I think the comparison is much closer than your example, however; in each case the law at the time of the action is taken should govern, whether it's an illegal action or an action of creating a copyrighted work.
The law doesn't govern creation of a copyrighted work. The law governs copying (or distributing, or publicly displaying, etc.) a copyrighted work. The important issue is whether the law is passed before or after the work is copied. When it was created is completely irrelevant.
Perhaps this is a better analogy. Let's say the age of consent is raised from 16 to 18. If you have sex with a 17 year old before the law is passed, you are safe, but if you have sex with a 17 year old after the law is passed, then you can be prosecuted. It doesn't matter if the person is born before or after the law is passed.
Or say the legal drinking age is raised from 18 to 21. All that matters is when the illegal act takes place.
Ex post facto is when "they" pass a law after you break it. It's perfectly legal to pass a murder law prosecuting murder of people born before the law is passed, you just can't pass a murder law prosecuting murder of people killed before the law is passed.
One big difference is that trademark law is passed under the Interstate Commerce Clause, so if you're using the character for noncommercial purposes, you're probably fine.
Was that brought up in court? Otherwise it doesn't really matter...
Anyway, I was 50/50 before reading the lawmeme account. Sounds like Lessig might have blown it by not being able to answer how this law differs from the 1976 one. It also sounds like he may have relied to heavily on insisting that retrospective extensions are unconstitutional per se, while some justices might find it more palatable to consider that a single factor along with the length of the extension and other factors. Justice Breyer especially might have been better persuaded by this argument.
Well, I'm still hopeful, but I'm less than 50/50 at this point. Not going to short Disney stock any more.
But, assuming it is a legitimate request for input, I'd say this: the dying web start-ups are the least likely to realize they are dying.
As a former employee (and co-founder) of a now dead web start-up , I beg to differ. It was quite obvious for quite a while that the company was dying. Yeah, we still hoped for a miracle, but it's hard to watch your employee base go from 80 to 10 without suspecting something...
Yeah, I pretty much don't believe in copyright, though maybe I could see it being necessary for fiction books.
I'm not an author, but I think that's what allows me to see the issue more clearly. I mean I don't blame tax preparers for being opposed to vastly simplified tax laws on the grounds that it will put them out of business, but at the same time I don't think the fact that some people will have to change professions justifies keeping a particular law in place. I dunno, maybe that's a bad analogy...
But even most 'authors' (now I'm talking about independent songwriters) I've met don't really make any money due to copyright. I mean, they rely to some extent on people buying CDs, but really that's a donation, not people paying because they're afraid the feds are going to come after them. It seems to me that abolishment of copyright would only help them, because it would probably eliminate the mega-pop-star, and send more money the way of the independents.
I dunno, I guess I realize I'm being naiive and idealistic, not so much in whether or not it would work, but in whether or not it's possible. Like the simplified tax laws (although admittedly much more so) there are just too many people making too much money off the current situation for it to change. Napster is a step toward it, but I still doubt I'll see copyright law overhauled in my lifetime.
Of course maybe if we had replicators... Of course that would probably be the end of the world anyway, due to nuclear terrorism, if nothing else.
Do you mean to say that when a writer writes a book and publishes it himself, that he no longer owns the story?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean, except for the "no longer" part. He never owned the story. You can't own stories. They're not physical things.
Granted, the purchased book is yours to do with what you will, but copyright prevents me from slapping my name on it and calling it mine.
No, plagiarism laws prevent that. I never implied plagiarism was OK, I implied copyright infringment was.
I DO think I should be able to 'own' a song I write. I wrote it!
Fair enough. I disagree.
BTW; I have not sued anyone for copyright infrigement, nor been sued, but there is always hope - bad artists borrow, good artists steal.:)
Well, the reason I bring that up is because I contend that it shows that you don't need copyright law to make money off music. You know this, since you've done it.
C'mon, get a job? Is that to say that actors, comedians, writers, and freakin' jugglers don't work?
No, it's not. But most of them don't own copyrights either.
Or that they should 'get a job' too? Or that if they do these things they should not get paid? What constitutes a job? Coding software? Digging ditches?
A job is "a regular activity performed in exchange for payment." But I thought you knew that.
I 'worked' for two years as a musician(only - no day job), and it was hard work and rewarding ($$ and otherwise).
What's your point?
Fun is fun, but people should get paid for entertainment. It's their time and talent in exchange for your money.
I never stated that people shouldn't get paid for entertainment. Firefighters should get paid for fighting forest fires. That doesn't mean they should own the trees and houses that they save. Teachers should get paid for teaching. That doesn't mean they should own the students they teach, or should receive royalties when those students get a job. Entertainers should get paid for entertaining. That doesn't mean they should own the entertainment they produce.
