Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
Okay... you really messed up this time, and I will answer ever piece of this post, seems that you have NO understanding of Copyright laws and seem to want to keep inflicting the same erroneous beliefs over and over again. I kept my last few posts brief because you made mention of how long the first one was.
"Did you missed the part where I said there would be a public copyright, which lasts 10 years, and a commercial copyright, which lasts the artists lifetime? A system that would allow people who won't make any money to making a copy of work after 10 years, and force anyone trying to make money from copying a work to pay or be denied."
No, I didn't miss this part, in fact I replied to it.... It's the bit you later complained that I narrowed in on. "only attacking the small parts that you disagree with (10 year copyright)." As I said, "Australia has only one copyright act, and it is quite adaquate." If you had an understanding of what copyright IS then you wouldn't be trying to complicate things with two laws which won't work. I will eleborate on this later in the post.
"Do you even bother the read the entire post? You seem to be only taking small parts of my post, and only attacking the small parts that you disagree with (10 year copyright). This is exactly what the big corporations do...attack something they don't like by focusing intensely on one particular thing."
Oh course I read the entire post. I was keeping my replies brief because you didn't seem to like the original long reply. The reason I attack the things I disagree with, is because only an idiot would attack the things they agree with. The thing I keep attacking MOST is not the 'ten year' thing, but the fact that you have no idea WHAT Copyright is, and what it does.
Look, all I know is that by keeping artists in the current system only hurts them more then doing something about changing the system.
You've spoken about changing COPYRIGHT LAWS, not the system. Copyright is the bit that allows the artist to own their work, and where they get their money from. NOT the corporations - they DON"T OWN IT OR RECIEVE ANY MONEY FROM IT. The corporations do NOT own the copyright. The artist does and ONLY the artist gets paid for copyright. Everything else gets paid to the CORPORATION. Why are you attacking the ONLY part the Corps DON'T get!??? [Say this to yourself ten times "Coyright - Artist. Everything else - Corporation"].
"It's easy to sit back and say "Leave copyright alone, it's the only thing protecting the artists!", because that's what the corporate propaganda tells you."
NO, It's WHAT THE LAW SAYS! Modern copyright IS there to protect the artist. Previously the copyright laws were a way for corporations to monopolise on peoples works, because they received the copyright, and could pay the artist what they want. The LAW was changed to protect the artist, which is why modern copyright is automatically OWNED by the artist for THEIR work. The Corporation DOES NOT OWN, NOR DO THEY RECEIVE MONIES FROM COPYRIGHT. DO YOU EVEN READ THE POSTS? Removing copyright from the artist will only HELP the CORPORATIONS. This is where your two law system falls apart. The corporations NEVER pay copyright on the songs etc that they distribute. (There is a distribution deal which covers this part of the deal) NO WHERE does a corporation PAY COPYRIGHT. The copyright is paid by the CONSUMER when they PURCHASE the product. Once you remove the copyright (after ten years) they artist is then NOT receiving any money. The Corporation is still under NO OBLIGATION to pay copyright. They are a distributor and so the copyright gets paid for by the end consumer IF they decide to purchase the product through the corporation. BUT WHY SHOULD THEY, under your law, it will be freely available. They can download it for free, and the market disappears. So the BIG CORP. will probably stop distrib
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
It's an 'assumption' in the same way that the $20 dollars in my pocket obviously isn't worth $20, but is representative of $20. The plastic (yes, we have plastic money here), and the ink obviously do not cost $20, so it's really by agreement and Australian law that we treat it as having this value. (Which is the same way that Australian Copyright protects an artists copyright as if it is property.) I quoted the Australian Copyright Act of 1968 s196.
I don't like the term 'assumption', because I don't think it really covers what's happening. A "Social Construction" might be a better term. (Or it might not). But at the end of the day, the Australian Copyright Act and it's interpretations do run with the 'Social Construction' that copyright is a type of property (having actually used the word in the Act itself. And refering to this in the act of 1842)
Do I buy into this "social construction"? Yes, the same way that most people buy into the one about money.
The point I was making in my original post, was that the use of 'physical property' to explain this "social construction" is not the bad thing the article is trying to say it is, and the copyright laws (at least in Australia), do actually support this line of thinking.
Hopefully that was a better explanation. So to basically summarise, the "Social Construction" that it is Property, is LAW in Australia.
Cheers
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
"Sue their asses for not securing payment to the artist if they are still alive"
Sorry, if it is public domain like you want, they can't be sued. Australia has only one copyright act, and it is quite adaquate. There are 'fair play' laws which allow for soem situations when a person can use a copyrighted piece freely. Most collection agencies don't bother with small fry in the industry. (It's cost prohibiting to try and collect 6.6 cents off someone just because they sang a song illegally once).
"But on the other hand, you can also create a mixed CD with Camp Town Races on it now, but you can't put the Beatles Strawberry Fields on it legally."
Yes, you can, you just need to secure the right to use it. That's not hard, it's just a matter of contacting the right agency, and normally they will allow it. The prevalence of Beatles tunes used in Advertising proves that the agency which does this is not made of stone. (Nike used "Why don't we do it in the road", a car ad in Aussie used "baby, you can drive my car". Plus there are a few others). Copyright doesn't stop people using things and adding to them. All it does is ensure that the owner has a right to Veto (when they don't want it used for something), and that they get paid for it's use. Most artist never veto the use of their works, because allowing it's use increases their income.
"And copyright IS that big on price. While an artist might get that $6.60 from every 7 albums sold, the publisher, unions, and other assorted middlemen get $120"
No, the "$120" (is actually closer to $200 at $30 an album), is NOT Copyright! That's the point. All of that is what everyone else is making... NONE of that is the copyright you are trying to get removed from the artist.
This current system does have lot's of flaws designed to rip the artist off. All the more reason NOT to reduce the artists copyright to 10 years. Many books have been written about the industry and the scams and stuff. If you thought that $200 profit margin was copyright, then I worry about you. (Some of it might be... but even then, there would be a good $180 at least profit margin by everyone).
A few years ago, I had about four or five of my recordings on the internet, available for free. I still retain copyright on those songs, even though the general public could copy them. My copyright ensured that no one could make money from these recordings by either selling them, or re-recording one of my songs. People could distribute them freely, but NOT make money from them. Under your proposed 10 year copyright laws, those songs could now be exploited by people who want to make money. Can you NOT see how your laws would harm me.
In the case of writers, copyright from books is their only income. In the case of musicians, they're income comes from copyright, and whatever they get when they perform.
You changes to the law will only HURT artists. Most record companies, publishers etc will make their money in that first ten years when the product is most popular. After that, when the artist is likely to make some money and get a return on thier creation, you would have them lose their rights. Even the original copyright laws are not as bad as yours. Englands law of 1606, gave 14 years, plus another 14 years option for a work. A total of 28 years. Even the US one of 1790 did the same thing. They have since been extended to STOP ARTISTS from being exploited.
The way copyright is, is that it's like little drops which when put together form some sort of income to the artists. Obvious big artists make a lot from it, because they sell a lot. Small artists NEED that income to survive. The majority of people in this profession are the SMALL ARTIST. These are the ones who really are hurting when people start to remove their coyright.
You might want to go to the library and check out some books on how copyright actually works (and how the music industry works). It may lead you to a better understanding of why your idea hurts the artists and NOT the mega corps you think are getting copyright revenue (when they are NOT).
Cheers.
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
It's not an assumption. It's law as of 1842.
"2 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 196. Copyright was not described as a right of property until 1842, in s 25 of the Literary Copyright Act 1842 5 & 6 Vict c 45 (UK).
This is of course in UK and Australia. If you feel this needs to be changed, then it's the politicians and lawyers which need to be convinced.
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
Okay. Thanks. I know in Australia, they pay copyright and the bill is footed by the local rate payers.
Actually, UK and Australian copyright did refer to it as being a property in 1842. This is before the French and supports the "meme" that it was thought of in terms of 'property'. As per act of 1968 confirming this.
"2 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 196. Copyright was not described as a right of property until 1842, in s 25 of the Literary Copyright Act 1842 5 & 6 Vict c 45 (UK)."
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
Okay, with out going into the system and how it works (it would be way too long). At present, the ONLY thing protecting the artists money IS the copyright law. You seem to be wanting to remove the only thing which assures the artist income, and you are doing it in the name of attacking the Big Corps. 10 year copyright is way too short for an artist.
