So because people are illegally downloading shit they don't own and have no rights to, we should change laws that have been the backbone of music, film, TV, and many other facets of our everyday life? BULLSHIT.
Firstly, your understanding of copyright's nature is ass-backwards.
Inherently all creative works are unownable and are freely enjoyed by everyone who's interested. Enjoyment here isn't limited to mere use, but also to reproduction, distribution, derivatives, etc.
That is to say, naturally, everything is in the public domain. If you have a copy of Shakespeare, you can copy it, perform his plays, alter them, print up and distribute copies, etc.
Note that this was how the world was since time immemorable through 1710. Oh, there were always problems with officialdom cracking down on licentiousness or sedition or whatnot, but that really had nothing to do with this. That's just censorship.
Copyrights have been instituted on top of this, temporarily and artificially limiting what we can do with stuff in certain respects, in order to make us better off than we would've been otherwise. It's ironic, no?
Basically, let us say x works will be created if there are no copyrights. We know x is a positive number because plenty of works were created before copyright first existed (and it wasn't even all that widespread until the 20th century). Since artists may be encouraged to create works due to the existence of copyright, we can say that they will create y works, and that x Prohibition was a failure because it was instituted poorly at a time when organized crime was booming.
While organized crime certainly did exist prior to Prohibiton, it was Prohibition that gave it an amazing boost. Note, by the way, that organized crime didn't vanish during the Great Depression. In fact it still exists today. It was a fundamentally stupid law and it never would've been a good idea, no matter when it was passed.
Hopefully the Japanese companies don't go after the fansubbers if this happens.
You didn't read the article closely. If this bill passes, it doesn't matter what the Japanese allow. Unless they specifically permit it, rather than just look the other way, the GOVERNMENT can sue the fansubbers.
It's similar to how the government can bring charges against Alice for beating Bob, even if Bob doesn't want them to. It's not his decision; he only gets to decide if _he_ wants to sue.
The term lengths are the life of the author + 90 years, OR in the case of certain other sorts of works (e.g. works for hire) 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first.
Anyway, the length has nothing to do with the effort involved in creating a work. In fact, creating a works is amazingly easy -- your post qualifies. So does this one. It's only hard if you're either not very good, or deliberately choose a hard sort of art to make. If your hobby is building Gothic cathedrals, it shouldn't be any surprise that it'll take some effort.
It's more to do with that had we not changed the law back in 1976, Mickey Mouse would have entered the public domain in the mid-80's. That's it.
What do artists need with control over their work during their lifetime anyway? If it's worth anything at all, they'll know pretty rapidly and be able to exploit it. If not, it just harms society and profits the artist not at all.
Copyright exists purely to promote the interests of the public; not artists. The moment you start thinking about how the artists can benefit without it just being a means to a greater end, that's when you're perverting copyright.
let me just say that the casual breech of copyright is getting out of hand
I agree. The solution is not to punish infringement, it is to increasingly legalize infringement so that people's behavior need not significantly change, but they get to stay on the right side of the law.
It's a lot like prohibition. People totally ignored the law, and not only was the law bad by itself, but by being so especially bad, it gave a big boost to organized crime and fostered disrespect for the law.
Laws aren't automatically entitled to respect. They have to deserve respect by being sensible. There was little large scale infringement prior to the 1976 Act in no small part due to the fact that people didn't have a problem with complying with the law. Our laws today are so awful that of course no one obeys them.
I find that this law actually makes a sane and calm attempt to address the problem.
The people are not the problem. This law is just going to make things worse.
RIAA has not sued a single person just for downloading.
That doesn't mean that they cannot. It just means that they haven't yet. A few years ago you could've said that the RIAA hasn't sued individual users, just P2P companies.
They can sue downloaders if they want. It's not as practical -- right now they're concentrating resources more on the head of the snake -- but it is entirely possible.
They have rights to distribution.
Well, RIAA members do, anyway, yeah. In fact they have a multitude of rights. The major ones are listed in 17 USC 106. They are: The right to reproduce, the right to distribute, the right to make derivatives, the right to perform publicly, the right to display publicly, and the right to digitally broadcast.
