I agree that copyright terms are now too long, but...
Now then. The original duration of copyright was 14 years. This was during the late 18th century. At that time, the physical printing press was the most advanced way to distribute a written work. Here we are in the Information Age. In fourteen years' time an author can reach a much larger audience at significantly less cost than what anyone in the 18th century would have dreamed possible. Therefore, if anything, the original duration of 14 years should be reduced to maintain the same balance we once had.
But if durations had historically dropped to "maintain the balance", you would most likely now be complaining that copyright works haven't dropped in price since the 18th century, because any drop in the protection term would mean a reduction in economy-of-scale for the copyright owner. A book in the 18th century was a lot more expensive in real terms than a modern paperback.
Agreed. There is a world of difference between an academic qualification and a "vocational" qualification. The former is "education", the latter is "training".
When industry calls for specific skills, they are demanding that education be replaced with training. Nope, sorry. Academic study is too expensive to be used as a glorified training course. Remember that training can become obsolete. Training has to be renewed and revisited. Let's not confuse the two.
...and it's statements like that one that feed islamic terrorism
Terrorism isn't really about killing people -- killing people is a means to an end. The end of terrorism is to make the other person look like the bad guy. Islamic terrorism is predicated on the claim that westerners hate Islam. Islamic terrorists want you to blame Islam; they want you to hate Islam, because when you stand up and express hate for Islam, they can stand up and say "See? The western infidels hate Islam!" At this point, every western military action can be repainted as an attack on Islam.
When you let yourself think that way, you are truly giving in to terrorism.
Critical thinking skills are dangerous, because they rely on the evidence presented. Most conspiracy theorists have engaged in critical thinking, but the "evidence" they have been presented with usual comes with the claim that the other evidence is doctored. This makes perfect sense to the human critical faculties.
Remember that critical thinking does not guarantee correctness or even uniform conclusion, so just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they're irrational.
But it does mean they didn't just post the image as received. Why not? The image is quite sharp, clearly framed and was taken in bright light. I see no reason to modify anything here.
Erm... you do realise that this sharp, well-framed image you're looking at is the result of studio retouching, right? It may not have been as sharp, as well-framed and/or as evenly lit in the original. Remember that all professional photographers are trained to take in more around the edges of the photo than required -- every pro photo is expected to be cropped. It was the rule in the days of film, and it is still the rule today.
In most people the 3D effect in the mis-matched part of the images (a square in the center, I think) persisted for a second or two. But in a few people it apparently persisted more-or-less indefinitely, suggesting some kind of visual memory that was pixel-level-accurate and relatively long term.
Careful about that word "pixel" -- the brain doesn't operate on a pixel-level, but instead in terms of abstract "prototypes" -- lines, angles and curves.
In any case though, the goal of copyright is neither to benefit the independent author or the big business author. The goal is to benefit the public. If it happens to benefit authors of any kind, that's great, but that's merely a means to an end.
Finally, something I agree with. Yes, protection of creators' rights is a means to an end. Yes, that end is the public benefit.
BUT....
Without the means, we will never achieve our end. Fair treatment of IP and adequate reward for authors is our means. Registration is patently unfair to authors. Why? It introduces a workload and a cost to the creator than independents can't cover. Hollywood studios can handle it, though. This means that SuperHeroMan 43 with its budget of millions of dollars will be registered worldwide in a flash but Independent Zombie Flick with it's $1000 shoestring budget will only be registered in one or two countries.
This raises the bar for entry into the creative industries, because the only people who can realise the full value of their IP are the people who are already rich -- the little guy can't afford to start becoming rich.
"Free stuff" sounds good. In fact, it sounds a lot like "public interest". Sadly, they're not the same thing at all
Firstly, lack of a registration system is ridiculously onerous to the public at large, which is a far larger and more important group than mere authors or rightsholders.
We are all authors and rightsholders. See the Cooksource.com controversy for instance. Or any of the many stories about peoples personal photos being taken from the net and used for advertising, sometimes even in ways that were offensive to the rights-holder.
