I concur. Authors have no place in demanding that people respect their self-proclaimed copyrights. The respect is engendered by the people at large, who find their own interests satisfied by granting a boon to authors. However, the public will act in its own self-interest -- they will not grant a right to authors (for long anyway; they can take a while to notice) that causes a greater public harm than a public good.
No, copyrights aren't natural. The lawyer, the philosopher, the historian: they can all agree on that.
The Supreme Court -- every court -- is free to consider policy arguments. They do it all the time. The legislature is often deferred to, but they don't hold an exclusive power to consider such matters.
And of course, they're perfectly accountable. They can strike down the law, and Congress is free to try something else. Or the nation can pass an amendment. The Supreme Court isn't unassailable... they're pretty savvy politically, in fact. (e.g. the response to FDR in the 30's)
In England virtually everything was owned by nobility, and there were very complex laws established, which still influence our own greatly, regarding it.
Farmers may have been in posession of land, but the Norman conquest pretty must established that everything came down to the King.
And the last five original Mickey Mouse movies and/or shorts you've seen were produced when?
Disney hardly even _uses_ Mickey Mouse anymore, save as a logo. He used to be a fun character... but it'll take someone else to enrich our culture with him again.
Not only that, but it's a crapshoot! It is fiscally irresponsible to gamble your family's well-being after your death on writing. What if it turned out that no one was interested in reading it, if it was a flop?
Oops... the public is severely harmed, and the family gets virtually nothing.
How many books do you read from the 50's? From the late 19th century? How many more were actually written and have more or less been forgotten?
Of course, one) who really kills people to free up a work, given that it's rather like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs; two) standard-length terms that have no relationship to the author's life avoid this entirely.
Honestly, why should writers have some special magical investment plan? It's as contrary to public policy as the old European practice of keeping a family's land holdings within the family and absolutely unalienable.
What if Congress grants copyright for one million years? Still limited, or is there a point where they cannot proceed to create a longer term because it's absurd? If the latter, when is it too much?
I would imagine that the 'limited time' must fall within the mandate that copyright promote the arts. A limited time that failed to convince a court's independent finding would be rejected. But then, we probably passed that point a while back.;)
Really? I had been under the impression that trademarks of copyrighted characters et al by necessity either became weak or nonexistant, in order to accomodate the more important interest of establishing a public domain. Copyright, after all, is Constitutional -- trademark is merely statutory.
After all, how do you sell Star Wars movies that are in the p.d. if you can't use the Star Wars name?
Because now it means that you have a vested interest in following up your success with another work, rather than being a mere one-hit wonder.
This also satisfies the public interest on two counts: Firstly, in their desire to acquire free control to the work. Secondly, in their desire to see the author create more works.
Remember, the public interest is key -- authors would surely benefit even more if they had perpetual copyright, even as to individually coined words. (at least the first cohort would -- the second generation of authors would be screwed) We don't do that because slavishly granting boons to authors with no commensurate public gratification is a bad idea.
It is more or less a red herring. In fact, it is not just perfectly legal to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, it is morally right and absolutely commendable... if there's actually a fire.
The quote is, IIRC, "_falsely_ shouting fire in a crowded theater." And then it's only wrongful because doing so is to incite a riot. Given that the remark was made around a hundred years ago, back when theaters were basically deathtraps and people would literally be trampled to death in the rush to escape, it made a lot more sense then than it does now.
And of course, Holmes, who said this, mellowed out towards free speech later on. Perhaps he realized the danger of this sort of logic.
17 USC 117 permits the creation of any copies necessary in order to use a legally owned copy of some piece of software. This certainly sounds quite similar in language and intent to permitting installation.
Odd. I'm a law student. I know plenty of law students. But I only know one or two in the entire school who attend because they want to get rich. Ironically, from your perspective, they're some of the worst students here. Most of us want to have some positive impact on the world. I certainly do.
Frankly, if you want to get rich, become an investment banker. Lawyers don't get especially rich, compared to any other white collar profession. (the starting salaries are slightly high, but this is to compensate for nearly all recent graduates being saddled with student loan debt... I expect I truly make money myself until about 3-5 years after I get a job)
Indeed, you're EXTRAORDINARILY mistaken with regards to contingency fees. Contingency fees are absolutely necessary in order to permit poor clients the ability to utilize the legal system! If someone is too poor to afford a lawyer up front, but nevertheless have a solid case and have been greviously wronged, you're basically telling them to fuck themselves.
Clients do not pay a penny for a case brought on contingency. The lawyer risks the amount of money he _could_ be making on the chance that he'll be able to recoup his expenses, AND secure for the client an award, which frankly is more than they'd get if they never had representation at all. Lawyers do not have to offer to take cases on contingency -- but no matter how much they want to, the final decision is made by the client.
