Go back to the Supreme Court precedents and read about the idea/expression dichotomy. Ginsburg talks about it all in the recent Eldred/Aschroft decision. You can't copyright an idea, only particular means of expressing it.
The evidence is out there, the technology is feasible. What is being suggested is that wireless spectrum be given the same chance that the wired network received, an end-to-end arrangement with the smart technology on the ends and an essentially stupid network.
It worked for the wired internet, why can't it work for wireless?
You misunderstand the arguement. The frequencies are far from random, and the equipment is designed to expect frequency hoping, amongst other things. That is the most basic step toward a better utilized spectrum, one that has been used since WWII.
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says that Congress has the power:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".
The basis for copyright is inherently, in the Framer's view, socialist. We give a limited term monopoly in order to drive the creators to creativity, and for our right to use the creation, when the monopoly expires.
In our Constitution there is no moralistic or higher value to creation beyond it's benefit to society. Somewhat strange, on the surface, that a capitalist system is founded on such a socialist tenet.
Under Lessig's proposal, the way copyright law applies to the 2% really wouldn't change (save the nominal yearly tax). They would become public domain whenever Congress decideds to stop increasing terms. For Disney's perspective, it's essentially the status quo.
He's given up on the court, and who can blame him. He's given up on the chance of a constitutional amendment, can't blame him there, either. Compromise is a defeat, but this is not a war of all or nothing. The commons is enriched with each work it gains.
I'm not saying that this couldn't happen...but it's already happening in the status quo. It makes sense now, because it costs them nothing to hold on to the rights. It wouldn't make sense under the Eldred Act, because they would be forced to pay to keep the right to something that was producing nothing for them.
Any sensible person would let the right lapse, but perhaps I'm giving the studios too much credit.
How does the publishing industry benefit from the fact that an artist must automatically, without formality be given a 'moral' right to copyright upon the instant of creation?
If anything, I would think they would benefit from a requirement to register your work before the right was enforced, because then fewer people would bother to exercise the right over their work, and they could simply take it rather than paying, albeit miniscule amounts, for it.
I don't quite see the progression of you point...
Keeping on the same theme, how does an artist maintaining the right of first sale, as is the practice in the E.U., in any derive from a goal of the publishing houses?
Unfortunately (imo), the law in the US now treats copyrights owned by corporations essentially the same as those held by people...except for some minor differences in term (due to the fact that a term that would end in relation to a company's 'death' doesn't promote harmonious lengths of term).
IANAL, but to the best of my knowledge the entirety of the artists rights transfer to the corporation under the current system. You are right that this is not necessary, but that doesn't change it if it is so. That would be something to take up with your representative in congress (or the E.U.).
I think that there are ways to work Lessig's plan such that the Berne Convention is not violated, but it will be difficult. I think it would be much more worthwhile for us to remove ourselves from it, but obviously, people of like mind are the minority.
In any event, the treaty is a potential stumbling block for this plan, and I was hoping to bring that to attention.
It's a compromise, and one that seems to work out in the public domain's best interest. The purpose of the fee is to allow orphaned works to fall into the PD and to create a registry of works that are still protected which drastically cuts the cost of 'clearing rights'.
You would be right on both points if the purpose was to try to wrest copyrights from those who want to hold on to them...that was Lessig's aim in Eldred v. Ashcroft, but that didn't go his way. This time his goal is slightly shifted.
Nope, I'm a pretty avid follower of this stuff. Something like 2% of the work that the CTEA prevented from entering the public domain is currently being economically exploited.
It's all in the amicus briefs that were filed with the Supreme court in Eldred v. Aschcroft and it's spelled out clearly in numerous places on Lessig's blog.
It is brilliant, and unfortunatly it's also 'illegal' under the terms of the Berne Convention, of which the U.S. is a signatory.
As part of the treaty, a persons right of copyright may not be put in jeopardy even by small formalities. It is one of the problems that arise from the European conception that an artist has a 'moral right' to the work they've produced.
Many of you are misguided about what Lessig plans to get out of the Eldred Act. He's given up on Mickey, and rightfully so. There is no way he can fight the money and power that is Disney. He is prepared to ceed the 2% of economically worthwhile copyrights that remain after the current term inorder to get access to the 98% that no longer have any protector. He's decided to compromise and accept the orphans, and that's what the Eldred Act gives him.
Lessig's motivation has always been the flourishing of the commons, and while a win in Eldred v. Ashcroft would have give him 100% of what he wanted, passing the Eldred Act will still give him 98%...and that's close enough.
...just took place earlier this month. There's a lot of good information here. An audio/video archive of the conference will be available on the 17th for those who didn't catch the webcast.
The idea that Spectrum doesn't need to be regulated is quite old, and it seems more and more likely to be valid. In any case, the idea that it needs to be controlled by government interests is less and less likely.
