What's wrong with current copyright laws?

[thewanderer]

Yes and I said in reply loads of people can think of the same thing. In law, it’s the first to the patent lawyers that sakes the claim.

I have no problem with that.

Often the second mouse gets the cheese

It encourages competition, which is good.

Just saying because someone might think of the same idea as me, in India, means the ideas not mine, isn’t an argument either.

And saying my copyrighted material isn’t really mine, based on my idea, which I thought of, because a girl in India also thought of it, is just silly.

My idea. I copyrighted it. It’s mine.

So my idea, produced by my brain, which I thought of, is not my idea, because someone else, in India, also thought of it, on a different day. My idea is now not my idea and doesn’t belong to me, because this happened. Say that out loud and tell me that’s not silly.

Why does the chair, a material good, look like it does?

Could it be because someone designed it?

Where does that design originate?

Where does my schematic for my energy saving device originate?

Same place?

Ever heard of mass production?

Anyhow, I have no more to add.

You’ve not made any argument to back up your claims, and there’s a whole body of law disputes your opinion, which you’re fully entitled to.

Just make sure you have deep pockets if you infringe one of my copyrights, brands, designs or patents.

Wanna know something?

I can even come after you with a cease and desist as a warning shot (because I’m nice like that ) if you use a particular shade of a certain color in a certain letter combination

How cool is that :

Sarah x

Gosh! I just wrote up a reply and lost it all.

Ok, I’m pretty sure this is coming down to a misunderstanding, or at the very least our disagreement is being exacerbated by one. Most of your arguments seem to be based on the fact that it is legal. I am not talking about the legality of things, I am talking about the natures of things before laws are brought into the picture. Law is a practical thing ordered to the good of society, it must always be built upon the natures of things and aimed towards the good of society. I have no problem with someone making arguments for extended copyright based on the good of society. The problem I see is when people start arguing that a perpetual private ownership rights are something that are naturally do to those who think up ideas. Some of your statements implied this and it is this idea that I have a problem with and strongly disagree with. Do you see the difference between this statement and arguing for perpetual copyrights based on the good of society?

[PS, I don’t mean this question to ask whether or not you agree with me, but am simply trying to find out if you see just exactly what I am and what I am **not arguing]

 

[edwest2]

The only reason I made that statement is because Ed keeps referring to the public domain as the refuge of the lazy. I was simply pointing out that laziness goes both ways. Certainly, they could do lots of good things, too. Just as people utilizing the public domain can do lots of good things.

Joe,

I would still really like some specific, current examples. I work for a media company and we have access to the best illustrators and some the best writers around. Should we do our own adaptation of Cinderella or something like it?

Joe, I’m sure if we were sitting across from each or better yet, you could sit down with a few of the talented writers we work with, you’d see things differently. I’ve been in this business for decades, and not once has our owner said: “We need to do our version of a classic, public domain property.” Sure, we get inspired by other people’s work. Right now, superheroes are hot and we have created our own superheroes in the past. Yes, you can create your own spaceships, robots or whatever. The concepts themselves are not copyrightable or trademarkable - only the unique names, descriptions/drawings and specific functions are. One of our best artists created a manned mining robot for one of our books. I was consulted for technical details because, strangely, underground mining devices interest me, and I have a few books on the subject.

So, without examples, we’re really not getting anywhere. “lots of good things” by using public domain - like what?

Sorry, if I offended anyone about the lazy part, but I’ve personally known too many creatives that are looking for the quick, easy way. For example, we have a young artist whose work ranges from polished professional to mediocre, to the point where we have to reject a certain number of his submissions or ask for major changes. He’s got talent but he lacks the will and the dedication to always do your best. That’s all we ask from all our creatives, including those whose work still has a ways to go. A strong work ethic is required here, and I think that holds true for any company, no matter what those companies make. As consumers (I really hate that word), don’t we expect quality whenever we select anything we purchase?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Maybe I should remind you of this post, where I helped explain why I see there as being a distinction. I certainly have not just made a claim that such a distinction exists

The point being that ideas are the kind of things which naturally can be created orginially by multiple different people. And so cannot belong, naturally, to one individual. This is different than material goods, because, by their very nature, they can each only be created once, and so can only be created by one person. It is a completely different monster.

