My point was that though he opposed them to begin with in the end Thomas Jefferson did support copyrights and patents because they could encourage progress in the arts and sciences.
Also Thomas Jefferson opposed the merchantilists and instead supported yeoman farmers. Here is a webpage about a disagreement between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, wherein Hamilton did support merchantilism. Jefferson even issued a warning about the corporate aristocracy, "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." In a letter to George Logan on November 12, 1816 he wrote: " We have already reached the point where the "moneyed corporations" no longer feel any need to "challenge" the government. They have already fully integrated themselves into it. The executive branch is already peopled by corporate men, the law makers find it nearly impossible to be elected without corporate financing and the administrators of the regulatory agencies (such as the SEC) are selected by an executive branch whose main concern is to avoid any threat to the corporate world's ability to act unilaterally and without serious regulation of any kind."
I would argue that the copyright duration should be dependent upon the amount of risk the creator or creators had to take on in order to create the work. Thus, a photograph's copyright might last only five years because it takes a fairly short amount of time to create it and the risk is thus relatively low.
You've never seen photos combat and wildlife photographers took have you? It doesn't matter what you're using to shoot in combat, using a camera can get you just as dead as shooting a rifle. And using a camera can decidedly be more dangerous than using a rifle to shoot wildlife.
Good cameras are also expensive. A Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III cost $8000. A Mamiya RZ67 Pro IID film camera cost at least $2000, a digital back for it will set you back several thousand dollars more.
You may be asking why a movie deserves less protection than a novel. Several reasons. First, having created both, I find that it's a lot harder to write a novel than to write a screenplay.
For others it's the opposite, it's easier for some to write novels than movies. Fact is is different types of writing are easier for some than for others. Robert Ludlum wrote 25 novels but only a few were made into movies, and the scripts for those were probably written by script writers.
Without registering a copyright however the most you can get is a cease and desist order. The only way for you to collect damages is by registering for a copyright.
No. Without registering the material, the most you can get is what you'd normally get.
Registration: As a general rule, registration is not required to protect a work. [ 17 U.S.C.A. 408.] Under the Copyright Act, however, registration is a prerequisite for commencing an infringement action. [ 17 U.S.C.A. 411.] Moreover, registration of a work is desirable because if a work is registered "...before or within five years... [the certificate of registration] shall constitute prima facie evidence [ "A prima facie case consists of sufficient evidence in the type of case to get plaintiff past a motion for directed verdict in a jury case or motion to dismiss in a non jury case; it is the evidence necessary to require a defendant to proceed with his case." Black's Law Dictionary 1190 (6th Ed. 1993)] of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate...." [ 17 U.S.C.A. 410(c).] In addition, statutory damages and attorney's fees only will be granted only if a timely registration has been made. [ 17 U.S.C.A. 412.]
I'd rather have businesses compeat to stay in business instead of having a monopoly of unlimited duration.
The problem with that is you are trading limited monopoly for indefinite monopoly. Without some sort of protection you risk there being no way for a new business, with little capital, to bring a significant idea to production.
I see you leave out a big part of what I said, about trademarks, perhaps to mislead? Trademarks can potentially last forever. In my post you replied to, or anywhere else in this thread, I never did say there shouldn't be patents. What I did say is that they should not be of unlimited duration.
You might argue that they work for society because society created the legal rights they have in their work in the first place. But on the other hand, if there were no copyright at all, maybe they would never have gotten as far as Dark Side of the Moon...
But what about, say, an author. He writes a novel today which is published in limited circulation and does moderately well. In 2015 he publishes another novel, which through a combination of quality, good timing and strong support from his publisher turns into a big hit and gets rave reviews. Suddenly some of the reviewers start reading his first novel, and realise that it's actually even better than the second one.
So, on your theory, his publisher is now entitled to make millions selling physical copies of his first novel (for people will surely still buy physical books, no matter how great the Kindle or whatever becomes) while the author gets nothing for his "imaginary" property.
If the publisher "is entitled" to print more copies of the first novel, so are other publishers. One of those others could make a deal with the author to sign the books they print. People do pay extra for signed books.
in some industries it may take much longer than 5 years to research and develop the idea - pharmaceuticals take 10-15 years to go from lab to market, due to all the human trials they have to run. The patent would be expired before the thing even got off the bench in a 5 year term...
