"If a group of people want to conduct all of their transactions in ounces of gold rather than dollars then that's their perogative."
Are you sure about that?
If you refuse to take payments in dollars in the US but demand to be paid in gold aren't you gonna get in trouble?
Are you really free to open a shop and price everything in terms of gold and don't put a dollar price on anything in the shop. Then you charge to some people and demand to be paid in gold and refuse to accept dollars. Will the government be cool with this?
"So rather than suggesting it's a flaw that anyone can change the most recent copy of the information, we need to realize that it's beneficial that we can see past edits, and who performed them."
Indeed. In fact, you might learn more from the histoty of editing than from the article itself. (On "hot" topics.)
"Indeed, if we see a trend of certain information being edited out of articles about Republicans, it could be quite safe to assume the information that was removed is completely valid, and is being removed because it is the unfortunate truth."
This assertion makes no sense. It is just as reasonable to assume that there would be continuous efforts to fix blatant errors.
"if for nothing else to ensure you are not stealing somebody else's ticket (notwithstanding the security issues)."
I as just beefing about this issue with my wife today. There is no more reason (except greed) to have your airline ticket tied to a specific name than for your ticket to the ball game, your subway tokens, etc.
We want to have one of us take our son to Fl to visit family. Preferably me, but what if I should get sick. Why shouldn't she be able to just use the adult ticket instead of me?
And this does impact their bottom line negatively instead of positively in my case. I go way less because of issues like that.
"All materials are copyrighted, automatically. Sometimes the owners don't bother with the copyright (implicitly giving everyone permission to use it) or sometimes it gets licensed (such as with the GPL)."
If only. To my knowledge, you do not implicitly get permission to copy things without a copyright notice. This really gums up the works in my opinion. It is very hard to tell the difference between works in the public domain and copyrighted works without a notice.
I have been pondering ways to raise funding for the production of "copyleft" works.
Could the case not be put to the funders of PBS, NPR, etc. that they should at least consider requiring "copyleft" licensing for the works they fund? (At least completely new works that don't draw upon traditionally copyrighted works.)
Along those lines, does anyone know the situation when it comes to "fair use" by "copylefted" works? Is it possible? Would you be able to "set off" the "fair use" parts and indicate such? Would that be necessary?
To come to the Captain's defense, I have put him as a friend even though I do not know him at all. Over the years, I have seen him constantly trying to clear up misunderstandings as they relate to the law.
He has done it with me on more than one occasion. On very similar points even.
If he is not the lawyer he claims to be, he does a good job of convincing someone like me who wants to be up on this stuff but does not make a career of it.
That said, here on slashdot, many of us could use a little LOX both in the giving and receiving of feedback.
"It'll only get fun if the film maker decides to try to take it somewhere. Right now it looks like the film wasn't harmed financially, and I don't think the film maker has a major studio backing him with financial and legal muscle."
Are you sure, aren't these things criminal offences these days? (Not that I think they always should be, but aren't they?)
If someone admits to a crime in public, what procedures are law enforcement types required to follow? Any?
"What these people sometimes don't get is that there are a million other people just as smart as they are, who worked just as hard who just had worse luck and didn't end up wealthy."
Or perhaps who had better luck and therefore didn't end up wealthy?
----- The truth we know:
Money doesn't buy happiness.
The lie we buy:
If I had more money, I would be happier. -----
all the best,
drew -------- http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261 Record a song and you could win a grand. [And be happier. - ~;-) - sorry, couldn't resist that last bit.]
I think we need to stop just defending and reacting to these sorts of issues.
We need to go on the offensive. We need to think of some initiatives that we could push for that would help or just not affect the little players too much and yet would put a monkey wrench in the game plan of the big boys who are constantly trying to pull these stunts.
Push for this change for instance:
No more taking works from the Public Domain and making derivatives with all rights reserved types of copyrights. You can sell public domain works fine. You can make derivatives and put them under a copyleft license fine. But you cannot make a derivative of a public domain work and lock it up as you can if you had made something completely new.
I think something like this might give them the kind of scare that their stunts give us.
Any thoughts on this idea. Any other better ideas to go on the offensive?
"My group Children in the Game [childreninthegame.net] are giving their album away free for whomever wants it, in an attempt to help topple the RIAA's power. "
I went to the site. I see a link to listen, but none to download and not much else.
