You do realize of course that copyright is NOT based upon the sweat of the brow theory. Investing hard work isn't good enough to get a copyright. This is why the research that goes into, say, a history book CAN be copied out by others without compensation. The historian can't own the facts. He can report on them, but he didn't create them.
Also neither copyright nor patents protect ideas. Nor do trademarks. Trade secrets approach it, but even they have significant weaknesses.
The constitution was written in 1789, and the English language is well known for its changes over time.
Science referred to general knowledge, and Pooh would fall in there. The useful arts were the applied sciences, and fall under patents. (c.f. state of the art technology, prior art, persons having ordinary skill in the art, etc.)
Anyway, do you think companies like IBM would be so enthusiastic in their research into new technologies, if any competitor were allowed to just sit back and copy IBMs methods as soon as they hit the market? In such a patent-free market, those doing the research would actually be at a disadvantage. They'd be first to market, sure, but their competition would not have to recoup any investment in research, which can be substantial.
Yes, I think they would be. I think that a great deal of the stuff they get patents on would be worth working on even without a patent. And there are research costs involved in competing, since without patents there isn't as much disclosure either.
Patents serve as an incentive to get people to invent when they otherwise would not. If they would anyway -- as is the case for probably the vast majority of software patents -- then it's a waste of public resources to grant a patent.
Plus, invention isn't the end-all be-all of patents. You only want to provide the minimal possible incentive. This is because the public is just as interested in having a public domain as it is in having new inventions. Inventions do the most good when anyone can use them for free. Restricting freedom is merely how we pay to get them created -- it's not a goal, it's an unfortunate compromise that should be carefully reexamined lest we over-incentivize.
Similarly, do you think it's right that a publisher in Russia can just bang out copies of O'Reilly books, without a penny of the profits going to the authors or original publisher?
Doesn't bother me. Would O'Reilly have written those books if there were a wall around Russia and no Russian could possibly buy them? I bet they would. In that case, they don't need the incentive of the Russian market.
Plus, it's for the Russians to decide. If they want to encourage creation, they'll do so. If they want to encourage competition, they'll do that. They are the best judges of their own best interests. Whatever they decide, I support their right to pick for themselves. We shouldn't lecture them. We too should pick what we think is best.
If our system is really all it's cracked up to be, it will get adopted elsewhere on its own merits; because it serves the best interests of other countries. If not, then maybe we should rethink what we're doing.
Certainly I'm against copyright treaties, patent treaties, etc. I think that the whole of international copyright should be 1) national treatment, 2) formalities are okay, but shouldn't be such that authors are forced to choose between two mutually incompatable countries.
Laws that allow creators to benefit from their works.
But it doesn't profit me for creators to benefit from their works. In fact, that benefit probably derives from me, so in fact it's harmful. How can you justify harming me so?
Laws that mean companies must innovate to succeed.
Innovation is good, but refinement and commoditizing are also good. It's great to invent the first light bulb, but light bulbs are better when they last longer, are very inexpensive, are very cheap, and can be had anywhere or made by anyone. Innovation alone isn't enough, and so we must avoid encouraging it at the expense of all else.
Laws that allow people to own ideas that are the result of their time.
But that merely rewards people for spending time. If I spent a lot of time inventing the wheel, should I get to own the idea and charge you for driving to work? In fact, why should we allow people to own an idea at all? Can you name an example of when we have done so? (n.b. inventions are not ideas; they're more refined and are much rarer)
In sum, I think you haven't fully thought this through.
Copyright was intended as a way of protecting the rights of a person to their works.
No it wasn't.
First, copyright is the right of a person to their works; it's not protecting some other set of rights.
Second, copyright was intended as a way of promoting the public good, which is served by both increasing the number of original and derivative works created, and by promptly placing those works in the public domain so that they can be free to all. Granting rights to authors is merely a way to accomplish part of this. I say part, because in order to fully accomplish it, the rights need to go away again, since it's bad for them to be there.
No, trademarks require that the mark identify a particular source of goods. A trademark absolutely cannot identify the good itself, without becoming generic and therefore unprotectable.
