I believe the company that manufactured that disk disagrees with you.
No, they don't. Consumer-level copyright licenses are extremely rare, limited pretty much to the software industry, and in fact, there's no good reason for them to exist, even there. That they do is basically just inertia and misunderstanding of the legal system.
Do you actually own the disk?
Yes.
Can that ownership be revoked?
No.
Are you entitled to a copy of the disk if that disk is damaged or destroyed?
Only to your copy, unless there's some manner of warranty that's applicable (e.g. if it is damaged when you get it from a store, the store will have to replace the bad copy with a good one), or perhaps if someone tortiously damages it, they might have to pay damages equal to the value of the disk, which could be applied to replacing it.
Do you own the contents of that disk?
No, but then, no one does. That's impossible.
Are you licensed to watch the contents of that disk?
No, not that it's even necessary to be.
Are you no longer a licensed viewer of the contents of that disk when that disk is no longer viewable (destroyed/damaged)?
That's moot per what's directly above.
Are you licensed to show the contents of that disk to non-licensed viewers?
No, but that's not always necessary.
Can you charge non-licensed viewers for the privilege of viewing the contents of that disk?
Maybe. It largely, but not entirely, depends on what's on the disk. Alternatively, it depends on whether it'd be fair or not, which will vary according to the totality of relevant circumstances.
Can you derive profit from displaying ads from showing the contents of that disk? Can you copy the contents of that disk? Can you copy and change the format of the contents of that disk? Can you copy portions of that disk to create derivative works? Can you distribute dirivative works from that disk? Can you charge people to watch works created from derivative works from that disk?
Ditto.
Can you destroy that disk?
Yes.
Can you resell that disk?
Yes.
Can you resell that disk after having made personal copies of that disk?
Yes, but it may be taken into consideration as a relevant circumstance as to whether it was lawful to make the personal copy or not. For example, there is a very big difference between buying a disk, copying it, and reselling it, all on the same day, and buying a disk, copying it, and reselling it, all years apart from one another. What you were thinking about at the time you made the copy is important and will be determined by looking at how you acted. Simply saying 'personal copies' isn't a magic invocation that protects you.
By the way... you're an idiot. Think harder in the future. Thanks.
I wouldn't be so quick to insult people if I were you.
It's not deceptive, because these are still prescription drugs, and all the ads do is 1) make people aware of the drug and its general uses and side effects, and 2) suggests going to a doctor. So the worst thing that can happen is that people go to a doctor and get told that they don't need it and won't be prescribed it. Deception would be if they said that it did something it doesn't do.
A patent isn't so much property as it is a limited monopoly.
But since that exclusive monopoly is usable, can be extended to apply to others, or not, and can be disposed of, it's basically property-like, if not actually property (as courts have literally said in the past). I agree that the subject matter isn't property, but the monopoly itself is.
securing for limited Times
Exactly WHAT limits are never explictly stated.
That's funny.
Anyway, while Congress can vary the term or scope of the grant significantly, it is bound by the takings clause if it decides to take the grant back. Prospective changes in patents might work, but I fear that the takings clause will seriously impede retroactive reform efforts.
it served the progress of Science.
Actually, patents deal with the progress of the useful arts. It's copyrights that deal with the progress of science. Late 18th century English is not the same as early 21st century English, and it's just weird how the meanings of the operative words have changed in the clause. Looking up the old meanings in the OED, or even just looking at the structure of the clause, will indicate that I'm right on this, though. As will thinking about remaining examples of the old meanings, e.g. 'state of the art technology,' 'prior art,' 'person having ordinary skill in the art,' etc.
They managed to get around it for advertising cigarettes.
No they didn't. The government has lost to tobacco companies on the First Amendment, when the companies are willing to fight over it. As I pointed out to another poster, try reading the Lorillard case. The main thing restraing the companies are restrictions they accept voluntarily.
Actually, I believe advertising directly to patients only became legal in 1997.
No, that's not true. There were some DTC advertisements prior to 1997 (e.g. for Rogaine), but they were uncommon for two reasons: first, the FDA asked businesses to voluntarily not advertise, and secondly, they required a lot of disclosure in connection with the drug, and that is something the First Amendment doesn't bar them from doing. In '97, they relaxed the disclosure rules significantly, and that's when things took off.
Also, as another example the advertising of cigarettes is already heavily restricted.
Yes, but that's largely voluntary, as part of the settlement of that gigantic lawsuit some years back, or as unwillingness to rock the boat and worsen their image. The tobacco industry has successfully challenged some of the more restrictive laws outside of that agreement on First Amendment grounds. See e.g. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly.
1. Stop advertising drugs on TV and in magazines. You are not a doctor. You shouldn't be "asking your doc" if zotramiphil is right for your itchy ass.