May I suggest that if you really want to start making a dent in the big boys that you consider this:
Release your songs under something like a CC BY-SA license. Further, release them as an ardour project file or a gungirl project file as well as flac and ogg vorbis files.
Then do something along the lines of what I just announced here:
"First, remember that a derivative copyright is limited only to the derivative work."
Understood. But it is really not this simple from a layman's point of view. I keep bringing up the case of "Fake Books" this have public domain songs in them and yet claim a copyright on the individual songs without indicating what they are claiming a copyright on.
"Thus we can assume that Alice was not encouraged to write her book by the possibility of future earnings derived from it."
Forget Alice, drew may very well not be motivated by the possibility of future earnings, but may be very well be motivated by the possibility of future payments in kind. This is a possibility brought about by the application of copyleft ideas overlayed on copyrights.
"Whether Alice writes a sequel, or Bob writes a sequel, I don't actually care. The goal is to get these derivative works written. If we give a copyright to Alice, who appears not to care, given her behavior, we're unlikely to get a sequel; copyright is providing no incentive for her, or she would have evidenced that it was by seeking out a copyright, and Bob is not allowed to write one."
Here you are thinking only copyright "all rights reserved" or public domain. Copyright with a copyleft license provides another option.
"Nothing difficult, but enough to determine who wants a copyright, and who doesn't care."
If submitting the "best copy" intended for distribution, which could simply be submitting a digital copy to a web server, or even a link to a digital copy one a web server is enough, I can't argue too much. (I would prefer something else, but that can work.)
"Boiled down, you're saying that because Alice didn't care about a copyright on her book, Bob shouldn't be allowed to get a copyright even if he does care, for no better reason than that he wrote a sequel to Alice's book."
Where did I say this? What I want is to be able to get a copyright, cheaply and easily and then give out a copyleft license to my works so that I get paid in kind. Then it is a free for all as to who make what on whose work. That is the game I want to play and the market I want to play in.
IIRC, this originally started becuase I brought up the idea of non marked works getting a copyleft instead of an all rights reserved.
This would allow all works to be built upon and sold by whoever wants to as long as all derivatives, etc. are also copyleft. It would also allow those who want an all rights reserved license to get one very simply.
I brought this up because it does indeed solve one of the high costs to the public that result from giving an automatic all rights reserved copyright on all fixed works. It simply costs too much to determine if something is copyrigth or in the public domain. My idea would fix that for many.
"Formalities are good for the public in general,... and it provides notice to the public as to what they cannot copy, letting them safely assume that they can copy anything without notice."
This last thing is certainly what I am trying to accomplish or at least move towards.
"And since they're so easy to comply with, they're perfectly fine for small authors..."
But they are not, as now run, so easy to comply with, especially as results to a remix culture. I may make only a small contribution to a program, but I wan't my copyright because it puts me at the table, but if I make many such small contributions, I can end up paying a significant amount when I have no intentions of earning from it. I am already paying enough in my time for what I am giving to the world.
Volunteer labour may also like copyrights, but they may very well be unwilling to contribute money as well as time to the world.
"I meant that they vest with authors, if they vest with anyone."
Yes, but in the example I gave under the conditions you propose, they would vest with no one. My work would be in the public domain. I may very well not want this but not be able to afford the registra
Please, let's not take this into name calling and related fields.
"I mean, your position basically is that if you can't make profits from the work, then no one can."
I think you misread what I said again. I have no problem with other people making money from my work even if I don't. What I have a problem with is them making a derivative, adaptation, etc. of my work, copyrighting it, and keeping that work closed off from my further adaptation and exploitation, etc.
"Also n.b. that copyrights vest in the authors of works."
They do now, but under what you are proposing and the situation I laid out, my work would enter the public domain.
"Possession of an unlawfully made copy isn't infringing. Making the copy or distributing it are what's infringing."
You may know the laws in your country, but do you know them in mine? A while back, some group here put full page ads in the national paper(s) talking about the (new?) copyright laws and such. They put it that posession of such copies is a violation. I asked a lawyer friend, she agreed. So, seems like, around here, posession of one knock-off DVD can get you 5 years in jail and a big fine. $20,000 or more if memory serves.
"They're not that tightly related anyway."
They may not be tightly coupled, but I would hate to see things being "fixed" but only in those areas that make it worse for the public in general and the small guys.
