Well, what I'm saying is that we have the AHRA, and that in the rare case that someone complies with the AHRA, they are protected from being sued based on their AHRA-compliant reproduction. And third parties who would ordinarily face secondary liability suits that used that reproduction as the necessary direct infringement, are also protected by the AHRA. So if Alice distributes a CD to Bob, with knowledge at the time that Bob will make a copy pursuant to the AHRA, Bob cannot be sued, and Alice cannot be sued for her contribution to Bob's non-actionable infringement. But distribution is an act of direct infringement, and so Alice could be sued for that, and the AHRA would not protect her. Neither would fair use, most likely. And due to the special exception in first sale, neither would first sale.
I think that there is no reason to treat music specially. If we had an AHRA that applied to videos instead of to music, then Alice would be protected in the above scenario, mutatis mutandis. And even if we didn't, she would at least have a fighting chance in arguing that first sale effectively protected her under a secondary liability theory.
So first, if we're going to have an exception for some reproduction, then we ought to permit lending incident to that. For AHRA cases, rare as they are, the AHRA moots your objection to permitting reproduction. Second, it would be desirable to treat music the same as other media. The world of books does not seem to be adversely affected by libraries and book-lending, both public and private. The world of film does not seem to be adversely affected by libraries, video rental stores, and video-lending, both public and private. I do not see that music is any different at all.
As for whether I personally think that reproduction is okay -- as apart from whether the law permits it at times, e.g. under the AHRA -- I think that an excellent change to copyright law would be an exception for all activity engaged in on a strongly noncommercial basis (e.g. no ads, no exchange of money, no exchange of works) by natural persons. This is because the "very principle of copyright" is not that reproduction should be regulated, but that the public interest should be maximally satisfied. Part of the public interest is encouraging works to be created and published, but another, equal part is having no or minimal copyrights. If the benefit of the affected persons not being restrained by copyright would outweigh any lack of benefit caused by a reduction in works created and published, then it ought to be done. I think that this is likely the case, especially given that we're very nearly in that situation now, and yet plenty of works still seem to be created.
True, but if the transfer is perceived as too much of a straw transaction then it will be ignored. It would be risky to try to do get around the limits in 109 without losing too much control. (e.g. giving your friend the copy and then having them never give it back, which would be fair of them if you had really given it in the first place and had no further interest in it)
Also, n.b. that royalties are not paid on all blank media. Only on certain blank media. For example, an ordinary CDR is not the same as an Audio CDR; only the latter has an AHRA royalty.
My problem with it is that I think that there should not be a special rule for phonorecords. They should fall fully under section 109, the same as videos, books, and everything else. No one seems to think that it is objectionable that a video rental store ought to be able to buy copies of DVDs from ordinary retail stores and then rent them to the public for profit without the authorization of the copyright holder. Why shouldn't the same be true for music? It's common in other places around the world (e.g. Japan) and seems not to have had adverse effects. I think that we ought to do it here.
Well, if you made a stand-alone device that could connect to Bit Torrent and which could comply with SCMS, and you paid the royalty on it, and which wrote to some sort of conveniently removable media (e.g. a thumb drive), then you'd be fine. It's just a bit of an engineering challenge and not really all that likely to sell since people will probably just ignore the protection it confers, what with the price of the thing. But certainly the statute doesn't seem to prohibit networked devices from qualifying. It's just that it's tough to build anything interesting that complies with SCMS, it seems.
No, you can't give them to your friends. That would infringe the distribution right due to an extremely careful bit of rewording of the bill that RIAA got through without anyone really thinking about the effect. You see, the big exception to the distribution right is the first sale exception, which applies to any copy lawfully made under the Copyright Act. But AHRA compliant copies are not lawfully made, technically, they're just not actionably made. That is, they're infringing but no lawsuit can be brought on the basis of their making.
So it'd be better to lend people the original, lawfully made CDs and let people make their own copies. Except of course that the RIAA also got a law passed to prohibit the lending and rental of music (otherwise it'd be just as legal as video rental, which anyone can do for free, so long as they use lawfully made copies) with broad language that probably applies to individuals. This means that when you lend a friend a CD, you probably have to rely on fair use, which is fine for ordinary lending, I'm sure, but probably no good if you're doing so for the purpose of having them make copies as a substitute for having to buy their own.
But since the AHRA is so rarely applicable due to all of the conditions that go with it (it only works if you use certain, uncommon, media or devices, and only for certain types of works, and only for one type of infringement) that virtually no one is ever shielded by it. It's just not that much good in the modern real world.
To someone like me, it is EXACTLY the same as theft.... Ok, this is less theft and more rape.
I'd say it's less rape, less theft, and more like trespass to land. When someone steps onto your property, they aren't depriving you of the property, but they're using it without permission, which is sufficient for that offense. With copyright infringement, they're not depriving you of your copyright or of the creative work, but they are using the creative work without permission.
Still, given that you backed down from saying that it was "EXACTLY the same as theft" in nearly the same breath, I don't know if you're really the right person to judge the situation objectively.
Argue as much as you like, an illegal act is the same as another illegal act
So you're saying that you think that we ought to execute people for jaywalking because jaywalking is the same as premeditated murder? I'm going to have to disagree with you there, and I think that pretty much everyone else in the world will too. One offense is not the same as another. Even Hammurabi knew this.
The only muddying is coming from folks that want to distinguish two separate items into a group of tangible vs. intangible because the general public is still trapped into blue collar lifestyles and thus incapable of understanding the second.
Actually, I want to distinguish between them because they are not the same, and it is unwise (as we've seen) to treat them identically. I want very much for people to understand the latter, and many of my posts here, including this one, are aimed at just this. It doesn't bother me if you think that copyright infringement should be illegal. Even I think it should be illegal (though we may differ on precisely what should constitute it). It does bother me if the reason you think that is because you don't understand the issues. I'd rather have people making informed decisions.
I have *NEVER* seen the industry go after a person that is making copies of 50 year old media.
It happens. Hell, Mickey Mouse lies at the heart of copyright policy now, for some bizarre reason, and the key to Mickey Mouse is 'Steamboat Willy' which is nearly 80 years old.
Personally, I believe the creators of media should have the right to keep or bury their creations for as long as they want
I agree. If someone creates a work then while I would appreciate it if they would publish it, it certainly isn't appropriate for anyone to insist that it be published or even preserved.
I don't see this moral right given up just because they have distributed their creation to someone else.
First, there's no such thing as moral rights for the purposes of this discussion; copyright is utilitarian in nature.
Second, it is vitally important that you bear in mind that copyright is wholly artificial in nature. A copyright is nothing other than the right to force other people to not fully exercise their natural right of free speech and free press. It is impossible to reconcile the idea that people have a natural right of free speech and a natural right to copyright; they're diametrically opposed. Copyright comes from individuals other than the author of the work at hand agreeing, for their own benefit, rather than as an act of charity toward the author, to forgo part of their right of free speech in order to bribe the author into freely choosing to do what everyone else wants him to do (i.e. create and publish his work). But copyright is voluntary on the part of these individuals. Where they have worked together to form a government that represents their interests (as any government must do to be legitimate), then they may delegate the power of choosing whether to have copyright, and if so, how much copyright, to that government. But copyright ultimately remains an artificial right that is bestowed upon authors only when, and only to the extent to which, it serves the public interest to do so.
