What needs to happen is we have to find an ally in a less evil, but still powerful company that stands to lose where others benefit (maybe Royal Philips?). Microsoft was not brought to task by the government or the people. It was AOL, Oracle and Sun that lead the charge.
The only problem is that after everything is settled you end up with an ally that is now more powerful and stands the chance of becoming corrupt. The US government has experienced this a few times. Often the regimes we fight today are the rebels we backed yesterday (i.e. Taliban).
This decision, as far as I can tell, is not overturning Sherman Anti-Trust or Clayton Acts. You may have several huge companies with unprecedented control over the media but you would never have one corporation owning everything.
That is not necessarily true. It is the process of getting to monopoly status that can be illegal. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 actually provides that "no person shall monopolize, attempt to monopolize or conspire with another to monopolize interstate or foreign trade or commerce."
The Clayton Act adds/clarifies that the monopoly must be obtained through "unreasonable methods." One of those unreasonable methods is a merger where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." This is how you prevent, hopefully, the super conglomerates that people have been speculating about here.
That would be a miserably hard bill to write properly, and even harder to pass into law.
That is actually the current law. The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death.
There are laws in some areas but enforcement is a bitch. If an American spammer is using an open-relay in Asia somewhere it is very difficult to find and fine them.
Last time I checked, human beings weren't immortal.
You said later that they could pass it on to their kids.
Where do you draw the line? Two? Ten? A thousand?
There is no line. If 50,000 people, who aren't a company, colloborate on one work then those 50,000 should all receive the same combined benefit as if only one person wrote it. Obviously they would have to split the proceeds, though.
What happens if a minority of the owners sell their stakes?
You can't really sell your "stake" of a copyright. You can only sell your share of the proceeds from the copyright (sort of like selling an annuity like the lottery) but you would still be an original creator and copyright holder. If you were talking more along the lines of selling distribution rights then you would have to get a unanimous agreement amongst all the copyright holders (pretty difficult with 50,000).
Also, corporations will abuse your rule -- stuff would be copyrighted by a group consisting of: the actual creator.....
First of all, they could just as easily be encouraged under your rule to say only one individual wrote it in his free time. Second of all, the entire assumption is ridiculous. If any of the individuals involved become disgruntled you'll have a serious issue.
I would also like to point out that I was commenting on your rules and not stating mine. I think the whole idea of an indeterminate term is unconstitutional and detrimental to future innovation. I advocate a fixed term (say 30 years) that is regardless of whether you are alive or dead and whether you are an individual or corporation.
publisher of the book is no longer obligated to pay you
That is assuming that there was no other contract with the publisher. If a book is so good that it is still selling in 20 years than I am sure that you have worked out a deal to do an updated version with more original content.
I definitely was nitpicking but it was because there was just an abundance of ignorance that I read prior to your post and I automatically assumed that yours would be the same. I apologize for the misjudgement.
You say that now but just wait until they finally release the official DVDs. I guarantee they will be the best-selling DV's of all time. That is assuming of course that DVDs still exist when he finally creates them.
It was the need that threw me off. It implied that the current laws were lacking. Like when I say that I need a new car it implies that I don't already have one. This would have been clearer:
A corporation is essentially immortal which is why they have a seperate clock running for corporate copyright.
An individual human creator may keep the copyright for as long as he or she wants
Which is no different than saying forever. That entirely goes against the intent of the Constitution.
If the copyright is created by anyone other than an indvidual human...
If you mean work done for a company then I agree that it should be a fixed time. If you mean work done by a group then why should two authors working together only get 50 years while one author would get an unlimited amount of time. Seems to discourage colloboration to me.
Copyright laws do address Corporate copyrights. When I work for a company and create something that they then copyright it is called a work for hire. Under copyright law the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
As for the whole EIN/SSN issue. They really are two different things. An EIN is required for a company that has employees. I as a sole-propietorship with no employees don't have an EIN. An SSN is required for all US citizens receive income. While they are similar they serve different purposes.
Since a corporation is essentially immortal, there needs to be a seperate clock running for corporate copyright.
And there is. A work-for-hire (which is what a work created for a company is) has a duration of copyright that is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
If your book was selling from your publisher you should still be getting paid. It is only if people stop buying it and download it that you will lose out.
Also, you do deserve to be rewarded for a great work but for how long? Every other working stiff doesn't expect to get paid for work they did 20 years ago. If your work was truly great then you will have made in those 20 years enough money to fully compensate you for your effort. If your work was only mediocre then you better start writing or get a job.
And before you denounce me take a look at a site I created 2 years ago - writingpads. I created it with the idea of amateur authors publishing short stories for everybody to enjoy without expecting to make money off it. I actually published the first chapter to the book I was writing at the time (look under fiction) but ended up abandoning the site because I became too busy with another project. I also have wrote music for jazz ensemble. If anybody is interested I can send them a copy for free.
I have an off-topic comment that is somewhat appropriate (great post by the way). Your usenamesake was a great proponent of free speech. John Denver testified against Tipper Gore's music censorship in front of a Senate Committee (along with Frank Zappa and Dee Snider - now there's a trio). I would also like to think that he would be just as quick to testify on behalf of shorter copyright terms.