This database is copyright 1996-2006 by Sean Lahman. A license is granted for individual use for research purposes only. It may not be re-distributed without permission. Any commercial use, or other dissemination of the database in part or in whole is prohibited. Use of this database constitutes acceptance of these terms."
Is he gonna sue MLB? For violating his claimed copyrights?
"Apple is NOT a monopoly, Microsoft IS a monopoly. The first step to understanding monopolies is quite simply that the rules change once you are a monopoly. Monopolies wield incredible power and pervert the forces of a free market into something that is definitely not a free market."
In one sense I agree to a great extent with what you are trying to get across in your post.
However, both Apple and Microsoft make use of government granted monopolies in their day to day business operations.
I even make use of the same in my life but not to the same extent. That is, in fact, the whole point of copyrights and patents, is it not?
"How could it be? If your desire is to create art for art's sake, and you don't care about money, then a copyright will not incentivize you, and lack of a copyright will not disincentivize you."
I respectfully submit that you do not know what will and will not be an incentive or disincentive for me. It could very well be that not having a copyright to make money from my work might not be a disincentive, but that the possibility of others making money from my work and copyrighting it may very well do so, especially in the case where those others have shown the willingness to push for the passage of laws which result in jail time of up to five years for the simle posession of a non-bonafide dvd or cd which I may have bought in innocence. To be honest, and the ability to get such laws passed. Again especially when their copyrights on my work will last a hundred years or more. You better believe in that instance it will be a disincentive for me to make my work public if I cannot afford the moeny, time, or hassle to get a registered copyright.
"I would avoid letting best copies be electronic copies, particularly if not in highly standardized formats."
Best copy could be paper if paper is published, electronic if no paper is produced.
"They're a pain in the ass to preserve."
So, something like what Massachusets is doing is all the more important in this proposed situation then.
Personally, I don't think I would like to see the registration and deposit requirements reinstituted unless the copyright terms were dropped to forteen years at the same time. I think people ought to be able to build upon the works that were current in their childhood.
No, if we have serious plans to get somewhere like that, I'm all ears. If not, I am for taking small steps to make the current terrible situation a bit better one step at a time.
all the best,
drew
ps - I always appreciate your insight and willingness to educate.
pps - as to win xp pro, I don't run it now and certainly wouldn't expect to in twenty years much less a hundred. I like to keep my writings as plain text files. I don't run any sort of windows day to day. I wiped XP off my laptop without letting it boot for the first time.
"You're basically saying that if an author doesn't provide notice, that they should get some rights of copyright, but not all of them. I don't think that it's sensible to give them any rights if they cannot comply with formalities, and I would require more formalities, frankly. I'm really not that interested in partial steps."
I know you don't think it is sensible, but the fact is they already get all I suggest AND more. Why do you think giving more is better than giving less? (Not that you do, but why argue with giving less as a first step to giving none? Especially if giving less might be achievable sooner.)
"Formalities wouldn't be expensive for copyright and they've never been complicated. But it can't be free."
For digital submission of digital works, it can approach free.
So, you are basically saying no copyright except registered copyright. Deposit and pay a fee. Do you happen to know when such a system was last in place in the US?
I would live with you system and make do, but given the current mood I see in the world, I don't see getting there anytime soon.
It seems the big boys want the automatic and no notice needed plan so that none of their works can possibly escape in the face of their mistakes. My paranoid self says they also want it to prevent the little people from having a current pool of public domain work to draw upon. The little guys don't want the big guys taking their work and copyrighting derivatives and adaptations. How do you see getting around these attitudes?
"Since we didn't need to give them the incentive of copyright, we shouldn't give them a copyright, provided we can identify them."
Yes, but not quite. We don't necessarily want to get into providing a disincentive to publish either.
For instance, I wrote a novel as a part of this 2005's nanowrimo competition. Since I get a free copyright, I posted it up on ourmedia here:
If I had to pay, it might just not be available to the world right now. (I am not actually claiming that that would be such a big loss, but you never know.) Both from a payment point of view, and from the possibility of having someone else take advantage of it to my detriment if I didn't copyright it.
"The fee also defrays the operating costs of the Copyright Office, in that it costs money to process the filing, store the deposited materials, etc."
The Internet Archive will store your digital stuff "forever" at no cost to you. How much defraying is needed in the case of digital documents?
"Copyright is an economic right."