So following your example, the reason why the distribution right is limited by the first sale doctrine is essentially because it is in the public interest to do that, and copyright holders have not been granted the power to do otherwise. Lacking that power inherently, they are stuck. They'll have to live with it. This limitation on copyright might reduce the degree to which copyright is an enticement to authors, but history has shown that very many authors can live with it. On the whole, it is probably best to preserve this limitation on what we give to authors, as doing away with it would likely yield less of a public benefit than the public harm that result.
I'd be happy writing into my contract that 14 years after the release, my works fall into the public domain (that is the stuff I didn't just plain put into the public domain to begin with).
That's nice of you. Of course, it's just as easy for the public to decide to only give you 13 years worth of copyright before it automatically terminates and we stop voluntarily respecting your wishes. The question isn't whether you'd want us to do that or not, the question is whether, taking into account our desires and your behavior, whether it serves our interests to do so or not.
But all in all, I can't understand why intellectual properties are not protected entirely the same as physical ones.
Well, your confusion may initially arise from not understanding the subject. A creative work, such as a story, or a song, is not property. A copy in which that work has been fixed, such as a paperback, or a CD, is personal property, no different from a table or a jacket, and fall under the regular laws pertaining to personal property. And a copyright is an artificial right which pertains to the creative work and to copies in which that work has been fixed, and while it arguably isn't property, it is pretty property-like, and again is generally protected in the way that we'd protect personal property. Not
You lost me right there at the denying to creators the power over their creations -- and the property rights.
Hm?
First, what I'm advocating is a reformed, lesser copyright. I do think that copyright is a good idea, I just don't think we've implemented it well.
Second, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Copyright has never been about giving creators power over their work merely because they created it; even today, copyright doesn't do that. (For example, the law currently denies architects any power over photographs of their buildings) Also, I have no idea what property rights you're talking about. Creative works aren't property, copyrights arguably could be, and copies are. Nothing I've said or proposed would have any effect on the status of any of those.
I think that the main issue here isn't merely that we disagree, it's that you don't know anything about copyright and so can't really participate in a meaningful discussion about copyright. This isn't an insult or an attempt to support my position, either. I am happy to discuss copyright policy, and happy to face opponents, and willing to adopt good ideas that others have had, even if they make a shamble of my previous position. But this isn't really possible when one side doesn't know anything about it other than hearsay and what they have made-up in their heads. You should really sit down with a scholarly work on the subject and learn about it. Sadly, the Internet is not a terribly good resource for this.
Pirates really do provide much more immediate and convenient distribution than the movie, music, and publishing industries.
That is often true. And while, all else being equal, I would prefer to have copyright holders providing that level of convenience, I would also not have a problem with legalizing some actions which are presently illegal. I think that many of us will agree that commercial piracy is out of bounds; where there is money to be exploited from a copyright, it generally might as well be the copyright holder to whom that money is funneled. But where exploitation occurs non-commercially (including not even acting as trading in kind or as a draw to advertise to), I don't have a big problem with it. Especially given that people do it anyway. I love the idea of copyright law, but I don't like laws that make everyone a criminal for doing what are, basically, rather innocuous things.
I'm not sure whether you meant to say 'Too long, too foolish,' or 'Too long to finish.' Maybe it's a portmanteau?
In any event, while I know I can be a bit long-winded, I'd appreciate it if you gave it a shot, bearing in mind that it is not an apologia, but is an earnestly-held argument made in the public interest.
Ok, that's what it's there for. (And also because I believe that copyrights should only be granted for people who actively take steps to register them, and I'm not about to bother registering/. posts, but do practice what I preach)
However, I would like to make two points. First, I'd appreciate it if you'd note that you added the emphasis on that page. Second, you had this paraphrase:
There is no moral component to copyright law; it's purely utilitarian. But if there were a moral component to it, it would actually be on the side of the [users/music listeners].
It's not quite right. I didn't mean "users/music listeners." I really did mean pirates. Pirates, whatever their motives, engage in spreading information to more people than would be able to enjoy it and use it productively (learn from it, improve upon it, etc.) than copyright holders do. This is basically by definition, since if copyright holders reached everyone, and everyone was willing to meet their price, there would be no piracy. To the minimal extent that there is a moral aspect to copyright, it's those sorts of things that are morally good; restricting works to those who can pay is immoral. Pirates do a little of the latter (but their price is lower, so they tend to do some good, too), but copyright holders are the worst.
Copyright is a useful evil, but if we could do without copyright, if the best thing for the public interest was to not have copyright, then that would be better.
Certainly not. And here is why. Even the vilest pirates claim, they only steal from the RIAA/MPAA -- not the original authors: musicians, artists, whoever.
What do their claims have to do with the underlying morality of it? Besides, the vilest of pirates don't bother to claim anything. They're in it for the money and don't care about making claims, whether those claims are fig leaves or not. The pirates you're thinking of operate on a more casual level and post on places like Slashdot.
Pirating from **AA is also wrong -- claiming otherwise is equivalent to claiming, that the products of those original authors' -- which they (pre)sell to the record companies -- have no value.
On the contrary. If a work were valueless, then no one would ever bother to pirate it. The only thing worse than having people pirate your work is not having people pirate your work. If people pirate your work, then at least your work is popular with someone, leaving only the practical question of getting them to pay. If they aren't even pirating your work, then your work is a hopeless flop that cannot attract an audience even when it is available for free. You can't fix that easily, often not at all.
So I have no problem with assuming that the works have value. But again, this has nothing to do with morality. There is no moral argument that says that just because Alice produces something of value that Bob cannot enjoy it for free. An example: Alice and Bob are neighbors. Alice makes substantial improvements to her house. She paints it, beautifies it, and plants and maintains a stunning garden that draws complements from all around. Her work, which comes at a considerable cost to herself, results in the property value of her house going up. It also results in the property value of her neighbors' houses going up, simply due to their proximity to her house. Bob then sells his house, gaining more than he would have if Alice had not done what she did. Thus, what Alice did resulting in Bob profiting. But I think that we can all agree that Alice cannot make a moral argument (or a legal one, though morals and laws aren't the same at all) that she deserves a penny of what Bob got.
Copyright laws are utilitarian. They are meant to result in the greatest public benefit. They do not have a moral component whatsoever. And this means that breaking those laws, while it might be contrary to the public weal, and thus might be justifiably illegal, is not immoral.
Certainly, if you believe otherwise, then you must have a funny sense of morality. Why do you think that it is moral for terrestrial radio stations to broadcast music without having to pay the performer, while it is immoral if Internet radio stations do the same? Why do you think that it is moral for people who purchase a book printed in the US to resell it, but immoral for people who purchase a book printed outside the US to do the same, even assuming that the copyright owner is the same in both cases? And most of all, why does your morality perfectly track the culmination of almost three centuries of copyright law? Is that just an amazing coincidence or what?