When I was talking about them using your work against you, I wasn't talking in defmation type ways. What I ment was something like this: What if a cigarette company used your song to advertise smoking to children. You are associated with that song... in public domain, it is perfectly legal to do this at present. All the more reason why an artist needs to be able to say "No", I don't want my product being used to do that.
I already read "The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy", or "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" for free. Hitch hikers I borrowed from a friend. Fear and Loathing I borrowed from the library.
Copyright isn't THAT big a price on things. The majority of what you are paying for is the "profit margin". 6.6 cents is what it is on a song. I think a P2P which still pays the artist their 6.6 cents would work. Only $6.60 would get a user 100 songs. That's about the equivalent of 6 to 7 albums. If users are so cheap that thy can't afford to pay a starving artist that small amount just because they want to hurt the big corps. Then there is no point being an artist. People would just wait ten years, and get it for free.
"And, contrary to what you claim, currently, most countries have NO unlimited copyrightlaw"
You might want to go back and read what I said. At no time did I say MOST COUNTRIES. Having not said it,I agree with what you are saying though, Most countries Don't have indefinite. That point was never being debated.
I dud say Australia has laws which grant copyright till 50 years after the creator is dead. (Which I have no problems with, they are the laws I live under now). I also said, we will be getting the US copyright laws, due to the free trade agreement with the US. I got that from an industry newsletter which was e-mailed to me. I dont' think the US and Australia constitute MOST COUNTRIES.
I refered to the US laws as Adinfinitum, because they is what alot of people from the US refer to them as (when Mickey Mouse is due to become public domain, Disney gets the copyright extended).
The other part of the post used the term "Owning a never-ending copyright" which I got from your post. Sorry if that caused a bit of confusion. My intention has never been to defend an Ad-infinitum copywrite law. I reacted to the bit I posted from your original post whcih stated.
"It is NOT meant to be a life-long paycheck; it's meant to be a stimulus for you to make other creative works."
I think from the original copyright laws from Europe, we are in agreement that one the first point you were correct, it wasn't ment to be a life long paycheck... because the laws protected the printers, not the artist/creator. On the second though, I beleive only the US constitution states that it is for use to stimulate more work. Europes original copyright laws were not made for that.
But, one of the points I was making under the modern law, was it is treated it as property, this is what Australian Law has to say about it: "2 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 196. Copyright was not described as a right of property until 1842, in s 25 of the Literary Copyright Act 1842 5 & 6 Vict c 45 (UK)."
So in 1842 the copyright act of UK and Australia did treat it in the same sense I understood it to be, as Property.
Note, this is after both United Kingdom (Donaldson v. Beckett) 1774 and the United States (Wheaton v. Peters) 1834.
As for patents, we haven't discussed those yet. So far we've been discussing copyright. Patents are covered by an entirely different law, and only last for 20 years. So fire, the wheel etc would be public domain anyway. Medications still become public domain after 20 years. At no time have I suggested the extension of these. You're opening a different can of worms.;-)
As for my view on copyright, I think the Australian copyright is good as it stands. My work doesn't stop others buildign on it, as long as they pay me my 6 cents. And if I die tomorrow, I know my family will be looked after. I'd hate to leave a widow with no means of support, just because I was an artist, and people decided all my work should become public domain.
As for the 14 year copyright, don't forget the OPTION to take out the second 14 years. (Effectively 28 years). If you read the arguments regarding the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act", you will find that the 28 years of copyright did have to do with the age of the creator with the Proponents arguing that "life expectancy had risen dramatically since Congress passed the original Copyright Act of 1790", and the opposition arguing that "life expectancy had only risen by ten years since 1790."
With all your elaborate argumentation, you fail to acknowledge that the law originally strived for a balance between stimulating invention by giving a compensation for a limited time, and the interest of society as a whole, when it becomes public."
Okay, my use of the term "Original" Copyright is erroneous. I admit that. Let me elaborate though, because your arguement that it originally "strived for a balance between stimulating invention by giving a compensation for a limited time" is not correct either.
I think the bit you are refering to is from the US Constitution. Not all copyright law is the same through out the world.
"to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." (Article 1 Section 8, US Constitution).
This wasn't the original copyright law, copy right was already prevalent in Europe. The copyright law Washington signed in 1790 came about because the copyright laws from England were no longer in force in the US (with it being it's own sovereign nation).
If we go back to the "Original" ones of Europe, (UK had one in 1606) you will find they were so Printing Companies could Monopolise on works by Authors. When people had their books published they basically sold them to a publishing company who took out copyright on them for use for 14 years, followed by the 14 year addition usage, if they were still selling well.
Obviously that use wasn't to encourage or stimulate anything, except to line the pockets of those who ran the printing presses.
Of course, this defeats my arguement that copyright came about to protect the creator, because obviously it wasn't.
I mistakenly thought the 75 years before 1923 was what the law was back then. Silly me! So I didn't arbitrarily pull the number out of a hat or anywhere else!. I stupidly looked it up on the internet.
Copyright law in Australia (where I am) doesn't mention stimulating invention (nor any of the European ones I have read... though I haven't read them all). So the only one which mentions it is US Law. With Copy right having existed for almost 200 years previously, it is reasonable to say that it wasn't originally intended to stimulate invention.
Modern Copyright law though, as has been explained to me (and as I have read from my legal books here in Australia), is about protecting the property of the Copyright owner (which is normally the creator). Not sure how they view it now in the US, but I would say that after what Sonny Bono did, the US Law is looking at it in similar terms. Protecting the artist (or owner of the work) from exploitation from big record companies etc.
Owning a never-ending copyright on something doesn't necessarily stagnate creativity. The cost of copyright on something is usually pretty small. For instance, on using a song it is 6.6 cents. That means if someone plays one of my songs at 100 venues in a year, they owe me a total of $6.60. Do you really think society will benefit from that person not paying me the $6.60? They just used my work 100 times. I don't think it brings a benefit to society, because usually the collection agencies dont, worry about small fry who might infringe a copyright here or there, they usually only worry about the BIG ones who are making extensive use and profit from it.
Excuse me if I come from a music/artist background, but that's basically where my understanding of copyright comes from. The law books I have on it, come from that background too. So as far as I am concerned, unless I give someone permission to use my work for free, (which I have done in the past), then I expect people to seek permission to use it (in this case from APRA), and they can pay me to use it.
The current laws obviously agree that the artist is entitled to this. With bands like 'The Beatles' and 'Led Zepplin' still selling quite well, the record companies ar
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
The term "intellectual property" carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects
The reason the term 'Intellectual Property' came into being, is because copyright and patents etc ARE Property. (Property being something you own).
As the dictionary states for Property: "1. Something owned; a possession.
2. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
3. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
4. Possessions considered as a group.
"
I think anyone who is familiar with IT who can tell the difference between Hardware and Software will know the sort of difference to expect between Physical and Intellectual properties. [NOTE: I did not say they would be experts on laws regarding them... just I expect they will have the intellegents to know the sort of differences to expect.]
The article really only states that the difference between Physical and Intellectual Property is that it is easier to copy Intellectual Property. On the whole it is a good generalization... but not always. It's pretty easy to copy a sonnett, just by writing it, while ripping a DVD might take a lot of work if you need to write the ripper from scratch.
Other than this distinction I am not entirely convinced that the article gives good enough reason not to use the analogies between Physical and Intellectual property when they are useful.
After all, in both cases, the thing in question is PROPERTY. As the US Copyright office states itself: "Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right..."
Notice the term OWNER of COPYRIGHT. The person with copyright OWNS it... it is the PROPERTY of that person or persons. (As per dictionary definition earlier).
There are different laws regarding each of the different types of intellectual property... but there are different laws regarding physical property too.
For instance, there are laws regarding ownership of motor vehicles and their use. In some states of the US you cannot own a car unless you have a drivers license. In the UK, you cannot own a TV without a license. In Australia you need a license to grow protected flora, or keep a native animal.
These are all forms of physical property which are governed by different laws, in the same way that different types of intellectual property is governed by different laws.
The fact that Patents, Copyright and Trademarks are refered to in legal terms as being OWNED, (as per reference from US Copyright Office above) certainly gives them fair use of being refered to as Property. The addition of Intellectual is needed to distinguish them from Physical Property. Otherwise peopel MAY start to think they are the same.
The facets of Intellectual Property that differ from Physical property are certainly covered by the 'Intellectual' bit of the term. After all, Patents, Copyright and Trademarks can be bought and sold, just like physical property. This is why in many respects they are treated like Physical Property by Lawyers and Publishers.