Secondly, persons doing business internationally already have to deal with a myriad of forms.... In practice, few authors will care about a lot of these countries, and so can ignore the burden that may come with obtaining rights; others will care, and to them it will be nothing more than the cost of doing business. Indeed, if it costs more to get rights than the rights are worth, they won't even bother, since copyright is, after all, a purely economic matter.
Just because an independent author is not currently selling his book in Burkina Faso doesn't mean that someone else should be able to do it for free. If I'm publishing on Lulu.com or whatever, I'm small-fry. I can't afford to register my book everywhere in one go. Maybe I want to release worldwide eventually, but under your system I either have to be able to do that from day one, or I forego the ability to ever do it. Who does this benefit? Not the independent author -- it only benefits big business.
And if an author doesn't care enough about how his work will be protected in every corner of the world to take at least some modest action, why should the natives of those corners care either?
Are you saying I have to register my Facebook profile pic in every country in the world to avoid it being used by someone else for whatever they want?
In that case, who's going to buy the DVD? Everyone will torrent it. Who's going to watch it on TV with those annoying advert breaks when they can just torrent it?
Well, we live in a world where people can do those things now. Yet somehow, people keep making DVDs and showing things on TV, and people keep buying those DVDs and watching those shows.
People are willing to pay for things even when they don't strictly have to do so, though I'd agree that it is possible that the amount of money made might decline, and so the budget for works might decline.
You're ignoring the fact that many people refuse to torrent because they know it is illegal and equate illegality with a general moral "wrong". The minute you make unlimited copying legal, you tell these people that it's no longer wrong, and that's when the money goes away.
In my life, I have bought many books. Most had been available for several years. The age of the book made little difference to its value to me - I own very few hardbacks. If a new book is significantly more expensive than a year-old book, I'm happy with the year-old book. Therefore in your world, I would never be paying the author a penny.
So, what you're saying is that everyone should be paid a living wage for their time, regardless of the actual value? I think the name for that is "welfare".
Erm... no. What I said is that everyone should be given the opportunity to earn a living wage for their time, if the quality of their work is good enough. Copyright lets them do that. I agree that copyright terms are currently overlong and the creative industries are scamming many content creators, but I still think the general concept of copyright acts for the common good.
Newspapers? They're all at risk of going under due to the accessibility of news on the internet. There's no way they have the money to pay an author a living wage for "first use" rights on a novel. And as a reader, I don't want a serialised novel -- I want a book that I buy once, carry anywhere and can read on the train.
As for the value of first performance of a song or a dramatic work... well, how many people fit in a theatre or concert venue? You would have to be able to realise the full work cost on the first showing, after all.
For the pub performer, you're talking 30 or 40 people. If you dedicate two months to writing material for your new album, and a reasonable wage is a theoretical 1000 a month, to get adequate recompense, that's a songwriter's take of 2000 for the first night. That's 50 per person,before accounting for the performers' cut or the costs for the venue. Would you pay that much for the privilege of being the first to hear something?
For a new opera opening at La Scala, there's a possible 2,800 seats. Wagner spent 4 years on each part of the Ring Cycle. Assuming an annual wage of 15000, that's 60000 between 2800. That's 21 each for the composer's cut, which doesn't seem like much, but putting on an opera takes many, many man-years of rehearsal as well, so the cost is going to be much higher. And of course this assumes that the composer is famous enough to get a premiere in La Scala, and to sell out all tickets.
But if these examples still aren't enough, let me boil it down to a simple principle: you think IP is too expensive already. If IP could only realise value on its first use, the cost of that first use is going to be many, many, many times higher than the price that you already think is too high.
Copyright keeps prices down by spreading the cost over all users of IP.
Well, I do want all countries to offer national treatment, without any minimum standards.
Well that would require further treaties, which would be against your "unilateral" change.
