Man, I'd go nuts if I had to put up with that. And probably take out a few people with me.
I'm back at school at the moment, but at my last job, I had a very particular set of requirements. They were absolutely necessary for me to work efficiently, and for me to be sufficiently happy with my job that I wouldn't just up and leave.
For example, I had to have a Mac, and it had to have the OS set up how I like it. The apps I like (e.g. Illustrator instead of Freehand, which is the vector program of the Devil), the preferences I like, and the file structure I like. I had to have a big ass CRT, and because I was a graphics person, I had to do a fair bit of work to ensure that everything was perfectly calibrated. (9300K sucks ass) I had to have the kind of keyboard that I like, despite the fact that they haven't been manufactured in years. (though it wasn't much trouble finding one) My headphones are too big to carry around with me ordinarily, so they needed to be left there, along with the extension cord for them.
The desk had to be extremely deep, very large overall, and have no middle drawer because of the way that I like to sit at it. The chair had to be precisely adjusted, and I needed to control the lighting for my comfort and to preserve the color calibration. This means no florescent lights, and no direct sunlight in my field of vision or where it interferes with the screen.
I had piles of notepads and sticky notes, which I needed to keep ideas handy. Not to mention several reference cards I made, laminated, and fixed to the desk surface for convenience. I needed to have certain reference books handy, since looking things up online would've been slower (I heavily tab and highlight my books, and I write and draw in the margins various useful things) and would waste valuable screen space that could be used to look at whatever it is that has me resorting to a reference book.
Fortunately I never had a phone at my desk -- I don't believe in them and don't like to use them.
And with all this, I was at my best. In a generic environment, where I am inevitably uncomfortable, because I haven't changed things to suit me (something humans tend to do, you know), I'd spend more time either trying to get things set up right, or slow because of conflicts with the surroundings (imagine getting direct sunlight on the screen for half a day!).
OTOH, I very much enjoyed having an open floor plan, since I could conveniently talk to my co workers, and them to me, as well as move about. When cubicals started to come in, I managed to stay out of them, and have an open desk.
This isn't to say that there aren't one or two good things about this. I'd like to be able to access my stuff as though I was sitting at my computer from another desk. But it wouldn't be my computer, or my desk, so it's not as though I'd ever make a habit of it.
I can definately imagine if I were ever stuck with something like this, having to establish someplace as my area, and perhaps having to wheel around a shopping cart to keep my stuff.
Given that business relies on human beings infinitely more than technology, I can't see that this is a good idea at all.
However, since it is clearly not beneficial to society to encourage these sorts of works to remain secrets, the government should afford the creators not a single atom of legal protection. If someone should reverse engineer the format and make it public, the original creator should be totally out of luck.
As an enticement to do what we want -- to have that work be in the public domain -- we should extend some protections. This is in fact the way that patents and copyrights work.
Although the govt. certainly can force works into the public domain, they just have to fairly compensate the author. That's how eminent domain operates; in an emergency that is somewhat difficult to imagine with regards to file formats, they can also force the author to open them, e.g. in order to save lives or property. It's the same thinking that permits houses to be destroyed in order to contain fires in cities if it's really felt necessary.
It's no strawman. Cartman's original post, which I responded to, claimed that piracy was immoral. He made no distinctions. He made no allowances that there are ocassions, perhaps even frequent situations, in which it is moral and desirable.
Given that present copyright terms extend longer than the life of the author in this country, the mere fact that the author is dead doesn't seem to have stopped an argument from being made, does it.
Besides which, is it any different today? If it was worthwhile to copy works at times without permission, the intervening length of time is irrelevant; you would've just conceeded that piracy can be acceptable.
And this is true in reality. What is fair use but unauthorized copying? Our time limits are only in place to encourage the creation of more works to be copied and pirated later on. I.e. we tolerate a small loss now for a great gain later. Without the commensurate gain of unrestricted use, access, modification and copying, there's no reason to restrict any of that to begin with.