I am pretty good on the copyright side, having needed to learn it from being in and out of the music industry over the last 20 years. Explaining copyright laws to people in terms of it being physical property makes it easy in the bits that ARE like physical property, and explaining the difference is also pretty easy once you have the analogy going. [It's a bit like explaining the difference between Hardware and Software to people].
If we start to remove ways to make analogies to things, it becomes more difficult to explain. I haven't met anyone who had a problem understanding Copyright when I have explained it in terms using physical property as an analogy for the bits which it is like.
"Yes, but only for a limited time. It is NOT meant to be a life-long paycheck; it's meant to be a stimulus for you to make other creative works."
Since when? The original copyright laws came into place because it recognised INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY as being as valuable as the physical property of a person. It was to stop people doing things like what Henry the Eighth did when he stole someone elses song, stuck one bar on the end, and signed his name to it. It was put in place to PROTECT THE PROPERTY of the ARTIST. That's why it has the word "PROPERTY" in it. It belongs to the creator. The original copyright laws put copyright on the work for 75 years, because that was how long they expected people to live after they created the work. So the artist DID own it for life. Copyright laws changed, because some artist lived longer than the 75 years, so it was later changed to 30 years after the creator died.
Later it was changed again to Indefinite, because what was happening, was people like Buddy Holly were dying young, and their music was still very popular 30 years after their deaths. The BIG MEGA CORPS could then use the artwork for free and SELL it and make a profit. Recognising the IP for what it was, PROPERTY, they decided that even after the artist died, the property could then be passed on to the artist's estate (and descendents) etc. Also, coyright can be BOUGHT or SOLD like any other property.
If you look at copyright laws the way they were intended, then you can consider the copyright like any other piece of property. People can't suddenly drive off in your car or move into your house just because they are over twenty years old, and suddenly become public domain. Farmers don't give away their milk for free just because the cow is 5 years old and public domain.
There are plenty of ways to experience peoples art for free. Most art galleries are free, you can listen to the radio, you can lend a book from a library. The copyright is already paid for in these cases.
YOU CAN BORROW BOOKS AND CD's FROM YOUR FRIENDS - Copyright allows people to DO that. The only thing it doesn't allow you to do, is make a copy of the artists work.
Most artists DO NOT make the Multi millions of dollars that the 'big names' do. Changing copyright laws to try and get something for free, or to stop BIG CORPS making BIG BUCKS, really only harms those in the starving artist bracket.
So what if Disney did lobby to extend copyright on Mickey Mouse. It is a piece of property they are still using. If Mickey Mouse became public domain, then ANYONE could use it FOR ANYTHING they wanted. They could replace TUX the Penguin with Mickey Mouse if they wanted to. Microsoft could use him in commercials to sell their product. Guess what, I think it is a good thing Mickey is Owned by Disney, because I'd hate to see other corps etc exploiting him to make themselves rich, because he became Public Domain. Instead, someone had to be creative and invent Tux the Penguin. Microsoft have to employ creative people to make their ads. Copyright really only hurts when you want to use something for free, which you DIDN'T create. You can bet, that given the chance, anything in public domain which becomes popular will somehow get exploited by the very Big Corps you think are abusing copyright.
As most artist are NOT Disney though, the benefit of the current copyright laws really protects them MORE than the big corps. After all, anything you or I create, becomes OUR property. Disney cannot steal our art and use it any more than we can steal theirs. The only way to get our art, is for them to employ us to create art for them, and have an agreement in place which says they get the copyright on anything we produce. (Similar to the contract I signed when I worked as a programmer).
The actual costs of royalties on copyright isn't much anyway. It's 6.6 cents per song. So, if you or I write a song, everytime the record company sells a CD with our song on it
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
"Now if you could just get rid of those darned libraries that flagrantly disregard copyright by buying your book and letting ANYONE read it for free."
Sorry, had to reply to this. When you borrow from a Library, the author still gets paid their copyright, as though you had bought the book. The cost is usually paid for by the local council out of rate payers money... so if you pay rates in your local area, then you are paying the copyright on other people borrowing books from the local library.
" Not to mention finding a way to keep those pesky freeloaders from "borrowing" your book from their friends"
Borrowing books is allowed under copyright laws. The same as allowing friends to borrow CD's etc. Nothing illegal about it. Copyright just says you can't make a copy for yourself.
"You can write one book, and if you have a copyright forever then you wouldn't ever have to write another book if there were forever copyrights."
Many an author has done exactly this. Written a best seller, then lived off it. In most cases though, you will notice that most authors who are successful will continue to write. At the end of the day though, why shouldn't an author be allowed to live off thier book. After all, they wrote it. Copyright PROTECTS the ARTIST. As soon as something becomes public domain, then the original publisher is allowed to publish it for free. Think of all those books in the public domain at the moment that get sold. Who gets the profit? The publishers. The reason copyright was extended, was to ensure that people other than the holder of the copyright (which is originally the creator of the work), do not profit from their work. If the creator chooses to later sell their copyright, that is their decision.
Normally it is the artists who suffer when copyright is infringed, not the publishers etc. They have a saying in the music industry, the first album of any band/artist, is like taking out a loan at 68% interest. All advances given to artist (whether writer or musician etc) comes out of the money earned by their product (book or song etc).
So, to answer your question, How long should an artist profit from their creation?... I think at LEAST their life time. Copyright on a book/song etc isn't very much. At present, it's 6.6 cents for a song, and the record companies have ways of reducing that too... on first albums, it's down to about 4 cents. But, before an artist even gets to look at their royalties, the publishers and everyone else gets their slice... which means that until your advance is paid off, the artist doesn't see a cent. In many cases, they don't see a cent for ten years or more.
In the recording industry at present, it takes about 1.263 MILLION ALBUMS to be sold to break even. (I could site a few sources on this... but the one I used here is "Confessions of a Record Producer", by Moses Avalon. It was already on my desk, so was easy to get to.)
There are a good many books out there on copyright protection for artist, or on the writing/music industry. I'm sure if you went to your local library you might be able to find a few.
Another reason for copyright protection, is it stops people from using your creation for their own gains. So if a group wanted to use your work, they need to seek permission. If they don't seek permission to use your work, you can sue the living daylights out of them. This is particularly useful for when the group who uses your work is ideologically opposed to your own beliefs, and are using it to further their cause. As most works of art stay popular for longer than ten years, you don't want your name (or art work) associated with a group opposed to your ideologies.
"Not only that, but those of us that waited the 10 years to finally read your book because we couldn't afford it before will finally get to read it legally. Millions will benefit
I am married into a south Korean Family and I can tell you that while many wish diplomacy would work they know its not really worth it with the nut-ball running the place now.
I remember when George W. Bush announced that North Korea was part of the 'axis of evil'. Until that time North Korea was basically sitting there starving it's people.
The South Koreans and Japanese were flabigasted to hear what G.W. said. As they put it, it ruined ten years of diplomacy. The South Koreans & Japanese had been pursuing a "Sun-shine" policy towards NK. The main reason ..easiest way to calm a paranoid down, is to show that you are not threatening them. They use it in police negotiations too.
What had the sunshine policy acheived.
1. Visits between families of North and South Korea.
2. NK admittance to kidnapping Japanese civilians and taking them to NK.
3. Return of most of the Japanese kidnap victims. (some were returned after G.W.'s comments, and a few were reported to have died in NK.)
4. There was also less hostility between SK, Japan and NK.
After G.W.'s announcement, NK re-opened it's Nuclear Weapons program. (though most say they have little chance of actually making a program which works. Something I read the other day in a Japanese newspaper said that experts claim they could only get enough weapon grade uranium to make one or two nukes.. if that.) NK may not be able to get Nukes, but they still have a big conventional army.. enough to make life miserable if they do get trigger happy.
Diplomacy may be a slow process, but at least it gets everyone out alive. (Most of the time anyway). Treating NK like a paranoid with a weapon is the best bet for everyone. It WAS working before... it will work again.
As you said, NK is run by a nut-ball. Don't threaten him, and don't give him a reason to shoot. Let him calm down and then talk him out of any weapons. If you act like you want to kill him, he will fire first. Paranoids are like that.
Um... that shows that they are effective against a democracy, which I don't think anyone questions. Sanctions are utterly ineffective against a totalitarian government,
And two weeks before going into Iraq, The US Government was crowing in the UN about how they were working against Iraq. The absence of WMD is proof that they were right when Colin Powell was telling the world that the Sanctions were working.
