IANAL, but my interpretation of the Eldred v. Ashcroft briefs-- most notably, where they reference that copyright cases are subject to First Amendment analysis-- would be a pretty unambiguous case for constitutional basis for fair use. After all (and this is my own over-simplification) what good is free speech if the is nothing you are legally permitted to say thanks to copyright?
...but my latest thoughts on-- and inspired by-- Eldred v. Ashcroft went to my journal. While I haven't finished reading the transcript, (I've only read through Lessig's first arguments) what I've read so far hasn't changed my thoughts one bit so I'm not posting them again here.
I do have to say this case has really made me see the truth behind the "kill all the lawers" jokes-- that most people don't want to live in a world of such detailed and precise thought. I, for one, will take the lawers and all the evils that go with them if it will get me away from the sloppiness of thought and/or expression that produced the DMCA and is pushing for Digital User Restriction Management in all our computers.
As IP is (for the forseeable future) an asset, how is restricting transfer / assignment any different from restricting transfer of any other asset or property.
I guess part of the problem here is the use of the term "Intellectual Property". To quote T. Jefferson:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Since any number of people can possess an idea at once, we cannot consider it "property" or "an asset" as such things suggest exclusivity in possession, which the above passage shows is "impossible". Futhermore, see this post for my explanation on how "corporate IP" should work.
In short, intellectual creations are not property and the classical arguments about theft, ownership, and ROI do not apply.
Trademarks, which are meant for labelling, need to last as long as the business that uses them exists. Patents are already much, much shorter than this; I don't think you want them lengthened to life + zero.
Okay, I'll concede the point on trademarks... but as to patents & copyright you've missed the critical part of my argument. While I didn't outright say so, I stand for a "natural term" of far less than lifetime (28 years sounds fair to me). However, this term won't play out if the creator dies first.
How could the **AA lobby for longer terms when you've fixed the term at life of the author + zero?
I mean the **AA could lobby for a 300 year copyright... which would of course mean "lifetime" until the day people live for more than 300 years.
Now, let's get into the meat of this proposal. What does it mean that a copyright be non-transferrable?
I detest the term "Intellectual Property" but I would like to also make it clear that I'm lumping patents in this deal; would it be clearer if I called the two "Originator's Rights"? (This also clearly breaks trademark out of the discussion.) This right of control [over distrobution (including language and media translations) in the case of copyright, and use in the case of a patent] cannot be permanantly transfered... and as outlined above, will evaporate at a set date, or upon creator's death, whichever is first.
However, does "non-transferrable" also mean that you can't sell the future revenue from a work for a fixed sum now?
You could, sure. Once we step past the phrase "non-transferable" everything else is covered by contract law. You could (read: would probably be forced to) sign an exclusivity contract with an employer for zero financial return. (I'd like to belive people would be too educated to let this become common, though today's practices speak conrawise.)
If you mean to also tack on some "moral rights" that are non-transferrable, that's more interesting.
No, my intent is to redefine "Intellectual Property" as "Originator's Rights", a set of time-limited rights which the originator of a work or process may not transfer to any other entity, be they corporation or surviving heir.
To me, the interesting question is, when considering movies and such other "massively collaborative" works, defining who is and is not a "creator" (ie. do the actors have a copyright investment in the movie?).
If it has 'value' (you used the p-word which I suspect you were trained to react to in a certain way) then that value should be transferrable.
Umm, no. Think what you will, but I'm being very specific with my words here, and attempting to separate economic value from all other possible measurements.
All works of creativity have value, and it can be argued one way or the other whether that value goes up or down or stays constant over time: consider, if you will, the works of Shakespeare, which have just as much meaning as they did when written (and thus arguably just as much value). However, the economic value of those works has changed over time; they are now so common I can quote them ("To be or not to be"; "My kingdom for a horse"; "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day") and have practically everyone recognize what I mean. Argue how you will, but to me that indicates market saturation and the loss of all economic value.
Secondly, I use "the p-word" to help other, less analytical minds to understand my viewpoint on why IP should not be transferable. In using that particular word, I rapidly ask and answer the question, "Why are we paying someone for the use of an idea which they did not themselves create?"
Of course, I expected to be lambasted for using the other p-word (lit., the "Property" in IP); however, for the purposes of argumentation there exists no clearer common term. If that is what evoked your comment, consider all uses to be synonomous with "Originator's Rights"... that's what I really mean, after all (despite conforming to the common language, despite the fact 'tis vulgar).