For example: Ancient Greece is still famous for its great plays and playwrights. However, numerous plays dating back from that time are still performed, printed, translated, and used as the basis of other works today.
Is this stealing? Is it immoral?
No. Retelling stories is common to all human societies. We've done it since before the dawn of history. It is not just absolutely expected, it is often desirable. It preserves ancient stories, and it permits artists more opportunity for creative expression than they could have otherwise. Particularly because a totally original story -- particularly if you feel using pre-invented ideas, or literary mechanisms, or coined words to be stealing -- would be extremely difficult to create and quite bizzare and alien to an audience.
It has always been recognized, even today, that there is great value in being able to work with the works of an artist that have been lawfully obtained, even if the artist was not compensated.
The only reason we have copyrights at all is just to increase the number of works that we can then use without restriction! The artist is entitled to nothing as a natural consequence of their creative act. To claim otherwise would be to curtail the arts in a very fundemental way.
That isn't acceptable. Fair use rights exist for ANY copy of a work which you can otherwise legally access. Not just some.
For example, the RIAA cannot claim that ripping CDs for mp3s is illegal b/c ripping audio tapes is possible, or even endorsed. Likewise, the MPAA cannot claim -- though they have -- that VHS copying is a substitute for DVD copying.
If a work is published, it's subject to unauthorized copying, and that's that. Not all copying is legal or illegal, but it depends on the circumstances and should not be prevented unless it is absolutely certain that legal copying, which includes copying anything once the work falls out of term, even if the source is a copy produced during term, is not impaired.
However, the notion of truth being a defense to libel dates back to, IIRC, the late 18th/early 19th century. Prior to this, even true statements that defamed one's character could support liability.
I'm not entirely sure if I'm reading your list right. But just for clarification, 'No' means that the work was based on some previous work, correct?
N.B. that Peter Pan, 101 Dalmatians, Winnie the Pooh, and IIRC, the Black Cauldron were licensed as the sources were still copyrighted. And also there were a couple of other full length movies that they've done, such as Make Mine Music, IIRC. We don't want to be inaccurate in the assessment.
Copyright did start as a censorship tool, yes. IIRC, it was started by Henry VIII -- today we would call it a stationer's copyright. Essentially the idea was that presses couldn't legally print anything unless it had been vetted for seditious content, etc. and approved.
However, copyright as we know it started with a radically different law, the Statute of Anne, in England, circa 1700. Publishers hated it, because this time the idea was to promote public learning, which would harm their profits.
American copyright is based on the same concept, and our Constitution says as much. AFAIK all modern copyright statutes are no longer of the stationer's variety, though copyrights of any sort did take a long time to catch on.
No, competitors being such as buying a Pengiun copy of Shakespeare, or the Riverside copy of Shakespeare.
A different author is a wholly different kind of competitor, and not relevant to the issue of a monopoly. They are not providing the same product -- their works are different.
To use an analogy, your claim is rather that if I need to buy a diamond, and there is only one diamond mine, that's alright, because I can still buy a cubic zirconium. Vaguely similar products aren't necessarily interchangable commodities -- try giving someone a cubic zirconium engagement ring! Or asserting that Star Trek is an equal substitute for Star Wars; there's only a one word difference, right?
Copying was precisely as easy as it was to create the original copy of the work (as opposed to thinking up the idea of the work) in the first place.
When Chaucer wrote the Cantebury Tales, he would've spent no more on a scrivener to make copies than anyone else could. When Michaelangelo sculpted the David, it was not impossible for another stonecutter to measure the original and make a replica, or to make models. (n.b. that a replica stands in the Piazza that was the original's original home) When Shakespeare's plays were performed, it was common for competing actors to memorize the lines and restage the play themselves.
Just because it is not as easy to copy works as it is NOW does not mean that it was EVER harder to make a second generation copy than a first. Future generations are going to wonder how we ever got along with the tedious computers and such that we think are all that.
So you propose absolute originality? Wouldn't this preclude Disney from making films based on fairy tales? I.e. roughly half of the animated features they've made to date?