Funny how they get something right, only to then flipflop and turn the world against them.
The germans and the japanese were commiting genocide,
No, the Germans were commiting Genocide. The Japanese never acted to wipe out a race. It is true they commited horrendous massacres such as Nanjing in China, but it was not with the intent to wipe out the Chinese race (which is what Genecide is).
the Americans (which I am not) and the british were out to win a war
This comment smacks of hypocrasy. (No offense ment). How can it be alright for the British and US to kill civilian populations, but when the Germans and Japanese do it, it is suddenly wrong? If you are trying to justify the fact that they were trying to 'win a war', do not forget, that was the intention of the German and Japanese too. Winston Churchill deliberately bombed civilian populatons in order to get the Germans to do the same, so that they would stop bombing military targets. That's why the Germans branded him a war criminal during the war. It's only because the allies won the war, that he didn't get sent to the Hague
Don't get me wrong, I think the Germans at the time were hypocritical. They were killing Jews in concentration camps and followed the British bombings of German civilians by bombing British civilians. In my eyes, both sides were in the wrong. Even though the Geneva Conventin really didn't protect Civilians at that time (the original one of 1864 and subsequent ones until 1949 being mainly about the treatment of POW's), the 4th Geneva convention of 1949 clearly shows that both sides during the war considered the deliberate harming Civilians morally/ethically wrong. Yet, it was something that both sides didn't even flinch at during the war.
I remember reading something said by one of the deveopers of the atomic bomb. Most of the scientist who were working on it, thought that the US Government was going to use it as a show of power against the Japanese by blowing the top off Mount Fuji or something. They were very dismayed when they heard it had been used against civilian populations.
Do you think the Japanese would have surreneded if those atomic bombs were used against the large Japanese naval forces. Imagine if the US used it against the Japanese fleets at Leyte Gulf. It would have quickly destroyed the Japanese morale to know that any size force they sent could easily be wiped out. The targets would have been military and probably would have effected the Japanese parliment more.
Hitting Hiroshima didn't change the mind of the Japanese Parliment because they still had military hardware and forces to carry on. Hitting their miltary in a big way probably would have made them think twice. The bombing of Hiroshima also hit the POW camp there, which housed US soldiers. Think of those who survived battle, to be captured, mistreated by their enemies and then NUKED by their own side. Not a nice way to go.
Another thing which springs to mind, was reading the Japanese view, where the Civilians said they were glad when the war was over, because they never wanted the war in the first place. It was politicians who wanted it. Nuking the people who aren't responsible for the war, just because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time is not good.
They have yet to say sorry officially while the germans have be guilt wracked for a generation. There are WWII apologists all over america, where are the japanese apologists?
Read my other post concerning this. Not only did the Japanese apologise, but they paid reparations to countries they colonised (with exception of North Korea. My other post includes the links plus much more).
To be against the killing of civilians on your own side, and NOT against the killing of civilians on the other is hypocritical.
For balance, every Nation Regardless of country, race etc, should be apologetic for the killing of civilians. Especially those who never wanted to be involved in the first place.
They also never apologized and didn't really care that they are some of the greatest villians in modern history.
Actually Japan has done a number of things , including APOLOGISE for it's actions during World War II as well as paying reparations to countries it tried to colonise, with the exception (as far as I know) of North Korea. They also recently apologised for the 'Comfort Women' aka civilian women forced to be prostitues. At the end of the war, some of the Japanese in charge were also executed (I include this, because I am sick of hearing people saying that the Germans had war crime hearings and the Japanese didn't - the truth is, both did, and those responsible were executed).
Now, before you jump down my throat, there are some things they haven't apologise for and tried to cover over. (just to balance it out) My Great Uncle was a POW at Changi and then later on the Burma Railroad (remember that film "Bridge on the River Kwai"... well, he was one of the Aussies who help build that railroad). After the war my Great Uncle George was head of the Aussie POW's trying to get an apology from the Japanese Government for their mistreatment of Aussie POW's. That was one thing he couldn't get, because the Japanese Government said that it wasn't covered in thier surrender. Unfortunately George died last July, so he will never get to have that apology.
Also, the Japanese Government recently censored a Manga comic because the Japanese writer refered to the Nanjing Massacre. The Japanese Government still considers this to be fake. Read more here. On top of this, a textbook which glosses over the war has now been approved for Japanese schools. (I can't be bothered looking for a link to this, I think most people may have heard about it).
From the comic book, (and the fact that I know some very well versed Japanese people), most Japanese people want the Japanese Government to apologise for these sorts of things, as they really DO care about what happened. The Average Modern Japanese person is truely ashamed and amazed that their countries forces acted in such dispicable ways. It was actually the Japanese people who got the Japanese Government to admit to the fact that Unit 731 really existed, not outside influence from China or anyone else.
Now, I am assuming that you were speaking out of ignorance with what you said, but to a Japanese who is aware of the facts I mentioned above, (as opposed to an ignorant one), your comments smack or racism. (No, I didn't call you a racist, I think you were speaking from ignorance. Re-read your comments now that you know the facts, and you will see how a person could misinterpret your comments).
I hope you take these comments on board in the spirit of how they are ment, and not as a personal attack.
I probably could have added a lot more too, because I am a little knowledgeable on Japan, knowing the language a bit and being able to read and write it.
I hope this is enough to convince you of the truth about the Japanese apologising and that the Japanese People DO care about, and are repulsed by the inhumane behaviour of the occupational forces during WWII. If you meet Japanese people who don't know much about the Japanese WW2 attrocities committed by their country, it isn't their fault. They, like you, are probably unaware of the facts. With the nature of most modern Japanese being to seek peace, so the acts of thier forces during W
He had to take a seat, aghast and flabbergasted, after just ten minutes into his 90-minute sermon, when his translator (mi papa) explained to him that, in Spanish, there is only one word (Justicia) for his two words, Justification and Righteousness.
In Kone Greek the words which are translated as Righteousness and Justification in the New Testament all come from the same root. I checked through my Bible and NT in Kone Greek [Kone Greek being the common Greek of the time when the Bible was written for those who do not know.].
So maybe the problem wasn't that the Spanish had only one word for both Righteousness and Justification, but your father knew that the same word is used for both in the Greek NT.
Thus the persons hair spliting sermon was rather useless, as both words are essentially the same in the original Greek.
For example:
Romans 5:18 in both the King James and NIV versions uses both terms in the English (easier to quote one passage using both terms than many different passages)... I quote the last half of it from both.
KJV Romans 5:18b "... even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
NIV Romans 5:18b "...so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life to all men."
The term used for Righteousness being "dikaiomatos" - a just deed. The term for Justification being "dikaiosin".
I checked all the terms used for Justification and righteousness in my Greek NT, and all were the same... all dikaiomata, dikaiomatos, dikaiosin or other variations with the same root.
The term Righteousness is a middle English word, and Justification (from "Justificatio" without the "N" on the end) is from the Latin.
I would say that the use of the different terms in English is just to make it easy to read.
So my hypothesis is that your father was saying the terms 'Righteousness' and 'Justification' are basically the same word in the original Greek. Possibly because of this, the Latin and subsequent Spanish translations might also use one word for both.
My Girl Friend stole my sig. She was jealous I was spending more time with it than with her.
The man behind the lunar mission was Dr John Wilkins, scientist, theologian...
Is this the same Dr John Wilkins Neal Stephenson refers to on his website?
The Real Character was invented in the 1660s by John Wilkins, an Anglican divine and later the Bishop of Chester, in an attempt to devise a truly scientific language and alphabet.
"my dishwasher started leaking all over the floor at the very moment when I had to leave for an important job interview and couldn't find my dress shoes."
Sorry, I think I stuck your dress shoes IN the dishwasher... might be what caused the leak.:-)
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
Also don't forget, Newton also used to work on Astrology (yes, astrology - telling the future from the stars) and alchemy. (As well as a few other black arts he delved into). Not everything he worked on had a practical use. [Which I guess is a bit like all of us in a way].
Slashdot Mirror
Okay ... you really messed up this time, and I will answer ever piece of this post, seems that you have NO understanding of Copyright laws and seem to want to keep inflicting the same erroneous beliefs over and over again. I kept my last few posts brief because you made mention of how long the first one was.
... It's the bit you later complained that I narrowed in on.
