I don't have any copyright, I dont need a copyright. None of that applies to most software for sale.
If you'd like to dedicate your software into the public domain, I certainly won't stop you. All you have to do is say something to the effect of 'I hereby place (whatever your software is called) in the public domain.' But as it stands, your copyright is what a) makes it illegal for people to copy, modify, or redistribute the software (at least during the copyright term), and b) makes it illegal to crack any protection measures that apply to it.
Without your copyright, you have no particular legal rights. And it is key, it is absolutely key to pretty much all discussions of software piracy, licensing, etc. The GPL -- only works if there's a copyright. The SCO suit -- totally based on copyright. The reason why every mom and pop store don't sell cracked copies of Windows -- copyright.
So I really am a little worried about your understanding of the issues involved here. But we'll continue.
Trademark sure, yes, I own the trademark on the Morpheus brand for image programs,
That's fairly irrelevant. Trademarks are only there to ensure that customers can distinguish one source of goods in commerce from another. But it has its limits. For example, there's a trademark on the name 'Apple Computers' but I can sell you an Apple computer, and I can use their name in my own advertising to indicate that it actually IS one of their computers, provided that I don't masquerade as them, or imply that I'm somehow associated or sponsored by them.
Plus trademarks are all arbitrary, and easily lost, so they're surprisingly easy to avoid and can be difficult to maintain. (see Xerox for a good example of how hard it can be to keep a trademark)
So your trademark isn't really very useful to you. Glad to see you at least apparently registered it federally, though.
No matter what I choose to do with my program and my source, its always going to be my choice.
I never said it shouldn't be your choice. I said that the law should be changed so that software developers that don't follow certain formalities -- such as depositing binaries and source -- don't get copyrights. I.e. they follow the rules, or they don't get to protect their work through legal means. And that to encourage them to follow the rules, that we should promote cracking of non-compliant software.
"What if I don't?" is a stupid argument, why not just counter that with a "What if I do." I maintain that argument must obviously hold an equal amount of wait against yours.
No, not really. It underlies the deposit requirement. Copyright is intended to promote the progress of knowledge. Authors lack the resources and inclination to do this on their own. Government can be very good at though, when it does it right.
Think of it as being a bit like your car -- if there's no law that mandates that your car is safe to be on the road, maybe you'll keep it in good repair, or maybe you won't. If we tell you that you can't drive it unless it's safe, we force you to either fix it or junk it. This is a pretty similar situation.
If I sell the program, most likely that will be a forced stipulation in the contract for the terms of sale. Abondon the program and you must release a free version of the binary.
Well again, 1) you don't have to include that in the contract, and 2) most defaults on contract result in the payment of damages, not forced performance. Besides, the public couldn't do anything about it -- they lack privity of contract.
I don't ever mention that I was selling anybody the ability to modify my program.
Sure. That doesn't matter. Because once the copyright runs out, the entire world has a right to modify the program. Copyright law is INTENDED to result in people being able to modify earlier public domain works if they want to. It's part of how we achieve progress.
And if I ever decide to stop selling and supporting my product, I will compile a freeware version and let the community decide where to host it so nobody ever has to worry about not being able to use what they bought.
What if you don't?
What if you get greedy later on, or sell (or are forced to sell) the rights to the program to someone else who won't do that? What if you get hit by a bus tomorrow?
Very simply, I don't trust you, and I don't trust anyone who throws obstacles in the way of people being able to use and modify works.
Thus I would offer a counter-proposal: If you want a copyright AT ALL, you are required to deposit a complete and well-commented copy of the source code with the Library of Congress as part of a formal registration for copyright. And you are not allowed to include any sort of protection mechanisms. If you do, you lose your copyright. During the period you hold your copyright, no one is allowed to use the deposited source in an infringing manner, but they can certainly look at it and learn from it. The copyright should also be rather short -- most software doesn't have a long useful life. Five years ought to be enough.