[Europe's Authors' Rights include]...a 'moral right' to control what is done with the work.A writer or her heirs can prevent someone from writing a sequel to her novel. A producer cannot impose cuts in a movie against the director's will (hence only 'director's cut versions of European directors are shown.
Nice point you bring up. Since I was/am fantasizing about possible hacks on copyright law, I hope you don't mind indulging me in a little bit of socratic teaching.
Who is to say where one person's creativity begins and another's ends? For example, consider anime music videos, the result of some bored anime fan grabbing a "random" piece of music and mating it to cuts from whatever anime(s) she/he is fond of. Is this an act of artisic creation? If it is, what rights do the authors who created the original IP that this derives from have? Are their rights so much "stronger" than that of the music video creator that the final result cannot be granted copyright? If the final result is copyrightable, do the original authors have any say in what can or cannot be done with the derivative? What considerations should be included in determining the answers to the above questions (intent & profit being most common)? How do other, related forms of IP (trademarks) potentially change this?
To get back on topic, what you say (and what I can find on Google) about Author's Rights implies a strong mating of copyright and trademarks... which is fine by me (considering that I argue that all IP-- copyright, patents and trademarks-- should both evaporate when the author dies and not be tranferable).
No, because while that would release (say) Michael Chriton's current books into PD, it would also preclude him from writing any more books. You'd have to be insane to think that's a fair trade... and if you're that insane, you're probably going to shoot someone anyway.
Gee, on reread I suppose you're right. I missed this part earlier: Intellectual property rights were a seductive idea that failed two centuries ago. All I saw on first read was an argument for (drastically) shorter copyright, which is how I feel.
I don't know what this writer was thinking though: if IP failed two centuries ago, then the whole problem with Napster-level copyright violations would be a 200-year old running battle. Now if instead you claimed copyright failed one or two decades ago (when mass computing was taking form) you'd find a sympathetic ear here.
My solution (presented here), also includes the requirement that the IP be non-transferable.
I won't argue that Gershwin shouldn't profit off his music, but I don't see any reason to give his grandchildren money for somthing they didn't create.
IANAExpert, but I think IP as a concept can be salvaged with two simple steps: make it ownable only by individuals and non-transferable.
First, this will keep (say) Disney from directly owning their movies. Instead, they will have all employees sign "exclusivity" contracts: the employees still own their IP, but only the contracted company can use it (or assign further users). This may sound wierd and exploitable (or to the uninitiated like a transfer of IP) but it leads directly into phase 2.
You may not transfer your IP to anybody at any time, not even as part of an estate. When you die, so does your IP. Things with multiple authors (most patents, movies, & music, collaborative books, etc) will of course stay within copyright / patent until the last author dies (or the natural term ends) because all of the authors have IP in the work. However, once all of the authors kick the bucket, the artwork instantly hits the Public Domain no matter how long the natural term is.
This method is of course the most simple as it would have put most of the items at issue in Eldred v. Ashcroft into the PD, while still allowing Disney, RIAA et. al to lobby Congress for longer & longer terms without destroying the whole precarious structure.
...lack of copyright protection for authors stifles work and leaves them poor.
Yes, this is true. But consider that the argument being posed in this article (and before the Supremes with Eldred v. Ascroft) is not for the destruction of all copyright but a foreshortening of terms. After all, I won't argue against Gershwin profiting from Rhapsody in Blue but IMO his children shouldn't.
Greatly limiting the "brief [few years] economic advantage" for authors and inventors would destroy the ability for someone to live off their work...
Depends on how you define "life off their work". If you mean "write one story and use those royalties to get filthy rich" then I'm dead set against it-- would you be happy with only one Tom Clancy, Michael Chriton or Stephen King story? But if you mean "write many stories, perhaps spaced a few years apart" then why do you care if copyright on the first book exends past when you write the second or third?
Now, I'm not really arguing about forshortening copyright that drastically-- maybe down to 28 years or so-- you could have 8 or 9 books on the market across that timespan. Surely you can't argue that extending the copyright another ~80 years on top of that will "promote the progress of... arts "?
That would be because the RIAA wants "the Artist" to refer to the sound technician, recording producer, studio owner.... In other words, everyone involved in making a musical recording except the musician. After all, they are the recording artists, not performing artists.
Why not make Copyright function similar to Trademarks (in that they have a given term, can be renewed indefinately for a price, but once they lapse to Public Domain, there's no going back.
Because part of this is about culture. Should Disney hold onto the 6-note phrase that composes "When you wish upon a star" forever, or should some day that piece of social heritage be free any artist to reuse?