If your work has value, then make some more and sell it.
This is a remarkably stupid way of thinking about creative work.
What's remarkably stupid is allowing a 1 hot wonder to sit on their laurels the rest of their life. If they can't create more that people are willing to pay for then they need to get into a field people will be willing to pay them for. A short copyright term, like 14 years, should provide enough tyme to make money.
I'd push more for 15 to 30 years. Not every idea can be rolled out at Web 3.0 speeds. Anything that requires physical manufacturing, quality control, and any kind of regulatory oversight can't hope to go from concept to consumer within less than 2 years.
This is close to the original copyright and patent terms. Using an actuarial table of life spans Thomas Jefferson calculated that they should last 14 years with 1 14 year extension possible.
I would rather the right be more along the lines of Trademarks, or even clearly defined to mean "while actively in use."
I'd rather have businesses compeat to stay in business instead of having a monopoly of unlimited duration. If you can't improve and come out with a better product after a number of years then you shouldn't be allowed to retard progress.
Anytime you create an original work, you are automatically a copyright holder the second you publish it. Putting it on your website is sufficient for publication.
When you create an original work of art you are a copyright holder, you do not have to publish it. Without registering a copyright however the most you can get is a cease and desist order. The only way for you to collect damages is by registering for a copyright.
Thomas Jefferson was originally against copyrights and patents but his beliefs evolved. In correspondence on 1790 June 27 to Benjamin Vaughan he wrote:
"An act of Congress authorising the issuing patents for new discoveries has given a spring to invention beyond my conception. Being an instrument in granting the patents, I am acquainted with their discoveries. Many of them indeed are trifling, but there are some of great consequence which have been proved by practice, and others which if they stand the same proof will produce great effect."
It makes a compelling case that the primary use of the "erotic services" section of Craigslist is prostitution, both the "consenting adults" variety and the quite non-consenting child sex slavery variety. It also cites specific cases where Craigslist was used to facilitate the abuse of child sex slaves. Is anyone here concerned with that, and that Craigslist is profiting from that traffic?
I've never used, and only rarely visited, Craigslist so can you tell me how it is profiting? I've heard it doesn't have a fee for ads so in what way does it profit?
Note that the sheriff isn't trying to shut down Craigslist; his office sent 5 letters to Craigslist asking them to better police the "erotic services" section or shut it down. According to the complaint, Craigslist refused.
And did you also read where they already came to an agreement with "National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and the Attorneys General of 40 states"?
Prostitutes exist with or without Craigslist; it is not a "source" and it does not create prostitutes. They'd be out walking the street if Craigslist didn't give them somewhere safe to advertise. I'd much rather keep them on the web than on my sidewalk.
Ah but prostitutes would not have to walk the streets if it were legal. They, the cheap ones, walk the streets because they have no legal place to go to practice their trade.
Where do you eat dinner? McDonalds? Is a special night out Taco Bill?
When I go out to dinner, the average bill for a two-up is $100 or so.
Maybe you can afford expensive meals but I've never paid more than about $35 per person, with entertainment such as a movie or play included. Then again I once asked a lady to go on a date to a concert and the tickets were about $70 each.
Try keeping track of it sometime, how much you spend on a girl before she'll have sex with you.
This reminds me of this creep I knew. He had this black book he carried, all of the tyme, that he'd write his date's name in the first tyme he took her out. By the third date if she wouldn't have sex with him he'd never ask her out again. And he said that right in front of their faces sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
My point was that though he opposed them to begin with in the end Thomas Jefferson did support copyrights and patents because they could encourage progress in the arts and sciences.
Also Thomas Jefferson opposed the merchantilists and instead supported yeoman farmers. Here is a webpage about a disagreement between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, wherein Hamilton did support merchantilism. Jefferson even issued a warning about the corporate aristocracy, "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." In a letter to George Logan on November 12, 1816 he wrote: " We have already reached the point where the "moneyed corporations" no longer feel any need to "challenge" the government. They have already fully integrated themselves into it. The executive branch is already peopled by corporate men, the law makers find it nearly impossible to be elected without corporate financing and the administrators of the regulatory agencies (such as the SEC) are selected by an executive branch whose main concern is to avoid any threat to the corporate world's ability to act unilaterally and without serious regulation of any kind."