National registration would be ridiculously onerous as there are almost 200 countries in the world. Consider the case of a photographer that on uploading 50 new snaps to his website would have to fill out ten thousand forms if he wanted to avoid them being used by unscrupulous advertising agencies. National registration only worked because of local trade, local communication and local interest. In an era of global trade, global communication and global interest, it's just so blatantly unworkable that I don't know why I had to write this.
Perhaps there is a middle ground? For example, allow natural persons, acting non-commercially, to make copies as they like, but don't allow businesses or anyone acting commercially to infringe, which would require the movie theater to still pay to show movies.
In that case, who's going to buy the DVD? Everyone will torrent it. Who's going to watch it on TV with those annoying advert breaks when they can just torrent it? And with the DVD and TV money gone, the studios will have to get the full funds on the theatrical release, meaning ticket prices go up. And who's going to pay even more to go into a cinema when they can just torrent it for free?
If the US did that, other countries would simply drop restrictions on US IP. Hollywood films would be viewed for free the whole world over. International treaties protect the interests of all countries....
It's not "idearight", it's "copyright". In the newspaper industry, "copy" is a mass noun roughly equivalent to "text". So "copyright" is "rights over stuff you've written". This is why writing books with remarkably similar stories is not normally plagiarism -- you are not using the original author's "copy" (=text). This book derives from Tolkien's copy, not just his ideas. While I can see a case for saying a work like this should be legal on grounds of the philosophy in the book itself, it's still clear that commercially it's selling off the back of someone else's work.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that copyright terms are now too long, but...
Now then. The original duration of copyright was 14 years. This was during the late 18th century. At that time, the physical printing press was the most advanced way to distribute a written work. Here we are in the Information Age. In fourteen years' time an author can reach a much larger audience at significantly less cost than what anyone in the 18th century would have dreamed possible. Therefore, if anything, the original duration of 14 years should be reduced to maintain the same balance we once had.
But if durations had historically dropped to "maintain the balance", you would most likely now be complaining that copyright works haven't dropped in price since the 18th century, because any drop in the protection term would mean a reduction in economy-of-scale for the copyright owner. A book in the 18th century was a lot more expensive in real terms than a modern paperback.
Agreed. There is a world of difference between an academic qualification and a "vocational" qualification. The former is "education", the latter is "training".
When industry calls for specific skills, they are demanding that education be replaced with training. Nope, sorry. Academic study is too expensive to be used as a glorified training course. Remember that training can become obsolete. Training has to be renewed and revisited. Let's not confuse the two.
Great idea. It's worked so well in the past. Remember that nice Mr Hussein we helped to liberate Iraq...?
...and it's statements like that one that feed islamic terrorism
Terrorism isn't really about killing people -- killing people is a means to an end. The end of terrorism is to make the other person look like the bad guy. Islamic terrorism is predicated on the claim that westerners hate Islam. Islamic terrorists want you to blame Islam; they want you to hate Islam, because when you stand up and express hate for Islam, they can stand up and say "See? The western infidels hate Islam!" At this point, every western military action can be repainted as an attack on Islam.
When you let yourself think that way, you are truly giving in to terrorism.
HAL.
If you think lefties are anti-western, you're looking at your map upside-down.
Critical thinking skills are dangerous, because they rely on the evidence presented. Most conspiracy theorists have engaged in critical thinking, but the "evidence" they have been presented with usual comes with the claim that the other evidence is doctored. This makes perfect sense to the human critical faculties.
Remember that critical thinking does not guarantee correctness or even uniform conclusion, so just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they're irrational.
HAL.
In that sense, it's unnecessary. SCUMMVM supports the King's Quest series, so it doesn't need to be brought back.
But it does mean they didn't just post the image as received. Why not? The image is quite sharp, clearly framed and was taken in bright light. I see no reason to modify anything here.
Erm... you do realise that this sharp, well-framed image you're looking at is the result of studio retouching, right? It may not have been as sharp, as well-framed and/or as evenly lit in the original. Remember that all professional photographers are trained to take in more around the edges of the photo than required -- every pro photo is expected to be cropped. It was the rule in the days of film, and it is still the rule today.