Downloading from allofmp3.com or others is not distributing so we're not commiting copyright infringement.
I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Distributing is ONE FORM of infringement. Reproduction is another. When you download, you are creating a new copy on your computer.
I suggest you look at the Napster decision. Napster didn't _directly_ do anything wrong. Rather they were found liable for, among other things, contributing to the direct infringements committed by their users. Uploaders infringed by distributing. Downloaders infringed by reproducing. Because Napster knew about this and helped materially what with their network under their control at all times, they were liable for the wrongs of their users.
I think you really ought to read the decision, and read 17 USC 106. I don't mean to insult you, but you don't know much about copyright law at all, and it shows.
Those companies also have rights to distribute so it's not like you're aiding a criminal or shady company.
The thing is, they do not have the right to distribute those works. If they have any rights, they're limited solely to Russia. They don't have the right to distribute to people in other countries, such as the US. That's a seperate right, and one that I bet they don't have.
Since there are no laws regulating such online purchases, it's not illegal.
Of course this is not true. US laws apply to persons located within the US. Copyright doesn't particularly distinguish between the online and offline worlds. These online purchases are pretty certainly violating US copyright law. That's bad if you're in the US. I doubt the Russians care particularly, but that's no comfort to the rest of us.
RIAA and others tried to make it illegal
It may indeed be illegal. Importation of copyrighted works is generally illegal unless it's authorized by the US rightsholder. This avoids US law being undercut, i.e. if Canada didn't have copyright laws, they could ship stuff here and authors with US copyrights would be screwed.
Some exceptions are made for copies brought in by individuals, travellers, etc. but are still subject to some limits.
But downloading is probably not the same as importing. When you import, the copy already exists in the foreign country and is merely brought here. When you download a brand new copy is created here. These are different things, and the exceptions in the import statute won't cover downloading at all.
The question of morality (how much are you actually supporting the artists?) is another issue entirely
I could care less about morality. Copyright law is amoral and utilitarian, favoring the public. Artists are of no particular importance, save as a means for the public to get what we want.
Of course there is a problem in that legal in Russia doesn't necessarily mean that it's legal for Americans in America to use those. In fact, it pretty likely isn't legal here, because all claims to the contrary, 17 USC 602 probably doesn't apply at all.
True, but OTOH, I would like to see Apple move to x86. Even if the motherboards remained proprietary, the CPUs are better and some marketing problems would be solved.
Well, aside from the fact that the GPL doesn't prohibit people making money off of the software thus made, my question still stands.
If people who want the benefits of copyright and thus the GPL aren't prepared to go through some minor formalities to get them -- including a registration cost -- then that's their tough luck.
We're not talking about securing copyright though. We're talking about actionability. Remember, the parent said that even w/o registration you could stop someone from infringing.
The relevant part of 13 reads:
No action or proceeding shall be maintained for infringement of copyright in any work until the provisions of this title with respect to the deposit of copies and registration of such work shall have been complied with.
Which sounds to me like you can't stop someone from infringing (which would require a court order) until you've registered.
http://www.kasunic.com/1909_act.htm has what appears to be a copy of the old act.
The problem with that of course is that your widow, children, etc. will not benefit economically from your work ANYWAY.
Creative works are a dime a dozen. They're generally worthless. A small number of them have some value initially, but then are worthless in a span of weeks to years. Only the teeniest, tiniest handful have lasting value beyond a few years, much less decades.
If you want your surviving family to be provided for after your death, you would be the world's biggest fool to think that authorship was the way to do this. Unless you happened to be a famous and highly successful author in the first place, but if that's the case, you're already successful and already have a shitload of money (unless you squandered it) and don't really need the extra help that long terms would provide.
Instead, if you want to provide for them, get life insurance, invest wisely, etc. The same things that everyone does.
And I stress everyone, because it is patently unfair to burden everyone with the harm your long copyright would impose, when they don't really have the same opportunity, and besides which, the whole system is not going to help you anyway. If careful estate planning is good enough for the rest of the world, why isn't it good enough for artists?
Long terms benefit the Disneys of the world. But they don't need our help to be rolling in dough anyway.