This is why trademarks on patented and copyrighted materials are not in an ideal position. Once the patent or copyright expires, everyone can use the name by which the good is publicly identified to continue to identify that good.
This is why it's a good idea to use the trademark as an adjective on the generic name. For example, let's say that the book 'Foo' had been copyrighted. Setting aside that you can't trademark the name of a single work anyway (since it unavoidably indicates the work, not the source), it would be best for you to say 'FT Lofaro Jr.'s 'Foo,'' since once that book hits the public domain, I have a perfect right to reprint it and use its name, but not your source-identifying name. Thus my copy could be 'Foo,' or 'cpt kangarooski's 'Foo.''
You might want to look over the Shredded Wheat case, which is well known. It dealt with a patent, rather than a copyright, but the analysis is the same either way, since we're not talking about functionality here.
Yes you can. Implied licenses are nothing new. But the law doesn't allow you to assign a copyright -- necessary if you were to gift it in this fashion -- without a written, signed instrument to that effect. 17 USC 204(a) is the relevant provision.
If I'm a developer for a comercial, proprietary software vendor then all the code I write become property of the company. That's pretty straight forward.
It's not guaranteed, but it's likely enough. You might want to look at 17 USC 201(a) and (b), the definition of a Work Made for Hire in 101, and the CCNV v. Reid case for factors that play into whether or not someone is an employee for 101 purposes.
If I did volunteer coding on the library web site, I would assume (but don't know for a fact) that my work would become the property of the library unless other specific arrangements were made.
No, again it might be a work for hire as described above. If not, then per 201(d) and 204(a) an assignment would be possible, but it'd have to be in writing. And if not that, then a license is possible without a writing of course, but there'd be a good chance that it would be nonexclusive. The only ways for the library to own the copyright (the work is unownable by anyone) would be to be the author under work for hire or to have the copyright assigned to them.
If I 'contribute' my code to a 'project' doesnt' the project becomes a legal entity itself and therefor own the copyright of the code? I would assume this is the case because the project itself licenses the work under the GPL. You don't see individual contributors attaching GPL license to every modification they check in to the source tree.
Again, there's only two ways to get ownership of a copyright, and that's unlikely to qualify for either. More likely contributions are licensed, possibly under the GPL despite not attaching it every time. I suppose a partnership could arise automatically, but that's not a separate entity, that's just shared authority and liability amongst the partners. (And is almost never desirable)
Well, yes, the true reason is that the choreography and effects have improved remarkably. The fight in the first movie was laughably awful, especially that spin that Obi-Wan does for no reason.
Nevertheless, IIRC, Lucas (or someone else associated with the film) has put forth the reason I discussed as a reason for the improvement in the newer films. If you google around, you might find a statement about it.
Well, think about how the prequel saber fights have been more dynamic than the original ones were. Arguably this was attributable to Vader being clunky, Obi-Wan being old and out of practice, and Luke not being well trained. So it seems to me that Vader's physical abilities have diminished from his cybernetics, rather than stayed at the same level or increased. Plus he seems to have become extra-susceptible to force lightning.
Still, he didn't get the cybernetics until Yoda and Obi-Wan were the last Jedi left and had left to go into hiding, so maybe it was felt that he wouldn't really need to go into combat. (And indeed, he doesn't seem to have as a general rule in the original movies)
As for force-tampering with cybernetics, they're vulnerable to it. Obi-Wan uses this to defeat Grevious, and again less successfully against Vader (since Vader already has one cybernetic arm). Basically he makes them drop their sabers. Though I don't see why this wouldn't work on opponents' organic bits (e.g. force choke) even where they are good combatants or Jedi.
Well, the Ep 3 novelization is already out, and it indicates that Obi-Wan left vader a quadruple amputee that was on fire. Vader didn't get any choice regarding the cybernetics he got in the first place, it was all the Emperor's decision, so why not go whole hog?
Plus the Emperor would've thought that he could take Vader if he fought back, I suspect. Certainly he never saw it coming in Ep 6.
That would permit perpetual use and would be unconstitutional.
