Basically, there is nothing technically unique about copyleft licensing, and it doesn't impose any restrictions that copyright doesn't already grant. There's no way it could. The Berne Convention alone pretty much guarantees all the rights exercised in copyleft, and there's nothing that should be legally distinct about the terms than any other license, such as the EULA for Windows.
Think of it like “How do you carve an elephant?” The answer is “First, get a block of marble and then remove everything that doesn’t look like an elephant.” Copyright gives you a block of exclusions. When you carve out a proprietary license, you take out some exclusions, and when you carve out a copyleft license, you take out some others until you've taken out everything that doesn't look like (for example) the GPL.
Tech manuals are often for a physical product, and there are academics and volunteers that have shown themselves capable of doing things. There are several ways for software to work outside of copyright, such as the various methods most FOSS uses that don't direcl monetize software. In fact, it's worth noting that most programmers are employed for service, not for making a product. It's all about specially made software for Enterprise X that is probably never seen outside of enterprise X. This is why Java is one of the most popular programming languages despite very little widely used desktop software running on it.
If copyright continues to exist, what are you losing, exactly?
personal freedom? That's sort of a big deal. If you are American and under 30, you may have lost touch with that since the public domain has actually shrank in your lifetime, but copyright is supposed to be for a limited time, and it is based on the public's interests. If copyright fails to be in the public's interest, it is not serving its constitutional purpose and should be reformed or axed.
I'm aware that the copyright industry isn't just music, but I'm fairly sure that this applies to basically every industry that is copyright based. John Q. Aspiringnovelist gets far, far less than Stephen King per book sold. Other industries may be more prone to licensing such as 10 cents a copy instead of every 8 cents a copy for every copy past a million, but I'm fairly sure that even then, you won't get anything past the advance unless it's unbelievably popular. If the contracts had a clause for retroactive negotiation after a short period of time or a certain number of copies were sold, there might be a more equitable system, but no company is going to do that.
I know there's a loophole about a copyright contract and 35 years and something like that, but it's a rather small consolation that is irrelevant in the lion's share of cases.
The printing press deals with composers, not musicians, and I've seen no indication that the publishers have ever been opposed to copyright, although they may not have been too keen on the changes made in the statute of Anne. Without copyright, a printing press only had value as a printing press, not as the only source to get the music of a specific artist.
You apparently aren't familiar with the practices of any copyright industry. You get a crappy royalty that will never cover your advance on your breakthrough work, and you don't get a decent rate until you make another work. However, you can get a fairly quick turnaround in concert sales with just a hit single.
Copyleft exists entirely within copyright law. There are no extensions or further restrictions. Copyright is by default 'all rights' reserved' and the copyright holder grants some rights to others in all cases.
Recordings have been nothing but a form of advertisements for virtually all but the megastars for the entire history of recorded music, and session musicians often get paid by the session, and don't have residual royalties. Also, this doesn't mean that nobody will get paid for making recorded music, just that there will not be a continuous source of income from previous work.
As for burden of proof, I say it should be laid upon the party proposing a government backed monopoly, not the party proposing the ability to freely spread information.
A rather large share of movies make their budget back while still in theaters (which could be handled under contract or possibly even funded by movie theaters. They make their actual income selling you popcorn and candy, after all), and there's a lot of fat to cut from the salary by paying A-list actors less. The models would have to change absent of copyright, but that doesn't mean we couldn't adjust or even that the new model wouldn't be better than the old one.
actually, copyright was originally created to protect the king and church from heretical or dissenting works, then to support a printer's monopoly established by the former purpose, then to promote the publishing of works for the sake of public education. Any benefits to authors in this chain of events is purely a side effect.
Up to 14 times as many books were produced, presumably of relatively equal value. The state of authors isn't directly of concern, at least not within the British and American traditions where the point of copyright is to enrich the public availability of works. However, it's quite possible that the publishers were actually less capable of extortion of authors without the copyright system.
