"Intellectual Property" Law

[rvkevin]

Reddit is doing it too.

Was there any confirmation on Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. joining?

 

[#HBC | Mac]

minecraft's servers are going down as well. Craigslist too. wikipedia is strongly considering it, atleast jimmy wales want to do it.

I'm hoping at the very least Google changes their homepage logo to something like a censor bar overlaid on top of the normal google logo, with a link to details on sopa.

alot of public officials are starting to feel the heat from this movement and some have already started to retract their support of these bills. I think the movement is actually gonna be a success. Ideally we squash every single bill relating to SOPA and PIPA and allow absolutely no form of internet censorship.

 

[Sucumbio]

yeah, wikipedia's on board. Meanwhile I'm glad I canceled my hosting with godaddy. Fascist pigs! But Namecheap looks awesome, and though you have to buy more months of hosting to get the cheaper rate, it's REALLY cheap if you go for 3 years (3 bucks a month, you can't beat it).

Well, guess I'll see everyone on Thursday, lol cause dis ***** be shut down tomorrow.

 

[AltF4]

The Pirate Bay team have been relatively quite and low lately. But they have a new press release due to SOPA:

https://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/sopa.txt

 

[rvkevin]

In other news, Mega Upload has been taken down on charges of facilitating copyright infringement. Also, Anonymous has responded with a DDoS attack on .gov websites, particularly those related to the justice department and some entertainment websites.

This is somewhat unrelated to SOPA since the FBI had to go through official channels to do this (i.e. obtain a Grand Jury indictment), whereas SOPA would make this process unnecessary.

 

[KrazyGlue]

On January 20, 2012, Lamar Smith postponed plans to draft the bill [SOPA], "until there is wider agreement on a solution", the next day RT news network declared "Bill Killed" and the Electronic Frontier Foundation confirmed the protests were the biggest in Internet history, with over 115 thousand sites altering their webpages.

In the wake of online protests held on January 18, 2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that a vote on the bill [PIPA] would be indefinitely postponed.

Looks like SOPA and PIPA are suspended. Good job, internet. Disappointed about Mega Upload, though.

 

[rvkevin]

SOPA 2.0? Anyone know more about this?

 

[#HBC | Mac]

I think acta is like the international equivalent of sopa/pipa.


http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml

wow... I can't believe this guy is so blatant about buying off politicians. You know there is an issue in your country when the corrupt politicians isn't just accepted but also simply the expected way that politics is supposed to work. Hopefully more people will start to realize that so much money in politics will never be in the public interest.



Anyways, we got caught up in SOPA/PIPA stuff, does anyone wanna go back into the more theoretical debate surrounding intellectual property?

 

[Kal]

I've been waiting forever for privileges to post in this thread. This thread was my first run-in with any sort of critical analysis of copyright law (before which, I just assumed copyright was a matter of property). So thanks for posting this, AltF4.

Anyway, sorry for reviving a dead-*** thread. Hopefully no one gets too upset. If you'd like, Macman, I'm happy to engage in a theoretical debate on intellectual monopolies.

 

[Sucumbio]

It's cool, this is a choice thread. (and Welcome BTW)

SO, why is it "bad" for Disney to be able to renew indefinitely it's copyright to say, Steamboat Willey?

Why isn't it "bad?"

Well, I will answer that. It is not bad.. er, it is good for Disney to be able to renew its copyright indefinitely with the help of Congress, because Walt Disney who was originally granted "Rights" (as stated in the Constitution), built a literal Empire - the "American Dream" if you will, and -that- all is because of Brand Preservation.

By placing Mickey Mouse in the public domain, you lose the authenticity of the original cartoon, it's history, it's development, and its ties to the "true direction" those that were handed the torch after the creator's passing decided. You lose more than that, too...

Without copyright, it becomes impossible to stop anyone from ruining your work, or passing it off as their own. This may seem a non-issue, but the problem is that you can't build a corporation that way, and corporations create jobs, and make money, for America. Simple business models are not new, in fact Ben Franklin was quite the venture capitalist.

Think of this another way. How many people benefit from Disney World? How much money do those communities make, indeed how dependent are they? Disney employs hundreds of thousands world-wide. All because the brand was not allowed to be dissolved, or diluted.

Remember when Atari lost this battle? Genericized Trademark. It's the bane of these people's existence, and for good reason.

A few examples of trademarks that have lost their legal protection in the US:

Aqua-lung
Aspirin, originally a trademark of Bayer AG
Escalator, originally a trademark of Otis Elevator Company
Heroin, originally a trademark of Bayer AG
Kerosene, originally a trademark of Abraham Gesner
Phillips-head screw, named after Henry F. Phillips
Pogo for the toy Pogo stick
Thermos, originally a trademark of Thermos GmbH
Yo-yo, originally a trademark of Duncan Yo-Yo Company
Zipper, originally a trademark of B.F. Goodrich

I mean Nintendo alone had to spend MILLIONS to keep this from happening.

"Hey you kids turn down that Nintendo!"

"But it's Sega, dad!"

So basically the late B.F. Goodrich's legacy entourage cannot stop anyone from making a zipper. Nor should they, really, but shouldn't they be getting a cut every time someone uses one on their clothing, or luggage?

Nope, because innovators utilizing the free market are able to come up with zipper-like things that are designed just differently enough to not be violating anything.

Oh, well not really... that would have happened, except Goodrich didn't protect his patent well enough, and there you have it.

Disney, has the full protection of Congress, mainly because it's so monumentally important to the US economy that Disney Corporation not go under, and for that to remain plausible, they have to be able to extend Walt Disney's original copyright of Mickey Mouse.

Now, if you can think of way for Disney Characters to end up in the Public Domain and it not cause any problems, I welcome the info (and technically speaking my mind's still not made up, lol this is ... mostly paraphrasing another person's argument.)

 

[Kal]

Well, I will answer that. It is not bad.. er, it is good for Disney to be able to renew its copyright indefinitely with the help of Congress, because Walt Disney who was originally granted "Rights" (as stated in the Constitution),

The Constitution does not really grant Copyright, in my opinion. When the Constitution was written, there was a clear distinction between a Right and a Privilege, and the framers of the Constitution were well aware of this. However, Jefferson and Madison knew that merely securing a Right (without explicitly declaring what that Right is) was all they needed to ensure intellectual monopoly would transfer over from Great Britain.

However, a quick remark: if you're going to refer to the Constitution, keep in mind that it automatically dismisses the entirety of your argument:

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.

In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want the Constitution to grant a right to copyright, it cannot also grant a right to indefinite copyright.

built a literal Empire - the "American Dream" if you will, and -that- all is because of Brand Preservation.

I don't see what Copyright has to do with this. If I am able to create a derivative work, how will the Disney brand be lost?

By placing Mickey Mouse in the public domain, you lose the authenticity of the original cartoon, it's history, it's development, and its ties to the "true direction" those that were handed the torch after the creator's passing decided.

In what way is this true? Did A Christmas Carol lose meaning when The Flinstones did an interpretation? How about Les Miserables and its literally dozens of derivative works? This opinion of your seems a little inane, and more akin to Copyright Apologetics than any sort of sincere argument.

Without copyright, it becomes impossible to stop anyone from ruining your work,

I don't see how the ability to freely copy my work would ruin it.

or passing it off as their own.

Plagiarism has nothing to do with copyright. In fact, I can plagiarize a copyrighted work without much trouble by merely claiming I created it. Plagiarism is about taking credit for the creation of work. Copyright refers to "the right to copy" (hence the name). The concepts of copyright and plagiarism are mutually exclusive.

Also this video.

This may seem a non-issue, but the problem is that you can't build a corporation that way, and corporations create jobs, and make money, for America. Simple business models are not new, in fact Ben Franklin was quite the venture capitalist.

Not really sure where you're going with this. At worst (and this argument is just demonstrably false), you could suggest that certain corporations would struggle to exist sans copyright. However, I don't see Wal Mart or Google suddenly losing serious revenue because of the abolition of copyright. And the fact that some companies might not do as well simply isn't justification for something that is quite obviously a privilege. In fact, you would have to show that there is some net good as a result of copyright. However, I am almost certain the opposite is true.

Think of this another way. How many people benefit from Disney World? How much money do those communities make, indeed how dependent are they? Disney employs hundreds of thousands world-wide. All because the brand was not allowed to be dissolved, or diluted.

You think the abandonment of copyright law will suddenly put hundreds of thousands out of jobs? That's nonsensical. The problem with the entirety of your argument is that you're linking the longevity of Disney to Copyright without creating any sort of feasible argument for why Copyright is responsible for Disney's success.

Remember when Atari lost this battle? Genericized Trademark. It's the bane of these people's existence, and for good reason.

Do you know anything about the history of Atari? Or even the distinction between trademark and copyright?

A few examples of trademarks that have lost their legal protection in the US:

Aqua-lung
Aspirin, originally a trademark of Bayer AG
Escalator, originally a trademark of Otis Elevator Company
Heroin, originally a trademark of Bayer AG
Kerosene, originally a trademark of Abraham Gesner
Phillips-head screw, named after Henry F. Phillips
Pogo for the toy Pogo stick
Thermos, originally a trademark of Thermos GmbH
Yo-yo, originally a trademark of Duncan Yo-Yo Company
Zipper, originally a trademark of B.F. Goodrich

I don't want to be mean, but you should really learn the distinction between a copyright and a trademark if you want to engage in this debate. You should also posit an actual argument here, since merely providing examples of people who have lost some form of intellectual monopoly does not exactly justify its existence.

I mean Nintendo alone had to spend MILLIONS to keep this from happening.

"Hey you kids turn down that Nintendo!"

"But it's Sega, dad!"