"Did you missed the part where I said there would be a public copyright, which lasts 10 years, and a commercial copyright, which lasts the artists lifetime? A system that would allow people who won't make any money to making a copy of work after 10 years, and force anyone trying to make money from copying a work to pay or be denied."
No, I didn't miss this part, in fact I replied to it.
"only attacking the small parts that you disagree with (10 year copyright)."
As I said, "Australia has only one copyright act, and it is quite adaquate."
If you had an understanding of what copyright IS then you wouldn't be trying to complicate things with two laws which won't work. I will eleborate on this later in the post.
"Do you even bother the read the entire post? You seem to be only taking small parts of my post, and only attacking the small parts that you disagree with (10 year copyright). This is exactly what the big corporations do...attack something they don't like by focusing intensely on one particular thing."
Oh course I read the entire post. I was keeping my replies brief because you didn't seem to like the original long reply. The reason I attack the things I disagree with, is because only an idiot would attack the things they agree with. The thing I keep attacking MOST is not the 'ten year' thing, but the fact that you have no idea WHAT Copyright is, and what it does.
Look, all I know is that by keeping artists in the current system only hurts them more then doing something about changing the system.
You've spoken about changing COPYRIGHT LAWS, not the system. Copyright is the bit that allows the artist to own their work, and where they get their money from. NOT the corporations - they DON"T OWN IT OR RECIEVE ANY MONEY FROM IT. The corporations do NOT own the copyright. The artist does and ONLY the artist gets paid for copyright. Everything else gets paid to the CORPORATION. Why are you attacking the ONLY part the Corps DON'T get!??? [Say this to yourself ten times "Coyright - Artist. Everything else - Corporation"].
"It's easy to sit back and say "Leave copyright alone, it's the only thing protecting the artists!", because that's what the corporate propaganda tells you."
NO, It's WHAT THE LAW SAYS! Modern copyright IS there to protect the artist. Previously the copyright laws were a way for corporations to monopolise on peoples works, because they received the copyright, and could pay the artist what they want. The LAW was changed to protect the artist, which is why modern copyright is automatically OWNED by the artist for THEIR work. The Corporation DOES NOT OWN, NOR DO THEY RECEIVE MONIES FROM COPYRIGHT. DO YOU EVEN READ THE POSTS? Removing copyright from the artist will only HELP the CORPORATIONS. This is where your two law system falls apart. The corporations NEVER pay copyright on the songs etc that they distribute. (There is a distribution deal which covers this part of the deal) NO WHERE does a corporation PAY COPYRIGHT. The copyright is paid by the CONSUMER when they PURCHASE the product. Once you remove the copyright (after ten years) they artist is then NOT receiving any money. The Corporation is still under NO OBLIGATION to pay copyright. They are a distributor and so the copyright gets paid for by the end consumer IF they decide to purchase the product through the corporation. BUT WHY SHOULD THEY, under your law, it will be freely available. They can download it for free, and the market disappears. So the BIG CORP. will probably stop distrib
It's an 'assumption' in the same way that the $20 dollars in my pocket obviously isn't worth $20, but is representative of $20. The plastic (yes, we have plastic money here), and the ink obviously do not cost $20, so it's really by agreement and Australian law that we treat it as having this value. (Which is the same way that Australian Copyright protects an artists copyright as if it is property.) I quoted the Australian Copyright Act of 1968 s196.
I don't like the term 'assumption', because I don't think it really covers what's happening. A "Social Construction" might be a better term. (Or it might not). But at the end of the day, the Australian Copyright Act and it's interpretations do run with the 'Social Construction' that copyright is a type of property (having actually used the word in the Act itself. And refering to this in the act of 1842)
Do I buy into this "social construction"? Yes, the same way that most people buy into the one about money.
The point I was making in my original post, was that the use of 'physical property' to explain this "social construction" is not the bad thing the article is trying to say it is, and the copyright laws (at least in Australia), do actually support this line of thinking.
Hopefully that was a better explanation. So to basically summarise, the "Social Construction" that it is Property, is LAW in Australia.
Cheers
"Sue their asses for not securing payment to the artist if they are still alive"
... NONE of that is the copyright you are trying to get removed from the artist.
... but even then, there would be a good $180 at least profit margin by everyone).
Sorry, if it is public domain like you want, they can't be sued. Australia has only one copyright act, and it is quite adaquate. There are 'fair play' laws which allow for soem situations when a person can use a copyrighted piece freely. Most collection agencies don't bother with small fry in the industry. (It's cost prohibiting to try and collect 6.6 cents off someone just because they sang a song illegally once).
"But on the other hand, you can also create a mixed CD with Camp Town Races on it now, but you can't put the Beatles Strawberry Fields on it legally."
Yes, you can, you just need to secure the right to use it. That's not hard, it's just a matter of contacting the right agency, and normally they will allow it. The prevalence of Beatles tunes used in Advertising proves that the agency which does this is not made of stone. (Nike used "Why don't we do it in the road", a car ad in Aussie used "baby, you can drive my car". Plus there are a few others). Copyright doesn't stop people using things and adding to them. All it does is ensure that the owner has a right to Veto (when they don't want it used for something), and that they get paid for it's use. Most artist never veto the use of their works, because allowing it's use increases their income.
"And copyright IS that big on price. While an artist might get that $6.60 from every 7 albums sold, the publisher, unions, and other assorted middlemen get $120"
No, the "$120" (is actually closer to $200 at $30 an album), is NOT Copyright! That's the point. All of that is what everyone else is making
This current system does have lot's of flaws designed to rip the artist off. All the more reason NOT to reduce the artists copyright to 10 years. Many books have been written about the industry and the scams and stuff. If you thought that $200 profit margin was copyright, then I worry about you. (Some of it might be
A few years ago, I had about four or five of my recordings on the internet, available for free. I still retain copyright on those songs, even though the general public could copy them. My copyright ensured that no one could make money from these recordings by either selling them, or re-recording one of my songs. People could distribute them freely, but NOT make money from them. Under your proposed 10 year copyright laws, those songs could now be exploited by people who want to make money. Can you NOT see how your laws would harm me.
In the case of writers, copyright from books is their only income. In the case of musicians, they're income comes from copyright, and whatever they get when they perform.
You changes to the law will only HURT artists. Most record companies, publishers etc will make their money in that first ten years when the product is most popular. After that, when the artist is likely to make some money and get a return on thier creation, you would have them lose their rights. Even the original copyright laws are not as bad as yours. Englands law of 1606, gave 14 years, plus another 14 years option for a work. A total of 28 years. Even the US one of 1790 did the same thing. They have since been extended to STOP ARTISTS from being exploited.
The way copyright is, is that it's like little drops which when put together form some sort of income to the artists. Obvious big artists make a lot from it, because they sell a lot. Small artists NEED that income to survive. The majority of people in this profession are the SMALL ARTIST. These are the ones who really are hurting when people start to remove their coyright.
You might want to go to the library and check out some books on how copyright actually works (and how the music industry works). It may lead you to a better understanding of why your idea hurts the artists and NOT the mega corps you think are getting copyright revenue (when they are NOT).
Cheers.
It's not an assumption. It's law as of 1842.
"2 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 196. Copyright was not described as a right of property until 1842, in s 25 of the Literary Copyright Act 1842 5 & 6 Vict c 45 (UK).
This is of course in UK and Australia. If you feel this needs to be changed, then it's the politicians and lawyers which need to be convinced.
Okay. Thanks. I know in Australia, they pay copyright and the bill is footed by the local rate payers.
Actually, UK and Australian copyright did refer to it as being a property in 1842. This is before the French and supports the "meme" that it was thought of in terms of 'property'. As per act of 1968 confirming this.
"2 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 196. Copyright was not described as a right of property until 1842, in s 25 of the Literary Copyright Act 1842 5 & 6 Vict c 45 (UK)."
Okay, with out going into the system and how it works (it would be way too long). At present, the ONLY thing protecting the artists money IS the copyright law. You seem to be wanting to remove the only thing which assures the artist income, and you are doing it in the name of attacking the Big Corps. 10 year copyright is way too short for an artist.
... in public domain, it is perfectly legal to do this at present. All the more reason why an artist needs to be able to say "No", I don't want my product being used to do that.
When I was talking about them using your work against you, I wasn't talking in defmation type ways. What I ment was something like this: What if a cigarette company used your song to advertise smoking to children. You are associated with that song
I already read "The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy", or "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" for free. Hitch hikers I borrowed from a friend. Fear and Loathing I borrowed from the library.
