So? The Supreme Court's standard was basically that there just have to be possible substantial noninfringing uses. There don't even have to be examples, so long as there is a possibility.
What "everyone knows" isn't relevant, and sure isn't a good standard. Remember when "everyone knew" that witches float?
Music, with regards to this discussion, doesn't require a license. And there are legal ways of acquiring mp3s of it without breaking the law. E.g. the AHRA can -- and I stress _can_, since a lot of people misunderstand it, and it needs to be read carefully, in full -- permit ordinary people to trade copies of music all the live long day, and not break the law.
You have no moral right to make use of something you're opposed to the creation of.
I don't? So like, I can't read Mein Kampf?
You don't have a moral right to pull the rug out from under the feet of artists who make their living on the basis of the copyright promise.
Maybe it seems unfair, but Congress certainly does have that authority, just as they can radically revamp lots of other laws that people make their living on.
Congress could decide that big rigs weren't allowed to drive on the interstate; bam, there go a bunch of jobs, and the nation's shipping infrastructure needs to change overnight.
Congress could decide to get competitive with FedEx and UPS and revamp the Post Office so as to basically drive those guys out of business.
They could decide to ban certain drugs, or legalize others. I seem to recall that people did legally grow hemp for profit once upon a time.
There are a lot of things the government can do. The idea is that they'll do what's best for the nation. That is practically guaranteed to piss off particular groups at various times. But they have the authority, and often exercise it nevertheless.
You use them just for the sake of using them. Or you use them in order to create new works of art. Or you disseminate them more widely, or at lower cost.
These are the kinds of things that we want to do with these works. To have them and not be able to FULLY enjoy them, in the various ways listed above and more, is not nearly so good. In fact, it might even be better to not have them at all, if there would be a commensurate or better upswing in the enjoyment of other works.
So the sorts of terms the creator can set can't be just anything. We have to decide whether we'll allow it.
And the length of time, or types of works that they can do that with likewise can't be just anything. We have to think hard about what is best for us.
[Y]ou're willing to destroy someone's livelihood at no notice in order to listen to cheaper music, something you can already do under the current system.
Well, I'm not sure how little notice a huge bru-ha-ha in Congress is considered to be, and that's what it takes.
But yes. Is it unreasonable for the Army to buy their paperclips from Acme for a hundred years, becoming the Acme family's sole (and large) customer, but then to suddenly switch to Ajax? It destroys the Acme's livelihood. And it might be done with no notice.
We don't owe artists a living. Indeed, copyright gives them a chance at one. It doesn't guarantee anything. And most artists aren't helped by it, or don't even manage to make their living at art.
It's a system designed -- as you yourself have noted -- to fill the public good. If the public good means pulling the rug out from under artists, then that's what we ought to do. If it means giving artists brand new cars, then let's do that instead. I could use a new car.
I just don't care about artists. I am one, but I don't care. Not about artists as a special, important class. Instead I care about what artists can do for the world. And that might mean not giving them everything they want.
If it leaves everyone better off than before, then that's what I'm in favor of. Is this so unreasonable?
May I suggest taking a look at the US constitution
Perhaps I should make a disclosure here. I've memorized that clause. I'm working very hard towards practicing copyright law in a couple of years. I do know the foundational materials, the theory, all that jazz. But I appreciate the rhetorical device.
By giving people control over what they produce and, critically, the ability to make a living from it, you encourage them to create new and wonderful things.
But you're not quite through. You're so close. You ought to be able to smell it. But there's one step left. What do you do when those new and wonderful things are there? What's the purpose of getting them? How does their mere existence promote the progress of science? (N.B. if you read the clause carefully, and recall the 18th century meaning of words, you will note that copyright is intended to promote science, or as we would now say, knowledge. The 'useful arts' refers to the patent half of the clause, and refers to what we now might call practical technology)
We say to artists that if they produce new and wonderful things, we will give them control of that content. It is therefore wrong for us to remove that control, or expect them not to protest and not to take legal action when individuals remove that control, and do so in the most extreme way - redistributing their content, non-consensually, to millions of strangers.
Naw, not really. Congress can decide to raise the price of postage to $20 for a postcard if they like. It's done at their discretion. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with changing the rules on artists.
Because no matter WHAT copyright laws exist, those laws will usually be better for artists, and the public, in sum, than not having them at all would be. And that's a viable alternative too. Congress can always decide there shouldn't be any copyrights. And in the right circumstances, it would be the right decision to make as well.
The few cases where artists and the public in aggregate will be worse off with copyright than without it are, ironically, when copyright is at its strongest. A few artists will thrive; they'll basically have a license to print money. But most will suffer since the ogliarchy won't much care for the competition. And the public will be even worse off.
