as someone that has probably never created any intellectual work of significant value.
Hmm... Guess that means glib, emacs, and oh, say Linux are not of significant value?
I think you couldn't be more wrong; copyright in no way impedes the "free exchange of ideas."
Ahh, but it most certainly *does* impede the free exchange of information, and what are ideas built on if not information? We plainly see the disruption when copyright is taken to such extreme's as Bono, or the DMCA, but the undercurrent is there all along. This is because copyright is a compromise.
This is why, whenever a corporate content executive comes along and scares hardware vendors by saying "We'll bid to control all copies, even those in RAM." We need extremists on the opposite side ready to say, "Hold it right there! We don't *need* copyright at all. If you want to keep any rights over distribution, you better get back in line and start compromising!"
This whole dialog should be enough to jar the all important consumer. Why? Because while the hardware vendor sees litigation on the horizon, and must retreat in fear. The consumer can simply say, "What exactly was my $29.95 supposed to buy again? Oh yeah, and what are my tax dollars supporting here exactly?" Faced with questions like these, it should be the content providers who beat a hasty retreat.
So, in a sense, I agree. The original system of copyright in this country was a great compromise. In another sense, I disagree. Without compromise, both alternatives are repugnant. If I had to choose one extreme or the other, no copyright still seems the only choice in a free society.
Wasn't the whole point of hyperlinking that we wouldn't have to know the underlying mechanism to retrieve the document?
Well, ya, as long as no one forgets that not "having" to know is far different than not "being able" to know. Not that you need to know what "http://www." means to paste it into a text-bar.
"Copy right" is not a right at all. You can't claim any right when it interferes with someone else's right. When collision occurs, you need an agreement to straighten things out.
You do not have a right to clean air; you do not have a right to smoke. You do not have a right to copy; you do not have a right to forbid copying. You do not have a right to life; you do not have a right to take life.
All these things are agreements. We agree to forbid copying, if you agree to make cool new stories. We agree to limit smoking to the smoke room, if you agree to provide one. We agree to forbid the arbitrary taking of life, but if mother nature comes calling, there's no court of appeals.
It's very hard to argue copyright law when people keep pretending some aspect of this is a God-Given Right. I have the ability to copy everything you produce at low cost. I agree to stop copying if you agree to make your work available in a reasonable manner for reasonable prices. This agreement has already been violated, and you can see the results.
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
So speaks a bitter proponent of the Buchanan Brigade. There was a reason Pat left the Republican Party: his increasingly paranoid views in favor of protectionism and against Israel took him out of the mainstream of the Republican Party (and American life). When you're reduced to taking over (and, as a result, destroying) something as puny as the Reform Party, your 15 minutes of fame are up.
For those out of the loop on conservative politics (probably most Slashdot readers), William F. Buckley's National Review is and has always been a paleo-conservative magazine, in favor of low taxes, limited governement, strong national defense (including a staunch anti-communist stance), free trade, and respect for traditional values (in no particular order). National Review has long had a streak of libertarianism running through it, as witness Buckley's very early opinions (the 1970s, IIRC) in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana.
Neoconservatism tends to be less enamoured of limited government and more in favor of "national greatness" conservatism, in favor of even stronger and more interventionist national defense, and is far more focused on supporting Israel (many of the most prominant neocons were Jewish intellectuals who broke with liberalism to become staunch anti-communists, with Norman Podhoretz as the classic example). The Weekly Standard is probably the most prominant neocon journal.
However, there are very few policy differences between real neo- and paleo-conservatives these days, especially after 9/11. The New American has always been off in John Bircher fringeland. The American Conservative is (surprise, surprise) Buchanan's new magazine. Chronicles was, last time I checked, a reasonably sane conservative magazine with a Catholic slant, mainly focusing on cultural issues. But none has the standard-bearing cachet among conservatives that National Review does.
Anyway, the above is greatly simplified, but is certainly a more accurate overview of the situation than Centinel's rather absurd Buchananite screed.
Lawrence Person (who has penned the occasional piece for National Review)
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Personally I'd like it much shorter, but this is a figure I think everyone can agree on as an absolute maximum.
I don't agree. It's trivial to argue that one hundred years is too short. Many currently extant companies, families, and institutions have been around for longer than 100 years. The figure of 100 years is arbitrary.
Why is 100 years a good figure? Give me some sort of justification for it, however feeble it might be. Just plucking it out of the air isn't good enough to convince me that it's the right number. You'd be better off going with the Biblical "threescore and ten" than with 100 years.