However, that's a First Amendment issue. Commercial speech is fully protected by the First Amendment, at the same level as other forms of speech (e.g. political speech), so long as it does not concern illegal goods or activities, and is not deceptive. Some additional disclosures might be required, but that's not the same as barring the speech altogether. Telling people that some prescription drug exists, what it does, what side effects it might have, etc. is constitutionally protected.
3. If a company develops a truly amazing cure/drug, the government should step in and buy it for the cost of development. The drug should them be distributed for the cost of production inside the US and for twice the cost of production outside the US. Once the costs are recouped, it should be just the cost of production inside and outside the US.
First, it can't do that. This is a Fifth Amendment issue; the government can't take a patent from someone without paying just compensation. That means paying them the profits from the lifetime of the patent, adjusted for current money value. For an amazing drug, that's probably a few billion dollars in a lump sum. It could always not grant patents, or limit the grant of a patent, but that reduces the incentive of the researcher to pursue that drug to begin with. After all, what business will do work merely to recoup costs when they could make a significant profit? Also, how would the US get the right to make or distribute the drug outside of the US? That right is granted by other countries, and has nothing to do with us.
4. Get rid of medical lawsuits. A judge and jury have no idea if what a doc did was right or wrong. Appoint a commission of well-respected docs and have all medical complaints go through that office. If the commission decides the doc was wrong, then the doc should be fired and the patient recouped in a fair way.
That would be unjust; our judicial system exists to resolve disputes, and even administrative disputes are subject to review by the courts. That makes this a due process issue, and neither the federal nor state governments can deny due process. There are problems with your idea in that 1) doctors are likely to be sympathetic and biased in favor of other doctors, which may affect the results, and 2) the punishment you suggest is too harsh against the doctor (everyone makes mistakes, but getting fired isn't always an appropriate reaction), too lenient against the doctor (what if he's self-employed?), and probably not terribly helpful for the patient. It's also probably logistically impractical, in that there are so many complaints that there aren't enough "well-respected docs" to go through all of them.
4a. Make hospitals stop charging so much. Why does it cost $200 for an x-ray and $10 for a tylenol? Because of lawsuits.
The insurance industry has more to do with this than you think; even when there are more legal protections for doctors, and fewer for patients, premiums don't really go down.
5. Make US employers provide health insurance. Yes, all of them. Call it the cost of doing business in the USA.
Which doesn't help the unemployed, and possibly not the self-employed, and is still probably inefficient. I'd rather have a singular government-run system.
5a. For every non-US employee a company contracts or subcontracts, make them pay money directly to the federal government's unemployment fund. In other words, a non-US employee working for a US company still gets taxed at the same rate as a US employee would.
This will simply result in US companies not doing business outside the US, but instead spinning off nominally independent companies that it partners with, which do. Since those companies will lack a US presence, but still effectively be controlled from the US, this will be easily and effectively skirted. Similar practices are already common for certain types of regulations. It's also rather protectionist, which may not actually be helpful.
Well, that would be tremendously expensive, since the government would have to pay the fair market value, and so the company that originally had the patent would get awarded many millions of dollars or more, depending on that the patent in question was worth. And since there are usually a number of applicable patents, which may be held by different entities, the costs rapidly mount. I don't think it's an effective way of doing things.
Well, a copyright is nothing more or less than the right to deny other people the ability to do things. That's why it is called an exclusive right -- it's a right to exclude. If it is a right to exclude, then the underlying right it is excluding people from practicing must have some other, more fundamental origin. If you look at the reasons for having copyright, the history of copyright, the mechanics of how copyright works, it's an inescapable conclusion that it is not a fundamental or inherent right; it's an artifical, utilitarian right. An author no more deserves a copyright than a utility company deserves a monopoly. Instead, they're simply granted such monopolies by the government because it suits their purposes to grant them. No one would ever give Comcast a cable tv monopoly because they're such romantic figures. Authors are no different when looked at rationally. The romantic idea of an author is just bunk.
It's a simple fact that copyright is an infringement of freedom of speech. Nevertheless, it may be an acceptable infringement, and an infringement permitted notwithstanding the guarantees of the First Amendment, but only up to a certain point.
Personally, I've always felt that the securing language is due to the history of state copyright law, which predates the federal Constitution. But I don't think that the framers would've bought into the (utterly bogus) argument that there's an inherent right to copyrights, or better still, patents. In fact, has anyone ever seriously argued, even now, that there is an inherent right to patents? I don't believe that even the French have, and while I've no problem with them generally, they're the world leaders in stupidity in copyright law, so you'd imagine it would be them.
In any event, n.b. the difference between natural rights, which is what I wrote about, and constitutionally protected rights, which is what you're talking about, what the First Amendment deals with, etc.
