I consider their position on this to be nothing more than empty threats. They can claim royalties for such copies, but media shifting and backups are very clearly legal (through precedent, written law, etc).
I think the major conflict in our points of view is this:
I believe that a person should be able to profit from their own work. Even if that work is "intellectual property."
Some people believe that such property is actually owned by everyone - not just the creator of that work. That means that others can profit from someone else's work.
I can't afford to spend the time writing any of the many books I have ideas for. I have to make money to pay the bills, and writing novels won't make that money (not at first, anyway). Take away copyright protections and I'll never be able to write those books. I just can't afford it.
How many authors do you know spent their lives writing books for free?
Copyright is not censorship. It's an enabler. I hate it, but I have to agree with the fact that no drug company would spend billions to develop a drug and then give the recipe away. They wouldn't have the money to develop it, and they wouldn't get anything back for their hard work and investment.
Oh, I'm not arguing that there's no such thing as a legal p2p use - I'm just pointing out that the RIAA suits are aimed at people that will have no "it was legal" defense.
Off-topic - btw, I was downloading a copy of bit torrent to install at work today, and my virus scan told me it was Spyware. Frickin' McAfee.
And it works. When you use a p2p application, do you share all of your music? How much do you have?
I have 8GB of music on my work computer. It's all legal - I own the CD or vinyl to match each one. But you have to admit - it's easier to download a copy of a song than it is to "rip" it from vinyl.
If I shared all that music, I would expect to be sued by the RIAA. They target people sharing a lot of music.
So... I don't share it. That means that there are 8GB of music that AREN'T available for download. In fact, by scaring people into not sharing their music, they are winning.
From the RIAA perspective, there is no legal reason for you to be sharing their music via p2p. Even if you legally own the CD, and you legally have backup copies, sharing them freely is not legal./devil's advocate
I emailed the RIAA several years back (when this first became an issue during Napster) and asked them about the only legal use I could think of - downloading music that resides on a CD you own because it's faster than ripping to your hard drive (it was much slower for me then).
So, the owner of the copyright was a company. That was bought by another company, without selling the rights. That company was bought by another company, still without selling the rights.
You have copies, and you want to move the stuff to another medium.
1. Get a lawyer to help you track down the copyright holder. He'll probably determine that the now parent company is the legal owner.
2. If you have the technology, simply move it to DVD. I don't know enough about laser discs, but if it's possible then you have the right to do so.
"How is this a good thing? If these songs or poems are not marketable, then all your copyright is doing is preventing anyone from ever seeing them. Copyright is supposed to serve us, not enslave us. The current system bankrupts the public domain for no obvious value to anyone."
It's a good thing because it doesn't really bankrupt anyone. If you want it so badly, then pay me for it. Your suggestion amounts to -
I want your work, but I want it for free.
If you were willing to pay for it, the author would almost certainly sell it. If it's not marketable, then how come so many people want it?
That's not the whole issue here, but I completely agree with you. My points are intended to address the controversy of abandonware when the author/copyright holder is known. The burden then is contacting the author.
Personally, I like that idea a lot. The people that are going to disagree are likely to point out software from the 70s, 80s or early 90s... or out-of-print books, music, etc. from that same time.
The argument seems to be that someone shouldn't be allowed to have a copyright on something if they aren't selling it.
Good call. I thought about that after I posted... unfortunately, it's sometimes abused. I can see someone wanting to pass those profits on to their kids, though.
I agree with most of your points. I'm not trying to support a perpetual copyright; quite the opposite. I would argue is that copyright is too long - not that it should be removed from people who want it kept.
If an author wants to protect his work, he should. But only in the interest of him protecting his work and ability to profit from it reasonably. He should be able to extend it to a period if he chooses. But that would require registration. If an author wishes to protect it for a period (say, 20 years) then he shouldn't need that registration requirement. After that point, failure to extend would result in the work being released to the public domain.
If a vintage TV show is released on DVD, you might buy it. So they keep the copyright.