Any work that is licensed (which is any work being legally distributed) would be 'special copyright'. With proprietary software, there are probably easily ten times as many licenses in existence as there are for FOSS, and an even more substantial difference when you are talking about the most popular works in the respective fields.
Let me make this crystal clear. Per work, per infringement, per anything, copyleft is far less of a burden for the government. If the government wants to save money, they should actually FAVOR copyleft. This is like putting a heavy tax on more fuel efficient cars that are safer, more reliable, and cost less to build. As for what the regular system consists of, we have a pretty good idea of it because the are part of the Berne Convention, which means copyright is automatic for them.
That assumes that 18th century psychology about the incredibly complex dynamics of motivation for creative activity was accurate, with a fair amount of evidence suggesting otherwise, such as the following article.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,709761,00.html
Also, if we reasonably suggest the abolition of copyright and actually get someone to listen, the legislators might pick a happy medium such as a reasonably short term and expansive fair use
This is not special copyright. This is licensing applied to normal copyright. Berne Convention says copyright is automatic once in a fixed form, and copyleft is waiving some of these rights under certain conditions.
Generally speaking, copyleft licenses are far less likely to result in court action, which is where a lot of the costs go. There has been I think one CC case and two GPL cases that ever made it to court. Cases that make it to court are what cost money. Also, personal infringement is where a lot of additional government resources are going, and copyleft licenses are pretty much only concerned with commercial infringement, which can actually be done in a cost effective manner. The costs to the government are basically 99.99% involved in proprietary licensing.
You do realize that a LOT of infringement actually occurs by proprietary companies, right? FFMPEG, LAME, Busybox, and many other FOSS projects have been repeatedly subject to violations of their licenses. When it comes to track records, 'public licenses' have fared far better than 'standard' licenses when it comes to actually respecting copyright law.
Make the period for copyright protection 0 days, 0 months, 0 years. Then nobody will be hosting infringing material. It will cost less than Sherman's plan and be more effective. Everyone's happy. Making the law more expansive only means that more people will be breaking the law.
I see resisting arrest for a crime you aren't even being charged with as a legitimate action. If the cop catches you after you resist, and doesn't bring any charges for the arrest you resisted, the fact that you were resisting arrest should be irrelevant.
I would be okay with cutting down on corn subsidies, but I wouldn't say that drinking soda is never appropriate. I mostly drink water, but a soda often tastes good, and not everybody is concerned with living to be 100 years old, and most of the people that do attribute their good health to things like a pound of lard, a bottle of whiskey, and an assortment of sexual partners.
Sounds great, let's get that system of easily switching to another provider to happen, because right now, I have two options, one is a phone company and one is a cable company. Cable and telephony could be replaced by awesome fast internet, so they aren't good choices. Maybe we can get someone like Western Digital into the ISP market. They sell hard drives, and having awesome fast internet means I can fill up a hard drive much more quickly, so it's win-win.
As it was said, it is clearly outside of the jurisdiction of congress. It was phrased as a mandated diet for Americans, which is not within Congress's jurisdiction.
I would think that being 'a lawyer' depends upon a legal vocation, particular as an attorney, and bar certification. While both of these are generally very helpful, I don't see them as being inherently required.
As for the desire for non-lawyers, what I suspect is the biggest concern is trial lawyers, who may be conditioned to see things in a certain light, largely regardless of viewpoint. For example, an RIAA attorney would be likely to have a very artist-centric viewpoint of copyright law that differs greatly from the constitution. Basically the concern with lawyers is that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" This of course doesn't apply to all lawyers or all trial lawyers, but it is a concern, and rightly so.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the law and being a lawyer doesn't mean you have a good understanding of the law. I would say that it's best for lawyers to make up a disproportionate amount of the court system, and that SOME kind of legal background is going to be very helpful if not necessary, but to say that not being a lawyer means that you can't do the job well seem incredibly elitist.