The poor widow of the artist that would be saved by long terms is a myth. And to the extent that it does exist, social security, insurance, savings, etc. are all a zillion times better at helping them than copyrights ever will be.
You're right in that it would have failed, but you are not up to snuff with your grasp of 18th century English.
While you could always look in the OED to see what 'science' and 'art' meant in 1789, it's easier here for us to look at the structure of the clause.
Science and useful Arts Authors and Inventors Writings and Discoveries
The first member of every pair relates to copyright. Back when the Constitution was written, 'science' meant knowledge generally. Not just the physical sciences as today. The second member of every pair relates to patents. 'Arts' meant something like practical skills. The fine arts were arts, but so was technology. Thus 'useful Arts' since patents were not meant to be granted to pointless endeavors. (e.g. you can't get a patent for a perpetual motion machine, in part because they're impossible and you couldn't invent one anyway)
In the late 19th century or so, the meanings of both tended to narrow down, ironically pretty much flip flopping.
Yeah, that's a common misreading. Treaties enjoy equal status with federal law, not the Constitution.
For example, you could have a treaty that directly imposed a tax on Americans, but since the Constitution requires that the House propose taxes, and treaties only involve the President and the Senate, that treaty is not going to have any force.
Well that is the ENTIRE point of copyright to begin with. Seriously, that sums it all up right there. There's no other reason to have copyright than that.
Worse, do you want to pay the $30 copyright fee for every painting, sketch, poem, article, book or anything else you create?
Of course not. Because I am not that greedy. All of my works are in the public domain. When I create something _worth_ copyrighting, then I'll take that extra step, put in that extra bit of effort. And it's not much.
so does that make it okay to steal their material because they couldn't afford the time and money involved for each individual copyright?
Yes. If they care, they'll manage to register it. But odds are they probably don't care -- nor does anyone else care to infringe -- so it's a non issue.
I mean, what the fuck do you need a zillion year copyright on your refrigerator magnet poem for? You're not that special to warrant one automatically.
One common misconception about copyrights is that they "go away" if you don't defend them.
Well... laches is hardly an unreasonable defense in an infringement suit. But it isn't often applicable, nor does it have widespread results.
So the end result of mandatory registration is that companies like Disney continue to amass their ivory towers of intellectual property, while people like you and me lose out.
Not at all. We win, big time. Those uncopyrighted works are not only available to Disney, they're also available to us. We too can make use of them with impunity. That's great.
Plus of course, even Disney isn't going to copyright everything. A lot, yes, but even they have limits.
With a few minor exceptions, you cannot sue in court until you have registered your copyright with the USCO. Additionally you may be barred from certain remedies if you hadn't registered.
Think of it this way: let's say you write a word processor. A copyright would protect _that_ word processor. It would not cover word processing software generally, even if it worked identically to yours. Reverse engineering is not barred by copyright. Thus your implementation of a word processor is protected, but just your implementation. You can't stop other people from making their own.
Patents, OTOH, can protect the overall invention, even if someone independently created it later. A patent on word processors would prevent anyone from making a word processor even if it was totally new, since it would still fall within the realm of the patent. This is why so long as, e.g. the Amazon one click patent is not invalid, no one can have one click purchases w/o permission.
If someone doesn't care enough about their work to satisfy formalities, which are extremely simple, then why should anyone care enough about it to grant it a copyright?
Formalities are important to: *Avoid burdensome copyright grants to minor works that the author apparently doesn't even want protected, or which in the overall scheme of things aren't worth protecting. *Ensure that records of the work's existence are made and updated. *Preserve the work in the long term given that the author has to deposit a copy.
Given that this was the status quo for centuries, what's radical about it? The PRESENT system is what's radical.
Yes, I know how old Word and Excel are. Nevertheless, it's increasingly been following the Windows' versions lead. They're not very good at being Mac apps. Remember Word 6?
Don't misunderstand me. I do support copyrights. But that doesn't mean that I have to be a total zealot regarding artists' rights. I don't propose that we abolish copyright altogether.
The point I'm trying to make is that copyright isn't something that artists are automatically entitled to; not in whether it exists at all, or what qualifies for it, or what prerequisites have to be satisfied to get it. Given that it is intended to promote the public good -- which includes more than just rewarding artists and encouraging them to do stuff -- it has to studied with a critical eye.