What happens to basic plotlines? What happens to literary devices? What happens to _words_?
Art does not occur in a vacuum. All artists stand on the shoulders of those who came before. We rely on previous generations and our contemporaries to provide us with inspiration, to open new directions to pursue, to give us something to react to.
You implicitly insult Shakespeare, who recycled material constantly. You insult Picasso, who truthfully noted that great artists steal. Hell, you insult Spider Robinson who's specifically rebutted this stupid argument before.
Total originality would be completely alien and incomprehensible. It's worthless. A mixture of original and derivative elements is absolutely necessary. There are multitudes of excellent derivative works in existance. Disney's had their fair share.
But good writing pops up in surprising places -- I've read fan fiction that was not only superior to the original source material, but could probably do quite well if it were released commercially.
Honestly, what the hell do you think countless generations of now-unknown people did but retell each other's stories, changing them slightly as they went along? It's a good thing, and absolutely to be encouraged! (which is why we do, if you actually bothered to study the intent of copyright law)
Not for long. It would be trivial for Tivo to disable any fast forwarding of ads, to insert MORE ads, to require you to view various ads in order to have access to the stuff you recorded.
Basically, it sucks -- and there's precious little you can do about it.
What's needed is a user-centric PVR -- one that is geared entirely for viewers with no concessions to advertisers or networks. Tivo clearly hasn't got a pair, and shouldn't even be in business at this point.
Of course,/. is easily filtered to get rid of ads. It's pretty rare for me to come across an ad anywhere on the web anymore, and I certainly don't see it twice.
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
No, I definately think that there should be copyright law -- provided that it does indeed result in a greater public benefit than would exist in a state without any copyright law.
And although I've changed careers as of late, in the past I've supported myself for years as an artist. But I am too well aware of the inherently derivative nature of art, the potential benefits of especially derivative art, and my own status as both artist AND member of the public. Unlimited copyright would be extraordinarily bad for artists as artists, and worse still for artists in their capacities as ordinary people. Only an idiot would not look at the big picture, and be distracted by their immediate gratification.
I too call for reform. Check out my recent posts to that effect, if you don't believe me.
Advertisers are simply taking a gamble that 1) people will watch shows, 2) will therefore watch their ads, 3) will therefore purchase whatever it is that is being advertised.
It is EXACTLY like people who send you junk mail at their expense, hoping you'll be receptive to it. Or people who advertise in newspapers (assume free papers -- there are plenty), who pray that people won't skip past the ads to the content.
If they don't like giving away shows for free, I can't make them. But I HATE advertisements and will never ever look at one if I can avoid it. Fortunately I'm still free to take the free content.
What's the big deal? It's hardly as though free tv is sacrosanct anyway.
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
Given that the explicit purpose of copyright is to promote the public good, and not to protect authors, and given that this has been frequently reaffirmed by the courts, I don't think your analogy is particularly on point.
Copyright law is quite different from most other law. (although actually, real property law is also set up along similar utilitarian lines)
What the hell, I'll take a stab at it.
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
(I'm mostly just interested in copyright here)
I would say that copyrights should have to be applied for by the author. They should not automatically be granted, with two exceptions.
First are works that are still being created, or which are awaiting imminent publication may receive a temporary 'common law copyright' intended to prevent the pirating of manuscripts. This is not intended to extend copyright protection to trivial works, such as Slashdot posts, however.
Second are works for which a foreign copyright holder has obtained a foreign copyright. Provided that the requirements for obtaining the copyright already obtained are judged by the government to be at least as stringent as those in the U.S., a grant may be made, possibly conditional on a few minor requirements being met in the U.S.
Copies of any work for which a copyright is applied for must be deposited in such form as required, in the Library of Congress. For example, in the case of books, a copy of the text and illustrations on archival paper. In the case of music, a copy of the lyrics, music and sound recording in an appropriate format such as CDDA. In the case of computer software, a copy of the binaries and sufficiently commented source code. Application for copyright, and depositing of works does not guarantee that the work will be copyrighted.