I don't see what point you're making here, either. Trademark and Copyright have pretty much nothing to do with each other. This point about Nintendo has literally nothing to do with copyright. It's too bad when trademark erosion occurs, but this really has nothing to do with whether Disney should be allowed to extent its intellectual monopoly indefinitely.

So basically the late B.F. Goodrich's legacy entourage cannot stop anyone from making a zipper. Nor should they, really, but shouldn't they be getting a cut every time someone uses one on their clothing, or luggage?

You're bringing up patents when we are discussing copyrights. However, I will ask: why should they get a cut every time? Surely you don't believe merely inventing something gives you a right to preclude people from using it?

Nope, because innovators utilizing the free market are able to come up with zipper-like things that are designed just differently enough to not be violating anything.

Oh, well not really... that would have happened, except Goodrich didn't protect his patent well enough, and there you have it.

And you have exactly the opposite scenario with the steam engine; the patent was very well protected, but once the patent expired, we saw an industrial boom as a result. Because patents are largely useless. They don't encourage innovation. Instead, they just stifle it. People who innovate tend to do so regardless of whether they have a government-backed monopoly. What we are seeing are the people who already hold this privilege (e.g. RIAA, MPAA, Disney) using general sophistry to construct apologetics in its defense.

Disney, has the full protection of Congress, mainly because it's so monumentally important to the US economy that Disney Corporation not go under, and for that to remain plausible, they have to be able to extend Walt Disney's original copyright of Mickey Mouse.

Absolutely none of the arguments that went behind passing the Sonny Bono Act involved this sort of notion that Disney would collapse without Copyright.

Now, if you can think of way for Disney Characters to end up in the Public Domain and it not cause any problems, I welcome the info (and technically speaking my mind's still not made up, lol this is ... mostly paraphrasing another person's argument.)

You have to provide an actual argument that it would even create problems. So far, you've taken that completely for granted.

 

[Sucumbio]

Ugh, sorry it's taken so long to reply.

Ha... well, this won't work. This all started when I was reading aloud the thread from the Proving Grounds, and my wife was overhearing and got mad because someone named Kal had something bad to say about Disney. She is actually a SWF member and in the Debate Hall, but she can't be bothered with posting, and I can't speak for her (obviously). Personally, I think the point about Disney is moot... what we really should discuss is how Copyright itself is a "bad" or "good" thing, but whatever.

So here I go to defend the CTEA:

The CTEA is the US's answer to the European Union's Council Directive - Harmonising the Term of Protection of Copyright and Certain Related Rights.

According to Senate Report 104-315:

"The purpose of the bill is to ensure adequate copyright protection for American works in foreign nations and the continued economic benefits of a healthy surplus balance of trade in the exploitation of copyrighted works. The bill accomplishes these goals by extending the current U.S. copyright term for an additional 20 years. Such an extension will provide significant trade benefits by substantially harmonizing U.S. copyright law to that of the European Union while ensuring fair compensation for American creators who deserve to benefit fully from the exploitation of their works. Moreover, by stimulating the creation of new works and providing enhanced economic incentives to preserve existing works, such an extension will enhance the long-term volume, vitality and accessibility of the public domain."

Common Reasons for passing the bill:

- Life Expectancy of Humans increased dramatically since the original Copyright Act of 1790, thus it became necessary to increase the duration of Copyright.

- Progress in the Arts: by having a longer duration, Artists are forced to create new material vs. reusing old material

-Increases value of "classic" works:

"...the classic film It's a Wonderful Life. Before Republic Pictures and Spelling Entertainment (who owned the motion picture rights to the short story and the music even after the film itself became public domain) began to assert their rights to the film, various local TV stations and cable networks broadcast the film endlessly. As New York Times reporter Bill Carter put it: 'the film's currency was being devalued.'

Many different versions of the film were made and most if not all were in horrible condition. After underlying rights to the film were enforced, it was given a high quality restoration that was hailed by critics. In addition, proponents note that once a work falls into the public domain there is no guarantee that the work will be more widely available or cheaper. Suggesting that quality copies of public domain works are not widely available, they argue that one reason for a lack of availability may be due to publishers' reluctance to publish a work that is in the public domain for fear that they will not be able to recoup their investment or earn enough profit."

Common reasons against passing the bill:

-Extended copyright is little more than "corporate welfare." Most works bring most of the profits during the first few years and are pushed off the market by the publishers thereafter. Thus there is little economic incentive in extending the terms of copyrights except for the few owners of franchises that are wildly successful, such as Disney.

-Loss of productive value of private collections of copyrighted works: A person who collected copyrighted works that would soon "go out of copyright," intending to re-release them on copyright expiration, lost the use of his capital expenditures for an additional 20 years when the Bono Act was passed.

-"When Senator Hatch laments that George Gershwin's 'Rhapsody in Blue' will soon 'fall into the public domain,' he makes the public domain sound like a dark abyss where songs go, never to be heard again. In fact, when a work enters the public domain it means the public can afford to use it freely, to give it new currency."

There are other common reasons for/against the act, but the point I'm illustrating is that none of the reasons for or against address the root cause for the need of the act in the first place... and that was to ensure that copyright durations were the same worldwide. Which makes perfect sense if you think about it.

Not to mention, this whole discussion works only under the scope of "Copyright is necessary and good." Now if we're to throw that out the window, then none of the + or - arguments regarding CTEA are useful.

SO, in essence, Disney's support of Copyright and CTEA was not absurd, it was predictable.

However, to be fair you said: "...the fact that they more-or-less bought the Sonny Bono Act is just absurd."

That's actually a different argument, but one I'm willing to have. Yes, they lobbied Congress to push for CTEA's passing.

So which part is absurd? That they're allowed to do this (lobby Congress)? That it worked? I guess what I'm asking for is a reason for why Disney's the "bad guy" in all this, when really, they weren't advocating anything that didn't already make sense for them or anyone else in their position.

 

[Kal]

Disney is "the bad guy" for buying out Congress to extend the duration of copyright with the sole purpose of stretching their control over ideas. All of these arguments they've put forth are apologetic nonsense; there is no sincerity in your argument if you feel an increase in life expectancy implies an increase in the duration of copyright.

Of course the position Disney takes on this issue makes sense to them. They want a monopoly on something because it fills up their wallet, and they will use general sophistry (like the three points you've listed), as well as bribery, to get it. They don't care about cultural liberty or individual rights. That it "already made sense for them" does not justify what they're doing.

When I said it was "absurd," I did not mean to imply that it was unpredictable. Rather, that the justification for it was absurd (and really just a way to hide the fact that all Disney wants is a bigger bottom-line).

 

[Sucumbio]

Disney is "the bad guy" for buying out Congress to extend the duration of copyright with the sole purpose of stretching their control over ideas. All of these arguments they've put forth are apologetic nonsense; there is no sincerity in your argument if you feel an increase in life expectancy implies an increase in the duration of copyright.

Lobbying is a problem in America, no doubt. Control over ideas, not sure what you mean there... can you elaborate?

As for life expectancy, well... ... okay before CTEA it was, what ... life of the artist + 50 years iirc. too tired to look it up, lol anyway why the 50 years? So at least 2 generations could benefit, kids, and grandkids. But now, kids and grandkids heck great grandkids, I mean people live to be 100 or more and generational gaps are far larger, so basically it makes sense to "update" the law of copyright from 1790 to today standard, no?

Of course the position Disney takes on this issue makes sense to them. They want a monopoly on something because it fills up their wallet, and they will use general sophistry (like the three points you've listed), as well as bribery, to get it. They don't care about cultural liberty or individual rights. That it "already made sense for them" does not justify what they're doing.

Well okay, but what else is a corporation to do? I understand there are other business models that do not exploit Copyright law, but ... that's -why- they had to lobby congress ... they have a lot of copyrights under their belt - not just Mickey, Disney owns ABC and ESPN too... but the point is they were in an obvious position to advocate for CTEA and the rest of the networks let them float the chump change to line Congress' pockets.

I agree that it's ugly how Congress works and how corporations can buy law. In the spirit of your PG thread I would definitely amend the constitution to eliminate lobbying. And filibustering.

When I said it was "absurd," I did not mean to imply that it was unpredictable. Rather, that the justification for it was absurd (and really just a way to hide the fact that all Disney wants is a bigger bottom-line).

I will grant that there is some irony in Disney - the picture perfect cartoon kingdom - greasing palms on capital hill. But it's not their justification, to be fair, and they aren't responsible for the bill itself, only for supporting it so grossly. I think if anything the CTEA postponed the inevitable battle between Good and Evil in terms of Copyright... but what to do? When it was fathomed there was only print. Technology advances in fits and spurts it seems, at least in terms of Artistry. Now print is trumped by the interwebs. Copyright should probably go back to being only referring to print media, and publishing houses, and the recording industry and movie industry and tv networks should all just... well I don't know, that's the question. TBTF? Probably. If there is no Copyright... it all changes. How we buy/sell media, the price we pay, the quality of what we buy. Better? Worse? I don't know, but it changes if Copyright is banished, and that scares a lot of people.

 

[Kal]

Lobbying is a problem in America, no doubt. Control over ideas, not sure what you mean there... can you elaborate?

That's what Copyright is. You get a government-backed monopoly on ideas. If you own the Copyright to Mickey Mouse, you control (or at least try to control) the idea of Mickey Mouse by restricting the right to copy Mickey Mouse and the right to create derivative works (keeping in mind that both are natural rights, and that Copyright is only a privilege). This is no surprise given the history of Copyright, as it was initially a tool for censorship.