I am messing around with a proposal (obviously it would never get anywhere) but it's rather more nuanced than what you inferred.
And incidentally, ideas aren't protected even now. Ideas are cheap and worthless. Copyright protects expressions of ideas; how you say it. It doesn't stop people from saying something differently.
With regards to your point, I would require the artist to take some affirmative steps in order to get copyrights. I wouldn't give them out willy nilly to everybody for every stupid little thing. They wouldn't be difficult to get, but you'd have to want one enough to file for it. If the author doesn't think their work merits such a minimum amount of effort to get protection, why should I think it merits any? But that's easy, and if you're going through the effort you describe, you'd pretty certainly fill out some simple forms, etc.
Whereupon you'd have a copyright -- probably for five years, subject to renewals if you were willing to bother to do so -- which could be used to prevent people from commercially competing with you.
But honestly, I increasingly find that noncommercial infringements by natural persons are sufficiently widespread, desirable, perhaps fair-use-like, etc. that to try to stop them would be like King Canute trying to stop the tide from coming in. Better to allow it, and limit your rights to going after people that're competing with you commercially.
You'll still have a return on your investment. It might be less than it is now (though noncommercial piracy _is_ widespread without seemingly putting a big dent in Hollywood et al) but it's still something. I don't have a problem with this because, like I said, copyright is intended to promote the public interest. This might mean that the best way to promote the public interest involves reducing the amount of available money to be had. Since it still leaves everyone better off in the end (remember artists are in the public too, and frequently create derivatives of public domain works) it's still the right thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
So because people are illegally downloading shit they don't own and have no rights to, we should change laws that have been the backbone of music, film, TV, and many other facets of our everyday life? BULLSHIT.
Firstly, your understanding of copyright's nature is ass-backwards.
Inherently all creative works are unownable and are freely enjoyed by everyone who's interested. Enjoyment here isn't limited to mere use, but also to reproduction, distribution, derivatives, etc.
That is to say, naturally, everything is in the public domain. If you have a copy of Shakespeare, you can copy it, perform his plays, alter them, print up and distribute copies, etc.
Note that this was how the world was since time immemorable through 1710. Oh, there were always problems with officialdom cracking down on licentiousness or sedition or whatnot, but that really had nothing to do with this. That's just censorship.
Copyrights have been instituted on top of this, temporarily and artificially limiting what we can do with stuff in certain respects, in order to make us better off than we would've been otherwise. It's ironic, no?
Basically, let us say x works will be created if there are no copyrights. We know x is a positive number because plenty of works were created before copyright first existed (and it wasn't even all that widespread until the 20th century). Since artists may be encouraged to create works due to the existence of copyright, we can say that they will create y works, and that x Prohibition was a failure because it was instituted poorly at a time when organized crime was booming.
While organized crime certainly did exist prior to Prohibiton, it was Prohibition that gave it an amazing boost. Note, by the way, that organized crime didn't vanish during the Great Depression. In fact it still exists today. It was a fundamentally stupid law and it never would've been a good idea, no matter when it was passed.
Hopefully the Japanese companies don't go after the fansubbers if this happens.
You didn't read the article closely. If this bill passes, it doesn't matter what the Japanese allow. Unless they specifically permit it, rather than just look the other way, the GOVERNMENT can sue the fansubbers.
It's similar to how the government can bring charges against Alice for beating Bob, even if Bob doesn't want them to. It's not his decision; he only gets to decide if _he_ wants to sue.
The term lengths are the life of the author + 90 years, OR in the case of certain other sorts of works (e.g. works for hire) 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first.
Anyway, the length has nothing to do with the effort involved in creating a work. In fact, creating a works is amazingly easy -- your post qualifies. So does this one. It's only hard if you're either not very good, or deliberately choose a hard sort of art to make. If your hobby is building Gothic cathedrals, it shouldn't be any surprise that it'll take some effort.
It's more to do with that had we not changed the law back in 1976, Mickey Mouse would have entered the public domain in the mid-80's. That's it.