Copyright law is no different than zoning laws that prohibit someone from putting up a chain link fence in their front yard, but which allows them to put up a picket fence instead. Nor is it different from many of the finer details of the tax code, or the guts of agency rules governing the inner workings of utilities. These laws are created because they're convenient or useful or practical in some way. Not because there is a moral compulsion at work.
Ergo, you are hurting the original authors, that we all love and pledge to respect.
That's a hell of an assumption. I don't love authors, nor do I respect them, particularly. What I feel about authors is that I want to exploit them as best as I can. That is, in fact, central to the idea of copyright law: to exploit authors. I'll take you through it.
The purpose of copyright law is to promote the progress of science.
You, on the other hand, seem to justify illegal behavior.
There's nothing wrong in that. The present configuration of laws that we have is by no means perfect. Some things that are legal should be illegal; some things that are illegal should be legal. While we ought to respect the law, where the law is in great conflict with what it ideally should be, and with people's norms of behavior, and lacks any or enough moral support, then that law is unworthy of respect. It ought to be changed, but it's of relatively little consequence if it is broken. For such a law, the only real downside to breaking it is that that might engender disrespect for legitimate laws.
I don't think that the whole of copyright is illegitimate, but I think it's fair to say that portions of it as we currently have it probably are. While I'd prefer to fix it, and I am concerned that lawlessness as to those portions will have negative effects as to other portions, I don't get bent out of shape about people ignoring those laws.
but immoral too.
No. There is no moral component to copyright law; it's purely utilitarian. But if there were a moral component to it, it would actually be on the side of the pirates.
Acquiring it in a way different from the owner's wishes (I deliberately avoid getting side-tracked into debate over whether this is "stealing") is dishonest.
I disagree, particularly given that 1) it's often possible to act lawfully and against their wishes (e.g. the record industry hates it when people deal in used records) and 2) being honest is not the same thing as being law-abiding.
If you don't like the way the music is sold, the honest choices are:
You forgot one: 3) Change the laws so that music that is sold is sold in the way you want, whether the music industry is pleased at that or not. This is what I pursue, as it's a lot better than the options you provide, i.e. giving in or giving up.
I disagree. I think it'd be better to have Congress simply have their own staff (probably via the Library of Congress) film everything so that it's public domain to begin with. Governmental transparency is an important job for government, and leaving this to outside parties with conflicting interests is not acceptable. There's a similar reason for why the government should effectively put Lexis and West out of business, by providing original legal materials themselves, at no charge, to everyone who wants them.
If attribution for works has ever been reasonable (which of course it is)
I disagree. Attribution should not be required by law. It serves no necessary purpose. It may be polite, it may be useful in scholarly works or news media, and where the material is copyrighted, it may be required by the copyright holder in exchange for his permission (if needed). But it ought not to be manditory; no one should be compelled to thank or even credit anyone, in every circumstance, whether they used someone's work or not.
Let's look at a book that contains content that's in the public domain, such as a copy of Hamlet. I cannot simply photocopy that book and sell the copies. If I do that, I'm profiting from the added value of typesetting, additional content, et cetera.
No, so long as no original material has been added, you can copy away. Typesetting isn't generally copyrightable, due to a lack of originality, and it's difficult to imagine a version of Hamlet where it would be. Additional content couldn't be copied, but we weren't talking about anything new, we were talking about Hamlet.
If C-SPAN adds value to the feed, even by just adding graphics that identify the speakers, that makes it a different product than the one that is publicly accessible.
But not enough value to support a copyright. It's not enough to add something, it has to be something copyrightable. That means it has to be original, and that means it has to be creative and not copied. Overlaying the names of the people speaking to video of a committee meeting is not even slightly creative. It could arguably be done creatively (Terry Gilliam could do it), but it isn't being done creatively at the moment. This has Feist written all over it.
You have one company taking a publicly available feed that they do not hold copyright on, adding (small, but measurable) value to it by doing visual modifications, and passing it along. There's nothing whatsoever limiting you from going to the source, just as they did. Nothing at all. The original material still exists.
Yes. And since they are mostly only providing public domain material, nothing prevents you from using that public domain material no matter where you happen to get it from. Even if we gave CSPAN the benefit of the doubt, all you'd have to do would be to overprint your names of people over where they did it, and you'd be set. Public domain material is public domain material always; you never have to go back to the original source of it.
Odd choice of cites. The court felt that the building design was probably not trademarkable, but naturally had to boot it back down to be properly decided. This is not to say that it's impossible, but it isn't easy or common, and given that trademarks have their limits (e.g. trademark fair use), it generally isn't a big concern.
but I can see problems with rejecting the idea of mechanical copyright entirely - it makes the line between a protected work and an unprotectable work fuzzier.
Like it or lump it, the Constitution requires that works be creative in order to be copyrightable. There is no such thing as what you're calling a 'mechanical copyright' (which isn't the best term, IMO; I keep thinking of mechanical royalties). Merely turning on a camera isn't quite enough. Rather, the picture taker needs to have some creativity in his choice of subject, lighting, camera angle, color palette, etc. This isn't difficult, and indeed, only a modicum of creativity is required, not a great deal. But there does have to be enough, though that's just a little bit. This was all basically settled over a century ago when the first court cases went up regarding whether photographs were copyrightable.
They still seem to have some old blanks, and they're going to use them up. So some of the passport offices are issuing the new kind, and some the old kind, and sooner or later, they'll all be on the new kind. Me, I went out a few months ago and got one of the old kind (even though I virtually never travel) just to be safe.
The five years was just an example. I actually support shorter terms (maybe 1 to 2 years), but with frequent renewals that provide an overall maximum of something like 20. With an exception for software, and maybe some other classes of works that 'age' so rapidly that an overall maximum of 5 would actually be best.
Also, I think we should split the right to copy from the right to produce derivative works. Direct copies, with minimal changes to the content should be preserved for 20+ years. However, we could allow derivative works sooner than that. That would still allow for substantial incentives to producers, but would also allow for mash-ups and the like within a few years of the creation.
That's an interesting idea. My take on this has been to have an exception for natural persons engaged in noncommercial activity. So people could make mash-ups right off the bat, but not if they charged for them (or used them as a draw for advertising, etc.) and not if they were a corporate entity or the like. Given that most individuals ignore copyright these days anyway, but do support the idea of copyright applied to commercial endeavors and entities, I think it's in keeping with our social norms.
Combine that with a registration system for the copyright after a few years (to solve the orphaned works problem),
Registration should be required no more than a year after publication (which would be broader than what it consists of now). If an author can't be bothered to register, I don't see why we should be bothered to give him a copyright. This is more generous than the old system (which required them by publication), less generous than the present, insipid, system (which doesn't really require registration at all), and is kin to the patent system (which gives people a year to decide, and works pretty well in that regard).
Remember, most orphaned works are orphaned at birth!
and I think we'd be doing pretty well.
