If your California Senators and/or Representatives were in office during 1998, they NEED to be voted OUT. 1998 legislation - the NET act, the DMCA, and the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act - all 3 great gains for corporate America and all 3 great losses for the American Public.
I, too, have written Congressmen. Here's the reply I received to a letter I sent detailing how the copyright laws have gotten beyond any possible Constitutional interpretation.
Dear Ms. Aker:
Thank for contacting me regarding copyright law and its relationship to the United States Constitution. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts.
I believe the United States government should always remain within the boundaries set in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers. Regardless of the length of time the copyright laws allow private ownership to the original creators of a piece of material, I do not believe the material is constitutionally required to be surrendered to the government. Should legislation regarding this matter be brought before the House I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me and please do not hesitate to do so in the future. Input such as yours helps me to better serve the Ninth District.
Respectfully, Nathan Deal
This letter clearly shows that a)he has never read the Constitution, b)he hasn't a single clue what he's talking about or c)that he just wants to say something he thinks might placate me.
I especially liked the part where he says private ownership belongs to the creators - yeah right. And then there's where he seems to think that these works are surrendered to the Government? Excuse me, since when is the Public Domain the government. Expiration of copyright is a limitation on monopoly and YES it is written plain and clear in the Constitution.
When I vote, I simply vote out all of the incumbents, no matter what party they are. If they'd been doing their job we wouldn't be having these problems. The only differences between Napster and the radio is that you can choose what you hear with Napster software and Napster doesn't pay ASCAP or BMI. To the enduser, the latter is immaterial. If recording is legal, recording is legal and several landmark cases have declared that recording is legal. Analog vs Digital isn't the issue at all.
Check out my website - http://www.limitingcopyright.com
It is already pretty bad. I am comparing the world today with Nazi Germany. The Propaganda put out by those in power (the corporations - not the politians) have blinded the upright people into believing something that isn't true. Copyright owners do not OWN the content they publish. They own the COPYRIGHT. The Public owns the publication. This very basic misunderstanding is very profitable and the copyright owners will do whatever they must to engender its continuation.
Lawsuits are the modern version of the Gestapo only using money as a threat instead of outright fear. The end result is the same - those who might challenge those with power can't afford to do so and have no support from the masses (who are believing the lies they hear from those in power.)
And in this case, one of the surest methods of changing the balance of power back toward the people, education, is being threatened.
Censorship, monopolies, the threat of losing everything we own -- aren't those the reasons we declared independence from the British?
In a likeness of the Boston Tea Party, people would break into CD stores and break all of the CDs. In a likeness of the storming of the Bastille, people would break into the RIAA offices and start beating people.
Napster is far less violent and, though it doesn't hurt the Recordiing Industry (as has been proven by their continued profits) it makes them think they're being hurt. More than the break in at a single store (though perhaps less than a storming of the RIAA,) Napster and Gnutella users are saying they've had enough of being overcharged and given no choice but to buy an entire album for a few songs.
Would you really prefer one of those other kinds of protests?
Oh, and how do you know that there aren't people out there downloading every night, all the recent material (especially Metallica) and then smiling as they delete each and every one of them?
Okay, here's something you may not have considered. When someone takes something from a store it is called 'theft' and they can be prosecuted under criminal law. When someone copies something illegally it is called 'copyright infringement' and it is handled as a civil case - not criminal. How, then, is Copyright Infringement stealing? Surely if it were some kind of genuine THEFT it would be prosecuted in the same manner.
'people trying to get free songs are a lot like shoplifters'
For some, maybe, but here are some reasons I disagree with even the idea that downloading music off of the internet is theft.
1. When the Recording Industry lost their protest against recording equipment and didn't take their music away from Radio Stations, they surrendered the victory to those who wish to record. Just because the medium has changed doesn't mean the rules should. If home recording is okay, it doesn't matter if it's a tape recorded song off of the radio or an MP3 off the internet. In neither case was the artist (or recording studio) compensated for that recording.
2. Since the Publishing Industry has stolen 67 years (minimum) from the Public Domain, I really have a problem feeling sorry for them. Especially since the Constitution doesn't even allow them to own those copyrights and they had to lobby Congress to make their ownership legal.