Also consider this argument: it takes between 4 and eight notes to make a clear, distinguishable musical phrase. At eight notes times the 88 keys on a standard piano, you have 3.6 billion combinations. But this ignores combinations that are not aestetically pleasing (highest note to lowest note four times over), shifted sequences (chords in particular sound very similar), or the fact that musically there are only 13 notes on the scale. Calculating from a 13 note selection, we have only 815 million eight note combinations. For simplicity in the argument, we can use the full 815 million to represent the reduced 88 note range. How fast do you think that range would be consumed if each one was copywritten separately? (Keep in mind that nine notes form two eight note sequences, and so forth....) I personally cannot decide if this should be measured in weeks or months, but nevertheless I think it would be quite short.
The same could be said for language, but the numbers are far larger (and content versus style issues cannot be so easily handwaved as music theory).
...I can only conclude that the *AA is actually attacking something entirely different than piracy.
They are targeting something other than piracy: competition.
It was one thing when the ability to make quality video or audio was restricted due to editing meaning a multi-million-dollar hardware investment and distrobution of quality products required first-generation analog copying. Then the only people who could publish were the big corporations who could annuitize the cost of the equipment over many movies / albums.
But the digital revolution has changed all that. Now, any citizen with nothing more than a Pentium 3+ machine and a few CD's worth of software (with the potential of using free software on the horizon, if not already possible) creating a competitive product certainly gives the *AA executives massive insomnia. Were I in their shoes, I'd either have resigned by now or shot myself: IMO they're fighting a losing battle (and doing a poor job of it, too). When the cost of entry for a new company is 1% of your per-item budget, industry collapse is inevitable. Therefore, we can argue that the only thing the *AA plans to hold off that collapse by creating a DRM-based artificial barrier to entry.
Who told you it [driving] was a priviledge? I believe the 10th ammendment has something to say about that, though I could have the number wrong. Something about other rights...
Indeed the tenth amendment speaks of rights not enumerated; however, that doesn't make everything a "right". Driving is a privilege. Let me give a quick object lesson about right versus privilege using the "right to work" as a more comprehensible example. I'm not willing to actually concede this point, but for a moment (in argumentation's sake) I shall assume that you do indeed have a right to a job.
Under this system, what happens when three people apply for one job? Assuming they are equally qualified, does one person's right outweigh the others? Perhaps instead we shall force the employer to hire all three (and then consider what happens if he cannot afford such an action)? What changes in this situation if only two applicants are capable of working full time (the third is a college student) or, more likely, they aren't equally qualified? Do these differences alter one's right to a job, and if so, in what manner?
Lesson over, class dismissed. But bring in tomorrow a two page essay deliniating why you believe driving is a right or privilege, including an analysis of the resulting system. Remember, each page over is 10 percent off of your grade. In lieu of a printout I will accept an email. (I am not 100% serious here, but feel free to mail me anyhow.)
Just because the American constitution talks about rights and equality before the law doesn't mean that some people won't have privileges nor does it require total equality (just in a courtroom- which is the only place it matters anyway).
You don't have to put a dollar amount on a human life in order for the answer to the question to be "yes, where do I sign up?" You merely have to define an equivalence between lives.
Actually, if we look at the only equivalence, we see that you don't ever want to kill that hypothetical peasant.
In the long run, in any society, how you treat others is how they treat you. To quote the old cliche, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. When you don't value other people and debase them, don't be surprised when you are debased and considered of no value. And I don't know about you, but for me the last minute of my life is just as precious as the first: I wouldn't give any of it up.
Therefore, since I don't want to be struck down by some dolt half the world away being offered $1M, I wouldn't push the button under any circumstance.
From the CNN article:
[Microsoft attorney John] Warden also took exception to Sullivan's portrayal of Microsoft as some kind of scofflaw. "We haven't failed to get some message. We haven't claimed that we're immune from the law or anything of that kind," he said.
I don't know what planet this fellow just landed from, but Microsoft's behavior speaks far louder than any of their press releases. Statements like this only make me more certain that Microsoft as a company revolves around the legal and marketing divisions, not product development-- since it seems that instead of trying to develop quality software, they push crap out the door (caring nothing for quality or whether patents stand in the way), and just let "the suits"- marketdroids and crack legal teams- sort it out, hypnotizing everyone into buying Windows/Office/WhatHaveYou and then suing into oblivion (or buying out) the meager competition. Furhtermore, it seems the backup plan is dumping product (ala Internet Explorer or Media Player) via the $30b float. In fact, given the above statement and the history of Microsoft Corp., I can now see the rationale behind the vicious statments against GPL'd software they keep publishing: they're jealous. Here are crack programmers worldwide, giving away a quality product, and doing it in a way that Microsoft can't ride on their coattails.
