Because we, meaning everyone, get to decide whether or not you own it, and to what extent.
Presumably you own your house. But we tell you that you cannot use it as an abattoir because we've decided to zone the property you own as being for residential purposes only.
Presumably you also own your car. But we tell you that you cannot speed, operate it in an unsafe manner, etc.
So if you are the author of some creative work, and you want everyone else in the world to refrain from copying it except for when you give us permission to -- it's just not going to happen unless everyone else feels that it is in their own best interests to agree with you. And even then, we may decide that in some cases it's still best to ignore what you want and do what we want. In fact, we're always doing what we want.
For example, if you want a copyright on your work so as to prevent parodies from being made, we're going to tell you that it's tough luck, but we like parodists better than you, so you have no power to stop them. We could even require you to adhere to certain formalities to get any protection on your work, or even be of certain nationalities. (for a long time US copyrights were only granted to Americans, for example)
Ownership of anything (though it's really not the right word for copyrighted works) is a social construct that depends entirely on people respecting your desire to own a given thing. If they don't, you really can't own it no matter how much you'd like to. So it boils down to you having to show everyone else that allowing you to own something is in the best interests of everyone else.
This is true for real and personal property, it's just much more pronounced for copyrights, patents and trademarks. (Trade secrets are not a thing at all, really -- regulations in that field of law revolve around the METHODS by which a secret is discovered, since some methods are considered unfair. Think of it as being similar to prohibitions on insider trading or marketplace collusion)
No, 17 USC 105 is still there. Personally I'd like to expand it somewhat -- deny United States copyrights for any government or subdivision thereof. As for the contractor thing -- it depends. If the contractor is essentially doing government work that a government employee could have done, it's not copyrightable. Thus, when GPLed software is used in govt. projects, there's a lot of attention that has to be paid as to how things will all work out in the end.
Heh. I know Shakespeare's histories aren't his most popular plays these days, but you haven't actually seen Henry VI, have you? Too bad, it's a good series of plays.
The people who want to kill all the lawyers are basically an unruly rebel mob that's been looting and pillaging and killing basically anyone who isn't of the common folk. They kill one man because he can read and write his own name and they can't.
Basically think of Pol Pot.
OTOH it is intended to be a funny line, it's just that it's part of what the villians of the play are planning to do.
Yeah, but the additional compensation over their normal fees is made up for by the chance that they might not make any money at all.
If you have a choice between your job making $100/hr and a 50/50 chance of $1000, you should take the chance, if you look at the math.
Lawyers aren't going to want to take a chance of not getting paid their normal rate when they could work for someone else and be guaranteed just as much. Contingent fees have to be high enough to be attractive or no one will ever take a case on contingency.
As for fees generally, they vary a lot, and tend to follow the market. If someone wants a ridiculous fee, and finds someone willing to pay, then good for them. It'll adjust itself naturally.
There are _lots_ of perfectly valid lawsuits out there just waiting to be brought. But often the plaintiffs cannot afford the expense of bringing a lawsuit.
Some of these suits have the potential to yield substantial payoffs (although most do not have the potential, and those that do often don't work out in practice). In these cases, lawyers are willing to work for free, provided that they can get a cut of the amount awarded if they're successful.
This means the lawyers are taking all the risk -- so of course they're going to prioritize in terms of what the case is worth. Just as a plaintiff who has limited funds will sue a rich person for lots of money instead of a poor person who couldn't pay no matter what. They'll especially go for the deep pockets because it could easily take years of giving up other work that pays up front to take the _chance_ on this kind of case. As long as you're risking not getting paid for such a huge amount of effort, you'd better have a damn good reward if you win.
But lawyers can't work on contingency unless they choose to, AND the client, being informed of the situation, agrees to let them. Clients can always opt to pay the regular fees of the client and, if successful, reap all the rewards.
However, the big thing to note is that most lawsuits don't generate a spectacular damage award. For a lawyer to get and win a case like this is equivalent to winning the lotto. It really doesn't happen much; I know a lot of lawyers but not any that get that kind of cash.