Copyrights are to be denied for works which do not promote the progress of the arts as determined by the government.
Copyright terms are limited to 20 years (except for computer software, which is limited to 5 years), or the death of the author, whichever comes first.
However, the term may be extended one time only (by holding a copyright, a copyright holder forswears accepting any term extension later granted) by 20 years (or 5 years in the case of computer software), if an extension fee of 5% of the total gross income from sales, rentals, licensing, performances or displays of the work, or $5,000, whichever is greater, is paid. Any money recieved from such extensions is used to fund the creation of various types of public domain works which are archived in the Library of Congress.
Publication consists of making the work generally available to the public, by displaying, performing, selling, renting or licensing it. The courts shall make determinations in borderline cases; mere claims by author or audience as to non-publication is not determinative.
Penalties for copyright infringement will be civil only, in the form of fines and/or injunctions. Fines are limited to an equitable amount, typically the amount that would have had to be paid for a published copy of the work, but no more than $250,000.
There will be no criminal penalties.
Access controls to copyrighted (therefore published) works are permissible. However, any such control must not prevent any access/use/copying, etc. of a work that is legal at any time, regardless of legality at the time that the control was put in place. Furthermore, the control must not impede anything whatsoever once the work is no longer copyrighted. Any published work so protected is not copyrighted.
I'm fairly happy with Fair Use as it stands, and the courts can change that as needed. Likewise with statutory exceptions to copyright for making use of software or backing it up, which already exist. And content licensing for cable tv, radio, et al is too much of a headache to delve into right now.
Am I missing anything else in particular?
Re:The concept of intellectual property has got to
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
That's not quite accurate. I don't really care if someone on the other side of the country can make a living or not. The world's smallest violin played for the buggy whip industry, remember.
No, the only way that copyright makes sense is if it benefits readers; you know, the people who are actually effected by copyright, and who are expected to abide by it?
Thus, measure the happiness of readers related to the production of, and usability and cost of creative works. Set a baseline where there is no copyright at all. Then add all the copyright you like, as long as it results in a net increase in reader happiness.
For example, I don't mind not being able to make my own copies of a book for one year, if it results in ten times as many new and different books being published. The minor loss of happiness for that one year is more than offset by the gain I'll recieve when I have ten times as many books to do with as I like.
But hell -- I _AM_ an artist, and the whole 'I'm entitled to the fruits of my labor' argument is totally bogus. Firstly, because we don't live in a vacuum, and what I create relies on what someone before me created, ad infinitum. Secondly, because it doesn't establish any incentive for third parties to respect that, no matter how much I might want it personally. Thirdly, because my labor is the act of creation; not of duplication. Copyright is telling people that they cannot do things that they can trivially do. Simply because I write a book that by no means should be taken as indicating that only I can copy that book -- any idiot can. Why shouldn't they? What's in it for them?
Oh sure. IIRC, it's been used against spammers before. It's just that the damages you can recover probably won't cover the cost of a sit-down lunch. It certainly won't cover the cost of the lawsuit itself.
No, that is the reason. The default standard of evidence is a preponderance, but because criminal punishment is viewed as particularly harsh and stigmatizing, the standard is raised to the beyond a reasonable doubt level.
(this also has the effect of lowering the burden of proof needed for a criminal defendant who is attacking the prima face case of the prosector to enough to cause a reasonable doubt; he'll likely need to meet a higher standard to make an affirmative defense such as self-defense or insanity, however)
They're not that solid. There's a skeleton, and the skin is fabric stretched over it, but it's not as though the entire thing is as rigid (or as fast, or as loaded with fuel) as a plane.
It'd still do some damage though, just like that little prop plane did in Tampa.
I would imagine that the rules of evidence for civil and criminal suits preclude this sort of sharing. Ask me again sometime, and I might have a more definitive answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, I'd go nuts if I had to put up with that. And probably take out a few people with me.