As I pointed out in another post - Lucas intends to add more original content when he releases the DVD (which is why he hasn't released it yet). Whatever original content he adds will have a fresh new copyright on it.
but when the 1928 Mickey Mouse cartoon copyright expire, anyone else will be able to use the Mickey Mouse character in their own, original cartoons.
They could copy the mouse but they couldn't call him Mickey. Mickey Mouse is still an active trademark and no matter what happens to the movies you still can't make a Mickey Mouse movie.
After all, how do you sell Star Wars movies that are in the p.d. if you can't use the Star Wars name?
Once they are in the public domain you can distribute the original movies however you want. Trademark doesn't apply there but if you wanted to create your own Star Wars movie you would find that LucasFilms LTD still holds the trademark for Star Wars. You could use the characters from the movies but you couldn't call it Star Wars Episode 10.
I'll never understand this argument. Why should artists be different than everybody else? When I die my wife will get insurance money and have access to my savings. Is it my fault that the artist didn't save his money while he was alive or buy into an insurance plan? Is their contribution to society so great that their decendants should benefit from their work?
I think that copyright should be for a fixed term regardless of the creator's lifespan - maybe 30 years or so. After that, if you weren't smart enough to save your money like everybody else, then it is time to get another job or create another work.
Which came first - the chicken or the egg? Were these bands big names before they signed record deals? Don't most bands start out small? The only exception are these boy bands that are manufactured based on looks first and then talent later ala New Kids.
Although Pressplay and MusicNet license the music, the bands are not paid a licensing fee. Instead, the labels pay their artists a standard royalty for each song accessed by a fan, as they would for a CD sold.
I would not have to pay again when the DVD's come out for something I already own 2 nearly-identical copies of.i>
Actually you would. First, Lucas has already said he is going to add more original content which he could then copyright. Second, you would still have to pay for the manufacture and distribution of the DVD.
As for the R2D2 comment - as the AC poster above so elequently stated - you and the original poster are confusing copyright with trademark. R2D2 is probably trademarked.
Most people? I would think that most women and many men would have a hard time carrying 80 lbs for very long. I don't know too many buildings that are going to let you ride or even push it on their lobby floors so you would have to carry it from the front door to the elevator which can be quite a distance.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't Vivendi, the company that owns evil Universal and quickly buying everything else, a French company?
What needs to happen is we have to find an ally in a less evil, but still powerful company that stands to lose where others benefit (maybe Royal Philips?). Microsoft was not brought to task by the government or the people. It was AOL, Oracle and Sun that lead the charge.
The only problem is that after everything is settled you end up with an ally that is now more powerful and stands the chance of becoming corrupt. The US government has experienced this a few times. Often the regimes we fight today are the rebels we backed yesterday (i.e. Taliban).
This decision, as far as I can tell, is not overturning Sherman Anti-Trust or Clayton Acts. You may have several huge companies with unprecedented control over the media but you would never have one corporation owning everything.
That is not necessarily true. It is the process of getting to monopoly status that can be illegal. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 actually provides that "no person shall monopolize, attempt to monopolize or conspire with another to monopolize interstate or foreign trade or commerce."
The Clayton Act adds/clarifies that the monopoly must be obtained through "unreasonable methods." One of those unreasonable methods is a merger where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." This is how you prevent, hopefully, the super conglomerates that people have been speculating about here.
That would be a miserably hard bill to write properly, and even harder to pass into law.
That is actually the current law. The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death.
There are laws in some areas but enforcement is a bitch. If an American spammer is using an open-relay in Asia somewhere it is very difficult to find and fine them.
Last time I checked, human beings weren't immortal.
You said later that they could pass it on to their kids.
Where do you draw the line? Two? Ten? A thousand?
There is no line. If 50,000 people, who aren't a company, colloborate on one work then those 50,000 should all receive the same combined benefit as if only one person wrote it. Obviously they would have to split the proceeds, though.
What happens if a minority of the owners sell their stakes?
You can't really sell your "stake" of a copyright. You can only sell your share of the proceeds from the copyright (sort of like selling an annuity like the lottery) but you would still be an original creator and copyright holder. If you were talking more along the lines of selling distribution rights then you would have to get a unanimous agreement amongst all the copyright holders (pretty difficult with 50,000).
Also, corporations will abuse your rule -- stuff would be copyrighted by a group consisting of: the actual creator.....
First of all, they could just as easily be encouraged under your rule to say only one individual wrote it in his free time. Second of all, the entire assumption is ridiculous. If any of the individuals involved become disgruntled you'll have a serious issue.
I would also like to point out that I was commenting on your rules and not stating mine. I think the whole idea of an indeterminate term is unconstitutional and detrimental to future innovation. I advocate a fixed term (say 30 years) that is regardless of whether you are alive or dead and whether you are an individual or corporation.
publisher of the book is no longer obligated to pay you
That is assuming that there was no other contract with the publisher. If a book is so good that it is still selling in 20 years than I am sure that you have worked out a deal to do an updated version with more original content.