Yes, but a few more things are wanting. For example, repeal of chapters 9-13. Having measures in place that make copyright and DRM mutually exclusive, so as to discourage the use of DRM (I don't think it can be banned, due to free speech, but we surely don't have to give people copyrights for DRMed works). Having measures in place to fully federalize copyright. Limiting the use of adhesive contracts and terms of sales, so as to reduce the dangers and use of EULAs. Exceptions that take into account the reproduction that is unavoidable in our computer technology, but which is not really material in an infringement sense. Better safe harbors for ISPs. Statutory secondary liability (the courts have screwed up on this, otherwise I'd leave it to them). No copyrights for classes of works that don't need it, e.g. architectural works. Some other formalities, such as deposit. Pulling out of Berne and other treaties, but providing for unilateral national treatment. Better treatment of sampling (it's basically just audio collage, and is transformative enough that it would generally be fair). There's some other things too, but already this list grows large. Dealing with things like DRM, however, are key before we can think we're doing pretty well.
It's just typing - people talking shit. It doesn't have any worth in the same way that a symphony, novel or tv comedy does. You don't need money from your last post to keep you in food, shelter etc while you work on your next post.
Whether or not the people who make it need to make money from it has nothing to do with its artistic value. A number of artists made money though other means (they had day jobs; they were supported by others; they were already rich; they had become rich enough from their previous work to be able to retire comfortably, yet didn't) but still created artistically valuable works.
And similarly, people talking shit can be valuable too. Copyright does not make artistic judgments. The law and government are absolutely no good at doing that, and shouldn't do that. Right now, these posts (well not mine, see below) are copyrighted, and copyright attempts to serve as an incentive to cause them to be created. I agree that this is bad, but not for the same reason as you. I think that copyright should be an opt-in system. If some/. poster felt that his post was worth being copyrighted, he would fill out a form, send it, and a copy of the post, and a check for a modest sum, to the Copyright Office. Then he would get a copyright on it. The government wouldn't only dole out copyrights for works they felt were meritorious, but they also wouldn't give out copyrights to everyone for everything. Instead, they'd only give them out for people who took the trouble to ask, placing the judgment -- not of artistic merit, of of whether or not copyright was an incentive -- in the hands of the people getting the copyrights. And since they'd have to make a token investment in order to get the copyright, no one would just get copyrights for the hell of it (since that would cost them money) but they would instead judge whether or not the money they could get from exploiting the copyright would at least pay for the cost of getting the copyright in the first place (the copyright cost should be token, really -- e.g. the current $45 fee), plus a bit. Then, I suspect, virtually no one on/. would ever bother to get a copyright on their posts, and the level of posting would probably not decrease, indicating that copyright is not our incentive here. But people who make works for which copyrights are important to them would still get them.
Formalities are a good way of trimming back copyright so that it serves as an incentive, yet isn't granted more than it ought to be.
Where did you get point 3 from?
Partly from all post-Anne copyright law, which always expires after a particular time. Partly from human nature, which is greedy (that's not a bad thing; artists seek out copyrights because they're greedy, and the public gives out copyrights, yet limits them, also because they're greedy). Partly because the obvious (yet sadly unrealistic) ideal world would be one in which everyone who could create, did, yet there were no copyrights, and everyone was free to enjoy works as they saw fit, amass huge collections for free, etc. And partly because there really is a self-evident public interest in having unrestricted works, just as there is an interest in having more works.
If the copyright for a film lasted 5 years, then when the next format comes out, the copyright holders would make £0, whereas now they make a lot more.
This has yet to be determined, actually. DVD was a lot more popular than VHS, but HDDVD and Bluray have yet to be. And with backward compatibility in place, there's less pressure to replace one's DVDs with a newer format. Eventually there will be a shift, but it'll be caused more by changes at the supply level. And we've seen a lot of replacements come out that have challenged CDs (e.g. DVDA, DAT, Minidisc, SACD) and none have gotten anywhere. Downloadable music is doing okay, but more on the piracy side of things. Free MP3s are popular against costly CDs; costly MP3s (or whatever), significantly less so.
No, there are incentives aside from making money. For example, look at/. -- all of us here are posting creative works, in the form of our posts and responses in these threads, but none of us are making money from it. The incentive of socializing is enough for us. Other natural incentives include fame, art for art's sake, non-copyright-based economic incentives (e.g. commissions, the fine arts market, being first-to-market, etc.), scholarship, etc.
And in any event, the purpose of copyright law is to serve the public interest, where the public interest is tripartite, and consists of 1) wanting more original works created and published; 2) wanting more derivative works created and published, and; 3) wanting no or minimal (in scope and length) copyright laws.
Which brings us to the life+70 term (which is what it actually is in the US, at least for some works). For the vast, vast majority of creative works, they'll never make money at all. For the tiny minority of works that will ever make money at all, the vast, vast majority of them will make virtually all of the money they'll ever make within a year or two of release in a given medium. For example, let's take movies: When a movie comes out the opening weekend is absolutely critical. It'll make a lot of money that weekend, less the following week, even less the week after that. After a few weeks, it'll be gone from first-run theaters. After a couple of months, it'll be gone from pretty much all theaters. Whatever money it made from the box office during that period is basically all it will ever get in the theatrical medium. Then it comes out on pay-per-view. I have no idea who actually uses ppv, but apparently someone does, and again, when it first comes out, that's when it makes most of the money it will make from ppv. As the weeks drag on, it pulls in less and less. Eventually it drops off of ppv. Then come the sales to movie rental shops and the public, in the form of DVDs. The first week that the DVD is out is when most of the people who have been wanting to buy a copy of the movie will get it; people who have wanted to rent it (rather than use ppv) will get it then too, resulting in most of the rental store orders to have been placed early. But again, as the weeks drag on, sales drop off. A little bit more money can be squeezed from licensing the movie to the cable movie channels, and after that, to regular tv channels. And you can go through the same cycle in the foreign markets. But then, that's basically it. You have gotten 99.44% of all the money you will ever make from this movie. Most of that (box office, ppv, dvd sales) took place in the first three months or so. (Newspapers and some tv shows have the shortest periods, while books probably have the longest, but even for books, it's a couple of years)
So the issue is, if all that the remaining years are worth is the paltry 0.56% remaining money to be wrung out of it, which is true for the vast, vast majority of movies that ever make any money at all, since so very few ever have the lasting popularity to keep making a significant amount of money over the long run, is it important that the copyright lasts so much longer?
If Alice will paint Bob's house when Bob offers to pay her a million dollars, then that certainly has an incentivizing effect, but it is rather costly. If Alice will paint Bob's house when Bob offers to pay a thousand dollars, then that has incentivized her just as much, but in a much more cost-effective manner!
Well, for creative works, we need to provide the least amount of incentive we can in order to get the most works we can -- basically we're looking for how to get the most bang for our buck. If a five year copyright would get nearly as many movies made as a 95 year copyright (the term length most commonly applicable in the US for movies), then surely the five year term is a better bargain. Adding more incentives -- by lengthening the term -- might get a handful of extra films made, but are they worth the cost to the public of having to endure such long copyrights? Probably not. So don't just look at the incentivizing effect, look also at whether or not it is worth it, and just how much of an effect there actually is.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, what I'm saying is that we have the AHRA, and that in the rare case that someone complies with the AHRA, they are protected from being sued based on their AHRA-compliant reproduction. And third parties who would ordinarily face secondary liability suits that used that reproduction as the necessary direct infringement, are also protected by the AHRA. So if Alice distributes a CD to Bob, with knowledge at the time that Bob will make a copy pursuant to the AHRA, Bob cannot be sued, and Alice cannot be sued for her contribution to Bob's non-actionable infringement. But distribution is an act of direct infringement, and so Alice could be sued for that, and the AHRA would not protect her. Neither would fair use, most likely. And due to the special exception in first sale, neither would first sale.
