Not that popular a viewpoint, but just to play Devil's Advocate: When did artists get the right to be paid for their work?.
They got the right in the Constitution: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The only thing that is going to encourage artists to produce new work is to get paid for it, and so far as I am concerned it is perfectly fair that the state should give them a right to payment. But that right should not be a mealticket unto their descendants, and also it should be a short enough duration to encourage derived works and progress in the art within the foreseeable future.
Yes, but this probably got argued in Thomas and got nowhere, and the Thomas judgement has also been through appeals, and because the Supreme Court declined to hear it, means that it is on fairly rock solid legal foundations. The judges have already been persuaded.
No, copyrights should be licensable, not transferable (exception perhaps made on death). Copyright is a period of protection to allow you to profit, and the time limit on that should be 20-30 years, not too different from that of a patent.
If you build any other product, you don't get revenue from it 70+ years down the line, and this should not be true for books. movies either. The system should incentivise you to produce new works, not sit on your ass from the revenue of old ones.
2) Copyright should be non-transferable and belong to the artist producing the work.
This would make collaborative works (e.g. film and tv) pretty much impossible. After all, who is the 'artist' behind a movie like From Russia With Love?
I am not opposing licensing, simply the ownership of the actual copyright. Also I am not opposing a joint company producing an original work together. Fleming would hold the copyright to the book, $movieCo would license from Fleming and hold copyright on the movie which would be an original work. $movieCo would have the right to extend its copyright from 20 to 30 years since "owning" the rights to "From Russia With Love" is undeniably profitable (Hollywood accounting permitting). However said movie is over 30 years old and would be out of copyright by now....
Yes we recognize artists have the right to be paid for their work, but....
1) Please reduce the absurd duration of copyright. We can argue about exactly how long, but anything above 30 years is definitely absurd. Also copyright would be better if anything above 20 years required a substantial payment.
2) Copyright should be non-transferable and belong to the artist producing the work.
3) Please ensure that all private copying from media to media for personal use only is regarded as Fair Use.
4) Commercial Piracy should attract large fines, however small personal acts of piracy should be penalized in the region of a few thousand dollars TOTAL, not several tens of thousands for each work. As an example, Jammie Thomas was definitely guilty, but a maximum fine of about $5,000 would be seen as far more reasonable especially as she made no significant financial gain from the act.
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of people were suddenly cut of from searching for porn. I fear something terrible has happened,
You may be right in everything you say, but Microsoft has long been in the business of ambushing Android phone maker for royalties on dubious software patents, so a little obstructionism by Google may simply be a case of 'turnabout is fair play'.
QUEEN GERTRUDE: Come hither, my dear Hamlet, sit by me. HAMLET: No, good mother, here's metal more attractive. LORD POLONIUS: [To KING CLAUDIUS] O, ho! do you mark that? HAMLET: Lady, shall I lie in your lap?
Lying down at OPHELIA's feet
OPHELIA: No, my lord. HAMLET: I mean, my head upon your lap? OPHELIA: Ay, my lord. HAMLET: Do you think I meant country matters? OPHELIA: I think nothing, my lord. HAMLET: That's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs. OPHELIA: What is, my lord? HAMLET: Nothing.
Most people were keeping score as though it were a game of cricket, or recalling the Battle of Britain ratios of aircraft shot down.
We were pissed at the diplomatic foolishness that had started the "war", but once the war was on most people would have been quite happy if we'd raided Buenos Aires in reprisal
I believe the Argentine navy would, had it not been savaged earlier, parked its carrier within operating range of the Falklands as soon as the landings started. Some loss of life was inevitable from the moment the Argentinians decided to invade the Falklands and not agree to leave. Also the Argentine submarine San Luis fired a torpedo at British ships the day before the sinking, so both sides were on the same page as far as hostilities were concerned.
The Sun headline is agreeably controversial. Whilst regretting the loss of life, I think it expressed some relief that we were on the right side of the scoreboard.
As a member of the UK public at the time, most of us didn't care what direction the Belgrano was heading, if it was the vessel of an enemy which had occupied UK territory then we wanted it sinking. It was being ambiguous which had got the UK into trouble in the first place, so something as unambiguous as a torpedo was sending the right message as far as we were concerned.
I would suspect that programs such as these do work, because they provide a means of seeking help, support and resisting temptation, instead of having no direction to go but down.
Hmm, about that successful Docklands Light Railway
While the first five years were plagued by unreliability and operational problems,[55] the system has now become highly reliable.[55] In 2008, 87% of the population of North Woolwich were in favour of the DLR
i.e. it took five years to fix the issues with it. It's also overcrowded and the level of demand was grossly underestimated.
The fair-use algorithms could also honor what the artist wants — for instance, some artists want to be copied. In these cases, a markup language that enumerates just how much the artist wants to encourage fair use could help provide that choice. That way, those who want rampant copying could encourage it while those who want to maintain exclusivity could dial back the limits.
As others have noted, this is exactly what robots.txt does - it tells agregators which part of the lawn they're not allowed to stand on
Slashdot Mirror
...that this is a criminal and not a civil case.
Chairs all round ....
Lets give him 3 chairs
Not that popular a viewpoint, but just to play Devil's Advocate: When did artists get the right to be paid for their work?.
