Slashdot Mirror


How the Obama Copyright Policies Might Unfold

An anonymous reader points out a column by James Boyle, who knows a thing or two about copyright, analyzing the Obama Administration's policy choices about intellectual property and high tech. "Traditionally, Democratic administrations take their copyright policy direct from Hollywood and the recording industry. Unfortunately, so do Republican administrations. The capture of regulators by the industry they regulate is nothing new, of course, but in intellectual property there is the added benefit that incumbents can frequently squelch competing technologies and business methods before they ever come into existence. ... The Obama administration's warm embrace of Silicon Valley, and Silicon Valley's checkbook, had given some hope that this pattern would change — and I think it will. Now, instead of taking copyright policy direct from the media conglomerates (who, after all, have a very legitimate point of view — even if not the only point of view) it is quite likely that the administration will construct it as a contract between content companies and high-technology companies such as Google. In some places, citizens and consumers will probably benefit, simply because optimizing for the interests of two economic blocs rather than one is likely to give us a slightly more balanced, and less technology-phobic, set of rules. And perhaps the administration will go further. But recent actions make me doubt that this is the case."

55 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. Don't bet on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obama was elected thanks to the media. They're the ones who refused to cover anyone except Obama, they're the ones who forced the Democratic Party to skip the part of their convention where they count delegates' votes, they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existence and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.

    Obama owes the media, and you'll bet they'll collect.

    1. Re:Don't bet on it by Moryath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No kidding.

      And regarding the "very legitimate point of view -- even if not the only point of view" - I call bullshit. Fuck the consumer is never a legitimate point of view.

    2. Re:Don't bet on it by hedwards · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't they do that in the Netherlands? Or have they shut down their red light districts?

    3. Re:Don't bet on it by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's strange a candidate who has precisely zero chance of every becoming relevant is ignored by the people that are supposed to be covering the news. If only there were some organization with the guts to cover things that nobody really cares about.

      Seriously though, what exactly entitles Ron Paul to coverage. At some point you actually have to put up a decent showing if you wish to get time on the national news, it's strange how you have to be involved in the news to make it into the news. Just because the news media has a tendency to give the right wing a free pass doesn't mean that it should.

    4. Re:Don't bet on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seriously though, what exactly entitles Ron Paul to coverage.

      Well, clearly not getting second place in a state's presidential primary, as when that happened (Nevada) all of the news reports read "Romney first, McCain third", not mentioning the "Paul second" part anywhere. I agree Ron Paul had no chance of winning, but he got even less coverage than the others who had even less chance of winning.

    5. Re:Don't bet on it by McGiraf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where did you get that impression from?

    6. Re:Don't bet on it by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Informative

      More like the both are wholly p0wned subsidiaries of the plutocrats.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    7. Re:Don't bet on it by OECD · · Score: 4, Interesting

      they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existence

      Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, too.

      True, but it was particularly obvious in Ron Paul's case, when he was getting vote tallies on par with Giulliani's in the early primaries and they refused to label Paul's wedge in their pie charts.

      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    8. Re:Don't bet on it by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      .. went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.

      If by "went out of thier way," you meant "turned the cameras on and stepped back," then I agree with you completely. You can't blame everything on the media, the dancing monkeys on TV performed their act as well.

    9. Re:Don't bet on it by Toonol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most insightful response I've seen in a long time, and I have no mod points.

    10. Re:Don't bet on it by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, clearly not getting second place in a state's presidential primary, as when that happened (Nevada) all of the news reports read "Romney first, McCain third", not mentioning the "Paul second" part anywhere. I agree Ron Paul had no chance of winning, but he got even less coverage than the others who had even less chance of winning.

      Maybe because your story isn't true?

      I just Googled Nevada GOP Primary. Clicked the first news story http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22739349/

      Headline is:
      Clinton, Romney win in Nevada
      Texas' Paul to finish second in state's GOP caucuses

      They don't talk much about Ron Paul in the story. Probably because he got the same number of caucus seats as McCain. So although McCain got third he actually in effect tied for second. And since Ron Paul was currently polling in the low single digits there was no reason to believe it was anything other than a fluke in an unimportant caucus won by the guy who came in third place in the end anyway. And take one look at Rudy Giuliani. If the media was to be believed then he was a shoe in. So if Huckabee could go from obscure to competitive second then there is no reason Ron Paul couldn't have as well despite minimal media coverage. The simple fact of the matter is most people think Ron Paul is a nut job because he advocates things they don't believe in nor want to vote for.