Copyright isn't THAT big a price on things. The majority of what you are paying for is the "profit margin". 6.6 cents is what it is on a song. I think a P2P which still pays the artist their 6.6 cents would work. Only $6.60 would get a user 100 songs. That's about the equivalent of 6 to 7 albums. If users are so cheap that thy can't afford to pay a starving artist that small amount just because they want to hurt the big corps. Then there is no point being an artist. People would just wait ten years, and get it for free.
I won't write anymore. lol
Cheers.
"And, contrary to what you claim, currently, most countries have NO unlimited copyrightlaw"
... because the laws protected the printers, not the artist/creator. On the second though, I beleive only the US constitution states that it is for use to stimulate more work. Europes original copyright laws were not made for that.
;-)
You might want to go back and read what I said. At no time did I say MOST COUNTRIES. Having not said it,I agree with what you are saying though, Most countries Don't have indefinite. That point was never being debated.
I dud say Australia has laws which grant copyright till 50 years after the creator is dead. (Which I have no problems with, they are the laws I live under now). I also said, we will be getting the US copyright laws, due to the free trade agreement with the US. I got that from an industry newsletter which was e-mailed to me. I dont' think the US and Australia constitute MOST COUNTRIES.
I refered to the US laws as Adinfinitum, because they is what alot of people from the US refer to them as (when Mickey Mouse is due to become public domain, Disney gets the copyright extended).
The other part of the post used the term "Owning a never-ending copyright" which I got from your post. Sorry if that caused a bit of confusion. My intention has never been to defend an Ad-infinitum copywrite law. I reacted to the bit I posted from your original post whcih stated.
"It is NOT meant to be a life-long paycheck; it's meant to be a stimulus for you to make other creative works."
I think from the original copyright laws from Europe, we are in agreement that one the first point you were correct, it wasn't ment to be a life long paycheck
But, one of the points I was making under the modern law, was it is treated it as property, this is what Australian Law has to say about it:
"2 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 196. Copyright was not described as a right of property until 1842, in s 25 of the Literary Copyright Act 1842 5 & 6 Vict c 45 (UK)."
So in 1842 the copyright act of UK and Australia did treat it in the same sense I understood it to be, as Property.
Note, this is after both United Kingdom (Donaldson v. Beckett) 1774 and the United States (Wheaton v. Peters) 1834.
As for patents, we haven't discussed those yet. So far we've been discussing copyright. Patents are covered by an entirely different law, and only last for 20 years. So fire, the wheel etc would be public domain anyway. Medications still become public domain after 20 years. At no time have I suggested the extension of these. You're opening a different can of worms.
As for my view on copyright, I think the Australian copyright is good as it stands. My work doesn't stop others buildign on it, as long as they pay me my 6 cents. And if I die tomorrow, I know my family will be looked after. I'd hate to leave a widow with no means of support, just because I was an artist, and people decided all my work should become public domain.
As for the 14 year copyright, don't forget the OPTION to take out the second 14 years. (Effectively 28 years). If you read the arguments regarding the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act", you will find that the 28 years of copyright did have to do with the age of the creator with the Proponents arguing that "life expectancy had risen dramatically since Congress passed the original Copyright Act of 1790", and the opposition arguing that "life expectancy had only risen by ten years since 1790."
Cheers.
With all your elaborate argumentation, you fail to acknowledge that the law originally strived for a balance between stimulating invention by giving a compensation for a limited time, and the interest of society as a whole, when it becomes public."
... though I haven't read them all). So the only one which mentions it is US Law. With Copy right having existed for almost 200 years previously, it is reasonable to say that it wasn't originally intended to stimulate invention.
Okay, my use of the term "Original" Copyright is erroneous. I admit that. Let me elaborate though, because your arguement that it originally "strived for a balance between stimulating invention by giving a compensation for a limited time" is not correct either.
I think the bit you are refering to is from the US Constitution. Not all copyright law is the same through out the world.
"to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." (Article 1 Section 8, US Constitution).
This wasn't the original copyright law, copy right was already prevalent in Europe. The copyright law Washington signed in 1790 came about because the copyright laws from England were no longer in force in the US (with it being it's own sovereign nation).
If we go back to the "Original" ones of Europe, (UK had one in 1606) you will find they were so Printing Companies could Monopolise on works by Authors. When people had their books published they basically sold them to a publishing company who took out copyright on them for use for 14 years, followed by the 14 year addition usage, if they were still selling well.
Obviously that use wasn't to encourage or stimulate anything, except to line the pockets of those who ran the printing presses.
Of course, this defeats my arguement that copyright came about to protect the creator, because obviously it wasn't.
I mistakenly thought the 75 years before 1923 was what the law was back then. Silly me! So I didn't arbitrarily pull the number out of a hat or anywhere else!. I stupidly looked it up on the internet.
Copyright law in Australia (where I am) doesn't mention stimulating invention (nor any of the European ones I have read
Modern Copyright law though, as has been explained to me (and as I have read from my legal books here in Australia), is about protecting the property of the Copyright owner (which is normally the creator). Not sure how they view it now in the US, but I would say that after what Sonny Bono did, the US Law is looking at it in similar terms. Protecting the artist (or owner of the work) from exploitation from big record companies etc.
Owning a never-ending copyright on something doesn't necessarily stagnate creativity. The cost of copyright on something is usually pretty small. For instance, on using a song it is 6.6 cents. That means if someone plays one of my songs at 100 venues in a year, they owe me a total of $6.60. Do you really think society will benefit from that person not paying me the $6.60? They just used my work 100 times. I don't think it brings a benefit to society, because usually the collection agencies dont, worry about small fry who might infringe a copyright here or there, they usually only worry about the BIG ones who are making extensive use and profit from it.
Excuse me if I come from a music/artist background, but that's basically where my understanding of copyright comes from. The law books I have on it, come from that background too. So as far as I am concerned, unless I give someone permission to use my work for free, (which I have done in the past), then I expect people to seek permission to use it (in this case from APRA), and they can pay me to use it.
The current laws obviously agree that the artist is entitled to this. With bands like 'The Beatles' and 'Led Zepplin' still selling quite well, the record companies ar
The term "intellectual property" carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects
... just I expect they will have the intellegents to know the sort of differences to expect.]
... but not always. It's pretty easy to copy a sonnett, just by writing it, while ripping a DVD might take a lot of work if you need to write the ripper from scratch.
..." ... it is the PROPERTY of that person or persons. (As per dictionary definition earlier).
... but there are different laws regarding physical property too.
The reason the term 'Intellectual Property' came into being, is because copyright and patents etc ARE Property. (Property being something you own).
As the dictionary states for Property:
"1. Something owned; a possession.
2. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
3. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
4. Possessions considered as a group. "
I think anyone who is familiar with IT who can tell the difference between Hardware and Software will know the sort of difference to expect between Physical and Intellectual properties. [NOTE: I did not say they would be experts on laws regarding them
The article really only states that the difference between Physical and Intellectual Property is that it is easier to copy Intellectual Property. On the whole it is a good generalization
Other than this distinction I am not entirely convinced that the article gives good enough reason not to use the analogies between Physical and Intellectual property when they are useful.
After all, in both cases, the thing in question is PROPERTY. As the US Copyright office states itself:
"Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right
Notice the term OWNER of COPYRIGHT. The person with copyright OWNS it
There are different laws regarding each of the different types of intellectual property
For instance, there are laws regarding ownership of motor vehicles and their use. In some states of the US you cannot own a car unless you have a drivers license. In the UK, you cannot own a TV without a license. In Australia you need a license to grow protected flora, or keep a native animal.
These are all forms of physical property which are governed by different laws, in the same way that different types of intellectual property is governed by different laws.
The fact that Patents, Copyright and Trademarks are refered to in legal terms as being OWNED, (as per reference from US Copyright Office above) certainly gives them fair use of being refered to as Property. The addition of Intellectual is needed to distinguish them from Physical Property. Otherwise peopel MAY start to think they are the same.
The facets of Intellectual Property that differ from Physical property are certainly covered by the 'Intellectual' bit of the term. After all, Patents, Copyright and Trademarks can be bought and sold, just like physical property. This is why in many respects they are treated like Physical Property by Lawyers and Publishers.
I am pretty good on the copyright side, having needed to learn it from being in and out of the music industry over the last 20 years. Explaining copyright laws to people in terms of it being physical property makes it easy in the bits that ARE like physical property, and explaining the difference is also pretty easy once you have the analogy going. [It's a bit like explaining the difference between Hardware and Software to people].