What do artists need with control over their work during their lifetime anyway? If it's worth anything at all, they'll know pretty rapidly and be able to exploit it. If not, it just harms society and profits the artist not at all.
Copyright exists purely to promote the interests of the public; not artists. The moment you start thinking about how the artists can benefit without it just being a means to a greater end, that's when you're perverting copyright.
let me just say that the casual breech of copyright is getting out of hand
I agree. The solution is not to punish infringement, it is to increasingly legalize infringement so that people's behavior need not significantly change, but they get to stay on the right side of the law.
It's a lot like prohibition. People totally ignored the law, and not only was the law bad by itself, but by being so especially bad, it gave a big boost to organized crime and fostered disrespect for the law.
Laws aren't automatically entitled to respect. They have to deserve respect by being sensible. There was little large scale infringement prior to the 1976 Act in no small part due to the fact that people didn't have a problem with complying with the law. Our laws today are so awful that of course no one obeys them.
I find that this law actually makes a sane and calm attempt to address the problem.
The people are not the problem. This law is just going to make things worse.
Well, plenty of people ride motorcycles around Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm sure.
RIAA has not sued a single person just for downloading.
That doesn't mean that they cannot. It just means that they haven't yet. A few years ago you could've said that the RIAA hasn't sued individual users, just P2P companies.
They can sue downloaders if they want. It's not as practical -- right now they're concentrating resources more on the head of the snake -- but it is entirely possible.
They have rights to distribution.
Well, RIAA members do, anyway, yeah. In fact they have a multitude of rights. The major ones are listed in 17 USC 106. They are: The right to reproduce, the right to distribute, the right to make derivatives, the right to perform publicly, the right to display publicly, and the right to digitally broadcast.
Downloading from allofmp3.com or others is not distributing so we're not commiting copyright infringement.
I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Distributing is ONE FORM of infringement. Reproduction is another. When you download, you are creating a new copy on your computer.
I suggest you look at the Napster decision. Napster didn't _directly_ do anything wrong. Rather they were found liable for, among other things, contributing to the direct infringements committed by their users. Uploaders infringed by distributing. Downloaders infringed by reproducing. Because Napster knew about this and helped materially what with their network under their control at all times, they were liable for the wrongs of their users.
I think you really ought to read the decision, and read 17 USC 106. I don't mean to insult you, but you don't know much about copyright law at all, and it shows.
Those companies also have rights to distribute so it's not like you're aiding a criminal or shady company.
The thing is, they do not have the right to distribute those works. If they have any rights, they're limited solely to Russia. They don't have the right to distribute to people in other countries, such as the US. That's a seperate right, and one that I bet they don't have.
Since there are no laws regulating such online purchases, it's not illegal.
Of course this is not true. US laws apply to persons located within the US. Copyright doesn't particularly distinguish between the online and offline worlds. These online purchases are pretty certainly violating US copyright law. That's bad if you're in the US. I doubt the Russians care particularly, but that's no comfort to the rest of us.
RIAA and others tried to make it illegal
It may indeed be illegal. Importation of copyrighted works is generally illegal unless it's authorized by the US rightsholder. This avoids US law being undercut, i.e. if Canada didn't have copyright laws, they could ship stuff here and authors with US copyrights would be screwed.
Some exceptions are made for copies brought in by individuals, travellers, etc. but are still subject to some limits.
But downloading is probably not the same as importing. When you import, the copy already exists in the foreign country and is merely brought here. When you download a brand new copy is created here. These are different things, and the exceptions in the import statute won't cover downloading at all.
The question of morality (how much are you actually supporting the artists?) is another issue entirely
I could care less about morality. Copyright law is amoral and utilitarian, favoring the public. Artists are of no particular importance, save as a means for the public to get what we want.
Of course there is a problem in that legal in Russia doesn't necessarily mean that it's legal for Americans in America to use those. In fact, it pretty likely isn't legal here, because all claims to the contrary, 17 USC 602 probably doesn't apply at all.
True, but OTOH, I would like to see Apple move to x86. Even if the motherboards remained proprietary, the CPUs are better and some marketing problems would be solved.
For a 10Gb connection to the Internet, I'd be happy to live in the CO basement.