I'm back at school at the moment, but at my last job, I had a very particular set of requirements. They were absolutely necessary for me to work efficiently, and for me to be sufficiently happy with my job that I wouldn't just up and leave.
For example, I had to have a Mac, and it had to have the OS set up how I like it. The apps I like (e.g. Illustrator instead of Freehand, which is the vector program of the Devil), the preferences I like, and the file structure I like. I had to have a big ass CRT, and because I was a graphics person, I had to do a fair bit of work to ensure that everything was perfectly calibrated. (9300K sucks ass) I had to have the kind of keyboard that I like, despite the fact that they haven't been manufactured in years. (though it wasn't much trouble finding one) My headphones are too big to carry around with me ordinarily, so they needed to be left there, along with the extension cord for them.
The desk had to be extremely deep, very large overall, and have no middle drawer because of the way that I like to sit at it. The chair had to be precisely adjusted, and I needed to control the lighting for my comfort and to preserve the color calibration. This means no florescent lights, and no direct sunlight in my field of vision or where it interferes with the screen.
I had piles of notepads and sticky notes, which I needed to keep ideas handy. Not to mention several reference cards I made, laminated, and fixed to the desk surface for convenience. I needed to have certain reference books handy, since looking things up online would've been slower (I heavily tab and highlight my books, and I write and draw in the margins various useful things) and would waste valuable screen space that could be used to look at whatever it is that has me resorting to a reference book.
Fortunately I never had a phone at my desk -- I don't believe in them and don't like to use them.
And with all this, I was at my best. In a generic environment, where I am inevitably uncomfortable, because I haven't changed things to suit me (something humans tend to do, you know), I'd spend more time either trying to get things set up right, or slow because of conflicts with the surroundings (imagine getting direct sunlight on the screen for half a day!).
OTOH, I very much enjoyed having an open floor plan, since I could conveniently talk to my co workers, and them to me, as well as move about. When cubicals started to come in, I managed to stay out of them, and have an open desk.
This isn't to say that there aren't one or two good things about this. I'd like to be able to access my stuff as though I was sitting at my computer from another desk. But it wouldn't be my computer, or my desk, so it's not as though I'd ever make a habit of it.
I can definately imagine if I were ever stuck with something like this, having to establish someplace as my area, and perhaps having to wheel around a shopping cart to keep my stuff.
Given that business relies on human beings infinitely more than technology, I can't see that this is a good idea at all.
You're absolutely right.
However, since it is clearly not beneficial to society to encourage these sorts of works to remain secrets, the government should afford the creators not a single atom of legal protection. If someone should reverse engineer the format and make it public, the original creator should be totally out of luck.
As an enticement to do what we want -- to have that work be in the public domain -- we should extend some protections. This is in fact the way that patents and copyrights work.
Although the govt. certainly can force works into the public domain, they just have to fairly compensate the author. That's how eminent domain operates; in an emergency that is somewhat difficult to imagine with regards to file formats, they can also force the author to open them, e.g. in order to save lives or property. It's the same thinking that permits houses to be destroyed in order to contain fires in cities if it's really felt necessary.
It's no strawman. Cartman's original post, which I responded to, claimed that piracy was immoral. He made no distinctions. He made no allowances that there are ocassions, perhaps even frequent situations, in which it is moral and desirable.
Given that present copyright terms extend longer than the life of the author in this country, the mere fact that the author is dead doesn't seem to have stopped an argument from being made, does it.
Besides which, is it any different today? If it was worthwhile to copy works at times without permission, the intervening length of time is irrelevant; you would've just conceeded that piracy can be acceptable.
And this is true in reality. What is fair use but unauthorized copying? Our time limits are only in place to encourage the creation of more works to be copied and pirated later on. I.e. we tolerate a small loss now for a great gain later. Without the commensurate gain of unrestricted use, access, modification and copying, there's no reason to restrict any of that to begin with.
No, I don't think so.