So furthermore, you're opposed to people being able to conduct their legal affairs in a manner that suits them, because you'd take away their choice altogether. Even though it might be their last, best hope for help.
Furthermore, even if we set aside the fact that many contingency fee plaintiffs LOSE, leaving the lawyer poorer than when he started, and setting aside the fact that the odds of getting a sizable contingency fee are rather akin to winning the lottery in rarity... lawyers ARE capped as to how much they can collect. It's a percentage, not a flat fee (which would obviously be more prone to backfiring) but it does generally get smaller and smaller, and virtually never is greater than 30%.
To a client 70% of something is better than the 100% of nothing you'd see them get.
As for a loser-pays system, it would be even WORSE. Each side would be encouraged to rack up as many legal expenses as possible, driving up the costs, making lawyers even more rich (which you seem to be against) and punishing the loser even more, because a single minor case could easily bankrupt him. Which would also leave the lawyers poorer in the end, if they can't collect their pay!
But hey -- there's nothing wrong with your proposal other than wanting to bankrupt even more people than ever.
Furthermore, as if the costs of pursuing a case into court (only a miniscule fraction of cases that are brough ever make it to court; in fact, only a miniscule fraction of possible cases are ever brought at all) aren't already backbreaking, the costs of pursuing an appeal would skyrocket.
Boy, you'd better hope you're never poor with that attitude. You really just do not believe in people having as much equal access to legal representation as possible. I guess you must be wealthy enough already to enjoy the prospect of breaking the law, knowing that if your hare-brained schemes ever came to pass, that virtually no one without their own fortune could ever sue you.
The only alternative might be to nationalize the legal profession... but I think we can all see the crappiness in that possibility right off the bat.
Sorry man; you just don't know shit about the legal system.
But what new limitations are being imposed? Indeed, what limitations do we want to allow developers to impose in what are generally indistinguishable transactions from sales of goods?
As the learned judge in Softman points out, merely because two parties label their commercial relations contractual does NOT make it so. Public policy concerns (among others) will always be able to override them.
This should be especially true in the case of copyrighted works -- there is oft times no public benefit to permitting this. The Bobbs-Merrill resale clause was struck down by the Supreme Court, yet is extremely similar to EULA provisions. Would you support the dismantling of the first sale doctrine that has proved so useful in the past?
True, but only of that individual copy of the software.
Copyright is not transfered along with copies of a work covered by that copyright. This is absolute.
Books are copyrighted, books are sold, yet the buyer of a book has no special rights against the author. There's no difference really, between books and software in this respect.
What are you worried about -- people selling used copies of software (where it is illegal for them to keep their own copies!) just as people sell used books or used CDs? Doesn't seem like there's a compelling reason for EULAs at all, huh?
Copyright will protect the work even if it is sold as a good, just as it protects books, CDs, DVDs, etc.
Both copyright and contract disputes have to be ajudicated in court -- the only difference is federal trial courts v. state trial courts.
So the reliance on a EULA is in no way better than reliance on the law... unless you're a very greedy publisher and want to have your cake (copyright on the software) and eat it too (more restrictive contractual arrangements)
The only exception I see is to cover those rare, unusual cases, e.g. site licenses.
Nevertheless, they provide tv for free. No one is under any obligation to look at ads, and it's absurd to think otherwise. They can merely _hope_ you will look at them.
Nevertheless, the other customers suffer, and market inefficiencies rule the day. (aside from possible legal problems, since regions may be illegal conduct by the publishers depending on the countries involved)
It would be better for there to be price, release date, and feature parity. If the Japanese publishers were not being quite as greedy, there'd be no real incentive for reverse importation. Clearly it's possible -- you manage somehow, and the supply/demand curve would likely make up for it with greater sales volume.
Of course, me, I buy tons of anime... and I was looking at that NGE box set... but I really loathe both region coding, and bad disks that might make up for it. So I think I'll pass. Thanks.
True. Congress can always add another inferor appellate court though. The District Courts (the present federal trial level) is comparatively new... dating back to, IIRC, the late 19th century.
Given another hundred years or two, we might very well see four tiers.
Slashdot Mirror
I concur. Authors have no place in demanding that people respect their self-proclaimed copyrights. The respect is engendered by the people at large, who find their own interests satisfied by granting a boon to authors. However, the public will act in its own self-interest -- they will not grant a right to authors (for long anyway; they can take a while to notice) that causes a greater public harm than a public good.
No, copyrights aren't natural. The lawyer, the philosopher, the historian: they can all agree on that.
The Supreme Court -- every court -- is free to consider policy arguments. They do it all the time. The legislature is often deferred to, but they don't hold an exclusive power to consider such matters.
