From the link: "There are several Disney animated adaptations based very loosely on the Mowgli stories. (Adaptations of The Jungle Book tend to concentrate on Mowgli's adventures.) It has also been filmed several times with varying degrees of authenticity. Disney's 1967 animated film version, based loosely on the Mowgli stories, was extremely popular, though it took great liberties with the plot, characters and the pronunciation of the characters' names. " (bold added)
Having the same general story as someone else would not be protected under copyright. In fact, it was made at a time of "bad" copyright laws, and yet it still managed to get made.
But having the same names in similar roles and having a clearly similar story would definitely be protected under modern copyright. Try writing and publishing a Harry Potter movie today that only vaguely follows one of the published books and see how well you fare.
What matters is not if copyright law was bad when Disney made the movie, but if the stories he derived from were covered by copyright at the time he derived from them.
The works Disney derived from *could not* have been protected by copyright, especially a reasonable system. He was making works based on folk tales that had long been passed down with no definable owner, and only vaguely borrowed from them.
poor implementaion of copyright (extremely excessive terms, no fair use)
We were discussing current implementation of copyright. Having a theoretical discussion on how copyright could be implemented such that those disadvantages are less of a problem is interesting of course, but is just that, theoretical.
or b) ultimately a form of "I couldn't infringe on work that required copyrgith to exist".
You never demonstrated that those works required copyright to exist, whereas I demonstrated it is quite possible to produce works without needing copyright.
Obviously I already posted in this discussion. Too bad, I also have mod points, and your post definitely deserve some modding up.
Often forgotten, but quite true. As a matter of fact, free publication (of the bible) was one of the underlyng issues of a 80 years war of independence between the Netherlands (where I happen to live) and Spain in the 1600s.
He used pre-existing works as inspiration without copying verbatim. et those are very clearly derived works and if the works he based himself on would be protected by copyright still, he could not have done that (without permission of the original authors or copyright holders at least)
Notes aren't the only thing to a piece of music and even with similar notes there can be other factors that make a song completely different. Orchestration is a big one, for example. Also I think the proof that every song has been written applies only if four or six arbitrary notes are sufficient to establish a strong similarity which in practice won't be the case.
There is definitely more to music, but no matter what orchestration of the "happy birthday" tune you come up with, you still have a derived work and will still be infringing on the copyright on the original.
People do get sued all the time over using a sequence of notes that has been used before.
We'd never see a movie with the scope of Lord of the Rings again though. There is too much upfront cost for no guaranteed return. Now, you might not like movies but Joe Public does, and watching the latest video blog on youtube probably won't satisfy them.
If enough people want to pay for it, we'd still see something like that, payment would be arranged in a different way of course.
That any created work is copyrighted, regardless of the intentions of the author. In other words, the fact that something is copyrighted does in no way mean that copyright made that creation possible, or encouraged it or any such thing.
However, the claim in question -- that there exist artistic works that are not produced because of copyright -- was the only unreasonable claim here that was lacking proof. (Remember, "I can't create a derivative of this copyrighted work" is not an argument -- that work only existed because of copyright.) I've covered my bases.
First problem with your statement is that that work only existed because of copyright. There is no proof for that whatsoever, and there is a lot of historical proof that artistic works are produced regardless of lack of copyright. A couple of centuries of Greek and Roman culture prodced a lot of such works without any copyright existing. Hence the basic assertion that your statement is based on fails.
Your solution would only work for performance artists. A modern author would get screwed by the system you are suggesting. Especially with digital media available, magazines and novels literally wouldn't be worth the paper they were printed on. This is the primary reason most pre-copyright works are theological. They were produced for study, not for money. I know there are exceptions, but they are a small minority of works.
Uh, I would not call the works from many of the great authors of ancient (Greek, Roman) times 'theological', yet copyright did not exist back then.
Then, part of my income comes from writing articles and computer software. Both are in theory protected by copyright, and I earn money from both without asserting that copyright. I am not a performing artist, so in my own experience at least, your statement seems wrong.
Not to mention that an author could 'perform' by reading from his/her own work, and many do, and many get payed for that, so authors can in fact perform.
You may want to be careful about offering arguments like this. The report itself offers figures to show that the intellectual property industry as a whole constituted well over 11% of the US GDP in 2005,
An industry built in part on rehashing old, no longer protected works, and in part on the lax copyright regime in the USA in earlier times.