It sucks, but if I release a book and then decide that I don't want to sell it anymore, I should be able to stop the distribution. Within reason. Not forever.
If an author doesn't care (abandonware) then it should lapse and go public domain. If they don't care, then contacting them should result in a "sure, I'll release it to public domain and you can give it away."
This case is summed up: I want to give stuff away for free, but tracking down authors and getting that release is a lot of work so I'll try to do it in one fell swoop.
The author has every right to prevent his work from being released during the copyright period. However, you do have the right to make a copy for backup, shifting, etc.
But the author should not be prevented from maintaining a right to his own work during his lifetime. I'm not sure that I agree with the "so many years after his lifetime" part of our current law.
If I create a work for personal benefit, and then others benefit but I do not - then copyright has failed. I simply would not create any more work. If he wants to let others benefit from his work, then that's his choice.
From the very link you posted: The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration."
Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time."
Mailing it to yourself is a way of verifying a date before which the copyright was secured. Since the copyright exists upon creation, you do not need to register it. Because a good way to fight the authenticity of such a copyright, you would do well to provide some time/date proof that the work existed (and therefore the copyright) at the point that you say it did.
Who's to classify a work as "abandonware?" If the author doesn't want the work released, he should have the right to keep it that way. The burden should rest on the publisher, even if that means tracking down the current copyright holder and begging for permission.
Just because you can't find it easily doesn't mean that it should be free for the taking.
Obligatory IANAL. I think "unconditional copyright" is a good idea. I might write a hundred songs (or poems or whatever) in a year and not make any money off of them. It costs money to register your work as copyrighted.
Not needing to register each work simply puts the burden on the "fair use" user. If they want to use my work, then I can grant them the rights to use it. But that doesn't mean that I give up copyrights.
If I am required to register my copyright, then I lose some of the ability to protect it.
As it stands, I am able to create a work and the copyright exists immediately. I can even register the copyright after an infringement takes place and win in a lawsuit.
Want to prove that you created the work on a certain date? Mail it to yourself and don't open it.
Sorry if I missed the humor in your post... I have been dealing with some seriously humor-less responses lately and it seemed yours might just be another. My point, though, is still valid. Your post was not a criticism; it was an attack on my efforts to agree with the sentiment that such a proposal is generally worthless.
Interesting blog, by the way. It seems we may agree on at least a few levels..
Wow, why don't I reinvent the wheel every time I have a thought? Have you read any one else's post? Do they analyze and justify each sentence that they make, or do they rely on the reader's ability to take their points in the context of the general discussion?
If I were to discuss quantum mechanics, would I be required to give a full intro-through-expert writeup before I was able to express my own opinions or thoughts?
This is another article describing another "attempt" at ending spam. They can be identified with the obligatory "Could this be the end of spam?" question.
By the way, the answer to that question is always "NO."
Walk into a Best Buy or similar large electronics store. Buy something in stock. Usually, they have some machines at decent prices... the down side is that they may not be the machine you want. It sounds like you have some specific needs or demands.
Your other option is to buy something off Ebay, but again, you may not find what you want. Also, you may not trust Ebay/the Buyer/whatever else in that process.
Good point... My Dell Axim usually holds a usable charge for a week or two. With almost no use (I know...), it seems to last three or four. As soon as I start using it heavily (playing media files, anything CPU intensive) it drains pretty quick.
I'm still pretty satisfied. My cell phone lasts maybe two days before I need to recharge it, and that's not a huge inconvenience.
If they (I don't know who) would standardize the power adapter, keeping it charged would be a cinch.
Slashdot Mirror
I consider their position on this to be nothing more than empty threats. They can claim royalties for such copies, but media shifting and backups are very clearly legal (through precedent, written law, etc).
I'm not that worried quite yet.
I guess such efforts would be a bit much, compared to the relatively small cost of registering your copyright.
Maybe the other replies are from less addicted Slashdotters, but that's hilarious.
Mod parent up. Hell, mod points for everyone! This round's on me.