As for life expectancy, well... ... okay before CTEA it was, what ... life of the artist + 50 years iirc. too tired to look it up, lol anyway why the 50 years? So at least 2 generations could benefit, kids, and grandkids. But now, kids and grandkids heck great grandkids, I mean people live to be 100 or more and generational gaps are far larger, so basically it makes sense to "update" the law of copyright from 1790 to today standard, no?

No, because the constitution makes explicit what Copyright is for: to promote creation of the useful arts. How will extending monopolies on works that have already been made promote the creation of new works? It will do exactly the opposite!

The point of Copyright has never been to try and ensure some legacy vis-a-vis monopoly. It's always been about incentivizing creation, and extending the duration of already created works obviously cannot incentivize the creation of new works.

Well okay, but what else is a corporation to do? I understand there are other business models that do not exploit Copyright law, but ... that's -why- they had to lobby congress ... they have a lot of copyrights under their belt - not just Mickey, Disney owns ABC and ESPN too... but the point is they were in an obvious position to advocate for CTEA and the rest of the networks let them float the chump change to line Congress' pockets.

I don't really see your point. So Disney is justified in its actions because those actions are prudent for them?

I will grant that there is some irony in Disney - the picture perfect cartoon kingdom - greasing palms on capital hill. But it's not their justification, to be fair, and they aren't responsible for the bill itself, only for supporting it so grossly.

From what I know (I might look for a source later), Disney actively went to Congress asking for a Copyright extension.

I think if anything the CTEA postponed the inevitable battle between Good and Evil in terms of Copyright... but what to do?

There's not really a battle of good and evil going on. Regardless, CTEA just opened the eyes of people to what harm Copyright Law has brought to cultural liberty. I doubt extending the duration of Copyright on Mickey Mouse has increased Disney's bottom-line in any meaningful way.

When it was fathomed there was only print. Technology advances in fits and spurts it seems, at least in terms of Artistry. Now print is trumped by the interwebs. Copyright should probably go back to being only referring to print media, and publishing houses, and the recording industry and movie industry and tv networks should all just... well I don't know, that's the question. TBTF?

They should adopt new business models. Look at Steam and Netflix who created business models that excel irrespective of Copyright restrictions (although one can argue Netflix might perform even better sans Copyright).

Probably. If there is no Copyright... it all changes. How we buy/sell media, the price we pay, the quality of what we buy. Better? Worse? I don't know, but it changes if Copyright is banished, and that scares a lot of people.

How we buy and sell media has already changed. And I personally doubt that anyone lets Copyright Law influence their decision to purchase; when I have sufficient funds, I'm willing to pay a reasonable price for products. Look at Nine Inch Nails' album Ghost I - IV: released under a creative commons license, the album sold 750,000 copies, earning over $1.6 million. In other words, when released without any real Copyright (instead, only Copyright intended to basically circumvent Copyright), the album still sold extremely well.

Copyright is not justified because of its necessity or for the common good. It's justified by only the people who most benefit from it. Not artists, not the public. Publishers and distributors. There's a reason the MPAA, RIAA, and Disney are lobbying for restricting the natural rights of the public instead of artists; there's a reason the rhetoric has shifted from one of monopolistic privileges to one of property rights (despite no property being involved when discussing Copyright).

 

[#HBC | Mac]

RIP aaron

gawddamn

 

[Sucumbio]

That's what Copyright is. You get a government-backed monopoly on ideas. If you own the Copyright to Mickey Mouse, you control (or at least try to control) the idea of Mickey Mouse by restricting the right to copy Mickey Mouse and the right to create derivative works (keeping in mind that both are natural rights, and that Copyright is only a privilege). This is no surprise given the history of Copyright, as it was initially a tool for censorship.

Woah, okay, now how is Copyright a tool for censorship?

Being both a published author and musician, I have copyrighted material, and am a member of ASCAP for royalty purposes. The reason why I enjoy copyright is because I don't want someone else cloning my work, passing it off as their own, and making millions of dollars off it while I toil in obscurity. Will -I- make millions? Heck no, lol I don't really care to. It's just the thought of someone else ripping off my work that really gets my goat so to speak. Writing a song is difficult work. Writing a song that others enjoy to listen to is much harder. When I let others listen to my work, I do so free of charge, because I consider my music, or anything I create artistically, as a gift. However, there are mediums by which people can choose to obtain copies of my music (CD, MP3 at the i-Tunes store, etc. - hey you all should go buy a copy of my CD, j/k ), for a price. The fact that they're paying money, not donations, but a sale transaction, means that all kinds of entities are becoming involved. There's my "cut" of the sale after i-Tunes/CD Baby get theirs, mainly. In order for their business to be "above board" they have to declare this transaction so that they are not in violation of FTC, IRS and gosh knows what other government entity. Copyright is a cog in this wheel, and without it, the whole system just won't work. You're basically asking people like me, to just let their work become instantly public domain - which you CANNOT profit from directly. Instead you've gotta rely on secondary or even tertiary income sources that are attached to your public domain work - advertisement sales, if you're on the web. What about the record store, they can't sell Public Domain wares, public domain by definition is free ****.

No, because the constitution makes explicit what Copyright is for: to promote creation of the useful arts. How will extending monopolies on works that have already been made promote the creation of new works? It will do exactly the opposite!

The point of Copyright has never been to try and ensure some legacy vis-a-vis monopoly. It's always been about incentivizing creation, and extending the duration of already created works obviously cannot incentivize the creation of new works.

Well okay, but that's one side of the coin. I'll submit that by extending existing copyrights by 20 years, they forced people to try harder to create new things for 20 years longer. One of the aforementioned sources showed how It's A Wonderful Life was in the Public Domain, and as a result it started running on network TV like crazy. It looked like crap, sounded like crap, AND it was old. Let's say I'm a TV producer, which would I rather do? Rerun a "classic" that's free to air - pure profit - or spend tons of money making a new television movie? I'm gonna take the re-runs every day, because in the end it's all about how much you can make, and a re-run in the public domain costs -nothing- to air, but all those ad-buys turn a great profit.

So, what happened? The copyright owners of the non-movie versions started to assert their rights over the movie too. Now, again being the creator of something artistic I can FULLY appreciate the difference between one of my songs being performed by a 3rd grade recorder class vs being performed by the London Philharmonic. One sounds awesome, the other sounds like **** (albeit it may be adorable, lol). Would I rather be honored or embarrassed? It's a simple equation - if I have a chance for my work to be represented in its greatest possible splendor, that's what I'll want.

And that's what the Copyright owners of It's A Wonderful Life got. A beautiful, studio-backed/produced rendition of a classic that -deserves- to be shown in all its potential splendor. Why couldn't the Public Domain version be so awesome? Because it costs money to make things nice, and Public Domain is free, so no money. (I understand that that was then and this is now, but I hate to say, it hasn't changed much. Librivox.org is an excellent source of public domain material, but they don't make **** doing what they do, it's all volunteer, and they are strictly doing read recordings, nothing so grand as a movie production/tv production, etc. - something that a lot of those works deserve, and why when MGM does do a movie of Hamlet, they copyright that version because of how much money it cost to make.)

I don't really see your point. So Disney is justified in its actions because those actions are prudent for them?

Disney saw that if they didn't get behind the bill, that they very well might lose Mickey Mouse (and other icons) to the public domain, and that's just a horrible business predicament. Just imagine what would happen if Microsoft's "Windows" suddenly became open source. Sure they have other products, other irons in the fire, but Windows is their real bread and butter, and as a Company, they'd be slitting their throats just GIVING it away. Windows OS is on more that 86% of PCs worldwide. They hit a BILLION computers back in '07. At on average 100 bucks USD a copy, thats.... yeah. A LOT OF MONEY. Which is exactly what Microsoft is in business for. Businesses don't exist for the betterment of mankind, or some other lofty ideal. They exist to make money, and they do what they can within the confines of Law to do it. If you strike down their right to legally pursue those that would steal their work, you strike down their ability to be a functional business. Disney is no different.

There's not really a battle of good and evil going on. Regardless, CTEA just opened the eyes of people to what harm Copyright Law has brought to cultural liberty. I doubt extending the duration of Copyright on Mickey Mouse has increased Disney's bottom-line in any meaningful way.

Well, more importantly it's prevented their profit margin from going down. Remember they are publicly traded on the stock market, so if they don't post profits anyone who owns stocks in Disney lose money also. Whether or not Disney would actually lose money if they let their products become free to the public isn't a question. They would. How do I know? Common sense, one. Why am I going to pay 30 dollars for a Mickey t-shirt when I can get one for 5 bucks at the local wal-mart made by some knock-off company who stole the cartoon image? That's called depreciation, and it never ends well.

They should adopt new business models. Look at Steam and Netflix who created business models that excel irrespective of Copyright restrictions (although one can argue Netflix might perform even better sans Copyright).

Well yes, there are other business models, but... those are bad examples. Netflix is nothing more than Blockbuster in your home. So it's already an improvisation on an old idea. And blockbuster came to be thanks to the VHS. And why is it that VHS became so popular? Because Hollywood saw there was ways to make money twice. Once in the theater, once at home (for rental, or to own). Eliminate Copyright, and instead you have people not paying for their copies of movies, and so studios can only make money once, in the theater, which is a dying social gathering place - it wouldn't surprise me if there are no movie theaters 20 - 30 years down the road. Too expensive, uncomfortable, smells bad, on and on.

How we buy and sell media has already changed. And I personally doubt that anyone lets Copyright Law influence their decision to purchase; when I have sufficient funds, I'm willing to pay a reasonable price for products. Look at Nine Inch Nails' album Ghost I - IV: released under a creative commons license, the album sold 750,000 copies, earning over $1.6 million. In other words, when released without any real Copyright (instead, only Copyright intended to basically circumvent Copyright), the album still sold extremely well.

