...And this statement is based on the assumption that Congress gives a flying ford (well, some four letter 'f' word) about the Constitution.:-)
Things change over time. We were originally much less of a Federal-centric government, but we have become so. And looking at the way the copyright laws have evolved, I'd say they definately have become geared towards protecting the theoretical (and/or actual) rights of the creators.
Now, that has very little to do with the intent. It can be said that one of the basic intents of the Internet was to allow the military and scientists to be able to continue to communicate after something like a nuclear war. Thankfully, the concept evolved, and has done much good - one of many examples where the evolution of an idea has been good.
Not all such evolutions are good, and I tend to thing copyright law has gone way too far in focusing on *only* protecting the rights of the creators - and/or copyright holders.
It doesn't matter so much what the original intentions were - I think we have to look at:
What we think it should mean to us now
What all the possible uses and ramifications are
Then develop the laws to suit those purposes.
I'm sure we can find many ideas that no longer apply. How about the idea that a woman should stay home, clean the house, and raise the kids? I think that idea is rather outdated.
Times change, and ideas should too. I think copyright should attempt to balance the rights of the creator and the rights of society, with an eye towards increasing the benefits to as many as possible.
Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from building on many sources, just from basically taking something and trying to say it's yours.
It's a relative thing, sure, and I'm not trying to argue that copyright isn't a little too much in favour of the copyright holders, but if there was no protection, there would be no reason for at least 90% of the information being published to be published.
As much as we want to have a free society, you still expect to be paid for the hours you work, right? Well, you have to follow the money. Money has to flow *somewhere*, or the economy stops.
There, was that a fine leap from copyright law to the entire economy?:-)
Of course I joke... heh. Mostly because of my past jobs working tech support, and the guy sitting next to me one time who tried to get a customer to type "a colon space setup dot exe" for about 5 minutes until I was off my call, heard what he was doing, and slapped him silly.
Well, okay, I didn't slap him, but I wanted to. Badly.:-)
But on your response -- that works. I mean, if you're doing something that you could just about do on another planet, it should count. Maybe not so glorious, but still.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
The mafia went straight,
You mean... You mean, all the hanging out with beautiful women was for *show*???
*I'm* scarred now...
:-)
No! The "point" of copyright is (snip)
...And this statement is based on the assumption that Congress gives a flying ford (well, some four letter 'f' word) about the Constitution. :-)
Things change over time. We were originally much less of a Federal-centric government, but we have become so. And looking at the way the copyright laws have evolved, I'd say they definately have become geared towards protecting the theoretical (and/or actual) rights of the creators.
Now, that has very little to do with the intent. It can be said that one of the basic intents of the Internet was to allow the military and scientists to be able to continue to communicate after something like a nuclear war. Thankfully, the concept evolved, and has done much good - one of many examples where the evolution of an idea has been good.
Not all such evolutions are good, and I tend to thing copyright law has gone way too far in focusing on *only* protecting the rights of the creators - and/or copyright holders.
It doesn't matter so much what the original intentions were - I think we have to look at:
What we think it should mean to us now
What all the possible uses and ramifications are
Then develop the laws to suit those purposes.
I'm sure we can find many ideas that no longer apply. How about the idea that a woman should stay home, clean the house, and raise the kids? I think that idea is rather outdated.
Times change, and ideas should too. I think copyright should attempt to balance the rights of the creator and the rights of society, with an eye towards increasing the benefits to as many as possible.
If I want to make a derivative work, would it benefit society more if I paid the author or if the author just denied me the rights?
:-)
Well, the point of copyright is to protect the rights of the artist, not the benefits to society.
The problem I have with this debate is that I agree with you for the most part, which is why I'm only coming back on this part of your reply.
It's like driving along a highway, and seeing an old bridge over a stream next to you -- you realize that's where the old highway went...
This story is just like that. Kinda odd and out there, and 99% of the passersby will never find it.
And this comment is only three days after yours. heh.
Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from building on many sources, just from basically taking something and trying to say it's yours.
:-)
It's a relative thing, sure, and I'm not trying to argue that copyright isn't a little too much in favour of the copyright holders, but if there was no protection, there would be no reason for at least 90% of the information being published to be published.
As much as we want to have a free society, you still expect to be paid for the hours you work, right? Well, you have to follow the money. Money has to flow *somewhere*, or the economy stops.
There, was that a fine leap from copyright law to the entire economy?
All I got to say is: Consider the source. In my book, that's one vote of confidence in the NYT.
:-D
Disclaimer: This is intended as humour, NOT as flamebait. I hate all politicians equally, even the smart ones...
Well, but that's kind of like saying that laws against theft [of physical property] prevent people from stealing your stuff.
:-)
Not trying to be a [censored]hole here, but if the copyright applied to, say, just the piece of paper, it'd be pretty useless.
Of course I joke... heh. Mostly because of my past jobs working tech support, and the guy sitting next to me one time who tried to get a customer to type "a colon space setup dot exe" for about 5 minutes until I was off my call, heard what he was doing, and slapped him silly.
:-)
:-)
Well, okay, I didn't slap him, but I wanted to. Badly.
But on your response -- that works. I mean, if you're doing something that you could just about do on another planet, it should count. Maybe not so glorious, but still.
It's all good until tech support says, "So... Do you have a boot disk?" :-)
My favorite limerick / haiku of all time is:
There was an old man
from Peru whose lim'ricks all
looked like Haiku. He
Said with a laugh "I
cut them in half. The pay is
much better for two.