And of course, they're perfectly accountable. They can strike down the law, and Congress is free to try something else. Or the nation can pass an amendment. The Supreme Court isn't unassailable... they're pretty savvy politically, in fact. (e.g. the response to FDR in the 30's)
Whoa! Feudal system where, England?
In England virtually everything was owned by nobility, and there were very complex laws established, which still influence our own greatly, regarding it.
Farmers may have been in posession of land, but the Norman conquest pretty must established that everything came down to the King.
And the last five original Mickey Mouse movies and/or shorts you've seen were produced when?
Disney hardly even _uses_ Mickey Mouse anymore, save as a logo. He used to be a fun character... but it'll take someone else to enrich our culture with him again.
Not only that, but it's a crapshoot! It is fiscally irresponsible to gamble your family's well-being after your death on writing. What if it turned out that no one was interested in reading it, if it was a flop?
Oops... the public is severely harmed, and the family gets virtually nothing.
How many books do you read from the 50's? From the late 19th century? How many more were actually written and have more or less been forgotten?
Of course, one) who really kills people to free up a work, given that it's rather like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs; two) standard-length terms that have no relationship to the author's life avoid this entirely.
Real estate is usually a good investment.
Honestly, why should writers have some special magical investment plan? It's as contrary to public policy as the old European practice of keeping a family's land holdings within the family and absolutely unalienable.
What if Congress grants copyright for one million years? Still limited, or is there a point where they cannot proceed to create a longer term because it's absurd? If the latter, when is it too much?
;)
I would imagine that the 'limited time' must fall within the mandate that copyright promote the arts. A limited time that failed to convince a court's independent finding would be rejected. But then, we probably passed that point a while back.
Really? I had been under the impression that trademarks of copyrighted characters et al by necessity either became weak or nonexistant, in order to accomodate the more important interest of establishing a public domain. Copyright, after all, is Constitutional -- trademark is merely statutory.
After all, how do you sell Star Wars movies that are in the p.d. if you can't use the Star Wars name?
Because now it means that you have a vested interest in following up your success with another work, rather than being a mere one-hit wonder.
This also satisfies the public interest on two counts: Firstly, in their desire to acquire free control to the work. Secondly, in their desire to see the author create more works.
Remember, the public interest is key -- authors would surely benefit even more if they had perpetual copyright, even as to individually coined words. (at least the first cohort would -- the second generation of authors would be screwed) We don't do that because slavishly granting boons to authors with no commensurate public gratification is a bad idea.
I _hate_ the fire thing.
It is more or less a red herring. In fact, it is not just perfectly legal to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, it is morally right and absolutely commendable... if there's actually a fire.
The quote is, IIRC, "_falsely_ shouting fire in a crowded theater." And then it's only wrongful because doing so is to incite a riot. Given that the remark was made around a hundred years ago, back when theaters were basically deathtraps and people would literally be trampled to death in the rush to escape, it made a lot more sense then than it does now.
And of course, Holmes, who said this, mellowed out towards free speech later on. Perhaps he realized the danger of this sort of logic.
meh. the mere fact that someone says something doesn't mean much. not by itself.
for example, i killed JFK, the Lindhberg baby, and JR. does my saying that make it true?
17 USC 117 permits the creation of any copies necessary in order to use a legally owned copy of some piece of software. This certainly sounds quite similar in language and intent to permitting installation.
Well, I was allowed to take my Visor on the plane, and it has a tiny screwdriver in it. I guess they expect that terrorists use WinCE.
IIRC, laches and estoppel theories work just great for patent infringements. Why on earth wouldn't they?
This isn't to say that the typical infringer will tend to be fortunate enough to be able to make out their argument, but it happens.
What case are you looking at that you claim got rid of this?
Odd. I'm a law student. I know plenty of law students. But I only know one or two in the entire school who attend because they want to get rich. Ironically, from your perspective, they're some of the worst students here. Most of us want to have some positive impact on the world. I certainly do.
Frankly, if you want to get rich, become an investment banker. Lawyers don't get especially rich, compared to any other white collar profession. (the starting salaries are slightly high, but this is to compensate for nearly all recent graduates being saddled with student loan debt... I expect I truly make money myself until about 3-5 years after I get a job)
Indeed, you're EXTRAORDINARILY mistaken with regards to contingency fees. Contingency fees are absolutely necessary in order to permit poor clients the ability to utilize the legal system! If someone is too poor to afford a lawyer up front, but nevertheless have a solid case and have been greviously wronged, you're basically telling them to fuck themselves.
Clients do not pay a penny for a case brought on contingency. The lawyer risks the amount of money he _could_ be making on the chance that he'll be able to recoup his expenses, AND secure for the client an award, which frankly is more than they'd get if they never had representation at all. Lawyers do not have to offer to take cases on contingency -- but no matter how much they want to, the final decision is made by the client.
