Finally, and I think most important, copyright is not a "right". It's a grant from the public. We grant the creative (supposed to be) limited monopolies to, as the Founders put it, "encourage the useful arts and sciences". While copyrights and patents are allowed by the Constitution, they are not mandated.
You are really splitting hairs here.
No, just talking what the Constitution of the United States says. And if you're a USer (as I am), that's the ruling law so what it actually says kind of matters.
What is so often forgotten in this matter is we grant the monopoly called "copyright".
True, but it would be foolish to want it any other way. If you let someone copy your work, and even take credit for it, there is no incentive to produce the work at all.
Ignoring that we built Western civilization without copyright, you're talking sideways of my point. Giving out these monopoly grants is something we do to obtain benefit. It should be a mutual exchange. The equation is getting tilted too far to the--ironically enough--benefactor of our grant.
It is ours. We are not obligated to give anybody monopoly status. We have every right (and Constitutional power) to decide the limits of these grants.
Let's take a look at how software is developed. Probably at least 96% of code written is proprietary. In other words, the authors expect to get money and want to earn a living by making it.
Yeah, it's copyright by a corporation, not the actual creators isn't it? Most code is done "work for hire" and the people getting the royalties aren't the creators.
But that's a whole other can of worms.
The rest is open source. But in open source, the vast majority of the leaders (and aspiring leaders) all have huge egos. They may or may not be paid, and may or may not want money, but the vast majority are motivated by something: the desire for recognition. If you remove copyright, anyone can take something and put their name on it and sell it, effectively depriving BOTH groups of the reason they create software.
As the point was "to encourage the useful arts and sciences", we do have the right to say, "you've made enough". Particularly because we are giving them something. Something we are under no obligation to give them.
That argument doesn't really work. When someone like Rowling writes a book for society, there is a trade. We say, "We'll give you money and we won't let anyone else copy and sell your book", and she says, "Ok, in exchange I'll write a cool book for you." You say we are under no obligation to give her the copyright, which is true...
Eh, what? I'm wrong and right?
...but it is also true that she is under no obligation to write a book for you. That's the way any trade or negotiation works. Both sides come to agreeable terms and agree to act on them. If we try to take away one or both of those terms from her, would she still be willing to write the book? Maybe, maybe not... but most likely not, because she had kids she had to feed and clothe, and if you can't make money on books because everyone copies them, then it isn't worth it to try to write one. The time would be better spent getting a second job that actually pays.
But this threadlet (if memory serves) started out with the question of whether society can say, "You know, you've made enough okay?"
I'm saying we can. And, I just looked, J K Rowling's net worth is one billion. I mean, suppose the upper limit was a net worth of one billion. That would kill the writing of novels?
we do have the right to say, "you've made enough". Particularly because we are giving them something. Something we are under no obligation to give them.
And you do that by not buying whatever it is they are selling. Think about what you just said for a minute: "we are under no obligation". So when someone does give them money, they are doing it voluntarily. If you think they've made enough money, don't buy it any more. And as others have said, the producers of $thing are under no obligation to produce them.
Your conclusion might hold water if the product is something critical or necessary to life, like maybe AIDS vaccine or something. But luxury items like children's novels, professional sports, video games, music, etc. are certainly not vital for life, and nobody is being forced to consume those products against their will.
Completely misses the point.
The public is not obligated to give anyone the status of monopoly.
Giving copyright to someone or some company is something we as a society do to encourage creators to create. In short, we expect to receive benefit or why should we give them anything?
People keep missing this. Copyright is something we give them. Why are we obligated to them but they can do anything they want?
Yes, of course law still stands, but applying it makes her greedy and looking stupid.
If she doesn't enforce it, though, she could lose her standing to sue in court. A valid affirmative defense in a copyright suit is to say that the copyright holder knew that infringement was taking place and failed to do anything about it.
That's not true at all. Under the Berne Convention (which was incorporated into US law in the 80s), copyright cannot be "lost". Prevailing law (international via the convention) holds that only explicit grants are valid.
I was not aware that society's subjective judgment of whether someone has made "enough" money from one's intellectual property was a factor in copyright law. Either there's a copyright infringement or there isn't. Rowling's wealth and success are irrelevant.
Of course it is. What is so often forgotten in this matter is we grant the monopoly called "copyright". While the Constitution allows for these grants, they are not mandated nor are they consider a "right". We, the public, could abolish them if we so chose. Or at least drastically curtail them.
As the point was "to encourage the useful arts and sciences", we do have the right to say, "you've made enough". Particularly because we are giving them something. Something we are under no obligation to give them.
If Rowling had let this slide, then the next person who copies the character or settings wholesale, and tries to publish "Harry Potter" sequels, would have a valid defense that Rowling didn't protect the copyright for this guy, so she effectively has given up the copyright.
Not at all, copyright holds whether you "defend" it or not. In fact, current laws (via the Berne Convention) don't have any provision for "losing" copyright. You have to explicitly grant or give up rights.
The whole thing is absurd. A popular work always has companion works and fan works. The way to "stop" that is wreck your work so nobody cares about it. One good way to start is beating up on anybody who shows any appreciation for the work.
A lexicon may be a bit over the line but, really, it's not like there isn't "enough to go around". Does she think her "brand" is so weak, the competing lexicon is going to damage hers? That's silly. Fans will snap up her work over anybody's. The dilution would be negligible. I think the risk of souring fans on the work is greater. The RIAA, for example, has been slitting its own fool throat for years, hacking off the music consuming public. Unfortunately, we can't measure "would have been" so it could be shoved in their faces.