Well that's just idiotic. The right amount of laws to have is what works best to establish and maintain a desirable society and polity, not some arbitrary number you've clearly pulled out of your ass.
Besides, your idea is unworkable on its face: laws are lengthy and complex when there is a desire for certainty. When laws are short and simple, there is less certainty as to what they mean (which, incidentally, means that you want to use caselaw, since then the courts will be able to all agree and take a largely uniform approach, rather than varying wildly as they all take their best guess, which will differ).
Saying that the law should be as you describe is as stupid as if I said that the source code for an entire, fast, efficient, feature-packed OS, windowing UI, and apps (office suite, web browser, media player, etc.) should all fit, uncompressed, on a single floppy, and be human-readable, and easily understood by any average high school graduate. It would be nice, but it's a foolish demand to make, and probably can't even be done because some things are simply complicated, and that's how life is.
A legal system can be simple, consistant, just, and efficient, but not all at the same time. In our society, and pretty much every other civilized society, we've chosen to go for just and consistant and where possible, efficient. Most simple and efficient legal systems tend to be of the 'might makes right' or 'eye for an eye' variety, and usually are not very consistant or just.
Free speech is a right. Copyright is a restriction on that right. Fair use is a limitation to the scope of the restriction. It's not a right in itself, it's just that when fair use (or other limits to copyright, inclusive of even the furthest limits of its extent having to stop somewhere) applies, nothing restricts the underlying right of free speech anymore, and you can exercise your free speech by, say, copying works.
Where, exactly, did the right to distribute other people's work originate?
God, apparently. That right is part of the right of free speech and press, which is inherent in humanity. Copyright is an infringement on this right, as it is a right by an author, not to create works (which he already had) but to deny other people their equally inherent right to copy them. It is an acceptable infringement under the right circumstances, but its true nature should not be forgotten. And under the wrong circumstances (i.e. bad, overexpansive copyright law) the artificial right of copyright is not an acceptable infringement on our natural rights.
If MacHeist took 10x the risk of the developers, then it would be equitable for them to take a proportionately larger share of the reward. Don't assume that even a significant disparity in the cut is equitable. Equity isn't quantitative, it's qualitative.
It's not the job of individual developers to care about the industry as a whole. And it certainly isn't the job of the consumers to care either.
For one, it reveals how much those developers who participated really value their work.
You would rather not have known this? If you feel like you overpaid, better that you know this than that you don't. Perhaps you'll be more cautious in the future, perhaps it developers will have to lower prices in response, but I just don't see how ignorance is a positive here.
Personally, I really don't care how developers choose to market and price their software. Either they'll find a good way to do so, or they won't. If they don't, then they'll either fix it or go out of business. That's a pretty good motivation for them to do a good job, or at least fix their mistakes, with regards to pricing, marketing, etc. So why complain about this particular experiment? Complaints aren't really relevant. If it's a good idea, it'll succeed and catch on and be popular amongst developers because it works well. If not, it'll die out on its own accord. Either way, customer response -- aside from how it affects the fortunes of the participants -- isn't relevant.
Meh. It's like saying that water seeks its own level. It's just a way of saying that it runs downhill. Information wants to be free in that it spreads and spreads, but is very difficult to either keep from spreading, or to pull back, once it's gotten out. It has nothing to do with price, particularly, other than that it tends to spread more when it's free.
Compilations aren't necessarily copyrightable, though, and even where they are, the compilation copyright only covers the compilation, and not the material that compromises the compilation. That is, it covers a specific arrangement and selection of items, but not the items themselves. And the compilation still has to be original and creative. An uncreative one isn't copyrightable.
As for it being hard work, so what? Copyright is interested in originality, not hard work. An original limerick written in thirty seconds is copyrightable, but a book of uncreatively selected and arranged facts that took a lifetime to produce is not copyrightable.
You should mind. The royalties are generally nothing. Almost no works -- a fraction of a fraction of a percent -- are worth anything after a few years, much less over a really long span of time. Copyrights are a worse way of providing for widows and orphans than just giving them lottery tickets would be. The odds are worse, with copyright.
If you really are concerned with families, then support pensions, IRAs, social security, welfare, life insurance, and other systems that not only are infinitely more successful at actually helping families, but which are available to everyone, and not just a handful of artists (who, btw, if their works were of continuing value, probably had a fortune early on, assuming they didn't squander it).
I short, feeling good isn't enough. You have to look at results.
It's actually not a good enough reason. That's just saying that the people should have to bear the costs of the publishing industry by means of a monopoly, because they have a craptastic business model that amounts to gambling wildly. The superior argument is to not let them ride so long on successful works, as an impetus to developing a better idea of what works are a good investment and what aren't. Right now, they don't suffer from failure, and it shows.
Of course, if you stick with this, why is that argument no good for me? Why can't I demand that everyone pay me a dollar a year because I'm bad at my job?