Ok I'll bite, what were Trent Reznor's restrictions for the CCL?

The original set of licenses all grant the "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide, without changes, at no charge. The details of each of these licenses depends on the version, and comprises a selection of four conditions:

• Attribution: Attribution (by) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these.
  
• Non-commercial: Noncommercial (nc) Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.
  
• Non-derivative: No Derivative Works (nd) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it.
  
• Share-alike: Share-alike (sa) Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the original work. (See also copyleft.)

Copyright is not justified because of its necessity or for the common good. It's justified by only the people who most benefit from it. Not artists, not the public. Publishers and distributors. There's a reason the MPAA, RIAA, and Disney are lobbying for restricting the natural rights of the public instead of artists; there's a reason the rhetoric has shifted from one of monopolistic privileges to one of property rights (despite no property being involved when discussing Copyright).

That's a bold outlook, though. True as I said earlier, I see my work as a gift to be shared, and if someone should like to pay me money for that gift, an exchange of gifts if you will, then I'm happy to accept. But not everyone feels this way about their work. Many artists feel as if they own their work, because they created it 100% on their own, even though that itself is debatable.

"I am persuaded that a coldly-thought-out and independent verdict upon a fashion in clothes, or manners, or literature, or politics, or religion, or any other matter that is projected into the field of our notice and interest, is a most rare thing -- if it has indeed ever existed." - Mark Twain

 

[Kal]

For future posts, I will try and write whole-responses instead of the usual piece-by-piece dissection. This current format is a little lazy, difficult to read, and takes up way too much space. Sorry! <3

For everyone, I think you might enjoy What we Lose when we Embrace Copyright, an article arguing for an abolition of copyright. In particular, I like the quote:

Copyright is a means to an end, the end being the creation of artistic works. The monopoly given out via a copyright is not an end unto itself — in fact, any monopoly is a nonoptimal and undesirable economic arrangement, all other things being equal. So it is wrong to be primarily concerned about the revenue of people that may have profited under this scheme because their earnings were not the point of the policy of copyright in the first place. There is no Constitutional right to the success of a particular business model.

Perhaps an analogy will clarify. Suppose a government determines that national defense is a priority for the country. Because defense is so important, the government will consider granting nonoptimal economic arrangements to certain entities to further defense. Accordingly, monopolies are granted to certain defense contractors to build helicopters, cruise missiles and stealth bombers. Suppose further that, subsequently, an era of world peace dawns and the government decides that national defense is no longer as high of a priority. The government therefore dramatically cuts the defense budget which terminates the aforementioned contracts with the defense contractors. At this point someone comes along and asks, "But how will the defense contractors continue to make money now that world peace has been achieved?" The answer is that it is beside the point: giving public funds to defense contractors was only useful to the end of defense. But since the same objectives have been achieved by other means, there is no further need for this arrangement.

The point is there is no a priori obligation on the part of society to ensure that a certain profession is subsidized. That is not to say that what people that profit from copyright do is not important; of course it is. They just will have to play by the rules that all the professions that do not benefit from copyright play by — competition and innovation under the free market.

Woah, okay, now how is Copyright a tool for censorship?

If I am forbidden, by law, from making a derivative work, that is necessarily censorship. Even just restricting the right to copy is overtly censorship. This comment suggests an overall lack of familiarity with Copyright Law. It literally began as a form of censorship in 1709 with the Statute of Anne.

It also initially was defended with rhetoric regarding privileges, and was distinctly referred to as a monopoly. However, realizing that it was becoming harder to justify copyright in this context, companies like the RIAA and MPAA have shifted the rhetoric; notice that people who infringe on copyright are called pirates, that ideas are frequently referred to using vernacular that refers to property (e.g. "owning" a work, rather than creating it), and that copyright is referred to as a natural right instead of a privilege, with phrasing like "people have a right to their work." Also observe that this sort of phrasing muddles the line between owning a work and creating it (since people have a natural property-right to the medium of their work, but not to the idea of their work).

Being both a published author and musician, I have copyrighted material, and am a member of ASCAP for royalty purposes. The reason why I enjoy copyright is because I don't want someone else cloning my work, passing it off as their own, and making millions of dollars off it while I toil in obscurity.

We've gone over this; Copyright has nothing to do with plagiarism. Why do you insist on relating fraud to an infringement on copying restrictions?

Regardless, whether you enjoy copyright is irrelevant. Rich white landowners enjoyed 19th century slavery. Not to suggest that copyright and slavery have anything to do with each other (though there are many wonderful parallels), but the point is clear: what you personally enjoy, even for fiscal reasons, does not justify any sort of related legal privileges. Once you've decided to try and make money off of art, you are no longer an artist. You are an entrepreneur. This doesn't mean that the government should step in and try to defend your entrepreneurial endeavor.

Will -I- make millions? Heck no, lol I don't really care to. It's just the thought of someone else ripping off my work that really gets my goat so to speak. Writing a song is difficult work. Writing a song that others enjoy to listen to is much harder. When I let others listen to my work, I do so free of charge, because I consider my music, or anything I create artistically, as a gift.

Again, "ripping off" your work is plagiarism, and copyright has nothing to do with it. Making derivative works, however, is a separate issue. And it's plainly childish to dislike others using your work to create great work, but even worse to think the government should step in and preclude others from doing so.

Even worse, it becomes just-about impossible to meaningfully define what constitutes a "derivative work." The topic-post makes good points regarding the fair-use doctrine, but even speaking in a theoretical framework, how "different" does a work need to be from a previous one to constitute a wholly different work?

For example, let's suppose you write a song. I like some arrangement of 10 notes in that song, so I use in my song. And so I go to jail for more time than most violent criminals because you have the corporations backing this insecurity regarding derivative works. Let's say 5 years.

I come out 5 years later and decide, fine, I'll just use 8 notes. Back in jail, I work on my next piece: I will only use 4 notes. Still, this is not good enough for the copyright mongers, and I am back in jail.

So really, where does this "derivative work" line get drawn? You can surely see the problem here. And this is just within a theoretical framework; now imagine all of the practical implications that result (and, in fact, have resulted) from copyright's ban on derivative works.

However, there are mediums by which people can choose to obtain copies of my music (CD, MP3 at the i-Tunes store, etc. - hey you all should go buy a copy of my CD, j/k ), for a price. The fact that they're paying money, not donations, but a sale transaction, means that all kinds of entities are becoming involved. There's my "cut" of the sale after i-Tunes/CD Baby get theirs, mainly. In order for their business to be "above board" they have to declare this transaction so that they are not in violation of FTC, IRS and gosh knows what other government entity. Copyright is a cog in this wheel, and without it, the whole system just won't work.

Do you legitimately believe that, without copyright, the entire business of creating art will collapse? Copyright has very little to do with the musicians making money, as most of their money is made through concerts and t-shirt sales and the like.

You're basically asking people like me, to just let their work become instantly public domain - which you CANNOT profit from directly.

You still haven't backed up this claim. The Humble Bundle seems to sell quite well, despite Copyright Law having almost no impact on it. And, to be blunt, there is nothing stopping you from selling your product even if it does instantly enter the public domain.

Do you know about Red Hat Linux? They sell an open-source operating system. And people have actually tried taking their product and selling it at a discount. Those people who tried ending up failing horribly, likely because no one wants to pay someone so slimy. And Red Hat still turns a profit.

Instead you've gotta rely on secondary or even tertiary income sources that are attached to your public domain work - advertisement sales, if you're on the web. What about the record store, they can't sell Public Domain wares, public domain by definition is free ****.

Public domain by definition is unrestricted by copyright laws. It is not "free" in the sense of "free beer." People still buy works in the public domain. And, of course, I refer you to my argument that the system benefiting you does not justify it.

Well okay, but that's one side of the coin. I'll submit that by extending existing copyrights by 20 years, they forced people to try harder to create new things for 20 years longer.

There is no such thing as "original work." Everything is inspired, in some way, by previous work. Anything "original" has already been made. Copyright is intended to incentivize creating new works, with the logic more-or-less being "if someone has no way to guarantee money from the creation of art, why would he create art?"

Of course, this is bull ****, because art has existed long before Copyright (which really began in 1709 with the Statute of Anne which, I should remind our less privy readers, was intended as a form a censorship).

One of the aforementioned sources showed how It's A Wonderful Life was in the Public Domain, and as a result it started running on network TV like crazy. It looked like crap, sounded like crap, AND it was old. Let's say I'm a TV producer, which would I rather do? Rerun a "classic" that's free to air - pure profit - or spend tons of money making a new television movie? I'm gonna take the re-runs every day, because in the end it's all about how much you can make, and a re-run in the public domain costs -nothing- to air, but all those ad-buys turn a great profit.

And yet new works were being created left and right. Do you think everyone would just stop creating art if copyright were abandoned? Do you honestly think it would be a reasonable business model for a TV station to continually show old works without creating new ones? Of course, they would eventually be forced to create new works or suffer a blow in ratings. This is why Disney channel doesn't just rerun its films; they create their own works made just for the channel (and this in fact has nothing to do with copyright).

So, what happened? The copyright owners of the non-movie versions started to assert their rights over the movie too. Now, again being the creator of something artistic I can FULLY appreciate the difference between one of my songs being performed by a 3rd grade recorder class vs being performed by the London Philharmonic. One sounds awesome, the other sounds like **** (albeit it may be adorable, lol). Would I rather be honored or embarrassed? It's a simple equation - if I have a chance for my work to be represented in its greatest possible splendor, that's what I'll want.

What you want is totally irrelevant. You don't get to decide what other people do with an idea just because you came up with it.