I think getting the thing off the market entirely is overkill. One wonders if she even tried trying to negotiate some kind of agreement on the lexicon.
Finally, and I think most important, copyright is not a "right". It's a grant from the public. We grant the creative (supposed to be) limited monopolies to, as the Founders put it, "encourage the useful arts and sciences". While copyrights and patents are allowed by the Constitution, they are not mandated. We could, if we wanted, via our elected representatives, abolish copyright and there's not a damn thing anybody could do to stop us. It's only too bad the public is ignorant of this fact, we could hold that threat over the heads of corporate beasts instead of being forced to genuflect to them.
My reaction to her being so greedy would be, "Fine, you wanna be a bitch? How 'bout we public domain Harry Potter? Hmmm?"
I mean, if people weren't trying to use the Internet, ISPs and telecoms would have such an easier job! Come on people, stop being so mean to the corporations, pay your bill but don't ask for any goods or services or anything silly like that...
the sun might burn out before your interest in using the code fully wanes, why not just set copyright to expire "after it's clear no one would want this anymore." that covers all cases nicely and also isn't infinite (for example the copyright for the movie "Speed 2: Cruise Control" would have expired immediately)
Akchoally, the copyright for the move "Speed 2: Cruise Control" would have expired backwards in time until the writers themselves disappeared.
Now if it just weren't for the potential damage to the fabric of space-time...
And I think the idea of the GPL is actually closer to the spirit of copyright as the Founders intended. The public can benefit from the selfish motivations of the individual. Copyright was intended to "encourage the useful arts and sciences".
...by granting a temporary monopoly. Which seems counter to the GPL if you ask me.
Not so much I'd say. The GPL rests on copyright law and derives its power from same. If you had no such monopoly grant, you couldn't put restrictions on the use of the work by others which the GPL does. If everything was public domain, you couldn't tell Microsoft (or Apple, who uses FreeBSD) they can't take the work and lock it up. You really would be doing "free work" for a corporation.
Used correctly, copyright can be a beneficial tool. That we've done our best to wreck it in this country notwithstanding.
The catch with Copyright in the US is that it was originally 14 years, but laws have pushed it all the way up to the author's lifetime plus 70 years (or a flat 95 years on works made for hire, such as movies and music).
Unfortunately, when Eldred v. Ashcroft pointed out that this was contrary to the purpose of copyright as laid down by the Constitution, the Supreme Court gave a ruling that as long as the length was not infinite, it was not in violation of the Constitution.
Didn't you just love that dodge? The court has handed down some rulings in recent years that just reek. Why not "life of the universe" then? I mean, that's not infinite near as we can tell. Okay, just in case it is, let's use "until the sun burns out"!
No, they had plenty of precedent to ignore to get where their corporate masters wanted them to go. Including, as you point out, that the people who wrote the Constitution passed a law of 14 years maximum. Which rather gives us a clue they didn't intend "infinity and beyond".
NO. The founding father who fought for copyright specifically did it so the author of the works can make money, and the public can benefit. Just not at the same time. Interesting that the 'poor widow' who needed to make from their work argument was trotted out. What tge founding fathers Did Not Want, was anybody to be able to lock up copyright for a long period of time. That was due to the damage copyright was doing to English society for the past 100 years before America was created.
From what I have read, I'm pretty sure if the founding fathers saw what's happening today, copyright in the constitution wouldn't be there, and they might have gone with one of the original idea to outlaw corporations; which also was doing series harm in England.
I suspect you misunderstand what I was saying. The Founders meant to create incentive for the creative to produce. The GPL (et al) has managed to something very similar. The selfish interest of uncounted numbers of programmers is producing works that are beneficial to many.
That we've gone and turned copyright into a black hole from which nothing creative can ever emerge is a whole other issue. The Founders did blow it big time when they ignored Jefferson's call to specify the term of the monopolies in the Constitution. He also wanted the Constitution to require the grants have narrow scope.
No they're not. Corporations largely predate the existence of formal governments. They're a natural way to reduce the transaction costs in doing business. At the very least they exist since feudal time, when the lord couldn't care less about "creating" some form of organizations.
And yet they have to be chartered by a government or they wouldn't exist.
and no, getting rid of proprietary software won't magically fix disease, starvation, etc
Oh be creative! Free software is, as far as the whole of society is concerned, much cheaper than proprietary software, because society only has to pay to solve (the software portion of) a particular problem once. Therefore, if problems are solved using free software instead of proprietary software, society will have a lot of money left over to spend on fixing disease, starvation, etc.
Interesting point that. Is software really that "valuable" to begin with? A cure for a disease is certainly more valuable than, oh, a copy of Excel.
Software is a useful tool (okay, can be). But how much is it actually worth in and of itself? FOSS may be fairly ordinary (even predictable) process of software seeking a more appropriate "price" in the market. Shrink wrap software may be a transient phenomena. It hasn't existed all that long after all. Maybe software has been overpriced all these years during the big expansion of the PC market.
Giving a researcher a cheap or even free tool that helps in the search for a cure for a disease is not a bad thing. Overpriced software saps resources. There are a wide number of areas in which resources are better devoted than just to some corporation's profit. I mean, did Bill Gates actually need another ten billion?