Not so. A bunch of publishers can come up with their own zombie book or books about vampires. All they have to do is make sure that their version does not match the style and presentation of the other guys. In fact, scan the bookshelves and you’ll see other vampire books that do the genre differently.

Peace,
Ed

 

[thewanderer]

Not so. A bunch of publishers can come up with their own zombie book or books about vampires. All they have to do is make sure that their version does not match the style and presentation of the other guys. In fact, scan the bookshelves and you’ll see other vampire books that do the genre differently.

Peace,
Ed

Again, I am talking about the situation without copyright law, yes that would be illegal. But is it something that because of the very nature of ideas cannot happen? no.

 

[edwest2]

I can see we might be stuck in a disagreement, but like I said before, my argument against this is based on the fact that this is a different kind of ‘property’ (as shown previously) and so can only ‘belong’ in a different sense and so should not be treated the same as other types of property.

Also, as to your disagreement with people making money off of other peoples work… while I personally don’t see the huge issue after a certain point, (doesn’t it seem just a **little **odd to you that somebody could put in a finite amount of work and get an indefinite return?? That does not seem either natural or fair.) that is not at all the reason why I am hesitant about current copyright laws. (Mostly I just don’t know enough to say much about current laws) It has to do with restricting culture and art, which I do not agree with.

Look at the automobile. Yes, it’s been refined over the years but it still has the basic chassis, a gasoline engine, seats and a steering wheel.

How does it restrict culture and art? I could publish Space Monkey, the comic book, next week. No need to even glance at other work from the past, except for trademark.

Peace,
Ed

 

[thewanderer]

Look at the automobile. Yes, it’s been refined over the years but it still has the basic chassis, a gasoline engine, seats and a steering wheel.

How does it restrict culture and art? I could publish Space Monkey, the comic book, next week. No need to even glance at other work from the past, except for trademark.

Peace,
Ed

I have to admit, I’m a little confused. Could you try and clarify what you are asking?

 

[edwest2]

That’s my main concern, too. Commodification of everything is pretty much the cultural air we breathe. I once heard a presenter talk about how the attitude of commercialization basically swallows up all other view points (because if I think things are getting too commercial, I can write a book about it, and copyright it, and selll it for profit, and get paid to go lecture about it, etc.).

That’s the big question mark for me. As copyright terms keep getting extended longer and longer, I don’t think we’ve fully experienced yet the cultural ramifications of the commodification of ideas. Perhaps any issues could be addressed with more robust fair use laws. I don’t really know. But I think it’s good to be able to at least talk about these things without resorting to assumptions about being envious of people’s success and/or trying to make a fast buck. Since copyright laws are not part of Divine Revelation, I’m guessing that there’s always going to be room for improvement.

Hate to break it to you, Joe, but we’re on the internet and anybody can write about anything. There are no cultural ramifications. None. Everything (and in some cases, very wrong things) get tons of space on the internet. Did you know:

I can look up full patents online? Legally?

That anyone who wants to write anything can and has put their work on the internet, without a publisher or any middlemen being involved?

More robust fair use laws? Why? You’ve yet to make your case.

That, in some cases, authors have put their published books on the internet to be read for free by anyone who’s interested.

I belong to two highly specialized aviation forums and I’ve read a ton, and I mean a ton, of the fruits of their research.

Peace,
Ed

 

[atheistgirl]

Perhaps any issues could be addressed with more robust fair use laws.

Before asking for more robust fair use laws, do you actually know what you can do at the moment under fair use?

If you do, can you explain how you think you personal creativity is being starved by copyright, and then how cultural creativity is being hamstrung by them?