I think that there is no reason to treat music specially. If we had an AHRA that applied to videos instead of to music, then Alice would be protected in the above scenario, mutatis mutandis. And even if we didn't, she would at least have a fighting chance in arguing that first sale effectively protected her under a secondary liability theory.
So first, if we're going to have an exception for some reproduction, then we ought to permit lending incident to that. For AHRA cases, rare as they are, the AHRA moots your objection to permitting reproduction. Second, it would be desirable to treat music the same as other media. The world of books does not seem to be adversely affected by libraries and book-lending, both public and private. The world of film does not seem to be adversely affected by libraries, video rental stores, and video-lending, both public and private. I do not see that music is any different at all.
As for whether I personally think that reproduction is okay -- as apart from whether the law permits it at times, e.g. under the AHRA -- I think that an excellent change to copyright law would be an exception for all activity engaged in on a strongly noncommercial basis (e.g. no ads, no exchange of money, no exchange of works) by natural persons. This is because the "very principle of copyright" is not that reproduction should be regulated, but that the public interest should be maximally satisfied. Part of the public interest is encouraging works to be created and published, but another, equal part is having no or minimal copyrights. If the benefit of the affected persons not being restrained by copyright would outweigh any lack of benefit caused by a reduction in works created and published, then it ought to be done. I think that this is likely the case, especially given that we're very nearly in that situation now, and yet plenty of works still seem to be created.
True, but if the transfer is perceived as too much of a straw transaction then it will be ignored. It would be risky to try to do get around the limits in 109 without losing too much control. (e.g. giving your friend the copy and then having them never give it back, which would be fair of them if you had really given it in the first place and had no further interest in it)
Also, n.b. that royalties are not paid on all blank media. Only on certain blank media. For example, an ordinary CDR is not the same as an Audio CDR; only the latter has an AHRA royalty.
My problem with it is that I think that there should not be a special rule for phonorecords. They should fall fully under section 109, the same as videos, books, and everything else. No one seems to think that it is objectionable that a video rental store ought to be able to buy copies of DVDs from ordinary retail stores and then rent them to the public for profit without the authorization of the copyright holder. Why shouldn't the same be true for music? It's common in other places around the world (e.g. Japan) and seems not to have had adverse effects. I think that we ought to do it here.
Well, if you made a stand-alone device that could connect to Bit Torrent and which could comply with SCMS, and you paid the royalty on it, and which wrote to some sort of conveniently removable media (e.g. a thumb drive), then you'd be fine. It's just a bit of an engineering challenge and not really all that likely to sell since people will probably just ignore the protection it confers, what with the price of the thing. But certainly the statute doesn't seem to prohibit networked devices from qualifying. It's just that it's tough to build anything interesting that complies with SCMS, it seems.
No, you can't give them to your friends. That would infringe the distribution right due to an extremely careful bit of rewording of the bill that RIAA got through without anyone really thinking about the effect. You see, the big exception to the distribution right is the first sale exception, which applies to any copy lawfully made under the Copyright Act. But AHRA compliant copies are not lawfully made, technically, they're just not actionably made. That is, they're infringing but no lawsuit can be brought on the basis of their making.
So it'd be better to lend people the original, lawfully made CDs and let people make their own copies. Except of course that the RIAA also got a law passed to prohibit the lending and rental of music (otherwise it'd be just as legal as video rental, which anyone can do for free, so long as they use lawfully made copies) with broad language that probably applies to individuals. This means that when you lend a friend a CD, you probably have to rely on fair use, which is fine for ordinary lending, I'm sure, but probably no good if you're doing so for the purpose of having them make copies as a substitute for having to buy their own.
So let's not thank them too much.
But since the AHRA is so rarely applicable due to all of the conditions that go with it (it only works if you use certain, uncommon, media or devices, and only for certain types of works, and only for one type of infringement) that virtually no one is ever shielded by it. It's just not that much good in the modern real world.
Have you got any videos in Bocce?
To someone like me, it is EXACTLY the same as theft. ... Ok, this is less theft and more rape.
I'd say it's less rape, less theft, and more like trespass to land. When someone steps onto your property, they aren't depriving you of the property, but they're using it without permission, which is sufficient for that offense. With copyright infringement, they're not depriving you of your copyright or of the creative work, but they are using the creative work without permission.
Still, given that you backed down from saying that it was "EXACTLY the same as theft" in nearly the same breath, I don't know if you're really the right person to judge the situation objectively.
Argue as much as you like, an illegal act is the same as another illegal act
So you're saying that you think that we ought to execute people for jaywalking because jaywalking is the same as premeditated murder? I'm going to have to disagree with you there, and I think that pretty much everyone else in the world will too. One offense is not the same as another. Even Hammurabi knew this.
The only muddying is coming from folks that want to distinguish two separate items into a group of tangible vs. intangible because the general public is still trapped into blue collar lifestyles and thus incapable of understanding the second.
Actually, I want to distinguish between them because they are not the same, and it is unwise (as we've seen) to treat them identically. I want very much for people to understand the latter, and many of my posts here, including this one, are aimed at just this. It doesn't bother me if you think that copyright infringement should be illegal. Even I think it should be illegal (though we may differ on precisely what should constitute it). It does bother me if the reason you think that is because you don't understand the issues. I'd rather have people making informed decisions.
I have *NEVER* seen the industry go after a person that is making copies of 50 year old media.
It happens. Hell, Mickey Mouse lies at the heart of copyright policy now, for some bizarre reason, and the key to Mickey Mouse is 'Steamboat Willy' which is nearly 80 years old.
Personally, I believe the creators of media should have the right to keep or bury their creations for as long as they want
I agree. If someone creates a work then while I would appreciate it if they would publish it, it certainly isn't appropriate for anyone to insist that it be published or even preserved.
I don't see this moral right given up just because they have distributed their creation to someone else.
First, there's no such thing as moral rights for the purposes of this discussion; copyright is utilitarian in nature.
Second, it is vitally important that you bear in mind that copyright is wholly artificial in nature. A copyright is nothing other than the right to force other people to not fully exercise their natural right of free speech and free press. It is impossible to reconcile the idea that people have a natural right of free speech and a natural right to copyright; they're diametrically opposed. Copyright comes from individuals other than the author of the work at hand agreeing, for their own benefit, rather than as an act of charity toward the author, to forgo part of their right of free speech in order to bribe the author into freely choosing to do what everyone else wants him to do (i.e. create and publish his work). But copyright is voluntary on the part of these individuals. Where they have worked together to form a government that represents their interests (as any government must do to be legitimate), then they may delegate the power of choosing whether to have copyright, and if so, how much copyright, to that government. But copyright ultimately remains an artificial right that is bestowed upon authors only when, and only to the extent to which, it serves the public interest to do so.