Free software is ironically both communist-ic (yay collective good) and free-market-istic (the price of the software is the marginal cost of production of one copy, or, um, zero!) It's rather fun. Not too many markets work out that way.
What "collective good"? That might be the case if rms (or FSF) is proposing that software need to be released into the public domain, but even with copyleft, copyright is still individual property*.
That's a false dichotomy. If public good and individual rights are in "conflict", a free society isn't possible. Which I'm sure some power lusting types would hope we believe but it's just not true.
The FOSS world has found a way to drive public benefit via self interest. If I need software X and write it for my own benefit, I can GPL it and others can benefit "for free" with no loss to myself (as there is no "right to profit", profit is earned, not guaranteed).
Others in general (collectively as it were) can benefit from the results of my own selfish motivations. After all, I wanted/needed software X. I'm getting something out of my work. If you benefit, that's nice but wasn't my point. Put a million selfish motivations together and you can end up with entire operating systems that cost "nothing" (as it were) and anybody can benefit. Everybody gets to go along for the ride.
And I think the idea of the GPL is actually closer to the spirit of copyright as the Founders intended. The public can benefit from the selfish motivations of the individual. Copyright was intended to "encourage the useful arts and sciences". Not create the RIAA. Not give fat old men in executive offices yet another yacht. The idea was an inducement to the creative to create.
The best systems find ways to channel self interest in directions that are good for everybody at large. The "conflict" is an illusion and one that should be viewed with deep suspicion when pushed by some one or some group. After all, the systems in which you benefit but I lose are such as when you point a gun at me and take my wallet.
I'm continually stunned on how bullshit laws like this keep popping up in a society that spells out a specific separation of church and state.
Oh that's easy. At least in the case of Louisiana.
The neo-conservatives believe evolutionary theory is correct but a "dangerous idea". Knowledge of the theory is to be reserved to the ruling elite. Religion is a social tool useful in keeping the peasants orderly.
Bobby Jindal--current governor of the state--is Bush's hand picked man. No, I am not exaggerating in the least. Jindal's entire political experience is having worked in the Bush administration. This is his second run for office. Yes, second. First elected office he's ever held.
The state party noted that they had a chance of turning Louisiana solidly "red" as Katrina dislocated so many nigg... erm, Democrats (oh yes, they actually said this). The "liberal" bastion of the state was Orleans parish (along with Saint John the Baptist to a lesser but significant degree) which went Democratic by as much as 75% in elections. With so much of the nigg... erm, Democrats out of the way, this was their chance.
Blanco was repeatedly torpedoed in the Katrina fiasco. I don't give a flying fig anymore what people say about that incident. I was there. I watched it. Requests were made for help with the evacuation. They were denied. The Stafford act was activated before the storm hit. There was no legal reason for withholding aid. FEMA actually turned aid away from the city. Including private rescue helicopters.
(I know someone who was stranded in the hospital that became infamous because of the allegations of euthenasia, the corporation tried getting those people out while the feds sat around twiddling their thumbs. FEMA turned them back.)
In the rebuilding effort, the feds have screwed the state around so much, almost no checks went out while Blanco was in office. Yet in Mississippi (with the Republican governor who said "we don't sit around waiting on the government") almost half the money has flowed freely to an area with about a tenth of the damage (mostly, however, to rebuild casinos, small rural towns haven't seen a dime).
And the answer of Bushco? They demanded Blanco sign over the state to federal control. Actual military control. The whole point was to get around Posse Comitatus which the neo-cons have always hated.
There was NOTHING preventing the feds from doing relief work. The Stafford Act had already been activated (even though Bush did declare the northern part of the state to be a "disaster area" and didn't correct the declaration for two days). In fact, the Coast Guard had been rescuing people from day one and saved over 6,000.
It was their chance to destroy a Democratic governor. And they succeeded. Blanco left poltics for good. Jindal was elected.
His first major act? Working to rebuild a broken city? Doing something about one of the most corrupt (and GOP dominated I might add) legislatures in the Union? Dealing with a collapsing infrastructure? Working on an economy that's 52nd out of 50 states? Ending the stupidity of the Napoleonic code?
(Long aside: Louisiana is the only state in the Union that still has the Napoleonic code. It's a tremendously screwed up system that high powered lawyers I've spoken too can't understand how it hasn't been declared unconstitutional. I've known two people when I lived there that got trapped in "guilty until proven innocent" and had to spend money they didn't have to defend themselves.)
But no. Let's get to the important things first.
Undermining evolution.
Snipe "conspiracy theory" at me all you want. The neo-cons haven't at all been shy in telling us this is what they intend to do should they gain power. It's in black-and-white all over the place.
Fortunately for the neos, it's encoded in a strange thing called "books" that nobody can decipher...
There are many reasons, although those aren't about physics.
There's a reason so many people believe.
Millions believe in UFOs and little gray aliens that kidnap people to play with their wieners and stick things up their butts. Not to mention periodically turn cows inside out.
"Can I teach anything as fact based on any religion? Not just 'Christianity'.
Personally I say sure go ahead. I don't see anything wrong with giving kids multiple points of view on how many people view things differently.
You could phrase it that evolution is what science currently believes.
Speaking of "multiple points of view"...
Ever been to the "Conservapedia" wiki? The one run by the Schlafly boys? They don't believe in relativity. It's "only a theory" after all. And Andy denies that the GPS satellites had to be designed to accommodate time dilation.
No, I am NOT making this up.
Oh, by the way, they're a home school bunch. Yep, they teach.