I definitely was nitpicking but it was because there was just an abundance of ignorance that I read prior to your post and I automatically assumed that yours would be the same. I apologize for the misjudgement.
You say that now but just wait until they finally release the official DVDs. I guarantee they will be the best-selling DV's of all time. That is assuming of course that DVDs still exist when he finally creates them.
It was the need that threw me off. It implied that the current laws were lacking. Like when I say that I need a new car it implies that I don't already have one. This would have been clearer:
A corporation is essentially immortal which is why they have a seperate clock running for corporate copyright.
one standard that covers all cases
Seems to me like you have two standards here.
An individual human creator may keep the copyright for as long as he or she wants
Which is no different than saying forever. That entirely goes against the intent of the Constitution.
If the copyright is created by anyone other than an indvidual human...
If you mean work done for a company then I agree that it should be a fixed time. If you mean work done by a group then why should two authors working together only get 50 years while one author would get an unlimited amount of time. Seems to discourage colloboration to me.
Copyright laws do address Corporate copyrights. When I work for a company and create something that they then copyright it is called a work for hire. Under copyright law the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
As for the whole EIN/SSN issue. They really are two different things. An EIN is required for a company that has employees. I as a sole-propietorship with no employees don't have an EIN. An SSN is required for all US citizens receive income. While they are similar they serve different purposes.
Since a corporation is essentially immortal, there needs to be a seperate clock running for corporate copyright.
And there is. A work-for-hire (which is what a work created for a company is) has a duration of copyright that is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
If your book was selling from your publisher you should still be getting paid. It is only if people stop buying it and download it that you will lose out.
Also, you do deserve to be rewarded for a great work but for how long? Every other working stiff doesn't expect to get paid for work they did 20 years ago. If your work was truly great then you will have made in those 20 years enough money to fully compensate you for your effort. If your work was only mediocre then you better start writing or get a job.
And before you denounce me take a look at a site I created 2 years ago - writingpads. I created it with the idea of amateur authors publishing short stories for everybody to enjoy without expecting to make money off it. I actually published the first chapter to the book I was writing at the time (look under fiction) but ended up abandoning the site because I became too busy with another project. I also have wrote music for jazz ensemble. If anybody is interested I can send them a copy for free.
I have an off-topic comment that is somewhat appropriate (great post by the way). Your usenamesake was a great proponent of free speech. John Denver testified against Tipper Gore's music censorship in front of a Senate Committee (along with Frank Zappa and Dee Snider - now there's a trio). I would also like to think that he would be just as quick to testify on behalf of shorter copyright terms.
As I pointed out in another post - Lucas intends to add more original content when he releases the DVD (which is why he hasn't released it yet). Whatever original content he adds will have a fresh new copyright on it.
but when the 1928 Mickey Mouse cartoon copyright expire, anyone else will be able to use the Mickey Mouse character in their own, original cartoons.
They could copy the mouse but they couldn't call him Mickey. Mickey Mouse is still an active trademark and no matter what happens to the movies you still can't make a Mickey Mouse movie.
After all, how do you sell Star Wars movies that are in the p.d. if you can't use the Star Wars name?
Once they are in the public domain you can distribute the original movies however you want. Trademark doesn't apply there but if you wanted to create your own Star Wars movie you would find that LucasFilms LTD still holds the trademark for Star Wars. You could use the characters from the movies but you couldn't call it Star Wars Episode 10.
Here is a link to the article talking about the music re-copyright issue.
Being a fellow classical musician I also feel disgusted whenever I think of these publishers benefiting from the hard work of the past masters.
I'll never understand this argument. Why should artists be different than everybody else? When I die my wife will get insurance money and have access to my savings. Is it my fault that the artist didn't save his money while he was alive or buy into an insurance plan? Is their contribution to society so great that their decendants should benefit from their work?
I think that copyright should be for a fixed term regardless of the creator's lifespan - maybe 30 years or so. After that, if you weren't smart enough to save your money like everybody else, then it is time to get another job or create another work.
Which came first - the chicken or the egg? Were these bands big names before they signed record deals? Don't most bands start out small? The only exception are these boy bands that are manufactured based on looks first and then talent later ala New Kids.
You have it backwards. From the site:
Although Pressplay and MusicNet license the music, the bands are not paid a licensing fee. Instead, the labels pay their artists a standard royalty for each song accessed by a fan, as they would for a CD sold.
Just to clarify/correct some of your points:
I would not have to pay again when the DVD's come out for something I already own 2 nearly-identical copies of.i>
Actually you would. First, Lucas has already said he is going to add more original content which he could then copyright. Second, you would still have to pay for the manufacture and distribution of the DVD.
As for the R2D2 comment - as the AC poster above so elequently stated - you and the original poster are confusing copyright with trademark. R2D2 is probably trademarked.
Most people? I would think that most women and many men would have a hard time carrying 80 lbs for very long. I don't know too many buildings that are going to let you ride or even push it on their lobby floors so you would have to carry it from the front door to the elevator which can be quite a distance.