As for protest, I don't have a problem with that. I just don't care for their arguments, unless that argument is merely that the optimal point -- optimal for everyone -- of the copyright system lies elsewhere. Anything else would be arguing irrelevancies.
Remember: we didn't say that we'd give artists control in exchange for them creating new things. We said we would when it was a good thing for us. That I'll stand by. But we're the judges.
So far few are proposing fixes to copyrights beyond seriously disembowling it and removing the rights of artists completely.
Ok.
Without delving too deeply into the details -- I'm still thinking about some of the nitty gritty music and video licensing issues -- I'd say this:
5 year term; renewable five times. Except software, designs, and masks, which aren't renewable at all. Fees for renewals would likely be pegged to gross profits to raise revenue for the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office (see below for some uses of that money)
Existing terms would be retroactively shortened to fit into the new scheme.
Strict formality requirements in order to get a copyright at all; a "common law" copyright (really statutory, but based on the old ones) might exist for some works, but wouldn't be safe to rely upon, since I'd want to promote publishing. This would include strict deposit and disclosure requirements to eliminate protection on copyrighted works other than copyrights, e.g. trade secrets. So, for example, software would all be disclosed source, though still copyrighted.
Acts contrary to the ultimate public domaining, and fair uses would be grounds for voiding copyright; no copy
Well, the obvious one is that stuff gets created that otherwise wouldn't have been.
Is that good? Well, I guess we can agree that that's good.
And, of course, there are many forms of art that wouldn't exist, period, if copyright didn't. Film and television would be two major examples. With it costing millions to put together a low budget movie, and hundreds of dollars an hour for the cheapest TV station to stay alive generating its own content, I think it's fair to argue that without copyright at least providing the means to guarantee a revenue stream for content of reasonable quality, it wouldn't exist.
Well, so what? If I had a natural spring I would cherish the desert; it would be the desert and the barren soil that would make my spring profitable. Never mind the fact that for most people it might be a fairly miserable existence.
If a better set of copyright laws -- one that produced better results for everyone as a whole, and which chiefly served the interests of the public -- happened to make film or tv impractical economically, I wouldn't shed a tear. Not because I don't like film and tv; I am a big film fan.
But rather because it would be apparant that I would be better off without them than with them. The cost of the system in which they were viable was too great.
So the 'it wouldn't exist' card is worthless. Perpetual copyrights that were very broadly construed might make possible a movie with a billion dollar budget that would be, by far, the best work of art humanity has ever produced. But it would still come at too high a cost. I'd rather not have it, if that's what would have to be paid.
it makes the publishing industry viable which means that there's a real distribution network for these works
Naw, I don't believe that. Publishers are just out to make a buck. Pirate publishers have been around since the days of the Stationer's Copyright. You can see the same thing in action back in the days when the US didn't permit copyrights for foreign authors; their works -- if there was a market for them at all -- were reprinted here, and the publishers made out like bandits. It's profitable for them -- they don't have to pay out royalties.
Anyway, the one question remains: we're giving away copyrights, and what we're getting are apparently works that otherwise wouldn't be created. Is that a good deal for everyone? Or could it be better?
Thus, where you say: But I believe that the principle that someone should be able to expect to have control over what they create is a good one. I disagree. I don't think that's a good principle. I think it's good if it leaves me better off than without it, and I think it's bad if it leaves me worse off than without it.
There's no more work required than that simple analysis. I have no love or charity to give to artists, AND I AM ONE. I'll accept their having control if it suits me; if it's best for me; measured by what I want. And if not, then I see no reason to grant such control.
But what motivated us to make this promise? It's hardly inane -- I'm asking WHY. Because if it isn't doing what we wanted it to do, then maybe we screwed up and should alter things to better accomplish our goals in doing this in the first place.
Besides -- with regards to retroactive extensions, since the artists weren't motivated by the much-later extension, do you agree then that it shouldn't be applicable to them? This appears to be something you're implying.
Anyway, I don't disagree with you about what the current status quo is. But I am asking why we should respect it, or refrain from changing it anyway. And I also note that you ignored some of my refutation of your RIAA position, for whatever that's worth.
Seriously -- let's talk motives. If we know why we have copyrights at all, we'll have a start at deciding if our current ones are any good, and if the system should be supported, or if we need to scrap it and start over, or what. If actual inspection reveals that it is sufficiently bad, will you still act surprised that people are breaking it right and left? Might not an effort to check for problems, and if any are found, to fix them, result in better compliance with the law since it'll rub fewer people the wrong way?
Minor nit: The RIAA is an industry association. It's the Recording Industry Association of America. It's kind of like how there is probably a Shoe Association that Nike, Reebok, etc. all belong to. Or like the Downtown Businessmen and Giant Mechanical Spider Association.