Can I teach anything as fact based on any religion? Not just 'Christianity'.
Heh.
I recall when the religious reich was trying to pass a "religious freedom" bill that overrode laws left and right. I told supporters of the bill I was in favor of it and would immediately establish a sex cult and demand equal time in the high schools.
What? Age of consent laws? Pish-tosh. Religious freedom trumps them...
Many people seem to get it wrong; "well regulated" does NOT mean "under government control" at all. It means: well-trained, in good order, prepared to strike as soon as the need comes.
No, it doesn't. Look up the word "regulate".
Words do change over time you know? Such as, to say someone's work was "awful" a couple of centuries ago was a compliment, meaning "inspiring awe". Try saying it about someones art now.
"Regulated" at the time could also mean "functioning properly" or "orderly". In 1789, the law chartering the University of North Carolina began with:
"Whereas in all well regulated Governments, it is the indispensable duty of every Legislature to consult the Happiness of a rising Generation, and endeavour to fit them for an honorable Discharge of the Social Duties of Life, by paying the strictest attention to their Education."
Are we to suppose that they meant governments regulated by government?
The Oxford dictionary lists as now obsolete the meaning:
(b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined"
Of "disciplined":
(3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war."
Historically, the idea of having weapons for self-defense and hunting was simply a given. The point of the amendment was to establish a right to arms for the "militia" which was constituted of the people as a whole to defend your state. Remember, we didn't have a national army, we had state militias. A national, standing army is a recent thing (and something the Founders opposed mind you).
In short, you're supposed to be armed. Yes, you. We're all part of the militia that can be called up in case of emergency. Such a thing still persists in current law:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Well, he was the one who yanked the funding away from the 17th Street canal to send it to Iraq. The section being worked on was rushed to completion because he pulled the funding.
Having their act together during Katrina sure would have helped. Sometimes a little organization is a good thing.
Most successful evacuation of a modern metropolitan area ever. 75% evacuated over the multi-parish area with 48 hours notice. 85% of the metro area evacuated.
Soooo unprepared.
Let's see Houston-Galveston evacuate 75% of it's population with 48 hours warning. They couldn't even move less than HALF in that time. The Rita evacuation was around 35%. The Houston-Galveston metro is 5.5 million. Let's see them move 4.1 to 4.7 million in two days before we talk "organized" shall we?
Remember Rita and how everyone evacuated and nothing actually happened
Yeah. Little discussed factoid about that event. The mayor of Houston wanted to do a phased evacuation the way Louisiana did but guess who overruled the local authorities because they knew better?
We spell it F-E-M-A.
For all the sniping at Louisiana, Houston just learned one of the first lessons of hurricane evacuations. You cannot, I repeat, cannot jump the gun and try to move everybody at once. Those things can shift around and you'll be caught evacuating the wrong city.
Which will also later mean nobody's going to listen to you when one actually hits you square on. They'll all be saying, "Yeah, remember Rita?" And blow you off.
People say we didn't start soon enough. Well, for one thing, Friday, Katrina was headed for Florida. We all woke up Saturday morning to find we were staring down the barrel of a gun. 48 hours before land fall. That's all the warning we got.
Yet the city of New Orleans saw 85% of the population evacuated. The multi-parish area (mine included) had an average of 75%. Over one million in two days.
I'll never forget that evacuation. I hope to never see something like it again. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting an official vehicle. State helicopters patrolled every route. Electronic signs were everywhere. I pulled over once to give my dogs some water and I didn't even get the first dog out before there was a State Trooper pulled up in the ditch next to me checking on us.
People say we didn't start soon enough. Yet the evacuation of the low lying areas was already in progress before phase two (the city itself) began once we knew Katrina was heading our way.
Construction to expand contraflow had been going on all year. When she headed our way, you couldn't turn on a radio, TV, or go to a store without seeing evacuation maps and instructions.
(Oh, another little not discussed factoid, Bush was asked to assist with the evacuation. He said "no".)
Consider this. When the "Hurricane Pam" simulation was done by emergency services, the expected death toll was 60,000. The entire state, with both hurricanes, saw about 1,300.
The Houston-Galveston metroplex is about 5.5 million now. A comparable evacuation would be 4.1 to 4.7 million. The Rita evacuation was just under 2 million, about 36% of the population. And, AND, this would have to done in 48 hours as that's all the warning we got. Katrina jumped tracks in the early morning hours of Saturday. She was following the Ivan track until then.
Oh and having moved back to Texas now, I've seen the "preparations" for the next time. You get to drive on the shoulders of the roads. Wow. That's impressive. Wonder how the emergency vehicles are going to get down the highways to get to you.
Yah. Let's see if Texans are sneering at Louisiana should another Carla come this way. Heh, I was in that evacuation too come to think. About a month before I was born. Thing hit to the South but mom was slogging through water to get outta the house. You can still see the damage all the way up to Livingston, something like a hundred miles from the coast.
Houston is not at all ready for another Carla. Not in any way. Nobody's doing a blasted thing to get ready. Louisiana has its problems but before anybody talks about them being "backwards", they should take a good hard look at the Rita cluster, erm, frak and the total lack of preparation since.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally, and I think most important, copyright is not a "right". It's a grant from the public. We grant the creative (supposed to be) limited monopolies to, as the Founders put it, "encourage the useful arts and sciences". While copyrights and patents are allowed by the Constitution, they are not mandated.
You are really splitting hairs here.
