just for what they were originally, life of the creator, no more (a little big more, okay), no less.
Um, no.
The first copyright law was the Statute of Anne of 1710 passed by Parliment. It provided for a 21 year term for books already published prior to the passage of the statute, and a 14 year term for later-published books, renewable by an additional 14 years if the author was still alive at the end of the first term.
So that wasn't life of the author.
Come the Revolution, the Contintental Congress in 1783 urged the States to pass their own copyright laws fundementally the same as the Statute of Anne regarding term length. This, they more or less did, although each state had their own approach to things. Because of the problems that arose with each state being wholly soverign, yet united together, we eventually changed governments to the Federal government we currently enjoy, and one of the many powers granted to Congress was the copyright power.
Whereupon Congress passed in 1790 a Copyright Act providing for a 14 year term, followed by another 14 year term if the author was alive upon the expiration of the previous one.
So none of the American laws lasted the life of the author either.
In fact, it was not until the 1976 Act -- only a few decades ago -- that the US adopted a term that lasted for the author's life, however long it happened to last, plus some additional years.
Personally, I HATE life terms. Given that the economic value of a copyright drops like a rock -- assuming it ever has any value to begin with -- there's no real point in such a long term.
Why would you want a life term anyway? What good is it doing you?
I would prefer, I think, if copyrights were only granted to authors who registered for them and fulfilled some formalities, paid some fees, etc. to weed out people who weren't serious and help protect the public domain, and if the term was a paltry 5 years. Renewable in 5 year increments (except for software, which ages much more rapidly and needs to get into the public domain faster) up to a total of 25 years.
Nice and neat.
"Works that would have been produced without copyrights didn't need copyrights as an incentive. Works that would have meaningfully entered the public domain without copyrights didn't need copyrights as an incentive"
A bit circular there.
Uh, no.
I'm saying that unless the grant of a copyright was essential to having a work be created and meaningfully enter the public domain, such a grant would be superflous. This is because we only grant copyrights to cause works to be created and meaningfully enter the public domain.
Why should the public pay if authors will do it for free? There's no reason to.
I bet if you completely got rid of copyrights things would still get produced, at the same level. And also just because I copyright something doesn't mean that I wouldn't of produced it in the first place.
Perhaps. If you're right, then we should not grant copyrights. They're harming the public and not yielding up any comensurate public benefit to make it worthwhile.
But personally I think that numbers would drop in a copyrightless world. Though the real question is if it would be worth it to the public, and a total lack of copyrights may in some cases be the best answer.
Define "enriched" and "public good" for me?
Public good: To satisfy the public's interests or desires.
Public desires germane to this discussion are, roughly: 1) For original works to be created. 2) For derivative works to be created. 3) For there to be no artificial limits on access to those works by members of the public who desire to access them. This includes a desire for copies of works at no charge, and to be able to freely reproduce, distribute, display and perform works. 4) To enjoy works. E.g. reading a book, watching a movie, etc. 5) To preserve works for posterity. 6) To alter works for any purpo
The intent and purpose of the GPL is to prevent anyone anywhere from selling, or otherwise making money off of any software. That is the goal.
I doubt it. RMS used to sell copies of software himself.
The purpose AFAICT is to prevent anyone anywhere from using code others have written as the foundation for further improvements to that code, if they then do not release those improvements back out to the public so that they may be used as part of the foundation of later projects.
It has a financial impact, I agree, but I don't think that's the actual objective.
Personally, I like the GPL more than the BSD license, in that the former seeks to preserve the policy of giving back. The latter fails to do so and can suffer from a lack of contributions even where there's a healthy user and programmer base!
So, if copyrights only exist to enrich creative works, then we can take away the copyrights of all the pop-music on the radio?
Sure. For significant portions of our history we didn't allow copyrights on art, music, works created by non-Americans. We can pick and choose.
Personally, I don't mind there being a fairly wide range of copyrightable subject matter, but I have my limits. I don't agree with architecture or typefaces being protectable, for example, and I belive in the utility doctrine.
Copyrights are ethics with a gun. It *IS* unethical to use something without reference (fair use), and copyright laws stand to enforce this from unscrupulous people.
Ethics are largely, if not wholly, irrelevant to copyright policy. At best they're a very secondary concern.