Lots of different companies belong to the RIAA. If RIAA is suing someone, it's basically because it's a) more efficient than having each little label sue individually, and b) because the group is allowed to exercise the right of the members to sue on their behalf.
I've never seen a pro-RIAA posting on Slashdot. I think on one occasion I made some comment along the lines of "They have done some good things" and was modded down as a troll for my trouble. Thing is, they have. There's the HRA they lobbied for, which mandated fair-use capabilities in digital media (the DMCA did the reverse), and there's the fight they fought against Tipper Gore's mob to keep music from being censored.
Well, I think that their work in promoting standards in recording was worthwhile, albiet so long ago.
They also give out gold records apparently, and I guess that's nice.
The AHRA, which I think you're referring to, is a mixed bag. It didn't mandate fair use capabilities in consumer grade digital media. In fact it largely destroyed them, and was part of a plan to try to keep recordable digital media from ever taking off. It worked too -- the only success so far has been with things the AHRA doesn't apply to: computers, data CDRs, mp3 players, etc. It did help kill off DAT, audio CDR, and Minidiscs.
And given that Tipper Gore was pretty toothless, and the RIAA does roll over for big retailers who can censor as they please anyhow, I don't see that as being a big win. Movie ratings, game ratings, the Comics Code... all were responses to the threat of government censorship, but everyone forgot that the government can't do that anyway, and that such a position has only gotten more and more legal support over the decades.
If you take music, you owe the artists without whom that music wouldn't exist.
So by analogy, you're telling me I owe Bill Shakespeare some amount of money for the various copies of his plays that I've made, handed out, etc.?
I don't think so.
There's no debt, necessarily. Whether there should be depends ENTIRELY on societal benefit. After all, the worst thing that can happen is that fewer people will produce art. Which is sad, and should be avoided, but is a perfectly legitimate option nevertheless!
Drawing from your other posts: The notion that Asimov would have been able to live and feed himself and his family as a writer without copyright laws is patently absurd.
And? A lot of people can't live and feed themselves as writers WITH copyright laws. It's patently (ha ha) absurd to think that they're always necessary too. There were artists before copyrights you know. Some did very well for themselves.
This is because artists can get by doing things that don't need copyrights:
*They can do works for hire, merely being paid for their labor. Think of sign painters, or graphic designers.
*They can make original pieces, since you cannot copy something's status of being the FIRST of its type
*They can do commissioned work for people that otherwise wouldn't be done -- I have to hire Van Gogh to have a Van Gogh portrait of myself. A pirate can't actually be him.
*They can make and sell art that no one cares about duplicating specifically; art as a commodity. A lot of folk art is like this. There's still competition in the field, but you can do well making ceramics or some such, although no one will ever want a thousand of a specific piece.
Copyrights aren't necessary, and history shows this: there have been a LOT of artists and craftsmen throughout history, but copyright didn't exist until the early 18th century, and wasn't widespread until the 20th.
All I've done is argue that someone whio produces something under current copyright laws has the right to control its redistribution
But why should they have that right? I'm not saying that they must or must not, I just don't see much point in their having that unless it is overall a good thing. See some discussion of this above.
As it stands, by your words -- EITHER you support an artist's right to control the redistribution of their works, or you believe they should be compelled to allow their works be distributed for free under certain circumstances. There
Society has made an agreement, via its legislature, that artists have some control over how their works are distributed in order, in part, that they can at least have a fair go at getting some payback for what they did.
That's not an agreement. That's just a position.
A proper agreement -- and this is particularly so in the case of copyright, since it is a utilitarian doctrine -- is one that benefits both sides.
You've pretty accurately said how it benefits the artists getting the copyrights. So how does artists getting copyrights benefit Joe Schmoe? How does artists getting copyrights benefit other artists?
Don't forget to take into account that copyrights are by no means a big, indivisible block. We could protect works more or less than we do now. And we could extend such protection entirely, or variably, to some artists and not others, or only if certain formalities are taken care of, or only for certain sorts of works.
Once you've considered if THIS configuration of copyright law benefits everyone, please consider whether a different configuration might benefit everyone more.
There will always be some infringers, I'm sure. But I suspect that more beneficial copyright laws would yield fewer infringers as a side benefit.
Actually neither of those reasons is correct, but it is legal to tape songs off the radio in SOME situations.
Basically, it's legal to use analog media or equipment -- such as cassette tapes.
Or it's legal to use SOME CERTAIN digital media or equipment. But there are very strict rules as to which are okay and which aren't.
Check out 17 USC 1008, AND (because they're using a narrow and specialized definition of some of the terms in that section, as noted above) 17 USC 1001.
But for a rule of thumb, digital stuff is only okay if it is consumer grade: Standalone CD recorders, Audio CDR, Audio DAT, or Minidisc.