If you decide you don't like this, you are of course free to release a public domain program that is heavily protected however you like. But private actors can legally crack it, copy it, etc. since there would be no copyright. Perhaps if this were a serious problem, the government would even fund cracking efforts since such software is basically a treasure trove of useful stuff waiting to be uncovered, rather as how there is public funding for archeology.
You lose your trade secrets, but that's all part of the copyright bargain; same thing happens to inventors that get patents.
So? The public gets to decide what the copyright holder gets to control in the first place. We can take away their ability to stop P2P sharing if we want to. Fundementally, it's our right to decide whether or not we want to take advantage of the opportunity; it's not as though authors magically have a copyright in their works regardless of the law. They only have what we give them.
the way to solve this problem is simple. intellectual property laws are too strong. first, in the case of artistic works, make it illegal for ownership OR exclusive publishing rights to be transferred away from the creator of the art himself. with one simple stroke, the power with which the music "industry" has imprisioned the musicians would dissolve. there would actually be some power in creating something rather than simply buying the rights to that creation. a musician, unhappy with his current label, would actually have some leverage. moving to a new label wouldn't mean abandoning the rights to all his previous work.
This would not solve the underlying problem. The problem isn't that RIAA won't publish, but that musicians want to. The problem is more simply that someone isn't publishing.
Your proposal doesn't help at all -- what if the artist doesn't want to publish. Certainly this has happened. E.g. Franz Kafka wanted his unpublished works (and if possible his published works) destroyed. Because his wishes were not respected, the world got some great literature.
The public is more important IMO than artists. You're not thinking of what's best for the public though, you're being too centered on artists.
in addition, when an artist dies, the intellectual property rights shoud die with him. none of this nonsense with the estate of pablo picasso sueing websites for posting pictures of Guernica a good 70 years after he painted it. "the estate of pablo picasso" didn't paint the damn thing. it's just a team of lawyers trying to get paid.
Why at death? Why not earlier?
Additionally though, I suggest you distinguish between copyrights and 'intellectual property rights' which don't exist, and which if they did would vary tremendously.
even my band's mascot, Feseral Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, a republican, made a speech not long ago stating that intellectual propety laws had become too restrictive. they have crossed the line and become a hindrance rather than a tool for the progress of modern society.
For example, Alan Greenspan holds publicity rights to the use of his name and likeness -- you might be infringing on these things by making him your mascot if he hasn't given his permission.
The old "fire in a crowded theater" argument regarding the limitations on rights is constantly misused. This example refers to the rights of a property owner to make use of that property. By yelling "fire", you deprive the owner of the rights to own and operate his/her theater as he/she sees fit. That is purely a civil matter.
No.
You're correct that the 'falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater and causing a panic' argument is widely misused. It dates back to Schenk, which is no longer good law, having been replaced by Brandenberg. And no one ever remembers to quote the part about it being a _false_ cry of 'fire,' though it is perfectly legal and quite commendable to cry 'fire' if it's for real, nor that it is only objectionable should it result in a panic. (given the inflammability of theaters in 1919, a panic would likely result in people being injured or even killed)
BUT you're wrong as wrong can be when you get into this nonsense about property. That's just stupid.
The reason put forth for that type of limit on speech is that it results in grevious physical injury to people, and thus shouldn't be permitted. Similarly, if someone spoke to a mob causing it to lynch someone, or someone spoke to an assassin, causing him to murder someone, though the speaker has engaged in nothing more than speech, the immediate effect of that speech is harmful, and that's why he's not free to do so.
I STRONGLY suggest that you read Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which is the CURRENT law on the subject, or at least read the decision in the case that the fire example dates back to, Schenk v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919).
The first amendment ratified was in fact the third amendment proposed in the Bill of Rights. The first never was never ratified, and the second was recently ratified and is the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.
The never-ratified first proposed amendment dealt with population size with regards to representation in the House.
The problem is that they weren't enemy aliens. They were American citizens of Japanese origins or descent.
If that was proper, then why didn't we put Americans that were from, or had ancestors from, Germany and Italy in camps as well?
And I certainly find it silly that you want America to have parity with other nations; we ought to be _better_. And that means having a greater comittment to liberty and justice, and not mere expediency.