Of course, I must only wonder if any of that jealousy is directed toward the quality aspect or just solely at the widely touted "viral" aspect of GPL software. Wait a minute, what am I saying? Microsoft couldn't define "quality" with a dictionary. Their copy of Meriam/Webster also seems to be missing "scofflaw"....
...many of my friends at university never seem to read anything; I don't know what they fill that gap in their lives with.
Movies. Which, obviously, is an inferior subsitute: with a book you must use your imagination (and thus exercise your mind) while movies spoon feed you everything. Of course, I think that telling a tale yourself (perhaps via a roleplaying group) is better than either of these options for mental development, but that's a different issue.
And eventually, we will have people who don't listen to music at all, and don't miss it either.
Au contraire. I don't see music disappearing-- the early childhood influences factor coupled with the proven mood-altering effects will make music a perennial staple of life here on out (much as food is; disreguarding that food is physical while music is more conceptual in nature). It will, however, change in nature of distrubution and creation, back to the model of live concerts that the pre-recording era had. Just as home movies don't put theatres out of business, bands could (and currently do) support themselves easily by performing concerts.
The real curiosity is going to be seeing how in a "Napsterized" world where the Internet allows for free, worldwide information dissemination, how concerts work. After all, we can't automatically assume that a [hypothetical] Texas-based garage band is going to be able to scrounge the funds to hold a tour in Belgium, if that's where most of their audience is.
If you're not stealing their software then whats the problem?
How about the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty"? If you can't do it in a court of law, why are we letting the big media outlets do it in their press releases?
As I understand it, fair use isn't a "fundamental" right like free speech or voting, it's just a defense against claims of copyright infringement.
I suppose you could look at it that way, where fair use is "merely" a defense against claims when your use is non-infrigning, like a book review or educational quotations. However...
The reason that you are "legally allowed" to write reviews or quote another person's words is the first amendment right to free speech. Such speech in general doesn't meet any of the conditions that would make it silenceable (such as incitement to illegal action); therefore, any technology that would hinder my ability to produce such works become arguably illegal because they would disrupt my exercise of a constitutional right. Likewise, all current DRM proposals are arguably illegal because it forms an (extralegal and technically enforced) extension to copyright of unlimited duration. These arguments take as an underlying proposition that "code is law"; while the US justice system has accepted the precept of code as speech, whether they would accept code as law is yet undecided.
Of course, IANAL (and I suspect nobody in this thread is); however, because of the volatility of the forgoing argument I would place no wagers on the outcome of a case arguing the above issue in front of the Supreme Court (no matter how much I would want them to win).
Of course I see a problem; at the same time, I can understand that maybe the administrators were thinking only about the public perception of their actions and not the practical consequences-- exactly like congress and big business do. Which is where my objection comes from-- universities are supposed to focus on teaching students, not making money off of post-graduate projects or refining & polishing their public image.
That's not what I meant to say, and I'm sorry if I was unclear.
"Computer Science", for me, is both the math to determine whether an algorythm runs in exponential, polynomial, or linear time, but also the theories that drive design (such as monolithic kernels versus modular). Coding is a vital skill in learning to accurately apply the CS theories to real applications, but it does not comprise all of CS; the merging of good coding practices and CS forms "Software Engineering". Teaching only coding, the lesson plan reads "sort a list like this", while a CS lesson is about many "optimal" sorting algorythms (binary trees, QuickSort, etc) and when one would be preferred over another. Software Engineering would have the students write a sorting algorythm and then apply the CS theories of efficiency to analyze them.
When I first read your initial post, it sounded to me like you were proposing teaching coding skills over CS or Software Engineering-- I read the statement "Students are supposed to learn how to write "simple" things..." as making coding skills the focus of the lesson, instead of being simply the application of basic theories to a concrete example.
Students are supposed to learn how to write "simple" things like sorting routines.
No, CS courses are not about learing to write sorting algorythms, compilers, operating systems, or any code at all. Computer Science courses should focus on the theory topics such as "this is how you determine the time it would take for the algorythm to complete" (since this is a very limited, deliberate subset of the Turing Halting question, it is possible). Most students won't understand the theory they know how to write code and put the theory to use writing (or analyzing) code-- but that shouldn't affect the course's focus.
