"It was all second-hand information of course, but that led me to believe that it would be a much closer margin than 648 - 14. Obviously, they were wrong in their assumptions, or they spoke to the handful of MEP's that voted for the directive."
You also seemed to have erred in your assumptions. Both pro and contra voted against the directive. The swpatent proponents voted against, because they were afraid a modified directive would be passed.
As a result, the numbers that voted for and against the directive really do not mean that much. It is actually likely that the 14 who voted for were swpat-opponents who believed they could get enough MEPs on their side to outright ban software patents.
If any good has come of this long-stretched battle at all, it is that we have shown the defeatists, the naysayers and the doomsday profeciers that you can take a stand.
Before this, there was effectively no grass-roots lobbying in Europe. At least none that I was aware of, which basically comes down to the same thing.
"Now as European Citizens it is out duty to write to the 14 fuckwits who voted for the bill and ask them simply "Why?"."
The 14 may well have been MEPs who wanted to outlaw software patents in the EU. After all, with the rejection of this law, software patents are still upheld by the laws and jurisprudence of some of the member states.
So I guess now is the time to start your own business. After all, if businesses are making more money, and employees are not, and ultimately both capitalize on the employees skills....
Of course, running your own business may not be as entertaining as whining about those damn ayzjuns and those damn corporayshuns.
"Um as an English Major I must warn you Gutenberg sucks."
When will they teach you about logical fallacies?
"It has massive massive editing errors"
For those who wish to do more than whine about the errors in Project Gutenberg etexts, please report errors you come across and help improve PG's texts. You will find instructions at http://www.gutenberg.org/faq/ under R.26 - R.28.
"Do you think this would fall under any kind of fair use exception like the IA may have?"
Fair use is a legal defense. If Miramax or Paramount or whoever decides to sue you, your cheap little lawyer can try and convince a grumpy judge that your use was fair and that he should not put you in a position where you have to pick up the soap.
"I've emailed the EFF about it, but haven't heard anything back."
I use a paper diary and my PDA (which has got an alarm!) for appointments and regularly occuring tasks.
My todo lists are little pieces of paper that end up in the bin or large sheets that I store so that I have a 'history'.
For some time now, I have been thinking of employing Bugzilla for tracking tasks though. It is the only program I know that has all the basic functionally for this job, but unfortunately its interface leaves much to be desired.
"That is a good theory. But like a lot of literay critism it assumes a certain amount of master planning done by the author that I think is not done but projected on the author to make the stories seem more important."
I agree that it is a good theory, but not that it assumes master planning by the author.
If a painter paints a mountain, I can theorize that there is a city behind the mountain, even if the painter never thought of that. The OP is filling in the gaps, so to say.
Your mention of master planning did help me to formulate a criticism of the theory however: it is too paranoid. The theory hinges on a huge conspiracy working for decades in the background, only producing barely visible ripples at the surface. Life Doesn't Work That Way. Ask the cabal if you doubt me.
"As far as the review is concerned, as a result of the many replies that we have received [...] we have broadened the scope of the exercise. We will continue to assess the replies that have been received but we will give further thought to the accessibility of the current legislation including the perception of copyright overall. This broader exercise may lead to further action in the course of 2006."
First of all, the press has consistently been presenting this as a copyright issue. What is at stake is a subset of copyright called recording rights.
In the E.U., copyrights last for 70 years after the death of the composer/songwriter. Recording rights last for 50 years after the first publication of the recording. A recording artist need not be the same person who wrote the song.
In 2004, the European Commission (EC) had its staff research whether the five E.U. directives on copyright and related rights contained inconsistencies, could be simplified or had other wrongs that could be righted.
The result was a report that had the following to say about recording rights:
"There has been a call from certain circles to extend the term of protection of related rights and align it to that of an author since performances are claimed to provide a similar element of creativity. There has also been a specific concern expressed when the performer is also the author of the music as this results in the same person's performance falling into the public domain before the work itself. Moreover, in view of the recent changes to the term of protection under the US Copyright Act, it has been argued by some stakeholders that it would be advisable to align the term of protection of phonogram producers in the Community with the new, extended protection of 95 years from the year of first publication for sound recordings in the USA. Otherwise, according to the proponents of change, European music producers and music industry might be at a disadvantage as compared to their US equivalents."