It may be supposed to be one, but these days it is so much more. It is a right to censor as well. To remove "goods" from the public market. (Perhaps not existing books, but new books, public performances, etc.)
"But don't be fuzzy headed or romantic."
To be honest, we have the right to be both. I do appreciate the admonition not to be fuzzy headed, but I take a bit of umbrage at the admonition to not be romantic.
"Meh. Honestly, I think that it's silly to try to make copyright laws uniform worldwide."
I agree, but we have got it. My point is, why does it only ever seem to work in one direction? Is this in the treaties or whatever themselves. Has anyone ever thought of getting more sane laws passed in one of the countries and then calling for harmonization?
"Second, that countries avoid having copyright systems which so conflict with the systems of other countries that it is impossible for an author to get a copyright in both."
Would it not be possible to have a copyright in one, copyright in all plan which still only actually gives the differing protections contemplated in point one?
"'Still, what honest objections exist for automatic copyleft instead of all rights reserved in the case of no notice being affixed?'
'Because if an author cannot even take the trouble to affix notice to a work, or comply with other formalities (such as registration and deposit, which I view as being of great importance), then why should we take the trouble to give them any rights whatsoever?'"
I don't think you got the gist of the question. Please notice the "instead of." I was not asking about honest objections to both.
That being said, those formalaties can get to be expensive and thus favour the big boys over the little guys. Putting the poor man's work in the public domain because he cannot afford the money to register or the legal advice to register properly only to allow the big players to adapt it and copyright that with not compensation to the poor fellow may not be the best plan.
Now, if there was simple and free digital registration possible, things may be different.
"Therefore, for works that are copyrightable but where formalities have not been observed, even a fairly minimal copyright such as you suggest would be too much to bear."
But we are already bearing much worse. So again, does anyone know of honest objections to moving from where we are to automatic copyleft in the event of no notice. (Baby steps. Most people think I am dreaming big time just proposing this.)
If we want to talk the ideal copyright situation, that is another discussion. I am happy to have that one as well.
Slashdot Mirror
"If a group of people want to conduct all of their transactions in ounces of gold rather than dollars then that's their perogative."
Are you sure about that?
If you refuse to take payments in dollars in the US but demand to be paid in gold aren't you gonna get in trouble?
Are you really free to open a shop and price everything in terms of gold and don't put a dollar price on anything in the shop. Then you charge to some people and demand to be paid in gold and refuse to accept dollars. Will the government be cool with this?
all the best,
drew
"But really if you found a page about yourself in the wikipedia full of critisisms you would think about changing them."
Thinking about changing it and actually changing it are two different issues though plus...
Not necessarily, look what I put in my latest novel, not all flattering in the least:
[
I want to thank those for sending their big ups and shout outs and their kind accolades.
Mark Anthony: "I come to bury these pages, not to praise them!"
Julius Cesear: "I came, I saw, what STUFF!"
George Washington: "I wish I had access to this information before planning my trip across the Delaware."
Cleopatra: "If I had only known about this book, I might not have fooled with that asp."
Robin Hood: "drew is welcome in Sherwood any day of the week."
Freud: "My mother told me about the ZotzBrothers stuff. It is great!"
Zeno: "The nerve of this boy, coming up with such a cheeky solution to my paradox."
Beethoven: "I told drew to get Bach, but he wouldn't listen. He is so pushy."
Napoleon: "I have never in my life read such a long book with such a short stature."
Elizabeth: "So that's where Drake went!"
Beowulf: "I did not like those Gruff Brothers. Those guys should be locked up."
Jules de Vac: "One who would write such drivel is truly an outlaw!"
King Tut: "Gold! Pure gold! Not!"
Wilbur: "The author is certainly not a write brother, nor is he a right brother and he is not a Wright brother either."
]
If there were lies, I might leave them in and post my corrections/responses as well.
Let the other party do the hiding of info.
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Add to the commons and you could win $1,000.00
"So rather than suggesting it's a flaw that anyone can change the most recent copy of the information, we need to realize that it's beneficial that we can see past edits, and who performed them."
Indeed. In fact, you might learn more from the histoty of editing than from the article itself. (On "hot" topics.)
"Indeed, if we see a trend of certain information being edited out of articles about Republicans, it could be quite safe to assume the information that was removed is completely valid, and is being removed because it is the unfortunate truth."
This assertion makes no sense. It is just as reasonable to assume that there would be continuous efforts to fix blatant errors.