For more information on copyright and how it's been twisted into a tool of greed check out my website -- http://www.limitingcopyright.com
jms - I have a website on the subject of copyright and I would really like to have your comment posted as a short article to this site, but, guess what? You own the copyright and only you can make that decision (according to law.) Check out my site - everyone is welcome... This is a very important issue and the more people who become involved the better chance we have of resolving this crisis in our favor.
http://www.limitingcopyright.com
I have considered this kind of thing before - and the shame of it is that it won't work the way you would want it to. Increasing the cost of copyright as each year passes would not guarantee the works would quickly move to the public domain. It would simply mean that older works would increase in cost - the copyright costs passed down to the consumer. Not a good thing. What we need is Thomas Jefferson's set term limit (no argument - no chance of extensions - he wanted it as the 9th Amendment.)
check out my website about copyright ---
http://www.limitingcopyright.com
Mary Bono believed, like her husband, that copyright should last forever. It was Jack Valenti (MPAA) who said that making it forever minus one day would change an Unconstitutional length of time into one that did have limits.
I, personally, think copyrights should last the same amount of time as patents. Essentially, they're the same thing, protection for creators.
All content IS copyrighted in the first place - read the current copyright act (if you have a strong stomach.) Very, very little recorded material is in the Public Domain since, if it were recorded after 1923 it has an automatic copyright lasting an absolute minimum of 70 years and, more likely with music, for 95 years. Congress has been systematically lengthening copyright term limits since 1909. Every time one limit is almost over, they tack more time onto it - a perpetual copyright handed out piecemeal.
For more information check out my copyright website at http://limitingcopyright.com -- a lot of good links to important articles.
By the plain words of the Constitution, life of the author is questionable. After all, the intent is to get the author to create more. If he writes something really great and gets himself set for life, why bother to write any more? I mean, I wouldn't keep going to work if it weren't necessary for paying the bills. By Constitutional standards the original copyright was more than adequate to reward the authors. I also do not think that it falls within the rights of the author to sell their copyright - which is where the Recording companies and some publishing houses make their fortunes, buying the copyrights from the true authors or making them sell the copyrights in order to get published.
In 1790 copyright lasted only 14 years, renewable for another 14 (maximum of 28.)
In 1831 this was extended to 28 years, renewable for another 14 (maximum of 42.)
In 1909 this was extended again to 28 years, renewable for another 28 years (maximum of 56.)
In 1976 the requirement for renewal was eliminated and term was set at life of the author +50 years and 75 years on works for hire (movies, etc.)
In 1998 this term limit was extended yet again, to life of the author +70 years, and 95 years on works for hire.
When Harlan Ellison first started publishing (some time during the 50s or 60s) the term was 56 years maximum. Since the requirement for renewal was eliminated in 1976, he was never required to choose whether or not to renew (a lot of works were not renewed since they are unlikely to earn enough after the initial period to make it worth while) it could be said that any works published before 1973 might very well have been in the public domain and perfectly legitimate content for a website on classical scifi.
This just goes to show how much damage Congress can do by telling people that their works will be protected even after they are dead - when it wasn't that way when the author decided to create the work in question.
My first response to this was "That's a stupid question!" But then I thought about it for a moment and I've decided it has to depend upon your definition of 'good.'
Is it an evil thing to protect yourself, your children, your home from someone threatening you? Is it evil to protect someone else from threat? If so, handguns have no redeeming features and must be evil.
My opinion: the gun is a tool, like a computer, like a knife, like a hammer. It isn't the tool that is good or evil, but the use to which it is put.
The influence of computer games on a child's psyche is no more than that of television or movies. Blowing people's heads off in a game or watching the Terminator open fire or Buffy staking a vampire are pretty much the same thing, which is - stress relief. And it is totally non-violent despite its seemingly violent nature. Pressing the fire button on a keyboard, mouse or joystick is not at all comparable to pulling the trigger of a gun and actually killing someone.
The morality of these games is a totally different issue and belongs in a church or family discussion and no where else. Part of America's heritage is allowing everyone to have their own morals and religious convictions. Anyone who tries to press their morals onto someone else is wrong, whether they're a TV evangelist, a next-door neighbor (a/. commenter) or a politician.