Copyrights are granted solely for the purpose of getting works meaningfully into the public domain that would not be there otherwise. Furthermore, copyrights should only be granted insofar as such a grant -- with the negative consequences of the grant taken into account -- enriches the public in the final analysis.
That's really about it.
Works that would have been produced without copyrights didn't need copyrights as an incentive. Works that would have meaningfully entered the public domain without copyrights didn't need copyrights as an incentive. Works that do not leave the public better off for their having been copyrighted than if they were not copyrighted don't deserve copyrights, even if they'd be needed as an incentive, since the public isn't ultimately being enriched by them.
Works that fall into any of those categories don't deserve copyrights. I'm just not seeing much more to debate about the issue, since it's so clear.
Patents and copyrights, incidentally, in terms of the justifications for granting them, are exactly the same. Both are about money.
Copyrights and patents both provide their respective holders a chance to make money, and recoup the investment from their writing or invention.
If the creator would have created anyway, he didn't need the protection to encourage him. It is wasteful to give it to him.
If the creator would have publicized his creation, he didn't need the protection to encourage him. It is wasteful to give it to him.
If the creation is not worth more to the public than the value of the rights given to the creator, then there's no public good accomplished by giving protection to him. It is harmful to give it to him.
Reputation, the inherent desire to create, the desire to help other people -- copyrights and patents don't help these things, and in fact have a likelihood of impairing them. (see, e.g. Salk refusing to patent his polio vaccine)
Money is about it. Copyright isn't on some higher plane. It's basically a method of trying to fill the public's insatiable greed for creative works to use and abuse. It is wholly utilitarian.
The object of desire is not a copyright. If it were, the people who want it would have to get the current holder to transfer it to them. Except in extreme cases (laches-esque cases) infringing doesn't net one any rights against the rest of the world, and a copyright is fundementally rights against the rest of the world.
So it's better to say that the object of desire is a copyrighted work. The infringers want to do things with the work, not the copyright.
As for deprivation of possible value, it's a crappy argument on both sides IMO. I'd just as soon rather not go there. There are plenty of other justifications for copyrights and the prohibition of the infringement thereof that don't rely on something as nebulous as lost possible profits.
Actually no. If you took the monopoly then you would have it, and no one, including the artist, would be able to exercise the copyright holders' exclusive rights.
Yeah but Europeans wouldn't know a good copyright system if it bit them on the ass. Most of the copyright crap that's been going on in the US has been because we're letting the Europeans dictate policy to us.
The utilitarian rationale in the US is infinitely better and doesn't truck with this sweat of the brow crap.
You find the person who set up the LAN and sue them into a fine paste, which you bake at 350 degrees for fifty minutes, then set on fire and bury in an unmarked grave.
Remember Napster -- they were destroyed because they basically provided facilities for copyright infringement.
Even if the RIAA can't track down the specific users, they can certainly track down the person who owns the WAP and whatever it's plugged into.
The issue here is that copyrights can only be granted for creative work.
Facts -- such as a phone number, or that Canada is the capital of Russia* are clearly not creative.
However, creativity can be present in a particular selection and arrangement of facts. But not always. The phone book listings -- name, address, town, phone number -- are not creative. Anyone making a phone book would do that.
With a map, the actual artwork may be creative in its own right, and the selection of facts MAY be creative as well, but it depends on what facts were selected.
Whether the information is public or not is irrelevant. My favorite color is a secret for purposes of this post, but it still isn't creative. It's just a fact, even if you don't know it.**
*Why yes, I am an American. How did you guess? **My favorite color is infrared.
The seminal case on this is "Feist Publications" and a google should reveal it immediately. It's worth reading.
No, I'm not a lawyer. I mean, it says so right there in my.sig!
However I have _read_ the law. Do a google search for 17 USC 411 -- that's where the requirement is that you cannot sue until you have registered, even if the infringement occurred already.
That postmark thing is for something else, actually.
Actually having no or minimal copyrights has no harmful effect, because the proper baseline to work from is a world without copyrights. Copyrights are supposed to help the public -- this must mean it's supposed to help them more than no copyrights would.
But taken to an extreme, copyrights can be harmful because a) there is arguably a finite amount of creativity, and b) the natural tendancy of authors who already have copyrights will be to exclude new authors from entering the market, by claiming that the new authors are infringing. (see pretty much any case of a parodist being sued as an example)
I don't mind reducing copyright's scope to allow for preservation efforts. OTOH I strongly object to telling people that they cannot dispose of their property as they see fit. You _should_ be able to destroy the Picasso. OTOH, if it will come to that, other people should be allowed to make copies.