So if when you talk of teaching "how to write... sorting routines" you mean teaching "this is the optimal sort algorythm" not "this is how you determine the efficiency", you are the one who've missed the point of CS education.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but my interpretation of the Eldred v. Ashcroft briefs-- most notably, where they reference that copyright cases are subject to First Amendment analysis-- would be a pretty unambiguous case for constitutional basis for fair use. After all (and this is my own over-simplification) what good is free speech if the is nothing you are legally permitted to say thanks to copyright?
...but my latest thoughts on-- and inspired by-- Eldred v. Ashcroft went to my journal. While I haven't finished reading the transcript, (I've only read through Lessig's first arguments) what I've read so far hasn't changed my thoughts one bit so I'm not posting them again here.
I do have to say this case has really made me see the truth behind the "kill all the lawers" jokes-- that most people don't want to live in a world of such detailed and precise thought. I, for one, will take the lawers and all the evils that go with them if it will get me away from the sloppiness of thought and/or expression that produced the DMCA and is pushing for Digital User Restriction Management in all our computers.
I guess part of the problem here is the use of the term "Intellectual Property". To quote T. Jefferson: Since any number of people can possess an idea at once, we cannot consider it "property" or "an asset" as such things suggest exclusivity in possession, which the above passage shows is "impossible". Futhermore, see this post for my explanation on how "corporate IP" should work.
In short, intellectual creations are not property and the classical arguments about theft, ownership, and ROI do not apply.
Trademarks, which are meant for labelling, need to last as long as the business that uses them exists. Patents are already much, much shorter than this; I don't think you want them lengthened to life + zero.
Okay, I'll concede the point on trademarks... but as to patents & copyright you've missed the critical part of my argument. While I didn't outright say so, I stand for a "natural term" of far less than lifetime (28 years sounds fair to me). However, this term won't play out if the creator dies first.
How could the **AA lobby for longer terms when you've fixed the term at life of the author + zero?
I mean the **AA could lobby for a 300 year copyright... which would of course mean "lifetime" until the day people live for more than 300 years.
Now, let's get into the meat of this proposal. What does it mean that a copyright be non-transferrable?
I detest the term "Intellectual Property" but I would like to also make it clear that I'm lumping patents in this deal; would it be clearer if I called the two "Originator's Rights"? (This also clearly breaks trademark out of the discussion.) This right of control [over distrobution (including language and media translations) in the case of copyright, and use in the case of a patent] cannot be permanantly transfered... and as outlined above, will evaporate at a set date, or upon creator's death, whichever is first.
However, does "non-transferrable" also mean that you can't sell the future revenue from a work for a fixed sum now?
You could, sure. Once we step past the phrase "non-transferable" everything else is covered by contract law. You could (read: would probably be forced to) sign an exclusivity contract with an employer for zero financial return. (I'd like to belive people would be too educated to let this become common, though today's practices speak conrawise.)
If you mean to also tack on some "moral rights" that are non-transferrable, that's more interesting.
No, my intent is to redefine "Intellectual Property" as "Originator's Rights", a set of time-limited rights which the originator of a work or process may not transfer to any other entity, be they corporation or surviving heir.
To me, the interesting question is, when considering movies and such other "massively collaborative" works, defining who is and is not a "creator" (ie. do the actors have a copyright investment in the movie?).
If it has 'value' (you used the p-word which I suspect you were trained to react to in a certain way) then that value should be transferrable.
Umm, no. Think what you will, but I'm being very specific with my words here, and attempting to separate economic value from all other possible measurements.
All works of creativity have value, and it can be argued one way or the other whether that value goes up or down or stays constant over time: consider, if you will, the works of Shakespeare, which have just as much meaning as they did when written (and thus arguably just as much value). However, the economic value of those works has changed over time; they are now so common I can quote them ("To be or not to be"; "My kingdom for a horse"; "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day") and have practically everyone recognize what I mean. Argue how you will, but to me that indicates market saturation and the loss of all economic value.
Secondly, I use "the p-word" to help other, less analytical minds to understand my viewpoint on why IP should not be transferable. In using that particular word, I rapidly ask and answer the question, "Why are we paying someone for the use of an idea which they did not themselves create?"
Of course, I expected to be lambasted for using the other p-word (lit., the "Property" in IP); however, for the purposes of argumentation there exists no clearer common term. If that is what evoked your comment, consider all uses to be synonomous with "Originator's Rights"... that's what I really mean, after all (despite conforming to the common language, despite the fact 'tis vulgar).
[Europe's Authors' Rights include]...a 'moral right' to control what is done with the work.A writer or her heirs can prevent someone from writing a sequel to her novel. A producer cannot impose cuts in a movie against the director's will (hence only 'director's cut versions of European directors are shown.