So following your example, the reason why the distribution right is limited by the first sale doctrine is essentially because it is in the public interest to do that, and copyright holders have not been granted the power to do otherwise. Lacking that power inherently, they are stuck. They'll have to live with it. This limitation on copyright might reduce the degree to which copyright is an enticement to authors, but history has shown that very many authors can live with it. On the whole, it is probably best to preserve this limitation on what we give to authors, as doing away with it would likely yield less of a public benefit than the public harm that result.
I'd be happy writing into my contract that 14 years after the release, my works fall into the public domain (that is the stuff I didn't just plain put into the public domain to begin with).
That's nice of you. Of course, it's just as easy for the public to decide to only give you 13 years worth of copyright before it automatically terminates and we stop voluntarily respecting your wishes. The question isn't whether you'd want us to do that or not, the question is whether, taking into account our desires and your behavior, whether it serves our interests to do so or not.
But all in all, I can't understand why intellectual properties are not protected entirely the same as physical ones.
Well, your confusion may initially arise from not understanding the subject. A creative work, such as a story, or a song, is not property. A copy in which that work has been fixed, such as a paperback, or a CD, is personal property, no different from a table or a jacket, and fall under the regular laws pertaining to personal property. And a copyright is an artificial right which pertains to the creative work and to copies in which that work has been fixed, and while it arguably isn't property, it is pretty property-like, and again is generally protected in the way that we'd protect personal property. Not
You lost me right there at the denying to creators the power over their creations -- and the property rights.
Hm?
First, what I'm advocating is a reformed, lesser copyright. I do think that copyright is a good idea, I just don't think we've implemented it well.
Second, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Copyright has never been about giving creators power over their work merely because they created it; even today, copyright doesn't do that. (For example, the law currently denies architects any power over photographs of their buildings) Also, I have no idea what property rights you're talking about. Creative works aren't property, copyrights arguably could be, and copies are. Nothing I've said or proposed would have any effect on the status of any of those.
I think that the main issue here isn't merely that we disagree, it's that you don't know anything about copyright and so can't really participate in a meaningful discussion about copyright. This isn't an insult or an attempt to support my position, either. I am happy to discuss copyright policy, and happy to face opponents, and willing to adopt good ideas that others have had, even if they make a shamble of my previous position. But this isn't really possible when one side doesn't know anything about it other than hearsay and what they have made-up in their heads. You should really sit down with a scholarly work on the subject and learn about it. Sadly, the Internet is not a terribly good resource for this.
Pirates really do provide much more immediate and convenient distribution than the movie, music, and publishing industries.
That is often true. And while, all else being equal, I would prefer to have copyright holders providing that level of convenience, I would also not have a problem with legalizing some actions which are presently illegal. I think that many of us will agree that commercial piracy is out of bounds; where there is money to be exploited from a copyright, it generally might as well be the copyright holder to whom that money is funneled. But where exploitation occurs non-commercially (including not even acting as trading in kind or as a draw to advertise to), I don't have a big problem with it. Especially given that people do it anyway. I love the idea of copyright law, but I don't like laws that make everyone a criminal for doing what are, basically, rather innocuous things.
Too long to foolish.
I'm not sure whether you meant to say 'Too long, too foolish,' or 'Too long to finish.' Maybe it's a portmanteau?
In any event, while I know I can be a bit long-winded, I'd appreciate it if you gave it a shot, bearing in mind that it is not an apologia, but is an earnestly-held argument made in the public interest.
Ok, that's what it's there for. (And also because I believe that copyrights should only be granted for people who actively take steps to register them, and I'm not about to bother registering /. posts, but do practice what I preach)
However, I would like to make two points. First, I'd appreciate it if you'd note that you added the emphasis on that page. Second, you had this paraphrase:
There is no moral component to copyright law; it's purely utilitarian. But if there were a moral component to it, it would actually be on the side of the [users/music listeners].
It's not quite right. I didn't mean "users/music listeners." I really did mean pirates. Pirates, whatever their motives, engage in spreading information to more people than would be able to enjoy it and use it productively (learn from it, improve upon it, etc.) than copyright holders do. This is basically by definition, since if copyright holders reached everyone, and everyone was willing to meet their price, there would be no piracy. To the minimal extent that there is a moral aspect to copyright, it's those sorts of things that are morally good; restricting works to those who can pay is immoral. Pirates do a little of the latter (but their price is lower, so they tend to do some good, too), but copyright holders are the worst.
Copyright is a useful evil, but if we could do without copyright, if the best thing for the public interest was to not have copyright, then that would be better.
Certainly not. And here is why. Even the vilest pirates claim, they only steal from the RIAA/MPAA -- not the original authors: musicians, artists, whoever.
What do their claims have to do with the underlying morality of it? Besides, the vilest of pirates don't bother to claim anything. They're in it for the money and don't care about making claims, whether those claims are fig leaves or not. The pirates you're thinking of operate on a more casual level and post on places like Slashdot.
Pirating from **AA is also wrong -- claiming otherwise is equivalent to claiming, that the products of those original authors' -- which they (pre)sell to the record companies -- have no value.
On the contrary. If a work were valueless, then no one would ever bother to pirate it. The only thing worse than having people pirate your work is not having people pirate your work. If people pirate your work, then at least your work is popular with someone, leaving only the practical question of getting them to pay. If they aren't even pirating your work, then your work is a hopeless flop that cannot attract an audience even when it is available for free. You can't fix that easily, often not at all.
So I have no problem with assuming that the works have value. But again, this has nothing to do with morality. There is no moral argument that says that just because Alice produces something of value that Bob cannot enjoy it for free. An example: Alice and Bob are neighbors. Alice makes substantial improvements to her house. She paints it, beautifies it, and plants and maintains a stunning garden that draws complements from all around. Her work, which comes at a considerable cost to herself, results in the property value of her house going up. It also results in the property value of her neighbors' houses going up, simply due to their proximity to her house. Bob then sells his house, gaining more than he would have if Alice had not done what she did. Thus, what Alice did resulting in Bob profiting. But I think that we can all agree that Alice cannot make a moral argument (or a legal one, though morals and laws aren't the same at all) that she deserves a penny of what Bob got.
Copyright laws are utilitarian. They are meant to result in the greatest public benefit. They do not have a moral component whatsoever. And this means that breaking those laws, while it might be contrary to the public weal, and thus might be justifiably illegal, is not immoral.
Certainly, if you believe otherwise, then you must have a funny sense of morality. Why do you think that it is moral for terrestrial radio stations to broadcast music without having to pay the performer, while it is immoral if Internet radio stations do the same? Why do you think that it is moral for people who purchase a book printed in the US to resell it, but immoral for people who purchase a book printed outside the US to do the same, even assuming that the copyright owner is the same in both cases? And most of all, why does your morality perfectly track the culmination of almost three centuries of copyright law? Is that just an amazing coincidence or what?
