If an author/creator/person has some intellectual property they should be able to set the bounds for how long after they die that property can be freely distributed.
To be trite, because our Constitution says that works can (note that it doesn't say they must) be copyrighted for "limited times" and "to promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts". For more explanation, read on.
The assumption you're making is that the author/creator made the work in a total vaccuum and has relied on nothing else to create whatever it is they made. However, in reality anyone who creates a piece of "intellectual property" has relied upon years and years of hard work by other people, and they have taken information and tactics from a rich and readily-available public domain. While their work may be fresh in a new and ingenuitive way, it still relies on stories, histories, facts, and even languages that were developed long before that person ever thought of anything of the sort.
The Founders of our country realized that it was necessary to encourage people to create new things, so they provided for copyrights to give people a limited monopoly over the things they create. However, the founders also realized the fact that "there is nothing new under the sun", and that subsequent people should be able to use that one creator's works/ideas just as he used the works/ideas of people who created things before him.
If that bound is set for forever and they want their kids to live off their Intellectual property then that's there decision. In the cases of companies owning the intellectual property, I believe it's totally up to them to drop the claim to the property and that they should be able to do this whenever they want.
But that bound isn't set forever, despite the late Sonny Bono's desires. It's bound for limited times. And another thing I'd like to bring up, which I haven't seen much of at all, is the fact that the Constitution states that Congress may secure copyrights "for the author" -- not for his/her kids, or for their grandkids, or their great grand-neice twice removed. It seems to me right there that any law which says copyright can go past the life of an author is unconstitutional.
In the cases of companies owning the intellectual property, I believe it's totally up to them to drop the claim to the property and that they should be able to do this whenever they want.
This is totally stupid. Thomas Jefferson believed companies should not even be considered entities unto themselves, and warned us that we'd be screwed if they did (hmmm, wonder when that's gonna happen). To look at one of the big ones involved in this whole issue, Disney, you can easily see that they have taken almost every single one of their stories directly from the public domain, bastardized it, and then slapped a copyright on it themselves so nobody else could use it. Being one of the biggest supporters of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Disney obviously feels it has more of a right than anybody else to keep this stuff, which was public domain material to begin with, unto itself.
Anyway it seems like everyone is always making a big deal about getting stuff for free.
So what's you're point. Do you like paying for everything? Besides, it's not just about getting stuff for free, but about not abusing our right to have a rich and readily-available public domain -- a right which was envisioned by our Founding Fathers and enshrined in our Constitution.
It seems like the type of stuff they are talking about in this article (movies and photographs and books) can all be easily obtained off the Internet for free. And although the manner they are obtained of the Internet isn't exactly legal, like P2P mp3 downloads, it's pretty common.
What article are you talking about? What stuff exactly can be downloaded and where? I'm not clear on your point here.
And I'm not sure about everyone else but I haven't heard of too many cases where individuals were prosecuted for violating copyright laws.
Now you're just being ridiculous. People are sent "cease and desist" letters all the time by the MPAA and RIAA. Just do a search on these pages, or do a Google search. If you intend "prosecute" to mean with a federal attorney and all that crap, then perhaps you're right, but this is just as much prosecution, with even less due process than normal (which isn't much to begin with).
Could someone explain how trademark could be used to control an article of expired copyright, E.G., Stram Boat Willie?
Disclaimer: IANAL
Basically, my understanding is that the Mickey Mouse that's in Steamboat Willie would fall into the public domain. If you notice, Steamboat Mickey and Modern Mickey (i.e., the Mickey you see and hear today) look a lot different.
It seems to me that you could use Steamboat Willie any way you want, so long as you don't extract Mickey out of the picture and use him in any way that would infringe upon Trademark Mickey -- that is, in such a way as to make people think that what you are providing is sanctioned by Eisner et al.
Of course, the advantage of the copyright expiring on Steamboat Willie isn't merely that you can use it as is, but that you can now use it to make derivative works, such as:
Steamboat Willie Goes To School
Steamboat Johnnie (where instead of a squeaky mouse, the main character is a deep-voiced rat)
The Steamboat Willie Cookbook
etc.