I also love how, whenever programmers, musicians, or other artists are defending the ridiculous notion of copyright, they have to mention that they are a programmer or a musician or some sort of artist. As though they are uniquely responsible for creating ideas. All of us have created ideas, and being a musician doesn't provide you additional qualifications in this regard.

And that's what the Copyright owners of It's A Wonderful Life got. A beautiful, studio-backed/produced rendition of a classic that -deserves- to be shown in all its potential splendor. Why couldn't the Public Domain version be so awesome? Because it costs money to make things nice, and Public Domain is free, so no money. (I understand that that was then and this is now, but I hate to say, it hasn't changed much. Librivox.org is an excellent source of public domain material, but they don't make **** doing what they do, it's all volunteer, and they are strictly doing read recordings, nothing so grand as a movie production/tv production, etc. - something that a lot of those works deserve, and why when MGM does do a movie of Hamlet, they copyright that version because of how much money it cost to make.)

lol, as though this justifies the existence of copyright in any meaningful way. Regardless, it's totally silly. Do you think good art was just nonexistent before 1709? All an abolition of copyright would necessitate is a new business model to monetize art. For example, you could secure a contract with the creators of a film to allow for first-viewing on your service. Eventually, everyone would be able to get the film for free (though this doesn't mean that there aren't additional ways to monetize the film), but there would still be people lining up to see the film first. Why do you think people go to midnight showings of big films instead of just waiting for the following Monday to see an early-bird showing?

I don't remember the specifics, but the government released some sort of 9-11 fact-book, and a specific publisher got first-right to distribute this book. The content of the book, however, was public domain. But the ability to first publish the book gave these publishers a pretty large profit. If you'd like, I can find the source on this, but currently am feeling a little lazy.

Disney saw that if they didn't get behind the bill, that they very well might lose Mickey Mouse (and other icons) to the public domain, and that's just a horrible business predicament. Just imagine what would happen if Microsoft's "Windows" suddenly became open source. Sure they have other products, other irons in the fire, but Windows is their real bread and butter, and as a Company, they'd be slitting their throats just GIVING it away. Windows OS is on more that 86% of PCs worldwide. They hit a BILLION computers back in '07. At on average 100 bucks USD a copy, thats.... yeah. A LOT OF MONEY. Which is exactly what Microsoft is in business for. Businesses don't exist for the betterment of mankind, or some other lofty ideal. They exist to make money, and they do what they can within the confines of Law to do it. If you strike down their right to legally pursue those that would steal their work, you strike down their ability to be a functional business. Disney is no different.

First of all, you're not "stealing" work. It's as though you haven't even read the first post in this thread. Secondly, this point you're reiterating, over and over, means nothing to me. Supposing Disney loses money because their intellectual monopoly on Mickey Mouse expires? Why should I give a ****?

The fact that you mention that businesses are out to make money, as though this is a relevant point, is tired. But, to make matters worse, you mention "within the confines of the law," when it is exactly the law we are discussing.

And no, removing the privilege of copyright would not put all of these companies out of business. I mentioned Red Hat, who turns a profit off their open-source software. What would actually happen if copyright were abolished is that the public would finally attain cultural liberty, people would stop serving absurd punishments for a completely natural act, and businesses would have to come up with innovative business models.

Well, more importantly it's prevented their profit margin from going down. Remember they are publicly traded on the stock market, so if they don't post profits anyone who owns stocks in Disney lose money also. Whether or not Disney would actually lose money if they let their products become free to the public isn't a question. They would. How do I know? Common sense, one. Why am I going to pay 30 dollars for a Mickey t-shirt when I can get one for 5 bucks at the local wal-mart made by some knock-off company who stole the cartoon image? That's called depreciation, and it never ends well.

Wouldn't this actually incentivize Disney to create new works to market t-shirts with? Again, Disney's bottom-line doesn't justify copyright, no matter how many times you reiterate that Disney will lose money as a result of copyright abolition. But there are still plenty of ways for Disney to monetize Mickey Mouse in the absence of copyright; Disney created Mickey Mouse, for Christ's sake. People are naturally going to want "authentic" work, rather than knock-offs. Why do you think people prefer real Prada bags or whatever other high-end bull **** clothes as opposed to knock-offs?

Well yes, there are other business models, but... those are bad examples. Netflix is nothing more than Blockbuster in your home. So it's already an improvisation on an old idea. And blockbuster came to be thanks to the VHS. And why is it that VHS became so popular? Because Hollywood saw there was ways to make money twice. Once in the theater, once at home (for rental, or to own). Eliminate Copyright, and instead you have people not paying for their copies of movies, and so studios can only make money once, in the theater, which is a dying social gathering place - it wouldn't surprise me if there are no movie theaters 20 - 30 years down the road. Too expensive, uncomfortable, smells bad, on and on.

So what if these business models are based on old ideas? What does that have to do with it? Somehow, you jump the gun and assume that, without copyright, people will just stop paying for movies altogether? Also ironic that you mention VHS, which was initially fought against by the film industry for basically the exact reasons you claim, that industries will die and creativity will become extinct. But once they figured out how to monetize VHS, they stopped complaining and adapted.

Personally, I don't buy into the "theaters are dying" nonsense. The Avengers shattered box-office records. People are just realizing that watching movies at home is more convenient and cheaper. It's also becoming easy to replicate the "theater experience" at home. Combine that with a down-economy, and it's pretty clear why people might be going to theaters less often. I think the theater business is doing fine, all things considered.

Regardless, I've already explained that there are still ways to monetize films without copyright law, even past seeing them in theaters. You keep claiming that copyright law is the only way to make money from art, and that's plainly false. It's also completely irrelevant, as I've explained already.

Ok I'll bite, what were Trent Reznor's restrictions for the CCL?

The original set of licenses all grant the "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide, without changes, at no charge. The details of each of these licenses depends on the version, and comprises a selection of four conditions:

• Attribution: Attribution (by) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these.
  
• Non-commercial: Noncommercial (nc) Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.
  
• Non-derivative: No Derivative Works (nd) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it.
  
• Share-alike: Share-alike (sa) Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the original work. (See also copyleft.)

Any CCL gives people the right to distribute without changes. However, this particular album was released under a BY-NC-SA license, which means people can create derivative works as long as they are noncommercial. Though, even if it were released under a ND license, I don't see your point. They still made $1.6 million selling something that is easily and legally accessible for free.

That's a bold outlook, though. True as I said earlier, I see my work as a gift to be shared, and if someone should like to pay me money for that gift, an exchange of gifts if you will, then I'm happy to accept. But not everyone feels this way about their work. Many artists feel as if they own their work, because they created it 100% on their own, even though that itself is debatable.

You have a right to privacy, which means if you create some piece of music, I cannot rightfully take the piece from your person without your permission. You do not have a right to tell other people what they can do with your work after you've published it. That is just a privilege provided by the government. A privilege that is total bull ****.

 

[Sucumbio]

Once again apologies for the late response:

If I am forbidden, by law, from making a derivative work, that is necessarily censorship.

okay, Under copyright law, if you don't own the copyright to a work, you cannot do the following without permission from the copyright holder:

• Reproduce copies of the work
• Create derivative works based on the work
• Distribute copies of the work
• Perform the work publicly
• Display the work publicly

However, under certain circumstances, using parts of copyrighted works is considered “fair use,” and is allowable under the law. Courts consider these four factors in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Timothy Zahn wrote a series of Star Wars fan fictions years back. There's been countless novelizations of works ... i.e. partially or in some cases fully derivative works. That's not censorship, unless you're saying that everyone should be a NYTimes Bestseller? It's not that I don't understand the origin of the idea that Copyright = Censorship, I just don't see it like that, but maybe you could provide an example? I mean shoot, Weird Al! Great example of someone who's made a career off of "fair use."

We've gone over this; Copyright has nothing to do with plagiarism. Why do you insist on relating fraud to an infringement on copying restrictions?

Because it's not as simple as you're suggesting. Just because "copy" and "right" go together to make a whole word doesn't mean the extent of its meaning is just in the two halves. Using someone else's thoughts or ideas as your own without properly giving credit is actually quite close in legal sense as is to Create derivative works based on copyrighted work without permission. It's almost saying the same thing.

And it's plainly childish to dislike others using your work to create great work, but even worse to think the government should step in and preclude others from doing so.

It's funny you should mention that b/c we were just watching RE5 and discussing how Capcom had threatened to sue Sony and Viacom to keep them from releasing any more "bad" RE movies. Sony said "bring it" and Capcom backed down... why? Because of the immense amount of power Sony wields in terms of getting Capcom titles onto shelves and into homes. Copyright is what gave Capcom a fighting chance, Trademark synergy is what gave Sony the leverage to stomp it flat.

Even worse, it becomes just-about impossible to meaningfully define what constitutes a "derivative work."

In the United States, the Copyright Act defines "derivative work"as a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

I agree that the language is vague... but to the credit of the law, it has to be vague because there's too many instances that cannot be fathomed where more succinct verbiage may result in it being too strict. Your example is interesting, because in fact there are tons of songs that all involve using a scale. Major, minor, in every key, at every register and at every speed... yet none of the songs are technically considered derivative works of one another. Why, most classical music indeed is made up of nothing more than tons of arpeggios and scales and cadences, etc. Obviously these are not all derivatives of one another (If we are to take the US Code definition).

Do you legitimately believe that, without copyright, the entire business of creating art will collapse? Copyright has very little to do with the musicians making money, as most of their money is made through concerts and t-shirt sales and the like.

I think that without Copyright in some form problems can arise which force businesses to change, and that may be a good thing, but I'm not convinced good is the only possible outcome.