For instance, if I were to go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
and constantly make edits explaining that the moon was made of green cheese, do you not think that they would be removed over and over?
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a "copyleft" song and you could win a $1,000.00
"if for nothing else to ensure you are not stealing somebody else's ticket (notwithstanding the security issues)."
I as just beefing about this issue with my wife today. There is no more reason (except greed) to have your airline ticket tied to a specific name than for your ticket to the ball game, your subway tokens, etc.
We want to have one of us take our son to Fl to visit family. Preferably me, but what if I should get sick. Why shouldn't she be able to just use the adult ticket instead of me?
And this does impact their bottom line negatively instead of positively in my case. I go way less because of issues like that.
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
"Yes, that is more recent, but it was made retroactive, so that it currently applies to all works created since the first Mickey Mouse movie."
Are you sure of this? can you point us to a reference?
TIA.
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
"Tings" - a "copyleft" novel.
1. Find a copyleft novel somewhere online.
2. ???
3. Profit.
"No, it isn't. Anything released after the first Micket Mouse movie = copyrighted."
I think I know what you aregetting at, but I don't think this is worded right. Isn't the lack of requirement for a copyright notice much more recent?
I was particularly dealing with works lacking notice. (Especially those where no notice was ever placed on them.)
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a "copyleft" song from "Tings" and you might win a$1,000.00
"All materials are copyrighted, automatically. Sometimes the owners don't bother with the copyright (implicitly giving everyone permission to use it) or sometimes it gets licensed (such as with the GPL)."
If only. To my knowledge, you do not implicitly get permission to copy things without a copyright notice. This really gums up the works in my opinion. It is very hard to tell the difference between works in the public domain and copyrighted works without a notice.
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
Tings - a "copyleft" novel - first draft.
I have been pondering ways to raise funding for the production of "copyleft" works.
Could the case not be put to the funders of PBS, NPR, etc. that they should at least consider requiring "copyleft" licensing for the works they fund? (At least completely new works that don't draw upon traditionally copyrighted works.)
Along those lines, does anyone know the situation when it comes to "fair use" by "copylefted" works? Is it possible? Would you be able to "set off" the "fair use" parts and indicate such? Would that be necessary?
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/
Whoo, I made it onto the front page of ourmedia.
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
Tings - a "copyleft" novel - first draft.
To come to the Captain's defense, I have put him as a friend even though I do not know him at all. Over the years, I have seen him constantly trying to clear up misunderstandings as they relate to the law.
He has done it with me on more than one occasion. On very similar points even.
If he is not the lawyer he claims to be, he does a good job of convincing someone like me who wants to be up on this stuff but does not make a career of it.
That said, here on slashdot, many of us could use a little LOX both in the giving and receiving of feedback.
all the best,
drew
"It'll only get fun if the film maker decides to try to take it somewhere. Right now it looks like the film wasn't harmed financially, and I don't think the film maker has a major studio backing him with financial and legal muscle."
Are you sure, aren't these things criminal offences these days? (Not that I think they always should be, but aren't they?)
If someone admits to a crime in public, what procedures are law enforcement types required to follow? Any?
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record on of three songs and you could win $1,000.00
"What these people sometimes don't get is that there are a million other people just as smart as they are, who worked just as hard who just had worse luck and didn't end up wealthy."
Or perhaps who had better luck and therefore didn't end up wealthy?
-----
The truth we know:
Money doesn't buy happiness.
The lie we buy:
If I had more money, I would be happier.
-----
all the best,
drew
--------
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you could win a grand. [And be happier. - ~;-) - sorry, couldn't resist that last bit.]
So, you don't do multitrack recording? Just mix down and record stereo?
Also, there is no mention of what license these songs are under.
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
"Tings" - a "copyleft" novel in first draft, CC BY-SA license.
Going on the Offensive.
I think we need to stop just defending and reacting to these sorts of issues.
We need to go on the offensive. We need to think of some initiatives that we could push for that would help or just not affect the little players too much and yet would put a monkey wrench in the game plan of the big boys who are constantly trying to pull these stunts.
Push for this change for instance:
No more taking works from the Public Domain and making derivatives with all rights reserved types of copyrights. You can sell public domain works fine. You can make derivatives and put them under a copyleft license fine. But you cannot make a derivative of a public domain work and lock it up as you can if you had made something completely new.