If copyright had been anywhere near what it is now for the past 200 years, that entire industry would most likely not have existed at all, or at least be much much smaller then it is now.
Hm. You make a good point. How about this: I'll simply ask for a reason why something *could* exist without copyright, but not with copyright.
Oh, wait, I already did that before you jumped in with your insights!
And your question was already answered.
If the works that Disney derived from would have been protected by copyright, he could not have derived from them in the way he did. Hence, the fact that those works were not protected by copyright anymore made that he could do what he did. That those works were at some earlier time protected by copyright does not change that at all.
I'll even say that the opposite, the claim that a given copyrighted work would not exist except for copyright, is just as unprovable.
It's not provable in the mathematical sense, but given that the artists preferred not to use the non-copyright method that was available to them, and did require significant financial investment, it is unreasonable to think otherwise.
Please explain why that is unreasonable. It may SEEM unreasonable to you because of the envvironment you are living in, the things you are used to, the experience you have, what others have been telling you for a long time and such.. but reasonable requires an explanation that is based on well, reason. Your statement shows no such reason, rather, I believe it shows lack of imagination because you seem to not be able to imagine any other way then the current way.
Really, getting payed by the hour is a much better deal for the large majority of artists, but for many it is not a real option yet because of how distribution channels are controlled. It is quite reasonable to say that most artists would prefer the certainty of a steady income over the lottery that the current system provides.
No. In the Roman Empire, there was a very active publishing scene, where the recitals of poets or the plays of playwrights were transcribed, copied by slaves, and sold in the marketplace. Most popular literary figures had little contact with the ruling powers in the writing and dissemination of their works. People like Plautus were relatively insignificant commoners, and do you think that Hesiod and Homer had to wait for the permission of a king for their poetry to gain acclaim? And even when some work or another ended up irking the powers that be, the result was not an end to publication (Ovid's work spread widely) by the exile of the individual writer.
And for a long time after that the situation was as I described. Both predate copyright as we know it.
So while you are right about ancient times, the "no" at the start of your post is quite wrong.
Copyright doesn't guarantee income to anyone -- after all, your intellectual works could be garbage. But a lot of people think that it does not help to generate income for the artists, since "the big evil record companies take it all". But this is common misconception. How much would the record companies pay the artists if they couldn't own the intellectual property at all?
They would do work for hire, and get payed for the amount of work they did. This would in fact work out better for the large majority of artists.
They would also have to actually do life performances or exhibitions or whatever is proper for their works, and get some income that way.
What this will do is remove some of the lottery aspect of creating art.
Remember, artists already have the right not to claim copyright and try to make money without selling the rights to a record company. If you think you can make more money this way, go for it! But light a match before griping about the darkness.
I happen to create works for which I can claim copyright, and I happen to not assert those rights in the large majority of cases. Where I do assert those rights, it is for a very limited time.
Oh, and I do actually make some money with that as well.
Does it make me rich? definitely not, but then, when averaging the income of artists "within the system", you may find that they earn very little typically. There are some exceptions, which are just that, exceptions.
The only ones typically making quite a bit of money on copyright are distributors, and not those who actually create works of art.
In the past, pre-copyright, there was no intellectual property
In the past publication was a privilege granted by a monarch, and strictly controlled by guilds. The actual authors of whatever works had no say in this whatsoever (other then not creating their works)
Believe it or not, but copyright was actually a liberation of sorts. This is also where the misguided belief comes from that copyright promotes creation of works of art. It definitely does when compared to the guilds system, but that is pretty meaningless when comparing it to a situation where any works can be freely used and reused.
For the rest, I definitely agree that copyright as it is is completely broken, and is not even remotely serving its stated purpose. Rather, it is only there to help the big distributors keep as much control as possible.
Copyright does not guarantee any kind of income to those who actually create works of art, and it derives them of many of their sources of inspiration (at least legally)
Due process was made, and he has temporally lost his liberty by being put in jail until he grants the subpoena.
Due process would have been the judge telling the feds to stick it where the sun doesn't shine and leave state matters to the state to deal with.
This is how courts should be ran. There's nothing unfair, or evil about this situation.