You still haven't backed up this claim. The Humble Bundle ::fill in name of some random *** ****:: seems to sell quite well, despite Copyright Law having almost no impact on it. And, to be blunt, there is nothing stopping you from selling your product even if it does instantly enter the public domain.

http://www.hitquarters.com/index.php3?page=hitqnews/archive/2006/December23_19_30_0.html

SonyBMG. WarnerBros. Universal, EMI/Virgin, Independent Labels.

Strangely enough Independent Labels is at number two! Yay people like me. My point wasn't that it's impossible to sell things that are in the public domain. It's that it becomes legally impossible to enforce any kind of control of your work once you've released it to the public. (No **** Sherlock, that's what he's been trying to say.)

I just don't think that's a good thing. Maybe the problem here is I need a more convincing example, one that'd make me go "ohhhh, I see, that's why copyright is bad" but all I'm getting from you is typical outcry, with a hint of paranoia/big brother. And all anyone else can offer me is examples of how copyright has saved peoples jobs, preserved brand integrity, preserved trademark integrity, etc.

?

Do you honestly think it would be a reasonable business model for a TV station to continually show old works without creating new ones? Of course, they would eventually be forced to create new works or suffer a blow in ratings. This is why Disney channel doesn't just rerun its films; they create their own works made just for the channel (and this in fact has nothing to do with copyright).

Well actually there are stations like AMC whose sole purpose is to show old stuff. But w/e I get what you're saying. I was merely pointing out that It's A Wonderful Life was being shuffled around all the various crap networks and the copies were poor, and it took a little muscle from the copyright holders to get the movie properly distributed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugh the rest will have wait until next time!

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Sucumbio]

Arguing that copyright isn't a form of censorship by citing fair use is like arguing that obscenity isn't censored because of the Miller test. Sorry, it's still censorship. Forbidding me from creating a derivative work is an infringement on speech. And this is ignoring the fact that "fair use" is basically bull ****. It almost always amounts to who can afford the better lawyers, and usually that isn't the defendant, since it's almost always a case of a citizen versus a wealthy corporation.

I gotcha... so we should ignore success stories and instead toil under the assumption that this moderate censorship is unfair? I mean, ok... I get that you can't write your own version of Resident Evil and sell it as that... you can't just go and make the awesomest bestest sequel to a movie that's SO better than the one they did cause they're corporate ******** sitting around the board room pitching the t-shirt, the cereal and matt groening can sue me now for referencing one of his scenes in this very paragraph... NOT.

Whether Copyright has anything to do with plagiarism is as simple as I'm suggesting, and simply making a strawman regarding the word's etymology doesn't change this. In fact, claiming authorship has nothing to do with copyright in the legal sense. Your argument amounts to merely dismissing what I have to say because you don't like it. Stop equivocating on the god damn term: copyright and plagiarism have nothing to do with each other. Plagiarism doesn't even appear under federal law except for some very specific statutes regarding scientific research for the government.

Hm..

We've gone over this; Copyright has nothing to do with plagiarism. Why do you insist on relating fraud to an infringement on copying restrictions?

The reason why I enjoy copyright is because I don't want someone else cloning my work, passing it off as their own, and making millions of dollars off it while I toil in obscurity.

I have a general copyright on my CD and on each of the individual tracks.

If someone takes that track and puts it on their compilation, or if it gets mixed at a party, or if it gets thrown in behind a radio announcer, or on a TV commercial, I get paid.

You're saying that without my registered copyright I can still legally pursue someone if they scamper off and ASCAP doesn't grab it? Granted... they're good, and free which is better than a 300/hr pro. But ****.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

What is copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works. Ergo, my CD.

What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

Okay? So, yeah, I registered -my- copyright of -my- cd so that I'd have total control over its destiny. This came at the recommendation of CD Baby, who's probably changed their buylines by now but at the time was run by a very forward thinking man named Derek Sivers.

Well after checking it turns out it's not changed one bit.

Do I need to own all the rights to the music I'm selling?

YOU NEED FULL PERMISSION TO DO THIS!

• You must own the copyright for the sound recordings or have the authority or permission from the owner(s).
• If you didn't write the song/composition, that's OK, but you must find out who the copyright owners are, and pay the publisher their mechanical royalties the same way you would for CDs sold, but based on your download/sales activity.
• If you have samples in your music, they must all be legally cleared and paid-for. No "mix tapes" of other people's music, even if you are mixing in your own music.
• It's VERY important you have all rights and permission! Files distributed on the internet are watched very carefully by lawyers. You can't just "get away with it". Do everything thoroughly and legit.
• If you have cover songs (artist performing someone else's songs) on your CD, please make sure you read the answer to the next few questions, too.

Seriously, you haven't addressed any of my points in any detail (except citing "fair use" as a response to the claim that copyright is censorship, which is nonsensical), then claim I'm some sort of conspiracy nut because I'm pointing out that copyright is harmful. I've given you sources that explain why copyright is harmful here and here. All you've got to do is take some time out of your day to actually read them. Or read the first post of this thread where AltF4 articulates very well how copyright is harmful.

I've posted in this thread a bunch of times, though... darnitall don't ruin the moment, we're getting somewhere, the fact I too think the whole system sucks is totally irrelevant because your passion seems genuine. But CCL is a step in the right direction, so maybe it can get better through that.

Ok... moving on.

Remember Chrono Trigger?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrono_Resurrection

Any fan including myself SO wanted to play the sequel Resurrection b/c Square/Enix pooped on all its fans. And they got ceased and desisted (duh).

Instead of making a sequel everyone wants, why didn't that obviously talented team just make a new RPG that was .. enough like the Chrono games to be familiar to fans of it?

Is that not the wisdom of the constitution? Force excellence, while still allowing for a profit model.. and industry. I mean this is how nations are forged... it'd be dumb of them not to take advantage of the giant resources a population of minds can acquire. It's not evil it's what puts food on your table, electricity in your wall, water in your pipes, roads under your feet on and on. It was brilliant architecture, set up so that anything that happens can be dealt with, and typically profitably - even giant explosions of creativity the likes of which lead to the atom bomb.

Off topic

Spoiler

that's why we don't need a new constitution, amendments are fine. 20 whatever? 30 now, I dunno, but it's not 200 like Vonnegut posited most satirically.

Do you legitimately believe that, without copyright, the entire business of creating art will collapse?

No, but I'd prefer gradual change over immediate.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Sucumbio]

It's like I'm arguing with a child.

"Eat my shorts!"

That's what Copyright is. You get a government-backed monopoly on ideas.

It's too much... I guess I just don't feel so oppressed by copyright law. I feel liberated by it, because I can use it (register) to make money besides the point of being "creative." The fact I can't make derivative works beyond a certain point is part of the game. I make money, they make money. Yes there may be another way to secure monies from business sales of said creative things, but in a court won't it still amount to the same mumbo jumbo? What kind of law can there be so that people can not feel butt hurt when someone uses something they created and they didn't want them to. None? Just too bad, suck it up? I'm asking, not being flip...

They should adopt new business models. Look at Steam and Netflix who created business models that excel irrespective of Copyright restrictions (although one can argue Netflix might perform even better sans Copyright).

Hopefully I've illustrated with the CD Baby example, No distribution point is allowed to distribute things that aren't registered in some way some how. So, in the case of Netflix, everything in there is copyrighted, and lots of it are internationally involved, like FUNIMATION's entire catalog.

I don't understand your point regarding Chrono Resurrection.

I was showing how copyright encourages ingenuity. The team's failure is an example of why you should push yourself for excellence instead of playing it safe. If they'd wanted so badly to make the next game, they could have all learned Japanese and applied for work at Square/ENIX (laugh out loud) but see, that's the thing, it's not. theirs. to. do. anything. with.

Now, to put into quick perspective, this very website has threads with links to software that will make 16-bit Zelda clones. SNES FTW some are actually pretty awesome, and there's tons of sites with great fan-games. Does Nintendo sue them all? Heck no, there's no point. But if someone makes a sequel to say, Skyward Sword and publishes it through homebrew and SD card download or whatever, yeah they're getting sued.

If it's so important for a citizen to create a derivative then they may do it, and even let the townsfolk know about it. But get greedy and try to turn an Empire - the original idea that wasn't theirs is what earned that Keep, not them, and no one deserves any recognition in the first place, let alone for borrowing an idea from someone else. If recognition comes it should be said that such an idea came from such and such and if not then they are a liar and thief (within reason, and you know what I mean when I say that, let's not quibble).

Regarding the "wisdom of the Constitution," don't give it too much credit.

That's fair enough, I know it's not perfect, but I meant to illustrate the industrious nature of the document. It's not coincidence that these giant corporations have risen over the years... patents, copyrights, trademarks, brands, all this $ taped onto ideas, and all "legal." We need to establish the difference between right (correct) and good (best). This government-back monopoly on ideas is the result of that one little part in the constitution. Even if I don't think the situation is so dire I can appreciate your choice of words. I guess the good does not outweigh the bad in your view? I think over the last 2 centuries the nation has prospered as a result of government-back control over ideas. But, eh, I guess you could argue it hasn't.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Sucumbio]

Whether Copyright has anything to do with plagiarism is as simple as I'm suggesting, and simply making a strawman regarding the word's etymology doesn't change this. In fact, claiming authorship has nothing to do with copyright in the legal sense. Your argument amounts to merely dismissing what I have to say because you don't like it. Stop equivocating on the god damn term: copyright and plagiarism have nothing to do with each other. Plagiarism doesn't even appear under federal law except for some very specific statutes regarding scientific research for the government.