Falcon
I would argue that the copyright duration should be dependent upon the amount of risk the creator or creators had to take on in order to create the work. Thus, a photograph's copyright might last only five years because it takes a fairly short amount of time to create it and the risk is thus relatively low.
You've never seen photos combat and wildlife photographers took have you? It doesn't matter what you're using to shoot in combat, using a camera can get you just as dead as shooting a rifle. And using a camera can decidedly be more dangerous than using a rifle to shoot wildlife.
Good cameras are also expensive. A Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III cost $8000. A Mamiya RZ67 Pro IID film camera cost at least $2000, a digital back for it will set you back several thousand dollars more.
You may be asking why a movie deserves less protection than a novel. Several reasons. First, having created both, I find that it's a lot harder to write a novel than to write a screenplay.
For others it's the opposite, it's easier for some to write novels than movies. Fact is is different types of writing are easier for some than for others. Robert Ludlum wrote 25 novels but only a few were made into movies, and the scripts for those were probably written by script writers.
Falcon
I don't think an individual should be able to get a patent; if they aren't planning to make money on it,
Individuals not soul-less corporations are the inventors. And individuals can and do start their own businesses.
Falcon
Without registering a copyright however the most you can get is a cease and desist order. The only way for you to collect damages is by registering for a copyright.
No. Without registering the material, the most you can get is what you'd normally get.
Registration: As a general rule, registration is not required to protect a work. [ 17 U.S.C.A. 408.] Under the Copyright Act, however, registration is a prerequisite for commencing an infringement action. [ 17 U.S.C.A. 411.] Moreover, registration of a work is desirable because if a work is registered "...before or within five years... [the certificate of registration] shall constitute prima facie evidence [ "A prima facie case consists of sufficient evidence in the type of case to get plaintiff past a motion for directed verdict in a jury case or motion to dismiss in a non jury case; it is the evidence necessary to require a defendant to proceed with his case." Black's Law Dictionary 1190 (6th Ed. 1993)] of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate...." [ 17 U.S.C.A. 410(c).] In addition, statutory damages and attorney's fees only will be granted only if a timely registration has been made. [ 17 U.S.C.A. 412.]
Falcon
I'd rather have businesses compeat to stay in business instead of having a monopoly of unlimited duration.
The problem with that is you are trading limited monopoly for indefinite monopoly. Without some sort of protection you risk there being no way for a new business, with little capital, to bring a significant idea to production.
I see you leave out a big part of what I said, about trademarks, perhaps to mislead? Trademarks can potentially last forever. In my post you replied to, or anywhere else in this thread, I never did say there shouldn't be patents. What I did say is that they should not be of unlimited duration.
Falcon
You might argue that they work for society because society created the legal rights they have in their work in the first place. But on the other hand, if there were no copyright at all, maybe they would never have gotten as far as Dark Side of the Moon...
Where did GP say there should be no copyrights?
Falcon
But what about, say, an author. He writes a novel today which is published in limited circulation and does moderately well. In 2015 he publishes another novel, which through a combination of quality, good timing and strong support from his publisher turns into a big hit and gets rave reviews. Suddenly some of the reviewers start reading his first novel, and realise that it's actually even better than the second one.
So, on your theory, his publisher is now entitled to make millions selling physical copies of his first novel (for people will surely still buy physical books, no matter how great the Kindle or whatever becomes) while the author gets nothing for his "imaginary" property.
If the publisher "is entitled" to print more copies of the first novel, so are other publishers. One of those others could make a deal with the author to sign the books they print. People do pay extra for signed books.
Falcon
in some industries it may take much longer than 5 years to research and develop the idea - pharmaceuticals take 10-15 years to go from lab to market, due to all the human trials they have to run. The patent would be expired before the thing even got off the bench in a 5 year term...
I think that's pretty easy to remedy, have the patent term start when a drug is released. Oh, and since you brought up pharmaceuticals do you know that "Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development"? Here's a proposed "alternative to pharmaceutical patents".
Falcon
If your work has value, then make some more and sell it.
This is a remarkably stupid way of thinking about creative work.
What's remarkably stupid is allowing a 1 hot wonder to sit on their laurels the rest of their life. If they can't create more that people are willing to pay for then they need to get into a field people will be willing to pay them for. A short copyright term, like 14 years, should provide enough tyme to make money.
Falcon
The life because, well, an author should be able to control his works while still living.