I've never actually seen all of Steamboat Willie (just snippets), and I have another question: Is Mickey Mouse ever mentioned in the credits (or anywhere else)? I mean, I realize we all know it's Mickey, but without specific delineation, and since Mickey now looks so different from Mickey then, there could be some interesting arguments made if Mickey is not mentioned specifically in Steamboat Willie itself. Just curious.
What is the value of hacking a system to use it for purposes of which it isn't intended or designed for...
To use it for purposes of which it isn't intended, obviously. Why ask the question when you have the answer in your question?
...and why can't microsoft legally fight to protect its intended and protected interests?
Because once they sell you the product, they have no legal rights to it anymore. BTW, what's a "protected" interest? That means nothing to me. I'm currently using an old Western Digital hard drive as a doorstop -- does that mean WD has the right to come and force me legally to not use their product in this unintended way?
Just wondering, with all of this bashing of copyrights and EULAS, isnt the GPL itself a copyright? and that little header that is on GPled files a EULA? After all, it does say how we can use the software and how we cant.
Um, not exactly. The GPL isn't "a copyright" -- it's a license. Technically, the whole thing is an EULA, I suppose (IANAL -- somebody please correct me if I'm wrong); however, as has been said several times already, generally EULAs aren't readable until you open the shrinkwrap packaging. The GPL, on the other hand, is publicly available, and the GPL states that you must have a notice indicating where you can obtain a copy of the GPL.
Why shouldn't companies slap whatever restrictions they want on their products? Microsoft's EULA could state that by opening the wrapper I agree to eat the contents. If I don't agree to that, I don't buy the product.
Because the problem is you can't read the restrictions until you remove the shrinkwrap. If the restrictions are clearly printed on the outside of the package, then I might agree partially with some of what you said. However, most of these EULAs are in the shrinkwrap and boxes and can't be read until you've already opened them -- which presumably forces you to agree with it even though you didn't have a chance to read it yet.
It's like if you went to buy a house and the guy said, "Sure, you can look through it, but you gotta give me the down payment and pay off the mortgage before you're allowed to inspect the house."
As consumers, we have no right to demand certain products.
What does this have to do with anything? The contention isn't in products that don't exist -- it's in products that do exist, but which are restricted (connivingly) by EULAs that you can't read before you purchase the product.
We do have the right not to buy a product we don't like. We also have the right to buy lots of products we do like.
It's kinda funny because now you're refuting yourself. These rights themselves culminate in the right to demand a product we want.
If the product we want does not exist, then there is a niche in the market. Businesses may want to take advantage of this, as the excellent open source community has done.
Exactly. But you've gone off-topic now. The original argument is about the legality of EULAs, not whether or not there is a niche for widgets of a different color. It's about existing products that do have a marketplace demand, but which restrict somebody's rights after they buy the product they want.
Well, you'd possibly be harming the writer's spouse and children, who might gain benefit from continuing to hold copyright on their deceased relative's works.
As a writer and father myself, I'm going to tell my daughter that I'll provide for her until she's 18 (maybe 25 if she's at least going to school somewhere), and then she can make her own damn living. She's only one, but it's clear that she'll be able to think well enough on her own and be independent enough to fend for herself.
If, by some unfortunate and tragic accident, I happen to die before she's able to make it on her own, it would be great if my writings (few of which are even published at this point) could provide that extra financial cushion. However, I don't think it's right, or even desirable, that she should be able to live a fat life off of my hard work. If she wants to make money from what I do, let her fight it out in the marketplace just like everyone else.
couldn't they just show the kids how to download the e-books from home?
You assume they have a net connection. Two words: Digital Divide
Or, since the books are mostly public-domain classics, why not provide the kids with some of the millions of second-hand paper editions in circulation?
But you're forgetting that not all the paper editions in circulation are themselves in the public domain.
