There's a lot of money at stake, yes. But that doesn't make the figure I gave less accurate. The absolute, final value which is at stake might be high. But as a percentage of all revenue for all copyrighted works, it is not very high, and it does not justify locking up all cultural works for a century just to protect the revenues that a select few copyrighted works bring in.
The point is copyright is really about funding art, not about incentive.
If a piece of art became famous 12 years or later after it was released, then clearly this artist found other ways of supporting himself. If he developed a reputation, then copyright will help him fund any subsequent art.
That's another thing I left out: short copyrights motivate truly creative people to create more art and not get fat off of one piece of art. It will motivate people to continually make new things.
But then again, any true artist creates art because he has ideas, and would be creating new art anyway.
12 years is really just a random number. Maybe 7 years is more ideal. Maybe the original 14 years is more ideal. Maybe 25 is the most ideal. I really don't know. It's kind of just a random number that I threw out because I like the way it sounds.
Ok, first of all, let's lay down some of the theory and history behind copyright. According to the constitution, copyright is supposed to be for limited times, and only as long as it is furthering progress in the arts (and sciences).
Now, the consitution didn't actually have any copyright law in it; it was just an enumerated power of Congress, since congress, at least in theory, can only use the powers given to them in the Constitution.
So the first copyright act basically made copyright 14 years. Not 70. Not 30. Just 14. This was because, people at the time understood that copyright was designed to enrich the public domain. You use the word "freeloading" and I will not contest that accusation. This is the purpose of copyright. To eventually enrich the public domain so there is free art available for everyone.
Until now, however, if you went into any bookstore, there was hardly any difference between a copyrighted and a public domain book. Maybe a copyrighted book costed a little more, but for the most part, no one was hurt by having copyright extended. There was no such thing as getting a book "for free" or a movie "for free". There were printing costs.
But, now we have this extraordinary ability: we have the ability to copy and distribute any form of art for virtually no cost. The reason why libraries have traditionally only "lent" stuff was because it costed money, a significant amount of money, to make a copy of anything, so since there were a limited number of copies, they had to be shared among the community, and therefore people could only "borrow" it.
So here's the meat of the question: how much will artists lose if copyright is reduced to 12 years?
Well what if I told you that any given piece of art only makes 10% of it's revenue after 12 years. That means if some book was going to bring in 500,000 dollars revenue in 150 years, on average, it would bring in 450,000 in 12 years. So basically we are locking up all forms of art for 138 more years, just to squeeze out an extra 10% revenue. That doesn't really make any sense, and it goes against the spirit of the first copyright act, and against the spirit of a truly open society.
In the year 1930 over 10,000 books were published. Of those 10,000+ books, only 175 are still in print. Don't you find that tragic? 9,825 books are locked up forever to protect those 175 books, books that probably don't sell that well anyway, and books that would've been written even if copyright were only 12 years.
Copyright is not a natural right. It's something that we, as a society, offer to maximize the art produced.
I don't care what you hear, but copyright is not intended as "incentive". People's passion for their art is the incentive, copyright is just designed to let people devote their life to their art and still have money to live. The money itself is not the incentive.
But that is really inconsequential. Even if people are just making art just to get rich, they'd still get nearly as rich with just a 12 year copyright.
In 1790 copyright lasted 14 years. Since 1790 the following things have happened
1) The cost of printing has decreased 2) The time to market, time for people to learn/hear about your product has decreased 3) The available audience has increased, therefore a greater potential sales.
All these things indicate a need for *less* copyright. Yet all this things have increased since then. Why?
Just like shakespeare is free, I believe art of our own time should be free, at least while it's still relevant. It's not about being too "cheap". It's just incredibly wasteful to lock up art that no one is buying anymore, but that many many people will watch/read/listen to if it were available for free.
If you read the dialogue between the founding fathers about copyright, they were suprisingly prescient about where things were going, and the discussion is very relevant today. They were very clear about it, and at the time they decided on 14 years. The fact that it became longer was because it didn't really affect anyone negatively before it was too late.
This I can assure you: If this technology was around before copyright was extended, it would never have been extended. And the world would be a richer place for it.
Now that the first step is being implemented, we only need to take care of a few more steps.
1) lower copyright restrictions to 12 years. 2) require that if any work wants to have copyright protection, that it must submit it to a database for safekeeping 3) Open up all the works in that database that is older than 12 years old. 4) Network these kiosks to allow anyone to download and burn anything they want from the database 5) Now you have a library system that the founding fathers would be proud of.
I didn't discover this fact until after I realized how much I loved both gattaca and the truman show: both gattaca and the truman show were written by the same person, andrew niccol. He is coming out with a new movie in august, called simone (or s1m0ne).
I don't have any movie "buddies". Maybe you can suggest something for me to see, because I'm always looking for interesting movies.