The problem is that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. This includes commercial speech.
The government can regulate it to an extent -- the advertising might have to be truthful, nutritional or medical information might have to be included on some products. But overall commercial speech is only a shade less unrestricted as everything else is.
And I mean, what's the difference between your not wanting to be contacted for UCE, and your not wanting to be contacted with political or relgious speech? The only difference is the content, and the government regulating speech because they don't like the content is very bad indeed. Thus it's safer all around if you personally are required to take steps to inform people that would mail you not to; it isn't the government's place to do so.
A centralized opt-out list, or an alteration to the email protocols to include a 'do not send mail of 'x' type' would probably be sufficient.
As for cost, you bear a cost for the use of phones, snail mail, etc. as well. There's nothing particularly special about spam. (in fact it's probably much more cost efficient for ALL parties involved)
I agree. (with regards to the mailbox -- there are guarantees for other platforms for that speech, or else the freedom of speech would be worthless)
However, until you revoke people's access to your mailbox as a means by which to contact you, it is implicitly open to them to use for that purpose.
If you don't want some people sending you mail, all I'm saying is that you should give them some sort of reasonable notice as to your wishes. I wouldn't tolerate people that violated such an explicit ban.
But I don't expect them to be mind readers either. It's up to you. Is this so difficult?
I DO care if someone infringes on my rights. Mostly out of ethical principle, and not monetary reasons.
Meh. Good for you. But why should _I_ care about your rights?
The only, and I mean only, reason that you're being granted copyrights in the first place is to give you an incentive to create works that you otherwise would not create.
Would you have created these works (such as a paper for class) without a copyright? If you couldn't be bothered to register, then I suspect that you would. Certainly lots of term papers got written before 1978.
Thus, you don't deserve a copyright. It would be harmful to the public to give it to you since you would have created the work anyway, and the fact of your getting a copyright isn't helping the public at all.
Ethics don't enter into it. It's a fairly simple utilitarian issue: does giving you a copyright leave the public at large better off than if we hadn't given you one? What you like, all else being equal, is irrelevant. At most it's just a small factor in the equation.
Personally I'm all for requiring significant formalities to getting a copyright: depositing of best copies, possibly with supplemental information; filing fees; time limits between culmination of significant creation and registration; etc. It would tend to resemble the patent system somewhat. But I think it would leave the public much better off than they are right now.
The numbers in the study here seem to indicate that factors unrelated to copyright are what motivate authors, at least where the copyright is above a certain level last seen in the 19th century. But most of the pro-author reforms of the 20th century appear to have not helped the public; more likely they're harmful. We ought to trash the lot of them.
Just like how it is legal for people to, without permission, trespass on your property for purposes of knocking on your front door in a reasonable manner to sell you things.
Or to fill up your mailbox with junk mail depriving you of space within it to accept other mail, and using up your valuable time in having to decide whether to throw it out or open it, and having to carry it all.
Or to call you on the phone with offers at a reasonable hour, which keeps you from using the phone otherwise or enjoying some peace and quiet.
The mere fact that you HAVE a telephone, or a door, or a mailbox -- or an email address -- is an implicit invitation for people to use those things to communicate with you.
If you don't want them to do that, you need only post a reasonable sort of notice telling them not to. This could be a a sign, such as 'no solicitors' or it could be presence on a particular 'do not call list' that telemarketers reasonably ought to be aware of.
If you haven't told spammers not to email you, then that's your problem.
OTOH, if spammers are sending you fraudulent advertisements, including if they're sufficiently disguising ads as other content, or have false email addresses, or false claims, etc. THEN I'd agree that that behavior can be regulated.
Truthful advertisements are a different matter however, and this law, IMO, is interfering with them impermissably.
In fact, you can't even sue someone for infringement until you've registered your work. (whether extra damages are available depends on if you registered prior to the infringement; just to get to that point you'll have had to register anyway)
So since the copyright holders of non-registered works appear to not care if their works are infringed upon, I think it's safe to discount them; they're getting protection that AFAICT is meaningless to them, and isn't motivating them to create. They'd act the same without the benefits of copyright, so why bother giving it to them?
I suspect it violates the guarantees of freedom of speech under both the constitutions of the United States and of Michigan. That's a bit of a down side.