Actually that sounds unashemedly nightmareish in every single respect. There is really no regards in which that doesn't practically kiss the feet of the copyright holder. It's probably one of the most anti-public copyright reform proposals I've ever heard of.
Not really. Trade secrets and patents are mutually exclusive. And trade secrets can protect things that no patent could ever be granted for. Copyrights and patents are also mutually exclusive. And trademarks cannot be trade secrets or copyrighted, and it would be quite a stretch to try for even a design patent on a trademark.
Really they're all quite different types of protection, with different origins, and the policies behind them are different as well. That's why it's so silly to lump them together as IP law.
The lawyers don't want change even though they see the problems everyday since it will keep more cases out of court and decrease their job opportunities.
I disagree. Lawyers actually tend to argue for or against copyright on policy arguments. Some lawyers think that copyright can be a good thing if it meets certain criteria. Others feel it's like a property right and ought to be inherent.
But I've never heard of any lawyer arguing for copyrights just so that they can stay in work.
No, there is no license for CDs either. Nothing is stopping people from loaning their CDs to their friends other than ignorance. Loan away -- it's fine.
No, the original questioner just is very unsure of himself, or doesn't know. Copyright law permits loaning of copies to a friend. Flat-out rental of CDs or non-console computer software is prohibited (due to special interests at work), but basically everything else goes.
The appropriate statutes are 17 USC 106 (banning distribution) and 109 (permitting some types of distribution notwithstanding 106).
No, the vagueness is good. It means that hitherto unthought of fair uses can be accepted.
Fair Use basically originated in 1841 -- no one then could have predicted fair use time shifting of broadcast tv programs via video recorders. But that's generally considered to be a fair use as well.
A better plan than yours would be for Congress to create some more statutory exemptions -- that is to prevent copyrights from applying to some circumstances regardless of fairness -- and to leave fair use alone.
Because the music industry hates it. They managed to get legislation that specifically makes the rental of music illegal. (other countries do allow you rent music, notably Japan)
Computer software also cannot be legally rented, unless it's burned into chips that are rented or is software for use on a videogame console.
Well to be fair, I have a job that doesn't permit me a great number of web browsing opportunities. Now I'm home for the day, so perhaps I'll see something more bizarre tonight.
The public has numerous desires with regards to creative works. Satisfying these desires as much as possible is the single core goal of copyright law.
They include, but aren't limited to: that original works will be created; that derivative works will be created; that such works will be freely available (in terms of price and ease of acquisition); that such works will be preserved for posterity; that such works will be able to form the basis of later derivative works; that such works can be used and enjoyed as they are; that such works can be copied, modified, distributed, performed, and displayed to the full extent that anyone should wish to do so.
These are the public benefits that copyright is intended to accrue.
GPL'ed works don't satisfy these as much as public domain works might. Public domain works can form the basis for derivative works that are, in their new portions, copyrighted. The GPL circumvents this somewhat by making the new portions GPL'ed, perhaps discouraging authors from bothering. Similarly there are discouraging limits placed on distribution.
Don't get me wrong, I do like and respect the GPL a great deal. But getting works into the public domain rapidly is a better solution overall. Only barring that would I tend to support the GPL, which does do an admirable job of satisfying those goals, just slightly not as good of a job.
So, because not all end-users will be doing it, it isn't a EULA for the end-user? Uhm, do you realize that makes no sense at all? "Here's a license for the end-user that isn't an end-user license because the end-user probably won't do the things allowed in the license." Uhm... what?
No, you misunderstand me. I merely said that the GPL happens to not be directly relevant for must users anyway.
However the GPL isn't a EULA. It isn't a license for end users. It is a license for people who want to make derivative works based upon GPL'ed works, and for people who want to redistribute the work as it is, or a derivative of it. If you're not doing these things, you need not bother agreeing to the GPL.