It's also bad policy, since it tends to avoid still-useful works from entering the public domain, and would give the copyright holder too much control over the ultimate expiration of the copyright.
No, but it's a valid policy argument. Copyright is meant to result in more original works created than would be otherwise, but also to get those works in the public domain as rapidly as possible, which also results in more derivative works being created. Too much emphasis on just one of these goals unbalances copyright and results in a less than maximum public benefit.
Copyright probably shouldn't last for longer than 25 years. For Lucas, that would get him Ep 4 from 1977 to the end of 2002, Ep 5 from 1980 to the end of 2005, and Ep 6 from 1983 to the end of 2008.
It wouldn't prevent him from making more, it'd just put him on an equal footing with regards to those older works. Plus whatever cachet he could have as the originator of the series would always be in his favor.
You're probably talking about General Grevious. He's not a robot, he's a cyborg. And he is in Ep. 3. And he raises the question as to why it is that if they could build a cyborg so dexterious that it could successfully fight multiple Jedi in combat without being a Jedi, that they couldn't have used the same technology for Darth Vader's cyborg body, making him much more fearsome than he turned out to be. (and he was already pretty fearsome)
This is incorrect; no one owns creative works at all. Copies of the work, and copyrights pertaining to the work, are separate things, and might be owned, but that doesn't affect the underlying work.
However, first to invent is superior, as it rewards inventors, rather than mere latecomers, and it's also arguably required by the constitution.
Just because every other country does something stupid doesn't mean that we should Hell, our copyright laws have generally gone down the tubes as a result of looking at foreign copyright laws.
Well, he only ever created the one, but his treatment of it and his failure to even take significant efforts toward protecting his family, probably make the doctor a monster as well.
Copyright holders have the exclusive right to display or perform their works publically (in the US) granted by the US copyright law. Meaning that it is illegal for ANYONE but the copyright holder to display these at all, in whole or in part.
True, but do note that there are limits even to that.
At any rate, that right has no moral foundation -- it's amoral utilitarianism, which is fine with me. I merely object to the idea that authors have inherent rights to their work.
The problem is that the unregistered copyright doesn't impair you from registering after an infringement and getting some forms of relief.
And deposit is a very weak formality now.
I'm proposing something more like the 1 year statutory bar in patent law, where you have to promptly register or else lose protection forever, and to only get very weak protection during the span of time from creation to this bar.
Full compliance with formalities would also be a condition of copyright for everyone, rather than being a requirement without real teeth as it is now (when it is a requirement, which it isn't always).
Unfortunately for your selfish demands, content authors *do* have a moral right to control how their work is displayed or performed.
No they do not. Such a position is utterly irreconcilable with the right of free speech, which has a more solid foundation. Moral rights are bullshit.
Imagine you had a political website. Now imagine that some web browser was programmed to leave out certain words in your site, changing the message you are delivering. Would you be happy with that situation? I don't think so. But suddenly it is okay if it's someone *else's* expression that is being misrepresented, just because it's more convenient for you?
Both are okay. Someone reading only every other word in something I say doesn't harm me. And since I may wish to do the same, I'm stuck having to let others do so too. It's kind of like how someone who truly believes in free speech will defend the right of others to say what they like, no matter how much they disagree with it. The people who only want non-objectionable things to be said are tyrants.
Plus, why do you think there is misrepresentation here? Generally, if you're looking at an edited version of something, it's not just obvious, but you've likely sought it out.
I for one can't wait for people to release EDLs that remove Jar-Jar from the Star Wars movies, or that skip the boring parts of action flicks so that they're all chase scenes, gunfights, and explosions.
Which I noted, following up on another response to my post. To fill that gap, I think some protection might be okay, but it should be carefully limited so that it doesn't cover more than that sort of work.
The goal is to get people to finish their works and properly register them. Some protection of manuscripts is okay, but no so much that people try to make it into a substitute for registered copyrights.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize of course that copyright is NOT based upon the sweat of the brow theory. Investing hard work isn't good enough to get a copyright. This is why the research that goes into, say, a history book CAN be copied out by others without compensation. The historian can't own the facts. He can report on them, but he didn't create them.