I don't like spam either, but I'm not sure that there's a great deal that can be done to get rid of it. At least not that can be done to get rid of truthful spam.
Even filenames are metadata. Anything that's descriptive of the file contents is. It's great stuff -- try reading the full ID3 v2.4 spec sometime; you may be pissed off at how little is actually implemented.
17 USC 102: Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.... Works of authorship include.... architectural works.
The only specific limits on architectural copyrights are in 17 USC 120, which allow people, under SOME circumstances, to take or make pictures of the building, and allow the owners to alter or destroy the building.
So yeah, if you build a building that is a copy of a copyrighted building, you are infringing the architect's copyright. Absurd, ain't it? (this is one of those absurd things that the Europeans put us up to -- I really hate that we listen to them at all with regards to IP law; they always get it wrong)
Well, at least with regards to copyright cases -- considering the topic of the thread here -- usually the big companies are going to win.
But as per the general issue, how would fees and costs as part of the award help? The case might still go the other way, in which case the defendants will surely be ruined having to pay for the big legal team of the other side, and since most people in court feel they will win (or wouldn't be there -- perhaps regardless of the advice of their more calculating lawyer) it's just going to be an excuse by both sides to rack up huge fees, hoping to stick it to the other side. In the worst cases, regardless of the winner, the lawyers won't get paid, and whatever you might think about them, they need to have a paying job too. And most lawyers don't get rich -- not even most plaintiff's attorneys in tort cases. It's like winning the lotto, or having your stock options shoot through the roof in terms of likelihood.
I don't see your proposal as a solution to there being too much litigation, and I'm not sure that it's bad that there is litigation to begin with. Nor do I see it curing abuses. In fact I think it'll tend to encourage them.
So, no, "making an "uncopy-able" product" is not a violation of your rights.
Provided that you seek copyright protection on your work though, and such a copy is a direct attack on the copyright balance, shouldn't it at the very least be _made_ a violation?
Slashdot Mirror
just for what they were originally, life of the creator, no more (a little big more, okay), no less.
Um, no.
The first copyright law was the Statute of Anne of 1710 passed by Parliment. It provided for a 21 year term for books already published prior to the passage of the statute, and a 14 year term for later-published books, renewable by an additional 14 years if the author was still alive at the end of the first term.
So that wasn't life of the author.
Come the Revolution, the Contintental Congress in 1783 urged the States to pass their own copyright laws fundementally the same as the Statute of Anne regarding term length. This, they more or less did, although each state had their own approach to things. Because of the problems that arose with each state being wholly soverign, yet united together, we eventually changed governments to the Federal government we currently enjoy, and one of the many powers granted to Congress was the copyright power.
Whereupon Congress passed in 1790 a Copyright Act providing for a 14 year term, followed by another 14 year term if the author was alive upon the expiration of the previous one.
So none of the American laws lasted the life of the author either.
In fact, it was not until the 1976 Act -- only a few decades ago -- that the US adopted a term that lasted for the author's life, however long it happened to last, plus some additional years.
Personally, I HATE life terms. Given that the economic value of a copyright drops like a rock -- assuming it ever has any value to begin with -- there's no real point in such a long term.
Why would you want a life term anyway? What good is it doing you?
I would prefer, I think, if copyrights were only granted to authors who registered for them and fulfilled some formalities, paid some fees, etc. to weed out people who weren't serious and help protect the public domain, and if the term was a paltry 5 years. Renewable in 5 year increments (except for software, which ages much more rapidly and needs to get into the public domain faster) up to a total of 25 years.
Nice and neat.
"Works that would have been produced without copyrights didn't need copyrights as an incentive. Works that would have meaningfully entered the public domain without copyrights didn't need copyrights as an incentive"
A bit circular there.
Uh, no.
I'm saying that unless the grant of a copyright was essential to having a work be created and meaningfully enter the public domain, such a grant would be superflous. This is because we only grant copyrights to cause works to be created and meaningfully enter the public domain.
Why should the public pay if authors will do it for free? There's no reason to.
I bet if you completely got rid of copyrights things would still get produced, at the same level. And also just because I copyright something doesn't mean that I wouldn't of produced it in the first place.
Perhaps. If you're right, then we should not grant copyrights. They're harming the public and not yielding up any comensurate public benefit to make it worthwhile.