Important issues aren't to be taken lightly, but I would contend that it's pretty clear that the government doesn't have the power to tell you what to eat. They have the power to control what food is sold, but if you want to have an arsenic lead strychnine sandwich and wash it down with methanol, that's your choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, there is nothing technically unique about copyleft licensing, and it doesn't impose any restrictions that copyright doesn't already grant. There's no way it could. The Berne Convention alone pretty much guarantees all the rights exercised in copyleft, and there's nothing that should be legally distinct about the terms than any other license, such as the EULA for Windows.
Think of it like “How do you carve an elephant?” The answer is “First, get a block of marble and then remove everything that doesn’t look like an elephant.” Copyright gives you a block of exclusions. When you carve out a proprietary license, you take out some exclusions, and when you carve out a copyleft license, you take out some others until you've taken out everything that doesn't look like (for example) the GPL.
personal freedom? That's sort of a big deal. If you are American and under 30, you may have lost touch with that since the public domain has actually shrank in your lifetime, but copyright is supposed to be for a limited time, and it is based on the public's interests. If copyright fails to be in the public's interest, it is not serving its constitutional purpose and should be reformed or axed.
I'm aware that the copyright industry isn't just music, but I'm fairly sure that this applies to basically every industry that is copyright based. John Q. Aspiringnovelist gets far, far less than Stephen King per book sold. Other industries may be more prone to licensing such as 10 cents a copy instead of every 8 cents a copy for every copy past a million, but I'm fairly sure that even then, you won't get anything past the advance unless it's unbelievably popular. If the contracts had a clause for retroactive negotiation after a short period of time or a certain number of copies were sold, there might be a more equitable system, but no company is going to do that. I know there's a loophole about a copyright contract and 35 years and something like that, but it's a rather small consolation that is irrelevant in the lion's share of cases.
The printing press deals with composers, not musicians, and I've seen no indication that the publishers have ever been opposed to copyright, although they may not have been too keen on the changes made in the statute of Anne. Without copyright, a printing press only had value as a printing press, not as the only source to get the music of a specific artist.
You apparently aren't familiar with the practices of any copyright industry. You get a crappy royalty that will never cover your advance on your breakthrough work, and you don't get a decent rate until you make another work. However, you can get a fairly quick turnaround in concert sales with just a hit single.
Copyleft exists entirely within copyright law. There are no extensions or further restrictions. Copyright is by default 'all rights' reserved' and the copyright holder grants some rights to others in all cases.
Recordings have been nothing but a form of advertisements for virtually all but the megastars for the entire history of recorded music, and session musicians often get paid by the session, and don't have residual royalties. Also, this doesn't mean that nobody will get paid for making recorded music, just that there will not be a continuous source of income from previous work. As for burden of proof, I say it should be laid upon the party proposing a government backed monopoly, not the party proposing the ability to freely spread information.
A rather large share of movies make their budget back while still in theaters (which could be handled under contract or possibly even funded by movie theaters. They make their actual income selling you popcorn and candy, after all), and there's a lot of fat to cut from the salary by paying A-list actors less. The models would have to change absent of copyright, but that doesn't mean we couldn't adjust or even that the new model wouldn't be better than the old one.
actually, copyright was originally created to protect the king and church from heretical or dissenting works, then to support a printer's monopoly established by the former purpose, then to promote the publishing of works for the sake of public education. Any benefits to authors in this chain of events is purely a side effect.
Up to 14 times as many books were produced, presumably of relatively equal value. The state of authors isn't directly of concern, at least not within the British and American traditions where the point of copyright is to enrich the public availability of works. However, it's quite possible that the publishers were actually less capable of extortion of authors without the copyright system.
Any work that is licensed (which is any work being legally distributed) would be 'special copyright'. With proprietary software, there are probably easily ten times as many licenses in existence as there are for FOSS, and an even more substantial difference when you are talking about the most popular works in the respective fields.