No, just talking what the Constitution of the United States says. And if you're a USer (as I am), that's the ruling law so what it actually says kind of matters.
What is so often forgotten in this matter is we grant the monopoly called "copyright".
True, but it would be foolish to want it any other way. If you let someone copy your work, and even take credit for it, there is no incentive to produce the work at all.
Ignoring that we built Western civilization without copyright, you're talking sideways of my point. Giving out these monopoly grants is something we do to obtain benefit. It should be a mutual exchange. The equation is getting tilted too far to the--ironically enough--benefactor of our grant.
It is ours. We are not obligated to give anybody monopoly status. We have every right (and Constitutional power) to decide the limits of these grants.
Let's take a look at how software is developed. Probably at least 96% of code written is proprietary. In other words, the authors expect to get money and want to earn a living by making it.
Yeah, it's copyright by a corporation, not the actual creators isn't it? Most code is done "work for hire" and the people getting the royalties aren't the creators.
But that's a whole other can of worms.
The rest is open source. But in open source, the vast majority of the leaders (and aspiring leaders) all have huge egos. They may or may not be paid, and may or may not want money, but the vast majority are motivated by something: the desire for recognition. If you remove copyright, anyone can take something and put their name on it and sell it, effectively depriving BOTH groups of the reason they create software.
As the point was "to encourage the useful arts and sciences", we do have the right to say, "you've made enough". Particularly because we are giving them something. Something we are under no obligation to give them.
That argument doesn't really work. When someone like Rowling writes a book for society, there is a trade. We say, "We'll give you money and we won't let anyone else copy and sell your book", and she says, "Ok, in exchange I'll write a cool book for you." You say we are under no obligation to give her the copyright, which is true...
Eh, what? I'm wrong and right?
...but it is also true that she is under no obligation to write a book for you. That's the way any trade or negotiation works. Both sides come to agreeable terms and agree to act on them. If we try to take away one or both of those terms from her, would she still be willing to write the book? Maybe, maybe not... but most likely not, because she had kids she had to feed and clothe, and if you can't make money on books because everyone copies them, then it isn't worth it to try to write one. The time would be better spent getting a second job that actually pays.
But this threadlet (if memory serves) started out with the question of whether society can say, "You know, you've made enough okay?"
I'm saying we can. And, I just looked, J K Rowling's net worth is one billion. I mean, suppose the upper limit was a net worth of one billion. That would kill the writing of novels?
I don't think so...
we do have the right to say, "you've made enough". Particularly because we are giving them something. Something we are under no obligation to give them.
And you do that by not buying whatever it is they are selling. Think about what you just said for a minute: "we are under no obligation". So when someone does give them money, they are doing it voluntarily. If you think they've made enough money, don't buy it any more. And as others have said, the producers of $thing are under no obligation to produce them.
Your conclusion might hold water if the product is something critical or necessary to life, like maybe AIDS vaccine or something. But luxury items like children's novels, professional sports, video games, music, etc. are certainly not vital for life, and nobody is being forced to consume those products against their will.
Completely misses the point.
The public is not obligated to give anyone the status of monopoly.
Giving copyright to someone or some company is something we as a society do to encourage creators to create. In short, we expect to receive benefit or why should we give them anything?
People keep missing this. Copyright is something we give them. Why are we obligated to them but they can do anything they want?
Yes, of course law still stands, but applying it makes her greedy and looking stupid.
If she doesn't enforce it, though, she could lose her standing to sue in court. A valid affirmative defense in a copyright suit is to say that the copyright holder knew that infringement was taking place and failed to do anything about it.
That's not true at all. Under the Berne Convention (which was incorporated into US law in the 80s), copyright cannot be "lost". Prevailing law (international via the convention) holds that only explicit grants are valid.
I was not aware that society's subjective judgment of whether someone has made "enough" money from one's intellectual property was a factor in copyright law. Either there's a copyright infringement or there isn't. Rowling's wealth and success are irrelevant.
Of course it is. What is so often forgotten in this matter is we grant the monopoly called "copyright". While the Constitution allows for these grants, they are not mandated nor are they consider a "right". We, the public, could abolish them if we so chose. Or at least drastically curtail them.
As the point was "to encourage the useful arts and sciences", we do have the right to say, "you've made enough". Particularly because we are giving them something. Something we are under no obligation to give them.
If Rowling had let this slide, then the next person who copies the character or settings wholesale, and tries to publish "Harry Potter" sequels, would have a valid defense that Rowling didn't protect the copyright for this guy, so she effectively has given up the copyright.
Not at all, copyright holds whether you "defend" it or not. In fact, current laws (via the Berne Convention) don't have any provision for "losing" copyright. You have to explicitly grant or give up rights.
The whole thing is absurd. A popular work always has companion works and fan works. The way to "stop" that is wreck your work so nobody cares about it. One good way to start is beating up on anybody who shows any appreciation for the work.
A lexicon may be a bit over the line but, really, it's not like there isn't "enough to go around". Does she think her "brand" is so weak, the competing lexicon is going to damage hers? That's silly. Fans will snap up her work over anybody's. The dilution would be negligible. I think the risk of souring fans on the work is greater. The RIAA, for example, has been slitting its own fool throat for years, hacking off the music consuming public. Unfortunately, we can't measure "would have been" so it could be shoved in their faces.
I think getting the thing off the market entirely is overkill. One wonders if she even tried trying to negotiate some kind of agreement on the lexicon.