I think the major conflict in our points of view is this:
I believe that a person should be able to profit from their own work. Even if that work is "intellectual property."
Some people believe that such property is actually owned by everyone - not just the creator of that work. That means that others can profit from someone else's work.
I can't afford to spend the time writing any of the many books I have ideas for. I have to make money to pay the bills, and writing novels won't make that money (not at first, anyway). Take away copyright protections and I'll never be able to write those books. I just can't afford it.
How many authors do you know spent their lives writing books for free?
Copyright is not censorship. It's an enabler. I hate it, but I have to agree with the fact that no drug company would spend billions to develop a drug and then give the recipe away. They wouldn't have the money to develop it, and they wouldn't get anything back for their hard work and investment.
Oh, I'm not arguing that there's no such thing as a legal p2p use - I'm just pointing out that the RIAA suits are aimed at people that will have no "it was legal" defense.
Off-topic - btw, I was downloading a copy of bit torrent to install at work today, and my virus scan told me it was Spyware. Frickin' McAfee.
And it works. When you use a p2p application, do you share all of your music? How much do you have?
I have 8GB of music on my work computer. It's all legal - I own the CD or vinyl to match each one. But you have to admit - it's easier to download a copy of a song than it is to "rip" it from vinyl.
If I shared all that music, I would expect to be sued by the RIAA. They target people sharing a lot of music.
So... I don't share it. That means that there are 8GB of music that AREN'T available for download. In fact, by scaring people into not sharing their music, they are winning.
I'm not going to spend $3,000 for "the cause."
Are you kidding? What legal uses?
/devil's advocate
I'm being sarcastic, but only to an extent.
From the RIAA perspective, there is no legal reason for you to be sharing their music via p2p. Even if you legally own the CD, and you legally have backup copies, sharing them freely is not legal.
I emailed the RIAA several years back (when this first became an issue during Napster) and asked them about the only legal use I could think of - downloading music that resides on a CD you own because it's faster than ripping to your hard drive (it was much slower for me then).
So, the owner of the copyright was a company. That was bought by another company, without selling the rights. That company was bought by another company, still without selling the rights.
You have copies, and you want to move the stuff to another medium.
1. Get a lawyer to help you track down the copyright holder. He'll probably determine that the now parent company is the legal owner.
2. If you have the technology, simply move it to DVD. I don't know enough about laser discs, but if it's possible then you have the right to do so.
"How is this a good thing? If these songs or poems are not marketable, then all your copyright is doing is preventing anyone from ever seeing them. Copyright is supposed to serve us, not enslave us. The current system bankrupts the public domain for no obvious value to anyone."
It's a good thing because it doesn't really bankrupt anyone. If you want it so badly, then pay me for it. Your suggestion amounts to -
I want your work, but I want it for free.
If you were willing to pay for it, the author would almost certainly sell it. If it's not marketable, then how come so many people want it?
That's not the whole issue here, but I completely agree with you. My points are intended to address the controversy of abandonware when the author/copyright holder is known. The burden then is contacting the author.
Personally, I like that idea a lot. The people that are going to disagree are likely to point out software from the 70s, 80s or early 90s... or out-of-print books, music, etc. from that same time.
The argument seems to be that someone shouldn't be allowed to have a copyright on something if they aren't selling it.
I didn't realize that you were referring to the "statutory damages and attorney's fees"...
The point is that registration after the fact still protects you for "actual damages and profits."
Good call. I thought about that after I posted... unfortunately, it's sometimes abused. I can see someone wanting to pass those profits on to their kids, though.
I see what you're saying. I thought you were arguing the date-stamp thing. There are ways to verify without mailing, too.
I agree with most of your points. I'm not trying to support a perpetual copyright; quite the opposite. I would argue is that copyright is too long - not that it should be removed from people who want it kept.