There is no relation between what is being asked and what consequences follow from not granting what has been asked. That is not how courts should be ran at all, at least if serving justice appears anywhere on the list of 'goals'
Whilst not an expert on the specifics, I believe most prosecuting attorneys are employees of the Department of/Justice/. The US Attorney is employed in the pursuit of justice (however laughably that is sometimes interpreted, rightly or wrongly).
Justice is done by judges and/or juries, not by prosecuting attorneys. They represent the 'wronged' party, which in case of those working for the department of justice, is society as a whole.
I agree he was certainlly not simply jailed with impunity.
When jailing someone for a long time, without due trial and conviction, and it not having consequences for those who jailed him, it is correct to say he has been jailed with impunity.
I agree that he was not jailed unlawfully.
It seems that the feds are sticking their nose into affairs where it doesn't belong legally. This is at the very least debatable.
I could possibly be persuaded that he was not jailed unjustly.
Maybe, I still have to see a good argument, but I agree, I could be persuaded of that (just like of the previous 2) given an actually decent argument for it.
However, He is being HELD an awfully long time, without trial, without being charged, and without bail. (doesn't seem to be a flight risk). 6-18 months is not an inconvience, it is not a wake up call, it is no a cooling off period to think, it is not a legal means of persuasion. It is IMPRISIONMENT, is is PUNISHMENT. Imprisionment and punishment by our gonvernment requires that a process of law be followed.
Well, that is why I am not at all convinced of the legality of him being jailed..
Yes, he should have at least shown up for the subpenoa. (Sounds like he did. "I was escorted into custody from the courtroom the day I was ruled in contempt.")
No he shouldn't because this is not in the federal jurisdiction. The judge made a request which isn't exactly in his power to make. The mere fact that he is judge doesn't mean you have to listen.
Yes, he was found in civil contempt. Yes, The Feds grabbed this case, on a very week arguement in order to by-pass California state shield laws.
You see, that is a big part of the problem, those lines between federation and state were drawn for a reason. Those trying to bypass those lines and reasons are the ones who belong in jail.
Yes, he should either released or formally charged.
That I can agree with completely, but on top of that, if not charged, or not found guilty, those responsible for him being jailed for this long should at the very least: 1. spend twice as long in prison themselves (federal prison also) 2. compensate him very generously from their own money
So ? The feds tend to argue a lot - that's their right, they can advance any argument they want. It is up to the court to decide.
That is plain rubbish.
'The feds' have a duty to follow and protect the constitution even more then the 'typical' citizen. They cannot do and say whatever pleases them at all.
Of course I have, but it's very unusual (despite Slashdotters' geeky preferences). And most of those computer rooms have admins who can control the audio and security, even if they're just the kind of savvy user with multiple computers for their own use.
Having an office where there are multiple people sharing the same room is very exceptional?
With all respect, in approx any company with more then one office worker, it is the norm, not the exception.
Are you saying that Microsoft's programmers are less skilled than yours or anyone elses?
That is the impression they give from the products they created.
The programmers hired by various companies (and those stupid enough to work for free) all are trained by the same universities.
Ah, you are one of those. You come from university X so you MUST be smart.... If you didn't find out yet that that has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with being smart or not then you have a long way to go still.
There's no evidence that you are more skilled than an MS programmer. You sound like a tool that failed to make it through MS's interview process and are still quite bitter.
Rather, you sound like a Microsoft programmer feeling personally attacked by his statements.
Slashdot Mirror
From the link: "There are several Disney animated adaptations based very loosely on the Mowgli stories. (Adaptations of The Jungle Book tend to concentrate on Mowgli's adventures.) It has also been filmed several times with varying degrees of authenticity. Disney's 1967 animated film version, based loosely on the Mowgli stories, was extremely popular, though it took great liberties with the plot, characters and the pronunciation of the characters' names. " (bold added)
Having the same general story as someone else would not be protected under copyright. In fact, it was made at a time of "bad" copyright laws, and yet it still managed to get made.
But having the same names in similar roles and having a clearly similar story would definitely be protected under modern copyright. Try writing and publishing a Harry Potter movie today that only vaguely follows one of the published books and see how well you fare.
What matters is not if copyright law was bad when Disney made the movie, but if the stories he derived from were covered by copyright at the time he derived from them.