Finally, and I think most important, copyright is not a "right". It's a grant from the public. We grant the creative (supposed to be) limited monopolies to, as the Founders put it, "encourage the useful arts and sciences". While copyrights and patents are allowed by the Constitution, they are not mandated. We could, if we wanted, via our elected representatives, abolish copyright and there's not a damn thing anybody could do to stop us. It's only too bad the public is ignorant of this fact, we could hold that threat over the heads of corporate beasts instead of being forced to genuflect to them.
My reaction to her being so greedy would be, "Fine, you wanna be a bitch? How 'bout we public domain Harry Potter? Hmmm?"
I mean, if people weren't trying to use the Internet, ISPs and telecoms would have such an easier job! Come on people, stop being so mean to the corporations, pay your bill but don't ask for any goods or services or anything silly like that...
Who says ?
One wonders what all those corporate charters are for...
Nobody is saying you can't have a well founded opinion.
True enough but an opinion piece is an opinion...
the sun might burn out before your interest in using the code fully wanes, why not just set copyright to expire "after it's clear no one would want this anymore." that covers all cases nicely and also isn't infinite (for example the copyright for the movie "Speed 2: Cruise Control" would have expired immediately)
Akchoally, the copyright for the move "Speed 2: Cruise Control" would have expired backwards in time until the writers themselves disappeared.
Now if it just weren't for the potential damage to the fabric of space-time...
Not so much I'd say. The GPL rests on copyright law and derives its power from same. If you had no such monopoly grant, you couldn't put restrictions on the use of the work by others which the GPL does. If everything was public domain, you couldn't tell Microsoft (or Apple, who uses FreeBSD) they can't take the work and lock it up. You really would be doing "free work" for a corporation.
Used correctly, copyright can be a beneficial tool. That we've done our best to wreck it in this country notwithstanding.
The catch with Copyright in the US is that it was originally 14 years, but laws have pushed it all the way up to the author's lifetime plus 70 years (or a flat 95 years on works made for hire, such as movies and music).
Unfortunately, when Eldred v. Ashcroft pointed out that this was contrary to the purpose of copyright as laid down by the Constitution, the Supreme Court gave a ruling that as long as the length was not infinite, it was not in violation of the Constitution.
Didn't you just love that dodge? The court has handed down some rulings in recent years that just reek. Why not "life of the universe" then? I mean, that's not infinite near as we can tell. Okay, just in case it is, let's use "until the sun burns out"!
No, they had plenty of precedent to ignore to get where their corporate masters wanted them to go. Including, as you point out, that the people who wrote the Constitution passed a law of 14 years maximum. Which rather gives us a clue they didn't intend "infinity and beyond".
NO. The founding father who fought for copyright specifically did it so the author of the works can make money, and the public can benefit. Just not at the same time.
Interesting that the 'poor widow' who needed to make from their work argument was trotted out.
What tge founding fathers Did Not Want, was anybody to be able to lock up copyright for a long period of time.
That was due to the damage copyright was doing to English society for the past 100 years before America was created.
From what I have read, I'm pretty sure if the founding fathers saw what's happening today, copyright in the constitution wouldn't be there, and they might have gone with one of the original idea to outlaw corporations; which also was doing series harm in England.
I suspect you misunderstand what I was saying. The Founders meant to create incentive for the creative to produce. The GPL (et al) has managed to something very similar. The selfish interest of uncounted numbers of programmers is producing works that are beneficial to many.
That we've gone and turned copyright into a black hole from which nothing creative can ever emerge is a whole other issue. The Founders did blow it big time when they ignored Jefferson's call to specify the term of the monopolies in the Constitution. He also wanted the Constitution to require the grants have narrow scope.
We're living to regret that blunder.
No they're not. Corporations largely predate the existence of formal governments. They're a natural way to reduce the transaction costs in doing business. At the very least they exist since feudal time, when the lord couldn't care less about "creating" some form of organizations.
And yet they have to be chartered by a government or they wouldn't exist.
and no, getting rid of proprietary software won't magically fix disease, starvation, etc
Oh be creative! Free software is, as far as the whole of society is concerned, much cheaper than proprietary software, because society only has to pay to solve (the software portion of) a particular problem once. Therefore, if problems are solved using free software instead of proprietary software, society will have a lot of money left over to spend on fixing disease, starvation, etc.
Interesting point that. Is software really that "valuable" to begin with? A cure for a disease is certainly more valuable than, oh, a copy of Excel.
Software is a useful tool (okay, can be). But how much is it actually worth in and of itself? FOSS may be fairly ordinary (even predictable) process of software seeking a more appropriate "price" in the market. Shrink wrap software may be a transient phenomena. It hasn't existed all that long after all. Maybe software has been overpriced all these years during the big expansion of the PC market.
Giving a researcher a cheap or even free tool that helps in the search for a cure for a disease is not a bad thing. Overpriced software saps resources. There are a wide number of areas in which resources are better devoted than just to some corporation's profit. I mean, did Bill Gates actually need another ten billion?
So you're saying, that it isn't?
Citations. Desperately. Needed.
In an opinion piece?
Free software is ironically both communist-ic (yay collective good) and free-market-istic (the price of the software is the marginal cost of production of one copy, or, um, zero!) It's rather fun. Not too many markets work out that way.
What "collective good"? That might be the case if rms (or FSF) is proposing that software need to be released into the public domain, but even with copyleft, copyright is still individual property*.