That doesn't make it not greedy. It just means that you or I would also be greedy if only we had something to be greedy about. Personally, I don't care if he's greedy. It doesn't make him a bad person to my eyes. But if he can be greedy, then I can be greedy too. And in my position, my greed is for getting his music in the public domain and then getting it for free or at least minimal cost. Both our positions are valid. But there's only one of him, and everyone else is in the same boat as me.
And? The point is whether you will have a monetary incentive to create the works or not. If a man from the future told you that your book would not sell a single copy until the year 2500, at which time it would become more popular than the Bible, and that you were going to die in the year 2050, would the money that you would never ever see serve as an incentive to you? Would the knowledge that, with a long copyright, your ancestors in the year 2500 would be rich, while you'd be in the ground, make you want to start typing right now?
No.
If money is your incentive, then you can count on (in well over 99% of cases) making the vast majority of all you'll ever make, almost immediately. If you haven't gotten a million dollars in a year or two, you pretty certainly never will, not from that work. This is the reality of the economic value of creative works. Everyone in the industry knows it. It's why movies that don't make money in a week or two at the box office are flops, it's why TV shows with poor demographics are dropped within weeks, it's why most publishers (in any field, movies, music, books, etc.) can and do reject most everything that gets submitted to them, because they have a good eye for whether something will be immediately profitable or never profitable.
There are exceptions, but they're as rare as hens' teeth, with worse odds than just buying lottery tickets instead of having created the work in the first place.
But a lot of it might suck compared to contemporary music.
So? Copyright is meant to encourage quantity, not quality. A lot of contemporary music sucks too. In fact, it's well known that 90% of everything is crap. The only way to get more of the good stuff is to beef up the total quantity, since it's really not possible to change the underlying ratios (which are probably even worse than 90:10).
Production values not only cost less and less all the time, but they play a rather small role in whether a work is good or not.
Get a better argument. DVD burners and the internet did not exist before copyright. Neither did the printing press, nor science as we know it today, for that matter.
Get some facts: The printing press was invented around 1440-1450. Copyright as we know it (rather than as mere official censorship) was invented in 1710, and then, only in England. It took a long while to spread, with many countries not having copyright until the 19th and 20th centuries.
In distant history, professional musicians were paid by the church, the government, or by wealthy patrons. Would you like to live in a world where all art is produced with the approval of these three groups?
Actually, they're paid by wealthy patrons now. They just have many many more patrons, and they pay less per head. What do you think concert-goers are?
Creators who can't make a living off their creations either don't create, or don't survive.
That's not true at all. Look at Wallace Stevens. One of the greatest 20th century poets, and he made his money working for an insurance company. What you said is true of some artists, but not all of them. In fact, there are plenty of ways to make money as an artist that have nothing to do with copyright. I know, having done it for some years before going back to school to switch professions (and not for economic reasons). I made a living as artistic labor, making creative works for clients that also didn't care about copyrights, but just wanted the works to use. I made money from labor, no differently than a plumber or an assembly-line worker, not from my works.
Mm. Copyrights are exceptionally unreliable. If you wanted to help support people over time, they would be better off if you just gave them lottery tickets. The odds are better. Short term copyright is what's best for the public with regards to artistic works. Social welfare programs, sound investments, etc. are what's good for artists and their families over the long run.
No we're not. Less copyright is not a discouragement. It is just less of an artificial encouragement.
By analogy, if Alice gives her child $20 to mow the lawn, and Bob just tells his child to mow the lawn, then Bob isn't trying to discourage his child, he just isn't bribing his child.
Copyright is a bribe. It is meant to get artists to do something that they wouldn't do otherwise. It's actually inappropriate to give copyrights to artists when they would create a work anyway. It's wasteful. And at some point, the bribe can be excessive. Would Alice give her child $2,000 to mow the lawn? Of course not. The child would love it, but it's inappropriate. She could get a gardener to come do it instead for far less. Likewise, excessive copyrights are a dumb idea, because no matter how much the artist might like them (and no matter how much people would be motivated to become artists instead of doing something else), it's simply going to cost the public far more than it's worth. In the end, copyright should only be granted when, and to an extent, that best serves the public interest. If that's not enough for some people, well, tough. Giving them more would by definition be against the public interest. Why should the public support that?
I feel like an artist should retain ownership of their creations until death, plus however many years the law decides after that.
And I think that's grossly excessive. Somewhere on the order of 20ish years is probably better, and shorter if possible (e.g. by only granting copyrights when asked, and only for a few years before requiring them to ask again, by which we can weed out people who are disinterested). Studies indicate that few artists would quit and go into other fields, since the economic rewards would be about the same, but that there'd be less of a burden to society because so much less protection would be granted.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the company that manufactured that disk disagrees with you.