You are 100% right when you say the responsibility for children's upbringing belongs to the parents - and it is a real shame that most of today's parents are avoiding the duty.
Disagree - taxes are not the answer (more taxes are NEVER the answer.) What we need is a way to pay the artists that we like to listen to. If I downloaded something, didn't like it and immediately deleted it, I shouldn't be required to pay for it. On the other hand, it is in the listener's interest to support an artist they like, so the artist will create more. Payment should be voluntary, and equitable to what is gained, and only the listener can make that decision. Have you ever purchased an album to find that the only song you like on the entire thing is the one you bought it for? Why should you pay for the entire album? With downloads you could pick and choose, paying only for those you decide to keep. Maybe have a central site where you can make the payment, the entire amount going to the artist and the listener deciding the value.
In 1976 Congress increased the length of time of a copyright to the author/artist's life plus 67 years. In 1995 Congress increased the time of a corporate copyright to well beyond a century (120 years, I think.) So any movie made before 1880 would be in the public domain. Know of any? Of course not. Congress has been systematically stealing from the public domain since 1909 when it was increased from a maximum of 28 years to an automatic 56 years. Write your congressmen, tell them you want Tolkien, Charlie Chaplin, and Mickey Mouse in the public domain where they belong. I have already done so.
I'm very tired of hearing how copyright law was enacted to protect artists and authors and to promote further creations by these people. That may have been the popular hype, but it wasn't true. Copyright was enacted to protect the investments of publishing companies (publishing was expensive in those days and it took a sizable investment to accomplish.) The artists were paid once, when the work was purchased, and/or a small percentage of each copy sold. When a MP3 is made available to the users of the internet, there is no publishing cost associated with it. Therefore, there is no sizable investment to protect and no reason for the work to be protected by laws meant to protect those investments. Take apart the word 'publish.' What does it mean? Simply, it means to make available to the public. (The word doesn't include any mention of recompense.) If you wish to maintain control of something, keep it to yourself, don't offer it out to the world.
Slashdot Mirror
If your California Senators and/or Representatives were in office during 1998, they NEED to be voted OUT. 1998 legislation - the NET act, the DMCA, and the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act - all 3 great gains for corporate America and all 3 great losses for the American Public.
I, too, have written Congressmen. Here's the reply I received to a letter I sent detailing how the copyright laws have gotten beyond any possible Constitutional interpretation.
Dear Ms. Aker:
Thank for contacting me regarding copyright law and its relationship to the United States Constitution. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts.
I believe the United States government should always remain within the boundaries set in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers. Regardless of the length of time the copyright laws allow private ownership to the original creators of a piece of material, I do not believe the material is constitutionally required to be surrendered to the government. Should legislation regarding this matter be brought before the House I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me and please do not hesitate to do so in the future. Input such as yours helps me to better serve the Ninth District.
Respectfully, Nathan Deal
This letter clearly shows that a)he has never read the Constitution, b)he hasn't a single clue what he's talking about or c)that he just wants to say something he thinks might placate me.
I especially liked the part where he says private ownership belongs to the creators - yeah right. And then there's where he seems to think that these works are surrendered to the Government? Excuse me, since when is the Public Domain the government. Expiration of copyright is a limitation on monopoly and YES it is written plain and clear in the Constitution.
When I vote, I simply vote out all of the incumbents, no matter what party they are. If they'd been doing their job we wouldn't be having these problems. The only differences between Napster and the radio is that you can choose what you hear with Napster software and Napster doesn't pay ASCAP or BMI. To the enduser, the latter is immaterial. If recording is legal, recording is legal and several landmark cases have declared that recording is legal. Analog vs Digital isn't the issue at all.
Check out my website - http://www.limitingcopyright.com
It is already pretty bad. I am comparing the world today with Nazi Germany. The Propaganda put out by those in power (the corporations - not the politians) have blinded the upright people into believing something that isn't true. Copyright owners do not OWN the content they publish. They own the COPYRIGHT. The Public owns the publication. This very basic misunderstanding is very profitable and the copyright owners will do whatever they must to engender its continuation.
