This discussion has attracted a good many people and a lot of really good comments on the copyright dilemma. For what it's worth, I thought I'd toss another concrete block into the pond:
A creative person absolutely needs and deserves to be paid for his creativity. But how? Up to now, it's been:
-- If a work can't be copied, sell tickets.
-- If a work can be copied, the creator controls, and can get a piece of the action, one way or another.
Today, digital technology has thrown a monkey wrench ("spanner" in the UK!) into the works. It is no longer physically possible to enforce copyright laws
comprehensively, or fairly, or -- for most practical purposes -- at all. There is no technical improvement on the horizon which would make any significant
difference in that; and so far, the only technical solutions which have been even imagined all involve the "big brother" syndrome and a massive erosion of
privacy -- a cure worse than the disease, because it would damage everybody.
The plain truth is, once something is published these days, it becomes public domain de facto, although certainly not de jure. For every 10.000 copyright
violations, maybe one might have effective action taken. It's too expensive to even TRY to enforce copyrights unless there's some way to collect big money.
Mind you, many people do respect copyrights -- I'm one! -- and the copyright system is still producing money. Still, the problem is clear:
The whole concept of "copyright" has become unworkable. BUT -- there is no substitute for it on the horizon, either. So it's still there, and those who depend
upon it will simply have to try harder and harder to make it work, which is kinda like putting a band-aid on a severed limb. But they have no choice
-- and they are NOT stealing! Any person has a right to get paid for their work. Copyright may be obsolute and unworkable now, but it remains an honest
method of protecting the rights of honest people.
I got no answers for this situation. It seems to me we need a different way, a better way, for creative people to get paid -- based in reality and upheld by
enforceable law. But I do NOT know what that is.
The original post which started this party:
1. Is probably NOT true, and even if it is true,
2. Can safely be ignored.
First of all: Anybody ever hear of this before now? I haven't, and I've dealt with copyright laws for 40 years. I'm not a lawyer (although I've played one on the radio), but with all the squillions of dollars lawyers have collected in copyright cases, how come this point has never come up in any case I've heard of?
But let's assume I'm just ignorant, and look at the text:
It refers to "...a court decision..." -- WHAT court decision? Where? When? I've never heard of it and haven't found it. Furthermore, the courts have consistently ruled in favor of the uniformity of Federal laws over the years; this alleged ruling goes against that trend. And even if it does exist, was it overturned on appeal -- or rendered nugatory by later legislation?
The post also talks about "...some state laws..." Which states? Are the laws still on the books there? Do they require registration? Do they apply only to recordings made within the borders of that state? Do the rights expire?
And what about recordings made in states which did NOT "step up" with their own copyright laws? Would they be public domain?
Finally, the blanket statement at the end is demonstrably false. "ANY recorded work from before 1972..." does not take into account recordings which were deliberately placed in public domain -- there were certainly some of those. And by the internal logic of this post, it would seem to imply that "some state laws" apply to all states, which is silly. At the very least, the case is overstated. Moreover, the figure of 2049 is not derived, merely asserted.
Until somebody comes forward with some specifics on these points, all we have here is an unverified and unsubstantiated rumor, that in its present form is suspiciously vague, contains apparent internal contradictions, and seems most unlikely to be true.
However, I could be wrong. And there's no requirement for a lawyer to be RIGHT when he files a lawsuit. But somebody commented, most perceptively, that state laws must be pursued on a state-by-state basis. Copyright violation is not a crime, it's a civil matter, and the burden is on the victim to haul the perpetrator into court and prove the violation. Even I could think of a bunch of questions right off the bat. A smart legal beagle defending a client could doubtless raise a great many more.
Enforcing a copyright on this basis is guaranteed to be even more expensive than suing under Federal law, and given all the potential legal hurdles and obstacles, would likely be regarded as a long shot. If I were a lawyer, and a client wanted to hire me to do this, I'd want to be paid in cash -- in advance.
The bottom line? Ignore this. You're far more likely to be struck by lightning.