Let me make this crystal clear. Per work, per infringement, per anything, copyleft is far less of a burden for the government. If the government wants to save money, they should actually FAVOR copyleft. This is like putting a heavy tax on more fuel efficient cars that are safer, more reliable, and cost less to build. As for what the regular system consists of, we have a pretty good idea of it because the are part of the Berne Convention, which means copyright is automatic for them.
That assumes that 18th century psychology about the incredibly complex dynamics of motivation for creative activity was accurate, with a fair amount of evidence suggesting otherwise, such as the following article. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,709761,00.html Also, if we reasonably suggest the abolition of copyright and actually get someone to listen, the legislators might pick a happy medium such as a reasonably short term and expansive fair use
This is not special copyright. This is licensing applied to normal copyright. Berne Convention says copyright is automatic once in a fixed form, and copyleft is waiving some of these rights under certain conditions.
Generally speaking, copyleft licenses are far less likely to result in court action, which is where a lot of the costs go. There has been I think one CC case and two GPL cases that ever made it to court. Cases that make it to court are what cost money. Also, personal infringement is where a lot of additional government resources are going, and copyleft licenses are pretty much only concerned with commercial infringement, which can actually be done in a cost effective manner. The costs to the government are basically 99.99% involved in proprietary licensing.
You do realize that a LOT of infringement actually occurs by proprietary companies, right? FFMPEG, LAME, Busybox, and many other FOSS projects have been repeatedly subject to violations of their licenses. When it comes to track records, 'public licenses' have fared far better than 'standard' licenses when it comes to actually respecting copyright law.
Make the period for copyright protection 0 days, 0 months, 0 years. Then nobody will be hosting infringing material. It will cost less than Sherman's plan and be more effective. Everyone's happy. Making the law more expansive only means that more people will be breaking the law.
I see resisting arrest for a crime you aren't even being charged with as a legitimate action. If the cop catches you after you resist, and doesn't bring any charges for the arrest you resisted, the fact that you were resisting arrest should be irrelevant.
I'd like to be able to get a 7up without being profiled by a machine, thank you very much.
I would be okay with cutting down on corn subsidies, but I wouldn't say that drinking soda is never appropriate. I mostly drink water, but a soda often tastes good, and not everybody is concerned with living to be 100 years old, and most of the people that do attribute their good health to things like a pound of lard, a bottle of whiskey, and an assortment of sexual partners.
Sounds great, let's get that system of easily switching to another provider to happen, because right now, I have two options, one is a phone company and one is a cable company. Cable and telephony could be replaced by awesome fast internet, so they aren't good choices. Maybe we can get someone like Western Digital into the ISP market. They sell hard drives, and having awesome fast internet means I can fill up a hard drive much more quickly, so it's win-win.
As it was said, it is clearly outside of the jurisdiction of congress. It was phrased as a mandated diet for Americans, which is not within Congress's jurisdiction.
I would think that being 'a lawyer' depends upon a legal vocation, particular as an attorney, and bar certification. While both of these are generally very helpful, I don't see them as being inherently required. As for the desire for non-lawyers, what I suspect is the biggest concern is trial lawyers, who may be conditioned to see things in a certain light, largely regardless of viewpoint. For example, an RIAA attorney would be likely to have a very artist-centric viewpoint of copyright law that differs greatly from the constitution. Basically the concern with lawyers is that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" This of course doesn't apply to all lawyers or all trial lawyers, but it is a concern, and rightly so.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the law and being a lawyer doesn't mean you have a good understanding of the law. I would say that it's best for lawyers to make up a disproportionate amount of the court system, and that SOME kind of legal background is going to be very helpful if not necessary, but to say that not being a lawyer means that you can't do the job well seem incredibly elitist.
Important issues aren't to be taken lightly, but I would contend that it's pretty clear that the government doesn't have the power to tell you what to eat. They have the power to control what food is sold, but if you want to have an arsenic lead strychnine sandwich and wash it down with methanol, that's your choice.