;)
Besides, I'd only have to long enough to download everything. Then I could clear out.
Well, aside from the fact that the GPL doesn't prohibit people making money off of the software thus made, my question still stands.
If people who want the benefits of copyright and thus the GPL aren't prepared to go through some minor formalities to get them -- including a registration cost -- then that's their tough luck.
If you're not going to make any money off of it, what the hell do you need a copyright for?
We're not talking about securing copyright though. We're talking about actionability. Remember, the parent said that even w/o registration you could stop someone from infringing.
The relevant part of 13 reads:
No action or proceeding shall be maintained for infringement of copyright in any work until the provisions of this title with respect to the deposit of copies and registration of such work shall have been complied with.
Which sounds to me like you can't stop someone from infringing (which would require a court order) until you've registered.
http://www.kasunic.com/1909_act.htm has what appears to be a copy of the old act.
The problem with that of course is that your widow, children, etc. will not benefit economically from your work ANYWAY.
Creative works are a dime a dozen. They're generally worthless. A small number of them have some value initially, but then are worthless in a span of weeks to years. Only the teeniest, tiniest handful have lasting value beyond a few years, much less decades.
If you want your surviving family to be provided for after your death, you would be the world's biggest fool to think that authorship was the way to do this. Unless you happened to be a famous and highly successful author in the first place, but if that's the case, you're already successful and already have a shitload of money (unless you squandered it) and don't really need the extra help that long terms would provide.
Instead, if you want to provide for them, get life insurance, invest wisely, etc. The same things that everyone does.
And I stress everyone, because it is patently unfair to burden everyone with the harm your long copyright would impose, when they don't really have the same opportunity, and besides which, the whole system is not going to help you anyway. If careful estate planning is good enough for the rest of the world, why isn't it good enough for artists?
Long terms benefit the Disneys of the world. But they don't need our help to be rolling in dough anyway.
The poor widow of the artist that would be saved by long terms is a myth. And to the extent that it does exist, social security, insurance, savings, etc. are all a zillion times better at helping them than copyrights ever will be.
You're right in that it would have failed, but you are not up to snuff with your grasp of 18th century English.
While you could always look in the OED to see what 'science' and 'art' meant in 1789, it's easier here for us to look at the structure of the clause.
Science and useful Arts
Authors and Inventors
Writings and Discoveries
The first member of every pair relates to copyright. Back when the Constitution was written, 'science' meant knowledge generally. Not just the physical sciences as today. The second member of every pair relates to patents. 'Arts' meant something like practical skills. The fine arts were arts, but so was technology. Thus 'useful Arts' since patents were not meant to be granted to pointless endeavors. (e.g. you can't get a patent for a perpetual motion machine, in part because they're impossible and you couldn't invent one anyway)
In the late 19th century or so, the meanings of both tended to narrow down, ironically pretty much flip flopping.
???
First it was 14+14, then it was 28+14, then it was 28+28, until the 1976 Act took effect.
So terms have ranged from as short as 14 years to as long as (with renewal) 56 years.
But yeah, generally, terms should be short. I'd favor 5 years with equal renewals (except for software) of up to 25 years total. Seems reasonable.
Yeah, that's a common misreading. Treaties enjoy equal status with federal law, not the Constitution.
For example, you could have a treaty that directly imposed a tax on Americans, but since the Constitution requires that the House propose taxes, and treaties only involve the President and the Senate, that treaty is not going to have any force.
I want your work, but I want it for free.
Well that is the ENTIRE point of copyright to begin with. Seriously, that sums it all up right there. There's no other reason to have copyright than that.
So what's wrong with that?
Worse, do you want to pay the $30 copyright fee for every painting, sketch, poem, article, book or anything else you create?
Of course not. Because I am not that greedy. All of my works are in the public domain. When I create something _worth_ copyrighting, then I'll take that extra step, put in that extra bit of effort. And it's not much.
so does that make it okay to steal their material because they couldn't afford the time and money involved for each individual copyright?
Yes. If they care, they'll manage to register it. But odds are they probably don't care -- nor does anyone else care to infringe -- so it's a non issue.
I mean, what the fuck do you need a zillion year copyright on your refrigerator magnet poem for? You're not that special to warrant one automatically.
