You see, There is more than one religion though and given the absence of evidence, a religion that insists others are incorrect must use self-reference within the work itself as evidence or methods that in turn could be used to deny it's own existence. If we rely solely on self-reference and disallow other methods, then your argument about us knowing for a fact that the FSM is made up is irrelevant because we can only use the self-reference as evidence...
Wait, I'm doing this wrong.... ahem.
And I say unto the that his Noodly Appendage did touch Henderson in a purely platonic way.
And thus I say unto the that the Noodly Divinity only made him think he made it up.
Leviticus 20:10 (New International Version): If a man commits adultery with another man's wifeâ"with the wife of his neighborâ"both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
Egg Shen? Is the Bible a salad bar? Take what you want and leave the rest?
Strawman! We know for a fact that the FSM is made up, so it would be inconceivable to believe He and His Noodly Appendage exist. We do not know for a fact that the Bible was fabricated.
So, all we have to do is wait through two thousand years of revisions to obscure the fact that the FSM was fabricated and remove the evidence of non-existence?
You have to take into account that the big guys also buy their parts in bulk as well. So while I like the trend, I don't think it'll have much of an impact.
I worked for a local PC shop for a while. They grossed 7 million annually in sales from what one of the owners told me. Before I left, there were around 30 people employed. They fall into the "mom & pop" category but it wasn't a flea market booth operation either.
Parts were purchased from CDW and other distributors who in turn bought directly from the manufacturers. The markup for parts was small. Around 5% IIRC to compete with the big boys.
As a result, their income was mostly from servicing small businesses that wanted to outsource IT. The front retail store was basically just a nice warehouse where techs got their parts or the occasional customer bought from.
The big guys can skip that middleman. They also outsource manufacturers directly to produce components at a lower cost. You'll be hard pressed to find a retail Asus, MSI, etc. motherboard in a Dell designed for the home user.
Copyright and patent law have some fundamental differences thought. Copyright protects only the end product. Patent protects an idea behind the end product. Correct?
Going off on a tangent...
"Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, slogan, principle, or discovery."
I wonder if anyone has tried to claim that a program is nothing more than a series of procedures and while the data ( text, artwork, etc. ) manipulated by these procedures can be covered by copyright, the actual procedures cannot under current U.S. law.
You know, I was ready to go down the road of questioning your speculation about Rolling Stone's & Blender's mission. Then I was reminded about a friend who was fired from his job as a computer game reviewer a long time ago because a game sucked and his review stated so. The editor wanted him to be kinder with the review since they were buying ad space. He refused. Thus I can't refute this statement.
"The use or non-use of meaningless marketing is irrelevant" That statement is not entirely true. A brilliant work would mean nothing if it's creator destroys it and tells nobody. The creator has to do minimal marketing. i.e. tell somebody. But that holds true for a work where improvement & innovation can be quantified (patent) and where improvement & innovation is subjective (copyright).
Back on topic
The reason why I started showing reviews, and top X lists was to demonstrate that "All things artistic are subjective. That's just the nature of the beast." and that it's a completely different beast then the one's governed by patent law.
So completely different in fact that the laws that govern something like:
"Xiaoyun Wang, Yiqun Lisa Yin, and Hongbo Yu announced in February 2005 an attack which could find collisions in the SHA-0 hash function in 2^39 operations."
You are wrong. I'm a programmer but I understand the difference between creativity and efficiency. Engineering, programming, mathematics, etc. are based on fundamentals and once those truths are revealed, you can stand on the shoulder of a giant. Waayy back to my original point. Improvement can be quantified.
Art, is not so cut and dry. It is subjective. Obviously somebody liked Toni Basil's song "Mickey" because it reached the US top 100. Metallica drew on their previous works to create "Saint Anger" and maybe you didn't like it, but I bet I can find someone who did.
Yes, there are people who hate Family Guy for the exact same reasons you like it.