Copyright law is no different than zoning laws that prohibit someone from putting up a chain link fence in their front yard, but which allows them to put up a picket fence instead. Nor is it different from many of the finer details of the tax code, or the guts of agency rules governing the inner workings of utilities. These laws are created because they're convenient or useful or practical in some way. Not because there is a moral compulsion at work.
Ergo, you are hurting the original authors, that we all love and pledge to respect.
That's a hell of an assumption. I don't love authors, nor do I respect them, particularly. What I feel about authors is that I want to exploit them as best as I can. That is, in fact, central to the idea of copyright law: to exploit authors. I'll take you through it.
The purpose of copyright law is to promote the progress of science.
You, on the other hand, seem to justify illegal behavior.
There's nothing wrong in that. The present configuration of laws that we have is by no means perfect. Some things that are legal should be illegal; some things that are illegal should be legal. While we ought to respect the law, where the law is in great conflict with what it ideally should be, and with people's norms of behavior, and lacks any or enough moral support, then that law is unworthy of respect. It ought to be changed, but it's of relatively little consequence if it is broken. For such a law, the only real downside to breaking it is that that might engender disrespect for legitimate laws.
I don't think that the whole of copyright is illegitimate, but I think it's fair to say that portions of it as we currently have it probably are. While I'd prefer to fix it, and I am concerned that lawlessness as to those portions will have negative effects as to other portions, I don't get bent out of shape about people ignoring those laws.
but immoral too.
No. There is no moral component to copyright law; it's purely utilitarian. But if there were a moral component to it, it would actually be on the side of the pirates.
Acquiring it in a way different from the owner's wishes (I deliberately avoid getting side-tracked into debate over whether this is "stealing") is dishonest.
I disagree, particularly given that 1) it's often possible to act lawfully and against their wishes (e.g. the record industry hates it when people deal in used records) and 2) being honest is not the same thing as being law-abiding.
If you don't like the way the music is sold, the honest choices are:
You forgot one: 3) Change the laws so that music that is sold is sold in the way you want, whether the music industry is pleased at that or not. This is what I pursue, as it's a lot better than the options you provide, i.e. giving in or giving up.
I disagree. I think it'd be better to have Congress simply have their own staff (probably via the Library of Congress) film everything so that it's public domain to begin with. Governmental transparency is an important job for government, and leaving this to outside parties with conflicting interests is not acceptable. There's a similar reason for why the government should effectively put Lexis and West out of business, by providing original legal materials themselves, at no charge, to everyone who wants them.
If attribution for works has ever been reasonable (which of course it is)
I disagree. Attribution should not be required by law. It serves no necessary purpose. It may be polite, it may be useful in scholarly works or news media, and where the material is copyrighted, it may be required by the copyright holder in exchange for his permission (if needed). But it ought not to be manditory; no one should be compelled to thank or even credit anyone, in every circumstance, whether they used someone's work or not.
And yet to a certain extent that is true.
And yet, to a complete extent, you're wrong.
Let's look at a book that contains content that's in the public domain, such as a copy of Hamlet. I cannot simply photocopy that book and sell the copies. If I do that, I'm profiting from the added value of typesetting, additional content, et cetera.
No, so long as no original material has been added, you can copy away. Typesetting isn't generally copyrightable, due to a lack of originality, and it's difficult to imagine a version of Hamlet where it would be. Additional content couldn't be copied, but we weren't talking about anything new, we were talking about Hamlet.
If C-SPAN adds value to the feed, even by just adding graphics that identify the speakers, that makes it a different product than the one that is publicly accessible.
But not enough value to support a copyright. It's not enough to add something, it has to be something copyrightable. That means it has to be original, and that means it has to be creative and not copied. Overlaying the names of the people speaking to video of a committee meeting is not even slightly creative. It could arguably be done creatively (Terry Gilliam could do it), but it isn't being done creatively at the moment. This has Feist written all over it.
You have one company taking a publicly available feed that they do not hold copyright on, adding (small, but measurable) value to it by doing visual modifications, and passing it along. There's nothing whatsoever limiting you from going to the source, just as they did. Nothing at all. The original material still exists.
Yes. And since they are mostly only providing public domain material, nothing prevents you from using that public domain material no matter where you happen to get it from. Even if we gave CSPAN the benefit of the doubt, all you'd have to do would be to overprint your names of people over where they did it, and you'd be set. Public domain material is public domain material always; you never have to go back to the original source of it.
Odd choice of cites. The court felt that the building design was probably not trademarkable, but naturally had to boot it back down to be properly decided. This is not to say that it's impossible, but it isn't easy or common, and given that trademarks have their limits (e.g. trademark fair use), it generally isn't a big concern.
but I can see problems with rejecting the idea of mechanical copyright entirely - it makes the line between a protected work and an unprotectable work fuzzier.
Like it or lump it, the Constitution requires that works be creative in order to be copyrightable. There is no such thing as what you're calling a 'mechanical copyright' (which isn't the best term, IMO; I keep thinking of mechanical royalties). Merely turning on a camera isn't quite enough. Rather, the picture taker needs to have some creativity in his choice of subject, lighting, camera angle, color palette, etc. This isn't difficult, and indeed, only a modicum of creativity is required, not a great deal. But there does have to be enough, though that's just a little bit. This was all basically settled over a century ago when the first court cases went up regarding whether photographs were copyrightable.
They still seem to have some old blanks, and they're going to use them up. So some of the passport offices are issuing the new kind, and some the old kind, and sooner or later, they'll all be on the new kind. Me, I went out a few months ago and got one of the old kind (even though I virtually never travel) just to be safe.
No, I wasn't talking about the specific type of objection seen here. I was simply saying that objections in depositions are not uncommon.
The five years was just an example. I actually support shorter terms (maybe 1 to 2 years), but with frequent renewals that provide an overall maximum of something like 20. With an exception for software, and maybe some other classes of works that 'age' so rapidly that an overall maximum of 5 would actually be best.
Also, I think we should split the right to copy from the right to produce derivative works. Direct copies, with minimal changes to the content should be preserved for 20+ years. However, we could allow derivative works sooner than that. That would still allow for substantial incentives to producers, but would also allow for mash-ups and the like within a few years of the creation.
That's an interesting idea. My take on this has been to have an exception for natural persons engaged in noncommercial activity. So people could make mash-ups right off the bat, but not if they charged for them (or used them as a draw for advertising, etc.) and not if they were a corporate entity or the like. Given that most individuals ignore copyright these days anyway, but do support the idea of copyright applied to commercial endeavors and entities, I think it's in keeping with our social norms.
Combine that with a registration system for the copyright after a few years (to solve the orphaned works problem),
Registration should be required no more than a year after publication (which would be broader than what it consists of now). If an author can't be bothered to register, I don't see why we should be bothered to give him a copyright. This is more generous than the old system (which required them by publication), less generous than the present, insipid, system (which doesn't really require registration at all), and is kin to the patent system (which gives people a year to decide, and works pretty well in that regard).
Remember, most orphaned works are orphaned at birth!
and I think we'd be doing pretty well.