    11. Re:Don't bet on it by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Informative

      and I don't think I've seen any statistic that showed Obama getting a lot more media coverage than McCain

      Time and Newsweek, for example. (Speaking of 2008)
      "Obama's face or name has somehow made it onto the cover of Time just about half of the time this year (25 out of 52 issues -- 48%)
      Newsweek has had 49 issues this year so far (through Dec. 22), so Obama has been featured on about a quarter of its covers as well."

      "...the Republican nominee, John McCain, made the cover of Newsweek just four times the entire year, and twice he shared it -- once with Obama and once with Sarah Palin"

  2. ill believe it when i see it by FudRucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:ill believe it when i see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
      Come now. If you're going to be "same as the old boss"ing the Obama administration, you can do better:

      The more things change, the more they stay the same!

    2. Re:ill believe it when i see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I disagree with the premise, but agree with the implication. How am I supposed to moderate this comment?

    3. Re:ill believe it when i see it by fm6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cynical fatalism sure does make life easier. Not only does it justify your self-absorbed lifestyle, it allows you to have an opinion on every issue without the nasty bother of reading or thinking!

    4. Re:ill believe it when i see it by lorenlal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ..it allows you to have an opinion on every issue without the nasty bother of reading or thinking!

      Excuse me... This is Slashdot. We barely read the summaries before hitting the comments. I doubt most of us read outside of that. Unless it has something to do with source code.

    5. Re:ill believe it when i see it by cthulu_mt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Diogenes disagrees!

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    6. Re:ill believe it when i see it by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Funny

      Screw source code. I just want to read the executable.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  3. Legitimate? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    from the media conglomerates (who, after all, have a very legitimate point of view â" even if not the only point of view)

    It the MPAA/RIAA have a legitimate point of view, then I can barely comprehend what illegitimate is.

    They have paid for legislation and administration policy. To want your paid-for laws to be enforced is not a "legitimate point of view".

    1. Re:Legitimate? by schon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It the MPAA/RIAA have a legitimate point of view, then I can barely comprehend what illegitimate is.

      My thoughts exactly. I have no idea how this guy thinks that "we should be able to rape the Public Domain, but nothing we have can ever enter into it, and nobody has any fair use rights" could possibly be considered "legitimate".

    2. Re:Legitimate? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is a legitimate point of view from a political science point of view: they have their desire, which is essentially to be able to make money from each copy of whatever they made, and have complete control over it. Others (especially around here) have the desire to be able to take their creations and use it any way they want, without paying them at all. Both are legitimate, real desires.

      Politics isn't about deciding who is right and who is wrong, it is about finding a compromise, or workable solution between two conflicting parties. In this case, the compromise is likely to be reduced copyright durations, and expanded fair use. Downloading music for free, as a lot of people want, is not likely to ever be legalized. The RIAA will not disappear until artists stop using their services, which may happen one day.

      --
      Qxe4
    3. Re:Legitimate? by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It comes down to how you define legitimate. If laws are for sale, shouldn't the people buying them expect that they will be enforced?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Legitimate? by bertoelcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Politics isn't about deciding who is right and who is wrong, it is about finding a compromise, or workable solution between two conflicting parties. In this case, the compromise is likely to be reduced copyright durations, and expanded fair use. Downloading music for free, as a lot of people want, is not likely to ever be legalized. The RIAA will not disappear until artists stop using their services, which may happen one day.

      Compromises only work if both sides have equal say, and no one is allowed to bribe the mediator.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    5. Re:Legitimate? by japhering · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It the MPAA/RIAA have a legitimate point of view, then I can barely comprehend what illegitimate is.

      My thoughts exactly. I have no idea how this guy thinks that "we should be able to rape the Public Domain, but nothing we have can ever enter into it, and nobody has any fair use rights" could possibly be considered "legitimate".
      --

      As one of my graduate school professors was quite fond of saying... "If you are in the IP business, you are in the litigation business!"