Sarah x

 

[edwest2]

This is just anecdotal, but I thought I’d share a story. The other week, someone came up to me and asked me if it was (morally) okay for them to make their own calendar/planner on the computer and print it out. We’re talking about a table with numbers on paper for goodness sake! And yet the person was genuinely (and greatly) concerned about potentially violating copyright laws and thereby doing something both illegal and immoral.

I know it’s just anecdotal, but I think this type of attitude is on the increase. Good people who want to do their best to do the right thing are getting downright scrupulous about copyright issues. The issue seems so confusing that one feels like they need a law degree to understand it all. I don’t think that helps serve the common good.

Joe, with all due respect. you’re not doing your research. There is a Graphic Artists Guild and they have every right to make sure that people understand what’s involved. What’s wrong with being scrupulous?

graphicartistsguild.org/

I heard the following from my boss who spoke to the creator of a character that ended up being turned into a movie. His contract stated if it were released in a different format, he would receive additional monies. Well, it got released in that different format and since no check arrived, he personally contacted the studio’s legal department. I’ve seen many Hollywood contracts, and in one case, my boss was on the phone with our agent about a contract we had gotten, and who has his own lawyer on staff. The conversation went something like this: “On page 12, paragraph 2, line 4, does this mean that?” Our agent’s reply? “Oh no, it doesn’t mean that at all.”

So, getting back to that character creator, the movie studio told him that even though his contract said something about the additional monies on page 13, that on page 32, wording was included that said the studio had the “option” of paying him the money. It was not worded as “we’ll pay you the money only if we feel like it” but that was the effect. They opted to not pay him the additional money. When he protested, their response was, “Don’t like it? Then sue us.” He then conferred with his own lawyer who did the math. He told him that if he filed suit and won, all the money would go to lawyers and he’d get nothing anyway.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Usagi]

Have we done the copyright/trademark/patent dance yet?

Copyright doesn’t protect “ideas.” It protects specific expressions (this song, this story, etc). The fact that we see waves of popular books on similar subjects – “supernatural kids” being succeeded by “supernatural romance” with a side order of “teens in dystopia,” for example – should be enough to show that there’s no legal protection against having a similar idea, even if the author or publisher quite deliberately means a later work to ride the coattails of an earlier and very popular one.

Copyright law does forbid “derivative works,” except for parody, so you can’t borrow someone else’s exact characters or situations without permission (though very few authors/owners bother to chase down creators of not-for-sale fanfic or fan films, and some even encourage and support such efforts).

Nowadays, copyright doesn’t have to be filed for or registered; it applies automatically from the moment you write or record a work, unless you specifically give up your rights. Some people who don’t believe in restricted intellectual property have actually used the copyright laws to further their cause by granting blanket permission to create derivative works from theirs – under the restriction that any such works must be made available under the same terms. This practice is humorously termed “copyleft.”

Trademark protects specific names and/or images in specific sectors of business, so that consumers won’t easily confuse inferior (or just different) copycat products for the ones they thought they were getting. Even should “Steamboat Willie” (the original cartoon featuring the Mickey Mouse character) fall out of copyright, Disney will maintain the trademark on the current appearance and name of Mickey pretty much forever. They just won’t be able to stop unauthorized use of that specific work.

The trick with trademark is that it has to be defended. If a company lets a word or image associated with its brand(s) fall into common use without trying to stop it, a court can rule that the trademark has lapsed. That’s why the generic use of brand names like “Coke” and “Kleenex” is opposed by the owners of those brands. “Aspirin” used to be Bayer’s specific brand name for an acetylsalicylic-acid-based painkiller, but nowadays it’s the generic term.