Data CDRs (i.e. cheap ones) aren't the same for this purpose as Audio CDRs (i.e. expensive ones) even though both do the same thing. This is also presumably true for DAT, although I've never really checked to see if various DAT cartridges are all compatable with each other.
There is another reason. It could be considered time-shifting, a form of fair use, much as taping TV off the air is considered to be. But fair use requires a case-by-case analysis; it is totally dependent on the facts. You cannot make a blanket statement about what is or is not a fair use.
There are two kinds of damages you can get in a copyright suit. The first is actual damages, more or less. But it's annoying to prove, and both sides will argue about how much that is. So they're relying on the second kind, which are statutory damages. That is, the amounts are set by Congress. The absolute max. is $150,000 (they will have to convince the judge to go that high -- he gets to decide in the end) and that's where the number comes from.
Remember those college kids that were sued for billions of dollars each a few months ago? That was actually them being sued for numerous infringements at $150k a pop.
Naw. I don't have serious plausibility problems with the Indiana Jones movies. But I didn't like how Temple of Doom slows down to a crawl between the scene where they finally get to the underground temple itself, and when they go to escape. Fortunately, it isn't a long time, and the two big chase sequences at the beginning and end really make the movie fun.
Copyrights aren't granted for fun -- they're granted because the idea is that such a grant will promote the public's interests. Namely it helps spur the creation of works, and then forces their widespread, free, availability.
If copyrights are abused so that works are suppressed, that doesn't strike me as being in the public interest at all.
And copyrightable works are hardly property. Individual copies sure, but that's not what we're discussing.
Indy used his whip to hang on to the periscope, and the U-Boat never went below periscope depth. Since the snorkels weren't added until years later, the U-Boat couldn't go far or fast while submerged, since it was running on crappy batteries instead of the primary diesel engine.
Or, God parted the waves or something for him.
The U-Boat eventually surfaced (which was typical -- they didn't stay under unless they were shooting or hiding), and while Indy would have had to avoid the deck spotters that would stand up there looking for other ships, he'd be somewhat more comfortable.
When they arrive at the base, he'd have to swim ahead of it to beat it there (remember, he's already hiding out there as the sub is arriving) but aside from having to avoid being seen, it wouldn't be amazingly difficult; the sub's entry into the base won't be at top speed or anything.
Anyway, the question of how Indy survived that isn't really the big plot hole. I want to know how they managed to get that giant, heavy crate with the Ark in it into the U-Boat. The hatches are not really all that big -- and Spielberg had actually used that as a joke in "1941" when some Japanese sailors have difficulty fitting a large radio set through the hatch.
However, I'm curious as to why a Chinese gangster in Shanghai would want a name that sounded even vaguely Japanese. Virtually everyone in China in the 1930's hated the Japanese, due to, you know, their ruthless and brutal invasion of China.
b) That's still not inherent; they're explicitly granted by Congress and what Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away
c) They're an amazingly stupid idea, and we'd be best off repealing it, finding out who proposed it, and setting that person on fire as a warning to others.
Well it's particularly galling in science. Science is about discovering things; fundementally discovering the basic rules of the universe, and in many fields, just one particular subset of it, likely at a pretty high level. But scientists don't create any of that stuff; they just unearth it. It's a great accomplishment, but not of the character the earlier poster seems to believe.
At any rate, the trick is that it lumps together a number of basically unrelated fields of law: copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and a bit of miscellaneous things like publicity rights.
My problem with it is that people think that it refers to the things covered by such laws, when really it only refers to the laws themselves.
In which case they'd lose the copyrights on those later works -- which could then be reprinted in part or in full by anyone. And they'd lose the rights to control derivative works based upon those works' uncopyrighted portions.
There are, in fact, some MM comic strips already in the public domain because they were not renewed by Disney ages ago. Hasn't had a big impact.
Besides -- Disney would probably be willing to pay a few extra dollars to be safe. The investment isn't very big, after all. (but really should be; hell, I don't like this proposal at all, since it's so wimpy)
I wouldn't shed any tears if the US decided to abandon the Berne Convention. It was a bad idea to begin with -- different countries tend to have different priorities with regards to copyright to begin with, and that's okay, and it's far too European a copyright system anyhow.
I think we were doing better under the 1909 Act, particularly when Congress took a look at the B.C. and rejected it.
Slashdot Mirror
So? The Supreme Court's standard was basically that there just have to be possible substantial noninfringing uses. There don't even have to be examples, so long as there is a possibility.
What "everyone knows" isn't relevant, and sure isn't a good standard. Remember when "everyone knew" that witches float?