I write in my journal
This is sheer wordplay. Through nothing more than namecalling and gainsay, the author tries to redefine the meaning of the word "property" to exclude things he would prefer not to consider property. His points fail on the merits on almost every reasonable basis
Of course, gainsaying gainsay proves nothing either, but this argument is so stupid that it almost deserves no more. Any plausible definition of property in a dictionary (plain or legal) belies the proposition: try Webster's Third New International, and Black's Law dictionary, which of course, includes Copyrights and Patents expressly.
Arguing that copyrights are not identical to real estate proves nothing, as does arguing that they are not identical to a car. True, intangible personal property is slightly different from tangible personal property, which in turn is slightly different from real property. They also have things in common (besides being forms of property) -- they grant exclusive rights.
The temporal argument is wildly incorrect. There are zillions of property rights that are time-limited. The gainsay above simply ignored the substantive response by saying, ludicrously, that time-limited rights are "not yours." (Try explaining that to any person who has been ejected from property that is merely a life estate, or who has been found liable for substantial damages for infringement).
The fair use argument is likewise losing. Many "social rights" are common to all forms of property. Your right in your home is not absolute. I am privileged in many cases to make uses of easements, easements by necessity, and otherwise to enter or to use your real or personal property under various circumstances. The circumstances are limited, prescribed for particular social purposes and do not make you house or car any less a "property" asset.
In short, the argument given by the author of the preceding note is sophomoric and patently incorrect. It was non-responsive to the well-considered argument preceding it that addressed the issues point-by-point. There may be an argument that IP isn't, but that certainly wasn't it.
Perhaps the author will respond, if at all, less with gainsay than with a substantive definition he proposes to substitute for the English word "property," and then explain why anyone else but him should be using it.
This idea breaks when you consider that corporations are legal persons, and that they can own copyrights.
Not a problem. At least not a logical problem.
A corporation cannot be an "author" of a copyright in the sense of the statute -- only a natural person. When a natural person assigns a work of authorship to the corporation, the term is measured by the life of the natural person, not the "corporation."
The only other case is the infamous "work made for hire," where the corporation is treated like an author. In the case of a work made for hire, however, the statute does not define the term of the copyright to be life-based, but rather for a (very long) fixed term, presently 120 years.
It's an informative and accurate meme that need to be spread.
It's neither. It is, in fact, inaccurate and therefore misinforms. Two points:
1) In fact, the owner of a copyright is granted no right to copy. There is a subtle, but important difference between the right to do something, and having an exclusive right to do something. The former is a privilege to perform an act. The latter is the right to exclude another from performing the act.
In short, as an owner, I can use the power of the state to stop, punish or grant me damages if YOU infringe my copyright by making copies.
However, I can also own a copyright in a work, but not have the right to make copies. For example, let's say you permit me to make a derivative work of your book, provided I don't make any copies myself, although some specified publisher could be used for that purpose. I would OWN the exclusive right to keep others from copying (including the specified publisher) the derivative work. But you would OWN the exclusive right to keep me from making any copies of my own work. Weird, but illustrative.
Another common scenario is where I have assigned some, but not all of the exclusive rights to a copyright. If I grant you an exclusive license in my copyright, I can no longer make copies myself.
2) Copyright is not limited to rights to copy. There are six enumerated exclusive rights in a copyright set forth in 17 USC s. 106, reproduction being but one of them.
I think everyone is taking this from the wrong angle. I don't know about most people, but I suspect they were brought up in the same public school atmospheres that I was. Every five years or so, Disney would release another one of their (excellently produced) animated classics, after leaving it on the production shelf and driving up demand. Disney made it, this was their right, and this kept these classics fresh. Good plan. You've got to admire the strategy, especially in the air of public school's cirriculum.
I wasn't even aware of IP until after I got out of school, when I started wondering about restrictions, and exactly what ©, ® and (TM) meant--why were they different? What would I apply to my own works?
We're taught the same course in arithmatic every year for the first seven years. We don't even touch IP, despite it's extremely prominent centerpiece in the American economy. This should change. IP should be covered as philosophical, political, and economic issues. Legislators should stop by mid- and high-schools for Q&A, so the students can see just who is full of shit. ("Mom, Senator Hollings stopped by for Q&A today, he was an asshole, called us thieves, and gave us candy.")
The political landscape is in the mind. Most of us are blind to it until we learn the mental gears neccisary. As it is, nobody is taught these things unless they find the urge to seek it out personally.
I think a great de-inhibitor would be a high-quality non-obtuse public domain text book.
I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.
Yet another /. discussion on IP, yet another passionate rehash of IP as property vs. those who puke up a lung every time you suggest that it's "property".
It doesn't matter.