      What this means is that any Intellectual Property has no protected value until it has been tried in court. Yes, the RIAA/MPAA can claim any value they want ($15 for a music CD, $25 for a BlueRay disk) and people will pay for it. However, until they take someone to court or someone takes them to court the IP has NO value.

      Any one remember a few years back when just about ever album was comming out with some form of DRM on it.... Anyone also remember that Phillips, the holder of the IP on Compact Disks.. took the record companies to court to force them to remove the compact disk label off all the albums that had DRM as DRM made the disks unplayable on large numbers of certified compatible compact disk players?

      That's a case where Phillips the IP holder took the record companies to court because the record companies were infringing on Phillips IP.

    6. Re:Legitimate? by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As if money were the only form of power in a democracy.

      Hint: we are the government, we are the mediator. If you let the RIAA bribe the mediator, it is your own stupid fault (along with that of 200 million other citizens).

      --
      Qxe4
    7. Re:Legitimate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think it should be the role of politics to find a compromise between two positions, one of them being completely abusive and unreasonable and the other one being, well, rather common sense.

      So if you have a child abusing lobby and a parents association would it still make any sense to find a compromise between the two?

      Politics damn well have the responsibility to also make decisions about right and wrong, otherwise how could laws be made if it wasn't so? Laws are the essential way of saying this or that is right "in our society" at least. The current copyright laws, have failed to say what's right for a long time now. They only say what an abusive industry wants.

    8. Re:Legitimate? by bennomatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Very good comment. One additional point to throw in about the RIAA's desires is that they want to be sure that all music has some cost (and therefore, value) associated with it. If all of a sudden, the best selling albums and singles become public domain, the record companies will have to work 10x as hard to compete against freely available music which is arguably of better quality than the tripe they're serving up.

      It reminds me of the scene in the Grapes of Wrath where poor, starving farm workers tried to take some imperfect (i.e. not good enough for market, but totally edible) fruits from a farm's dump and they called in the national guard. If they can eat my garbage for free, the thought was, why would they ever pay for the "market quality" stuff?

      So let's play this out a little bit. Let's say we drop the copyrights on everything over 17 years old. All of a sudden, everything older than Third Eye Blind is free. The majority of Metallica music. U2, Madonna, Pink Floyd, Paula Abdul... Jefferson Starship, Beatles, the list goes on. Anything recorded by Casals, most of Pavarotti's records... How many people would say, "I've got a lifetime of music to wade through that's free. Why would I buy this top-40 crap for even a dollar?"

      Unless, of course, they actually turn out some product that's better than Britney. I'm not saying that there's no good music these days, but I'm saying that most of the pop stuff they put out now would have a hard time competing against a practically infinite supply of free music.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    9. Re:Legitimate? by bennomatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, the quote doesn't say that the laws are legitimate; only the perspective. It's perfectly fine for me to say, I want you to work for me for $0.02/hour, and it's legitimate for you to say, no, a fair wage is $30/hour for what your doing.

      Of course--and I think this is what you are getting at--when one side has the power to buy laws to enforce their desires over less-well-enfranchised parties, then the making of those laws should not be considered legitimate.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    10. Re:Legitimate? by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You bring up an interesting point, but laws are the way of codifying the will of the people, not always in a fair way. Sometimes one portion of the people enforces its will on another part. It's unfortunately not fair.

      Who is to say what is right and what is not right? God? Preachers? You? The presidents? Society? What happens if 95% of the people in a society decide that it's alright to abuse children? It's not nice to the children, but it would be accepted, regardless of the parents' association. In our case, in America, most of us agree it is not right to abuse children, and we have set up laws and institutions to protect them. This is not necessarily the case. What is common sense then, if not views that are held in common among most people?

      Politics is all about what different people want, and balancing different powers, groups, and desires.

      --
      Qxe4
    11. Re:Legitimate? by lorenlal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As if money were the only form of power in a democracy.

      Hint: we are the government, we are the mediator. If you let the RIAA bribe the mediator, it is your own stupid fault (along with that of 200 million other citizens).

      Oh ho ho ho! Now THAT's something!