Your idea that Disney took works in the public domain and improved them is also subjective. Not everyone will agree with you that Disney improved upon Osamu Tezuka's "Kimba the White Lion". The fans of Osamu Tezuka's work in all likelihood. Nor will everyone agree with you that Disney improved upon the works of the Brothers Grimm.
Your premise is that shorter copyrights make people more inventive. According to that logic, a shorter copyright would have prevented Toni Basil from recording "Mickey". Lets assume for a moment that your premise is true. Shorter copyrights do make people more inventive. Given that copyrights are longer now, are you saying on the average all creative work now is inferior to previous works? Have you observed this to be true?
"The Lion King simply plagurizes a Japanese manga from the '70s because you could do that sort of thing at the time." How is this more creative? Seems like a lackadaisical attitude and poor work. Why write a new compelling story when we can just rehash an old one? If copyright durations are shortened wouldn't you in fact see more of this not less? Just what we need. A flood of TV shows on every network where someone just replaced character names from old scripts from "The Simpsons".
The two data points I picked were the first two data points in a long series of data points that consistently established that it was reasonable to expect copyright to outlast the creator. Those first data points were:
May 31, 1790 First copyright law enacted under the new U.S. Constitution.
February 3, 1831 First general revision of the copyright law.
I also provided links to multiple documents that support my premise. You have supplied only conjecture.
Your premise seems to be based on the idea that a creative person would just create one thing and never create anything again just because they know that it'll be protected under copyright past their death. That idea is absurd.
Copyright 70 years after the death of the creator does not prevent someone else from seeing that protected item, being inspired and creating their own work or derivative work. It does prevent the uninspired from simply plagiarizing and provides recourse for the original creator.
Also, Let me flip your argument about corporations. Maybe 70 years after the death of the creator is necessary because corporations are immortal, greedy and powerful. All Evil Inc. has to do for a 20 year copyright is use their wealth and power to suppress and hinder the creator until it's in the public domain. After all, the corporation is immortal. 20 years is a relatively short time frame. Simply suppress, hinder and wait and maybe do a little clandestine R&D.
By the way, this group of Lawmakers you mention were part of the same government that created the patent laws your were dreaming about modeling copyright laws after right?
You made the assertion that copyright was originally more like patent law. I had to remind you that the reason why the original duration of copyright was shorter was because people didn't live as long and in all cases one could reasonably assume that the duration was to extend beyond the life of the creator.
Now you're dodging and being evasive. Shame. Up until this point you were making an intelligent argument. Go ahead, reply. Get your last "witty" remark in so you can say you've had the last word.
I just make the assumption that the law makers could do math.
Can you deny the fact that given a duration of 28 years and an average life span of less than 40 years would mean that the majority of copyrights would outlast their creators?
I really doubt that fact caught them by surprise and in fact reflects their intent but please, elaborate.
Given this information, we can assume that the life expectancy was 40 years or under when U.S. copyright law was first enacted. This would mean that a 12 year old would be safe to assume his creative work would be protected his entire life.
May 31, 1790
First copyright law enacted under the new U.S. Constitution. Term of 14 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years. Books, maps, and charts protected. Copyright registration made in the U.S. District Court where the author or proprietor resided.
February 3, 1831
First general revision of the copyright law. Music added to works protected against unauthorized printing and vending. First term of copyright extended to 28 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years.
Given the fact that:
A: The original copyright in 1790 was for 14-28 years
B: The likelihood that the person would be a least a young adult for their creative endeavor
C: Just over 40 years after it's creation, one generation, copyright duration was increased to 28-42 years in the 1800's when the life expectancy was most likely under 47 years (Even less when first enacted and duration was up to 28 years)
It is apparent that the intent of copyright law in the US was, from the beginning, to protect ownership for the majority if not the entire life of the creator.
In those samples of songs you are thinking about, some of them are still under copyright but covered under fair use and so do not break copyright.
Let me get a baseline here.
Would you defend Sony Online Entertainment if they did the same thing? e.g. CCP Games copyright expires on Eve Online but the game is still running because it's really good so SOE decides to start selling their own Eve Online copied verbatim?