Whether or not the courts are swayed by public opinion, legislators are extremely swayed by public opinion. While it may not help initially at the Supreme Court level, it may garner some previously unknown support for a rich public domain and the public demonstration might actually help hammer through the thick skulls of some politicians (here's hoping!). Remember, even if the Supreme Court rules that The Mickey Mouse Copyright Act is constitutional, there's still the (remote!) possibility that in the future it could be repealed by a benevolent and intelligent Congress.
In the end script kiddies will have to learn to write their own leet tools, and may later on branch these skills into other areas.
Doubt it. In the end, script kiddies will just wait for an executable, or someone to convert the pseudocode into working code.
As for "a detailed step-by-step description," the whole point of computer languages is to have a very specific way of saying something. If you're gonna go into that much detail using a natural language, it just gets in the way. It's much, much easier to just use descriptions.
Slashdot Mirror
To be trite, because our Constitution says that works can (note that it doesn't say they must) be copyrighted for "limited times" and "to promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts". For more explanation, read on.
The assumption you're making is that the author/creator made the work in a total vaccuum and has relied on nothing else to create whatever it is they made. However, in reality anyone who creates a piece of "intellectual property" has relied upon years and years of hard work by other people, and they have taken information and tactics from a rich and readily-available public domain. While their work may be fresh in a new and ingenuitive way, it still relies on stories, histories, facts, and even languages that were developed long before that person ever thought of anything of the sort.
The Founders of our country realized that it was necessary to encourage people to create new things, so they provided for copyrights to give people a limited monopoly over the things they create. However, the founders also realized the fact that "there is nothing new under the sun", and that subsequent people should be able to use that one creator's works/ideas just as he used the works/ideas of people who created things before him.
But that bound isn't set forever, despite the late Sonny Bono's desires. It's bound for limited times. And another thing I'd like to bring up, which I haven't seen much of at all, is the fact that the Constitution states that Congress may secure copyrights "for the author" -- not for his/her kids, or for their grandkids, or their great grand-neice twice removed. It seems to me right there that any law which says copyright can go past the life of an author is unconstitutional.
This is totally stupid. Thomas Jefferson believed companies should not even be considered entities unto themselves, and warned us that we'd be screwed if they did (hmmm, wonder when that's gonna happen). To look at one of the big ones involved in this whole issue, Disney, you can easily see that they have taken almost every single one of their stories directly from the public domain, bastardized it, and then slapped a copyright on it themselves so nobody else could use it. Being one of the biggest supporters of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Disney obviously feels it has more of a right than anybody else to keep this stuff, which was public domain material to begin with, unto itself.
So what's you're point. Do you like paying for everything? Besides, it's not just about getting stuff for free, but about not abusing our right to have a rich and readily-available public domain -- a right which was envisioned by our Founding Fathers and enshrined in our Constitution.
What article are you talking about? What stuff exactly can be downloaded and where? I'm not clear on your point here.
Now you're just being ridiculous. People are sent "cease and desist" letters all the time by the MPAA and RIAA. Just do a search on these pages, or do a Google search. If you intend "prosecute" to mean with a federal attorney and all that crap, then perhaps you're right, but this is just as much prosecution, with even less due process than normal (which isn't much to begin with).
Disclaimer: IANAL
Basically, my understanding is that the Mickey Mouse that's in Steamboat Willie would fall into the public domain. If you notice, Steamboat Mickey and Modern Mickey (i.e., the Mickey you see and hear today) look a lot different.
It seems to me that you could use Steamboat Willie any way you want, so long as you don't extract Mickey out of the picture and use him in any way that would infringe upon Trademark Mickey -- that is, in such a way as to make people think that what you are providing is sanctioned by Eisner et al.