Music, with regards to this discussion, doesn't require a license. And there are legal ways of acquiring mp3s of it without breaking the law. E.g. the AHRA can -- and I stress _can_, since a lot of people misunderstand it, and it needs to be read carefully, in full -- permit ordinary people to trade copies of music all the live long day, and not break the law.
You have no moral right to make use of something you're opposed to the creation of.
I don't? So like, I can't read Mein Kampf?
You don't have a moral right to pull the rug out from under the feet of artists who make their living on the basis of the copyright promise.
Maybe it seems unfair, but Congress certainly does have that authority, just as they can radically revamp lots of other laws that people make their living on.
Congress could decide that big rigs weren't allowed to drive on the interstate; bam, there go a bunch of jobs, and the nation's shipping infrastructure needs to change overnight.
Congress could decide to get competitive with FedEx and UPS and revamp the Post Office so as to basically drive those guys out of business.
They could decide to ban certain drugs, or legalize others. I seem to recall that people did legally grow hemp for profit once upon a time.
There are a lot of things the government can do. The idea is that they'll do what's best for the nation. That is practically guaranteed to piss off particular groups at various times. But they have the authority, and often exercise it nevertheless.
Yup. You use them.
You use them just for the sake of using them. Or you use them in order to create new works of art. Or you disseminate them more widely, or at lower cost.
These are the kinds of things that we want to do with these works. To have them and not be able to FULLY enjoy them, in the various ways listed above and more, is not nearly so good. In fact, it might even be better to not have them at all, if there would be a commensurate or better upswing in the enjoyment of other works.
So the sorts of terms the creator can set can't be just anything. We have to decide whether we'll allow it.
And the length of time, or types of works that they can do that with likewise can't be just anything. We have to think hard about what is best for us.
[Y]ou're willing to destroy someone's livelihood at no notice in order to listen to cheaper music, something you can already do under the current system.
Well, I'm not sure how little notice a huge bru-ha-ha in Congress is considered to be, and that's what it takes.
But yes. Is it unreasonable for the Army to buy their paperclips from Acme for a hundred years, becoming the Acme family's sole (and large) customer, but then to suddenly switch to Ajax? It destroys the Acme's livelihood. And it might be done with no notice.
We don't owe artists a living. Indeed, copyright gives them a chance at one. It doesn't guarantee anything. And most artists aren't helped by it, or don't even manage to make their living at art.
It's a system designed -- as you yourself have noted -- to fill the public good. If the public good means pulling the rug out from under artists, then that's what we ought to do. If it means giving artists brand new cars, then let's do that instead. I could use a new car.
I just don't care about artists. I am one, but I don't care. Not about artists as a special, important class. Instead I care about what artists can do for the world. And that might mean not giving them everything they want.
If it leaves everyone better off than before, then that's what I'm in favor of. Is this so unreasonable?
Yeah. But I think it's telling that Jefferson rejected Locke's view of property (not just here, but elsewhere as well) and substituted 'happiness.'
May I suggest taking a look at the US constitution
Perhaps I should make a disclosure here. I've memorized that clause. I'm working very hard towards practicing copyright law in a couple of years. I do know the foundational materials, the theory, all that jazz. But I appreciate the rhetorical device.
By giving people control over what they produce and, critically, the ability to make a living from it, you encourage them to create new and wonderful things.
But you're not quite through. You're so close. You ought to be able to smell it. But there's one step left. What do you do when those new and wonderful things are there? What's the purpose of getting them? How does their mere existence promote the progress of science? (N.B. if you read the clause carefully, and recall the 18th century meaning of words, you will note that copyright is intended to promote science, or as we would now say, knowledge. The 'useful arts' refers to the patent half of the clause, and refers to what we now might call practical technology)
We say to artists that if they produce new and wonderful things, we will give them control of that content. It is therefore wrong for us to remove that control, or expect them not to protest and not to take legal action when individuals remove that control, and do so in the most extreme way - redistributing their content, non-consensually, to millions of strangers.
Naw, not really. Congress can decide to raise the price of postage to $20 for a postcard if they like. It's done at their discretion. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with changing the rules on artists.
Because no matter WHAT copyright laws exist, those laws will usually be better for artists, and the public, in sum, than not having them at all would be. And that's a viable alternative too. Congress can always decide there shouldn't be any copyrights. And in the right circumstances, it would be the right decision to make as well.
The few cases where artists and the public in aggregate will be worse off with copyright than without it are, ironically, when copyright is at its strongest. A few artists will thrive; they'll basically have a license to print money. But most will suffer since the ogliarchy won't much care for the competition. And the public will be even worse off.
As for protest, I don't have a problem with that. I just don't care for their arguments, unless that argument is merely that the optimal point -- optimal for everyone -- of the copyright system lies elsewhere. Anything else would be arguing irrelevancies.