Thing is, I'm not swayed by "hype" and that has no bearing on how I felt about the film. Maybe I missed the point, and maybe I will, in fact, see it again. But I was hoping for the experience that you seem to have gotten, but I, unfortunately, did not. It just didn't carry the kind of message, or commentary I was hoping for. I wasn't looking for flash, I was looking for something really profound, and I didn't really get it.
No, no, not at all. I was referring to Gattaca and The Truman Show as movies which just grabbed me in a visceral type of way. I was saying I *LOVED* those movies.
I dunno, it makes me feel better to attribute that pile of garbage entirely to spielberg.
Actually, to be fair, AI started out pretty good. When I saw the movie, I told people I could tell exactly where Stanley Kubrick died, because all of a sudden, out of nowhere, it started to suck horribly.
Well in the movie, Tom Cruise demonstrated this for Colin Farrell. Colin Farrell's character asked the same question. So Tom Cruise threw a wooden ball across the table (sorta) and right before it fell Colin Farrell caught it.
TC: Why did you catch that ball? CF: Because it was going to fall.
So basically, just because you can predict what was happening by extrapolating and inferring, and you end preventing it, that doesn't mean it wasn't *going* to happen.
Let me say something, before you judge me: I was *really* excited to see this movie, and I don't overanalyze movies the way you seem to think I am. If something "grabs me on a visceral and emotional level" I'll love it and that's all there is to it. All the analyzing in the world won't be able to make me think a movie that makes me feel that way is bad (see gattaca, truman show).
Not only that, I was really really primed to LOVE this movie. I was already thinking about seeing it again, before I saw it the first time.
But it just didn't work out that way, and I'm very disappointed. I'm sorry I sounded like I was stating my opinion as a fact. I thought I made it pretty clear that most critics disagreed with me (96% on rotten tomatoes). Without saying anything about how any of you will enjoy the film, let me be clear: *I* did not enjoy the film. YMMV
The best currency denominations are ones based on powers of 3. See theres a trinary number system, that instead of having the values 0,1,2, it has the values -1,0,1. This is called balanced ternary. I know it sounds weird, but it works out. This number system accurately represents the way we pay for money: if we want to pay 3 dollars we can pay 5 and get 2 back.
So the best system is based on the denominations 1,3,9,27,81 etc. This is the most efficient system for doling out change to pay an exact amount.
Think of it this way. There is a riddle which goes like this: if you have a two pan balance and you want to weigh an object (integral weight) with the fewest number of counter weights, which counterweights would you need? There answer is 1,3,9,27, etc. If you want to measure 14, you put down a 27 on one side, and put down a 9, 3 and a 1 on the side with the object you're weighing.
So you only need one of each bill to pay *any* amount exactly. So let's say you want to pay 14 dollars. You give 27, and you get back a 9, 3, and a 1. This works for ALL values.
I just came back from minority report, and I really got a say, it sucks almost as bad as AI did. I was expecting a really profound message, and was very excited to see it, considering the current political climate, but you don't get anything profound or interesting from this movie. The worst part is the way spielberg explains everything out to you and treats you like a child. Spielberg has ruined *two* films that had great potential. AI, and now this.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
At rottentomatoes.com they say that 96% of reviewers give Minority Report a positive review. Don't listen to them.
Read the article, dummy:) To be exact, the article says the US has never "recalled" any of it's currency.
I like how the US Department of Engraving and Printing seems to have a sense of humor. Their domain name is "moneyfactory" and they sell sheets of uncut cash as a gift (albeit for more than the total of the bills is worth).
Actually, I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm familiar with french numbers. The only thing I can think of is that 70 is called "sixty-ten" and 71 is "sixty-eleven" etc. And 80 is "four-twenties" and 90 is "four-twenties-ten", but for numbers 50 and below, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I think they just mean people who aren't too familiar with our currency. Kinda how all asians look alike to people who aren't asian. You're not good at distinguishing things you aren't familiar with.
Yeah, that's actually the book I had in mind when I said this. That and "How to get the women you desire into bed", by Ross Jeffries. He also mentioned in the forward that he was thinking about, but was talked out of, taking the book off the market.
See one day I might regret having admitted that I read that book "How to get the women you desire into bed", but there ain't nothing I can do about it:)
I dunno, I take a look back at my early usenet posts, and although I may blush a little, and I'm embarrassed about it, I just deal with it. If it's just a matter of people knowing that they're being archived, then I can solve the problem very easily: You are being archived. Consider yourself informed.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a lot of money at stake, yes. But that doesn't make the figure I gave less accurate. The absolute, final value which is at stake might be high. But as a percentage of all revenue for all copyrighted works, it is not very high, and it does not justify locking up all cultural works for a century just to protect the revenues that a select few copyrighted works bring in.
The point is copyright is really about funding art, not about incentive.