Patent law is the only one of the three that actually protects ideas as such, and is the one that would apply to atheistgirl’s new energy production method. The specific purpose of patent law (directly mentioned in the Constitution here in the U.S.) is to encourage invention by insuring that inventors have the exclusive right to profit from their ideas for a few years (but specifically not forever, since society is served by letting such ideas spread and mingle). You can be denied a patent or lose it later if it can be shown that someone else came up with the same thing earlier (“prior art”) or that your supposedly revolutionary idea is something anyone could have figured out. (Patent abuse in recent years seems to focus a lot on wriggling around that last one, since we have companies trying to patent ideas like “online sales with a single mouse-click” or “laying a card on its side, in a card game, so as to signify that it has been activated,” so as to discourage or at least extort payment out of competitors who might adopt the same idea.)

Usagi

 

[edwest2]

If we had what you are calling for, indefinite copyright, we would not have much of the literature we have today which has shaped our language and shaped our culture.

Shakespeare would have gone broke when he sued stories already in existence as the basis for his plays. The Brothers Grimm would have been unable to include many fo the stories they did in their work. Disney would have had to collect all of Perrault’s and Anderson’s multitudinous heirs and get them all to agree to the terms to be able to make the fairy-tale movies they did.

I have seen this happen. When there are lots of heirs, they all have to agree. One doesn’t agree, and nothing happens. Houses then fall apart, families lose their entire property because some heirs do not pay property taxes, and the state gets it all or auctions it off to, wow, lazy bums who want to make a quick buck off other people’s work.

Think of it: we’d have to get *all *of Plato’s descendants to agree in order to print his works. Anyone who quoted Plato “too much” or expounded upon his ideas could be up for a major lawsuit.

You think there would be some kind of riches passed on to future generations if there was infinite copyright? No, there would be nothing. No one would want to publish anything for fear that they would be sued.

And those similar meds that come out? Most of them don’t come out until *after *the patent period is expired, because companies want to have patent-protected meds on their roster.

With all due respect - nobody wants to sue others. If my company found someone infringing on one of our copyrights, we would have to pay our lawyers up front (at about $200.00 an hour, and letters they write and send out or FAXes they send, are all listed as additional billable time, over and above the time they would spend in court).

The solution for everybody is to contact the copyright holder and ask for a license. Once the terms are agreed to, they can publish novels based on our Space Monkey character and his spaceship, villains and world setting (Note: We do not have such a character. I invented it as an example.)

Anyone can create literature right now and not file a copyright for it. There’s no law that will force you to file. You can put whatever you want on the internet right now - for free. To advance the arts (while making no money) if that’s your goal. And you can have your Japanese college buddy translate it so Japanese people could read it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Again, I am talking about the situation without copyright law, yes that would be illegal. But is it something that because of the very nature of ideas cannot happen? no.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you wrote. You can do whatever you want and put it on the internet and never file a copyright.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I have to admit, I’m a little confused. Could you try and clarify what you are asking?

How is copyright law restricting anybody? Could you provide a few examples?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[thewanderer]

How is copyright law restricting anybody? Could you provide a few examples?

Thanks,
Ed

I have never stated definitively that current copyright law is restrictive, so I don’t know why you are asking me this. In fact I have already multiple times explained on this thread that I am not making any definitive statement about that. I realize that because of this I am slightly off topic, and if you want I can stop posting here. I mostly continued because of the conversation I was having with atheistgirl. If you don’t want me to bring up or try to explain the point I was making, then thats fine, I brought it up in the first place because understanding the nature of ideas and so the kind of belonging and ownership that naturally goes along with them will help to delineate to what extent copyright laws are necessary and to what extent they become unnecessary and up for debate as to whether or not they are helpful for society culture-wise. If you don’t think this discussion is pertinant then I can leave.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you wrote. You can do whatever you want and put it on the internet and never file a copyright.

Peace,
Ed

I think thats because it looks like we are speaking past eacch other as well. You are looking at the world as is and asking about what would happen/is ok in the world, as is, with all the copyright laws it currently has in place, no? I am talking about imagining a place without copyright laws and trying to figure out from there to what rights of ‘ownership’ if you will belong to the originator of an idea if all there is to determine it is the natural law. Once this is determined it can help one figure out what the minimum copyright laws should be. From there it will be easier to figure out what is excessive and what is deserved.