Nice point you bring up. Since I was/am fantasizing about possible hacks on copyright law, I hope you don't mind indulging me in a little bit of socratic teaching.
Who is to say where one person's creativity begins and another's ends? For example, consider anime music videos, the result of some bored anime fan grabbing a "random" piece of music and mating it to cuts from whatever anime(s) she/he is fond of. Is this an act of artisic creation? If it is, what rights do the authors who created the original IP that this derives from have? Are their rights so much "stronger" than that of the music video creator that the final result cannot be granted copyright? If the final result is copyrightable, do the original authors have any say in what can or cannot be done with the derivative? What considerations should be included in determining the answers to the above questions (intent & profit being most common)? How do other, related forms of IP (trademarks) potentially change this?
To get back on topic, what you say (and what I can find on Google) about Author's Rights implies a strong mating of copyright and trademarks... which is fine by me (considering that I argue that all IP-- copyright, patents and trademarks-- should both evaporate when the author dies and not be tranferable).
No, because while that would release (say) Michael Chriton's current books into PD, it would also preclude him from writing any more books. You'd have to be insane to think that's a fair trade... and if you're that insane, you're probably going to shoot someone anyway.
Gee, on reread I suppose you're right. I missed this part earlier: Intellectual property rights were a seductive idea that failed two centuries ago. All I saw on first read was an argument for (drastically) shorter copyright, which is how I feel.
I don't know what this writer was thinking though: if IP failed two centuries ago, then the whole problem with Napster-level copyright violations would be a 200-year old running battle. Now if instead you claimed copyright failed one or two decades ago (when mass computing was taking form) you'd find a sympathetic ear here.
My solution (presented here), also includes the requirement that the IP be non-transferable.
I won't argue that Gershwin shouldn't profit off his music, but I don't see any reason to give his grandchildren money for somthing they didn't create.
IANAExpert, but I think IP as a concept can be salvaged with two simple steps: make it ownable only by individuals and non-transferable.
First, this will keep (say) Disney from directly owning their movies. Instead, they will have all employees sign "exclusivity" contracts: the employees still own their IP, but only the contracted company can use it (or assign further users). This may sound wierd and exploitable (or to the uninitiated like a transfer of IP) but it leads directly into phase 2.
You may not transfer your IP to anybody at any time, not even as part of an estate. When you die, so does your IP. Things with multiple authors (most patents, movies, & music, collaborative books, etc) will of course stay within copyright / patent until the last author dies (or the natural term ends) because all of the authors have IP in the work. However, once all of the authors kick the bucket, the artwork instantly hits the Public Domain no matter how long the natural term is.
This method is of course the most simple as it would have put most of the items at issue in Eldred v. Ashcroft into the PD, while still allowing Disney, RIAA et. al to lobby Congress for longer & longer terms without destroying the whole precarious structure.
Yes, this is true. But consider that the argument being posed in this article (and before the Supremes with Eldred v. Ascroft) is not for the destruction of all copyright but a foreshortening of terms. After all, I won't argue against Gershwin profiting from Rhapsody in Blue but IMO his children shouldn't.
Greatly limiting the "brief [few years] economic advantage" for authors and inventors would destroy the ability for someone to live off their work...
Depends on how you define "life off their work". If you mean "write one story and use those royalties to get filthy rich" then I'm dead set against it-- would you be happy with only one Tom Clancy, Michael Chriton or Stephen King story? But if you mean "write many stories, perhaps spaced a few years apart" then why do you care if copyright on the first book exends past when you write the second or third?
Now, I'm not really arguing about forshortening copyright that drastically-- maybe down to 28 years or so-- you could have 8 or 9 books on the market across that timespan. Surely you can't argue that extending the copyright another ~80 years on top of that will "promote the progress of
That would be because the RIAA wants "the Artist" to refer to the sound technician, recording producer, studio owner.... In other words, everyone involved in making a musical recording except the musician. After all, they are the recording artists, not performing artists.
Bah.
No, he's lacking one letter; from what I can tell, a second floppy drive would B: all that holds him back though.
Why not make Copyright function similar to Trademarks (in that they have a given term, can be renewed indefinately for a price, but once they lapse to Public Domain, there's no going back.
Because part of this is about culture. Should Disney hold onto the 6-note phrase that composes "When you wish upon a star" forever, or should some day that piece of social heritage be free any artist to reuse?