The GPL itself clearly states in part 0 that "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted...."
Use is one of the things not covered by the GPL. And use is the heart and soul of an End USER License Agreement.
EULAs can almost always be proven to be a valid contract, by the 4 (and sometimes 5) requisites for an agreement to be a contract.
Contract yes, valid no. Software is generally considered to be a good, and therefore it falls under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and not the plain-vanilla common law of contracts.
The dispute as to the validity of EULAs basically hinges on two interpretations of the UCC.
The Pro-EULA camp argues that when a customer -- as opposed to a merchant who trades in such goods -- buys something with a EULA is merely a contractual agreement per the UCC in which the parties agree upon payment that the specific terms of the contract will be determined later. This is basically per UCC 2-204(1), 2-606.
The anti-EULA camp -- aside from making arguments regarding preemption of contract law by Congress due to the First Sale doctrine of Copyright Law -- argues that there is one essentially complete purchase transaction when you pays your moneys and takes your softwares. Later attempts to amend that _can_ work, but cannot be forced. Both parties would have to agree. This causes UCC 2-207 to kick in. Basically in a consumer setting what this means is that new terms proposed by the offeree (the seller) are either ineffective save as agreement to the offer proposed by the offeror (buyer); or that the seller is only willing to sell if the new terms are agreed to, but he has to explicitly say so at the time of the original transaction to give the buyer a chance to back out. A EULA isn't presented at the cash register as part of the original transaction. This makes it a proposed amendment, but it was never mentioned at the cash register that the SALE THERE was conditioned on acceptance of the EULA. Indeed, I imagine you can walk out of a store protesting about the EULA and refusing to accept it all the way, and the poor kid at the register will have no clue. Clicking 'I agree' then has no weight, since no new contract is actually being presented to you. You're just using what you bought.
Basically this is what the debate is about.
So, enlighten me, how are EULAs not enforcable? Especially when there was a recent court victory featured on Slashdot by a term in the EULA (Refund for Windows)?
Uh, that was in small claims court. It really has no bearing on the debate as a whole, and at any rate merely indicates that someone did agree to the EULA enough so as to be able to utilize the refund provisions in it.
The anti-EULA camp is NOT saying that it's impossible to agree to a EULA. Just that by default they're unenforcable. A customer could always opt to agree to it if they wanted. And the GPL is actually of that sort of type -- irrelevant initially, but you can always agree to it later.
I'd very much like to see citations of those rulings.
Anyway, you're wrong. There is no license. And also you're wrong as to what you get, but at the moment I'm more interested in trying to stamp out this insane meme that there are licenses involved. There aren't. Check it out.
No, you're just a moron. Seriously, your comment there wins the prize for the most bizarre thing I've seen on the Internet today. You're absolutely wrong.
When you buy a CD in a normal transaction you own to the full extent such things are ownable by anyone, the CD and its contents.
Simple as that. There is no license at all. You just own that copy of the creative work. Note that ownership of a particular copy of a work is distinct from whether or not you hold a copyright. Selling you a copy doesn't mean you were sold a copyright.
What you're allowed to do with the CD is regulated by law, much as what you're allowed to do with your car is regulated by law. The law might say you can't make copies and sell them, just as the law might say you can't drive 200 miles an hour in a school zone.
Under certain circumstances, the regulations you're subject to might not be relevant. The most significant example is probably when a certain period of time -- the copyright term -- expires, and the law basically no longer regulates at all what you can do with the work.
Where people come up with this license bullshit is totally beyond me. There just isn't one.
I wasn't considering things like/. posts as "creative works."
They are. I don't have a problem with that, however I don't want to have to worry about them being copyrighted unless the author wants them to be above a certain threshold. The mere desire is too damn expansive.
What I don't like about having to pay money and register copyrights is that it will be easier for those with deeper pockets to register copyrights. Copyrighting should not be a privilege reserved for the rich.