A contract is the only thing left in today's society that makes people 'responsible for their actions'. Trust, faith, &c. no longer cut it in our corporate world.
How about the coder just does his job to begin with and then there'll never have to be a lawyer involved.
I guess you also need to take into account the financial stability of the group you're working with.
If they're a shady outfit to begin with, not only does the chance of them screwing you increase, but the chance that you'll be able to recover any damages decreases alongside.
Any properly constructed contract would allow a company to recover any and all pecuniary damages done in addition to legal costs and penalties for breach of contract.
So, no...as long as my only concern is fiscal, and my lawyers are smart, there's no reason to care about trust.
I don't think you gave the game a fair shot. It's been almost a year since I played it, but I do remember there being much more than just obvious things. There were commands that would unlock strange memories about a psychward, and a traumatic and rather bloody accident...I don't remember specifics, like I said, it's been awhile.
The game is, of course, not AI. It is, I believe, simply the first step in the path which I believe these current games are headed.
...there's a very interesting game out there called AISLE. It's interactive fiction, and, while you only get one move per game, you can do pretty much anything that you want in that one move. While it certainly isn't infinitely playable, there's feedback for many inputs that you'd never expect.
The current copyright term gives 99.8% of the return of a perpetual right, that is not in line with the mindset or the writings of the framers of the Constitution.
(Re)Read Breyer's opinion.
I also believe Ginsburg wholly misconstrued the 1st Amendment arguement. Read the Amicus brief filed by Burt Neuborne and the Con. Law professor. It reads like a text book on First Amendment jurisprudence. Almost every major decision in the history of Supreme Court First Amendment cases is shown to support a reversal of the Appeals Court's decision that "Copyrights are categorically immune from challenges under the First Amendment."
Justice Ginsburg's harsh language is not a sign that she believes she is right, in fact, I believe it shows just the opposite. She was concerned that others would realize that Breyer's decision was the correct one, and thus felt the need to bash him in a manner not befitting her position.
Slashdot Mirror
Go back to the Supreme Court precedents and read about the idea/expression dichotomy. Ginsburg talks about it all in the recent Eldred/Aschroft decision. You can't copyright an idea, only particular means of expressing it.
-R
If Lessig posted it on his blog, I think it's legit.
-R
The evidence is out there, the technology is feasible. What is being suggested is that wireless spectrum be given the same chance that the wired network received, an end-to-end arrangement with the smart technology on the ends and an essentially stupid network.
It worked for the wired internet, why can't it work for wireless?
-R
You misunderstand the arguement. The frequencies are far from random, and the equipment is designed to expect frequency hoping, amongst other things. That is the most basic step toward a better utilized spectrum, one that has been used since WWII.
-R
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says that Congress has the power:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".
The basis for copyright is inherently, in the Framer's view, socialist. We give a limited term monopoly in order to drive the creators to creativity, and for our right to use the creation, when the monopoly expires.
In our Constitution there is no moralistic or higher value to creation beyond it's benefit to society. Somewhat strange, on the surface, that a capitalist system is founded on such a socialist tenet.
-R
Under Lessig's proposal, the way copyright law applies to the 2% really wouldn't change (save the nominal yearly tax). They would become public domain whenever Congress decideds to stop increasing terms. For Disney's perspective, it's essentially the status quo.
-R
He's given up on the court, and who can blame him. He's given up on the chance of a constitutional amendment, can't blame him there, either. Compromise is a defeat, but this is not a war of all or nothing. The commons is enriched with each work it gains.
-R
I'm not saying that this couldn't happen...but it's already happening in the status quo. It makes sense now, because it costs them nothing to hold on to the rights. It wouldn't make sense under the Eldred Act, because they would be forced to pay to keep the right to something that was producing nothing for them.
Any sensible person would let the right lapse, but perhaps I'm giving the studios too much credit.
-R
How does the publishing industry benefit from the fact that an artist must automatically, without formality be given a 'moral' right to copyright upon the instant of creation?
If anything, I would think they would benefit from a requirement to register your work before the right was enforced, because then fewer people would bother to exercise the right over their work, and they could simply take it rather than paying, albeit miniscule amounts, for it.
I don't quite see the progression of you point...
Keeping on the same theme, how does an artist maintaining the right of first sale, as is the practice in the E.U., in any derive from a goal of the publishing houses?
-R
Unfortunately (imo), the law in the US now treats copyrights owned by corporations essentially the same as those held by people...except for some minor differences in term (due to the fact that a term that would end in relation to a company's 'death' doesn't promote harmonious lengths of term).
IANAL, but to the best of my knowledge the entirety of the artists rights transfer to the corporation under the current system. You are right that this is not necessary, but that doesn't change it if it is so. That would be something to take up with your representative in congress (or the E.U.).