I think something like this might give them the kind of scare that their stunts give us.
Any thoughts on this idea. Any other better ideas to go on the offensive?
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a "copyleft" song and you could win a thousand dollars.
"My group Children in the Game [childreninthegame.net] are giving their album away free for whomever wants it, in an attempt to help topple the RIAA's power. "
I went to the site. I see a link to listen, but none to download and not much else.
May I suggest that if you really want to start making a dent in the big boys that you consider this:
Release your songs under something like a CC BY-SA license. Further, release them as an ardour project file or a gungirl project file as well as flac and ogg vorbis files.
Then do something along the lines of what I just announced here:
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Good luck with you efforts.
all the best,
drew
"First, remember that a derivative copyright is limited only to the derivative work."
... and it provides notice to the public as to what they cannot copy, letting them safely assume that they can copy anything without notice."
Understood. But it is really not this simple from a layman's point of view. I keep bringing up the case of "Fake Books" this have public domain songs in them and yet claim a copyright on the individual songs without indicating what they are claiming a copyright on.
"Thus we can assume that Alice was not encouraged to write her book by the possibility of future earnings derived from it."
Forget Alice, drew may very well not be motivated by the possibility of future earnings, but may be very well be motivated by the possibility of future payments in kind. This is a possibility brought about by the application of copyleft ideas overlayed on copyrights.
"Whether Alice writes a sequel, or Bob writes a sequel, I don't actually care. The goal is to get these derivative works written. If we give a copyright to Alice, who appears not to care, given her behavior, we're unlikely to get a sequel; copyright is providing no incentive for her, or she would have evidenced that it was by seeking out a copyright, and Bob is not allowed to write one."
Here you are thinking only copyright "all rights reserved" or public domain. Copyright with a copyleft license provides another option.
"Nothing difficult, but enough to determine who wants a copyright, and who doesn't care."
If submitting the "best copy" intended for distribution, which could simply be submitting a digital copy to a web server, or even a link to a digital copy one a web server is enough, I can't argue too much. (I would prefer something else, but that can work.)
"Boiled down, you're saying that because Alice didn't care about a copyright on her book, Bob shouldn't be allowed to get a copyright even if he does care, for no better reason than that he wrote a sequel to Alice's book."
Where did I say this? What I want is to be able to get a copyright, cheaply and easily and then give out a copyleft license to my works so that I get paid in kind. Then it is a free for all as to who make what on whose work. That is the game I want to play and the market I want to play in.
IIRC, this originally started becuase I brought up the idea of non marked works getting a copyleft instead of an all rights reserved.
This would allow all works to be built upon and sold by whoever wants to as long as all derivatives, etc. are also copyleft. It would also allow those who want an all rights reserved license to get one very simply.
I brought this up because it does indeed solve one of the high costs to the public that result from giving an automatic all rights reserved copyright on all fixed works. It simply costs too much to determine if something is copyrigth or in the public domain. My idea would fix that for many.
"Formalities are good for the public in general,
This last thing is certainly what I am trying to accomplish or at least move towards.
"And since they're so easy to comply with, they're perfectly fine for small authors..."
But they are not, as now run, so easy to comply with, especially as results to a remix culture. I may make only a small contribution to a program, but I wan't my copyright because it puts me at the table, but if I make many such small contributions, I can end up paying a significant amount when I have no intentions of earning from it. I am already paying enough in my time for what I am giving to the world.
Volunteer labour may also like copyrights, but they may very well be unwilling to contribute money as well as time to the world.
"I meant that they vest with authors, if they vest with anyone."
Yes, but in the example I gave under the conditions you propose, they would vest with no one. My work would be in the public domain. I may very well not want this but not be able to afford the registra
"The threat should be to revoke the entire patent system."
Is this a viable and attainable threat? If not, it will not be effective. (Thoughts? How do we go about this? Should we?)
Other thoughts?
-----
Variable length terms based on field of endeavour?
"Intellectual property" (I seriously dislike that term) tax?
Specific working example requirements?
Near simultaneous discovery invalidation?
Patent office must keep an idea bank where people with ideas but not seeking patents can put their work to serve as a prior art repository?
Patents expire much sooner if not being exploited?
-----
One problem, is that most of these ideas do not speak directly to the issue of software patents.
all the best,
drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
"Tings" - this is not a patented novel.
"That seems odd to me, and rather childish."