That's right. Let that sink in for a while. Let it fester. Let the rage build. Get it out. Scream. Hit your monitor. Done? No? Go ahead. Get it all out, I'll still be here. OK. Let's move on.
The real debate here is in deciding how much IP and its creators should be taxed. That's it. Whether there is a "social contract" or a "property right" is irrelevant. On one extreme are those who believe all IP should go immediately into the PD (Stallman, etc.). That's a 100% tax to the creator. On the other extreme are Disney lawyers who want to keep extending their ownership (zero tax). The answer is somewhere in the middle.
The founders knew the answer was in the middle. That's why they wrote things the way they did. Arguing about whether it's property or "property" is like arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin (15,234 by the way).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Uneducated fool. Not really your fault, the blame probably belongs to the school system....
The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they made the President indirectly elected. The idea was the same as the Senate, to make geography count a little instead of just raw headcount. The less populous states never would have joined the Republic had it not been setup that way because they would have been powerless in the face of the swarming masses in the Northeastern states.
It is getting real tiresome reading the continual sour grapes from the devotees of Al "Sore Loser" Gore talking about Bush pulling a 'coup' by winning the election according to the pre existing rules of the game. Bush won Florida according to every count and recount, including the one published almost a year later by the Miami Herald and the rest of the liberal press. Bush won the electoral college. Therefore Bush WON. And if there was any doubt, the spanking the Dems just took should have put them to rest. The Democrats are now a minority party and barring a miracle are likely to remain one for years.
Of course the Republicans only won by virtually becoming Democrats, but that is a bitch for another day.
Democrat delenda est
I don't agree. It's trivial to argue that one hundred years is too short. Many currently extant companies, families, and institutions have been around for longer than 100 years.
But copyright isn't about guaranteeing a living to companies, families, an institutions; it's about encouraging creators to create through monetary incentive. After 100 years, chances are the creator is gone. Any half-assed notion that he ought to be able to pass on his "cash cow" to his descendents is just bunk. My grandfather was a brilliant mechanical engineer, but I won't ever expect money from the folks he designed machines for: he's already been paid. He passed on the business to my uncle, but that was just a list of customers and his good name. My uncle has to make money in the business by being a brilliant mechanical engineer himself. The children of a brilliant author shouldn't expect any more than the children of a brilliant engineer. If they want the money, they should do the work.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
So... I'm guessing you got screwed out of an inheritance or something. You're really hostile to the idea of inheriting wealth. There's probably an interesting story behind that.
Myself, I've never inherited anything of significant worth-- my parents did fine, but they weren't wealthy-- but I fully intend for my kids to inherit a stinking fortune. They're my kids, and it's my right to pass the accumulated worth of my accomplishments on to them. They didn't work for it, in the sense that you mean it, but I'm free to give it to them, and I will choose to do so. And that includes any licensable IP that I own, like a copyright or a trademark.
Telling me that I can't bequeath my possessions-- and a copyright is a possession, because it's transferrable under law-- to my children is unreasonable and unacceptable.
Now that that's out of the way, we can return to the issue at hand: can somebody please give me an argument for why we should limit copyrights to a particular duration? Make it 14 years, or 28, or 75, or whatever, but please provide some kind of justification for your choice. Everything I've heard so far amounts to, "That sounds long enough to me," and I'm not willing to accept that, because for every person that agrees, there will be one who doesn't. Surely there's got to be a rational way to arrive at a duration, hasn't there?
I write in my journal
Two words: derivative works.
You don't just control the rights to your work, you also control the rights to everything that could be made from your work. And face it, how much original material is out there any more? If you lock up your material indefinitely, you're also prohibiting the use of that material by everyone else forever.
And that is denying the public a vast resource that could be used for much creative good.
Copyrights have to expire eventually so that the material can be used by others to make new stuff. Otherwise the waters stagnate and go lifeless. This is especially deplorable for material that no one is making any use of (hence my plan for expiring those much quicker) but no idea is developed in a vacuum. Try to name a single creative work that developed in a vacuum-- even Tolkien borrowed ideas from the past, just his past was more like 500+ years ago.
Copyrights are a game of give and take. You want to take but not give, and that's wrong.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
A law is just an agreement amongst a society. We agree to be governed by laws, if the government agrees to not abuse the laws. If a government breaks the agreement, we no longer need to follow the laws.
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
You are advancing an irrelevant argument. A creator with a valuable copyright or patent can build up a financial nest egg which is passed on to his heirs (just like anyone else making a sufficiently good living).
a copyright is a possession, because it's transferrable under law
Actually, a copyright differs from natural possessions in that it is a creature of government.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.