 

[atheistgirl]

I am talking about imagining a place without copyright laws and trying to figure out from there to what rights of ‘ownership’ if you will belong to the originator of an idea if all there is to determine it is the natural law. Once this is determined it can help one figure out what the minimum copyright laws should be. From there it will be easier to figure out what is excessive and what is deserved.

Right.

So what have you come up with then?

Sarah x

 

[thewanderer]

Right.

So what have you come up with then?

Sarah x

Only that some level of copyright laws are necessary but that perpetual would be excessive. Thats why I don’t have very much to say about the current laws.

 

[Elizium23]

I have just skimmed the last five pages of discussion here, so forgive me if I am duplicating some effort, but it seems to me that nobody has mentioned the “third way” when it comes to copyrighted works vs. free public-domain works: alternative licensing.

The Linux operating system and Wikipedia are two well-known examples of a paradigm that has existed for quite some time in the software engineering world. Linux is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) and Wikipedia content is offered under a Creative Commons 3.0 CC-BY-SA license. These are both “free” licenses that permit the redistribution and modification of the original works while protecting the rights of the original authors.

If more content creators from other industries could be convinced to use alternative licensing for their intellectual property and find other means of earning income based on those properties, I think the world would be a better place. Already, indie bands and other musicians have discovered free licensing because it offers them exposure and fame through digital distribution that was not available 20 years ago. Digital distribution of music killed giants of the recording industry such as Tower Records, and it created other giants such as Amazon and iTunes. Now we are faced with a great dilemma of oppressive DRM and extensive and confusing copyright laws. However, there are alternatives to what the “industry” wants to feed you. Don’t allow yourselves to be oppressed by content providers who are mere factories for expensive schlock. Seek out freely licensed content and use it. Support artists who use Creative Commons licensing in their works. Help the industry grow away from the need to aggressively police intellectual property, and support freedom for artists and consumers alike.

I would suggest that nothing is wrong with extended copyright laws per se. They always permit the freer licensing of content in such a way that still protects the creators. It is merely up to the creators of content and their distributors to recognize that the world needs freer licensing, and it’s up to the world to recognize that the alternatives are better than what we’re being force-fed right now.

 

[edwest2]

I have just skimmed the last five pages of discussion here, so forgive me if I am duplicating some effort, but it seems to me that nobody has mentioned the “third way” when it comes to copyrighted works vs. free public-domain works: alternative licensing.

The Linux operating system and Wikipedia are two well-known examples of a paradigm that has existed for quite some time in the software engineering world. Linux is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) and Wikipedia content is offered under a Creative Commons 3.0 CC-BY-SA license. These are both “free” licenses that permit the redistribution and modification of the original works while protecting the rights of the original authors.

If more content creators from other industries could be convinced to use alternative licensing for their intellectual property and find other means of earning income based on those properties, I think the world would be a better place. Already, indie bands and other musicians have discovered free licensing because it offers them exposure and fame through digital distribution that was not available 20 years ago. Digital distribution of music killed giants of the recording industry such as Tower Records, and it created other giants such as Amazon and iTunes. Now we are faced with a great dilemma of oppressive DRM and extensive and confusing copyright laws. However, there are alternatives to what the “industry” wants to feed you. Don’t allow yourselves to be oppressed by content providers who are mere factories for expensive schlock. Seek out freely licensed content and use it. Support artists who use Creative Commons licensing in their works. Help the industry grow away from the need to aggressively police intellectual property, and support freedom for artists and consumers alike.

I would suggest that nothing is wrong with extended copyright laws per se. They always permit the freer licensing of content in such a way that still protects the creators. It is merely up to the creators of content and their distributors to recognize that the world needs freer licensing, and it’s up to the world to recognize that the alternatives are better than what we’re being force-fed right now.