So furthermore, you're opposed to people being able to conduct their legal affairs in a manner that suits them, because you'd take away their choice altogether. Even though it might be their last, best hope for help.
Furthermore, even if we set aside the fact that many contingency fee plaintiffs LOSE, leaving the lawyer poorer than when he started, and setting aside the fact that the odds of getting a sizable contingency fee are rather akin to winning the lottery in rarity... lawyers ARE capped as to how much they can collect. It's a percentage, not a flat fee (which would obviously be more prone to backfiring) but it does generally get smaller and smaller, and virtually never is greater than 30%.
To a client 70% of something is better than the 100% of nothing you'd see them get.
As for a loser-pays system, it would be even WORSE. Each side would be encouraged to rack up as many legal expenses as possible, driving up the costs, making lawyers even more rich (which you seem to be against) and punishing the loser even more, because a single minor case could easily bankrupt him. Which would also leave the lawyers poorer in the end, if they can't collect their pay!
But hey -- there's nothing wrong with your proposal other than wanting to bankrupt even more people than ever.
Furthermore, as if the costs of pursuing a case into court (only a miniscule fraction of cases that are brough ever make it to court; in fact, only a miniscule fraction of possible cases are ever brought at all) aren't already backbreaking, the costs of pursuing an appeal would skyrocket.
Boy, you'd better hope you're never poor with that attitude. You really just do not believe in people having as much equal access to legal representation as possible. I guess you must be wealthy enough already to enjoy the prospect of breaking the law, knowing that if your hare-brained schemes ever came to pass, that virtually no one without their own fortune could ever sue you.
The only alternative might be to nationalize the legal profession... but I think we can all see the crappiness in that possibility right off the bat.
Sorry man; you just don't know shit about the legal system.
Well, it's been around for ages. I distinctly remember it being popularized by the movie "Dead Poets Society" but it may've been in use before.
Sorry if it sounds trite. Criticism noted.
But what new limitations are being imposed? Indeed, what limitations do we want to allow developers to impose in what are generally indistinguishable transactions from sales of goods?
As the learned judge in Softman points out, merely because two parties label their commercial relations contractual does NOT make it so. Public policy concerns (among others) will always be able to override them.
This should be especially true in the case of copyrighted works -- there is oft times no public benefit to permitting this. The Bobbs-Merrill resale clause was struck down by the Supreme Court, yet is extremely similar to EULA provisions. Would you support the dismantling of the first sale doctrine that has proved so useful in the past?
no, he bought it. adobe was paid in full. (either directly or through one of their own resellers)
they just don't charge full price -- if you bought a car for $10 and could sell it for $10,000, you'd be a fool not to do so.
the defendant here is simply no fool.
True, but only of that individual copy of the software.
Copyright is not transfered along with copies of a work covered by that copyright. This is absolute.
Books are copyrighted, books are sold, yet the buyer of a book has no special rights against the author. There's no difference really, between books and software in this respect.
What are you worried about -- people selling used copies of software (where it is illegal for them to keep their own copies!) just as people sell used books or used CDs? Doesn't seem like there's a compelling reason for EULAs at all, huh?
Bzzt, wrong, but thanks for playing.
Copyright will protect the work even if it is sold as a good, just as it protects books, CDs, DVDs, etc.
Both copyright and contract disputes have to be ajudicated in court -- the only difference is federal trial courts v. state trial courts.
So the reliance on a EULA is in no way better than reliance on the law... unless you're a very greedy publisher and want to have your cake (copyright on the software) and eat it too (more restrictive contractual arrangements)
The only exception I see is to cover those rare, unusual cases, e.g. site licenses.
Nevertheless, they provide tv for free. No one is under any obligation to look at ads, and it's absurd to think otherwise. They can merely _hope_ you will look at them.
Nevertheless, the other customers suffer, and market inefficiencies rule the day. (aside from possible legal problems, since regions may be illegal conduct by the publishers depending on the countries involved)
It would be better for there to be price, release date, and feature parity. If the Japanese publishers were not being quite as greedy, there'd be no real incentive for reverse importation. Clearly it's possible -- you manage somehow, and the supply/demand curve would likely make up for it with greater sales volume.
Of course, me, I buy tons of anime... and I was looking at that NGE box set... but I really loathe both region coding, and bad disks that might make up for it. So I think I'll pass. Thanks.
So I can't carefully reverse-engineer IBM PC BIOS, make my own, and sell them? Even though there's no licensing involved or anything?
The computer besides my desk says you're wrong.
True. Congress can always add another inferor appellate court though. The District Courts (the present federal trial level) is comparatively new... dating back to, IIRC, the late 19th century.
Given another hundred years or two, we might very well see four tiers.