If an author wants to protect his work, he should. But only in the interest of him protecting his work and ability to profit from it reasonably. He should be able to extend it to a period if he chooses. But that would require registration. If an author wishes to protect it for a period (say, 20 years) then he shouldn't need that registration requirement. After that point, failure to extend would result in the work being released to the public domain.
If a vintage TV show is released on DVD, you might buy it. So they keep the copyright.
It sucks, but if I release a book and then decide that I don't want to sell it anymore, I should be able to stop the distribution. Within reason. Not forever.
If an author doesn't care (abandonware) then it should lapse and go public domain. If they don't care, then contacting them should result in a "sure, I'll release it to public domain and you can give it away."
This case is summed up: I want to give stuff away for free, but tracking down authors and getting that release is a lot of work so I'll try to do it in one fell swoop.
The answer to your question is:
The author has every right to prevent his work from being released during the copyright period. However, you do have the right to make a copy for backup, shifting, etc.
But the author should not be prevented from maintaining a right to his own work during his lifetime. I'm not sure that I agree with the "so many years after his lifetime" part of our current law.
If I create a work for personal benefit, and then others benefit but I do not - then copyright has failed. I simply would not create any more work. If he wants to let others benefit from his work, then that's his choice.
From the very link you posted:
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration."
Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time."
Mailing it to yourself is a way of verifying a date before which the copyright was secured. Since the copyright exists upon creation, you do not need to register it. Because a good way to fight the authenticity of such a copyright, you would do well to provide some time/date proof that the work existed (and therefore the copyright) at the point that you say it did.
If someone violates your copyright, you can indeed register after the fact and still sue them for damages.
Who's to classify a work as "abandonware?" If the author doesn't want the work released, he should have the right to keep it that way. The burden should rest on the publisher, even if that means tracking down the current copyright holder and begging for permission.
Just because you can't find it easily doesn't mean that it should be free for the taking.
Obligatory IANAL. I think "unconditional copyright" is a good idea. I might write a hundred songs (or poems or whatever) in a year and not make any money off of them. It costs money to register your work as copyrighted.
Not needing to register each work simply puts the burden on the "fair use" user. If they want to use my work, then I can grant them the rights to use it. But that doesn't mean that I give up copyrights.
If I am required to register my copyright, then I lose some of the ability to protect it.
As it stands, I am able to create a work and the copyright exists immediately. I can even register the copyright after an infringement takes place and win in a lawsuit.
Want to prove that you created the work on a certain date? Mail it to yourself and don't open it.
Sorry if I missed the humor in your post... I have been dealing with some seriously humor-less responses lately and it seemed yours might just be another. My point, though, is still valid. Your post was not a criticism; it was an attack on my efforts to agree with the sentiment that such a proposal is generally worthless.
Interesting blog, by the way. It seems we may agree on at least a few levels..
Wow, why don't I reinvent the wheel every time I have a thought? Have you read any one else's post? Do they analyze and justify each sentence that they make, or do they rely on the reader's ability to take their points in the context of the general discussion?
If I were to discuss quantum mechanics, would I be required to give a full intro-through-expert writeup before I was able to express my own opinions or thoughts?
No? Then go back to your cave, troll.
That's awesome. Parent post ROCKS.
This is another article describing another "attempt" at ending spam. They can be identified with the obligatory "Could this be the end of spam?" question.
By the way, the answer to that question is always "NO."
Walk into a Best Buy or similar large electronics store. Buy something in stock. Usually, they have some machines at decent prices... the down side is that they may not be the machine you want. It sounds like you have some specific needs or demands.
Your other option is to buy something off Ebay, but again, you may not find what you want. Also, you may not trust Ebay/the Buyer/whatever else in that process.
Good point... My Dell Axim usually holds a usable charge for a week or two. With almost no use (I know...), it seems to last three or four. As soon as I start using it heavily (playing media files, anything CPU intensive) it drains pretty quick.
I'm still pretty satisfied. My cell phone lasts maybe two days before I need to recharge it, and that's not a huge inconvenience.
If they (I don't know who) would standardize the power adapter, keeping it charged would be a cinch.