Hmm. That sounds a lot like my day job.
And if your day job is something that benefits society, then you will still get paid. That's how capitalism works. If you can perform a service that people desire, people are willing to pay for that service.
Your first two points are definately a good argument. The only real reason I've always interpreted the sentence the way I have is I've just always assumed that that's what RMS intended - in other words, I assumed RMS intended to allow copies to be made without distributing them, such as copies for internal use. But basically if the owner of a copyright argued to interpret it as "you may (copy and distribute) the program," I doubt one would be able to win that argument. In essence, I believe that to be a flaw in the GPL.
The point is moot because it doesn't change the pertinent issue, which is that internal copying within a company technically requires source code to be made available with each copy, and so this new Act still doesn't allow anyone to bypass the GPL.
No, as long as the source code is distributed along with each internal copy, that clause is satisfied. Then it is the First Sale right of the receiver to resell that copy without the source code. Now the GPL purports to take that First Sale right away, and whether or not it can do that is a question which I'm not going to try to answer.
Thus, you can only make private copies as specified under the fair use doctrine of copyright law.
So then if I own a business, I can't buy a single copy of Redhat and install it on every machine? I certainly can't do it with Windows, so it's not fair use, right? I don't think I buy that interpretation.
But, I guess I see how it's possible. At that point I guess you'd have to distribute it to someone who then distributes it back... Seems kind of silly, though.
If you make 1000 copies for the purpose of distributing them to others, that is not allowed by subsections (a) or (c).
Right, but the GPL allows you to make the copy. And then section (a) allows you to "to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."
The only question is whether or not the GPL can take away that right. Maybe it can, maybe it can't.
OK, my bad. I just hate when people state that since it only lends credence to what I consider a terrible interpretation of the law. In actuality I consider the GPL and any other EULA the same. If I do something like redistribute, then I have to either follow the license or allow myself to be sued for copyright infringement (or breach of contract, at my choice).
Absolutely... And the text of the bill wasn't even available the first time around. If anything the previous story was the one that should have been dropped, not this one. Good job michael.
You agree both of these are in the same section, right?
When
a digital work is distributed to the public subject to non-negotiable license terms, such terms shall not be enforceable under the common laws or statutes of any State to the extent that they restrict or limit any of the limitations on exclusive rights under this title.
As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
A 'digital work' is any literary (except a computer program), sound recording or musical work, or dramatic, motion picture or other audiovisual work, in whole or in part in a digital or other non-analog format.
When a digital work is distributed to the public subject to non-negotiable license terms, such terms shall not be enforceable under the common laws or statutes of any State to the extent that they restrict or limit any of the limitations on exclusive rights under this title.
OK, so what's a digital work?
As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings: A 'digital work' is any literary (except a computer program), sound recording or musical work, or dramatic, motion picture or other audiovisual work, in whole or in part in a digital or other non-analog format.
So Microsoft need not worry about this clause.
The digital first sale part seems especially cool, but it also opens the way to unlimited distribution on the web. Here's the text:
Section 109 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
"(f) The privileges prescribed by subsections (a) and (c) apply where the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord of a work in a digital or other non-analog format, or any person authorized by such owner, sells or otherwise disposes of the work by means of a transmission to a single recipient, provided that the owner does not retain his or her copy or phonorecord in a retrievable form and that the copy or phonorecord is sold or otherwise disposed of in its original format.".
So if I want to sell CDs online, instantly, and then ship the buyer the physically copy later (or just destroy it), I can do that. This is really great, as it's what mp3.com tried to do before they got sued for it and lost.
The problem is you know there's going to be a whole new twist to the napster phenomenon, where people distribute copies to thousands of people and then claim they owned those copies and were destroying them.
There's another interesting effect on the GPL. Since it's legal to make copies of GPLed software, as long as you don't distribute those copies, you have a loophole where you can make an unlimited number of copies, and then distribute those copies under this clause without distributing the source. Right now you can already do that as long as you print actual CDs, but this clause would let you do it digitally. Basically, RIP GPL, unless they can claim that the non-negotiable license is allowed to take away this right, which, maybe they will since it's software.
Overall it looks like a great law, but it's probably way overbroad to pass. I'd love to see just about any part of it pass individually though, especially the digital first sale part.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the comparison is much closer than your example, however; in each case the law at the time of the action is taken should govern, whether it's an illegal action or an action of creating a copyrighted work.