One common misconception about copyrights is that they "go away" if you don't defend them.
Well... laches is hardly an unreasonable defense in an infringement suit. But it isn't often applicable, nor does it have widespread results.
So the end result of mandatory registration is that companies like Disney continue to amass their ivory towers of intellectual property, while people like you and me lose out.
Not at all. We win, big time. Those uncopyrighted works are not only available to Disney, they're also available to us. We too can make use of them with impunity. That's great.
Plus of course, even Disney isn't going to copyright everything. A lot, yes, but even they have limits.
I don't think that's correct. I'm looking at section 13 of the 1909 Act, and it seems to state the opposite.
So sorry, but you're wrong.
With a few minor exceptions, you cannot sue in court until you have registered your copyright with the USCO. Additionally you may be barred from certain remedies if you hadn't registered.
Read 17 USC 411-412.
No, that was pretty spot on.
Think of it this way: let's say you write a word processor. A copyright would protect _that_ word processor. It would not cover word processing software generally, even if it worked identically to yours. Reverse engineering is not barred by copyright. Thus your implementation of a word processor is protected, but just your implementation. You can't stop other people from making their own.
Patents, OTOH, can protect the overall invention, even if someone independently created it later. A patent on word processors would prevent anyone from making a word processor even if it was totally new, since it would still fall within the realm of the patent. This is why so long as, e.g. the Amazon one click patent is not invalid, no one can have one click purchases w/o permission.
Yes, absolutely.
If someone doesn't care enough about their work to satisfy formalities, which are extremely simple, then why should anyone care enough about it to grant it a copyright?
Formalities are important to:
*Avoid burdensome copyright grants to minor works that the author apparently doesn't even want protected, or which in the overall scheme of things aren't worth protecting.
*Ensure that records of the work's existence are made and updated.
*Preserve the work in the long term given that the author has to deposit a copy.
Given that this was the status quo for centuries, what's radical about it? The PRESENT system is what's radical.
Yes, I know how old Word and Excel are. Nevertheless, it's increasingly been following the Windows' versions lead. They're not very good at being Mac apps. Remember Word 6?
Don't misunderstand me. I do support copyrights. But that doesn't mean that I have to be a total zealot regarding artists' rights. I don't propose that we abolish copyright altogether.
The point I'm trying to make is that copyright isn't something that artists are automatically entitled to; not in whether it exists at all, or what qualifies for it, or what prerequisites have to be satisfied to get it. Given that it is intended to promote the public good -- which includes more than just rewarding artists and encouraging them to do stuff -- it has to studied with a critical eye.
I am messing around with a proposal (obviously it would never get anywhere) but it's rather more nuanced than what you inferred.
And incidentally, ideas aren't protected even now. Ideas are cheap and worthless. Copyright protects expressions of ideas; how you say it. It doesn't stop people from saying something differently.
With regards to your point, I would require the artist to take some affirmative steps in order to get copyrights. I wouldn't give them out willy nilly to everybody for every stupid little thing. They wouldn't be difficult to get, but you'd have to want one enough to file for it. If the author doesn't think their work merits such a minimum amount of effort to get protection, why should I think it merits any? But that's easy, and if you're going through the effort you describe, you'd pretty certainly fill out some simple forms, etc.
Whereupon you'd have a copyright -- probably for five years, subject to renewals if you were willing to bother to do so -- which could be used to prevent people from commercially competing with you.
But honestly, I increasingly find that noncommercial infringements by natural persons are sufficiently widespread, desirable, perhaps fair-use-like, etc. that to try to stop them would be like King Canute trying to stop the tide from coming in. Better to allow it, and limit your rights to going after people that're competing with you commercially.
You'll still have a return on your investment. It might be less than it is now (though noncommercial piracy _is_ widespread without seemingly putting a big dent in Hollywood et al) but it's still something. I don't have a problem with this because, like I said, copyright is intended to promote the public interest. This might mean that the best way to promote the public interest involves reducing the amount of available money to be had. Since it still leaves everyone better off in the end (remember artists are in the public too, and frequently create derivatives of public domain works) it's still the right thing to do.