But personally I think that numbers would drop in a copyrightless world. Though the real question is if it would be worth it to the public, and a total lack of copyrights may in some cases be the best answer.
Define "enriched" and "public good" for me?
Public good:
To satisfy the public's interests or desires.
Public desires germane to this discussion are, roughly: 1) For original works to be created. 2) For derivative works to be created. 3) For there to be no artificial limits on access to those works by members of the public who desire to access them. This includes a desire for copies of works at no charge, and to be able to freely reproduce, distribute, display and perform works. 4) To enjoy works. E.g. reading a book, watching a movie, etc. 5) To preserve works for posterity. 6) To alter works for any purpo
The intent and purpose of the GPL is to prevent anyone anywhere from selling, or otherwise making money off of any software. That is the goal.
I doubt it. RMS used to sell copies of software himself.
The purpose AFAICT is to prevent anyone anywhere from using code others have written as the foundation for further improvements to that code, if they then do not release those improvements back out to the public so that they may be used as part of the foundation of later projects.
It has a financial impact, I agree, but I don't think that's the actual objective.
Personally, I like the GPL more than the BSD license, in that the former seeks to preserve the policy of giving back. The latter fails to do so and can suffer from a lack of contributions even where there's a healthy user and programmer base!
So, if copyrights only exist to enrich creative works, then we can take away the copyrights of all the pop-music on the radio?
Sure. For significant portions of our history we didn't allow copyrights on art, music, works created by non-Americans. We can pick and choose.
Personally, I don't mind there being a fairly wide range of copyrightable subject matter, but I have my limits. I don't agree with architecture or typefaces being protectable, for example, and I belive in the utility doctrine.
Copyrights are ethics with a gun. It *IS* unethical to use something without reference (fair use), and copyright laws stand to enforce this from unscrupulous people.
Ethics are largely, if not wholly, irrelevant to copyright policy. At best they're a very secondary concern.
Copyrights are granted solely for the purpose of getting works meaningfully into the public domain that would not be there otherwise. Furthermore, copyrights should only be granted insofar as such a grant -- with the negative consequences of the grant taken into account -- enriches the public in the final analysis.
That's really about it.
Works that would have been produced without copyrights didn't need copyrights as an incentive. Works that would have meaningfully entered the public domain without copyrights didn't need copyrights as an incentive. Works that do not leave the public better off for their having been copyrighted than if they were not copyrighted don't deserve copyrights, even if they'd be needed as an incentive, since the public isn't ultimately being enriched by them.
Works that fall into any of those categories don't deserve copyrights. I'm just not seeing much more to debate about the issue, since it's so clear.
Patents and copyrights, incidentally, in terms of the justifications for granting them, are exactly the same. Both are about money.
Copyrights and patents both provide their respective holders a chance to make money, and recoup the investment from their writing or invention.
If the creator would have created anyway, he didn't need the protection to encourage him. It is wasteful to give it to him.
If the creator would have publicized his creation, he didn't need the protection to encourage him. It is wasteful to give it to him.
If the creation is not worth more to the public than the value of the rights given to the creator, then there's no public good accomplished by giving protection to him. It is harmful to give it to him.
Reputation, the inherent desire to create, the desire to help other people -- copyrights and patents don't help these things, and in fact have a likelihood of impairing them. (see, e.g. Salk refusing to patent his polio vaccine)
Money is about it. Copyright isn't on some higher plane. It's basically a method of trying to fill the public's insatiable greed for creative works to use and abuse. It is wholly utilitarian.
The object of desire is not a copyright. If it were, the people who want it would have to get the current holder to transfer it to them. Except in extreme cases (laches-esque cases) infringing doesn't net one any rights against the rest of the world, and a copyright is fundementally rights against the rest of the world.
So it's better to say that the object of desire is a copyrighted work. The infringers want to do things with the work, not the copyright.
As for deprivation of possible value, it's a crappy argument on both sides IMO. I'd just as soon rather not go there. There are plenty of other justifications for copyrights and the prohibition of the infringement thereof that don't rely on something as nebulous as lost possible profits.
Actually no. If you took the monopoly then you would have it, and no one, including the artist, would be able to exercise the copyright holders' exclusive rights.
You are instead infringing on the monopoly.
Yeah but Europeans wouldn't know a good copyright system if it bit them on the ass. Most of the copyright crap that's been going on in the US has been because we're letting the Europeans dictate policy to us.