Remember: we didn't say that we'd give artists control in exchange for them creating new things. We said we would when it was a good thing for us. That I'll stand by. But we're the judges.
So far few are proposing fixes to copyrights beyond seriously disembowling it and removing the rights of artists completely.
Ok.
Without delving too deeply into the details -- I'm still thinking about some of the nitty gritty music and video licensing issues -- I'd say this:
5 year term; renewable five times. Except software, designs, and masks, which aren't renewable at all. Fees for renewals would likely be pegged to gross profits to raise revenue for the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office (see below for some uses of that money)
Existing terms would be retroactively shortened to fit into the new scheme.
Strict formality requirements in order to get a copyright at all; a "common law" copyright (really statutory, but based on the old ones) might exist for some works, but wouldn't be safe to rely upon, since I'd want to promote publishing. This would include strict deposit and disclosure requirements to eliminate protection on copyrighted works other than copyrights, e.g. trade secrets. So, for example, software would all be disclosed source, though still copyrighted.
Acts contrary to the ultimate public domaining, and fair uses would be grounds for voiding copyright; no copy
Well, the obvious one is that stuff gets created that otherwise wouldn't have been.
Is that good? Well, I guess we can agree that that's good.
And, of course, there are many forms of art that wouldn't exist, period, if copyright didn't. Film and television would be two major examples. With it costing millions to put together a low budget movie, and hundreds of dollars an hour for the cheapest TV station to stay alive generating its own content, I think it's fair to argue that without copyright at least providing the means to guarantee a revenue stream for content of reasonable quality, it wouldn't exist.
Well, so what? If I had a natural spring I would cherish the desert; it would be the desert and the barren soil that would make my spring profitable. Never mind the fact that for most people it might be a fairly miserable existence.
If a better set of copyright laws -- one that produced better results for everyone as a whole, and which chiefly served the interests of the public -- happened to make film or tv impractical economically, I wouldn't shed a tear. Not because I don't like film and tv; I am a big film fan.
But rather because it would be apparant that I would be better off without them than with them. The cost of the system in which they were viable was too great.
So the 'it wouldn't exist' card is worthless. Perpetual copyrights that were very broadly construed might make possible a movie with a billion dollar budget that would be, by far, the best work of art humanity has ever produced. But it would still come at too high a cost. I'd rather not have it, if that's what would have to be paid.
it makes the publishing industry viable which means that there's a real distribution network for these works
Naw, I don't believe that. Publishers are just out to make a buck. Pirate publishers have been around since the days of the Stationer's Copyright. You can see the same thing in action back in the days when the US didn't permit copyrights for foreign authors; their works -- if there was a market for them at all -- were reprinted here, and the publishers made out like bandits. It's profitable for them -- they don't have to pay out royalties.
Anyway, the one question remains: we're giving away copyrights, and what we're getting are apparently works that otherwise wouldn't be created. Is that a good deal for everyone? Or could it be better?
Thus, where you say: But I believe that the principle that someone should be able to expect to have control over what they create is a good one. I disagree. I don't think that's a good principle. I think it's good if it leaves me better off than without it, and I think it's bad if it leaves me worse off than without it.
There's no more work required than that simple analysis. I have no love or charity to give to artists, AND I AM ONE. I'll accept their having control if it suits me; if it's best for me; measured by what I want. And if not, then I see no reason to grant such control.
But what motivated us to make this promise? It's hardly inane -- I'm asking WHY. Because if it isn't doing what we wanted it to do, then maybe we screwed up and should alter things to better accomplish our goals in doing this in the first place.
Besides -- with regards to retroactive extensions, since the artists weren't motivated by the much-later extension, do you agree then that it shouldn't be applicable to them? This appears to be something you're implying.
Anyway, I don't disagree with you about what the current status quo is. But I am asking why we should respect it, or refrain from changing it anyway. And I also note that you ignored some of my refutation of your RIAA position, for whatever that's worth.
Seriously -- let's talk motives. If we know why we have copyrights at all, we'll have a start at deciding if our current ones are any good, and if the system should be supported, or if we need to scrap it and start over, or what. If actual inspection reveals that it is sufficiently bad, will you still act surprised that people are breaking it right and left? Might not an effort to check for problems, and if any are found, to fix them, result in better compliance with the law since it'll rub fewer people the wrong way?
I think this is key.
The RIAA is a distribution company
Minor nit: The RIAA is an industry association. It's the Recording Industry Association of America. It's kind of like how there is probably a Shoe Association that Nike, Reebok, etc. all belong to. Or like the Downtown Businessmen and Giant Mechanical Spider Association.
Lots of different companies belong to the RIAA. If RIAA is suing someone, it's basically because it's a) more efficient than having each little label sue individually, and b) because the group is allowed to exercise the right of the members to sue on their behalf.