"Strong views have also been expressed in support of maintaining the status quo. It is feared that an extended term of protection would only tend to diminish the choice of music on the market by enforcing the flow of revenues from few bestselling recordings, while at the same time not providing any real new incentives for creation of new recordings or motivating new investment. It has also been pointed out that practically all developed countries, with the exception of the USA, apply the term of protection of 50 years. As to the need to achieve parity between the EU and the USA, it has been argued that the same term of protection would not result in equal economic benefits for the right holders in these two territories. On the contrary, due to a different approach to which uses of phonograms are remunerated, US right holders already benefit from a better protection of their recordings in Europe, and the extension of the term would only aggravate this divide."
"From the point of view of the Internal Market, the term of protection for phonogram producers does not cause particular concern since the term has been harmonised in the Community and also been incorporated by the 10 new Member States. Moreover, it seems that public opinion and political realities in the EU are such as not to support an extension in the term of protection. Some would even argue that the term should be reduced. At this stage, therefore, time does not appear to be ripe for a change, and developments in the market should be further monitored and studied."
[Emphasis from the report]
As you can tell, although the EC looked at arguments for both sides, the conclusion was pretty, er... conclusive: no extension of recording rights.
The EC then invited "all interested parties" to comment. The result was a smallish tidal wave, mostly consisting of comments by stakeholders in the music industry who naturally wanted more pie at the cost of the public.
Notable is the submission of Cliff Richard, who began recording at the end of the 1950s, and whose income from levies is to diminish starting in a few years. The public has always kept its end of the deal, which has allowed Sir Cliff to make truckloads of money, but now the time has come to repay the public he wants to break the
"wouldnt it just make sense of copyrights simply extend to the lifespan of their creator"
IMHO it would make much more sense if copyrights lasted for a set number of years after publication of a work. Copyright enables an author to earn money with a work. If an author is incapable of capitalizing on publication of the work within a set amount of time, what use is it to grant him extra time?
Currently, copyright is implemented as a welfare system.
"Did you think the photo fairy made them appear? A corporation is a perfectly valid entity to "author" something."
I am totally cool with your enthusiastic display of anthropomorphism, but am afraid it would not hold up in court. Companies cannot create works, just as companies cannot snatch a purse. Companies can order someone to create a work though, or to snatch a purse, and they can end up with a copyright or legal troubles for that.
"What other work, praytell, are the works copying? The link you provided dealt with a situation in which the photographs were simply exact reproductions of an existing public domain work. Last time I checked if I took a picture of a mountain or tree I owned that particular photo's copyright even though the tree previously existed in nature and wasn't "original"."
I am afraid you misunderstand the meaning of the word "original" as it is used in copyright law. A common mistake to make.
Here, original does not mean that nobody made the same work before, but rather that they brought their own insights into the creation of the work. Regardless of Corel v. Bridgeman I can make a copyrighted photo of a picture hanging in a museum. The photo merely needs to be an interpretation, my interpretation.
Similarly, if you write a song, and independently I write the same song the next day, I still have a copyright to the song, even if I weren't the first to write it.
The copyright is generated by the creative act, not by the subject.
--"Because a work needs an author to be copyrightable."
"Many organizations hold copyrights."
Your statement does not contradict mine. Copyrights can be transferred, and works can be made for hire. In both instances though the work needs an author to generate a copyright at all. No author, no copyright.
"The vast majority of photography intends to "create a true reproduction of how [something] looks from [a certain position]." Does that mean that the vast majority of photography is uncopyrightable?"
Perhaps, if you are litterally talking about snapshots. Of course, the timing of the snapshot counts as a creative act too.
Slashdot Mirror
"It was all second-hand information of course, but that led me to believe that it would be a much closer margin than 648 - 14. Obviously, they were wrong in their assumptions, or they spoke to the handful of MEP's that voted for the directive."
You also seemed to have erred in your assumptions. Both pro and contra voted against the directive. The swpatent proponents voted against, because they were afraid a modified directive would be passed.
As a result, the numbers that voted for and against the directive really do not mean that much. It is actually likely that the 14 who voted for were swpat-opponents who believed they could get enough MEPs on their side to outright ban software patents.
If any good has come of this long-stretched battle at all, it is that we have shown the defeatists, the naysayers and the doomsday profeciers that you can take a stand.
Before this, there was effectively no grass-roots lobbying in Europe. At least none that I was aware of, which basically comes down to the same thing.
"Now as European Citizens it is out duty to write to the 14 fuckwits who voted for the bill and ask them simply "Why?"."