So if I build and sell a home I should be able to control it while I still live?
Falcon
Would it kill them to stop receiving royalties on music they made 15 years ago?
You mean back when they made good music? Who'd buy their new albums then?
If they can't sell new albums today then they either need to improve or go into a new field of work.
Falcon
I'd push more for 15 to 30 years. Not every idea can be rolled out at Web 3.0 speeds. Anything that requires physical manufacturing, quality control, and any kind of regulatory oversight can't hope to go from concept to consumer within less than 2 years.
This is close to the original copyright and patent terms. Using an actuarial table of life spans Thomas Jefferson calculated that they should last 14 years with 1 14 year extension possible.
Falcon
I would rather the right be more along the lines of Trademarks, or even clearly defined to mean "while actively in use."
I'd rather have businesses compeat to stay in business instead of having a monopoly of unlimited duration. If you can't improve and come out with a better product after a number of years then you shouldn't be allowed to retard progress.
Falcon
The main argument for the additional time is a lot of products that involve copyrights only get to market through significant investment by others.
If 28 years isn't enough tyme to make a profit then the writer needs to get into another field of work.
Falcon
Anytime you create an original work, you are automatically a copyright holder the second you publish it. Putting it on your website is sufficient for publication.
When you create an original work of art you are a copyright holder, you do not have to publish it. Without registering a copyright however the most you can get is a cease and desist order. The only way for you to collect damages is by registering for a copyright.
Falcon
Below is a fitting quote from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Isaac McPherson ( http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html )
Thomas Jefferson was originally against copyrights and patents but his beliefs evolved. In correspondence on 1790 June 27 to Benjamin Vaughan he wrote:
"An act of Congress authorising the issuing patents for new discoveries has given a spring to invention beyond my conception. Being an instrument in granting the patents, I am acquainted with their discoveries. Many of them indeed are trifling, but there are some of great consequence which have been proved by practice, and others which if they stand the same proof will produce great effect."
Falcon
It makes a compelling case that the primary use of the "erotic services" section of Craigslist is prostitution, both the "consenting adults" variety and the quite non-consenting child sex slavery variety. It also cites specific cases where Craigslist was used to facilitate the abuse of child sex slaves. Is anyone here concerned with that, and that Craigslist is profiting from that traffic?
I've never used, and only rarely visited, Craigslist so can you tell me how it is profiting? I've heard it doesn't have a fee for ads so in what way does it profit?
Note that the sheriff isn't trying to shut down Craigslist; his office sent 5 letters to Craigslist asking them to better police the "erotic services" section or shut it down. According to the complaint, Craigslist refused.
And did you also read where they already came to an agreement with "National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and the Attorneys General of 40 states"?
Falcon
I thought you might be. What many people, at least in the US, think of when it comes to "clear channel" is the broadcaster Clear Channel.
Falcon
for escorts
So does Google, Google even has more than one section for escorts.
Falcon
The primary motivation against prostitution comes from females
Citation needed.
Falcon
Prostitutes exist with or without Craigslist; it is not a "source" and it does not create prostitutes. They'd be out walking the street if Craigslist didn't give them somewhere safe to advertise. I'd much rather keep them on the web than on my sidewalk.
Ah but prostitutes would not have to walk the streets if it were legal. They, the cheap ones, walk the streets because they have no legal place to go to practice their trade.
Falcon
I think the term for a telco in this context is a "clear channel" provider or something like that.
Telcos have common carrier status, maybe that's what you're thinking.
Falcon
Where I live, prostitution is a normal, regulated service industry.
Which is as it should be. Voluntary exchanges between willing individual adults that harm no one else should not be illegal!
Falcon
Where do you eat dinner? McDonalds? Is a special night out Taco Bill?
When I go out to dinner, the average bill for a two-up is $100 or so.
Maybe you can afford expensive meals but I've never paid more than about $35 per person, with entertainment such as a movie or play included. Then again I once asked a lady to go on a date to a concert and the tickets were about $70 each.
Falcon
Try keeping track of it sometime, how much you spend on a girl before she'll have sex with you.
This reminds me of this creep I knew. He had this black book he carried, all of the tyme, that he'd write his date's name in the first tyme he took her out. By the third date if she wouldn't have sex with him he'd never ask her out again. And he said that right in front of their faces sometimes.
Falcon