Maybe, but as a general rule I doubt that they'd bother either unless they thought it was worth it. Before 1976, formalities such as registration were more important, AND the copyright term didn't last so long, and could be renewed, if requested, once.
Nevertheless, lots of wealthy authors didn't copyright every stupid little thing such as our posts here -- which is where your proposal takes us (in fact we're there already) -- but instead only copyrighted things that were felt worthwhile, and only renewed things that were even more worthwhile. Lots of works turned out not to be worth the trouble of renewing. Basically any copyrightable work after 1923 that's in the public domain is there because no one bothered to register or renew. There's a fair number of such works.
If the initial registration is fairly cheap, and successive ones are not, this basically takes care of your problem. If a poor author can't get rich by his works, what the hell good is a copyright doing him and the public anyway?
Also, consider that copyright is required for the concept of copyleft (or "share-alike," as Creative Commons calls it) to work. I think it can be argued that copylefted works are sometimes more beneficial to the public than PD works.
Yeah. Trade secret law is actually the law of unfair competition. That is, it is considered unfair to permit corporate espionage; we care about the behavior, not the actual secrets. If you independently discover a trade secret, you're fine. Depending on your state law, you might even be able to approach or use unfair methods. And if a secret is disclosed, no one can claim it as being a secret anymore, even if the disclosure had nothing to do with them.
This is why 'IP' is such an awful term. It groups together fields of law that are very diverse, and have no common basis or doctrines, basically. Better to deal with each field on its own.
The GPL is NOT a EULA. Hell, read it sometime, it specifically says that it does not cover use of GPL'ed software. The GPL is in fact a license for the creation and distribution of derivative works, which not all end users (see 17 USC 117) will bother doing. Very many in fact, couldn't care less about whether _they_ can utilize the GPL if they desire to do so. Unless you're going to modify and redistribute GPL'ed software, it's basically irrelevant to you. The truth is, most GPL'ed software is sold outright or given away for free. Since the transfer of copies has no bearing on the transfer of copyrights, it's not an unusual practice. Pretty much all copyrighted matter other than software is sold or given away as well, and there's a pretty strong argument that EULAs are not generally valid which would put them into the same boat.
That's where you're wrong, assuming it's all about profit. I happen to be a vegetarian, and if I wrote a song that was then used by some food company in a commercial for a meat product, that would displease me greatly. Copyright allows me to prevent such a scenario. For at least the term of the copyright, I won't be inadvertently supporting something I don't like.
But this isn't a copyright goal. Consider the First Sale and Fair Use doctrines.
In fact, in your scenario, you're dead wrong. All the food company needs to do is have a performer who's willing to work for them play your song per the compulsory license. Using your song in their ad without your permission is entirely legal even during the copyright term.
Your _actual_ best hope is to sue, not over copyright, but via state publicity rights instead. At least there you might have a chance. (there was a similar case involving Bette Midler, IIRC)
But every time I make any creative work, according to you and Lawrence Lessig, I should have to spend money and waste my time completing some registration process.
No. Only every time you want a copyright in it. Do you seriously care about, e.g. your copyright in your/. post to which I'm replying to? If so, I really cannot imagine why. Notice is another important formality, but unrelated to registration. Still, there's a reason why registration was essential from 1710 through 1976, and why it in fact remains on the books today. It's absolutely key for the public policy goals of copyright.
Whether you like it or not, I couldn't care less. In a discussion about copyright, artists aren't really very important. I mean, when was the last time a dairy farmer interested in efficient, economic milk production asked the opinion of his cattle? Same basic thing here.
See, you forget -- the goal of copyright isn't to produce works, it's to benefit the public. Sometimes this means producing works, sure. But some works -- for example, your works -- come at too high a price. It would harm the public to encourage you to create works, given how much you're demanding to do it. We're better off if you don't bother, though of course, it'd be nice if you would give in.
Slashdot Mirror
Because we, meaning everyone, get to decide whether or not you own it, and to what extent.
Presumably you own your house. But we tell you that you cannot use it as an abattoir because we've decided to zone the property you own as being for residential purposes only.