Lawsuits are the modern version of the Gestapo only using money as a threat instead of outright fear. The end result is the same - those who might challenge those with power can't afford to do so and have no support from the masses (who are believing the lies they hear from those in power.)
And in this case, one of the surest methods of changing the balance of power back toward the people, education, is being threatened.
Censorship, monopolies, the threat of losing everything we own -- aren't those the reasons we declared independence from the British?
http://www.limitingcopyright.com
In a likeness of the Boston Tea Party, people would break into CD stores and break all of the CDs. In a likeness of the storming of the Bastille, people would break into the RIAA offices and start beating people.
Napster is far less violent and, though it doesn't hurt the Recordiing Industry (as has been proven by their continued profits) it makes them think they're being hurt. More than the break in at a single store (though perhaps less than a storming of the RIAA,) Napster and Gnutella users are saying they've had enough of being overcharged and given no choice but to buy an entire album for a few songs.
Would you really prefer one of those other kinds of protests?
Oh, and how do you know that there aren't people out there downloading every night, all the recent material (especially Metallica) and then smiling as they delete each and every one of them?
Okay, here's something you may not have considered. When someone takes something from a store it is called 'theft' and they can be prosecuted under criminal law. When someone copies something illegally it is called 'copyright infringement' and it is handled as a civil case - not criminal. How, then, is Copyright Infringement stealing? Surely if it were some kind of genuine THEFT it would be prosecuted in the same manner.
Must not be stealing!!!
http://www.limitingcopyright.com
'people trying to get free songs are a lot like shoplifters'
For some, maybe, but here are some reasons I disagree with even the idea that downloading music off of the internet is theft.
1. When the Recording Industry lost their protest against recording equipment and didn't take their music away from Radio Stations, they surrendered the victory to those who wish to record. Just because the medium has changed doesn't mean the rules should. If home recording is okay, it doesn't matter if it's a tape recorded song off of the radio or an MP3 off the internet. In neither case was the artist (or recording studio) compensated for that recording.
2. Since the Publishing Industry has stolen 67 years (minimum) from the Public Domain, I really have a problem feeling sorry for them. Especially since the Constitution doesn't even allow them to own those copyrights and they had to lobby Congress to make their ownership legal.
For more information on copyright and how it's been twisted into a tool of greed check out my website -- http://www.limitingcopyright.com
jms - I have a website on the subject of copyright and I would really like to have your comment posted as a short article to this site, but, guess what? You own the copyright and only you can make that decision (according to law.) Check out my site - everyone is welcome... This is a very important issue and the more people who become involved the better chance we have of resolving this crisis in our favor. http://www.limitingcopyright.com
I have considered this kind of thing before - and the shame of it is that it won't work the way you would want it to. Increasing the cost of copyright as each year passes would not guarantee the works would quickly move to the public domain. It would simply mean that older works would increase in cost - the copyright costs passed down to the consumer. Not a good thing. What we need is Thomas Jefferson's set term limit (no argument - no chance of extensions - he wanted it as the 9th Amendment.)
check out my website about copyright ---
http://www.limitingcopyright.com
Mary Bono believed, like her husband, that copyright should last forever. It was Jack Valenti (MPAA) who said that making it forever minus one day would change an Unconstitutional length of time into one that did have limits. I, personally, think copyrights should last the same amount of time as patents. Essentially, they're the same thing, protection for creators.
All content IS copyrighted in the first place - read the current copyright act (if you have a strong stomach.) Very, very little recorded material is in the Public Domain since, if it were recorded after 1923 it has an automatic copyright lasting an absolute minimum of 70 years and, more likely with music, for 95 years. Congress has been systematically lengthening copyright term limits since 1909. Every time one limit is almost over, they tack more time onto it - a perpetual copyright handed out piecemeal. For more information check out my copyright website at http://limitingcopyright.com -- a lot of good links to important articles.
By the plain words of the Constitution, life of the author is questionable. After all, the intent is to get the author to create more. If he writes something really great and gets himself set for life, why bother to write any more? I mean, I wouldn't keep going to work if it weren't necessary for paying the bills. By Constitutional standards the original copyright was more than adequate to reward the authors. I also do not think that it falls within the rights of the author to sell their copyright - which is where the Recording companies and some publishing houses make their fortunes, buying the copyrights from the true authors or making them sell the copyrights in order to get published.