The works Disney derived from *could not* have been protected by copyright, especially a reasonable system. He was making works based on folk tales that had long been passed down with no definable owner, and only vaguely borrowed from them.
Check for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle_Book and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarzan
What you say is true for some stories that Disney derived from, but not for all.
poor implementaion of copyright (extremely excessive terms, no fair use)
We were discussing current implementation of copyright. Having a theoretical discussion on how copyright could be implemented such that those disadvantages are less of a problem is interesting of course, but is just that, theoretical.
or b) ultimately a form of "I couldn't infringe on work that required copyrgith to exist".
You never demonstrated that those works required copyright to exist, whereas I demonstrated it is quite possible to produce works without needing copyright.
Obviously I already posted in this discussion. Too bad, I also have mod points, and your post definitely deserve some modding up.
Often forgotten, but quite true. As a matter of fact, free publication (of the bible) was one of the underlyng issues of a 80 years war of independence between the Netherlands (where I happen to live) and Spain in the 1600s.
Disney wasn't trying to obscure his inspirations.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
He used pre-existing works as inspiration without copying verbatim. et those are very clearly derived works and if the works he based himself on would be protected by copyright still, he could not have done that (without permission of the original authors or copyright holders at least)
Notes aren't the only thing to a piece of music and even with similar notes there can be other factors that make a song completely different. Orchestration is a big one, for example. Also I think the proof that every song has been written applies only if four or six arbitrary notes are sufficient to establish a strong similarity which in practice won't be the case.
There is definitely more to music, but no matter what orchestration of the "happy birthday" tune you come up with, you still have a derived work and will still be infringing on the copyright on the original.
People do get sued all the time over using a sequence of notes that has been used before.
We'd never see a movie with the scope of Lord of the Rings again though. There is too much upfront cost for no guaranteed return. Now, you might not like movies but Joe Public does, and watching the latest video blog on youtube probably won't satisfy them.
If enough people want to pay for it, we'd still see something like that, payment would be arranged in a different way of course.
Then be more creative, don't just take what inspires you verbatim.
You don't have to take things verbatim to violate copyright. Disney didn't for many of his works, yet he very clearly derived from pre-existing works.
Basicly every possible sequence of notes has already been produced, so no more music can be written now?
What you suggest is nice in theory, but very much detached from reality.
What does that have to do with anything?
That any created work is copyrighted, regardless of the intentions of the author. In other words, the fact that something is copyrighted does in no way mean that copyright made that creation possible, or encouraged it or any such thing.
However, the claim in question -- that there exist artistic works that are not produced because of copyright -- was the only unreasonable claim here that was lacking proof. (Remember, "I can't create a derivative of this copyrighted work" is not an argument -- that work only existed because of copyright.) I've covered my bases.
First problem with your statement is that that work only existed because of copyright. There is no proof for that whatsoever, and there is a lot of historical proof that artistic works are produced regardless of lack of copyright. A couple of centuries of Greek and Roman culture prodced a lot of such works without any copyright existing. Hence the basic assertion that your statement is based on fails.
Your solution would only work for performance artists. A modern author would get screwed by the system you are suggesting. Especially with digital media available, magazines and novels literally wouldn't be worth the paper they were printed on. This is the primary reason most pre-copyright works are theological. They were produced for study, not for money. I know there are exceptions, but they are a small minority of works.
Uh, I would not call the works from many of the great authors of ancient (Greek, Roman) times 'theological', yet copyright did not exist back then.
Then, part of my income comes from writing articles and computer software. Both are in theory protected by copyright, and I earn money from both without asserting that copyright. I am not a performing artist, so in my own experience at least, your statement seems wrong.
Not to mention that an author could 'perform' by reading from his/her own work, and many do, and many get payed for that, so authors can in fact perform.
You may want to be careful about offering arguments like this. The report itself offers figures to show that the intellectual property industry as a whole constituted well over 11% of the US GDP in 2005,
An industry built in part on rehashing old, no longer protected works, and in part on the lax copyright regime in the USA in earlier times.
If copyright had been anywhere near what it is now for the past 200 years, that entire industry would most likely not have existed at all, or at least be much much smaller then it is now.
Hm. You make a good point. How about this: I'll simply ask for a reason why something *could* exist without copyright, but not with copyright.