For example:
Ancient Greece is still famous for its great plays and playwrights. However, numerous plays dating back from that time are still performed, printed, translated, and used as the basis of other works today.
Is this stealing? Is it immoral?
No. Retelling stories is common to all human societies. We've done it since before the dawn of history. It is not just absolutely expected, it is often desirable. It preserves ancient stories, and it permits artists more opportunity for creative expression than they could have otherwise. Particularly because a totally original story -- particularly if you feel using pre-invented ideas, or literary mechanisms, or coined words to be stealing -- would be extremely difficult to create and quite bizzare and alien to an audience.
It has always been recognized, even today, that there is great value in being able to work with the works of an artist that have been lawfully obtained, even if the artist was not compensated.
The only reason we have copyrights at all is just to increase the number of works that we can then use without restriction! The artist is entitled to nothing as a natural consequence of their creative act. To claim otherwise would be to curtail the arts in a very fundemental way.
That isn't acceptable. Fair use rights exist for ANY copy of a work which you can otherwise legally access. Not just some.
For example, the RIAA cannot claim that ripping CDs for mp3s is illegal b/c ripping audio tapes is possible, or even endorsed. Likewise, the MPAA cannot claim -- though they have -- that VHS copying is a substitute for DVD copying.
If a work is published, it's subject to unauthorized copying, and that's that. Not all copying is legal or illegal, but it depends on the circumstances and should not be prevented unless it is absolutely certain that legal copying, which includes copying anything once the work falls out of term, even if the source is a copy produced during term, is not impaired.
However, the notion of truth being a defense to libel dates back to, IIRC, the late 18th/early 19th century. Prior to this, even true statements that defamed one's character could support liability.
This is the era that the above saying comes from.
I'm not entirely sure if I'm reading your list right. But just for clarification, 'No' means that the work was based on some previous work, correct?
N.B. that Peter Pan, 101 Dalmatians, Winnie the Pooh, and IIRC, the Black Cauldron were licensed as the sources were still copyrighted. And also there were a couple of other full length movies that they've done, such as Make Mine Music, IIRC. We don't want to be inaccurate in the assessment.
Copyright did start as a censorship tool, yes. IIRC, it was started by Henry VIII -- today we would call it a stationer's copyright. Essentially the idea was that presses couldn't legally print anything unless it had been vetted for seditious content, etc. and approved.
However, copyright as we know it started with a radically different law, the Statute of Anne, in England, circa 1700. Publishers hated it, because this time the idea was to promote public learning, which would harm their profits.
American copyright is based on the same concept, and our Constitution says as much. AFAIK all modern copyright statutes are no longer of the stationer's variety, though copyrights of any sort did take a long time to catch on.
No, competitors being such as buying a Pengiun copy of Shakespeare, or the Riverside copy of Shakespeare.
A different author is a wholly different kind of competitor, and not relevant to the issue of a monopoly. They are not providing the same product -- their works are different.
To use an analogy, your claim is rather that if I need to buy a diamond, and there is only one diamond mine, that's alright, because I can still buy a cubic zirconium. Vaguely similar products aren't necessarily interchangable commodities -- try giving someone a cubic zirconium engagement ring! Or asserting that Star Trek is an equal substitute for Star Wars; there's only a one word difference, right?
This is quite untrue.
Copying was precisely as easy as it was to create the original copy of the work (as opposed to thinking up the idea of the work) in the first place.
When Chaucer wrote the Cantebury Tales, he would've spent no more on a scrivener to make copies than anyone else could. When Michaelangelo sculpted the David, it was not impossible for another stonecutter to measure the original and make a replica, or to make models. (n.b. that a replica stands in the Piazza that was the original's original home) When Shakespeare's plays were performed, it was common for competing actors to memorize the lines and restage the play themselves.
Just because it is not as easy to copy works as it is NOW does not mean that it was EVER harder to make a second generation copy than a first. Future generations are going to wonder how we ever got along with the tedious computers and such that we think are all that.
What happens to basic plotlines? What happens to literary devices? What happens to _words_?