Some, if not all of the allegation made has been that by allowing 3d parties to post allegedly libelous statements on the site, the blogger is himself responsible.
This is incorrect. 47 USC 230 -- essentially the part of the infamous CDA that survived challenge -- has the result of protecting from libel suits people who provide a forum in which others post libelous comments.
If the blogger _personally_ libeled someone, this won't help him, but it does let us get rid of a large part of the crap that his opponent has thrown at him.
Well, one of the very important aspects to this question would seem to be 17 USC 105: Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise
IIRC, the way this works out is that government employees, or contractors operating in effect as government employees (i.e. doing the same job), in the scope of their duties, can create works but those works are wholly ineligible for copyrights. (and some uses of such works may necessitate a proper notice per 17 USC 403)
So if you develop software for the federal government, barring some special arrangement that isolates the work from the government sufficiently, that software is in the public domain. Thus I don't think there could possibly be any force behind licensing it meaningfully. And the license would likely only have any impact on people that had privity with the government, so third parties who nevertheless somehow acquired the software could do with it as they pleased.
Frankly, this is desirable. The government should publish its software, and should publish the source code to that software, without copyrights, and without any kind of licensing whatsoever.
Instead, the American institution of copyright was informed by Condorcet and Locke.
I'm sorry, but Locke had nothing to do with American copyrights, and continues to have nothing to do with American copyrights.
Hell, Jefferson was so familiar with Locke that he cribbed from him for the Declaration, YET he disagreed with Locke about natural rights to property!
American copyright law is in fact tracable back to English copyright law. Both were utilitarian doctrines, as your Jefferson quote (on patents) illustates. That quote is directly in opposition to Locke!
For throwing around terminology in such an odd manner, you have successfully posted one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Don't take this as indicating that I'm necessarily hostile to your position -- whatever the hell it is, I don't know -- just that you're communicating it _really_ badly, and that you often make no sense in your post.
'Intellectual property' is a very, very recent invention. It was a radical new idea in the 1700s, ignored by most nations, including many of the more prosperous ones, and where it did exist it had a much milder form than today. What we call 'IP' today really hasn't existed until just a few years ago.
Well... the term 'intellectual property,' which I agree is bogus, dates back to the 1960s IIRC, and WIPO or a precursor to it. Prior to that people just discussed copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, etc.
However, the idea of protecting inventions dates back to Ancient Greece, though they didn't take it seriously. The story was -- and this was intended to be a humorous story, like a modern joke about various ethnic groups -- it was that the inhabitants of the city of Sybaris were so dedicated to luxury that any chef who invented a new recipe received the exclusive right to use it for a year, so as to spur on the creation of new delicacies.
Real patent laws however date back to 15th century Venice, IIRC, and are remarkably similar to our own laws. It's copyright that dates back to the early 18th century.
Well, there are only so many ways you can not grant a patent.
What's alleged seems to be that it is not novel, i.e. someone already did it.
You seem to be saying that it is not obvious, i.e. someone skilled in the art would've known that it was possible, might be desirable, and that there might be some existing but not perfectly on-point prior art that could be combined (and which would be likely to be combined) to result in the claimed invention. This does have to all be proven, you know.
I doubt you claim that it's not useful, or that this isn't patentable subject matter at all.
The way the patent statute works is that patents ARE granted, unless one of a host of narrow exceptions to that rule is satisfied. Something being absurd doesn't work at present.
Perhaps there's a good reason to change the law, but for the moment I think we're stuck with having to make better arguments than mere absurdity.
The problem is that copyright -- which is what Lexmark was trying to use, and is a monopoly -- is not intended to protect them from this sort of competition.
It is after all entirely possible that the razor/razor blade approach is not feasible with regards to printers. Lexmark should not be protected from fucking up; if they made a mistake with their pricing, it's their own damn problem.
Yes, but remember -- what constituted copyright infringement ALSO expanded. People haven't fundementally changed, the law has.
Law can mold social norms -- as with desegregation. Or it can be destroyed by daring to conflict with social norms -- as with prohibition.