Oh, wait, I already did that before you jumped in with your insights!
And your question was already answered.
If the works that Disney derived from would have been protected by copyright, he could not have derived from them in the way he did. Hence, the fact that those works were not protected by copyright anymore made that he could do what he did. That those works were at some earlier time protected by copyright does not change that at all.
I'll even say that the opposite, the claim that a given copyrighted work would not exist except for copyright, is just as unprovable.
It's not provable in the mathematical sense, but given that the artists preferred not to use the non-copyright method that was available to them, and did require significant financial investment, it is unreasonable to think otherwise.
Please explain why that is unreasonable. It may SEEM unreasonable to you because of the envvironment you are living in, the things you are used to, the experience you have, what others have been telling you for a long time and such.. but reasonable requires an explanation that is based on well, reason. Your statement shows no such reason, rather, I believe it shows lack of imagination because you seem to not be able to imagine any other way then the current way.
Really, getting payed by the hour is a much better deal for the large majority of artists, but for many it is not a real option yet because of how distribution channels are controlled. It is quite reasonable to say that most artists would prefer the certainty of a steady income over the lottery that the current system provides.
No. In the Roman Empire, there was a very active publishing scene, where the recitals of poets or the plays of playwrights were transcribed, copied by slaves, and sold in the marketplace. Most popular literary figures had little contact with the ruling powers in the writing and dissemination of their works. People like Plautus were relatively insignificant commoners, and do you think that Hesiod and Homer had to wait for the permission of a king for their poetry to gain acclaim? And even when some work or another ended up irking the powers that be, the result was not an end to publication (Ovid's work spread widely) by the exile of the individual writer.
And for a long time after that the situation was as I described. Both predate copyright as we know it.
So while you are right about ancient times, the "no" at the start of your post is quite wrong.
When you state something, you can be asked to back it up with some kind of argument or even provide some kind of proof.
Asking someone to disprove your statement is not doing the job there.
Copyright doesn't guarantee income to anyone -- after all, your intellectual works could be garbage. But a lot of people think that it does not help to generate income for the artists, since "the big evil record companies take it all". But this is common misconception. How much would the record companies pay the artists if they couldn't own the intellectual property at all?
They would do work for hire, and get payed for the amount of work they did. This would in fact work out better for the large majority of artists.
They would also have to actually do life performances or exhibitions or whatever is proper for their works, and get some income that way.
What this will do is remove some of the lottery aspect of creating art.
Remember, artists already have the right not to claim copyright and try to make money without selling the rights to a record company. If you think you can make more money this way, go for it! But light a match before griping about the darkness.
I happen to create works for which I can claim copyright, and I happen to not assert those rights in the large majority of cases. Where I do assert those rights, it is for a very limited time.
Oh, and I do actually make some money with that as well.
Does it make me rich? definitely not, but then, when averaging the income of artists "within the system", you may find that they earn very little typically. There are some exceptions, which are just that, exceptions.
The only ones typically making quite a bit of money on copyright are distributors, and not those who actually create works of art.
In the past, pre-copyright, there was no intellectual property
In the past publication was a privilege granted by a monarch, and strictly controlled by guilds. The actual authors of whatever works had no say in this whatsoever (other then not creating their works)
Believe it or not, but copyright was actually a liberation of sorts. This is also where the misguided belief comes from that copyright promotes creation of works of art. It definitely does when compared to the guilds system, but that is pretty meaningless when comparing it to a situation where any works can be freely used and reused.
For the rest, I definitely agree that copyright as it is is completely broken, and is not even remotely serving its stated purpose. Rather, it is only there to help the big distributors keep as much control as possible.
Copyright does not guarantee any kind of income to those who actually create works of art, and it derives them of many of their sources of inspiration (at least legally)
All of these posts suggesting 'move somewhere else' seem to be missing the point, and also that mindset contributes to the current problem.
Well, it is how the USA got started... Don't try to fix the problem, just move away.
Due process was made, and he has temporally lost his liberty by being put in jail until he grants the subpoena.
Due process would have been the judge telling the feds to stick it where the sun doesn't shine and leave state matters to the state to deal with.
This is how courts should be ran. There's nothing unfair, or evil about this situation.