No, they don't. Consumer-level copyright licenses are extremely rare, limited pretty much to the software industry, and in fact, there's no good reason for them to exist, even there. That they do is basically just inertia and misunderstanding of the legal system.
Do you actually own the disk?
Yes.
Can that ownership be revoked?
No.
Are you entitled to a copy of the disk if that disk is damaged or destroyed?
Only to your copy, unless there's some manner of warranty that's applicable (e.g. if it is damaged when you get it from a store, the store will have to replace the bad copy with a good one), or perhaps if someone tortiously damages it, they might have to pay damages equal to the value of the disk, which could be applied to replacing it.
Do you own the contents of that disk?
No, but then, no one does. That's impossible.
Are you licensed to watch the contents of that disk?
No, not that it's even necessary to be.
Are you no longer a licensed viewer of the contents of that disk when that disk is no longer viewable (destroyed/damaged)?
That's moot per what's directly above.
Are you licensed to show the contents of that disk to non-licensed viewers?
No, but that's not always necessary.
Can you charge non-licensed viewers for the privilege of viewing the contents of that disk?
Maybe. It largely, but not entirely, depends on what's on the disk. Alternatively, it depends on whether it'd be fair or not, which will vary according to the totality of relevant circumstances.
Can you derive profit from displaying ads from showing the contents of that disk? Can you copy the contents of that disk? Can you copy and change the format of the contents of that disk? Can you copy portions of that disk to create derivative works? Can you distribute dirivative works from that disk? Can you charge people to watch works created from derivative works from that disk?
Ditto.
Can you destroy that disk?
Yes.
Can you resell that disk?
Yes.
Can you resell that disk after having made personal copies of that disk?
Yes, but it may be taken into consideration as a relevant circumstance as to whether it was lawful to make the personal copy or not. For example, there is a very big difference between buying a disk, copying it, and reselling it, all on the same day, and buying a disk, copying it, and reselling it, all years apart from one another. What you were thinking about at the time you made the copy is important and will be determined by looking at how you acted. Simply saying 'personal copies' isn't a magic invocation that protects you.
By the way... you're an idiot. Think harder in the future. Thanks.
I wouldn't be so quick to insult people if I were you.
It's not deceptive, because these are still prescription drugs, and all the ads do is 1) make people aware of the drug and its general uses and side effects, and 2) suggests going to a doctor. So the worst thing that can happen is that people go to a doctor and get told that they don't need it and won't be prescribed it. Deception would be if they said that it did something it doesn't do.
A patent isn't so much property as it is a limited monopoly.
But since that exclusive monopoly is usable, can be extended to apply to others, or not, and can be disposed of, it's basically property-like, if not actually property (as courts have literally said in the past). I agree that the subject matter isn't property, but the monopoly itself is.
securing for limited Times
Exactly WHAT limits are never explictly stated.
That's funny.
Anyway, while Congress can vary the term or scope of the grant significantly, it is bound by the takings clause if it decides to take the grant back. Prospective changes in patents might work, but I fear that the takings clause will seriously impede retroactive reform efforts.
it served the progress of Science.
Actually, patents deal with the progress of the useful arts. It's copyrights that deal with the progress of science. Late 18th century English is not the same as early 21st century English, and it's just weird how the meanings of the operative words have changed in the clause. Looking up the old meanings in the OED, or even just looking at the structure of the clause, will indicate that I'm right on this, though. As will thinking about remaining examples of the old meanings, e.g. 'state of the art technology,' 'prior art,' 'person having ordinary skill in the art,' etc.
They managed to get around it for advertising cigarettes.
No they didn't. The government has lost to tobacco companies on the First Amendment, when the companies are willing to fight over it. As I pointed out to another poster, try reading the Lorillard case. The main thing restraing the companies are restrictions they accept voluntarily.
Actually, I believe advertising directly to patients only became legal in 1997.
No, that's not true. There were some DTC advertisements prior to 1997 (e.g. for Rogaine), but they were uncommon for two reasons: first, the FDA asked businesses to voluntarily not advertise, and secondly, they required a lot of disclosure in connection with the drug, and that is something the First Amendment doesn't bar them from doing. In '97, they relaxed the disclosure rules significantly, and that's when things took off.
Also, as another example the advertising of cigarettes is already heavily restricted.
Yes, but that's largely voluntary, as part of the settlement of that gigantic lawsuit some years back, or as unwillingness to rock the boat and worsen their image. The tobacco industry has successfully challenged some of the more restrictive laws outside of that agreement on First Amendment grounds. See e.g. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly.
1. Stop advertising drugs on TV and in magazines. You are not a doctor. You shouldn't be "asking your doc" if zotramiphil is right for your itchy ass.