      If we elect someone thinking that they're "good and honest" folks, and they turn around and act like the typical asshat that we're much more familiar with, I'll point the blame at that asshat first. Now, if that asshat gets re-elected, I'm totally with you. The idiots who vote and proclaim "Thank you! May I have another!" would certainly be at fault in that case.

      Point is: When electing someone, we can only take our best guess and choose from those of us who decide to run for the public office. It's kinda like a lengthened interview. I've been tricked in interviews... But I learned from those mistakes (after cleaning them out the best I can), and I've done my best to get better. Likewise, I've been tricked by my elected officials. It happens. But, that's why we're supposed to pay attention and make sure we don't repeat those mistakes.

      This also (not coincidentally) happens to be a major reason I hate the political party setup in the US. People tend to get used to voting for one side or another... and they tend not to hold those they vote for accountable for the BS they pull. It's also why I beg and plead with people to vote on more than just an affiliation... But that's a battle I'm going to lose for a long time.

    12. Re:Legitimate? by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right. People often complain that such and such a system is bankrupt and then propose as a solution a rule, within the system, that the system cannot be bankrupt. It is a hopeless pursuit.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    13. Re:Legitimate? by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      have complete control over it

      I think that is the crux of the problem right there.

      IMO, reasonable people would interpret that to mean they have complete control over distribution, licensing, and profits derived from such activities from their copyrighted works. I have no problem with that. I BELIEVE in copyrights. Not as they exist now, but the idea of what a copyright is and provides, is beneficial to society. I think everything should be 20 years. Or 25, 17, whatever. Not 75 years, or the lifetime of anyone plus anything.

      The RIAA, Big Media, and *especially* SONY (rootkit), interpret that to mean complete control over how and when their customers enjoy their works. I myself think, and that most reasonable people, would think that is an unreasonable and unethical position to take.

      Does Tyson tell you how to cook your chicken? How to cut it? Does Shake-n-Bake mandate exactly 6 shakes? Does Toyota tell you that your Prius can only be driven in the Southwest U.S?

      Why do we put up with the idea that after, most importantly AFTER, we give our money to these companies that they get to control us in any way shape or form? That is not normal. That expectation is not realistic or even what a normal person has ever expected.

      What these companies are fighting so hard for is something we would have never agreed to in the first place, and is certainly not in society's best interest. Their purported* financial best interests, but not our society's, or freedom for that matter.

      * - That is not even certain. I don't believe that an instance of piracy equals a lost sale. I think if piracy stopped completely tomorrow that CD sales would rise marginally. A few percentage points. Not year over year multi-digit gains. The business models have to change. Like or not, music is a 99c world and albums just don't sell for 20$+ like they used to. They are panicking and desperate, if not suicidal. It reminds me when aluminum was worth more than gold, and then suddenly was worth less than 1c on the dollar. My concern is that they seem hell bent on destroying our freedoms, destroying copyrights, and basically making life a living hell till they finally die.

  4. Obama and Copyright by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Barack Obama has decided that copyright issues are a matter of national security, and has appointed a number of former RIAA lawyers to various positions in his administration. I think it's pretty clear whose side Obama is on, and it does not bode well for the future of the Internet.

    Obama: Change you can believe in. It won't happen, but you sure can believe in it.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    1. Re:Obama and Copyright by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, lawyers are well known for not being in any way mercenary. Or something.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Obama and Copyright by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Barack Obama has decided that copyright issues are a matter of national security [slashdot.org], and has appointed a number of former RIAA lawyers [wired.com] to various positions in his administration.

      Yes... god forbid teh ev1l goverment should hire people familiar with copyright law to work in the justice department...

      FYI: lawyers defend who they're paid to defend, and prosecute who they're paid to prosecute. That's their job. Just because they worked for the RIAA, doesn't mean they are, by default, shills for the media conglomerates.

    3. Re:Obama and Copyright by Mithyx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lawyers do the best job they can for who they work for, otherwise they're not good lawyers. Just because a lawyer defends a serial killer, that doesn't mean they believe that what the killer did was right. I'm not saying they won't side with the RIAA, just that their previous employers might not have as much to do with their position in the matter as some people think.