Please, let's not take this into name calling and related fields.
"I mean, your position basically is that if you can't make profits from the work, then no one can."
I think you misread what I said again. I have no problem with other people making money from my work even if I don't. What I have a problem with is them making a derivative, adaptation, etc. of my work, copyrighting it, and keeping that work closed off from my further adaptation and exploitation, etc.
"Also n.b. that copyrights vest in the authors of works."
They do now, but under what you are proposing and the situation I laid out, my work would enter the public domain.
"Possession of an unlawfully made copy isn't infringing. Making the copy or distributing it are what's infringing."
You may know the laws in your country, but do you know them in mine? A while back, some group here put full page ads in the national paper(s) talking about the (new?) copyright laws and such. They put it that posession of such copies is a violation. I asked a lawyer friend, she agreed. So, seems like, around here, posession of one knock-off DVD can get you 5 years in jail and a big fine. $20,000 or more if memory serves.
"They're not that tightly related anyway."
They may not be tightly coupled, but I would hate to see things being "fixed" but only in those areas that make it worse for the public in general and the small guys.
all the best,
drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/53984
da bubble man - smokeless smoke rings underwater?
CC BY-SA license
Which is why we need to go on the offensive to put them in this exact situation where one win by us is all it takes but they must win every time.
Any thoughts on the opening salvo?
all the best,
drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
Tings - NaNoWriMo 2005 winning novel - first draft
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license
(think copyleft)
From the page you linked to:
"Limited Use License
This database is copyright 1996-2006 by Sean Lahman. A license is granted for individual use for research purposes only. It may not be re-distributed without permission. Any commercial use, or other dissemination of the database in part or in whole is prohibited. Use of this database constitutes acceptance of these terms."
Is he gonna sue MLB? For violating his claimed copyrights?
all the best,
drew
"Apple is NOT a monopoly, Microsoft IS a monopoly. The first step to understanding monopolies is quite simply that the rules change once you are a monopoly. Monopolies wield incredible power and pervert the forces of a free market into something that is definitely not a free market."
In one sense I agree to a great extent with what you are trying to get across in your post.
However, both Apple and Microsoft make use of government granted monopolies in their day to day business operations.
I even make use of the same in my life but not to the same extent. That is, in fact, the whole point of copyrights and patents, is it not?
all the best,
drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
"Tings" - a CC BY-SA (think copyleft) novel in first draft.
"How could it be? If your desire is to create art for art's sake, and you don't care about money, then a copyright will not incentivize you, and lack of a copyright will not disincentivize you."
I respectfully submit that you do not know what will and will not be an incentive or disincentive for me. It could very well be that not having a copyright to make money from my work might not be a disincentive, but that the possibility of others making money from my work and copyrighting it may very well do so, especially in the case where those others have shown the willingness to push for the passage of laws which result in jail time of up to five years for the simle posession of a non-bonafide dvd or cd which I may have bought in innocence. To be honest, and the ability to get such laws passed. Again especially when their copyrights on my work will last a hundred years or more. You better believe in that instance it will be a disincentive for me to make my work public if I cannot afford the moeny, time, or hassle to get a registered copyright.
"I would avoid letting best copies be electronic copies, particularly if not in highly standardized formats."
Best copy could be paper if paper is published, electronic if no paper is produced.
"They're a pain in the ass to preserve."
So, something like what Massachusets is doing is all the more important in this proposed situation then.
Personally, I don't think I would like to see the registration and deposit requirements reinstituted unless the copyright terms were dropped to forteen years at the same time. I think people ought to be able to build upon the works that were current in their childhood.
No, if we have serious plans to get somewhere like that, I'm all ears. If not, I am for taking small steps to make the current terrible situation a bit better one step at a time.
all the best,
drew
ps - I always appreciate your insight and willingness to educate.
pps - as to win xp pro, I don't run it now and certainly wouldn't expect to in twenty years much less a hundred. I like to keep my writings as plain text files. I don't run any sort of windows day to day. I wiped XP off my laptop without letting it boot for the first time.
"You're basically saying that if an author doesn't provide notice, that they should get some rights of copyright, but not all of them. I don't think that it's sensible to give them any rights if they cannot comply with formalities, and I would require more formalities, frankly. I'm really not that interested in partial steps."