If we start to remove ways to make analogies to things, it becomes more difficult to explain. I haven't met anyone who had a problem understanding Copyright when I have explained it in terms using physical property as an analogy for the bits which it is like.
Just my two cents.
cheers.
"Yes, but only for a limited time. It is NOT meant to be a life-long paycheck; it's meant to be a stimulus for you to make other creative works."
Since when? The original copyright laws came into place because it recognised INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY as being as valuable as the physical property of a person. It was to stop people doing things like what Henry the Eighth did when he stole someone elses song, stuck one bar on the end, and signed his name to it. It was put in place to PROTECT THE PROPERTY of the ARTIST. That's why it has the word "PROPERTY" in it. It belongs to the creator. The original copyright laws put copyright on the work for 75 years, because that was how long they expected people to live after they created the work. So the artist DID own it for life. Copyright laws changed, because some artist lived longer than the 75 years, so it was later changed to 30 years after the creator died.
Later it was changed again to Indefinite, because what was happening, was people like Buddy Holly were dying young, and their music was still very popular 30 years after their deaths. The BIG MEGA CORPS could then use the artwork for free and SELL it and make a profit. Recognising the IP for what it was, PROPERTY, they decided that even after the artist died, the property could then be passed on to the artist's estate (and descendents) etc. Also, coyright can be BOUGHT or SOLD like any other property.
If you look at copyright laws the way they were intended, then you can consider the copyright like any other piece of property. People can't suddenly drive off in your car or move into your house just because they are over twenty years old, and suddenly become public domain. Farmers don't give away their milk for free just because the cow is 5 years old and public domain.
There are plenty of ways to experience peoples art for free. Most art galleries are free, you can listen to the radio, you can lend a book from a library. The copyright is already paid for in these cases.
YOU CAN BORROW BOOKS AND CD's FROM YOUR FRIENDS - Copyright allows people to DO that. The only thing it doesn't allow you to do, is make a copy of the artists work.
Most artists DO NOT make the Multi millions of dollars that the 'big names' do. Changing copyright laws to try and get something for free, or to stop BIG CORPS making BIG BUCKS, really only harms those in the starving artist bracket.
So what if Disney did lobby to extend copyright on Mickey Mouse. It is a piece of property they are still using. If Mickey Mouse became public domain, then ANYONE could use it FOR ANYTHING they wanted. They could replace TUX the Penguin with Mickey Mouse if they wanted to. Microsoft could use him in commercials to sell their product. Guess what, I think it is a good thing Mickey is Owned by Disney, because I'd hate to see other corps etc exploiting him to make themselves rich, because he became Public Domain. Instead, someone had to be creative and invent Tux the Penguin. Microsoft have to employ creative people to make their ads. Copyright really only hurts when you want to use something for free, which you DIDN'T create. You can bet, that given the chance, anything in public domain which becomes popular will somehow get exploited by the very Big Corps you think are abusing copyright.
As most artist are NOT Disney though, the benefit of the current copyright laws really protects them MORE than the big corps. After all, anything you or I create, becomes OUR property. Disney cannot steal our art and use it any more than we can steal theirs. The only way to get our art, is for them to employ us to create art for them, and have an agreement in place which says they get the copyright on anything we produce. (Similar to the contract I signed when I worked as a programmer).
The actual costs of royalties on copyright isn't much anyway. It's 6.6 cents per song. So, if you or I write a song, everytime the record company sells a CD with our song on it
"Now if you could just get rid of those darned libraries that flagrantly disregard copyright by buying your book and letting ANYONE read it for free."
... so if you pay rates in your local area, then you are paying the copyright on other people borrowing books from the local library.
... I think at LEAST their life time. Copyright on a book/song etc isn't very much. At present, it's 6.6 cents for a song, and the record companies have ways of reducing that too ... on first albums, it's down to about 4 cents. But, before an artist even gets to look at their royalties, the publishers and everyone else gets their slice ... which means that until your advance is paid off, the artist doesn't see a cent. In many cases, they don't see a cent for ten years or more.
... but the one I used here is "Confessions of a Record Producer", by Moses Avalon. It was already on my desk, so was easy to get to.)
Sorry, had to reply to this. When you borrow from a Library, the author still gets paid their copyright, as though you had bought the book. The cost is usually paid for by the local council out of rate payers money
" Not to mention finding a way to keep those pesky freeloaders from "borrowing" your book from their friends"
Borrowing books is allowed under copyright laws. The same as allowing friends to borrow CD's etc. Nothing illegal about it. Copyright just says you can't make a copy for yourself.
"You can write one book, and if you have a copyright forever then you wouldn't ever have to write another book if there were forever copyrights."
Many an author has done exactly this. Written a best seller, then lived off it. In most cases though, you will notice that most authors who are successful will continue to write. At the end of the day though, why shouldn't an author be allowed to live off thier book. After all, they wrote it. Copyright PROTECTS the ARTIST. As soon as something becomes public domain, then the original publisher is allowed to publish it for free. Think of all those books in the public domain at the moment that get sold. Who gets the profit? The publishers. The reason copyright was extended, was to ensure that people other than the holder of the copyright (which is originally the creator of the work), do not profit from their work. If the creator chooses to later sell their copyright, that is their decision.
Normally it is the artists who suffer when copyright is infringed, not the publishers etc. They have a saying in the music industry, the first album of any band/artist, is like taking out a loan at 68% interest. All advances given to artist (whether writer or musician etc) comes out of the money earned by their product (book or song etc).
So, to answer your question, How long should an artist profit from their creation?
In the recording industry at present, it takes about 1.263 MILLION ALBUMS to be sold to break even. (I could site a few sources on this
There are a good many books out there on copyright protection for artist, or on the writing/music industry. I'm sure if you went to your local library you might be able to find a few.
Another reason for copyright protection, is it stops people from using your creation for their own gains. So if a group wanted to use your work, they need to seek permission. If they don't seek permission to use your work, you can sue the living daylights out of them. This is particularly useful for when the group who uses your work is ideologically opposed to your own beliefs, and are using it to further their cause. As most works of art stay popular for longer than ten years, you don't want your name (or art work) associated with a group opposed to your ideologies.
"Not only that, but those of us that waited the 10 years to finally read your book because we couldn't afford it before will finally get to read it legally. Millions will benefit
I am married into a south Korean Family and I can tell you that while many wish diplomacy would work they know its not really worth it with the nut-ball running the place now.
.easiest way to calm a paranoid down, is to show that you are not threatening them. They use it in police negotiations too.
.. if that.) NK may not be able to get Nukes, but they still have a big conventional army .. enough to make life miserable if they do get trigger happy.
... it will work again.
I remember when George W. Bush announced that North Korea was part of the 'axis of evil'. Until that time North Korea was basically sitting there starving it's people.
The South Koreans and Japanese were flabigasted to hear what G.W. said. As they put it, it ruined ten years of diplomacy. The South Koreans & Japanese had been pursuing a "Sun-shine" policy towards NK. The main reason .
What had the sunshine policy acheived.
1. Visits between families of North and South Korea.
2. NK admittance to kidnapping Japanese civilians and taking them to NK.
3. Return of most of the Japanese kidnap victims. (some were returned after G.W.'s comments, and a few were reported to have died in NK.)
4. There was also less hostility between SK, Japan and NK.
After G.W.'s announcement, NK re-opened it's Nuclear Weapons program. (though most say they have little chance of actually making a program which works. Something I read the other day in a Japanese newspaper said that experts claim they could only get enough weapon grade uranium to make one or two nukes
Diplomacy may be a slow process, but at least it gets everyone out alive. (Most of the time anyway). Treating NK like a paranoid with a weapon is the best bet for everyone. It WAS working before
As you said, NK is run by a nut-ball. Don't threaten him, and don't give him a reason to shoot. Let him calm down and then talk him out of any weapons. If you act like you want to kill him, he will fire first. Paranoids are like that.
cheers.
Woops, let me correct .. not two weeks before going into Iraq .. two weeks before announcing they wanted to go into Iraq. Silly me! :-)
Um... that shows that they are effective against a democracy, which I don't think anyone questions. Sanctions are utterly ineffective against a totalitarian government,
They also worked against Libiya .
And two weeks before going into Iraq, The US Government was crowing in the UN about how they were working against Iraq. The absence of WMD is proof that they were right when Colin Powell was telling the world that the Sanctions were working.