Presumably you also own your car. But we tell you that you cannot speed, operate it in an unsafe manner, etc.
So if you are the author of some creative work, and you want everyone else in the world to refrain from copying it except for when you give us permission to -- it's just not going to happen unless everyone else feels that it is in their own best interests to agree with you. And even then, we may decide that in some cases it's still best to ignore what you want and do what we want. In fact, we're always doing what we want.
For example, if you want a copyright on your work so as to prevent parodies from being made, we're going to tell you that it's tough luck, but we like parodists better than you, so you have no power to stop them. We could even require you to adhere to certain formalities to get any protection on your work, or even be of certain nationalities. (for a long time US copyrights were only granted to Americans, for example)
Ownership of anything (though it's really not the right word for copyrighted works) is a social construct that depends entirely on people respecting your desire to own a given thing. If they don't, you really can't own it no matter how much you'd like to. So it boils down to you having to show everyone else that allowing you to own something is in the best interests of everyone else.
This is true for real and personal property, it's just much more pronounced for copyrights, patents and trademarks. (Trade secrets are not a thing at all, really -- regulations in that field of law revolve around the METHODS by which a secret is discovered, since some methods are considered unfair. Think of it as being similar to prohibitions on insider trading or marketplace collusion)
No, 17 USC 105 is still there. Personally I'd like to expand it somewhat -- deny United States copyrights for any government or subdivision thereof. As for the contractor thing -- it depends. If the contractor is essentially doing government work that a government employee could have done, it's not copyrightable. Thus, when GPLed software is used in govt. projects, there's a lot of attention that has to be paid as to how things will all work out in the end.
Heh. I know Shakespeare's histories aren't his most popular plays these days, but you haven't actually seen Henry VI, have you? Too bad, it's a good series of plays.
The people who want to kill all the lawyers are basically an unruly rebel mob that's been looting and pillaging and killing basically anyone who isn't of the common folk. They kill one man because he can read and write his own name and they can't.
Basically think of Pol Pot.
OTOH it is intended to be a funny line, it's just that it's part of what the villians of the play are planning to do.
Yeah, but the additional compensation over their normal fees is made up for by the chance that they might not make any money at all.
If you have a choice between your job making $100/hr and a 50/50 chance of $1000, you should take the chance, if you look at the math.
Lawyers aren't going to want to take a chance of not getting paid their normal rate when they could work for someone else and be guaranteed just as much. Contingent fees have to be high enough to be attractive or no one will ever take a case on contingency.
As for fees generally, they vary a lot, and tend to follow the market. If someone wants a ridiculous fee, and finds someone willing to pay, then good for them. It'll adjust itself naturally.
Sort of, yes.
There are _lots_ of perfectly valid lawsuits out there just waiting to be brought. But often the plaintiffs cannot afford the expense of bringing a lawsuit.
Some of these suits have the potential to yield substantial payoffs (although most do not have the potential, and those that do often don't work out in practice). In these cases, lawyers are willing to work for free, provided that they can get a cut of the amount awarded if they're successful.
This means the lawyers are taking all the risk -- so of course they're going to prioritize in terms of what the case is worth. Just as a plaintiff who has limited funds will sue a rich person for lots of money instead of a poor person who couldn't pay no matter what. They'll especially go for the deep pockets because it could easily take years of giving up other work that pays up front to take the _chance_ on this kind of case. As long as you're risking not getting paid for such a huge amount of effort, you'd better have a damn good reward if you win.
But lawyers can't work on contingency unless they choose to, AND the client, being informed of the situation, agrees to let them. Clients can always opt to pay the regular fees of the client and, if successful, reap all the rewards.
However, the big thing to note is that most lawsuits don't generate a spectacular damage award. For a lawyer to get and win a case like this is equivalent to winning the lotto. It really doesn't happen much; I know a lot of lawyers but not any that get that kind of cash.