The law doesn't govern creation of a copyrighted work. The law governs copying (or distributing, or publicly displaying, etc.) a copyrighted work. The important issue is whether the law is passed before or after the work is copied. When it was created is completely irrelevant.
Perhaps this is a better analogy. Let's say the age of consent is raised from 16 to 18. If you have sex with a 17 year old before the law is passed, you are safe, but if you have sex with a 17 year old after the law is passed, then you can be prosecuted. It doesn't matter if the person is born before or after the law is passed.
Or say the legal drinking age is raised from 18 to 21. All that matters is when the illegal act takes place.
Yes
Ex post facto is when "they" pass a law after you break it. It's perfectly legal to pass a murder law prosecuting murder of people born before the law is passed, you just can't pass a murder law prosecuting murder of people killed before the law is passed.
Did you ever think about why Elementary School takes 8 years but High School takes just 4? Obviously it all comes down to money.
One big difference is that trademark law is passed under the Interstate Commerce Clause, so if you're using the character for noncommercial purposes, you're probably fine.
Was that brought up in court? Otherwise it doesn't really matter...
Anyway, I was 50/50 before reading the lawmeme account. Sounds like Lessig might have blown it by not being able to answer how this law differs from the 1976 one. It also sounds like he may have relied to heavily on insisting that retrospective extensions are unconstitutional per se, while some justices might find it more palatable to consider that a single factor along with the length of the extension and other factors. Justice Breyer especially might have been better persuaded by this argument.
Well, I'm still hopeful, but I'm less than 50/50 at this point. Not going to short Disney stock any more.
But, assuming it is a legitimate request for input, I'd say this: the dying web start-ups are the least likely to realize they are dying.
As a former employee (and co-founder) of a now dead web start-up , I beg to differ. It was quite obvious for quite a while that the company was dying. Yeah, we still hoped for a miracle, but it's hard to watch your employee base go from 80 to 10 without suspecting something...
Yeah, I pretty much don't believe in copyright, though maybe I could see it being necessary for fiction books.
I'm not an author, but I think that's what allows me to see the issue more clearly. I mean I don't blame tax preparers for being opposed to vastly simplified tax laws on the grounds that it will put them out of business, but at the same time I don't think the fact that some people will have to change professions justifies keeping a particular law in place. I dunno, maybe that's a bad analogy...
But even most 'authors' (now I'm talking about independent songwriters) I've met don't really make any money due to copyright. I mean, they rely to some extent on people buying CDs, but really that's a donation, not people paying because they're afraid the feds are going to come after them. It seems to me that abolishment of copyright would only help them, because it would probably eliminate the mega-pop-star, and send more money the way of the independents.
I dunno, I guess I realize I'm being naiive and idealistic, not so much in whether or not it would work, but in whether or not it's possible. Like the simplified tax laws (although admittedly much more so) there are just too many people making too much money off the current situation for it to change. Napster is a step toward it, but I still doubt I'll see copyright law overhauled in my lifetime.
Of course maybe if we had replicators... Of course that would probably be the end of the world anyway, due to nuclear terrorism, if nothing else.
Do you mean to say that when a writer writes a book and publishes it himself, that he no longer owns the story?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean, except for the "no longer" part. He never owned the story. You can't own stories. They're not physical things.
Granted, the purchased book is yours to do with what you will, but copyright prevents me from slapping my name on it and calling it mine.
No, plagiarism laws prevent that. I never implied plagiarism was OK, I implied copyright infringment was.
I DO think I should be able to 'own' a song I write. I wrote it!
Fair enough. I disagree.
BTW; I have not sued anyone for copyright infrigement, nor been sued, but there is always hope - bad artists borrow, good artists steal. :)
Well, the reason I bring that up is because I contend that it shows that you don't need copyright law to make money off music. You know this, since you've done it.
Let me add this...
I 'worked' for two years as a musician(only - no day job), and it was hard work and rewarding ($$ and otherwise).
Did you ever sue anyone for copyright infringement? Do you think fear of being sued for copyright infringement caused anyone to buy your music?
C'mon, get a job? Is that to say that actors, comedians, writers, and freakin' jugglers don't work?
No, it's not. But most of them don't own copyrights either.
Or that they should 'get a job' too? Or that if they do these things they should not get paid? What constitutes a job? Coding software? Digging ditches?
A job is "a regular activity performed in exchange for payment." But I thought you knew that.
I 'worked' for two years as a musician(only - no day job), and it was hard work and rewarding ($$ and otherwise).
What's your point?
Fun is fun, but people should get paid for entertainment. It's their time and talent in exchange for your money.