The utilitarian rationale in the US is infinitely better and doesn't truck with this sweat of the brow crap.
You find the person who set up the LAN and sue them into a fine paste, which you bake at 350 degrees for fifty minutes, then set on fire and bury in an unmarked grave.
Remember Napster -- they were destroyed because they basically provided facilities for copyright infringement.
Even if the RIAA can't track down the specific users, they can certainly track down the person who owns the WAP and whatever it's plugged into.
The issue here is that copyrights can only be granted for creative work.
Facts -- such as a phone number, or that Canada is the capital of Russia* are clearly not creative.
However, creativity can be present in a particular selection and arrangement of facts. But not always. The phone book listings -- name, address, town, phone number -- are not creative. Anyone making a phone book would do that.
With a map, the actual artwork may be creative in its own right, and the selection of facts MAY be creative as well, but it depends on what facts were selected.
Whether the information is public or not is irrelevant. My favorite color is a secret for purposes of this post, but it still isn't creative. It's just a fact, even if you don't know it.**
*Why yes, I am an American. How did you guess?
**My favorite color is infrared.
The seminal case on this is "Feist Publications" and a google should reveal it immediately. It's worth reading.
No, I'm not a lawyer. I mean, it says so right there in my .sig!
However I have _read_ the law. Do a google search for 17 USC 411 -- that's where the requirement is that you cannot sue until you have registered, even if the infringement occurred already.
That postmark thing is for something else, actually.
I don't think that it did, but I'll have to check. 17 USC 411 and 412 still seems to be there, however.
Actually having no or minimal copyrights has no harmful effect, because the proper baseline to work from is a world without copyrights. Copyrights are supposed to help the public -- this must mean it's supposed to help them more than no copyrights would.
But taken to an extreme, copyrights can be harmful because a) there is arguably a finite amount of creativity, and b) the natural tendancy of authors who already have copyrights will be to exclude new authors from entering the market, by claiming that the new authors are infringing. (see pretty much any case of a parodist being sued as an example)
IIRC the groundbreaking work along those likes was done by Theodore Sturgeon. Look it up.
I don't mind reducing copyright's scope to allow for preservation efforts. OTOH I strongly object to telling people that they cannot dispose of their property as they see fit. You _should_ be able to destroy the Picasso. OTOH, if it will come to that, other people should be allowed to make copies.
The problem is that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. This includes commercial speech.
The government can regulate it to an extent -- the advertising might have to be truthful, nutritional or medical information might have to be included on some products. But overall commercial speech is only a shade less unrestricted as everything else is.
And I mean, what's the difference between your not wanting to be contacted for UCE, and your not wanting to be contacted with political or relgious speech? The only difference is the content, and the government regulating speech because they don't like the content is very bad indeed. Thus it's safer all around if you personally are required to take steps to inform people that would mail you not to; it isn't the government's place to do so.
A centralized opt-out list, or an alteration to the email protocols to include a 'do not send mail of 'x' type' would probably be sufficient.
As for cost, you bear a cost for the use of phones, snail mail, etc. as well. There's nothing particularly special about spam. (in fact it's probably much more cost efficient for ALL parties involved)
I agree. (with regards to the mailbox -- there are guarantees for other platforms for that speech, or else the freedom of speech would be worthless)
However, until you revoke people's access to your mailbox as a means by which to contact you, it is implicitly open to them to use for that purpose.
If you don't want some people sending you mail, all I'm saying is that you should give them some sort of reasonable notice as to your wishes. I wouldn't tolerate people that violated such an explicit ban.
But I don't expect them to be mind readers either. It's up to you. Is this so difficult?
I DO care if someone infringes on my rights. Mostly out of ethical principle, and not monetary reasons.
Meh. Good for you. But why should _I_ care about your rights?
The only, and I mean only, reason that you're being granted copyrights in the first place is to give you an incentive to create works that you otherwise would not create.
Would you have created these works (such as a paper for class) without a copyright? If you couldn't be bothered to register, then I suspect that you would. Certainly lots of term papers got written before 1978.
Thus, you don't deserve a copyright. It would be harmful to the public to give it to you since you would have created the work anyway, and the fact of your getting a copyright isn't helping the public at all.
Ethics don't enter into it. It's a fairly simple utilitarian issue: does giving you a copyright leave the public at large better off than if we hadn't given you one? What you like, all else being equal, is irrelevant. At most it's just a small factor in the equation.