I think that there are ways to work Lessig's plan such that the Berne Convention is not violated, but it will be difficult. I think it would be much more worthwhile for us to remove ourselves from it, but obviously, people of like mind are the minority.
In any event, the treaty is a potential stumbling block for this plan, and I was hoping to bring that to attention.
-R
It's a compromise, and one that seems to work out in the public domain's best interest. The purpose of the fee is to allow orphaned works to fall into the PD and to create a registry of works that are still protected which drastically cuts the cost of 'clearing rights'.
You would be right on both points if the purpose was to try to wrest copyrights from those who want to hold on to them...that was Lessig's aim in Eldred v. Ashcroft, but that didn't go his way. This time his goal is slightly shifted.
-R
Nope, I'm a pretty avid follower of this stuff. Something like 2% of the work that the CTEA prevented from entering the public domain is currently being economically exploited.
It's all in the amicus briefs that were filed with the Supreme court in Eldred v. Aschcroft and it's spelled out clearly in numerous places on Lessig's blog.
Check out this report for a statistical analysis.
-R
It is brilliant, and unfortunatly it's also 'illegal' under the terms of the Berne Convention, of which the U.S. is a signatory.
As part of the treaty, a persons right of copyright may not be put in jeopardy even by small formalities. It is one of the problems that arise from the European conception that an artist has a 'moral right' to the work they've produced.
-R
Take a look at Creative Commons.
-R
Many of you are misguided about what Lessig plans to get out of the Eldred Act. He's given up on Mickey, and rightfully so. There is no way he can fight the money and power that is Disney. He is prepared to ceed the 2% of economically worthwhile copyrights that remain after the current term inorder to get access to the 98% that no longer have any protector. He's decided to compromise and accept the orphans, and that's what the Eldred Act gives him.
Lessig's motivation has always been the flourishing of the commons, and while a win in Eldred v. Ashcroft would have give him 100% of what he wanted, passing the Eldred Act will still give him 98%...and that's close enough.
-R
...just took place earlier this month. There's a lot of good information here. An audio/video archive of the conference will be available on the 17th for those who didn't catch the webcast.
The idea that Spectrum doesn't need to be regulated is quite old, and it seems more and more likely to be valid. In any case, the idea that it needs to be controlled by government interests is less and less likely.
-R
A contract is the only thing left in today's society that makes people 'responsible for their actions'. Trust, faith, &c. no longer cut it in our corporate world.
How about the coder just does his job to begin with and then there'll never have to be a lawyer involved.
-R
Ahh, yes. That is assuredly true.
I guess you also need to take into account the financial stability of the group you're working with.
If they're a shady outfit to begin with, not only does the chance of them screwing you increase, but the chance that you'll be able to recover any damages decreases alongside.
-R
Any properly constructed contract would allow a company to recover any and all pecuniary damages done in addition to legal costs and penalties for breach of contract.
So, no...as long as my only concern is fiscal, and my lawyers are smart, there's no reason to care about trust.
"How sustainable is the 'trust' between the developer and the client?"
Trust? Who needs trust when there are contracts?
I don't really care if the person coding my project puts in a backdoor if I can sue them into oblivion when it's discovered/used.
-R
...already exists, in philosophy, for anyone that's wondering. It is a statement of the form:
A is and I don't believe A.
Such as: It's raining and I don't believe it.
The paradox lies in questioning the belief in a fact you've already attested to in the same statement.
-R
I don't think you gave the game a fair shot. It's been almost a year since I played it, but I do remember there being much more than just obvious things. There were commands that would unlock strange memories about a psychward, and a traumatic and rather bloody accident...I don't remember specifics, like I said, it's been awhile.
The game is, of course, not AI. It is, I believe, simply the first step in the path which I believe these current games are headed.
...there's a very interesting game out there called AISLE. It's interactive fiction, and, while you only get one move per game, you can do pretty much anything that you want in that one move. While it certainly isn't infinitely playable, there's feedback for many inputs that you'd never expect.
-R
Read the post, it says it won't be up on e-bay until next week.
-R
The current copyright term gives 99.8% of the return of a perpetual right, that is not in line with the mindset or the writings of the framers of the Constitution.
(Re)Read Breyer's opinion.
I also believe Ginsburg wholly misconstrued the 1st Amendment arguement. Read the Amicus brief filed by Burt Neuborne and the Con. Law professor. It reads like a text book on First Amendment jurisprudence. Almost every major decision in the history of Supreme Court First Amendment cases is shown to support a reversal of the Appeals Court's decision that "Copyrights are categorically immune from challenges under the First Amendment."
Justice Ginsburg's harsh language is not a sign that she believes she is right, in fact, I believe it shows just the opposite. She was concerned that others would realize that Breyer's decision was the correct one, and thus felt the need to bash him in a manner not befitting her position.
-R