Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Copyright Fuss Revisited

Posted by michael on from the apartment-will-clean-itself dept.

mpawlo writes "I was going to clean up my apartement, but instead I wrote a piece for Greplaw introducing a framework for the debate on how we should obtain a balance between users and authors where the author has good incentives to innovate, but where society at large is not too restricted due to the author's previous innovations. I am afraid that I personally have few practical solutions to introduce, but you might find my text useful as a quick introduction to what the copyright fuss is all about and why you should care."

8 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Framework? by DoNotTauntHappyFunBa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While the article has lots of good information, I did not come away with an understanding of the author's "framework."


    Perhaps a diagram, or an outline summary would help.

    --
    Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
  2. open source + ransom model by jki · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I think I saw this article about the ransom model on /. as well: "Ransom is a software publishing model where the rights to the source code remain restricted until a set amount of money is collected or a set date passes, at which point the code is freed"

    Anyway - I believe this model makes open source the good solution for cases in which it has previously been thought not to be suitable. Such as cases where companies need to invest huge amounts of money just to get the "seed done" - I believe that the ransom model really for example enables co-operation between research companies to produce something that requires huge resources and capital - and get paid for doing it - and still eventually have the solution released under open source - developing it even further.

  3. Copyright isn't just about software and MP3s. by Corvaith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't think you can reform copyright law while treating copyright for different types of things differently. I don't, genuinely, believe that authorship of a computer program should be essentially different from authorship of a book. With all the protections that entails.

    Which is not to say that copyright law in itself isn't screwed up. But the whole MS problem isn't a copyright issue, it's a monopoly issue. And the music industry will eventually either die or adjst with the times.

    The real problems with copyright lie with things like the insanely long copyright period and the narrowness of 'fair use' rights for *everything*, not just music. There are middle schoolers out there getting lawsuit threats over fan art galleries. Disney's never going to have to come up with anything new, because they'll just keep getting extensions for Mickey Mouse. These are big problems, and things that seem to not be well addressed by the article.

    1. Re:Copyright isn't just about software and MP3s. by Autistic · · Score: 2, Interesting
      But the whole MS problem isn't a copyright issue, it's a monopoly issue.

      Not even that. A Copyright is by its definition a limited monopoly. It's a profit issue. If you an figure out a way for the fat cats to get richer and fatter without strangling everyone else, then you have a solution. Any solution that does not involve the fat cats getting righer and fatter is not a solution (according to the fat cats).

      the insanely long copyright period and the narrowness of 'fair use' rights

      The limiting of rights, the extension of limits, all of that are just by-products of the fat cats trying to get righer. To cure the disease, go after the the scum at the center. Don't just tackle the symptoms. Take out the Corporate greedfest. The rest will clear itself up.

      --

      Are you Autistic? Tell me about it.

    2. Re:Copyright isn't just about software and MP3s. by JoeBuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course there need to be differences. For example, current US copyright law explicitly gives permission for a legitimate owner of a copyrighted program to create a backup copy. There is no such permission for books.

      However, you do have a point, in that we need to firmly (re-)establish the "first sale" doctrine for programs and electronic files. If I buy a book, I can't copy it without permission, but I can sell my copy without getting permission from the copyright holder. The "content industry" would dearly like to get rid of that concept.

  4. Its getting even worse by night_flyer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Finland, taxi drivers are now ordered to pay royalties if they play music, even if it is on the radio, if they have passengers in the car.

    two churchs were also sued on copyright infringement for singing Chistmas hymns....

    the story is here.

    I would have posted this as a story, but seeing as how my approval rate is 1:50 its not worth the time or effort anymore

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  5. Copyright vs. Drug Companies patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is interesting to me that drug companies are allowed patents that run out relatively soon (15 or 20 years, I think) compared to copyrights, and they have to put in tons of money and research to create their products, but we'll give anyone who can throw together a few words and make a poem, song, or book, or who can draw or animate a mouse (Mickey), a 75 year copyright, and Congress the option to extend that indefinitely, when they certainly didn't have to spend billions to develop a lifesaving or life-extending product.

    Things are definitely screwed up around here. But make no mistake, I am not defending the big druggies either, just pointing out the oddity.

  6. my thoughts by GePS · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We agree that an invention benefits the society most when it is in the public domain -- anyone can use and benefit from it. However, we agree that in order for individuals in a capitalist society to have incentive to invent, they must be able to capitalize on their invention. Hence the "limited times" in the constitution for an inventor to profit from his mind.

    For the greatest benefit of the society at large, we want the "limited times" to grant just enough incentive to the inventors to invent at high rates (my idea would be to have the copyright term be a function of the average amount of time taken to invent something). One can assume rather assuredly that the length of a copyright should most certainly not be as long as a generation, otherwise entire generations would never know the free access to the idea.

    As is, the terms are something like life+50 years. Life plus 50 years?? look at it like this: people who were born after Mickey Mouse was copyrighted and have died since then (there's a lot of them, 1920's-) never benefitted from any of Disney's creations in the public domain. Does this benefit society as a whole, or the corporate monopolies who own the copyright?