The 14 may well have been MEPs who wanted to outlaw software patents in the EU. After all, with the rejection of this law, software patents are still upheld by the laws and jurisprudence of some of the member states.
" Who's this "us" that you're talking about? I do not consider myself a part of your mob, so please stop making speeches in my name."
He did not, so please stop being such a tight-ass.
"The guy got fired because he's on record making hostile statements about intellectual property."
Is he? Where did you get that from?
"He expressed anti copyright and IP views"
Did he? Did you watch the programme? What did he say?
"What got him let go was his announcement (on national TV) that he is against copyright and intellectual property."
How do you know he is against these things? It's not mentioned in the article.
So I guess now is the time to start your own business. After all, if businesses are making more money, and employees are not, and ultimately both capitalize on the employees skills....
Of course, running your own business may not be as entertaining as whining about those damn ayzjuns and those damn corporayshuns.
I saw craters on the surface of the comet in the movie clip. How did they get there? Did the comet get hit by other comets? :-)
" Honestly people, whay some of you do to your eyes is to beg disbelief."
"Ask your optician or ophtalmologists what do they think about this little screen of yours...."
"Bad for your eyes" is a phrase you will find in old wive's tales, not in the diagnoses of eye doctors.
"Um as an English Major I must warn you Gutenberg sucks."
When will they teach you about logical fallacies?
"It has massive massive editing errors"
For those who wish to do more than whine about the errors in Project Gutenberg etexts, please report errors you come across and help improve PG's texts. You will find instructions at http://www.gutenberg.org/faq/ under R.26 - R.28.
"Do you think this would fall under any kind of fair use exception like the IA may have?"
Fair use is a legal defense. If Miramax or Paramount or whoever decides to sue you, your cheap little lawyer can try and convince a grumpy judge that your use was fair and that he should not put you in a position where you have to pick up the soap.
"I've emailed the EFF about it, but haven't heard anything back."
Mail 'em again. Sometimes they're busy.
I use a paper diary and my PDA (which has got an alarm!) for appointments and regularly occuring tasks.
My todo lists are little pieces of paper that end up in the bin or large sheets that I store so that I have a 'history'.
For some time now, I have been thinking of employing Bugzilla for tracking tasks though. It is the only program I know that has all the basic functionally for this job, but unfortunately its interface leaves much to be desired.
"That is a good theory. But like a lot of literay critism it assumes a certain amount of master planning done by the author that I think is not done but projected on the author to make the stories seem more important."
I agree that it is a good theory, but not that it assumes master planning by the author.
If a painter paints a mountain, I can theorize that there is a city behind the mountain, even if the painter never thought of that. The OP is filling in the gaps, so to say.
Your mention of master planning did help me to formulate a criticism of the theory however: it is too paranoid. The theory hinges on a huge conspiracy working for decades in the background, only producing barely visible ripples at the surface. Life Doesn't Work That Way. Ask the cabal if you doubt me.
I should add that I asked the EC: what now?
The reply was vague and uncomittal:
"As far as the review is concerned, as a result of the many replies that we have received [...] we have broadened the scope of the exercise. We will continue to assess the replies that have been received but we will give further thought to the accessibility of the current legislation including the perception of copyright overall. This broader exercise may lead to further action in the course of 2006."
First of all, the press has consistently been presenting this as a copyright issue. What is at stake is a subset of copyright called recording rights.
In the E.U., copyrights last for 70 years after the death of the composer/songwriter. Recording rights last for 50 years after the first publication of the recording. A recording artist need not be the same person who wrote the song.
In 2004, the European Commission (EC) had its staff research whether the five E.U. directives on copyright and related rights contained inconsistencies, could be simplified or had other wrongs that could be righted.
The result was a report that had the following to say about recording rights:
"There has been a call from certain circles to extend the term of protection of related rights and align it to that of an author since performances are claimed to provide a similar element of creativity. There has also been a specific concern expressed when the performer is also the author of the music as this results in the same person's performance falling into the public domain before the work itself. Moreover, in view of the recent changes to the term of protection under the US Copyright Act, it has been argued by some stakeholders that it would be advisable to align the term of protection of phonogram producers in the Community with the new, extended protection of 95 years from the year of first publication for sound recordings in the USA. Otherwise, according to the proponents of change, European music producers and music industry might be at a disadvantage as compared to their US equivalents."