If a piece of art became famous 12 years or later after it was released, then clearly this artist found other ways of supporting himself. If he developed a reputation, then copyright will help him fund any subsequent art.
That's another thing I left out: short copyrights motivate truly creative people to create more art and not get fat off of one piece of art. It will motivate people to continually make new things.
But then again, any true artist creates art because he has ideas, and would be creating new art anyway.
12 years is really just a random number. Maybe 7 years is more ideal. Maybe the original 14 years is more ideal. Maybe 25 is the most ideal. I really don't know. It's kind of just a random number that I threw out because I like the way it sounds.
Ok, first of all, let's lay down some of the theory and history behind copyright. According to the constitution, copyright is supposed to be for limited times, and only as long as it is furthering progress in the arts (and sciences).
Now, the consitution didn't actually have any copyright law in it; it was just an enumerated power of Congress, since congress, at least in theory, can only use the powers given to them in the Constitution.
So the first copyright act basically made copyright 14 years. Not 70. Not 30. Just 14. This was because, people at the time understood that copyright was designed to enrich the public domain. You use the word "freeloading" and I will not contest that accusation. This is the purpose of copyright. To eventually enrich the public domain so there is free art available for everyone.
Until now, however, if you went into any bookstore, there was hardly any difference between a copyrighted and a public domain book. Maybe a copyrighted book costed a little more, but for the most part, no one was hurt by having copyright extended. There was no such thing as getting a book "for free" or a movie "for free". There were printing costs.
But, now we have this extraordinary ability: we have the ability to copy and distribute any form of art for virtually no cost. The reason why libraries have traditionally only "lent" stuff was because it costed money, a significant amount of money, to make a copy of anything, so since there were a limited number of copies, they had to be shared among the community, and therefore people could only "borrow" it.
So here's the meat of the question: how much will artists lose if copyright is reduced to 12 years?
Well what if I told you that any given piece of art only makes 10% of it's revenue after 12 years. That means if some book was going to bring in 500,000 dollars revenue in 150 years, on average, it would bring in 450,000 in 12 years. So basically we are locking up all forms of art for 138 more years, just to squeeze out an extra 10% revenue. That doesn't really make any sense, and it goes against the spirit of the first copyright act, and against the spirit of a truly open society.
In the year 1930 over 10,000 books were published. Of those 10,000+ books, only 175 are still in print. Don't you find that tragic? 9,825 books are locked up forever to protect those 175 books, books that probably don't sell that well anyway, and books that would've been written even if copyright were only 12 years.
Copyright is not a natural right. It's something that we, as a society, offer to maximize the art produced.
I don't care what you hear, but copyright is not intended as "incentive". People's passion for their art is the incentive, copyright is just designed to let people devote their life to their art and still have money to live. The money itself is not the incentive.
But that is really inconsequential. Even if people are just making art just to get rich, they'd still get nearly as rich with just a 12 year copyright.
In 1790 copyright lasted 14 years. Since 1790 the following things have happened
1) The cost of printing has decreased
2) The time to market, time for people to learn/hear about your product has decreased
3) The available audience has increased, therefore a greater potential sales.
All these things indicate a need for *less* copyright. Yet all this things have increased since then. Why?
Just like shakespeare is free, I believe art of our own time should be free, at least while it's still relevant. It's not about being too "cheap". It's just incredibly wasteful to lock up art that no one is buying anymore, but that many many people will watch/read/listen to if it were available for free.
If you read the dialogue between the founding fathers about copyright, they were suprisingly prescient about where things were going, and the discussion is very relevant today. They were very clear about it, and at the time they decided on 14 years. The fact that it became longer was because it didn't really affect anyone negatively before it was too late.
This I can assure you: If this technology was around before copyright was extended, it would never have been extended. And the world would be a richer place for it.
Now that the first step is being implemented, we only need to take care of a few more steps.
1) lower copyright restrictions to 12 years.
2) require that if any work wants to have copyright protection, that it must submit it to a database for safekeeping
3) Open up all the works in that database that is older than 12 years old.
4) Network these kiosks to allow anyone to download and burn anything they want from the database
5) Now you have a library system that the founding fathers would be proud of.
Well yes, but with the system we currently have, we need more than just one of each denomination.
I don't really know what you're talking about, and I don't know why this was moderated up. The Truman Show is genius.
Sorry, that link didn't work, here's simone
I didn't discover this fact until after I realized how much I loved both gattaca and the truman show: both gattaca and the truman show were written by the same person, andrew niccol. He is coming out with a new movie in august, called simone (or s1m0ne).
I don't have any movie "buddies". Maybe you can suggest something for me to see, because I'm always looking for interesting movies.
Actually, Spielberg is the one who most people credit for creating the first blockbuster (Jaws). Jaws came out in 1975 and that was before Star Wars.