I've never seen a pro-RIAA posting on Slashdot. I think on one occasion I made some comment along the lines of "They have done some good things" and was modded down as a troll for my trouble. Thing is, they have. There's the HRA they lobbied for, which mandated fair-use capabilities in digital media (the DMCA did the reverse), and there's the fight they fought against Tipper Gore's mob to keep music from being censored.
Well, I think that their work in promoting standards in recording was worthwhile, albiet so long ago.
They also give out gold records apparently, and I guess that's nice.
The AHRA, which I think you're referring to, is a mixed bag. It didn't mandate fair use capabilities in consumer grade digital media. In fact it largely destroyed them, and was part of a plan to try to keep recordable digital media from ever taking off. It worked too -- the only success so far has been with things the AHRA doesn't apply to: computers, data CDRs, mp3 players, etc. It did help kill off DAT, audio CDR, and Minidiscs.
And given that Tipper Gore was pretty toothless, and the RIAA does roll over for big retailers who can censor as they please anyhow, I don't see that as being a big win. Movie ratings, game ratings, the Comics Code... all were responses to the threat of government censorship, but everyone forgot that the government can't do that anyway, and that such a position has only gotten more and more legal support over the decades.
If you take music, you owe the artists without whom that music wouldn't exist.
So by analogy, you're telling me I owe Bill Shakespeare some amount of money for the various copies of his plays that I've made, handed out, etc.?
I don't think so.
There's no debt, necessarily. Whether there should be depends ENTIRELY on societal benefit. After all, the worst thing that can happen is that fewer people will produce art. Which is sad, and should be avoided, but is a perfectly legitimate option nevertheless!
Drawing from your other posts:
The notion that Asimov would have been able to live and feed himself and his family as a writer without copyright laws is patently absurd.
And? A lot of people can't live and feed themselves as writers WITH copyright laws. It's patently (ha ha) absurd to think that they're always necessary too. There were artists before copyrights you know. Some did very well for themselves.
This is because artists can get by doing things that don't need copyrights:
*They can do works for hire, merely being paid for their labor. Think of sign painters, or graphic designers.
*They can make original pieces, since you cannot copy something's status of being the FIRST of its type
*They can do commissioned work for people that otherwise wouldn't be done -- I have to hire Van Gogh to have a Van Gogh portrait of myself. A pirate can't actually be him.
*They can make and sell art that no one cares about duplicating specifically; art as a commodity. A lot of folk art is like this. There's still competition in the field, but you can do well making ceramics or some such, although no one will ever want a thousand of a specific piece.
Copyrights aren't necessary, and history shows this: there have been a LOT of artists and craftsmen throughout history, but copyright didn't exist until the early 18th century, and wasn't widespread until the 20th.
All I've done is argue that someone whio produces something under current copyright laws has the right to control its redistribution
But why should they have that right? I'm not saying that they must or must not, I just don't see much point in their having that unless it is overall a good thing. See some discussion of this above.
As it stands, by your words -- EITHER you support an artist's right to control the redistribution of their works, or you believe they should be compelled to allow their works be distributed for free under certain circumstances. There
Society has made an agreement, via its legislature, that artists have some control over how their works are distributed in order, in part, that they can at least have a fair go at getting some payback for what they did.
That's not an agreement. That's just a position.
A proper agreement -- and this is particularly so in the case of copyright, since it is a utilitarian doctrine -- is one that benefits both sides.
You've pretty accurately said how it benefits the artists getting the copyrights. So how does artists getting copyrights benefit Joe Schmoe? How does artists getting copyrights benefit other artists?
Don't forget to take into account that copyrights are by no means a big, indivisible block. We could protect works more or less than we do now. And we could extend such protection entirely, or variably, to some artists and not others, or only if certain formalities are taken care of, or only for certain sorts of works.
Once you've considered if THIS configuration of copyright law benefits everyone, please consider whether a different configuration might benefit everyone more.
There will always be some infringers, I'm sure. But I suspect that more beneficial copyright laws would yield fewer infringers as a side benefit.
Actually neither of those reasons is correct, but it is legal to tape songs off the radio in SOME situations.
Basically, it's legal to use analog media or equipment -- such as cassette tapes.
Or it's legal to use SOME CERTAIN digital media or equipment. But there are very strict rules as to which are okay and which aren't.
Check out 17 USC 1008, AND (because they're using a narrow and specialized definition of some of the terms in that section, as noted above) 17 USC 1001.
But for a rule of thumb, digital stuff is only okay if it is consumer grade: Standalone CD recorders, Audio CDR, Audio DAT, or Minidisc.