In either event, attempting to flaunt the norms of society -- the norms that seem to indicate that no one considers individual non-commercial infringement to be a big deal -- is difficult and costly and time consuming.
I think it's going to turn out to be like prohibition. That no one will respect copyrights that they personally feel are unfair, that this will tend to cause them to dislike copyrights generally even if they'd otherwise accept having them, that enforcement will prove unpopular and impractical, and that ultimately copyright interests will lose because they got too greedy.
Desegregation was tough too, but at least there was a moral reason to support it. (though this was true of prohibition as well) Copyright has nothing to do with morality. I think it's doomed.
Only if it meets the requirements for patentability. Many recipes will not due to the statutory bar, novelty, and nonobviousness requirements.
And anyway, that has no bearing on the PRINTING of recipes. Printing a recipe for a patent either on the end product itself, or on the method of preparation would be akin to reprinting the patent, which is entirely legal and in fact desirable.
Patents only preclude the making, selling, etc. of the patented invention ITSELF. The description of it is entirely public, and has to be for patents to really be effective (else how would you know what you must stay away from).
You couldn't legally make the thing the recipe was for, or couldn't legally make the thing via that process, but I doubt that cookbook authors and publishers give a rat's ass about that.
I have never heard of "publishing" as a requirement for copy right.
No, until 1976 publication was generally a requirement for copyright protection in the US. To wit:
10 -- Any person entitled thereto by this title may secure copyright for his work by publication thereof with the notice of copyright required by this title.
22 was an alternative for foreign authors, but required publication as well. 12 permitted copyrights on some works that were not published, or at least not for sale, but it was very narrow and not all works would be eligible for it.
And don't forget the formalities such as deposit, notice, and registration. Failure to do these things might lose you your rights per 14. Ah, for the good old days.
That said there have been several historical "exceptions" to copyright, e.g. recipes, instructions I believe, stuff like that isn't copyrightable.
Additionally the reason that recipes, instructions, etc. are not copyrightable is not a historical exception, but because those things are FACTS, and you cannot copyright (nor did you create) facts. There's also the merger doctrine to bear in mind. Certainly if you wanted to protect a recipe -- which is a useful process -- you'd better get a patent on it, though that often won't be possible because there are limits on what is patentable as well.
Until recently "databases" of public info wasn't copyrightable either, but they passed some dumbass law because I guess they figured marketers need even more protection!
And which law was that?
Anyway, databases could be protected, but only if there was creativity expressed in selecting and arranging the data (e.g. phone books are right out), and it doesn't protect the individual datum, just the compilation as a whole. This is settled.
If you had a list of places that directed others as to where they could get drugs, while you may be helping people _acquire_ drugs, you are NOT participating through action in order to help the success of _selling_ drugs.
Thus you might be able to convict the person with the list as being an accomplice to the purchase of drugs, but he isn't an accomplice to the dealer, assuming that the list was his only connection.
The case on point that springs to mind here -- involving drugs, in fact -- is State v. Gladstone, 474 P.2d 274 (Wash. 1980).
I don't know enough about Australian copyright law to know whether or not such a thing would work, but if this were brought in the U.S. it could _only_ work as contributory infringement (maybe vicarious infringement in rare cases), where the direct infringement was the downloader reproducing copies. This isn't a common argument, but it has been successful before over here. Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D.Utah 1999). Again though, of course, assuming that there was no interaction with the distributors being linked to, there could be no contributory or vicarious liability predicated on infringing distribution.
But whether Australian courts would reach a similar holding as in Utah Lighthouse, I don't know. Perhaps we have some people here that are familiar with their copyright law and who could comment on this for us?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have any copyright, I dont need a copyright. None of that applies to most software for sale.
If you'd like to dedicate your software into the public domain, I certainly won't stop you. All you have to do is say something to the effect of 'I hereby place (whatever your software is called) in the public domain.' But as it stands, your copyright is what a) makes it illegal for people to copy, modify, or redistribute the software (at least during the copyright term), and b) makes it illegal to crack any protection measures that apply to it.