Funny how they get something right, only to then flipflop and turn the world against them.
The germans and the japanese were commiting genocide,
No, the Germans were commiting Genocide. The Japanese never acted to wipe out a race. It is true they commited horrendous massacres such as Nanjing in China, but it was not with the intent to wipe out the Chinese race (which is what Genecide is).
the Americans (which I am not) and the british were out to win a war
This comment smacks of hypocrasy. (No offense ment). How can it be alright for the British and US to kill civilian populations, but when the Germans and Japanese do it, it is suddenly wrong? If you are trying to justify the fact that they were trying to 'win a war', do not forget, that was the intention of the German and Japanese too. Winston Churchill deliberately bombed civilian populatons in order to get the Germans to do the same, so that they would stop bombing military targets. That's why the Germans branded him a war criminal during the war. It's only because the allies won the war, that he didn't get sent to the Hague
Don't get me wrong, I think the Germans at the time were hypocritical. They were killing Jews in concentration camps and followed the British bombings of German civilians by bombing British civilians. In my eyes, both sides were in the wrong. Even though the Geneva Conventin really didn't protect Civilians at that time (the original one of 1864 and subsequent ones until 1949 being mainly about the treatment of POW's), the 4th Geneva convention of 1949 clearly shows that both sides during the war considered the deliberate harming Civilians morally/ethically wrong. Yet, it was something that both sides didn't even flinch at during the war.
I remember reading something said by one of the deveopers of the atomic bomb. Most of the scientist who were working on it, thought that the US Government was going to use it as a show of power against the Japanese by blowing the top off Mount Fuji or something. They were very dismayed when they heard it had been used against civilian populations.
Do you think the Japanese would have surreneded if those atomic bombs were used against the large Japanese naval forces. Imagine if the US used it against the Japanese fleets at Leyte Gulf. It would have quickly destroyed the Japanese morale to know that any size force they sent could easily be wiped out. The targets would have been military and probably would have effected the Japanese parliment more.
Hitting Hiroshima didn't change the mind of the Japanese Parliment because they still had military hardware and forces to carry on. Hitting their miltary in a big way probably would have made them think twice. The bombing of Hiroshima also hit the POW camp there, which housed US soldiers. Think of those who survived battle, to be captured, mistreated by their enemies and then NUKED by their own side. Not a nice way to go.
Another thing which springs to mind, was reading the Japanese view, where the Civilians said they were glad when the war was over, because they never wanted the war in the first place. It was politicians who wanted it. Nuking the people who aren't responsible for the war, just because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time is not good.
They have yet to say sorry officially while the germans have be guilt wracked for a generation. There are WWII apologists all over america, where are the japanese apologists?
Read my other post concerning this. Not only did the Japanese apologise, but they paid reparations to countries they colonised (with exception of North Korea. My other post includes the links plus much more).
To be against the killing of civilians on your own side, and NOT against the killing of civilians on the other is hypocritical.
For balance, every Nation Regardless of country, race etc, should be apologetic for the killing of civilians. Especially those who never wanted to be involved in the first place.
Cheers.
They also never apologized and didn't really care that they are some of the greatest villians in modern history.
... well, he was one of the Aussies who help build that railroad). After the war my Great Uncle George was head of the Aussie POW's trying to get an apology from the Japanese Government for their mistreatment of Aussie POW's. That was one thing he couldn't get, because the Japanese Government said that it wasn't covered in thier surrender. Unfortunately George died last July, so he will never get to have that apology.
Actually Japan has done a number of things , including APOLOGISE for it's actions during World War II as well as paying reparations to countries it tried to colonise, with the exception (as far as I know) of North Korea. They also recently apologised for the 'Comfort Women' aka civilian women forced to be prostitues. At the end of the war, some of the Japanese in charge were also executed (I include this, because I am sick of hearing people saying that the Germans had war crime hearings and the Japanese didn't - the truth is, both did, and those responsible were executed).
Now, before you jump down my throat, there are some things they haven't apologise for and tried to cover over. (just to balance it out) My Great Uncle was a POW at Changi and then later on the Burma Railroad (remember that film "Bridge on the River Kwai"
Also, the Japanese Government recently censored a Manga comic because the Japanese writer refered to the Nanjing Massacre. The Japanese Government still considers this to be fake. Read more here. On top of this, a textbook which glosses over the war has now been approved for Japanese schools. (I can't be bothered looking for a link to this, I think most people may have heard about it).
From the comic book, (and the fact that I know some very well versed Japanese people), most Japanese people want the Japanese Government to apologise for these sorts of things, as they really DO care about what happened. The Average Modern Japanese person is truely ashamed and amazed that their countries forces acted in such dispicable ways. It was actually the Japanese people who got the Japanese Government to admit to the fact that Unit 731 really existed, not outside influence from China or anyone else.
Now, I am assuming that you were speaking out of ignorance with what you said, but to a Japanese who is aware of the facts I mentioned above, (as opposed to an ignorant one), your comments smack or racism. (No, I didn't call you a racist, I think you were speaking from ignorance. Re-read your comments now that you know the facts, and you will see how a person could misinterpret your comments).
I hope you take these comments on board in the spirit of how they are ment, and not as a personal attack.
This link might be of some benefit too.
I probably could have added a lot more too, because I am a little knowledgeable on Japan, knowing the language a bit and being able to read and write it.
I hope this is enough to convince you of the truth about the Japanese apologising and that the Japanese People DO care about, and are repulsed by the inhumane behaviour of the occupational forces during WWII. If you meet Japanese people who don't know much about the Japanese WW2 attrocities committed by their country, it isn't their fault. They, like you, are probably unaware of the facts. With the nature of most modern Japanese being to seek peace, so the acts of thier forces during W
Thanks. The link was a great read. Much appreciated.
Well, let's get off our shiny metal asses and nominate him.
... Oh, I mean for Robot hall of fame.
BENDER FOR PRESIDENT.
He had to take a seat, aghast and flabbergasted, after just ten minutes into his 90-minute sermon, when his translator (mi papa) explained to him that, in Spanish, there is only one word (Justicia) for his two words, Justification and Righteousness.
... I quote the last half of it from both.
... all dikaiomata, dikaiomatos, dikaiosin or other variations with the same root.
In Kone Greek the words which are translated as Righteousness and Justification in the New Testament all come from the same root. I checked through my Bible and NT in Kone Greek [Kone Greek being the common Greek of the time when the Bible was written for those who do not know.].
So maybe the problem wasn't that the Spanish had only one word for both Righteousness and Justification, but your father knew that the same word is used for both in the Greek NT.
Thus the persons hair spliting sermon was rather useless, as both words are essentially the same in the original Greek.
For example:
Romans 5:18 in both the King James and NIV versions uses both terms in the English (easier to quote one passage using both terms than many different passages)
KJV Romans 5:18b
"... even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
NIV Romans 5:18b
"...so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life to all men."
The term used for Righteousness being "dikaiomatos" - a just deed. The term for Justification being "dikaiosin".
I checked all the terms used for Justification and righteousness in my Greek NT, and all were the same
The term Righteousness is a middle English word, and Justification (from "Justificatio" without the "N" on the end) is from the Latin.
I would say that the use of the different terms in English is just to make it easy to read.
So my hypothesis is that your father was saying the terms 'Righteousness' and 'Justification' are basically the same word in the original Greek. Possibly because of this, the Latin and subsequent Spanish translations might also use one word for both.
My Girl Friend stole my sig. She was jealous I was spending more time with it than with her.
You have IT Managers who PLAN? Luxury, pure luxury!
The man behind the lunar mission was Dr John Wilkins, scientist, theologian ...
Is this the same Dr John Wilkins Neal Stephenson refers to on his website?
The Real Character was invented in the 1660s by John Wilkins, an Anglican divine and later the Bishop of Chester, in an attempt to devise a truly scientific language and alphabet.
Would be interesting to know.
"my dishwasher started leaking all over the floor at the very moment when I had to leave for an important job interview and couldn't find my dress shoes."
... might be what caused the leak. :-)
Sorry, I think I stuck your dress shoes IN the dishwasher
The precise quote:
1 Timothy 6:10
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
Also don't forget, Newton also used to work on Astrology (yes, astrology - telling the future from the stars) and alchemy. (As well as a few other black arts he delved into). Not everything he worked on had a practical use. [Which I guess is a bit like all of us in a way].