Also neither copyright nor patents protect ideas. Nor do trademarks. Trade secrets approach it, but even they have significant weaknesses.
The constitution was written in 1789, and the English language is well known for its changes over time.
Science referred to general knowledge, and Pooh would fall in there. The useful arts were the applied sciences, and fall under patents. (c.f. state of the art technology, prior art, persons having ordinary skill in the art, etc.)
That's a very good reason to not have copyright.
Anyway, do you think companies like IBM would be so enthusiastic in their research into new technologies, if any competitor were allowed to just sit back and copy IBMs methods as soon as they hit the market? In such a patent-free market, those doing the research would actually be at a disadvantage. They'd be first to market, sure, but their competition would not have to recoup any investment in research, which can be substantial.
Yes, I think they would be. I think that a great deal of the stuff they get patents on would be worth working on even without a patent. And there are research costs involved in competing, since without patents there isn't as much disclosure either.
Patents serve as an incentive to get people to invent when they otherwise would not. If they would anyway -- as is the case for probably the vast majority of software patents -- then it's a waste of public resources to grant a patent.
Plus, invention isn't the end-all be-all of patents. You only want to provide the minimal possible incentive. This is because the public is just as interested in having a public domain as it is in having new inventions. Inventions do the most good when anyone can use them for free. Restricting freedom is merely how we pay to get them created -- it's not a goal, it's an unfortunate compromise that should be carefully reexamined lest we over-incentivize.
Similarly, do you think it's right that a publisher in Russia can just bang out copies of O'Reilly books, without a penny of the profits going to the authors or original publisher?
Doesn't bother me. Would O'Reilly have written those books if there were a wall around Russia and no Russian could possibly buy them? I bet they would. In that case, they don't need the incentive of the Russian market.
Plus, it's for the Russians to decide. If they want to encourage creation, they'll do so. If they want to encourage competition, they'll do that. They are the best judges of their own best interests. Whatever they decide, I support their right to pick for themselves. We shouldn't lecture them. We too should pick what we think is best.
If our system is really all it's cracked up to be, it will get adopted elsewhere on its own merits; because it serves the best interests of other countries. If not, then maybe we should rethink what we're doing.
Certainly I'm against copyright treaties, patent treaties, etc. I think that the whole of international copyright should be 1) national treatment, 2) formalities are okay, but shouldn't be such that authors are forced to choose between two mutually incompatable countries.
Laws that allow creators to benefit from their works.
But it doesn't profit me for creators to benefit from their works. In fact, that benefit probably derives from me, so in fact it's harmful. How can you justify harming me so?
Laws that mean companies must innovate to succeed.
Innovation is good, but refinement and commoditizing are also good. It's great to invent the first light bulb, but light bulbs are better when they last longer, are very inexpensive, are very cheap, and can be had anywhere or made by anyone. Innovation alone isn't enough, and so we must avoid encouraging it at the expense of all else.
Laws that allow people to own ideas that are the result of their time.
But that merely rewards people for spending time. If I spent a lot of time inventing the wheel, should I get to own the idea and charge you for driving to work? In fact, why should we allow people to own an idea at all? Can you name an example of when we have done so? (n.b. inventions are not ideas; they're more refined and are much rarer)
In sum, I think you haven't fully thought this through.
Copyright was intended as a way of protecting the rights of a person to their works.
No it wasn't.
First, copyright is the right of a person to their works; it's not protecting some other set of rights.
Second, copyright was intended as a way of promoting the public good, which is served by both increasing the number of original and derivative works created, and by promptly placing those works in the public domain so that they can be free to all. Granting rights to authors is merely a way to accomplish part of this. I say part, because in order to fully accomplish it, the rights need to go away again, since it's bad for them to be there.
No, trademarks require that the mark identify a particular source of goods. A trademark absolutely cannot identify the good itself, without becoming generic and therefore unprotectable.
This is why trademarks on patented and copyrighted materials are not in an ideal position. Once the patent or copyright expires, everyone can use the name by which the good is publicly identified to continue to identify that good.