Yes, but a few more things are wanting. For example, repeal of chapters 9-13. Having measures in place that make copyright and DRM mutually exclusive, so as to discourage the use of DRM (I don't think it can be banned, due to free speech, but we surely don't have to give people copyrights for DRMed works). Having measures in place to fully federalize copyright. Limiting the use of adhesive contracts and terms of sales, so as to reduce the dangers and use of EULAs. Exceptions that take into account the reproduction that is unavoidable in our computer technology, but which is not really material in an infringement sense. Better safe harbors for ISPs. Statutory secondary liability (the courts have screwed up on this, otherwise I'd leave it to them). No copyrights for classes of works that don't need it, e.g. architectural works. Some other formalities, such as deposit. Pulling out of Berne and other treaties, but providing for unilateral national treatment. Better treatment of sampling (it's basically just audio collage, and is transformative enough that it would generally be fair). There's some other things too, but already this list grows large. Dealing with things like DRM, however, are key before we can think we're doing pretty well.
It's just typing - people talking shit. It doesn't have any worth in the same way that a symphony, novel or tv comedy does. You don't need money from your last post to keep you in food, shelter etc while you work on your next post.
/. poster felt that his post was worth being copyrighted, he would fill out a form, send it, and a copy of the post, and a check for a modest sum, to the Copyright Office. Then he would get a copyright on it. The government wouldn't only dole out copyrights for works they felt were meritorious, but they also wouldn't give out copyrights to everyone for everything. Instead, they'd only give them out for people who took the trouble to ask, placing the judgment -- not of artistic merit, of of whether or not copyright was an incentive -- in the hands of the people getting the copyrights. And since they'd have to make a token investment in order to get the copyright, no one would just get copyrights for the hell of it (since that would cost them money) but they would instead judge whether or not the money they could get from exploiting the copyright would at least pay for the cost of getting the copyright in the first place (the copyright cost should be token, really -- e.g. the current $45 fee), plus a bit. Then, I suspect, virtually no one on /. would ever bother to get a copyright on their posts, and the level of posting would probably not decrease, indicating that copyright is not our incentive here. But people who make works for which copyrights are important to them would still get them.
Whether or not the people who make it need to make money from it has nothing to do with its artistic value. A number of artists made money though other means (they had day jobs; they were supported by others; they were already rich; they had become rich enough from their previous work to be able to retire comfortably, yet didn't) but still created artistically valuable works.
And similarly, people talking shit can be valuable too. Copyright does not make artistic judgments. The law and government are absolutely no good at doing that, and shouldn't do that. Right now, these posts (well not mine, see below) are copyrighted, and copyright attempts to serve as an incentive to cause them to be created. I agree that this is bad, but not for the same reason as you. I think that copyright should be an opt-in system. If some
Formalities are a good way of trimming back copyright so that it serves as an incentive, yet isn't granted more than it ought to be.
Where did you get point 3 from?
Partly from all post-Anne copyright law, which always expires after a particular time. Partly from human nature, which is greedy (that's not a bad thing; artists seek out copyrights because they're greedy, and the public gives out copyrights, yet limits them, also because they're greedy). Partly because the obvious (yet sadly unrealistic) ideal world would be one in which everyone who could create, did, yet there were no copyrights, and everyone was free to enjoy works as they saw fit, amass huge collections for free, etc. And partly because there really is a self-evident public interest in having unrestricted works, just as there is an interest in having more works.
If the copyright for a film lasted 5 years, then when the next format comes out, the copyright holders would make £0, whereas now they make a lot more.
This has yet to be determined, actually. DVD was a lot more popular than VHS, but HDDVD and Bluray have yet to be. And with backward compatibility in place, there's less pressure to replace one's DVDs with a newer format. Eventually there will be a shift, but it'll be caused more by changes at the supply level. And we've seen a lot of replacements come out that have challenged CDs (e.g. DVDA, DAT, Minidisc, SACD) and none have gotten anywhere. Downloadable music is doing okay, but more on the piracy side of things. Free MP3s are popular against costly CDs; costly MP3s (or whatever), significantly less so.
P
No, there are incentives aside from making money. For example, look at /. -- all of us here are posting creative works, in the form of our posts and responses in these threads, but none of us are making money from it. The incentive of socializing is enough for us. Other natural incentives include fame, art for art's sake, non-copyright-based economic incentives (e.g. commissions, the fine arts market, being first-to-market, etc.), scholarship, etc.
And in any event, the purpose of copyright law is to serve the public interest, where the public interest is tripartite, and consists of 1) wanting more original works created and published; 2) wanting more derivative works created and published, and; 3) wanting no or minimal (in scope and length) copyright laws.
Which brings us to the life+70 term (which is what it actually is in the US, at least for some works). For the vast, vast majority of creative works, they'll never make money at all. For the tiny minority of works that will ever make money at all, the vast, vast majority of them will make virtually all of the money they'll ever make within a year or two of release in a given medium. For example, let's take movies: When a movie comes out the opening weekend is absolutely critical. It'll make a lot of money that weekend, less the following week, even less the week after that. After a few weeks, it'll be gone from first-run theaters. After a couple of months, it'll be gone from pretty much all theaters. Whatever money it made from the box office during that period is basically all it will ever get in the theatrical medium. Then it comes out on pay-per-view. I have no idea who actually uses ppv, but apparently someone does, and again, when it first comes out, that's when it makes most of the money it will make from ppv. As the weeks drag on, it pulls in less and less. Eventually it drops off of ppv. Then come the sales to movie rental shops and the public, in the form of DVDs. The first week that the DVD is out is when most of the people who have been wanting to buy a copy of the movie will get it; people who have wanted to rent it (rather than use ppv) will get it then too, resulting in most of the rental store orders to have been placed early. But again, as the weeks drag on, sales drop off. A little bit more money can be squeezed from licensing the movie to the cable movie channels, and after that, to regular tv channels. And you can go through the same cycle in the foreign markets. But then, that's basically it. You have gotten 99.44% of all the money you will ever make from this movie. Most of that (box office, ppv, dvd sales) took place in the first three months or so. (Newspapers and some tv shows have the shortest periods, while books probably have the longest, but even for books, it's a couple of years)
So the issue is, if all that the remaining years are worth is the paltry 0.56% remaining money to be wrung out of it, which is true for the vast, vast majority of movies that ever make any money at all, since so very few ever have the lasting popularity to keep making a significant amount of money over the long run, is it important that the copyright lasts so much longer?
If Alice will paint Bob's house when Bob offers to pay her a million dollars, then that certainly has an incentivizing effect, but it is rather costly. If Alice will paint Bob's house when Bob offers to pay a thousand dollars, then that has incentivized her just as much, but in a much more cost-effective manner!
Well, for creative works, we need to provide the least amount of incentive we can in order to get the most works we can -- basically we're looking for how to get the most bang for our buck. If a five year copyright would get nearly as many movies made as a 95 year copyright (the term length most commonly applicable in the US for movies), then surely the five year term is a better bargain. Adding more incentives -- by lengthening the term -- might get a handful of extra films made, but are they worth the cost to the public of having to endure such long copyrights? Probably not. So don't just look at the incentivizing effect, look also at whether or not it is worth it, and just how much of an effect there actually is.