HAL.
In most people the 3D effect in the mis-matched part of the images (a square in the center, I think) persisted for a second or two. But in a few people it apparently persisted more-or-less indefinitely, suggesting some kind of visual memory that was pixel-level-accurate and relatively long term.
Careful about that word "pixel" -- the brain doesn't operate on a pixel-level, but instead in terms of abstract "prototypes" -- lines, angles and curves.
HAL.
I wonder if there has been any research on the uncanny valley for speech...
If you consider racism towards immigrants as potentially "uncanny valley" on accents, things aren't promising....
Nothing can ever terrify us more than the notion of dying suddenly without even knowing why.
Not a great basis for a computer game, mind....
HAL.
In any case though, the goal of copyright is neither to benefit the independent author or the big business author. The goal is to benefit the public. If it happens to benefit authors of any kind, that's great, but that's merely a means to an end.
Finally, something I agree with. Yes, protection of creators' rights is a means to an end. Yes, that end is the public benefit.
BUT....
Without the means, we will never achieve our end. Fair treatment of IP and adequate reward for authors is our means. Registration is patently unfair to authors. Why? It introduces a workload and a cost to the creator than independents can't cover. Hollywood studios can handle it, though. This means that SuperHeroMan 43 with its budget of millions of dollars will be registered worldwide in a flash but Independent Zombie Flick with it's $1000 shoestring budget will only be registered in one or two countries.
This raises the bar for entry into the creative industries, because the only people who can realise the full value of their IP are the people who are already rich -- the little guy can't afford to start becoming rich.
"Free stuff" sounds good. In fact, it sounds a lot like "public interest". Sadly, they're not the same thing at all
HAL.
Welcome to /.
Why would they do anything to reward muppets who post moronic "1st post" messages? Any UI that discourages it is a good UI.
Firstly, lack of a registration system is ridiculously onerous to the public at large, which is a far larger and more important group than mere authors or rightsholders.
We are all authors and rightsholders. See the Cooksource.com controversy for instance. Or any of the many stories about peoples personal photos being taken from the net and used for advertising, sometimes even in ways that were offensive to the rights-holder.
Secondly, persons doing business internationally already have to deal with a myriad of forms. ... In practice, few authors will care about a lot of these countries, and so can ignore the burden that may come with obtaining rights; others will care, and to them it will be nothing more than the cost of doing business. Indeed, if it costs more to get rights than the rights are worth, they won't even bother, since copyright is, after all, a purely economic matter.
Just because an independent author is not currently selling his book in Burkina Faso doesn't mean that someone else should be able to do it for free. If I'm publishing on Lulu.com or whatever, I'm small-fry. I can't afford to register my book everywhere in one go. Maybe I want to release worldwide eventually, but under your system I either have to be able to do that from day one, or I forego the ability to ever do it. Who does this benefit? Not the independent author -- it only benefits big business.
And if an author doesn't care enough about how his work will be protected in every corner of the world to take at least some modest action, why should the natives of those corners care either?
Are you saying I have to register my Facebook profile pic in every country in the world to avoid it being used by someone else for whatever they want?
HAL.
In that case, who's going to buy the DVD? Everyone will torrent it. Who's going to watch it on TV with those annoying advert breaks when they can just torrent it?
Well, we live in a world where people can do those things now. Yet somehow, people keep making DVDs and showing things on TV, and people keep buying those DVDs and watching those shows.
People are willing to pay for things even when they don't strictly have to do so, though I'd agree that it is possible that the amount of money made might decline, and so the budget for works might decline.
You're ignoring the fact that many people refuse to torrent because they know it is illegal and equate illegality with a general moral "wrong". The minute you make unlimited copying legal, you tell these people that it's no longer wrong, and that's when the money goes away.