There is no relation between what is being asked and what consequences follow from not granting what has been asked. That is not how courts should be ran at all, at least if serving justice appears anywhere on the list of 'goals'
Whilst not an expert on the specifics, I believe most prosecuting attorneys are employees of the Department of /Justice/. The US Attorney is employed in the pursuit of justice (however laughably that is sometimes interpreted, rightly or wrongly).
Justice is done by judges and/or juries, not by prosecuting attorneys. They represent the 'wronged' party, which in case of those working for the department of justice, is society as a whole.
I agree he was certainlly not simply jailed with impunity.
When jailing someone for a long time, without due trial and conviction, and it not having consequences for those who jailed him, it is correct to say he has been jailed with impunity.
I agree that he was not jailed unlawfully.
It seems that the feds are sticking their nose into affairs where it doesn't belong legally. This is at the very least debatable.
I could possibly be persuaded that he was not jailed unjustly.
Maybe, I still have to see a good argument, but I agree, I could be persuaded of that (just like of the previous 2) given an actually decent argument for it.
However,
He is being HELD an awfully long time, without trial, without being charged, and without bail. (doesn't seem to be a flight risk).
6-18 months is not an inconvience, it is not a wake up call, it is no a cooling off period to think, it is not a legal means of persuasion. It is IMPRISIONMENT, is is PUNISHMENT. Imprisionment and punishment by our gonvernment requires that a process of law be followed.
Well, that is why I am not at all convinced of the legality of him being jailed..
Yes, he should have at least shown up for the subpenoa. (Sounds like he did. "I was escorted into custody from the courtroom the day I was ruled in contempt.")
No he shouldn't because this is not in the federal jurisdiction. The judge made a request which isn't exactly in his power to make. The mere fact that he is judge doesn't mean you have to listen.
Yes, he was found in civil contempt.
Yes, The Feds grabbed this case, on a very week arguement in order to by-pass California state shield laws.
You see, that is a big part of the problem, those lines between federation and state were drawn for a reason. Those trying to bypass those lines and reasons are the ones who belong in jail.
Yes, he should either released or formally charged.
That I can agree with completely, but on top of that, if not charged, or not found guilty, those responsible for him being jailed for this long should at the very least:
1. spend twice as long in prison themselves (federal prison also)
2. compensate him very generously from their own money
So ? The feds tend to argue a lot - that's their right, they can advance any argument they want. It is up to the court to decide.
That is plain rubbish.
'The feds' have a duty to follow and protect the constitution even more then the 'typical' citizen. They cannot do and say whatever pleases them at all.
Geez, you are an idiot. "The government" is full of lefties.
Such irrational generalizations such as: the gov attacking all left wingers is pathetic, and shows your level of thought (low, very low).
I find it ironic that you think it's o.k. for lefties (many here out of our generosity, and kindness) to break the law, destroy property, hurt others.
Combining those sentences leads to the conclusion that 'The government' is full of people who break the law, destroy property and hurt others?
As a matter of fact, I think you are right.
There is NO SUCH THING as underprivileged in America. It's a myth fostered by the hate filled left.
It seems to me that the only one being 'hate filled' is you, filled with hate of 'the left'...
He is resisting so he can be a "hero", make a book deal, and increase hits to his website. Hell he may even get a real job as a real journo.
So it is wrong to stand up to those whom according to your own statements are breaking the law, destroying property and hurting others?
Of course I have, but it's very unusual (despite Slashdotters' geeky preferences). And most of those computer rooms have admins who can control the audio and security, even if they're just the kind of savvy user with multiple computers for their own use.
Having an office where there are multiple people sharing the same room is very exceptional?
With all respect, in approx any company with more then one office worker, it is the norm, not the exception.
Are you saying that Microsoft's programmers are less skilled than yours or anyone elses?
That is the impression they give from the products they created.
The programmers hired by various companies (and those stupid enough to work for free) all are trained by the same universities.
Ah, you are one of those. You come from university X so you MUST be smart.... If you didn't find out yet that that has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with being smart or not then you have a long way to go still.
There's no evidence that you are more skilled than an MS programmer. You sound like a tool that failed to make it through MS's interview process and are still quite bitter.
Rather, you sound like a Microsoft programmer feeling personally attacked by his statements.
Heh, as they say there, a bit expensive... but cool stuff, thanks!