[COLLAPSE="historic cases"]George Harrison’s ‘My Sweet Lord’ was released January 15, 1971 and hit the charts on January 23, 1971 as George Harrison’s first solo single. It was released under the Apple label and enjoyed the number one spot originally for five weeks, then in 2002, again for one week. It remained on the charts for a total of twenty-seven weeks. All of this is the good news. The not so good news involves a song called “He’s So Fine” recorded by the Chiffons in 1962 and then moved under the Bright Tunes Music Corp label in 1971. The Chiffon’s song did well in the United States and received a luke warm reception in the UK.

February 10th, 1971, Bright Tunes filed a suit against George Harrison inclusive of his English and American companies. The suite also included Apple Records, BMI and Hansen Publications. Though an out of court settlement was approached, including an offer of 148,000.00, but it never reached fruition before the court case proceeded, as the attorneys for Bright Tunes Music Corp. wanted seventy-five percent of the royalties and the surrendering of the copyright for My Sweet Lord.

The case waited to be heard for five years, during which time George Harrison’s attorneys continued to try to settle out of court. The case was heard in court for the first time, in February of 1976, George Harrison’s attorneys tried to prove out the difference between the two songs, but with little success. The judge found that though he didn’t believe George Harrison purposefully plagiarized the song, the two songs were essentially the same, only displaying minor differences to note and chord. George Harrison was found guilty of ‘subconscious plagiarism’ and a judgment was filed against him in the amount of $587,000.00 of which the full amount was paid and the judgment dismissed in 1981 [/COLLAPSE]

Not to put too fine a point on it, just showing why it is that copyright law and the act of plagiarism are linked in the lexical sense, as we can see the legal sense, and insofar as this discussion in terms of why someone would or wouldn't want copyright.

Anyway, the liberation you feel as a result of copyright law is exactly the oppression felt by, literally, the entire public. The only liberation you get is restricting the entire public's natural right to freely share information. And yes, people should just suck it up and deal with it when others create derivative works or share your work without your permission. The government isn't here to stop you artists from feeling butt hurt. I also have no idea what you're going for with the "court mumbo jumbo" line.

I don't understand this viewpoint. Do you not think that criminal cases should be processed in a court of law? If the law says it's illegal to do such-n-such, then don't do it, or prepare for litigation. Right? What I was saying is that regardless of how you re-frame copyright, the law, etc. it's still going to end up being a bunch of legalease that secures people the ability to sue others for using their creative things without permission. No one will ever let go of this power, it's too much to ask. We're not even ingrained really, we're just naturally greedy people (especially Americans), and if expect people to be able to make money - make a career out of being an artist, then you have to allow some ground work to be laid for those artists in case something afoul should take place. A legal framework. Unless you're suggesting lawsuits and creativity have no business together in which case I'd say that's asking too much of a society whose new generational saying is almost unanimously "Well, in this economy..."

You've sort of missed the point regarding Netflix: everything on Netflix is easily pirated, and it's offering a service that is fundamentally unchanged by copyright law (except, perhaps, competition would increase as similar services could more easily arise and, most definitely, their catalog would increase significantly). It's even innovating right now by renewing Arrested Development for a 4th season that will premiere exclusively on Netflix.

They should adopt new business models. Look at Steam and Netflix who created business models that excel irrespective of Copyright restrictions (although one can argue Netflix might perform even better sans Copyright).

You cited Netflix as being a company that innovated despite copyright. You basically held them up as a shining example of how we as a people -could- manage without copyright. But you're wrong. Without copyright Netflix couldn't exist... not legally anyway. They innovated the home-rental industry, for sure. But I think it's plainly clear that Netflix -has- to abide by copyright law, and only allow movies in its distribution that is properly registered. Why? Again because you can't sue people over stuff that isn't registered as per CD Baby's strict warnings (plus they're covered if someone sues them for putting something in their box that isn't "supposed" to be there.)

I'm interested to know the ways in which you think Copyright can be phased out successfully so that all these businesses that are forced to be a part of it can rework their business models.

I wrote an interesting "rant" to Derek about the society of beggars we've become and he came up with an idea for a website that could help buskers by making it possible to donate (ergo put money in the cap) via the internet. Neat idea until we talked more and realized well... a lot of these musicians won't have access to these funds. (Oh well, you provide that for them. Member service.)

ha that guy, love it!

Anyway...

As for Chrono Resurrection: this is a totally asinine example of how copyright encourages ingenuity. It restricts it. Rather than simply allowing a new artistic work that would cause no harm to the original creator and, to the contrary, provide free (likely good) publicity, they arbitrarily decide that it cannot happen and write a cease-and-desist letter. It's silly.

The notion of "ownership of ideas" has been discussed to death in this thread. This tirade of yours (skillfully punctuated with nothing but periods) about how Chrono Trigger was not "theirs to do anything with" is nonsense. "Chrono Trigger" is an idea, and it belongs to no one. If it belonged to anyone, we wouldn't be discussing copyright, we would be discussing theft. Your rebuttal demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about: like the RIAA and MPAA, you're more than wiling to be intellectually dishonest regarding the distinction between property and copyright. Copyright isn't about securing the rights of individuals (despite what you might think the Constitution reads); it's about restricting the rights of the public.

Hm...

What if that wasn't what the creators wanted?

Sometimes a creation is very personal and it's hard to let go of it, but once you do, yeah... your kinda at the mercy of the public. But for a limited time, you can hold onto it for whatever reason. If it goes out on CCL with derivatives allowed, awesome, but maybe you just wanted to tell a specific story, and not have it followed up by anyone. Not your choice? (the artist) ... I dunno... it seems almost as if fear of losing control of your work if that is indeed important to you would keep you from doing it and that copyright gives you a sense of security.

I do appreciate the article, btw in What We Lose When We Embrace Copyright. It's well thought out and makes some good points.

Not only does this intimidation suppress active research that the targets of the injunctions are doing, it also discourages future endeavors in the academic area.

Bothered me a bit. The targets of the research were both copyright-based. It's like they're complaining because copyright law makes it so they are not allowed to make code cracking software to break copyright protection?

I dunno, a lot of his article is good because it's correct. And yet he misses on a few points...

Here is a partial list of costs incurred to support the present American copyright apparatus:

• The cost of maintaining a US copyright office (and all time spent by individuals interacting with the office)
• The time spent by elected officials in crafting, debating and passing new copyright laws
• The cost to comply with copyright law by schools, libraries, photocopying businesses, etc.
• The time spent by US attorneys prosecuting criminal copyright cases
• The schooling and training of privately employed copyright lawyers
• The salaries of privately employed copyright lawyers
• The salaries of managers who oversee intellectual property divisions within a corporation
• The salaries of judges, bailiffs, stenographers, policemen, and other court employees when copyright cases are heard
• Royalties paid for copyright licenses
• Damages awarded in civil copyright lawsuits
• The salaries of lobbyists who advocate additional copyright reform
• Lastly and most importantly, the economic activity that would have occurred if the transmission, modification and/or redistribution of certain information were not prohibited

Most of those are jobs for people... so that's an economic+ ... uh, another bunch are the results of itself in action, monies all around, + and - but typically litigation is a + for national economy because courts get fees and good lawyers make enough to be in that 1% blah blah

Most importantly is his last one, but he's referring to -what- information that's prohibited? It's important to know. If it's some clever Haiku I could give a ****, really. If he's referring to not allowing people to bypass copy protection on software, again boo ****ing hoo. So, what do you think is a good example of "certain information." Or by quantifying it we lose the fundamental principle of free information exchange?

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Theftz22]

Of course, software and files such as music, videos, etc aren't ideas but are physical things which take up physical memory space on a computer.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Sucumbio]

These replies are taking all day to post, lol. we should truncate the discussion a bit.

CR bad CCL good but need CR in some form to work so lobby to continue to reform CR law w/another CRAct that enforces CCL's ways while simultaneously eliminating the inherent dysfunction in CR as a whole.

The case you're referencing was an example of copyright infringement....plagiarism is best handled socially, as it always has been handled. It's not as though people are slow to observe when someone blatantly rips something off. We don't need copyright law, which is hardly relevant, to prosecute plagiarists. Society already does that for us.

lol. I don't mean to laugh but nothing is "best" handled socially. Shall we start village stoning back up? This... is what nonsensical is. Democracy is what's best if you're to believe in a strong Republic.

And yeah, that is why I cited it. It was one on a list of dozens of famous cases with famous people where Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement went hand in hand. A courtroom, with proper legal framework is essential if you wish to do things without consent. If you do it w/o law then you just have total anarchy branded as freedom of expression which degrades society not uplifts it.

We're discussing the ethics of copyright law and whether it's justified. Of course, given that copyright law exists, we expect those who infringe on already existing copyright law to be tried in court.

Ok, good we agree, finally. I don't know why it takes 20 pages with some people to agree on something so basic as "you can't take the der out of ladder."

I say let the ***** ride. Let CCL be the way it is from now on. Their milestones page here you can see it's a running list of awesome and it's in every category really even textbooks for schools! Can you imagine college one day not being 200-300/month on books? I remember dropping 500 on 1 book that I flipped through twice that class. Sure I could sell it back for some money but I just kept it for later use. But under a CCL with the right add-ons or whatever it'd be no sweat to just buy one for the class and copy out of it your lesson planner.

Because lots of people have morals strange taste in desserts.

We also naturally expect to be able to share work.

Well yeah and I agree there. CCL grants one the ability to share it but if you don't want anyone messing with it or its memory then you can stipulate that. I think that's great, especially considering once you're dead it'll be destined for public domain and they can turn you into a rap song for kids.

Meanwhile corporations who have more invested in their creative things than the average citizen can shift to CCLs and indeed they may even consider making CCLs renewable and indefinite alongside a change to the CTEA for it to be "eternity less one day" which is kinda odd but I see what they're doing... and if it's gonna go that far then I believe yes, we should just scratch the whole thing out - with an amendment - which also puts in place a groundwork for CCL to work properly. Then CCL's themselves can have a wide array of options - as wide as necessary to accommodate all the various combinations of circumstances that arise over the destiny of a creative work.