Without your copyright, you have no particular legal rights. And it is key, it is absolutely key to pretty much all discussions of software piracy, licensing, etc. The GPL -- only works if there's a copyright. The SCO suit -- totally based on copyright. The reason why every mom and pop store don't sell cracked copies of Windows -- copyright.
So I really am a little worried about your understanding of the issues involved here. But we'll continue.
Trademark sure, yes, I own the trademark on the Morpheus brand for image programs,
That's fairly irrelevant. Trademarks are only there to ensure that customers can distinguish one source of goods in commerce from another. But it has its limits. For example, there's a trademark on the name 'Apple Computers' but I can sell you an Apple computer, and I can use their name in my own advertising to indicate that it actually IS one of their computers, provided that I don't masquerade as them, or imply that I'm somehow associated or sponsored by them.
Plus trademarks are all arbitrary, and easily lost, so they're surprisingly easy to avoid and can be difficult to maintain. (see Xerox for a good example of how hard it can be to keep a trademark)
So your trademark isn't really very useful to you. Glad to see you at least apparently registered it federally, though.
No matter what I choose to do with my program and my source, its always going to be my choice.
I never said it shouldn't be your choice. I said that the law should be changed so that software developers that don't follow certain formalities -- such as depositing binaries and source -- don't get copyrights. I.e. they follow the rules, or they don't get to protect their work through legal means. And that to encourage them to follow the rules, that we should promote cracking of non-compliant software.
"What if I don't?" is a stupid argument, why not just counter that with a "What if I do." I maintain that argument must obviously hold an equal amount of wait against yours.
No, not really. It underlies the deposit requirement. Copyright is intended to promote the progress of knowledge. Authors lack the resources and inclination to do this on their own. Government can be very good at though, when it does it right.
Think of it as being a bit like your car -- if there's no law that mandates that your car is safe to be on the road, maybe you'll keep it in good repair, or maybe you won't. If we tell you that you can't drive it unless it's safe, we force you to either fix it or junk it. This is a pretty similar situation.
If I sell the program, most likely that will be a forced stipulation in the contract for the terms of sale. Abondon the program and you must release a free version of the binary.
Well again, 1) you don't have to include that in the contract, and 2) most defaults on contract result in the payment of damages, not forced performance. Besides, the public couldn't do anything about it -- they lack privity of contract.
I don't ever mention that I was selling anybody the ability to modify my program.
Sure. That doesn't matter. Because once the copyright runs out, the entire world has a right to modify the program. Copyright law is INTENDED to result in people being able to modify earlier public domain works if they want to. It's part of how we achieve progress.
If your source code isn't made public, it
And if I ever decide to stop selling and supporting my product, I will compile a freeware version and let the community decide where to host it so nobody ever has to worry about not being able to use what they bought.
What if you don't?
What if you get greedy later on, or sell (or are forced to sell) the rights to the program to someone else who won't do that? What if you get hit by a bus tomorrow?
Very simply, I don't trust you, and I don't trust anyone who throws obstacles in the way of people being able to use and modify works.
Thus I would offer a counter-proposal:
If you want a copyright AT ALL, you are required to deposit a complete and well-commented copy of the source code with the Library of Congress as part of a formal registration for copyright. And you are not allowed to include any sort of protection mechanisms. If you do, you lose your copyright. During the period you hold your copyright, no one is allowed to use the deposited source in an infringing manner, but they can certainly look at it and learn from it. The copyright should also be rather short -- most software doesn't have a long useful life. Five years ought to be enough.
If you decide you don't like this, you are of course free to release a public domain program that is heavily protected however you like. But private actors can legally crack it, copy it, etc. since there would be no copyright. Perhaps if this were a serious problem, the government would even fund cracking efforts since such software is basically a treasure trove of useful stuff waiting to be uncovered, rather as how there is public funding for archeology.
You lose your trade secrets, but that's all part of the copyright bargain; same thing happens to inventors that get patents.
Neither had anything to do AFAIK with American copyrights, however, which again chiefly date back to the Statute of Anne.