That's a false dichotomy. If public good and individual rights are in "conflict", a free society isn't possible. Which I'm sure some power lusting types would hope we believe but it's just not true.
The FOSS world has found a way to drive public benefit via self interest. If I need software X and write it for my own benefit, I can GPL it and others can benefit "for free" with no loss to myself (as there is no "right to profit", profit is earned, not guaranteed).
Others in general (collectively as it were) can benefit from the results of my own selfish motivations. After all, I wanted/needed software X. I'm getting something out of my work. If you benefit, that's nice but wasn't my point. Put a million selfish motivations together and you can end up with entire operating systems that cost "nothing" (as it were) and anybody can benefit. Everybody gets to go along for the ride.
And I think the idea of the GPL is actually closer to the spirit of copyright as the Founders intended. The public can benefit from the selfish motivations of the individual. Copyright was intended to "encourage the useful arts and sciences". Not create the RIAA. Not give fat old men in executive offices yet another yacht. The idea was an inducement to the creative to create.
The best systems find ways to channel self interest in directions that are good for everybody at large. The "conflict" is an illusion and one that should be viewed with deep suspicion when pushed by some one or some group. After all, the systems in which you benefit but I lose are such as when you point a gun at me and take my wallet.
fucking commie bastard
capitalism forever!
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Yeah, let's overlook that corporations are a creation of governments...
I'm continually stunned on how bullshit laws like this keep popping up in a society that spells out a specific separation of church and state.
Oh that's easy. At least in the case of Louisiana.
The neo-conservatives believe evolutionary theory is correct but a "dangerous idea". Knowledge of the theory is to be reserved to the ruling elite. Religion is a social tool useful in keeping the peasants orderly.
Bobby Jindal--current governor of the state--is Bush's hand picked man. No, I am not exaggerating in the least. Jindal's entire political experience is having worked in the Bush administration. This is his second run for office. Yes, second. First elected office he's ever held.
The state party noted that they had a chance of turning Louisiana solidly "red" as Katrina dislocated so many nigg... erm, Democrats (oh yes, they actually said this). The "liberal" bastion of the state was Orleans parish (along with Saint John the Baptist to a lesser but significant degree) which went Democratic by as much as 75% in elections. With so much of the nigg... erm, Democrats out of the way, this was their chance.
Blanco was repeatedly torpedoed in the Katrina fiasco. I don't give a flying fig anymore what people say about that incident. I was there. I watched it. Requests were made for help with the evacuation. They were denied. The Stafford act was activated before the storm hit. There was no legal reason for withholding aid. FEMA actually turned aid away from the city. Including private rescue helicopters.
(I know someone who was stranded in the hospital that became infamous because of the allegations of euthenasia, the corporation tried getting those people out while the feds sat around twiddling their thumbs. FEMA turned them back.)
In the rebuilding effort, the feds have screwed the state around so much, almost no checks went out while Blanco was in office. Yet in Mississippi (with the Republican governor who said "we don't sit around waiting on the government") almost half the money has flowed freely to an area with about a tenth of the damage (mostly, however, to rebuild casinos, small rural towns haven't seen a dime).
And the answer of Bushco? They demanded Blanco sign over the state to federal control. Actual military control. The whole point was to get around Posse Comitatus which the neo-cons have always hated.
There was NOTHING preventing the feds from doing relief work. The Stafford Act had already been activated (even though Bush did declare the northern part of the state to be a "disaster area" and didn't correct the declaration for two days). In fact, the Coast Guard had been rescuing people from day one and saved over 6,000.
It was their chance to destroy a Democratic governor. And they succeeded. Blanco left poltics for good. Jindal was elected.
His first major act? Working to rebuild a broken city? Doing something about one of the most corrupt (and GOP dominated I might add) legislatures in the Union? Dealing with a collapsing infrastructure? Working on an economy that's 52nd out of 50 states? Ending the stupidity of the Napoleonic code?
(Long aside: Louisiana is the only state in the Union that still has the Napoleonic code. It's a tremendously screwed up system that high powered lawyers I've spoken too can't understand how it hasn't been declared unconstitutional. I've known two people when I lived there that got trapped in "guilty until proven innocent" and had to spend money they didn't have to defend themselves.)
But no. Let's get to the important things first.
Undermining evolution.
Snipe "conspiracy theory" at me all you want. The neo-cons haven't at all been shy in telling us this is what they intend to do should they gain power. It's in black-and-white all over the place.
Fortunately for the neos, it's encoded in a strange thing called "books" that nobody can decipher...
there are no reasons for a god to exist
There are many reasons, although those aren't about physics.
There's a reason so many people believe.
Millions believe in UFOs and little gray aliens that kidnap people to play with their wieners and stick things up their butts. Not to mention periodically turn cows inside out.
"There's a reason so many people believe."
"Can I teach anything as fact based on any religion? Not just 'Christianity'.
Personally I say sure go ahead. I don't see anything wrong with giving kids multiple points of view on how many people view things differently.
You could phrase it that evolution is what science currently believes.
Speaking of "multiple points of view"...
Ever been to the "Conservapedia" wiki? The one run by the Schlafly boys? They don't believe in relativity. It's "only a theory" after all. And Andy denies that the GPS satellites had to be designed to accommodate time dilation.
No, I am NOT making this up.
Oh, by the way, they're a home school bunch. Yep, they teach.
Remember kiddies, gravity is only a theory...
Can I teach anything as fact based on any religion? Not just 'Christianity'.