They got the right in the Constitution: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The only thing that is going to encourage artists to produce new work is to get paid for it, and so far as I am concerned it is perfectly fair that the state should give them a right to payment. But that right should not be a mealticket unto their descendants, and also it should be a short enough duration to encourage derived works and progress in the art within the foreseeable future.
Yes, but this probably got argued in Thomas and got nowhere, and the Thomas judgement has also been through appeals, and because the Supreme Court declined to hear it, means that it is on fairly rock solid legal foundations. The judges have already been persuaded.
No, they should be transferable. Why shouldn't the artist be able to sell his future earnings for profit now?
To limit the amount of IP held by any one person and reduce the effect of copyright trolls
No, copyrights should be licensable, not transferable (exception perhaps made on death). Copyright is a period of protection to allow you to profit, and the time limit on that should be 20-30 years, not too different from that of a patent.
If you build any other product, you don't get revenue from it 70+ years down the line, and this should not be true for books. movies either. The system should incentivise you to produce new works, not sit on your ass from the revenue of old ones.
2) Copyright should be non-transferable and belong to the artist producing the work.
This would make collaborative works (e.g. film and tv) pretty much impossible. After all, who is the 'artist' behind a movie like From Russia With Love?
I am not opposing licensing, simply the ownership of the actual copyright. Also I am not opposing a joint company producing an original work together. Fleming would hold the copyright to the book, $movieCo would license from Fleming and hold copyright on the movie which would be an original work. $movieCo would have the right to extend its copyright from 20 to 30 years since "owning" the rights to "From Russia With Love" is undeniably profitable (Hollywood accounting permitting). However said movie is over 30 years old and would be out of copyright by now....
Yes we recognize artists have the right to be paid for their work, but....
1) Please reduce the absurd duration of copyright. We can argue about exactly how long, but anything above 30 years is definitely absurd. Also copyright would be better if anything above 20 years required a substantial payment.
2) Copyright should be non-transferable and belong to the artist producing the work.
3) Please ensure that all private copying from media to media for personal use only is regarded as Fair Use.
4) Commercial Piracy should attract large fines, however small personal acts of piracy should be penalized in the region of a few thousand dollars TOTAL, not several tens of thousands for each work. As an example, Jammie Thomas was definitely guilty, but a maximum fine of about $5,000 would be seen as far more reasonable especially as she made no significant financial gain from the act.
Anything else?
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of people were suddenly cut of from searching for porn. I fear something terrible has happened,
Pennywise doesn't like uninvited visitors.
For all the Miranda rights jokes.. c'mon, get them out the way..
Damn you, I'd just logged on to start this meme... :-)
You may be right in everything you say, but Microsoft has long been in the business of ambushing Android phone maker for royalties on dubious software patents, so a little obstructionism by Google may simply be a case of 'turnabout is fair play'.
I blame God - after all He made animals so tasty. Bless his Noodly Appendages!
You could be working with Cowboys
Slashdot turned into the Daily Mail?
The UK is different - many states in the US have "At Will" laws allowing instant termination of employment and vice versa.
Hamlet (Act 3, Scene 2)....
QUEEN GERTRUDE: Come hither, my dear Hamlet, sit by me.
HAMLET: No, good mother, here's metal more attractive.
LORD POLONIUS: [To KING CLAUDIUS] O, ho! do you mark that?
HAMLET: Lady, shall I lie in your lap?
Lying down at OPHELIA's feet
OPHELIA: No, my lord.
HAMLET: I mean, my head upon your lap?
OPHELIA: Ay, my lord.
HAMLET: Do you think I meant country matters?
OPHELIA: I think nothing, my lord.
HAMLET: That's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs.
OPHELIA: What is, my lord?
HAMLET: Nothing.
Most people were keeping score as though it were a game of cricket, or recalling the Battle of Britain ratios of aircraft shot down.
We were pissed at the diplomatic foolishness that had started the "war", but once the war was on most people would have been quite happy if we'd raided Buenos Aires in reprisal
Also: "I must say your pussy is glowing tonight,"
i think that's unlikely, personally.
I believe the Argentine navy would, had it not been savaged earlier, parked its carrier within operating range of the Falklands as soon as the landings started. Some loss of life was inevitable from the moment the Argentinians decided to invade the Falklands and not agree to leave. Also the Argentine submarine San Luis fired a torpedo at British ships the day before the sinking, so both sides were on the same page as far as hostilities were concerned.
The Sun headline is agreeably controversial. Whilst regretting the loss of life, I think it expressed some relief that we were on the right side of the scoreboard.
The have admitted to the lasers but are the sharks wearing them still classified?
That's why we're still pretending we sunk the Belgrano with a submarine and torpedoes...
As a member of the UK public at the time, most of us didn't care what direction the Belgrano was heading, if it was the vessel of an enemy which had occupied UK territory then we wanted it sinking. It was being ambiguous which had got the UK into trouble in the first place, so something as unambiguous as a torpedo was sending the right message as far as we were concerned.
I would suspect that programs such as these do work, because they provide a means of seeking help, support and resisting temptation, instead of having no direction to go but down.
Hmm, about that successful Docklands Light Railway
i.e. it took five years to fix the issues with it.
It's also overcrowded and the level of demand was grossly underestimated.
As others have noted, this is exactly what robots.txt does - it tells agregators which part of the lawn they're not allowed to stand on