In 1790 copyright lasted only 14 years, renewable for another 14 (maximum of 28.) In 1831 this was extended to 28 years, renewable for another 14 (maximum of 42.) In 1909 this was extended again to 28 years, renewable for another 28 years (maximum of 56.) In 1976 the requirement for renewal was eliminated and term was set at life of the author +50 years and 75 years on works for hire (movies, etc.) In 1998 this term limit was extended yet again, to life of the author +70 years, and 95 years on works for hire. When Harlan Ellison first started publishing (some time during the 50s or 60s) the term was 56 years maximum. Since the requirement for renewal was eliminated in 1976, he was never required to choose whether or not to renew (a lot of works were not renewed since they are unlikely to earn enough after the initial period to make it worth while) it could be said that any works published before 1973 might very well have been in the public domain and perfectly legitimate content for a website on classical scifi. This just goes to show how much damage Congress can do by telling people that their works will be protected even after they are dead - when it wasn't that way when the author decided to create the work in question.
My first response to this was "That's a stupid question!" But then I thought about it for a moment and I've decided it has to depend upon your definition of 'good.' Is it an evil thing to protect yourself, your children, your home from someone threatening you? Is it evil to protect someone else from threat? If so, handguns have no redeeming features and must be evil. My opinion: the gun is a tool, like a computer, like a knife, like a hammer. It isn't the tool that is good or evil, but the use to which it is put.
The influence of computer games on a child's psyche is no more than that of television or movies. Blowing people's heads off in a game or watching the Terminator open fire or Buffy staking a vampire are pretty much the same thing, which is - stress relief. And it is totally non-violent despite its seemingly violent nature. Pressing the fire button on a keyboard, mouse or joystick is not at all comparable to pulling the trigger of a gun and actually killing someone. The morality of these games is a totally different issue and belongs in a church or family discussion and no where else. Part of America's heritage is allowing everyone to have their own morals and religious convictions. Anyone who tries to press their morals onto someone else is wrong, whether they're a TV evangelist, a next-door neighbor (a /. commenter) or a politician.
You are 100% right when you say the responsibility for children's upbringing belongs to the parents - and it is a real shame that most of today's parents are avoiding the duty.
Disagree - taxes are not the answer (more taxes are NEVER the answer.) What we need is a way to pay the artists that we like to listen to. If I downloaded something, didn't like it and immediately deleted it, I shouldn't be required to pay for it. On the other hand, it is in the listener's interest to support an artist they like, so the artist will create more. Payment should be voluntary, and equitable to what is gained, and only the listener can make that decision. Have you ever purchased an album to find that the only song you like on the entire thing is the one you bought it for? Why should you pay for the entire album? With downloads you could pick and choose, paying only for those you decide to keep. Maybe have a central site where you can make the payment, the entire amount going to the artist and the listener deciding the value.
In 1976 Congress increased the length of time of a copyright to the author/artist's life plus 67 years. In 1995 Congress increased the time of a corporate copyright to well beyond a century (120 years, I think.) So any movie made before 1880 would be in the public domain. Know of any? Of course not. Congress has been systematically stealing from the public domain since 1909 when it was increased from a maximum of 28 years to an automatic 56 years. Write your congressmen, tell them you want Tolkien, Charlie Chaplin, and Mickey Mouse in the public domain where they belong. I have already done so.
I'm very tired of hearing how copyright law was enacted to protect artists and authors and to promote further creations by these people. That may have been the popular hype, but it wasn't true. Copyright was enacted to protect the investments of publishing companies (publishing was expensive in those days and it took a sizable investment to accomplish.) The artists were paid once, when the work was purchased, and/or a small percentage of each copy sold. When a MP3 is made available to the users of the internet, there is no publishing cost associated with it. Therefore, there is no sizable investment to protect and no reason for the work to be protected by laws meant to protect those investments. Take apart the word 'publish.' What does it mean? Simply, it means to make available to the public. (The word doesn't include any mention of recompense.) If you wish to maintain control of something, keep it to yourself, don't offer it out to the world.