Heh.
I recall when the religious reich was trying to pass a "religious freedom" bill that overrode laws left and right. I told supporters of the bill I was in favor of it and would immediately establish a sex cult and demand equal time in the high schools.
What? Age of consent laws? Pish-tosh. Religious freedom trumps them...
Many people seem to get it wrong; "well regulated" does NOT mean "under government control" at all. It means: well-trained, in good order, prepared to strike as soon as the need comes.
No, it doesn't. Look up the word "regulate".
Words do change over time you know? Such as, to say someone's work was "awful" a couple of centuries ago was a compliment, meaning "inspiring awe". Try saying it about someones art now.
"Regulated" at the time could also mean "functioning properly" or "orderly". In 1789, the law chartering the University of North Carolina began with:
"Whereas in all well regulated Governments, it is the indispensable duty
of every Legislature to consult the Happiness of a rising Generation,
and endeavour to fit them for an honorable Discharge of the Social
Duties of Life, by paying the strictest attention to their Education."
Are we to suppose that they meant governments regulated by government?
The Oxford dictionary lists as now obsolete the meaning:
(b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined"
Of "disciplined":
(3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war."
Historically, the idea of having weapons for self-defense and hunting was simply a given. The point of the amendment was to establish a right to arms for the "militia" which was constituted of the people as a whole to defend your state. Remember, we didn't have a national army, we had state militias. A national, standing army is a recent thing (and something the Founders opposed mind you).
In short, you're supposed to be armed. Yes, you. We're all part of the militia that can be called up in case of emergency. Such a thing still persists in current law:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
The "militia" still exists.
And if you're male and between 17 and 45, you're in it. Right now.
So you have your gun ready right? You're not going to show up with a, oh, feather duster or something are you?
(By the way, I ain't no "conservative". I think Obama is a right winger.)
I thought that was Bush's fault?
Well, he was the one who yanked the funding away from the 17th Street canal to send it to Iraq. The section being worked on was rushed to completion because he pulled the funding.
That section fell.
Having their act together during Katrina sure would have helped. Sometimes a little organization is a good thing.
Most successful evacuation of a modern metropolitan area ever. 75% evacuated over the multi-parish area with 48 hours notice. 85% of the metro area evacuated.
Soooo unprepared.
Let's see Houston-Galveston evacuate 75% of it's population with 48 hours warning. They couldn't even move less than HALF in that time. The Rita evacuation was around 35%. The Houston-Galveston metro is 5.5 million. Let's see them move 4.1 to 4.7 million in two days before we talk "organized" shall we?
Remember Rita and how everyone evacuated and nothing actually happened
Yeah. Little discussed factoid about that event. The mayor of Houston wanted to do a phased evacuation the way Louisiana did but guess who overruled the local authorities because they knew better?
We spell it F-E-M-A.
For all the sniping at Louisiana, Houston just learned one of the first lessons of hurricane evacuations. You cannot, I repeat, cannot jump the gun and try to move everybody at once. Those things can shift around and you'll be caught evacuating the wrong city.
Which will also later mean nobody's going to listen to you when one actually hits you square on. They'll all be saying, "Yeah, remember Rita?" And blow you off.
People say we didn't start soon enough. Well, for one thing, Friday, Katrina was headed for Florida. We all woke up Saturday morning to find we were staring down the barrel of a gun. 48 hours before land fall. That's all the warning we got.
Yet the city of New Orleans saw 85% of the population evacuated. The multi-parish area (mine included) had an average of 75%. Over one million in two days.
I'll never forget that evacuation. I hope to never see something like it again. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting an official vehicle. State helicopters patrolled every route. Electronic signs were everywhere. I pulled over once to give my dogs some water and I didn't even get the first dog out before there was a State Trooper pulled up in the ditch next to me checking on us.
People say we didn't start soon enough. Yet the evacuation of the low lying areas was already in progress before phase two (the city itself) began once we knew Katrina was heading our way.
Construction to expand contraflow had been going on all year. When she headed our way, you couldn't turn on a radio, TV, or go to a store without seeing evacuation maps and instructions.
(Oh, another little not discussed factoid, Bush was asked to assist with the evacuation. He said "no".)
Consider this. When the "Hurricane Pam" simulation was done by emergency services, the expected death toll was 60,000. The entire state, with both hurricanes, saw about 1,300.
The Houston-Galveston metroplex is about 5.5 million now. A comparable evacuation would be 4.1 to 4.7 million. The Rita evacuation was just under 2 million, about 36% of the population. And, AND, this would have to done in 48 hours as that's all the warning we got. Katrina jumped tracks in the early morning hours of Saturday. She was following the Ivan track until then.
Oh and having moved back to Texas now, I've seen the "preparations" for the next time. You get to drive on the shoulders of the roads. Wow. That's impressive. Wonder how the emergency vehicles are going to get down the highways to get to you.
Yah. Let's see if Texans are sneering at Louisiana should another Carla come this way. Heh, I was in that evacuation too come to think. About a month before I was born. Thing hit to the South but mom was slogging through water to get outta the house. You can still see the damage all the way up to Livingston, something like a hundred miles from the coast.
Houston is not at all ready for another Carla. Not in any way. Nobody's doing a blasted thing to get ready. Louisiana has its problems but before anybody talks about them being "backwards", they should take a good hard look at the Rita cluster, erm, frak and the total lack of preparation since.
I guess we'll see huh?