However, that's a First Amendment issue. Commercial speech is fully protected by the First Amendment, at the same level as other forms of speech (e.g. political speech), so long as it does not concern illegal goods or activities, and is not deceptive. Some additional disclosures might be required, but that's not the same as barring the speech altogether. Telling people that some prescription drug exists, what it does, what side effects it might have, etc. is constitutionally protected.
3. If a company develops a truly amazing cure/drug, the government should step in and buy it for the cost of development. The drug should them be distributed for the cost of production inside the US and for twice the cost of production outside the US. Once the costs are recouped, it should be just the cost of production inside and outside the US.
First, it can't do that. This is a Fifth Amendment issue; the government can't take a patent from someone without paying just compensation. That means paying them the profits from the lifetime of the patent, adjusted for current money value. For an amazing drug, that's probably a few billion dollars in a lump sum. It could always not grant patents, or limit the grant of a patent, but that reduces the incentive of the researcher to pursue that drug to begin with. After all, what business will do work merely to recoup costs when they could make a significant profit? Also, how would the US get the right to make or distribute the drug outside of the US? That right is granted by other countries, and has nothing to do with us.
4. Get rid of medical lawsuits. A judge and jury have no idea if what a doc did was right or wrong. Appoint a commission of well-respected docs and have all medical complaints go through that office. If the commission decides the doc was wrong, then the doc should be fired and the patient recouped in a fair way.
That would be unjust; our judicial system exists to resolve disputes, and even administrative disputes are subject to review by the courts. That makes this a due process issue, and neither the federal nor state governments can deny due process. There are problems with your idea in that 1) doctors are likely to be sympathetic and biased in favor of other doctors, which may affect the results, and 2) the punishment you suggest is too harsh against the doctor (everyone makes mistakes, but getting fired isn't always an appropriate reaction), too lenient against the doctor (what if he's self-employed?), and probably not terribly helpful for the patient. It's also probably logistically impractical, in that there are so many complaints that there aren't enough "well-respected docs" to go through all of them.
4a. Make hospitals stop charging so much. Why does it cost $200 for an x-ray and $10 for a tylenol? Because of lawsuits.
The insurance industry has more to do with this than you think; even when there are more legal protections for doctors, and fewer for patients, premiums don't really go down.
5. Make US employers provide health insurance. Yes, all of them. Call it the cost of doing business in the USA.
Which doesn't help the unemployed, and possibly not the self-employed, and is still probably inefficient. I'd rather have a singular government-run system.
5a. For every non-US employee a company contracts or subcontracts, make them pay money directly to the federal government's unemployment fund. In other words, a non-US employee working for a US company still gets taxed at the same rate as a US employee would.
This will simply result in US companies not doing business outside the US, but instead spinning off nominally independent companies that it partners with, which do. Since those companies will lack a US presence, but still effectively be controlled from the US, this will be easily and effectively skirted. Similar practices are already common for certain types of regulations. It's also rather protectionist, which may not actually be helpful.
Well, that would be tremendously expensive, since the government would have to pay the fair market value, and so the company that originally had the patent would get awarded many millions of dollars or more, depending on that the patent in question was worth. And since there are usually a number of applicable patents, which may be held by different entities, the costs rapidly mount. I don't think it's an effective way of doing things.
Well, a copyright is nothing more or less than the right to deny other people the ability to do things. That's why it is called an exclusive right -- it's a right to exclude. If it is a right to exclude, then the underlying right it is excluding people from practicing must have some other, more fundamental origin. If you look at the reasons for having copyright, the history of copyright, the mechanics of how copyright works, it's an inescapable conclusion that it is not a fundamental or inherent right; it's an artifical, utilitarian right. An author no more deserves a copyright than a utility company deserves a monopoly. Instead, they're simply granted such monopolies by the government because it suits their purposes to grant them. No one would ever give Comcast a cable tv monopoly because they're such romantic figures. Authors are no different when looked at rationally. The romantic idea of an author is just bunk.
It's a simple fact that copyright is an infringement of freedom of speech. Nevertheless, it may be an acceptable infringement, and an infringement permitted notwithstanding the guarantees of the First Amendment, but only up to a certain point.
Personally, I've always felt that the securing language is due to the history of state copyright law, which predates the federal Constitution. But I don't think that the framers would've bought into the (utterly bogus) argument that there's an inherent right to copyrights, or better still, patents. In fact, has anyone ever seriously argued, even now, that there is an inherent right to patents? I don't believe that even the French have, and while I've no problem with them generally, they're the world leaders in stupidity in copyright law, so you'd imagine it would be them.
In any event, n.b. the difference between natural rights, which is what I wrote about, and constitutionally protected rights, which is what you're talking about, what the First Amendment deals with, etc.
Well that's just idiotic. The right amount of laws to have is what works best to establish and maintain a desirable society and polity, not some arbitrary number you've clearly pulled out of your ass.