The difference I think, and where I think your argument is flawed, is that the examples you give the results can be quantified.
X algorithm is more secure than Y algorithm and should be secure for Z years. X drug has less side effects than Y drug making X drug obsolete. The impact and recognition for that contribution can be immediate and know once the discovery is made.
( Also, patent reviews can extend a patent's duration. )
Copyright covers material who's impact is subjective. The impact and recognition for that contribution can even occur after the creator's death.
I think the logic behind 70 years after the death of the individual is that recognition of the individual's achievement may not be immediate and the chances of the work having a significant impact drops in the next generation but is still possible.
*hopeful look followed by a crushed look when I realize it isn't happening*
RE: Patent laws spurs innovation...
Kinda like making your own game rather than taking a bunch of old games somebody else made and resell them?
Or not taking parts of other games to make your own like Limbo of the Lost?
I don't see shortening the term of copyright spuring innovation. Instead, I see a bunch of advertisers picking up a song like "Handlebars" by Flowbots at the same time and causing my head to explode.
BTW unrelated and for the US:
Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the authorâ(TM)s life plus an additional 70 years after the authorâ(TM)s death. In the case of âoea joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,âthe term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving authorâ(TM)s death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the authorâ(TM)s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
ref: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
Would you want something like the one's that patrol gated communities have the authority to execute search warrants and what not?
Then bill the individual for their services?
Slashdot Mirror
Ramen...
You see, There is more than one religion though and given the absence of evidence, a religion that insists others are incorrect must use self-reference within the work itself as evidence or methods that in turn could be used to deny it's own existence. If we rely solely on self-reference and disallow other methods, then your argument about us knowing for a fact that the FSM is made up is irrelevant because we can only use the self-reference as evidence...
Wait, I'm doing this wrong.... ahem.
And I say unto the that his Noodly Appendage did touch Henderson in a purely platonic way.
And thus I say unto the that the Noodly Divinity only made him think he made it up.
Prove it otherwise.
Ramen
Leviticus 20:10 (New International Version): If a man commits adultery with another man's wifeâ"with the wife of his neighborâ"both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
Egg Shen? Is the Bible a salad bar? Take what you want and leave the rest?
Strawman! We know for a fact that the FSM is made up, so it would be inconceivable to believe He and His Noodly Appendage exist. We do not know for a fact that the Bible was fabricated.
So, all we have to do is wait through two thousand years of revisions to obscure the fact that the FSM was fabricated and remove the evidence of non-existence?
Cool, I'm gonna shoot for Apostle of the FSM.
If the law is protected by copyright and I disagree with the terms of the copyright, what then?
So the startup noise will be Moe saying "Move it chowder head"?
Did it top the internet not being a truck but a series of tubes? If it did, you better share.
You have to take into account that the big guys also buy their parts in bulk as well. So while I like the trend, I don't think it'll have much of an impact.
I worked for a local PC shop for a while. They grossed 7 million annually in sales from what one of the owners told me. Before I left, there were around 30 people employed. They fall into the "mom & pop" category but it wasn't a flea market booth operation either.
Parts were purchased from CDW and other distributors who in turn bought directly from the manufacturers. The markup for parts was small. Around 5% IIRC to compete with the big boys.
As a result, their income was mostly from servicing small businesses that wanted to outsource IT. The front retail store was basically just a nice warehouse where techs got their parts or the occasional customer bought from.
The big guys can skip that middleman. They also outsource manufacturers directly to produce components at a lower cost. You'll be hard pressed to find a retail Asus, MSI, etc. motherboard in a Dell designed for the home user.
Copyright and patent law have some fundamental differences thought. Copyright protects only the end product. Patent protects an idea behind the end product. Correct?
Going off on a tangent...
"Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, slogan, principle, or discovery."
I wonder if anyone has tried to claim that a program is nothing more than a series of procedures and while the data ( text, artwork, etc. ) manipulated by these procedures can be covered by copyright, the actual procedures cannot under current U.S. law.