"Strong views have also been expressed in support of maintaining the status quo. It is feared that an extended term of protection would only tend to diminish the choice of music on the market by enforcing the flow of revenues from few bestselling recordings, while at the same time not providing any real new incentives for creation of new recordings or motivating new investment. It has also been pointed out that practically all developed countries, with the exception of the USA, apply the term of protection of 50 years. As to the need to achieve parity between the EU and the USA, it has been argued that the same term of protection would not result in equal economic benefits for the right holders in these two territories. On the contrary, due to a different approach to which uses of phonograms are remunerated, US right holders already benefit from a better protection of their recordings in Europe, and the extension of the term would only aggravate this divide."
"From the point of view of the Internal Market, the term of protection for phonogram producers does not cause particular concern since the term has been harmonised in the Community and also been incorporated by the 10 new Member States. Moreover, it seems that public opinion and political realities in the EU are such as not to support an extension in the term of protection. Some would even argue that the term should be reduced. At this stage, therefore, time does not appear to be ripe for a change, and developments in the market should be further monitored and studied. "
[Emphasis from the report]
As you can tell, although the EC looked at arguments for both sides, the conclusion was pretty, er... conclusive: no extension of recording rights.
The EC then invited "all interested parties" to comment. The result was a smallish tidal wave, mostly consisting of comments by stakeholders in the music industry who naturally wanted more pie at the cost of the public.
Notable is the submission of Cliff Richard, who began recording at the end of the 1950s, and whose income from levies is to diminish starting in a few years. The public has always kept its end of the deal, which has allowed Sir Cliff to make truckloads of money, but now the time has come to repay the public he wants to break the
"wouldnt it just make sense of copyrights simply extend to the lifespan of their creator"
IMHO it would make much more sense if copyrights lasted for a set number of years after publication of a work. Copyright enables an author to earn money with a work. If an author is incapable of capitalizing on publication of the work within a set amount of time, what use is it to grant him extra time?
Currently, copyright is implemented as a welfare system.
"Others profit from my work, and this is good how?"
Profit is bad?
"Or you don't believe that writers, musicians, actors, or programmers should be compensated for their work?"
Nobody else does, so why should they?
"Most of them voted against simply to say `fuck you, government'"
... how?
And you know this
"the new constitution [...] attempted to fix things and give more power to the elected parliament"
Thanks for repeating the lies of the old tyrants, it gives them more time to spend at the pool side.
I voted against because, unlike what you are claiming, the new constitution only attempted to make things worse.
If you don't believe me: check who is FOR the consitution.
"Better watch it, with a comment like that, you're starting to sound like a TERRORIST."
He is posting on Slashdot, in the eyes of the sheeple that already makes him a terrorist.
I would love to. By the way, what is the correct form of address for a toad?
"Did you think the photo fairy made them appear? A corporation is a perfectly valid entity to "author" something."
I am totally cool with your enthusiastic display of anthropomorphism, but am afraid it would not hold up in court. Companies cannot create works, just as companies cannot snatch a purse. Companies can order someone to create a work though, or to snatch a purse, and they can end up with a copyright or legal troubles for that.
"What other work, praytell, are the works copying? The link you provided dealt with a situation in which the photographs were simply exact reproductions of an existing public domain work. Last time I checked if I took a picture of a mountain or tree I owned that particular photo's copyright even though the tree previously existed in nature and wasn't "original"."
I am afraid you misunderstand the meaning of the word "original" as it is used in copyright law. A common mistake to make.
Here, original does not mean that nobody made the same work before, but rather that they brought their own insights into the creation of the work. Regardless of Corel v. Bridgeman I can make a copyrighted photo of a picture hanging in a museum. The photo merely needs to be an interpretation, my interpretation.
Similarly, if you write a song, and independently I write the same song the next day, I still have a copyright to the song, even if I weren't the first to write it.
The copyright is generated by the creative act, not by the subject.
--"Because a work needs an author to be copyrightable."
"Many organizations hold copyrights."
Your statement does not contradict mine. Copyrights can be transferred, and works can be made for hire. In both instances though the work needs an author to generate a copyright at all. No author, no copyright.
"The vast majority of photography intends to "create a true reproduction of how [something] looks from [a certain position]." Does that mean that the vast majority of photography is uncopyrightable?"
Perhaps, if you are litterally talking about snapshots. Of course, the timing of the snapshot counts as a creative act too.