This is why it's a good idea to use the trademark as an adjective on the generic name. For example, let's say that the book 'Foo' had been copyrighted. Setting aside that you can't trademark the name of a single work anyway (since it unavoidably indicates the work, not the source), it would be best for you to say 'FT Lofaro Jr.'s 'Foo,'' since once that book hits the public domain, I have a perfect right to reprint it and use its name, but not your source-identifying name. Thus my copy could be 'Foo,' or 'cpt kangarooski's 'Foo.''
You might want to look over the Shredded Wheat case, which is well known. It dealt with a patent, rather than a copyright, but the analysis is the same either way, since we're not talking about functionality here.
Yes you can. Implied licenses are nothing new. But the law doesn't allow you to assign a copyright -- necessary if you were to gift it in this fashion -- without a written, signed instrument to that effect. 17 USC 204(a) is the relevant provision.
If I'm a developer for a comercial, proprietary software vendor then all the code I write become property of the company. That's pretty straight forward.
It's not guaranteed, but it's likely enough. You might want to look at 17 USC 201(a) and (b), the definition of a Work Made for Hire in 101, and the CCNV v. Reid case for factors that play into whether or not someone is an employee for 101 purposes.
If I did volunteer coding on the library web site, I would assume (but don't know for a fact) that my work would become the property of the library unless other specific arrangements were made.
No, again it might be a work for hire as described above. If not, then per 201(d) and 204(a) an assignment would be possible, but it'd have to be in writing. And if not that, then a license is possible without a writing of course, but there'd be a good chance that it would be nonexclusive. The only ways for the library to own the copyright (the work is unownable by anyone) would be to be the author under work for hire or to have the copyright assigned to them.
If I 'contribute' my code to a 'project' doesnt' the project becomes a legal entity itself and therefor own the copyright of the code? I would assume this is the case because the project itself licenses the work under the GPL. You don't see individual contributors attaching GPL license to every modification they check in to the source tree.
Again, there's only two ways to get ownership of a copyright, and that's unlikely to qualify for either. More likely contributions are licensed, possibly under the GPL despite not attaching it every time. I suppose a partnership could arise automatically, but that's not a separate entity, that's just shared authority and liability amongst the partners. (And is almost never desirable)
I'm really not in a position to take on a clerk, but if you'd like to talk, we can take it to email. Your addr isn't posted, but you can mail me at:
net.auspice.gryphon@cpt (big-endian to avoid spam)
Well, yes, the true reason is that the choreography and effects have improved remarkably. The fight in the first movie was laughably awful, especially that spin that Obi-Wan does for no reason.
Nevertheless, IIRC, Lucas (or someone else associated with the film) has put forth the reason I discussed as a reason for the improvement in the newer films. If you google around, you might find a statement about it.
If you don't mind spoilers, read on.
Well, think about how the prequel saber fights have been more dynamic than the original ones were. Arguably this was attributable to Vader being clunky, Obi-Wan being old and out of practice, and Luke not being well trained. So it seems to me that Vader's physical abilities have diminished from his cybernetics, rather than stayed at the same level or increased. Plus he seems to have become extra-susceptible to force lightning.
Still, he didn't get the cybernetics until Yoda and Obi-Wan were the last Jedi left and had left to go into hiding, so maybe it was felt that he wouldn't really need to go into combat. (And indeed, he doesn't seem to have as a general rule in the original movies)
As for force-tampering with cybernetics, they're vulnerable to it. Obi-Wan uses this to defeat Grevious, and again less successfully against Vader (since Vader already has one cybernetic arm). Basically he makes them drop their sabers. Though I don't see why this wouldn't work on opponents' organic bits (e.g. force choke) even where they are good combatants or Jedi.
Well, the Ep 3 novelization is already out, and it indicates that Obi-Wan left vader a quadruple amputee that was on fire. Vader didn't get any choice regarding the cybernetics he got in the first place, it was all the Emperor's decision, so why not go whole hog?
Plus the Emperor would've thought that he could take Vader if he fought back, I suspect. Certainly he never saw it coming in Ep 6.
It's a good point though.
That would permit perpetual use and would be unconstitutional.