Actually that sounds unashemedly nightmareish in every single respect. There is really no regards in which that doesn't practically kiss the feet of the copyright holder. It's probably one of the most anti-public copyright reform proposals I've ever heard of.
Try again.
Not really. Trade secrets and patents are mutually exclusive. And trade secrets can protect things that no patent could ever be granted for. Copyrights and patents are also mutually exclusive. And trademarks cannot be trade secrets or copyrighted, and it would be quite a stretch to try for even a design patent on a trademark.
Really they're all quite different types of protection, with different origins, and the policies behind them are different as well. That's why it's so silly to lump them together as IP law.
The lawyers don't want change even though they see the problems everyday since it will keep more cases out of court and decrease their job opportunities.
I disagree. Lawyers actually tend to argue for or against copyright on policy arguments. Some lawyers think that copyright can be a good thing if it meets certain criteria. Others feel it's like a property right and ought to be inherent.
But I've never heard of any lawyer arguing for copyrights just so that they can stay in work.
No, there is no license for CDs either. Nothing is stopping people from loaning their CDs to their friends other than ignorance. Loan away -- it's fine.
No, the original questioner just is very unsure of himself, or doesn't know. Copyright law permits loaning of copies to a friend. Flat-out rental of CDs or non-console computer software is prohibited (due to special interests at work), but basically everything else goes.
The appropriate statutes are 17 USC 106 (banning distribution) and 109 (permitting some types of distribution notwithstanding 106).
No, the vagueness is good. It means that hitherto unthought of fair uses can be accepted.
Fair Use basically originated in 1841 -- no one then could have predicted fair use time shifting of broadcast tv programs via video recorders. But that's generally considered to be a fair use as well.
A better plan than yours would be for Congress to create some more statutory exemptions -- that is to prevent copyrights from applying to some circumstances regardless of fairness -- and to leave fair use alone.
There is no license. You purchased the CD outright. Check it out.
Let's please not be stupid here -- too many people are misinformed about this already without your inanity.
Because the music industry hates it. They managed to get legislation that specifically makes the rental of music illegal. (other countries do allow you rent music, notably Japan)
Computer software also cannot be legally rented, unless it's burned into chips that are rented or is software for use on a videogame console.
IIRC the relevant statute is 17 USC 109.
Well to be fair, I have a job that doesn't permit me a great number of web browsing opportunities. Now I'm home for the day, so perhaps I'll see something more bizarre tonight.
The public has numerous desires with regards to creative works. Satisfying these desires as much as possible is the single core goal of copyright law.
They include, but aren't limited to: that original works will be created; that derivative works will be created; that such works will be freely available (in terms of price and ease of acquisition); that such works will be preserved for posterity; that such works will be able to form the basis of later derivative works; that such works can be used and enjoyed as they are; that such works can be copied, modified, distributed, performed, and displayed to the full extent that anyone should wish to do so.
These are the public benefits that copyright is intended to accrue.
GPL'ed works don't satisfy these as much as public domain works might. Public domain works can form the basis for derivative works that are, in their new portions, copyrighted. The GPL circumvents this somewhat by making the new portions GPL'ed, perhaps discouraging authors from bothering. Similarly there are discouraging limits placed on distribution.
Don't get me wrong, I do like and respect the GPL a great deal. But getting works into the public domain rapidly is a better solution overall. Only barring that would I tend to support the GPL, which does do an admirable job of satisfying those goals, just slightly not as good of a job.
So, because not all end-users will be doing it, it isn't a EULA for the end-user? Uhm, do you realize that makes no sense at all? "Here's a license for the end-user that isn't an end-user license because the end-user probably won't do the things allowed in the license." Uhm... what?
No, you misunderstand me. I merely said that the GPL happens to not be directly relevant for must users anyway.
However the GPL isn't a EULA. It isn't a license for end users. It is a license for people who want to make derivative works based upon GPL'ed works, and for people who want to redistribute the work as it is, or a derivative of it. If you're not doing these things, you need not bother agreeing to the GPL.