So? The public gets to decide what the copyright holder gets to control in the first place. We can take away their ability to stop P2P sharing if we want to. Fundementally, it's our right to decide whether or not we want to take advantage of the opportunity; it's not as though authors magically have a copyright in their works regardless of the law. They only have what we give them.
the way to solve this problem is simple. intellectual property laws are too strong. first, in the case of artistic works, make it illegal for ownership OR exclusive publishing rights to be transferred away from the creator of the art himself. with one simple stroke, the power with which the music "industry" has imprisioned the musicians would dissolve. there would actually be some power in creating something rather than simply buying the rights to that creation. a musician, unhappy with his current label, would actually have some leverage. moving to a new label wouldn't mean abandoning the rights to all his previous work.
This would not solve the underlying problem. The problem isn't that RIAA won't publish, but that musicians want to. The problem is more simply that someone isn't publishing.
Your proposal doesn't help at all -- what if the artist doesn't want to publish. Certainly this has happened. E.g. Franz Kafka wanted his unpublished works (and if possible his published works) destroyed. Because his wishes were not respected, the world got some great literature.
The public is more important IMO than artists. You're not thinking of what's best for the public though, you're being too centered on artists.
in addition, when an artist dies, the intellectual property rights shoud die with him. none of this nonsense with the estate of pablo picasso sueing websites for posting pictures of Guernica a good 70 years after he painted it. "the estate of pablo picasso" didn't paint the damn thing. it's just a team of lawyers trying to get paid.
Why at death? Why not earlier?
Additionally though, I suggest you distinguish between copyrights and 'intellectual property rights' which don't exist, and which if they did would vary tremendously.
even my band's mascot, Feseral Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, a republican, made a speech not long ago stating that intellectual propety laws had become too restrictive. they have crossed the line and become a hindrance rather than a tool for the progress of modern society.
For example, Alan Greenspan holds publicity rights to the use of his name and likeness -- you might be infringing on these things by making him your mascot if he hasn't given his permission.
The old "fire in a crowded theater" argument regarding the limitations on rights is constantly misused. This example refers to the rights of a property owner to make use of that property. By yelling "fire", you deprive the owner of the rights to own and operate his/her theater as he/she sees fit. That is purely a civil matter.
No.
You're correct that the 'falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater and causing a panic' argument is widely misused. It dates back to Schenk, which is no longer good law, having been replaced by Brandenberg. And no one ever remembers to quote the part about it being a _false_ cry of 'fire,' though it is perfectly legal and quite commendable to cry 'fire' if it's for real, nor that it is only objectionable should it result in a panic. (given the inflammability of theaters in 1919, a panic would likely result in people being injured or even killed)
BUT you're wrong as wrong can be when you get into this nonsense about property. That's just stupid.
The reason put forth for that type of limit on speech is that it results in grevious physical injury to people, and thus shouldn't be permitted. Similarly, if someone spoke to a mob causing it to lynch someone, or someone spoke to an assassin, causing him to murder someone, though the speaker has engaged in nothing more than speech, the immediate effect of that speech is harmful, and that's why he's not free to do so.
I STRONGLY suggest that you read Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which is the CURRENT law on the subject, or at least read the decision in the case that the fire example dates back to, Schenk v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919).
'Cos right now, you just look foolish.
The first amendment ratified was in fact the third amendment proposed in the Bill of Rights. The first never was never ratified, and the second was recently ratified and is the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.
The never-ratified first proposed amendment dealt with population size with regards to representation in the House.
The problem is that they weren't enemy aliens. They were American citizens of Japanese origins or descent.
If that was proper, then why didn't we put Americans that were from, or had ancestors from, Germany and Italy in camps as well?
And I certainly find it silly that you want America to have parity with other nations; we ought to be _better_. And that means having a greater comittment to liberty and justice, and not mere expediency.
TWO floppy drives. You were lucky. Some people only had one, and had to constantly swap the disks around.
But not me. I couldn't afford a floppy drive, so I had to use 400kB casette tapes instead.
Some, if not all of the allegation made has been that by allowing 3d parties to post allegedly libelous statements on the site, the blogger is himself responsible.