Also consider this argument: it takes between 4 and eight notes to make a clear, distinguishable musical phrase. At eight notes times the 88 keys on a standard piano, you have 3.6 billion combinations. But this ignores combinations that are not aestetically pleasing (highest note to lowest note four times over), shifted sequences (chords in particular sound very similar), or the fact that musically there are only 13 notes on the scale. Calculating from a 13 note selection, we have only 815 million eight note combinations. For simplicity in the argument, we can use the full 815 million to represent the reduced 88 note range. How fast do you think that range would be consumed if each one was copywritten separately? (Keep in mind that nine notes form two eight note sequences, and so forth....) I personally cannot decide if this should be measured in weeks or months, but nevertheless I think it would be quite short.
The same could be said for language, but the numbers are far larger (and content versus style issues cannot be so easily handwaved as music theory).
...I can only conclude that the *AA is actually attacking something entirely different than piracy.
They are targeting something other than piracy: competition.
It was one thing when the ability to make quality video or audio was restricted due to editing meaning a multi-million-dollar hardware investment and distrobution of quality products required first-generation analog copying. Then the only people who could publish were the big corporations who could annuitize the cost of the equipment over many movies / albums.
But the digital revolution has changed all that. Now, any citizen with nothing more than a Pentium 3+ machine and a few CD's worth of software (with the potential of using free software on the horizon, if not already possible) creating a competitive product certainly gives the *AA executives massive insomnia. Were I in their shoes, I'd either have resigned by now or shot myself: IMO they're fighting a losing battle (and doing a poor job of it, too). When the cost of entry for a new company is 1% of your per-item budget, industry collapse is inevitable. Therefore, we can argue that the only thing the *AA plans to hold off that collapse by creating a DRM-based artificial barrier to entry.
Who told you it [driving] was a priviledge?
I believe the 10th ammendment has something to say about that, though I could have the number wrong. Something about other rights...
Indeed the tenth amendment speaks of rights not enumerated; however, that doesn't make everything a "right". Driving is a privilege. Let me give a quick object lesson about right versus privilege using the "right to work" as a more comprehensible example. I'm not willing to actually concede this point, but for a moment (in argumentation's sake) I shall assume that you do indeed have a right to a job.
Under this system, what happens when three people apply for one job? Assuming they are equally qualified, does one person's right outweigh the others? Perhaps instead we shall force the employer to hire all three (and then consider what happens if he cannot afford such an action)? What changes in this situation if only two applicants are capable of working full time (the third is a college student) or, more likely, they aren't equally qualified? Do these differences alter one's right to a job, and if so, in what manner?
Lesson over, class dismissed. But bring in tomorrow a two page essay deliniating why you believe driving is a right or privilege, including an analysis of the resulting system. Remember, each page over is 10 percent off of your grade. In lieu of a printout I will accept an email. (I am not 100% serious here, but feel free to mail me anyhow.)
Just because the American constitution talks about rights and equality before the law doesn't mean that some people won't have privileges nor does it require total equality (just in a courtroom- which is the only place it matters anyway).
You don't have to put a dollar amount on a human life in order for the answer to the question to be "yes, where do I sign up?" You merely have to define an equivalence between lives.
Actually, if we look at the only equivalence, we see that you don't ever want to kill that hypothetical peasant.
In the long run, in any society, how you treat others is how they treat you. To quote the old cliche, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. When you don't value other people and debase them, don't be surprised when you are debased and considered of no value. And I don't know about you, but for me the last minute of my life is just as precious as the first: I wouldn't give any of it up.
Therefore, since I don't want to be struck down by some dolt half the world away being offered $1M, I wouldn't push the button under any circumstance.
From the CNN article:
[Microsoft attorney John] Warden also took exception to Sullivan's portrayal of Microsoft as some kind of scofflaw. "We haven't failed to get some message. We haven't claimed that we're immune from the law or anything of that kind," he said.
I don't know what planet this fellow just landed from, but Microsoft's behavior speaks far louder than any of their press releases. Statements like this only make me more certain that Microsoft as a company revolves around the legal and marketing divisions, not product development-- since it seems that instead of trying to develop quality software, they push crap out the door (caring nothing for quality or whether patents stand in the way), and just let "the suits"- marketdroids and crack legal teams- sort it out, hypnotizing everyone into buying Windows/Office/WhatHaveYou and then suing into oblivion (or buying out) the meager competition. Furhtermore, it seems the backup plan is dumping product (ala Internet Explorer or Media Player) via the $30b float. In fact, given the above statement and the history of Microsoft Corp., I can now see the rationale behind the vicious statments against GPL'd software they keep publishing: they're jealous. Here are crack programmers worldwide, giving away a quality product, and doing it in a way that Microsoft can't ride on their coattails.
