I would agree with you on the part about doing whatever you want with it, until you do it publicly. You want to paint it blue and keep it in your den... go for it. You want to use it in your home porn movies, that's your business. But when you start making money off of any of this, I think there is a problem and the Copyright Act gives me the tools (injunctions, treble damages, etc) to stop you.
It's got nothing to do with whether you agreed in contract or not. Under the current copyright regime, YOU have to negotiate those rights away from an author (artists, whoever). They are not something that you inherently have that the artists has to negotiate.
The fact that many people seem to think they own more than the media when they buy an artistic work is what gets RIAA, et. al, in such a tizzy. I'm not saying there response is reasonable (lawsuits against single users, DOS attachs). I'm just saying that people already ignore copyright law, and with the ability to make millions upon millions of perfect electronic copies, there is no end in sight. So it's no wonder that, as technology advances and people want to exploit artistic works with it, that RIAA and copyright holders want to add protections. Heck, some of the stuff RIAA does now (suing individuals) has always been in the Copyright Act, just never used against people like you and me. That's scary!
This is not quite like the popular topic of the RIAA and free access to your own music.
First, you are dealing directly with an artist, not a representative of an industry (i.e., RIAA). For RIAA, it is all about the money.
For an artist, it is about their work, effort and yes, the soul they put into the final product. You will never see an open source concept for artists. This is why artist freak out when their work is displayed in a disparing manner (see VARA (Visual Artist Rights Act). Definitely a European concept, but it has caught on in America (There was a big stink a while ago of a sculptors works being displayed in a disparging manner in a building and also a big stink put up by the artist who made the original of that "living sculptor" at the end of "The Devil's Advocate").
Open Source is a great concept, but there is a middle road too between it and Microsoft, as well as areas where I don't think you will see it enter (such as open source art).
-A
Actually, no you don't, it is the same thing. The artist retains all of the bundle of rights associated with the work. You simply own the canvas its on, thus you can sell it, you can even (maybe) destroy it, or hang it upside down. You cannot, under the normal law of copyright, reproduce, display publicly, make derivative works or any other right that the artist retains.
The average middle-aged businessman knows NOTHING about computers... he just wants them to work. He wants to go to a business meeting at another company with a floppy disk (or a CD-ROM), put it in the meeting rooms computer and be able to run his slideshow, print his word processing document or show off his spreadsheet.
Businessmen can do that kind of stuff with MS Office, not with KOffice or any Linux distro Office. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux like anybody else on here, but I also don't mind trying to get drivers to work, figuring out how to convert files to MS or updating the thing through the command line. The fact that nobody is on the hook when a Linux distro doesn't work strikes fear in the heart of any businessman... they want WARRANTIES. Microsoft may need to give warranties for the crap they peddle, but the fact is that they do in fact give warranties.
In the end, a 400 dollar piece of software is a writeoff anyway.
If you knew it was all coming to an end in 2019 (or tomorrow, a year from now, whatever), would you spend more time working or more time playing?
I thought so...
-A
Who owns the copyright? The lawyer who drafted it? Or is it a work made for hire and now owned by the client?
I doubt anybody has ever actually registered the copyright on a EULA (which is really what proves notice and allows for treble damages).
Besides that, any EULA that is litigate becomes part of the public record, so anybody can get a copy of it. That puts it in public domain.
Plus talk about it infringement! Attorneys cut and paste EULAs all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree with you on the part about doing whatever you want with it, until you do it publicly. You want to paint it blue and keep it in your den... go for it. You want to use it in your home porn movies, that's your business. But when you start making money off of any of this, I think there is a problem and the Copyright Act gives me the tools (injunctions, treble damages, etc) to stop you.
It's got nothing to do with whether you agreed in contract or not. Under the current copyright regime, YOU have to negotiate those rights away from an author (artists, whoever). They are not something that you inherently have that the artists has to negotiate.
The fact that many people seem to think they own more than the media when they buy an artistic work is what gets RIAA, et. al, in such a tizzy. I'm not saying there response is reasonable (lawsuits against single users, DOS attachs). I'm just saying that people already ignore copyright law, and with the ability to make millions upon millions of perfect electronic copies, there is no end in sight. So it's no wonder that, as technology advances and people want to exploit artistic works with it, that RIAA and copyright holders want to add protections. Heck, some of the stuff RIAA does now (suing individuals) has always been in the Copyright Act, just never used against people like you and me. That's scary!
-A
This is not quite like the popular topic of the RIAA and free access to your own music. First, you are dealing directly with an artist, not a representative of an industry (i.e., RIAA). For RIAA, it is all about the money. For an artist, it is about their work, effort and yes, the soul they put into the final product. You will never see an open source concept for artists. This is why artist freak out when their work is displayed in a disparing manner (see VARA (Visual Artist Rights Act). Definitely a European concept, but it has caught on in America (There was a big stink a while ago of a sculptors works being displayed in a disparging manner in a building and also a big stink put up by the artist who made the original of that "living sculptor" at the end of "The Devil's Advocate"). Open Source is a great concept, but there is a middle road too between it and Microsoft, as well as areas where I don't think you will see it enter (such as open source art). -A
Actually, no you don't, it is the same thing. The artist retains all of the bundle of rights associated with the work. You simply own the canvas its on, thus you can sell it, you can even (maybe) destroy it, or hang it upside down. You cannot, under the normal law of copyright, reproduce, display publicly, make derivative works or any other right that the artist retains.
-A
The average middle-aged businessman knows NOTHING about computers... he just wants them to work. He wants to go to a business meeting at another company with a floppy disk (or a CD-ROM), put it in the meeting rooms computer and be able to run his slideshow, print his word processing document or show off his spreadsheet. Businessmen can do that kind of stuff with MS Office, not with KOffice or any Linux distro Office. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux like anybody else on here, but I also don't mind trying to get drivers to work, figuring out how to convert files to MS or updating the thing through the command line. The fact that nobody is on the hook when a Linux distro doesn't work strikes fear in the heart of any businessman... they want WARRANTIES. Microsoft may need to give warranties for the crap they peddle, but the fact is that they do in fact give warranties. In the end, a 400 dollar piece of software is a writeoff anyway.
If you knew it was all coming to an end in 2019 (or tomorrow, a year from now, whatever), would you spend more time working or more time playing? I thought so... -A
Who owns the copyright? The lawyer who drafted it? Or is it a work made for hire and now owned by the client? I doubt anybody has ever actually registered the copyright on a EULA (which is really what proves notice and allows for treble damages). Besides that, any EULA that is litigate becomes part of the public record, so anybody can get a copy of it. That puts it in public domain. Plus talk about it infringement! Attorneys cut and paste EULAs all the time.