  5. Government moves slow by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Government moves slow, which is probably a good thing.

    In the case of copyright, it has only been in the past few years that normal people have even cared about copyright. Up until now, it's mainly been an issue between creators, authors, musicians, performers, and publishers. And they've had some pretty riotous fights about it. For the average citizen, who feels it's pretty good for a musician or author to be compensated for his work, and it seemed reasonable to allow longer copyrights. Better the artist (or his chosen publisher) be compensated for their work, rather than some random publisher who had nothing to do with it. In general people favor giving an artist control of their creations.

    In the last 20 years, it's become more of an issue because anyone can make copies of songs, and the average person can easily get the equipment to reuse the work and make something new and creative from it. For us who are on the edge of the technological wave, it is obvious that there are problems with copyright, and we have some ideas about what the solutions should be.

    The average person, on the other hand, has no idea what the issues are, hasn't really thought about them, and the government tends to be even slower than the average person. So it isn't that Obama (or Bush) is in the pocket of the RIAA, in fact, if you look at his campaign contributions, they are probably just a small portion.

    Ask your non-technical neighbors or family members what they think of copyright. They will probably think that it is a good thing, even if they pirate songs themselves. They just haven't thought of all the issues.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:Government moves slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would go even further. Even as a CS undergrad at one of the top CS universities in the US, I still know very few people who even know what copyright is. Sure, they are vaguely aware that laws exist saying you shouldn't copy music/movies and they have seen the FBI warnings on movies, but they have no idea what is legal or not. That is why there are tons of videos on YouTube with unlicensed music in the background or unlicensed photos: the vast majority of those people would probably be very surprised to learn they broke a law by using that music or those photos.

    2. Re:Government moves slow by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In general people favor giving an artist control of their creations.

      In general people are apathetic about a law that doesn't touch their lives.. until it does touch their lives.. and then they proclaim how completely unfair it is. In the case of copyright, they're right.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Government moves slow by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that is ok with me. In general, laws should be decided in consideration of the people whose lives they DO touch; just as I have no particular say or interest in what laws are created in Ohio. If I ever move to Ohio, it will be a different story. Of course there are exceptions to this (for example, in the case of slavery it was probably a good idea to force the south to give up their slaves), but since for most of history copyright has mainly only affected artists and publishers, it is reasonable that for most of history they've had the greatest interest in how the laws are formed. But things are changing, and the laws will too; eventually.

      --
      Qxe4
    4. Re:Government moves slow by hedwards · · Score: 2, Funny

      Copyright? Isn't that the result of using the right shift operator?

  6. Political thought by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Gee, how can I piss off a bunch of rich and powerful people.. I know, I'll take away their special rights to a government granted monopoly, that sounds like a great idea!"

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  7. It means nothing without Public Domain by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When was the last time anything fell into the public domain? That has to change before I will sit up and take notice of any positive changes. These days, if they didn't make their money in the first five years, any given work is nearly dead -- especially movies. Copyright terms need to be seriously shortened by default and let there be some sort of copyright appeals process if it can be shown that they didn't get adequate return on investment.

    1. Re:It means nothing without Public Domain by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And games, and things with regional lockout. Today, there is no reason with the rise of digital distribution that there shouldn't be 20 year copyright along with a clause that states that if the item is no longer available new, in your region for 3 years you have a right to download it for non-profit, non-commercial use. You only need to look at all the old video games that have passed into obscurity to notice the need for such laws, without the illegal dumping of ROMs a vast majority of early gaming would be completely lost forever.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:It means nothing without Public Domain by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > These days, if they didn't make their money in the first five years, any given work is nearly dead -- especially movies.

      No... not really. This was the feeling during the studio system of Hollywood. It's not really true today. There are many titles (and not all ones you'd think of like Star Wars) that are making money years and years down the road. As a matter of fact, if I remember by college film studies correctly... there are very few titles that done *eventually* make their money back. In the U.S. we tend to focus on domestic money made at the theaters, but movies are sold to Broadcast TV, Cable TV, International markets of all sorts, Airlines, Cruise Ships, DVD sales, online sales... the list goes on and on. Also.. don't forget all the movies that finally broke even when they ended up on TV shows like MST3k! All this goes on for years and years and years.