Of course, I must only wonder if any of that jealousy is directed toward the quality aspect or just solely at the widely touted "viral" aspect of GPL software. Wait a minute, what am I saying? Microsoft couldn't define "quality" with a dictionary. Their copy of Meriam/Webster also seems to be missing "scofflaw"....
...many of my friends at university never seem to read anything; I don't know what they fill that gap in their lives with.
Movies. Which, obviously, is an inferior subsitute: with a book you must use your imagination (and thus exercise your mind) while movies spoon feed you everything. Of course, I think that telling a tale yourself (perhaps via a roleplaying group) is better than either of these options for mental development, but that's a different issue.
And eventually, we will have people who don't listen to music at all, and don't miss it either.
Au contraire. I don't see music disappearing-- the early childhood influences factor coupled with the proven mood-altering effects will make music a perennial staple of life here on out (much as food is; disreguarding that food is physical while music is more conceptual in nature). It will, however, change in nature of distrubution and creation, back to the model of live concerts that the pre-recording era had. Just as home movies don't put theatres out of business, bands could (and currently do) support themselves easily by performing concerts.
The real curiosity is going to be seeing how in a "Napsterized" world where the Internet allows for free, worldwide information dissemination, how concerts work. After all, we can't automatically assume that a [hypothetical] Texas-based garage band is going to be able to scrounge the funds to hold a tour in Belgium, if that's where most of their audience is.
See my reply to the sister comment of yours. Mainly, I disagree with your terms, not your conclusion.
If you're not stealing their software then whats the problem?
How about the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty"? If you can't do it in a court of law, why are we letting the big media outlets do it in their press releases?
As I understand it, fair use isn't a "fundamental" right like free speech or voting, it's just a defense against claims of copyright infringement.
I suppose you could look at it that way, where fair use is "merely" a defense against claims when your use is non-infrigning, like a book review or educational quotations. However...
The reason that you are "legally allowed" to write reviews or quote another person's words is the first amendment right to free speech. Such speech in general doesn't meet any of the conditions that would make it silenceable (such as incitement to illegal action); therefore, any technology that would hinder my ability to produce such works become arguably illegal because they would disrupt my exercise of a constitutional right. Likewise, all current DRM proposals are arguably illegal because it forms an (extralegal and technically enforced) extension to copyright of unlimited duration. These arguments take as an underlying proposition that "code is law"; while the US justice system has accepted the precept of code as speech, whether they would accept code as law is yet undecided.
Of course, IANAL (and I suspect nobody in this thread is); however, because of the volatility of the forgoing argument I would place no wagers on the outcome of a case arguing the above issue in front of the Supreme Court (no matter how much I would want them to win).
Of course I see a problem; at the same time, I can understand that maybe the administrators were thinking only about the public perception of their actions and not the practical consequences-- exactly like congress and big business do. Which is where my objection comes from-- universities are supposed to focus on teaching students, not making money off of post-graduate projects or refining & polishing their public image.
That's not what I meant to say, and I'm sorry if I was unclear.
"Computer Science", for me, is both the math to determine whether an algorythm runs in exponential, polynomial, or linear time, but also the theories that drive design (such as monolithic kernels versus modular). Coding is a vital skill in learning to accurately apply the CS theories to real applications, but it does not comprise all of CS; the merging of good coding practices and CS forms "Software Engineering". Teaching only coding, the lesson plan reads "sort a list like this", while a CS lesson is about many "optimal" sorting algorythms (binary trees, QuickSort, etc) and when one would be preferred over another. Software Engineering would have the students write a sorting algorythm and then apply the CS theories of efficiency to analyze them.
When I first read your initial post, it sounded to me like you were proposing teaching coding skills over CS or Software Engineering-- I read the statement "Students are supposed to learn how to write "simple" things..." as making coding skills the focus of the lesson, instead of being simply the application of basic theories to a concrete example.
Students are supposed to learn how to write "simple" things like sorting routines.
No, CS courses are not about learing to write sorting algorythms, compilers, operating systems, or any code at all. Computer Science courses should focus on the theory topics such as "this is how you determine the time it would take for the algorythm to complete" (since this is a very limited, deliberate subset of the Turing Halting question, it is possible). Most students won't understand the theory they know how to write code and put the theory to use writing (or analyzing) code-- but that shouldn't affect the course's focus.
So if when you talk of teaching "how to write... sorting routines" you mean teaching "this is the optimal sort algorythm" not "this is how you determine the efficiency", you are the one who've missed the point of CS education.