Art does not occur in a vacuum. All artists stand on the shoulders of those who came before. We rely on previous generations and our contemporaries to provide us with inspiration, to open new directions to pursue, to give us something to react to.
You implicitly insult Shakespeare, who recycled material constantly. You insult Picasso, who truthfully noted that great artists steal. Hell, you insult Spider Robinson who's specifically rebutted this stupid argument before.
Total originality would be completely alien and incomprehensible. It's worthless. A mixture of original and derivative elements is absolutely necessary. There are multitudes of excellent derivative works in existance. Disney's had their fair share.
But good writing pops up in surprising places -- I've read fan fiction that was not only superior to the original source material, but could probably do quite well if it were released commercially.
Honestly, what the hell do you think countless generations of now-unknown people did but retell each other's stories, changing them slightly as they went along? It's a good thing, and absolutely to be encouraged! (which is why we do, if you actually bothered to study the intent of copyright law)
Not entirely. Operators are of course still in use. And you do see the occassional switchboard from time to time.
Not for long. It would be trivial for Tivo to disable any fast forwarding of ads, to insert MORE ads, to require you to view various ads in order to have access to the stuff you recorded.
Basically, it sucks -- and there's precious little you can do about it.
What's needed is a user-centric PVR -- one that is geared entirely for viewers with no concessions to advertisers or networks. Tivo clearly hasn't got a pair, and shouldn't even be in business at this point.
Of course, /. is easily filtered to get rid of ads. It's pretty rare for me to come across an ad anywhere on the web anymore, and I certainly don't see it twice.
No, I definately think that there should be copyright law -- provided that it does indeed result in a greater public benefit than would exist in a state without any copyright law.
And although I've changed careers as of late, in the past I've supported myself for years as an artist. But I am too well aware of the inherently derivative nature of art, the potential benefits of especially derivative art, and my own status as both artist AND member of the public. Unlimited copyright would be extraordinarily bad for artists as artists, and worse still for artists in their capacities as ordinary people. Only an idiot would not look at the big picture, and be distracted by their immediate gratification.
I too call for reform. Check out my recent posts to that effect, if you don't believe me.
So? What's the problem with that?
Advertisers are simply taking a gamble that 1) people will watch shows, 2) will therefore watch their ads, 3) will therefore purchase whatever it is that is being advertised.
It is EXACTLY like people who send you junk mail at their expense, hoping you'll be receptive to it. Or people who advertise in newspapers (assume free papers -- there are plenty), who pray that people won't skip past the ads to the content.
If they don't like giving away shows for free, I can't make them. But I HATE advertisements and will never ever look at one if I can avoid it. Fortunately I'm still free to take the free content.
What's the big deal? It's hardly as though free tv is sacrosanct anyway.
Given that the explicit purpose of copyright is to promote the public good, and not to protect authors, and given that this has been frequently reaffirmed by the courts, I don't think your analogy is particularly on point.
Copyright law is quite different from most other law. (although actually, real property law is also set up along similar utilitarian lines)
(I'm mostly just interested in copyright here)
I would say that copyrights should have to be applied for by the author. They should not automatically be granted, with two exceptions.
First are works that are still being created, or which are awaiting imminent publication may receive a temporary 'common law copyright' intended to prevent the pirating of manuscripts. This is not intended to extend copyright protection to trivial works, such as Slashdot posts, however.
Second are works for which a foreign copyright holder has obtained a foreign copyright. Provided that the requirements for obtaining the copyright already obtained are judged by the government to be at least as stringent as those in the U.S., a grant may be made, possibly conditional on a few minor requirements being met in the U.S.
Copies of any work for which a copyright is applied for must be deposited in such form as required, in the Library of Congress. For example, in the case of books, a copy of the text and illustrations on archival paper. In the case of music, a copy of the lyrics, music and sound recording in an appropriate format such as CDDA. In the case of computer software, a copy of the binaries and sufficiently commented source code. Application for copyright, and depositing of works does not guarantee that the work will be copyrighted.