You know, I was ready to go down the road of questioning your speculation about Rolling Stone's & Blender's mission. Then I was reminded about a friend who was fired from his job as a computer game reviewer a long time ago because a game sucked and his review stated so. The editor wanted him to be kinder with the review since they were buying ad space. He refused. Thus I can't refute this statement.
"The use or non-use of meaningless marketing is irrelevant" That statement is not entirely true. A brilliant work would mean nothing if it's creator destroys it and tells nobody. The creator has to do minimal marketing. i.e. tell somebody. But that holds true for a work where improvement & innovation can be quantified (patent) and where improvement & innovation is subjective (copyright).
Back on topic
The reason why I started showing reviews, and top X lists was to demonstrate that "All things artistic are subjective. That's just the nature of the beast." and that it's a completely different beast then the one's governed by patent law.
So completely different in fact that the laws that govern something like:
"Xiaoyun Wang, Yiqun Lisa Yin, and Hongbo Yu announced in February 2005 an attack which could find collisions in the SHA-0 hash function in 2^39 operations."
or it's ilk could not be used to govern:
"Did Disney's The Lion King rip off an old Japanese TV series?"
So who paid Blender more Money than Rolling Stone?
And Disney does not make use of this meaningless marketing machine?
You are wrong. I'm a programmer but I understand the difference between creativity and efficiency. Engineering, programming, mathematics, etc. are based on fundamentals and once those truths are revealed, you can stand on the shoulder of a giant. Waayy back to my original point. Improvement can be quantified.
Art, is not so cut and dry. It is subjective. Obviously somebody liked Toni Basil's song "Mickey" because it reached the US top 100. Metallica drew on their previous works to create "Saint Anger" and maybe you didn't like it, but I bet I can find someone who did.
Yes, there are people who hate Family Guy for the exact same reasons you like it.
Your idea that Disney took works in the public domain and improved them is also subjective. Not everyone will agree with you that Disney improved upon Osamu Tezuka's "Kimba the White Lion". The fans of Osamu Tezuka's work in all likelihood. Nor will everyone agree with you that Disney improved upon the works of the Brothers Grimm.
Your premise is that shorter copyrights make people more inventive. According to that logic, a shorter copyright would have prevented Toni Basil from recording "Mickey". Lets assume for a moment that your premise is true. Shorter copyrights do make people more inventive. Given that copyrights are longer now, are you saying on the average all creative work now is inferior to previous works? Have you observed this to be true?
"The Lion King simply plagurizes a Japanese manga from the '70s because you could do that sort of thing at the time." How is this more creative? Seems like a lackadaisical attitude and poor work. Why write a new compelling story when we can just rehash an old one? If copyright durations are shortened wouldn't you in fact see more of this not less? Just what we need. A flood of TV shows on every network where someone just replaced character names from old scripts from "The Simpsons".
The two data points I picked were the first two data points in a long series of data points that consistently established that it was reasonable to expect copyright to outlast the creator. Those first data points were:
May 31, 1790 First copyright law enacted under the new U.S. Constitution.
February 3, 1831 First general revision of the copyright law.
I also provided links to multiple documents that support my premise. You have supplied only conjecture.
Your premise seems to be based on the idea that a creative person would just create one thing and never create anything again just because they know that it'll be protected under copyright past their death. That idea is absurd.
Copyright 70 years after the death of the creator does not prevent someone else from seeing that protected item, being inspired and creating their own work or derivative work. It does prevent the uninspired from simply plagiarizing and provides recourse for the original creator.
Also, Let me flip your argument about corporations. Maybe 70 years after the death of the creator is necessary because corporations are immortal, greedy and powerful. All Evil Inc. has to do for a 20 year copyright is use their wealth and power to suppress and hinder the creator until it's in the public domain. After all, the corporation is immortal. 20 years is a relatively short time frame. Simply suppress, hinder and wait and maybe do a little clandestine R&D.