Slashdot Mirror
This discussion has attracted a good many people and a lot of really good comments on the copyright dilemma. For what it's worth, I thought I'd toss another concrete block into the pond: A creative person absolutely needs and deserves to be paid for his creativity. But how? Up to now, it's been: -- If a work can't be copied, sell tickets. -- If a work can be copied, the creator controls, and can get a piece of the action, one way or another. Today, digital technology has thrown a monkey wrench ("spanner" in the UK!) into the works. It is no longer physically possible to enforce copyright laws comprehensively, or fairly, or -- for most practical purposes -- at all. There is no technical improvement on the horizon which would make any significant difference in that; and so far, the only technical solutions which have been even imagined all involve the "big brother" syndrome and a massive erosion of privacy -- a cure worse than the disease, because it would damage everybody. The plain truth is, once something is published these days, it becomes public domain de facto, although certainly not de jure. For every 10.000 copyright violations, maybe one might have effective action taken. It's too expensive to even TRY to enforce copyrights unless there's some way to collect big money. Mind you, many people do respect copyrights -- I'm one! -- and the copyright system is still producing money. Still, the problem is clear: The whole concept of "copyright" has become unworkable. BUT -- there is no substitute for it on the horizon, either. So it's still there, and those who depend upon it will simply have to try harder and harder to make it work, which is kinda like putting a band-aid on a severed limb. But they have no choice -- and they are NOT stealing! Any person has a right to get paid for their work. Copyright may be obsolute and unworkable now, but it remains an honest method of protecting the rights of honest people. I got no answers for this situation. It seems to me we need a different way, a better way, for creative people to get paid -- based in reality and upheld by enforceable law. But I do NOT know what that is.
The original post which started this party: 1. Is probably NOT true, and even if it is true, 2. Can safely be ignored. First of all: Anybody ever hear of this before now? I haven't, and I've dealt with copyright laws for 40 years. I'm not a lawyer (although I've played one on the radio), but with all the squillions of dollars lawyers have collected in copyright cases, how come this point has never come up in any case I've heard of? But let's assume I'm just ignorant, and look at the text: It refers to "...a court decision..." -- WHAT court decision? Where? When? I've never heard of it and haven't found it. Furthermore, the courts have consistently ruled in favor of the uniformity of Federal laws over the years; this alleged ruling goes against that trend. And even if it does exist, was it overturned on appeal -- or rendered nugatory by later legislation? The post also talks about "...some state laws..." Which states? Are the laws still on the books there? Do they require registration? Do they apply only to recordings made within the borders of that state? Do the rights expire? And what about recordings made in states which did NOT "step up" with their own copyright laws? Would they be public domain? Finally, the blanket statement at the end is demonstrably false. "ANY recorded work from before 1972..." does not take into account recordings which were deliberately placed in public domain -- there were certainly some of those. And by the internal logic of this post, it would seem to imply that "some state laws" apply to all states, which is silly. At the very least, the case is overstated. Moreover, the figure of 2049 is not derived, merely asserted. Until somebody comes forward with some specifics on these points, all we have here is an unverified and unsubstantiated rumor, that in its present form is suspiciously vague, contains apparent internal contradictions, and seems most unlikely to be true. However, I could be wrong. And there's no requirement for a lawyer to be RIGHT when he files a lawsuit. But somebody commented, most perceptively, that state laws must be pursued on a state-by-state basis. Copyright violation is not a crime, it's a civil matter, and the burden is on the victim to haul the perpetrator into court and prove the violation. Even I could think of a bunch of questions right off the bat. A smart legal beagle defending a client could doubtless raise a great many more. Enforcing a copyright on this basis is guaranteed to be even more expensive than suing under Federal law, and given all the potential legal hurdles and obstacles, would likely be regarded as a long shot. If I were a lawyer, and a client wanted to hire me to do this, I'd want to be paid in cash -- in advance. The bottom line? Ignore this. You're far more likely to be struck by lightning.