This is incorrect. 47 USC 230 -- essentially the part of the infamous CDA that survived challenge -- has the result of protecting from libel suits people who provide a forum in which others post libelous comments.
If the blogger _personally_ libeled someone, this won't help him, but it does let us get rid of a large part of the crap that his opponent has thrown at him.
No, it used to be 17 years from issuance. Now it's 20 years from filing.
But that said, your idea would be bad for small inventors.
We've got that.
Well, one of the very important aspects to this question would seem to be 17 USC 105: Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise
IIRC, the way this works out is that government employees, or contractors operating in effect as government employees (i.e. doing the same job), in the scope of their duties, can create works but those works are wholly ineligible for copyrights. (and some uses of such works may necessitate a proper notice per 17 USC 403)
So if you develop software for the federal government, barring some special arrangement that isolates the work from the government sufficiently, that software is in the public domain. Thus I don't think there could possibly be any force behind licensing it meaningfully. And the license would likely only have any impact on people that had privity with the government, so third parties who nevertheless somehow acquired the software could do with it as they pleased.
Frankly, this is desirable. The government should publish its software, and should publish the source code to that software, without copyrights, and without any kind of licensing whatsoever.
Well, I apologize if I read something into your argument that wasn't present.
Would it be correct to say then, that you seem to feel that we just shouldn't have patents at all, or at least have leanings in that direction?
Instead, the American institution of copyright was informed by Condorcet and Locke.
I'm sorry, but Locke had nothing to do with American copyrights, and continues to have nothing to do with American copyrights.
Hell, Jefferson was so familiar with Locke that he cribbed from him for the Declaration, YET he disagreed with Locke about natural rights to property!
American copyright law is in fact tracable back to English copyright law. Both were utilitarian doctrines, as your Jefferson quote (on patents) illustates. That quote is directly in opposition to Locke!
Congratulations!
For throwing around terminology in such an odd manner, you have successfully posted one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Don't take this as indicating that I'm necessarily hostile to your position -- whatever the hell it is, I don't know -- just that you're communicating it _really_ badly, and that you often make no sense in your post.
Rephrase it, and I might agree.
'Intellectual property' is a very, very recent invention. It was a radical new idea in the 1700s, ignored by most nations, including many of the more prosperous ones, and where it did exist it had a much milder form than today. What we call 'IP' today really hasn't existed until just a few years ago.
Well... the term 'intellectual property,' which I agree is bogus, dates back to the 1960s IIRC, and WIPO or a precursor to it. Prior to that people just discussed copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, etc.
However, the idea of protecting inventions dates back to Ancient Greece, though they didn't take it seriously. The story was -- and this was intended to be a humorous story, like a modern joke about various ethnic groups -- it was that the inhabitants of the city of Sybaris were so dedicated to luxury that any chef who invented a new recipe received the exclusive right to use it for a year, so as to spur on the creation of new delicacies.
Real patent laws however date back to 15th century Venice, IIRC, and are remarkably similar to our own laws. It's copyright that dates back to the early 18th century.
Well, there are only so many ways you can not grant a patent.
What's alleged seems to be that it is not novel, i.e. someone already did it.
You seem to be saying that it is not obvious, i.e. someone skilled in the art would've known that it was possible, might be desirable, and that there might be some existing but not perfectly on-point prior art that could be combined (and which would be likely to be combined) to result in the claimed invention. This does have to all be proven, you know.
I doubt you claim that it's not useful, or that this isn't patentable subject matter at all.
The way the patent statute works is that patents ARE granted, unless one of a host of narrow exceptions to that rule is satisfied. Something being absurd doesn't work at present.
Perhaps there's a good reason to change the law, but for the moment I think we're stuck with having to make better arguments than mere absurdity.
Well, there's nothing wrong with them _trying_.
The problem is that copyright -- which is what Lexmark was trying to use, and is a monopoly -- is not intended to protect them from this sort of competition.
It is after all entirely possible that the razor/razor blade approach is not feasible with regards to printers. Lexmark should not be protected from fucking up; if they made a mistake with their pricing, it's their own damn problem.