The GPL itself clearly states in part 0 that "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted...."
Use is one of the things not covered by the GPL. And use is the heart and soul of an End USER License Agreement.
EULAs can almost always be proven to be a valid contract, by the 4 (and sometimes 5) requisites for an agreement to be a contract.
Contract yes, valid no. Software is generally considered to be a good, and therefore it falls under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and not the plain-vanilla common law of contracts.
The dispute as to the validity of EULAs basically hinges on two interpretations of the UCC.
The Pro-EULA camp argues that when a customer -- as opposed to a merchant who trades in such goods -- buys something with a EULA is merely a contractual agreement per the UCC in which the parties agree upon payment that the specific terms of the contract will be determined later. This is basically per UCC 2-204(1), 2-606.
The anti-EULA camp -- aside from making arguments regarding preemption of contract law by Congress due to the First Sale doctrine of Copyright Law -- argues that there is one essentially complete purchase transaction when you pays your moneys and takes your softwares. Later attempts to amend that _can_ work, but cannot be forced. Both parties would have to agree. This causes UCC 2-207 to kick in. Basically in a consumer setting what this means is that new terms proposed by the offeree (the seller) are either ineffective save as agreement to the offer proposed by the offeror (buyer); or that the seller is only willing to sell if the new terms are agreed to, but he has to explicitly say so at the time of the original transaction to give the buyer a chance to back out. A EULA isn't presented at the cash register as part of the original transaction. This makes it a proposed amendment, but it was never mentioned at the cash register that the SALE THERE was conditioned on acceptance of the EULA. Indeed, I imagine you can walk out of a store protesting about the EULA and refusing to accept it all the way, and the poor kid at the register will have no clue. Clicking 'I agree' then has no weight, since no new contract is actually being presented to you. You're just using what you bought.
Basically this is what the debate is about.
So, enlighten me, how are EULAs not enforcable? Especially when there was a recent court victory featured on Slashdot by a term in the EULA (Refund for Windows)?
Uh, that was in small claims court. It really has no bearing on the debate as a whole, and at any rate merely indicates that someone did agree to the EULA enough so as to be able to utilize the refund provisions in it.
The anti-EULA camp is NOT saying that it's impossible to agree to a EULA. Just that by default they're unenforcable. A customer could always opt to agree to it if they wanted. And the GPL is actually of that sort of type -- irrelevant initially, but you can always agree to it later.
I'd very much like to see citations of those rulings.
Anyway, you're wrong. There is no license. And also you're wrong as to what you get, but at the moment I'm more interested in trying to stamp out this insane meme that there are licenses involved. There aren't. Check it out.
No, you're just a moron. Seriously, your comment there wins the prize for the most bizarre thing I've seen on the Internet today. You're absolutely wrong.
You're flat-out wrong. There is no license. Check it out.
When you buy a CD in a normal transaction you own to the full extent such things are ownable by anyone, the CD and its contents.
Simple as that. There is no license at all. You just own that copy of the creative work. Note that ownership of a particular copy of a work is distinct from whether or not you hold a copyright. Selling you a copy doesn't mean you were sold a copyright.
What you're allowed to do with the CD is regulated by law, much as what you're allowed to do with your car is regulated by law. The law might say you can't make copies and sell them, just as the law might say you can't drive 200 miles an hour in a school zone.
Under certain circumstances, the regulations you're subject to might not be relevant. The most significant example is probably when a certain period of time -- the copyright term -- expires, and the law basically no longer regulates at all what you can do with the work.
Where people come up with this license bullshit is totally beyond me. There just isn't one.
I wasn't considering things like /. posts as "creative works."
They are. I don't have a problem with that, however I don't want to have to worry about them being copyrighted unless the author wants them to be above a certain threshold. The mere desire is too damn expansive.
What I don't like about having to pay money and register copyrights is that it will be easier for those with deeper pockets to register copyrights. Copyrighting should not be a privilege reserved for the rich.