      I think copyright has to accommodate this somewhat. However I agree with the parent's point... they are not falling into Public Domain at all these days and that should be corrected.

    3. Re:It means nothing without Public Domain by japhering · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think copyright has to accommodate this somewhat. However I agree with the parent's point... they are not falling into Public Domain at all these days and that should be corrected.

      I would say the system is definitely broken, when copyright for a work belonging to an individual is 75 years after death and belonging to a corporation is 100 years.

      Next time you are in Europe look at how many Disney characters are used all over the place.. Disney messed up and didn't get copyright extended in Europe before Mickey and Minnie hit 50 years and if I recall correctly, a few other characters escaped into the public domain before the EU changed the copyright to match the US limits.

      Personal opinion, NO copyright should extend past the death of the artist.

    4. Re:It means nothing without Public Domain by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd third you, but to give a fair chance to any companies that suffer an unfortunate sudden artist death, I'd say that copyrights should have to be renewed every 5 years or so and can't be renewed if the original artist is dead. I think that's a very fair compromise - any works in progess can still benefit from the copyright (giving an incentive for the work to be released rather than cutting the loss and abandoning the work) and the work won't be held hostage for any really significant amount of time after the artist dies. A win-win IMO.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:It means nothing without Public Domain by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with one exception. I think copyright should be a fixed term, not relative to a person's death. I think we should just promise them a fixed period of protection, and if it goes past their death, and ends up paying into their kids pockets, then that's their business.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    6. Re:It means nothing without Public Domain by Toonol · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree. I wouldn't mind something like a flat twenty years. Artist dies, it goes to their heirs, for the duration. I also wouldn't mind something like 10 years + an optional renewal, but the less complicated the better.

      I want to keep copyright, and I wouldn't want it to be extremely shortened... there really are some creative works that languish for several years before becoming hits. But if the duration was twenty years... hell, Pac-Man would be public domain now. Lord of the Rings. Indiana Jones. And that's ok... the creators of all those have certainly benefited. At some point they need to simply be recognized as part of our culture.

      I desperately have a project that I want to do based on Edgar Rice Burrough's Mars series. Unfortunately, the series falls on the cusp of copyright extension; the first five books are out of copyright, the remaining six... who knows? Maybe they never will be. Also the names of the three major characters are trademarked by Burrough's heirs... which, as far as I can tell, can potentially exclude any use of them in derivative works FOREVER.

    7. Re:It means nothing without Public Domain by MarionGropen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When was the last time anything fell into the public domain?

      Yesterday -- all the works of anyone who died on June 21, 1939 became public domain then.

      --
      Marion Gropen
      consultant to small book publishers
  8. Re:Republicans Racist Against Minorities by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That was before the Southern Strategy.

  9. Government only moves slow when governed by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Informative

    Government moves slow, which is probably a good thing.

    We are used to government moving slow, because until now it's been regulated by two parties with different goals slowing each other down.

    When the Democrats were elected to control essentially two branches of government and neutralize the third, we removed all governing forces keeping government moving slow. Government is now free to grow unchecked, at any rate desired. That's how you got an almost order of magnitude increase in the federal deficit in the first month of a new president. That was of course before any of the other multi-trillion dollar projects come up and get added to the grand total.

    That was really the singular reason to vote for McCain to the exclusion of all others good and bad, but the independents who voted for Obama blew it when they could not grasp this fundamental concept (control of the house and senate was never really in question). Never let one party hold all the marbles, it's like crossing the streams...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  10. Re:Republicans Racist Against Minorities by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That was before the Southern Strategy.

    The flipside of that, of course, is that, if, Abraham Lincoln was essentially a Democrat, then Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Republican. The south was Roosevelt's power base. Ever wonder who the heck Carl Vinson was to get a carrier named after him? Why, he was Roosevelt's man in the Congress that rammed through a huge naval construction program just in time for World War II. Pretty much saved the USA from getting torched by Japan, but, he was pretty much a racist redneck.

    --
    This is my sig.
  11. Re:Criticism of Obama is Racist by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought under Bush dissent was the highest form of terrorism? You know, "with us or against us" and all that?

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.