Personally I'm all for requiring significant formalities to getting a copyright: depositing of best copies, possibly with supplemental information; filing fees; time limits between culmination of significant creation and registration; etc. It would tend to resemble the patent system somewhat. But I think it would leave the public much better off than they are right now.
The numbers in the study here seem to indicate that factors unrelated to copyright are what motivate authors, at least where the copyright is above a certain level last seen in the 19th century. But most of the pro-author reforms of the 20th century appear to have not helped the public; more likely they're harmful. We ought to trash the lot of them.
Yes it does, all else being equal.
Just like how it is legal for people to, without permission, trespass on your property for purposes of knocking on your front door in a reasonable manner to sell you things.
Or to fill up your mailbox with junk mail depriving you of space within it to accept other mail, and using up your valuable time in having to decide whether to throw it out or open it, and having to carry it all.
Or to call you on the phone with offers at a reasonable hour, which keeps you from using the phone otherwise or enjoying some peace and quiet.
The mere fact that you HAVE a telephone, or a door, or a mailbox -- or an email address -- is an implicit invitation for people to use those things to communicate with you.
If you don't want them to do that, you need only post a reasonable sort of notice telling them not to. This could be a a sign, such as 'no solicitors' or it could be presence on a particular 'do not call list' that telemarketers reasonably ought to be aware of.
If you haven't told spammers not to email you, then that's your problem.
OTOH, if spammers are sending you fraudulent advertisements, including if they're sufficiently disguising ads as other content, or have false email addresses, or false claims, etc. THEN I'd agree that that behavior can be regulated.
Truthful advertisements are a different matter however, and this law, IMO, is interfering with them impermissably.
In fact, you can't even sue someone for infringement until you've registered your work. (whether extra damages are available depends on if you registered prior to the infringement; just to get to that point you'll have had to register anyway)
So since the copyright holders of non-registered works appear to not care if their works are infringed upon, I think it's safe to discount them; they're getting protection that AFAICT is meaningless to them, and isn't motivating them to create. They'd act the same without the benefits of copyright, so why bother giving it to them?
I suspect it violates the guarantees of freedom of speech under both the constitutions of the United States and of Michigan. That's a bit of a down side.
I don't like spam either, but I'm not sure that there's a great deal that can be done to get rid of it. At least not that can be done to get rid of truthful spam.
Feh. I have a Next Cube system that works, plenty of software, etc. and yet I can't find a single serious buyer.
Even filenames are metadata. Anything that's descriptive of the file contents is. It's great stuff -- try reading the full ID3 v2.4 spec sometime; you may be pissed off at how little is actually implemented.
Oh yes they do.
.... Works of authorship include .... architectural works.
17 USC 102: Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression
The only specific limits on architectural copyrights are in 17 USC 120, which allow people, under SOME circumstances, to take or make pictures of the building, and allow the owners to alter or destroy the building.
So yeah, if you build a building that is a copy of a copyrighted building, you are infringing the architect's copyright. Absurd, ain't it? (this is one of those absurd things that the Europeans put us up to -- I really hate that we listen to them at all with regards to IP law; they always get it wrong)
Well, at least with regards to copyright cases -- considering the topic of the thread here -- usually the big companies are going to win.
But as per the general issue, how would fees and costs as part of the award help? The case might still go the other way, in which case the defendants will surely be ruined having to pay for the big legal team of the other side, and since most people in court feel they will win (or wouldn't be there -- perhaps regardless of the advice of their more calculating lawyer) it's just going to be an excuse by both sides to rack up huge fees, hoping to stick it to the other side. In the worst cases, regardless of the winner, the lawyers won't get paid, and whatever you might think about them, they need to have a paying job too. And most lawyers don't get rich -- not even most plaintiff's attorneys in tort cases. It's like winning the lotto, or having your stock options shoot through the roof in terms of likelihood.
I don't see your proposal as a solution to there being too much litigation, and I'm not sure that it's bad that there is litigation to begin with. Nor do I see it curing abuses. In fact I think it'll tend to encourage them.
Still might be, it's just dicier.
So, no, "making an "uncopy-able" product" is not a violation of your rights.
Provided that you seek copyright protection on your work though, and such a copy is a direct attack on the copyright balance, shouldn't it at the very least be _made_ a violation?