Oh snap, I guess you told me.
By the way, this group of Lawmakers you mention were part of the same government that created the patent laws your were dreaming about modeling copyright laws after right?
You made the assertion that copyright was originally more like patent law. I had to remind you that the reason why the original duration of copyright was shorter was because people didn't live as long and in all cases one could reasonably assume that the duration was to extend beyond the life of the creator.
Now you're dodging and being evasive. Shame. Up until this point you were making an intelligent argument. Go ahead, reply. Get your last "witty" remark in so you can say you've had the last word.
I just make the assumption that the law makers could do math.
Can you deny the fact that given a duration of 28 years and an average life span of less than 40 years would mean that the majority of copyrights would outlast their creators?
I really doubt that fact caught them by surprise and in fact reflects their intent but please, elaborate.
Followup:
http://www.uoregon.edu/~maphist/english/US/US32-01.html
http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____25831.asp
Given this information, we can assume that the life expectancy was 40 years or under when U.S. copyright law was first enacted. This would mean that a 12 year old would be safe to assume his creative work would be protected his entire life.
May 31, 1790 First copyright law enacted under the new U.S. Constitution. Term of 14 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years. Books, maps, and charts protected. Copyright registration made in the U.S. District Court where the author or proprietor resided.
February 3, 1831 First general revision of the copyright law. Music added to works protected against unauthorized printing and vending. First term of copyright extended to 28 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years.
ref: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html
The average life expectancy in 1900 was 47.3 years
ref: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf
Given the fact that: A: The original copyright in 1790 was for 14-28 years B: The likelihood that the person would be a least a young adult for their creative endeavor C: Just over 40 years after it's creation, one generation, copyright duration was increased to 28-42 years in the 1800's when the life expectancy was most likely under 47 years (Even less when first enacted and duration was up to 28 years)
It is apparent that the intent of copyright law in the US was, from the beginning, to protect ownership for the majority if not the entire life of the creator.
In those samples of songs you are thinking about, some of them are still under copyright but covered under fair use and so do not break copyright.
Let me get a baseline here.
Would you defend Sony Online Entertainment if they did the same thing? e.g. CCP Games copyright expires on Eve Online but the game is still running because it's really good so SOE decides to start selling their own Eve Online copied verbatim?
Fat fingers. My reply is here.
Correection: ...making Y drug obsolete
The difference I think, and where I think your argument is flawed, is that the examples you give the results can be quantified.
X algorithm is more secure than Y algorithm and should be secure for Z years. X drug has less side effects than Y drug making X drug obsolete. The impact and recognition for that contribution can be immediate and know once the discovery is made.
( Also, patent reviews can extend a patent's duration. )
Copyright covers material who's impact is subjective. The impact and recognition for that contribution can even occur after the creator's death.
I think the logic behind 70 years after the death of the individual is that recognition of the individual's achievement may not be immediate and the chances of the work having a significant impact drops in the next generation but is still possible.
Can I have the cheques then?
*hopeful look followed by a crushed look when I realize it isn't happening*
RE: Patent laws spurs innovation...
Kinda like making your own game rather than taking a bunch of old games somebody else made and resell them?
Or not taking parts of other games to make your own like Limbo of the Lost?
I don't see shortening the term of copyright spuring innovation. Instead, I see a bunch of advertisers picking up a song like "Handlebars" by Flowbots at the same time and causing my head to explode.
BTW unrelated and for the US:
Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the authorâ(TM)s life plus an additional 70 years after the authorâ(TM)s death. In the case of âoea joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,âthe term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving authorâ(TM)s death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the authorâ(TM)s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. ref: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
Well, if you patented some new technology within that plant and another plant uses your invention, then yes, you should.
Would you want something like the one's that patrol gated communities have the authority to execute search warrants and what not? Then bill the individual for their services?
The cost and advertising of a song or game can be considered about the same. You can spend as much or as little as you want to produce either.
However, there is the need for continued customer service and support needed for a game that is not needed for a song once it hits the market.