Are you ****ing kidding me? Right now, the only thing stopping them from providing every ****ing movie and TV series ever is copyright law. Without copyright law, Netflix would be able to provide exactly the same service, except likely better (and with more competition) as they do now. Without copyright law, Netflix is in exactly the same place, except it can provide all the content it possibly wants.

heh, okay this is a circular argument. You're right except for one teeny tiny detail which of course is my mountain of evidence. Without copyright, one cannot sue Netflix for distributing something that's not supposed to be distributed.

Your response means you think that's okay, correct?

Well, I think it's not. I think that eroding law in favor of freedom ends up having the opposite effect on society ... anarchy being the furthest end of this particular spectrum.

Seriously, I don't understand how someone thinks copyright is necessary for Netflix to exist legally. As though, once copyright law is abolished, then Netflix is breaking the law. How absurd.

Well yeah if you miss the point as you have then it'll appear absurd. Netflix isn't breaking the law w/o copyright. Netflix is just the internet. The Internet ends up becoming once and for all -exactly- what you want. A giant sock drawer of everyone-socks. And then someone ****s it up, by taking a sock that wasn't theirs and puts it in the drawer. And next thing you know everyone has access to this one special sock and now what?

Laws can't miss things. They either have to be so specific so as to nail every possible outcome, or they have to be broad enough and linguistically clever enough to be a catch-all.

I don't understand what argument is being made here. The whole point was a discussion of Netflix's success being independent of copyright law. Meaning that, whether or not copyright laws exist, Netflix will still have a viable business model. I don't really follow any of this, especially the non-sequitur about CD Baby.

Because once again you can't sue people over stuff without some law saying it's okay to sue someone over something. CR law does this. Besides sucking b/c it limits what Netflix can distribute it keeps Netflix in check in a good way. It's fine that they could distribute everything ever w/o copyright. But not everything everywhere is up for distribution world-wide. Should it be? Not society's call.

There are plenty of ways, but I think the most practical would be to first restrict copyright law to commercial works. Then, restrict it to corporations (which could be easily justified since copyright law is bull ****, but corporations are not natural beings and thus justifiably subject to unnatural laws). After which, I think a full abolition is entirely possible.

Nah, not necessary CCL is ambitious enough that they've got everyone covered, so everyone can migrate at once.

We, as a society, could also start exerting social pressures. They can't reasonably sue or jail everyone who openly engages in copyright infringement. We could also encourage future works to be released under a CCL and boycott works that are not. Eventually, this will lead to copyright having less backing and lead to its abolition.

Yeah, CCL is the way to go, I mean I hadn't even checked up on them in ages and they've gone from a niche experiment to a legit alternative. It's not honest to say alternative because technically it rides on the back of CL as is, and the CTEA's extension means CCL will take longer to reach it's outright goal. But notice CCL doesn't require the abolition of copyright, at least not now. But that's why another conference could benefit CCL, especially if their lobby is strong. Even giants like Microsoft and Sony could benefit from CCL in a while, so it's not unreasonable to assume CCL could go all the way with this.

But you'll have to get over the "governemnt-backed" issue, the fact that they're doing this means that an alliance with government > a middle finger.

These are just ideas. I'm not a lawyer or a poltician, and I don't really give that much of a **** about whether it's "possible" to abolish copyright. I'm sure, at some point, people though slavery was impossible to abolish too.

No way, haha that's twice equivocation to slavery has come up... at least it isn't hitler? anyway, I know, I'm not either, but I do take enough active interest in the politics and law of a situation because that's the only way something actually changes. Otherwise it's just thought experiment. Did anyone in THIS thread end up the chair of CCL? Nope... maybe we're all missing something but I doubt it, there's enough smart people to go around. It's more about agreeing to not talk about what's obvious and instead talk about an actual plan of change that's your own. Embracing CCL even means something if you actively participate in its proliferation, for instance. But just coming out and saying COPYRIGHT SHOULD BE NO MORE is lip service at best and ... well. ... you know.

Who gives a ****? Being the creator of an idea doesn't mean you should be allowed to tell others whether they're able to use the idea. That's the point you've continually missed throughout this discussion; we're debating, in the first place, whether copyright law should exist, and you are effectively using copyright law to justify it. It's circular reasoning.

You're so quick to dismiss things, why is that? The point I've "missed" isn't missed, it's disagreed with. I'm citing the importance of copyright law as a justification for why it's important, so that it becomes something more than just a word. It's an idea in itself, and a powerful one that ties together millions of people, and their wallets. That's all, it's no big statement upon its authenticity, or it's effectiveness as a societal element... just that it's not something you can toss like a tissue. Once one gets past that, one can talk turkey.

Secondly not everything created is meant for display. The fact that it does get displayed may or may not result in a lawsuit. The lawsuit has no teeth without CL in some form. The obvious conclusion is to either keep CL in some form in place, or make it so people don't want to sue each other (yah good luck with that). If I have to spell out an example of a tragic situation then you're not thinking hard enough about what I'm saying. But I will if I must... just imagine scenarios where something ends up in publicly distributable form and the pain and suffering that result if it escapes.

Haha, of course copyright gives you a sense of security. It's a government-backed monopoly just for you. This doesn't justify it, though. I'm sure if I were the CEO of Ford I'd feel a lot more secure with a government-backed monopoly on cars.

If you're afraid of losing control of your work, don't publish it. You're an idiot if you think you should be able to control an idea after you've published it.

I'll rebut this with yourself just a second ago.

"A limited time" being the life of the creator plus seventy years.

Okay, well how about just the during the life of the creator?

Yes, I want government backing. Courts are the only way you get results in America. You can't take the law into your own hands if things don't go your way, but you can take 'em to court. CCL gives me the same security that general copyright law gives me, so basically it'd be one or the other. But I'd prefer CCL because it's far more forward-thinking in terms of maximizing the total amount of information that's available for free which is obviously of paramount importance.

The academic censorship was not about breaking copyright protection (something that doesn't make any sense), but about breaking a DRM scheme. This would be like the NSA threatening me for figuring out how to quickly factor large numbers. Except worse because, in that case, I would be ruining the encryption scheme for almost every bank account in the world. In this case, it's just whining about how people are able to bypass DRM that protects their movies from being copied.

The idea behind the DMCA is that DRM is there to protect copyright, so it should be illegal to circumvent DRM. But often times, DRM has nothing to do with copyright; in fact, I can legally copy my own DVD (this is, in fact, totally legal) as long as I do not distribute the DVD at all. However, it suddenly becomes illegal just because the creator slapped a ****ty, easy to break DRM-scheme. And, even worse, it becomes illegal to discuss how to circumvent the DRM, even in an academic setting.

DRM sucks... what'd make more sense is self-destructing letters like inspector gadget had.

Sort of missing the point that these are still incurred costs that could be spent elsewhere. Also, are you referencing the 1% to imply that they are job creators or something? Do we need a new thread discrediting "trickle down economics?"

No ... NO. No... that was tongue in cheek. Even with CCL in place or somehow in lieu of general copyright law (and CTEA and DMCA) you'll still need lawyers and capital hill is basically all the richest lawyers in the world all amassing in giant lobbies of interest.

I don't know how to write what he wrote any clearer. Any sort of money that could be made by transmission, modification and/or redistribution of information that cannot be legally transmitted, modified and/or redistributed is lost.

Yes, but the opposite is to lose the element of control which you dismiss as illusion backed by a tactfully placed but tired quote of Jefferson's logic (which is sound, but kinda obvious). You forget I marked Twain (ha) ... I know ideas are neither truthfully original nor are they tangible (property). That's not important. It's what's done with ideas. There has to be culpability ... there has to be a means to punish someone who uses an idea to a bad end, and that can only be done by rule of law. DRM is a great example of how not to make a law. It's a horrible idea and it never would have worked, but they were taken by surprise thanks to P2P. Nothing you can do but clean up the mess, but now, please, do you really think I pay for anything I watch or use electronically speaking? Only appliances. If it's soft it's free. The only time I pay is when I support what they're doing. I pay for OS's. I pay for licenses of key software suites if I'm in business. I cover my ***. But the rest of the time, pft. Why would I pay 20 dollars for a DVD copy of a movie when I owned it when it first came out and that's after paying to see it in theaters. Just cause I lost my DVD? Okay... but I have a DVD burner, so **** you, Sony, I'm not paying you again.

That's what made me so mad about the Wii. I've had to replace my 8-bit downloads three times after awhile I said F it I'm going HDD and HB.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Sucumbio]

wait, really? I even posted the TL;DR at the top and you're unable to extract anything coherent? Granted I was being a tad facetious but christ almighty, lighten up!

CR is bad and CCL is good but CCL needs CR in some form to work so we should support CCL's lobby to continue to reform CR law and to hold another conference to replace CR with CCL's progressive model of information exchange.

Yay or nay?

That's not so hard.

I say yay.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[randomphoenix03]

testing! hi I'm new sorry if I'm not allowed to post this here

 

[Sucumbio]

You can post but kindly click edit on the post you just made and change it to your view on OT/OP then reintroduce yourself in the social thread and lastly be sure to make a debate in CS before creating a new thread. And of course, we welcome you and look forward to your contribution.

 

[Iceweasel]

@ AltF4 This post is amazing. I don't think I could have, in my wildest dreams, imagined such a well-researched, eloquent summary of the recent history and the absurdity of the copyright industry in the Internet age. This is now my go-to post for explaining why copyright simply no longer works.

I'm six and a half years too late, but thank you, OP, for delivering.

/raise thread