Data CDRs (i.e. cheap ones) aren't the same for this purpose as Audio CDRs (i.e. expensive ones) even though both do the same thing. This is also presumably true for DAT, although I've never really checked to see if various DAT cartridges are all compatable with each other.
There is another reason. It could be considered time-shifting, a form of fair use, much as taping TV off the air is considered to be. But fair use requires a case-by-case analysis; it is totally dependent on the facts. You cannot make a blanket statement about what is or is not a fair use.
Not true. There would be less, most likely. But we didn't have copyrights for millennia, and there were still people authoring creative works.
There are two kinds of damages you can get in a copyright suit. The first is actual damages, more or less. But it's annoying to prove, and both sides will argue about how much that is. So they're relying on the second kind, which are statutory damages. That is, the amounts are set by Congress. The absolute max. is $150,000 (they will have to convince the judge to go that high -- he gets to decide in the end) and that's where the number comes from.
Remember those college kids that were sued for billions of dollars each a few months ago? That was actually them being sued for numerous infringements at $150k a pop.
Isn't part of the requirements of breaking copyright law (which is a civil tort in most cases) willfull violation??
No. Copyright violation is a strict liability issue -- it doesn't matter if you were as pure as the driven snow.
Slightly north of the eastern end of Crete.
Naw. I don't have serious plausibility problems with the Indiana Jones movies. But I didn't like how Temple of Doom slows down to a crawl between the scene where they finally get to the underground temple itself, and when they go to escape. Fortunately, it isn't a long time, and the two big chase sequences at the beginning and end really make the movie fun.
Yeah, but why should we go for that?
Copyrights aren't granted for fun -- they're granted because the idea is that such a grant will promote the public's interests. Namely it helps spur the creation of works, and then forces their widespread, free, availability.
If copyrights are abused so that works are suppressed, that doesn't strike me as being in the public interest at all.
And copyrightable works are hardly property. Individual copies sure, but that's not what we're discussing.
Indy used his whip to hang on to the periscope, and the U-Boat never went below periscope depth. Since the snorkels weren't added until years later, the U-Boat couldn't go far or fast while submerged, since it was running on crappy batteries instead of the primary diesel engine.
Or, God parted the waves or something for him.
The U-Boat eventually surfaced (which was typical -- they didn't stay under unless they were shooting or hiding), and while Indy would have had to avoid the deck spotters that would stand up there looking for other ships, he'd be somewhat more comfortable.
When they arrive at the base, he'd have to swim ahead of it to beat it there (remember, he's already hiding out there as the sub is arriving) but aside from having to avoid being seen, it wouldn't be amazingly difficult; the sub's entry into the base won't be at top speed or anything.
Anyway, the question of how Indy survived that isn't really the big plot hole. I want to know how they managed to get that giant, heavy crate with the Ark in it into the U-Boat. The hatches are not really all that big -- and Spielberg had actually used that as a joke in "1941" when some Japanese sailors have difficulty fitting a large radio set through the hatch.
However, I'm curious as to why a Chinese gangster in Shanghai would want a name that sounded even vaguely Japanese. Virtually everyone in China in the 1930's hated the Japanese, due to, you know, their ruthless and brutal invasion of China.
a) Not always
b) That's still not inherent; they're explicitly granted by Congress and what Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away
c) They're an amazingly stupid idea, and we'd be best off repealing it, finding out who proposed it, and setting that person on fire as a warning to others.
Well it's particularly galling in science. Science is about discovering things; fundementally discovering the basic rules of the universe, and in many fields, just one particular subset of it, likely at a pretty high level. But scientists don't create any of that stuff; they just unearth it. It's a great accomplishment, but not of the character the earlier poster seems to believe.
I thought it was patent lawyers.
At any rate, the trick is that it lumps together a number of basically unrelated fields of law: copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and a bit of miscellaneous things like publicity rights.
My problem with it is that people think that it refers to the things covered by such laws, when really it only refers to the laws themselves.
(also there are no inherent authorship rights)
In which case they'd lose the copyrights on those later works -- which could then be reprinted in part or in full by anyone. And they'd lose the rights to control derivative works based upon those works' uncopyrighted portions.
There are, in fact, some MM comic strips already in the public domain because they were not renewed by Disney ages ago. Hasn't had a big impact.
Besides -- Disney would probably be willing to pay a few extra dollars to be safe. The investment isn't very big, after all. (but really should be; hell, I don't like this proposal at all, since it's so wimpy)
I wouldn't shed any tears if the US decided to abandon the Berne Convention. It was a bad idea to begin with -- different countries tend to have different priorities with regards to copyright to begin with, and that's okay, and it's far too European a copyright system anyhow.
I think we were doing better under the 1909 Act, particularly when Congress took a look at the B.C. and rejected it.