Copyrights are to be denied for works which do not promote the progress of the arts as determined by the government.
Copyright terms are limited to 20 years (except for computer software, which is limited to 5 years), or the death of the author, whichever comes first.
However, the term may be extended one time only (by holding a copyright, a copyright holder forswears accepting any term extension later granted) by 20 years (or 5 years in the case of computer software), if an extension fee of 5% of the total gross income from sales, rentals, licensing, performances or displays of the work, or $5,000, whichever is greater, is paid. Any money recieved from such extensions is used to fund the creation of various types of public domain works which are archived in the Library of Congress.
Publication consists of making the work generally available to the public, by displaying, performing, selling, renting or licensing it. The courts shall make determinations in borderline cases; mere claims by author or audience as to non-publication is not determinative.
Penalties for copyright infringement will be civil only, in the form of fines and/or injunctions. Fines are limited to an equitable amount, typically the amount that would have had to be paid for a published copy of the work, but no more than $250,000.
There will be no criminal penalties.
Access controls to copyrighted (therefore published) works are permissible. However, any such control must not prevent any access/use/copying, etc. of a work that is legal at any time, regardless of legality at the time that the control was put in place. Furthermore, the control must not impede anything whatsoever once the work is no longer copyrighted. Any published work so protected is not copyrighted.
I'm fairly happy with Fair Use as it stands, and the courts can change that as needed. Likewise with statutory exceptions to copyright for making use of software or backing it up, which already exist. And content licensing for cable tv, radio, et al is too much of a headache to delve into right now.
Am I missing anything else in particular?
That's not quite accurate. I don't really care if someone on the other side of the country can make a living or not. The world's smallest violin played for the buggy whip industry, remember.
No, the only way that copyright makes sense is if it benefits readers; you know, the people who are actually effected by copyright, and who are expected to abide by it?
Thus, measure the happiness of readers related to the production of, and usability and cost of creative works. Set a baseline where there is no copyright at all. Then add all the copyright you like, as long as it results in a net increase in reader happiness.
For example, I don't mind not being able to make my own copies of a book for one year, if it results in ten times as many new and different books being published. The minor loss of happiness for that one year is more than offset by the gain I'll recieve when I have ten times as many books to do with as I like.
But hell -- I _AM_ an artist, and the whole 'I'm entitled to the fruits of my labor' argument is totally bogus. Firstly, because we don't live in a vacuum, and what I create relies on what someone before me created, ad infinitum. Secondly, because it doesn't establish any incentive for third parties to respect that, no matter how much I might want it personally. Thirdly, because my labor is the act of creation; not of duplication. Copyright is telling people that they cannot do things that they can trivially do. Simply because I write a book that by no means should be taken as indicating that only I can copy that book -- any idiot can. Why shouldn't they? What's in it for them?
Oh sure. IIRC, it's been used against spammers before. It's just that the damages you can recover probably won't cover the cost of a sit-down lunch. It certainly won't cover the cost of the lawsuit itself.
Thus it's fairly impractical.
No, that is the reason. The default standard of evidence is a preponderance, but because criminal punishment is viewed as particularly harsh and stigmatizing, the standard is raised to the beyond a reasonable doubt level.
(this also has the effect of lowering the burden of proof needed for a criminal defendant who is attacking the prima face case of the prosector to enough to cause a reasonable doubt; he'll likely need to meet a higher standard to make an affirmative defense such as self-defense or insanity, however)
They're not that solid. There's a skeleton, and the skin is fabric stretched over it, but it's not as though the entire thing is as rigid (or as fast, or as loaded with fuel) as a plane.
It'd still do some damage though, just like that little prop plane did in Tampa.
I would imagine that the rules of evidence for civil and criminal suits preclude this sort of sharing. Ask me again sometime, and I might have a more definitive answer.
That doesn't apply in civil suits iirc, only in criminal ones.
Mr. Hilter was the National Bocalist candidate from North Minehead.