Besides, your idea is unworkable on its face: laws are lengthy and complex when there is a desire for certainty. When laws are short and simple, there is less certainty as to what they mean (which, incidentally, means that you want to use caselaw, since then the courts will be able to all agree and take a largely uniform approach, rather than varying wildly as they all take their best guess, which will differ).
Saying that the law should be as you describe is as stupid as if I said that the source code for an entire, fast, efficient, feature-packed OS, windowing UI, and apps (office suite, web browser, media player, etc.) should all fit, uncompressed, on a single floppy, and be human-readable, and easily understood by any average high school graduate. It would be nice, but it's a foolish demand to make, and probably can't even be done because some things are simply complicated, and that's how life is.
A legal system can be simple, consistant, just, and efficient, but not all at the same time. In our society, and pretty much every other civilized society, we've chosen to go for just and consistant and where possible, efficient. Most simple and efficient legal systems tend to be of the 'might makes right' or 'eye for an eye' variety, and usually are not very consistant or just.
No, technically fair use isn't a right.
Free speech is a right. Copyright is a restriction on that right. Fair use is a limitation to the scope of the restriction. It's not a right in itself, it's just that when fair use (or other limits to copyright, inclusive of even the furthest limits of its extent having to stop somewhere) applies, nothing restricts the underlying right of free speech anymore, and you can exercise your free speech by, say, copying works.
Where, exactly, did the right to distribute other people's work originate?
God, apparently. That right is part of the right of free speech and press, which is inherent in humanity. Copyright is an infringement on this right, as it is a right by an author, not to create works (which he already had) but to deny other people their equally inherent right to copy them. It is an acceptable infringement under the right circumstances, but its true nature should not be forgotten. And under the wrong circumstances (i.e. bad, overexpansive copyright law) the artificial right of copyright is not an acceptable infringement on our natural rights.
If MacHeist took 10x the risk of the developers, then it would be equitable for them to take a proportionately larger share of the reward. Don't assume that even a significant disparity in the cut is equitable. Equity isn't quantitative, it's qualitative.
It hurts the industry.
It's not the job of individual developers to care about the industry as a whole. And it certainly isn't the job of the consumers to care either.
For one, it reveals how much those developers who participated really value their work.
You would rather not have known this? If you feel like you overpaid, better that you know this than that you don't. Perhaps you'll be more cautious in the future, perhaps it developers will have to lower prices in response, but I just don't see how ignorance is a positive here.
Personally, I really don't care how developers choose to market and price their software. Either they'll find a good way to do so, or they won't. If they don't, then they'll either fix it or go out of business. That's a pretty good motivation for them to do a good job, or at least fix their mistakes, with regards to pricing, marketing, etc. So why complain about this particular experiment? Complaints aren't really relevant. If it's a good idea, it'll succeed and catch on and be popular amongst developers because it works well. If not, it'll die out on its own accord. Either way, customer response -- aside from how it affects the fortunes of the participants -- isn't relevant.
Meh. It's like saying that water seeks its own level. It's just a way of saying that it runs downhill. Information wants to be free in that it spreads and spreads, but is very difficult to either keep from spreading, or to pull back, once it's gotten out. It has nothing to do with price, particularly, other than that it tends to spread more when it's free.
Compilations aren't necessarily copyrightable, though, and even where they are, the compilation copyright only covers the compilation, and not the material that compromises the compilation. That is, it covers a specific arrangement and selection of items, but not the items themselves. And the compilation still has to be original and creative. An uncreative one isn't copyrightable.
As for it being hard work, so what? Copyright is interested in originality, not hard work. An original limerick written in thirty seconds is copyrightable, but a book of uncreatively selected and arranged facts that took a lifetime to produce is not copyrightable.
I hate to attack Paul McCartney because he died back in the 60's. ;)
You should mind. The royalties are generally nothing. Almost no works -- a fraction of a fraction of a percent -- are worth anything after a few years, much less over a really long span of time. Copyrights are a worse way of providing for widows and orphans than just giving them lottery tickets would be. The odds are worse, with copyright.
If you really are concerned with families, then support pensions, IRAs, social security, welfare, life insurance, and other systems that not only are infinitely more successful at actually helping families, but which are available to everyone, and not just a handful of artists (who, btw, if their works were of continuing value, probably had a fortune early on, assuming they didn't squander it).
I short, feeling good isn't enough. You have to look at results.
It's actually not a good enough reason. That's just saying that the people should have to bear the costs of the publishing industry by means of a monopoly, because they have a craptastic business model that amounts to gambling wildly. The superior argument is to not let them ride so long on successful works, as an impetus to developing a better idea of what works are a good investment and what aren't. Right now, they don't suffer from failure, and it shows.