I know you don't think it is sensible, but the fact is they already get all I suggest AND more. Why do you think giving more is better than giving less? (Not that you do, but why argue with giving less as a first step to giving none? Especially if giving less might be achievable sooner.)
"Formalities wouldn't be expensive for copyright and they've never been complicated. But it can't be free."
For digital submission of digital works, it can approach free.
So, you are basically saying no copyright except registered copyright. Deposit and pay a fee. Do you happen to know when such a system was last in place in the US?
I would live with you system and make do, but given the current mood I see in the world, I don't see getting there anytime soon.
It seems the big boys want the automatic and no notice needed plan so that none of their works can possibly escape in the face of their mistakes. My paranoid self says they also want it to prevent the little people from having a current pool of public domain work to draw upon. The little guys don't want the big guys taking their work and copyrighting derivatives and adaptations. How do you see getting around these attitudes?
"Since we didn't need to give them the incentive of copyright, we shouldn't give them a copyright, provided we can identify them."
Yes, but not quite. We don't necessarily want to get into providing a disincentive to publish either.
For instance, I wrote a novel as a part of this 2005's nanowrimo competition. Since I get a free copyright, I posted it up on ourmedia here:
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
If I had to pay, it might just not be available to the world right now. (I am not actually claiming that that would be such a big loss, but you never know.) Both from a payment point of view, and from the possibility of having someone else take advantage of it to my detriment if I didn't copyright it.
"The fee also defrays the operating costs of the Copyright Office, in that it costs money to process the filing, store the deposited materials, etc."
The Internet Archive will store your digital stuff "forever" at no cost to you. How much defraying is needed in the case of digital documents?
"Copyright is an economic right."
It may be supposed to be one, but these days it is so much more. It is a right to censor as well. To remove "goods" from the public market. (Perhaps not existing books, but new books, public performances, etc.)
"But don't be fuzzy headed or romantic."
To be honest, we have the right to be both. I do appreciate the admonition not to be fuzzy headed, but I take a bit of umbrage at the admonition to not be romantic.
Once again, all the best,
drew
"Meh. Honestly, I think that it's silly to try to make copyright laws uniform worldwide."
I agree, but we have got it. My point is, why does it only ever seem to work in one direction? Is this in the treaties or whatever themselves. Has anyone ever thought of getting more sane laws passed in one of the countries and then calling for harmonization?
"Second, that countries avoid having copyright systems which so conflict with the systems of other countries that it is impossible for an author to get a copyright in both."
Would it not be possible to have a copyright in one, copyright in all plan which still only actually gives the differing protections contemplated in point one?
"'Still, what honest objections exist for automatic copyleft instead of all rights reserved in the case of no notice being affixed?'
'Because if an author cannot even take the trouble to affix notice to a work, or comply with other formalities (such as registration and deposit, which I view as being of great importance), then why should we take the trouble to give them any rights whatsoever?'"
I don't think you got the gist of the question. Please notice the "instead of." I was not asking about honest objections to both.
That being said, those formalaties can get to be expensive and thus favour the big boys over the little guys. Putting the poor man's work in the public domain because he cannot afford the money to register or the legal advice to register properly only to allow the big players to adapt it and copyright that with not compensation to the poor fellow may not be the best plan.
Now, if there was simple and free digital registration possible, things may be different.
"Therefore, for works that are copyrightable but where formalities have not been observed, even a fairly minimal copyright such as you suggest would be too much to bear."
But we are already bearing much worse. So again, does anyone know of honest objections to moving from where we are to automatic copyleft in the event of no notice. (Baby steps. Most people think I am dreaming big time just proposing this.)
If we want to talk the ideal copyright situation, that is another discussion. I am happy to have that one as well.
all the best,
drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/78870
"Tings" - A novel under a creative commons attribution-sharealike license. ( CC BY-SA )
Hey cpt,
long time.
What if we harmonize backwards?
Find a country to pass a better law and all the rest will have to harmonize. (Wishful thinking, but why not?)
Still, what honest objections exist for automatic copyleft instead of all rights reserved in the case of no notice being affixed?
all the best,
drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
"Tings" - a BY-SA novel in first draft.
Believe me, I am not for this, I think it is stupid. I am pointing out the "bright" side, because I think it would kill those who assert these rights.
Please explain how this would kill what you claim though.
As we like to say around here. (If not around now.)
Break it down.
all the best,
drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
Paper Plane design 001 video
CC BY-SA License