HAL
In my life, I have bought many books. Most had been available for several years. The age of the book made little difference to its value to me - I own very few hardbacks. If a new book is significantly more expensive than a year-old book, I'm happy with the year-old book. Therefore in your world, I would never be paying the author a penny.
HAL.
So, what you're saying is that everyone should be paid a living wage for their time, regardless of the actual value? I think the name for that is "welfare".
Erm... no. What I said is that everyone should be given the opportunity to earn a living wage for their time, if the quality of their work is good enough. Copyright lets them do that. I agree that copyright terms are currently overlong and the creative industries are scamming many content creators, but I still think the general concept of copyright acts for the common good.
HAL.
Newspapers? They're all at risk of going under due to the accessibility of news on the internet. There's no way they have the money to pay an author a living wage for "first use" rights on a novel. And as a reader, I don't want a serialised novel -- I want a book that I buy once, carry anywhere and can read on the train.
As for the value of first performance of a song or a dramatic work... well, how many people fit in a theatre or concert venue? You would have to be able to realise the full work cost on the first showing, after all.
For the pub performer, you're talking 30 or 40 people. If you dedicate two months to writing material for your new album, and a reasonable wage is a theoretical 1000 a month, to get adequate recompense, that's a songwriter's take of 2000 for the first night. That's 50 per person,before accounting for the performers' cut or the costs for the venue. Would you pay that much for the privilege of being the first to hear something?
For a new opera opening at La Scala, there's a possible 2,800 seats. Wagner spent 4 years on each part of the Ring Cycle. Assuming an annual wage of 15000, that's 60000 between 2800. That's 21 each for the composer's cut, which doesn't seem like much, but putting on an opera takes many, many man-years of rehearsal as well, so the cost is going to be much higher. And of course this assumes that the composer is famous enough to get a premiere in La Scala, and to sell out all tickets.
But if these examples still aren't enough, let me boil it down to a simple principle: you think IP is too expensive already. If IP could only realise value on its first use, the cost of that first use is going to be many, many, many times higher than the price that you already think is too high.
Copyright keeps prices down by spreading the cost over all users of IP.
HAL.
Well, I do want all countries to offer national treatment, without any minimum standards.
Well that would require further treaties, which would be against your "unilateral" change.
National registration would be ridiculously onerous as there are almost 200 countries in the world. Consider the case of a photographer that on uploading 50 new snaps to his website would have to fill out ten thousand forms if he wanted to avoid them being used by unscrupulous advertising agencies. National registration only worked because of local trade, local communication and local interest. In an era of global trade, global communication and global interest, it's just so blatantly unworkable that I don't know why I had to write this.
HAL.
Copyright doesn't ensure you make a profit, it just protects your right to try.
HAL.
Perhaps there is a middle ground? For example, allow natural persons, acting non-commercially, to make copies as they like, but don't allow businesses or anyone acting commercially to infringe, which would require the movie theater to still pay to show movies.
In that case, who's going to buy the DVD? Everyone will torrent it. Who's going to watch it on TV with those annoying advert breaks when they can just torrent it? And with the DVD and TV money gone, the studios will have to get the full funds on the theatrical release, meaning ticket prices go up. And who's going to pay even more to go into a cinema when they can just torrent it for free?
It wouldn't work, sorry.
HAL.
Are you proposing the death penalty for rape of fictional characters? ;-)
HAL.
If the US did that, other countries would simply drop restrictions on US IP. Hollywood films would be viewed for free the whole world over. International treaties protect the interests of all countries....
HAL.
It's not "idearight", it's "copyright". In the newspaper industry, "copy" is a mass noun roughly equivalent to "text". So "copyright" is "rights over stuff you've written". This is why writing books with remarkably similar stories is not normally plagiarism -- you are not using the original author's "copy" (=text). This book derives from Tolkien's copy, not just his ideas. While I can see a case for saying a work like this should be legal on grounds of the philosophy in the book itself, it's still clear that commercially it's selling off the back of someone else's work.
HAL.