That is anarchist thinking that is based on nothing. Freedom and oppressive, that’s all I heard from the Hippies in the late 1960s. Paradigm - that’s number 19 on my list of words I really don’t like. I can hear “Power to the People” being sung in the background.

Free - yeah. A justification used by file stealing sites. If you don’t like copyright, don’t use it.

A) Nobody is oppressing anyone. Put your art, music, writing, short film or any other easy to steal art online right now.

B) No one is required by law to file for a copyright on anything, or a trademark.

C) Amazon started as a discount bookstore, nothing more.

D) Creative Commons? If it can be turned into digital bits, just copy it and put it on a file stealing site.

E) Alternative licensing? Same thing. Why pay any money if your work can be or is digitized and pay the price everyone can afford - free?

F) Nobody is forcing anybody to buy or use any product like any of those you mentioned.

I work for a media company. We sell books at full price, offer some PDFs at lower prices and offer discounts at certain times. We’re doing just fine.

Between 85-90% of the manuscripts we get in are schlock, but thanks to the internet, the exact same schlock can be printed in very short runs or published digitally. Which does not take away any of its schlock value. Recently, I had a friend come in and give me a copy of his self-published book. The cover looked like it had been drawn by a High School student. I thanked him for it but have no interest in reading it.

A while back, an artist who worked for us left so he could take a higher paying job elsewhere, and we were glad for him. Most large, profitable companies make money but don’t keep it tied up in one place. They invest in other companies that they believe will have a significant positive impact on the world. Amazon expanded its product line and is building new warehouses as I write this.

“the world would be a better place” for who? Take a look at these income figures:

nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html

People making between 20 and 30 thousand a year, do they even have internet access and a computer? I go to used bookstores all the time.

I didn’t mean to spoil your enthusiasm.

Peace,
Ed

 

[thewanderer]

That is anarchist thinking that is based on nothing. Free and oppressive, that’s all I heard from the Hippies in the late 1960s. Paradigm - that’s number 19 on my list of words I really don’t like. I can hear “Power to the People” being sung in the background.

Free - yeah. A justification used by file stealing sites. If you don’t like copyright, don’t use it.

How many times are you going to bring up this unjustified accusation. Did he ever say that he planned on violating copyright? no, what he did is try to encourage people to use alternate liscencing. Stop acting as if he is out to violate your copyrights just beccause he is suggesting a possibly different future.

A) Nobody is oppressing anyone. Put your art, music, writing, short film or any other easy to steal art online right now.

B) No one is required by law to file for a copyright on anything, or a trademark.

C) Amazon started as a discount bookstore, nothing more.

D) Creative Commons? If it can be turned into digital bits, just copy it and put it on a file stealing site.

E) Alternative licensing? Same thing. Why pay any money if your work can be or is digitized and pay the price everyone can afford - free.

F) Nobody is forcing anybody to buy or use any product like any of those you mentioned.

I work for a media company. We sell books at full price, offer some PDFs at lower prices and offer discounts at certain times. We’re doing just fine.

Between 85-90% of the manuscripts we get in are schlock, but thanks to the internet, the exact same schlock can be printed in very short runs or published digitally. Which does not take away any of its schlock value. Recently, I had a friend come in and give me a copy of his self-published book. The cover looked like it had been drawn by a High School student. I thanked him for it but have no interest in reading it.

A while back, an artist who worked for us left so he could take a higher paying job elsewhere, and we were glad for him. Most large, profitable companies make money but don’t keep it tied up in one place. They invest in other companies that they believe will have a significant positive impact on the world. Amazon expanded its product line and is building new warehouses as I write this.

“the world would be a better place” for who? Take a look at these income figures:

nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html

People making between 20 and 30 thousand a year, do they even have internet access and a computer? I go to used bookstores all the time.

I didn’t mean to spoil your enthusiasm.

Peace,
Ed

Just so you know, I certainly make less than 30 thousand a year… I would suspect more people than you might think in that range have internet.