Yes, but remember -- what constituted copyright infringement ALSO expanded. People haven't fundementally changed, the law has.
Law can mold social norms -- as with desegregation. Or it can be destroyed by daring to conflict with social norms -- as with prohibition.
In either event, attempting to flaunt the norms of society -- the norms that seem to indicate that no one considers individual non-commercial infringement to be a big deal -- is difficult and costly and time consuming.
I think it's going to turn out to be like prohibition. That no one will respect copyrights that they personally feel are unfair, that this will tend to cause them to dislike copyrights generally even if they'd otherwise accept having them, that enforcement will prove unpopular and impractical, and that ultimately copyright interests will lose because they got too greedy.
Desegregation was tough too, but at least there was a moral reason to support it. (though this was true of prohibition as well) Copyright has nothing to do with morality. I think it's doomed.
What property of other people do you refer to? Think carefully now, as you might want to consider how one tells whether something is property at all.
Someone holds those rights; either a creditor, a third party that paid for them, or it's split up among shareholders.
Unless it's been placed into the public domain explicitly or by operation of law, someone is holding those rights.
Only if it meets the requirements for patentability. Many recipes will not due to the statutory bar, novelty, and nonobviousness requirements.
And anyway, that has no bearing on the PRINTING of recipes. Printing a recipe for a patent either on the end product itself, or on the method of preparation would be akin to reprinting the patent, which is entirely legal and in fact desirable.
Patents only preclude the making, selling, etc. of the patented invention ITSELF. The description of it is entirely public, and has to be for patents to really be effective (else how would you know what you must stay away from).
You couldn't legally make the thing the recipe was for, or couldn't legally make the thing via that process, but I doubt that cookbook authors and publishers give a rat's ass about that.
No, until 1976 publication was generally a requirement for copyright protection in the US. To wit:
22 was an alternative for foreign authors, but required publication as well. 12 permitted copyrights on some works that were not published, or at least not for sale, but it was very narrow and not all works would be eligible for it.
And don't forget the formalities such as deposit, notice, and registration. Failure to do these things might lose you your rights per 14. Ah, for the good old days.
That said there have been several historical "exceptions" to copyright, e.g. recipes, instructions I believe, stuff like that isn't copyrightable.
Additionally the reason that recipes, instructions, etc. are not copyrightable is not a historical exception, but because those things are FACTS, and you cannot copyright (nor did you create) facts. There's also the merger doctrine to bear in mind. Certainly if you wanted to protect a recipe -- which is a useful process -- you'd better get a patent on it, though that often won't be possible because there are limits on what is patentable as well.
Until recently "databases" of public info wasn't copyrightable either, but they passed some dumbass law because I guess they figured marketers need even more protection!
And which law was that?
Anyway, databases could be protected, but only if there was creativity expressed in selecting and arranging the data (e.g. phone books are right out), and it doesn't protect the individual datum, just the compilation as a whole. This is settled.
Well, this is the trick.
If you had a list of places that directed others as to where they could get drugs, while you may be helping people _acquire_ drugs, you are NOT participating through action in order to help the success of _selling_ drugs.
Thus you might be able to convict the person with the list as being an accomplice to the purchase of drugs, but he isn't an accomplice to the dealer, assuming that the list was his only connection.
The case on point that springs to mind here -- involving drugs, in fact -- is State v. Gladstone, 474 P.2d 274 (Wash. 1980).
I don't know enough about Australian copyright law to know whether or not such a thing would work, but if this were brought in the U.S. it could _only_ work as contributory infringement (maybe vicarious infringement in rare cases), where the direct infringement was the downloader reproducing copies. This isn't a common argument, but it has been successful before over here. Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D.Utah 1999). Again though, of course, assuming that there was no interaction with the distributors being linked to, there could be no contributory or vicarious liability predicated on infringing distribution.
But whether Australian courts would reach a similar holding as in Utah Lighthouse, I don't know. Perhaps we have some people here that are familiar with their copyright law and who could comment on this for us?