It's also bad policy, since it tends to avoid still-useful works from entering the public domain, and would give the copyright holder too much control over the ultimate expiration of the copyright.
Want to try again?
No, but it's a valid policy argument. Copyright is meant to result in more original works created than would be otherwise, but also to get those works in the public domain as rapidly as possible, which also results in more derivative works being created. Too much emphasis on just one of these goals unbalances copyright and results in a less than maximum public benefit.
Copyright probably shouldn't last for longer than 25 years. For Lucas, that would get him Ep 4 from 1977 to the end of 2002, Ep 5 from 1980 to the end of 2005, and Ep 6 from 1983 to the end of 2008.
It wouldn't prevent him from making more, it'd just put him on an equal footing with regards to those older works. Plus whatever cachet he could have as the originator of the series would always be in his favor.
You're probably talking about General Grevious. He's not a robot, he's a cyborg. And he is in Ep. 3. And he raises the question as to why it is that if they could build a cyborg so dexterious that it could successfully fight multiple Jedi in combat without being a Jedi, that they couldn't have used the same technology for Darth Vader's cyborg body, making him much more fearsome than he turned out to be. (and he was already pretty fearsome)
This is incorrect; no one owns creative works at all. Copies of the work, and copyrights pertaining to the work, are separate things, and might be owned, but that doesn't affect the underlying work.
However, first to invent is superior, as it rewards inventors, rather than mere latecomers, and it's also arguably required by the constitution.
Just because every other country does something stupid doesn't mean that we should Hell, our copyright laws have generally gone down the tubes as a result of looking at foreign copyright laws.
Some reference to Fenric from the last season?
Well, he only ever created the one, but his treatment of it and his failure to even take significant efforts toward protecting his family, probably make the doctor a monster as well.
Copyright holders only have the exclusive right to produce and distribute their works (US only - don't know about other countries)
That's wrong. I suggest reading 17 USC 106 and 106A for a start.
Copyright holders have the exclusive right to display or perform their works publically (in the US) granted by the US copyright law. Meaning that it is illegal for ANYONE but the copyright holder to display these at all, in whole or in part.
True, but do note that there are limits even to that.
At any rate, that right has no moral foundation -- it's amoral utilitarianism, which is fine with me. I merely object to the idea that authors have inherent rights to their work.
The problem is that the unregistered copyright doesn't impair you from registering after an infringement and getting some forms of relief.
And deposit is a very weak formality now.
I'm proposing something more like the 1 year statutory bar in patent law, where you have to promptly register or else lose protection forever, and to only get very weak protection during the span of time from creation to this bar.
Full compliance with formalities would also be a condition of copyright for everyone, rather than being a requirement without real teeth as it is now (when it is a requirement, which it isn't always).
Unfortunately for your selfish demands, content authors *do* have a moral right to control how their work is displayed or performed.
No they do not. Such a position is utterly irreconcilable with the right of free speech, which has a more solid foundation. Moral rights are bullshit.
Imagine you had a political website. Now imagine that some web browser was programmed to leave out certain words in your site, changing the message you are delivering. Would you be happy with that situation? I don't think so. But suddenly it is okay if it's someone *else's* expression that is being misrepresented, just because it's more convenient for you?
Both are okay. Someone reading only every other word in something I say doesn't harm me. And since I may wish to do the same, I'm stuck having to let others do so too. It's kind of like how someone who truly believes in free speech will defend the right of others to say what they like, no matter how much they disagree with it. The people who only want non-objectionable things to be said are tyrants.
Plus, why do you think there is misrepresentation here? Generally, if you're looking at an edited version of something, it's not just obvious, but you've likely sought it out.
I for one can't wait for people to release EDLs that remove Jar-Jar from the Star Wars movies, or that skip the boring parts of action flicks so that they're all chase scenes, gunfights, and explosions.
Which I noted, following up on another response to my post. To fill that gap, I think some protection might be okay, but it should be carefully limited so that it doesn't cover more than that sort of work.
The goal is to get people to finish their works and properly register them. Some protection of manuscripts is okay, but no so much that people try to make it into a substitute for registered copyrights.