Thing is, I'm not swayed by "hype" and that has no bearing on how I felt about the film. Maybe I missed the point, and maybe I will, in fact, see it again. But I was hoping for the experience that you seem to have gotten, but I, unfortunately, did not. It just didn't carry the kind of message, or commentary I was hoping for. I wasn't looking for flash, I was looking for something really profound, and I didn't really get it.
No, no, not at all. I was referring to Gattaca and The Truman Show as movies which just grabbed me in a visceral type of way. I was saying I *LOVED* those movies.
I dunno, it makes me feel better to attribute that pile of garbage entirely to spielberg.
Actually, to be fair, AI started out pretty good. When I saw the movie, I told people I could tell exactly where Stanley Kubrick died, because all of a sudden, out of nowhere, it started to suck horribly.
Well in the movie, Tom Cruise demonstrated this for Colin Farrell. Colin Farrell's character asked the same question. So Tom Cruise threw a wooden ball across the table (sorta) and right before it fell Colin Farrell caught it.
TC: Why did you catch that ball?
CF: Because it was going to fall.
So basically, just because you can predict what was happening by extrapolating and inferring, and you end preventing it, that doesn't mean it wasn't *going* to happen.
Let me say something, before you judge me: I was *really* excited to see this movie, and I don't overanalyze movies the way you seem to think I am. If something "grabs me on a visceral and emotional level" I'll love it and that's all there is to it. All the analyzing in the world won't be able to make me think a movie that makes me feel that way is bad (see gattaca, truman show).
Not only that, I was really really primed to LOVE this movie. I was already thinking about seeing it again, before I saw it the first time.
But it just didn't work out that way, and I'm very disappointed. I'm sorry I sounded like I was stating my opinion as a fact. I thought I made it pretty clear that most critics disagreed with me (96% on rotten tomatoes). Without saying anything about how any of you will enjoy the film, let me be clear: *I* did not enjoy the film. YMMV
The best currency denominations are ones based on powers of 3. See theres a trinary number system, that instead of having the values 0,1,2, it has the values -1,0,1. This is called balanced ternary. I know it sounds weird, but it works out. This number system accurately represents the way we pay for money: if we want to pay 3 dollars we can pay 5 and get 2 back.
So the best system is based on the denominations 1,3,9,27,81 etc. This is the most efficient system for doling out change to pay an exact amount.
Think of it this way. There is a riddle which goes like this: if you have a two pan balance and you want to weigh an object (integral weight) with the fewest number of counter weights, which counterweights would you need? There answer is 1,3,9,27, etc. If you want to measure 14, you put down a 27 on one side, and put down a 9, 3 and a 1 on the side with the object you're weighing.
So you only need one of each bill to pay *any* amount exactly. So let's say you want to pay 14 dollars. You give 27, and you get back a 9, 3, and a 1. This works for ALL values.
see American Scientist: Third Base
I just came back from minority report, and I really got a say, it sucks almost as bad as AI did. I was expecting a really profound message, and was very excited to see it, considering the current political climate, but you don't get anything profound or interesting from this movie. The worst part is the way spielberg explains everything out to you and treats you like a child. Spielberg has ruined *two* films that had great potential. AI, and now this.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
At rottentomatoes.com they say that 96% of reviewers give Minority Report a positive review. Don't listen to them.
Read the article, dummy :) To be exact, the article says the US has never "recalled" any of it's currency.
I like how the US Department of Engraving and Printing seems to have a sense of humor. Their domain name is "moneyfactory" and they sell sheets of uncut cash as a gift (albeit for more than the total of the bills is worth).
carfree website
carfree cities, book
Actually, I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm familiar with french numbers. The only thing I can think of is that 70 is called "sixty-ten" and 71 is "sixty-eleven" etc. And 80 is "four-twenties" and 90 is "four-twenties-ten", but for numbers 50 and below, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I think they just mean people who aren't too familiar with our currency. Kinda how all asians look alike to people who aren't asian. You're not good at distinguishing things you aren't familiar with.
I *might* buy that argument, except CDs don't have any extra "commentaries" or features that cassettes don't have. What's *their* excuse?
Fine, so maybe he should have said "uh, burn is a verb, or a noun". It's still not an adjective. I think
Yeah, that's actually the book I had in mind when I said this. That and "How to get the women you desire into bed", by Ross Jeffries. He also mentioned in the forward that he was thinking about, but was talked out of, taking the book off the market.
:)
See one day I might regret having admitted that I read that book "How to get the women you desire into bed", but there ain't nothing I can do about it
As someone said in another post, I thing it's tragic when any piece of information, no matter how trivial, is lost forever.
I dunno, I take a look back at my early usenet posts, and although I may blush a little, and I'm embarrassed about it, I just deal with it. If it's just a matter of people knowing that they're being archived, then I can solve the problem very easily: You are being archived. Consider yourself informed.