Of course, if you stick with this, why is that argument no good for me? Why can't I demand that everyone pay me a dollar a year because I'm bad at my job?
That doesn't make it not greedy. It just means that you or I would also be greedy if only we had something to be greedy about. Personally, I don't care if he's greedy. It doesn't make him a bad person to my eyes. But if he can be greedy, then I can be greedy too. And in my position, my greed is for getting his music in the public domain and then getting it for free or at least minimal cost. Both our positions are valid. But there's only one of him, and everyone else is in the same boat as me.
And? The point is whether you will have a monetary incentive to create the works or not. If a man from the future told you that your book would not sell a single copy until the year 2500, at which time it would become more popular than the Bible, and that you were going to die in the year 2050, would the money that you would never ever see serve as an incentive to you? Would the knowledge that, with a long copyright, your ancestors in the year 2500 would be rich, while you'd be in the ground, make you want to start typing right now?
No.
If money is your incentive, then you can count on (in well over 99% of cases) making the vast majority of all you'll ever make, almost immediately. If you haven't gotten a million dollars in a year or two, you pretty certainly never will, not from that work. This is the reality of the economic value of creative works. Everyone in the industry knows it. It's why movies that don't make money in a week or two at the box office are flops, it's why TV shows with poor demographics are dropped within weeks, it's why most publishers (in any field, movies, music, books, etc.) can and do reject most everything that gets submitted to them, because they have a good eye for whether something will be immediately profitable or never profitable.
There are exceptions, but they're as rare as hens' teeth, with worse odds than just buying lottery tickets instead of having created the work in the first place.
But a lot of it might suck compared to contemporary music.
So? Copyright is meant to encourage quantity, not quality. A lot of contemporary music sucks too. In fact, it's well known that 90% of everything is crap. The only way to get more of the good stuff is to beef up the total quantity, since it's really not possible to change the underlying ratios (which are probably even worse than 90:10).
Production values not only cost less and less all the time, but they play a rather small role in whether a work is good or not.
Get a better argument. DVD burners and the internet did not exist before copyright. Neither did the printing press, nor science as we know it today, for that matter.
Get some facts: The printing press was invented around 1440-1450. Copyright as we know it (rather than as mere official censorship) was invented in 1710, and then, only in England. It took a long while to spread, with many countries not having copyright until the 19th and 20th centuries.
In distant history, professional musicians were paid by the church, the government, or by wealthy patrons. Would you like to live in a world where all art is produced with the approval of these three groups?
Actually, they're paid by wealthy patrons now. They just have many many more patrons, and they pay less per head. What do you think concert-goers are?
Creators who can't make a living off their creations either don't create, or don't survive.
That's not true at all. Look at Wallace Stevens. One of the greatest 20th century poets, and he made his money working for an insurance company. What you said is true of some artists, but not all of them. In fact, there are plenty of ways to make money as an artist that have nothing to do with copyright. I know, having done it for some years before going back to school to switch professions (and not for economic reasons). I made a living as artistic labor, making creative works for clients that also didn't care about copyrights, but just wanted the works to use. I made money from labor, no differently than a plumber or an assembly-line worker, not from my works.
Mm. Copyrights are exceptionally unreliable. If you wanted to help support people over time, they would be better off if you just gave them lottery tickets. The odds are better. Short term copyright is what's best for the public with regards to artistic works. Social welfare programs, sound investments, etc. are what's good for artists and their families over the long run.
No we're not. Less copyright is not a discouragement. It is just less of an artificial encouragement.
By analogy, if Alice gives her child $20 to mow the lawn, and Bob just tells his child to mow the lawn, then Bob isn't trying to discourage his child, he just isn't bribing his child.
Copyright is a bribe. It is meant to get artists to do something that they wouldn't do otherwise. It's actually inappropriate to give copyrights to artists when they would create a work anyway. It's wasteful. And at some point, the bribe can be excessive. Would Alice give her child $2,000 to mow the lawn? Of course not. The child would love it, but it's inappropriate. She could get a gardener to come do it instead for far less. Likewise, excessive copyrights are a dumb idea, because no matter how much the artist might like them (and no matter how much people would be motivated to become artists instead of doing something else), it's simply going to cost the public far more than it's worth. In the end, copyright should only be granted when, and to an extent, that best serves the public interest. If that's not enough for some people, well, tough. Giving them more would by definition be against the public interest. Why should the public support that?
I feel like an artist should retain ownership of their creations until death, plus however many years the law decides after that.
And I think that's grossly excessive. Somewhere on the order of 20ish years is probably better, and shorter if possible (e.g. by only granting copyrights when asked, and only for a few years before requiring them to ask again, by which we can weed out people who are disinterested). Studies indicate that few artists would quit and go into other fields, since the economic rewards would be about the same, but that there'd be less of a burden to society because so much less protection would be granted.