Maybe, but as a general rule I doubt that they'd bother either unless they thought it was worth it. Before 1976, formalities such as registration were more important, AND the copyright term didn't last so long, and could be renewed, if requested, once.
Nevertheless, lots of wealthy authors didn't copyright every stupid little thing such as our posts here -- which is where your proposal takes us (in fact we're there already) -- but instead only copyrighted things that were felt worthwhile, and only renewed things that were even more worthwhile. Lots of works turned out not to be worth the trouble of renewing. Basically any copyrightable work after 1923 that's in the public domain is there because no one bothered to register or renew. There's a fair number of such works.
If the initial registration is fairly cheap, and successive ones are not, this basically takes care of your problem. If a poor author can't get rich by his works, what the hell good is a copyright doing him and the public anyway?
Also, consider that copyright is required for the concept of copyleft (or "share-alike," as Creative Commons calls it) to work. I think it can be argued that copylefted works are sometimes more beneficial to the public than PD works.
No, they're not.
Yeah. Trade secret law is actually the law of unfair competition. That is, it is considered unfair to permit corporate espionage; we care about the behavior, not the actual secrets.
If you independently discover a trade secret, you're fine. Depending on your state law, you might even be able to approach or use unfair methods. And if a secret is disclosed, no one can claim it as being a secret anymore, even if the disclosure had nothing to do with them.
This is why 'IP' is such an awful term. It groups together fields of law that are very diverse, and have no common basis or doctrines, basically. Better to deal with each field on its own.
The GPL is NOT a EULA. Hell, read it sometime, it specifically says that
it does not cover use of GPL'ed software. The GPL is in fact a license for
the creation and distribution of derivative works, which not all end users
(see 17 USC 117) will bother doing. Very many in fact, couldn't care less
about whether _they_ can utilize the GPL if they desire to do so. Unless
you're going to modify and redistribute GPL'ed software, it's basically
irrelevant to you. The truth is, most GPL'ed software is sold outright or
given away for free. Since the transfer of copies has no bearing on the
transfer of copyrights, it's not an unusual practice. Pretty much all
copyrighted matter other than software is sold or given away as well, and
there's a pretty strong argument that EULAs are not generally valid which
would put them into the same boat.
That's where you're wrong, assuming it's all about profit. I happen to be a vegetarian, and if I wrote a song that was then used by some food company in a commercial for a meat product, that would displease me greatly. Copyright allows me to prevent such a scenario. For at least the term of the copyright, I won't be inadvertently supporting something I don't like.
/. post to which I'm replying to? If so, I really cannot imagine why. Notice is another important formality, but unrelated to registration. Still, there's a reason why registration was essential from 1710 through 1976, and why it in fact remains on the books today. It's absolutely key for the public policy goals of copyright.
But this isn't a copyright goal. Consider the First Sale and Fair Use doctrines.
In fact, in your scenario, you're dead wrong. All the food company needs to do is have a performer who's willing to work for them play your song per the compulsory license. Using your song in their ad without your permission is entirely legal even during the copyright term.
Your _actual_ best hope is to sue, not over copyright, but via state publicity rights instead. At least there you might have a chance. (there was a similar case involving Bette Midler, IIRC)
But every time I make any creative work, according to you and Lawrence Lessig, I should have to spend money and waste my time completing some registration process.
No. Only every time you want a copyright in it. Do you seriously care about, e.g. your copyright in your
Whether you like it or not, I couldn't care less. In a discussion about copyright, artists aren't really very important. I mean, when was the last time a dairy farmer interested in efficient, economic milk production asked the opinion of his cattle? Same basic thing here.
See, you forget -- the goal of copyright isn't to produce works, it's to benefit the public. Sometimes this means producing works, sure. But some works -- for example, your works -- come at too high a price. It would harm the public to encourage you to create works, given how much you're demanding to do it. We're better off if you don't bother, though of course, it'd be nice if you would give in.