Of course, the advantage of the copyright expiring on Steamboat Willie isn't merely that you can use it as is, but that you can now use it to make derivative works, such as:
I've never actually seen all of Steamboat Willie (just snippets), and I have another question: Is Mickey Mouse ever mentioned in the credits (or anywhere else)? I mean, I realize we all know it's Mickey, but without specific delineation, and since Mickey now looks so different from Mickey then, there could be some interesting arguments made if Mickey is not mentioned specifically in Steamboat Willie itself. Just curious.
One can only imagine what's going on there...
To use it for purposes of which it isn't intended, obviously. Why ask the question when you have the answer in your question?
Because once they sell you the product, they have no legal rights to it anymore. BTW, what's a "protected" interest? That means nothing to me. I'm currently using an old Western Digital hard drive as a doorstop -- does that mean WD has the right to come and force me legally to not use their product in this unintended way?
...I kinda like the two-story hamster home...
So the question is, can Pet Warehouse sue Pets Warehouse for tradename infringement and for being a total ass?
Um, not exactly. The GPL isn't "a copyright" -- it's a license. Technically, the whole thing is an EULA, I suppose (IANAL -- somebody please correct me if I'm wrong); however, as has been said several times already, generally EULAs aren't readable until you open the shrinkwrap packaging. The GPL, on the other hand, is publicly available, and the GPL states that you must have a notice indicating where you can obtain a copy of the GPL.
Because the problem is you can't read the restrictions until you remove the shrinkwrap. If the restrictions are clearly printed on the outside of the package, then I might agree partially with some of what you said. However, most of these EULAs are in the shrinkwrap and boxes and can't be read until you've already opened them -- which presumably forces you to agree with it even though you didn't have a chance to read it yet.
It's like if you went to buy a house and the guy said, "Sure, you can look through it, but you gotta give me the down payment and pay off the mortgage before you're allowed to inspect the house."
What does this have to do with anything? The contention isn't in products that don't exist -- it's in products that do exist, but which are restricted (connivingly) by EULAs that you can't read before you purchase the product.
It's kinda funny because now you're refuting yourself. These rights themselves culminate in the right to demand a product we want.
Exactly. But you've gone off-topic now. The original argument is about the legality of EULAs, not whether or not there is a niche for widgets of a different color. It's about existing products that do have a marketplace demand, but which restrict somebody's rights after they buy the product they want.
Well, you'd possibly be harming the writer's spouse and children, who might gain benefit from continuing to hold copyright on their deceased relative's works.
As a writer and father myself, I'm going to tell my daughter that I'll provide for her until she's 18 (maybe 25 if she's at least going to school somewhere), and then she can make her own damn living. She's only one, but it's clear that she'll be able to think well enough on her own and be independent enough to fend for herself.
If, by some unfortunate and tragic accident, I happen to die before she's able to make it on her own, it would be great if my writings (few of which are even published at this point) could provide that extra financial cushion. However, I don't think it's right, or even desirable, that she should be able to live a fat life off of my hard work. If she wants to make money from what I do, let her fight it out in the marketplace just like everyone else.
couldn't they just show the kids how to download the e-books from home?
Or, since the books are mostly public-domain classics, why not provide the kids with some of the millions of second-hand paper editions in circulation?
Whether or not the courts are swayed by public opinion, legislators are extremely swayed by public opinion. While it may not help initially at the Supreme Court level, it may garner some previously unknown support for a rich public domain and the public demonstration might actually help hammer through the thick skulls of some politicians (here's hoping!). Remember, even if the Supreme Court rules that The Mickey Mouse Copyright Act is constitutional, there's still the (remote!) possibility that in the future it could be repealed by a benevolent and intelligent Congress.
Please stop laughing....
Well, but it's consistent, at least:
Anyone got any more?
Doubt it. In the end, script kiddies will just wait for an executable, or someone to convert the pseudocode into working code.
As for "a detailed step-by-step description," the whole point of computer languages is to have a very specific way of saying something. If you're gonna go into that much detail using a natural language, it just gets in the way. It's much, much easier to just use descriptions.
Microsoft is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one comes to the Internet but by Passport.
Read St. John, Chapter 14.