I never stated that people shouldn't get paid for entertainment. Firefighters should get paid for fighting forest fires. That doesn't mean they should own the trees and houses that they save. Teachers should get paid for teaching. That doesn't mean they should own the students they teach, or should receive royalties when those students get a job. Entertainers should get paid for entertaining. That doesn't mean they should own the entertainment they produce.
Hmm. That sounds a lot like my day job.
And if your day job is something that benefits society, then you will still get paid. That's how capitalism works. If you can perform a service that people desire, people are willing to pay for that service.
Goodwill Industries will take your phone.
It might explain why IBM will benefit and other vendors like Sun Microsystem which don't have a strong service arm will suffer
At first I thought "Huh? Sun has a strong service arm..." Then I saw the Big Fucking IBM ad and realized what was going on.
Your first two points are definately a good argument. The only real reason I've always interpreted the sentence the way I have is I've just always assumed that that's what RMS intended - in other words, I assumed RMS intended to allow copies to be made without distributing them, such as copies for internal use. But basically if the owner of a copyright argued to interpret it as "you may (copy and distribute) the program," I doubt one would be able to win that argument. In essence, I believe that to be a flaw in the GPL.
The point is moot because it doesn't change the pertinent issue, which is that internal copying within a company technically requires source code to be made available with each copy, and so this new Act still doesn't allow anyone to bypass the GPL.
No, as long as the source code is distributed along with each internal copy, that clause is satisfied. Then it is the First Sale right of the receiver to resell that copy without the source code. Now the GPL purports to take that First Sale right away, and whether or not it can do that is a question which I'm not going to try to answer.
"Protects lawful consumers by prohibiting non-negotiable shrink-wrap licenses that limit their rights and expectations."
Well, that's simply not part of the actual Act. So if that is indeed the intent of the Act, then they need to reword it.
I interpret "You may copy and distribute the Program..." to mean "You may copy the program, and you may distribute the program..."
I see how your interpretation could be valid, though.
The purpose is to filter out most of the trolls, not to correct spelling mistakes or redundant stories.
Thus, you can only make private copies as specified under the fair use doctrine of copyright law.
So then if I own a business, I can't buy a single copy of Redhat and install it on every machine? I certainly can't do it with Windows, so it's not fair use, right? I don't think I buy that interpretation.
But, I guess I see how it's possible. At that point I guess you'd have to distribute it to someone who then distributes it back... Seems kind of silly, though.
If you make 1000 copies for the purpose of distributing them to others, that is not allowed by subsections (a) or (c).
Right, but the GPL allows you to make the copy. And then section (a) allows you to "to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."
The only question is whether or not the GPL can take away that right. Maybe it can, maybe it can't.
OK, my bad. I just hate when people state that since it only lends credence to what I consider a terrible interpretation of the law. In actuality I consider the GPL and any other EULA the same. If I do something like redistribute, then I have to either follow the license or allow myself to be sued for copyright infringement (or breach of contract, at my choice).
Absolutely... And the text of the bill wasn't even available the first time around. If anything the previous story was the one that should have been dropped, not this one. Good job michael.
If you don't accept the MS EULA, you can't use the software.
Bullshit. No court has ever agreed with that.
You agree both of these are in the same section, right?
for software, anyway.
OK, so what's a digital work?
So Microsoft need not worry about this clause.
The digital first sale part seems especially cool, but it also opens the way to unlimited distribution on the web. Here's the text:
So if I want to sell CDs online, instantly, and then ship the buyer the physically copy later (or just destroy it), I can do that. This is really great, as it's what mp3.com tried to do before they got sued for it and lost.
The problem is you know there's going to be a whole new twist to the napster phenomenon, where people distribute copies to thousands of people and then claim they owned those copies and were destroying them.
There's another interesting effect on the GPL. Since it's legal to make copies of GPLed software, as long as you don't distribute those copies, you have a loophole where you can make an unlimited number of copies, and then distribute those copies under this clause without distributing the source. Right now you can already do that as long as you print actual CDs, but this clause would let you do it digitally. Basically, RIP GPL, unless they can claim that the non-negotiable license is allowed to take away this right, which, maybe they will since it's software.
Overall it looks like a great law, but it's probably way overbroad to pass. I'd love to see just about any part of it pass individually though, especially the digital first sale part.
They tried that already. It is called "non-DRM technology".
Maybe for you, but most of us don't care as long as we can make mixes and play them in our car, home, and portable device.
Your arguments clearly show that you understand that the technology is not the issue, but rather it is what they will do with it. Can we trust them?
Sure. Supply and demand will assure that.
How much do you trust them when you are buying a CD for $15 to listen to one track?
I don't buy CDs from RIAA artists. At least, I haven't in over 10 years.