What's wrong with current copyright laws?

[JacquesMaritain]

I know very little about our trademark and copyright laws, but it just seems to me that Disney’s desire to protect their Mickey Mouse creation should not have even been categorized as literature. I think it should have been considered an invention, product and /or trademark and handled by those laws instead. I would agree that long copyright laws only serve the greedy and are not in the best interest of culture and the promotion, dissemination and availability of knowledge and truth inspired by the written word. There is a spiritual value to anything that can be considered worthwhile and we, as a society should consider the worth to the community more than the worth to an individual, even if that person is the creator of intellectual property. From a spiriutal standpoint, we are all just conduits of God’s gifts and they are given for the benefit of all, not just the person who receives them. I have a personal experience that somewhat explains what I mean. As a designer in the garment industry, I once designed a very successful line of clothes…(actually I had unwittingly created a trend). I got very little monetary compensation for this collection (just a weekly salary over a few months) but my line increased business for the entire garment industry from NY to LA for over 5 years! Millions, if not billions were added to the GNP and though I did not recieve even a fraction of the profits, my creativity did tremendous good for the economy as a whole. That I was able to trigger this wealth (and the subsequent jobs it created) made me feel very humbled and grateful for the talents and skills God gave me. There is, I believe, a value to our talents and efforts that far exceeds individual compensation, and our laws should be fluid and non-stifling enough that creativity can express itself to the benefit of us all.

Hi SAG:

Wow! What a wonderful testimony! I feel that way sometimes myself. I know I didn’t make millions of dollars for anyone but it is so incredibly humbling for me to come across a website, even at random, and read a discussion about the natural sciences, or physics, or astronomy, and hey, what do you know? There’s a hyperlink to one of my papers in the scientific journals…I touched someone’s life/thinking, and they noted that. Or maybe someone uses some of the code I write to solve another problem, and is grateful. That’s all the reward I ever wanted, and wow how God has blessed me. God lent me the ideas and things I wrote about in the science journals; He is the author of all of it, not me, I cannot “own” it for myself, it belongs to humanity, it is part of our common human culture, I wouldn’t dare to take possession of it, or lock it away, or deny it to others, so I humbly offer it, for free, to anyone that wants it. Good for you!

Now in the post above I gave a “baby-steps” approach to filesharing (which is not stealing, if you think about it for a minute). Stealing is wrong because you are taking something away from someone, so they can’t use it anymore; when you copy something on a computer, all you are doing is making 2 copies, where before there was only one, and the original person who purchased the first copy is not harmed in any way, shape or form. He still has the program that you allegedly stole.

How is this possible? Well, you didn’t steal it, you duplicated it. Filesharing is just asexual reproduction on a computer: cloning, if you like. Where there was once one thing, now there are two identical things. Ultimately the “things” are not real objects, all they are are rearrangements of the magnetic bits on a computer hard drive; when one computer said 0110110 and the other said 0000000, now both computers say 0110110. The first computer “teaches” the second one a new way to orient its bits, if you want.

To the Purists and Tecchies: they might argue, wait, the filesharing websites like Isohunt/The Pirate Bay use magnet links/DHT now, instead of separate .torrent files, so they don’t even host them anymore, so why are you going on about .torrent files…and that’s fair…but the copyright people here are still stuck in the mode of thinking that a movie (like Steal This Film) is a physical, tangible object, like a car (if you can steal a physical car and that’s bad, then yes, I suppose you can steal a movie and that’s bad too. The model is wrong; they just don’t realize that yet. In their defence, they are well paid NOT to realize it, indeed they won’t even let themselves think about it, so higher reasoning shuts down, it’s just too threatening, and you get the automatic response: “downloading is stealing”). So you have to help them evolve to the current state of filesharing, ca 2012 (hint: its not about physical objects anymore. not that it ever was. If I took a photograph of a portrait of your Aunt Mabel hanging on the wall, does the portrait suddenly vanish after I take the photo? If I tape a song off the radio onto a cassette tape, does the song get stolen, and thus “taken away” from any of the other radio listeners? Clearly not. These are not physical objects).

Jacques

 

[chevalier]

Talk. Just talk.

Equally as well as your post, which just dismisses not only views but also facts that you don’t like.

Our “War on Robbery” isn’t going so well either. Who gets to decide what’s reasonable? I want to buy a new car for $2,000.00.

Hyperbole. Cool PR, little merit. Unless you believe the margin of profit on cars is as large as on CDs, DVDs etc.

Unlike cars, the latter can be multiplicated, as in content can be copied onto new media, the cost of which is near zero. By choosing not to do it, publisher accepts smaller turnover and absence of whatever gain he could make, whereas at a lower price more sales could be made. I’m not negating the cost of bills to pay, salaries of workers, rent for realty, other compensations, taxes and insurance, investments, marketing and PR, advertising etc., but a lot comes down to how you want to price an “item” of “intellectual property”, where prices can be very arbitrary. They are not reasonable. Even more unreasonable is the habit of putting huge EULAs on everything… Part of the copyright business. And I don’t think a copyright business should exist. Some copyright legislation and some copyright lawyers, and a couple of lobbyists and that’s it. When there’s an entire copyright industry, the system is sick.

Personally, I believe that what’s happening with music and films is depriving the broad general audience of access to culture.

 

[Joe_5859]

A patent also protects intellectual property, but only for a period of 25 years. Why should something that is actually useful only be protected for 25 years, but software that will be completely out of date in 5 years and words be protected for such a long period? Doesn’t seem reasonable.

Interesting. I’d like to hear Ed’s take on the disparity between patent terms and copyright terms. That’s quite a substantial difference. I wonder why that is.

And I’m being genuine. I know Ed knows a lot about this stuff, so I really want to hear his thoughts.

 

[edwest2]

Equally as well as your post, which just dismisses not only views but also facts that you don’t like.

Hyperbole. Cool PR, little merit. Unless you believe the margin of profit on cars is as large as on CDs, DVDs etc.

Unlike cars, the latter can be multiplicated, as in content can be copied onto new media, the cost of which is near zero. By choosing not to do it, publisher accepts smaller turnover and absence of whatever gain he could make, whereas at a lower price more sales could be made. I’m not negating the cost of bills to pay, salaries of workers, rent for realty, other compensations, taxes and insurance, investments, marketing and PR, advertising etc., but a lot comes down to how you want to price an “item” of “intellectual property”, where prices can be very arbitrary. They are not reasonable. Even more unreasonable is the habit of putting huge EULAs on everything… Part of the copyright business. And I don’t think a copyright business should exist. Some copyright legislation and some copyright lawyers, and a couple of lobbyists and that’s it. When there’s an entire copyright industry, the system is sick.

Personally, I believe that what’s happening with music and films is depriving the broad general audience of access to culture.

We could have a discussion if you could present a detailed cost breakdown for one CD. What is the cost to pay:

Singer(s)
Musicians
Sound technician(s)
Cost of use of studio space.
Cost of CD and label/artwork, plus insert(s).
Cost of CD package/case.
Cost of artist/designer for the packaging.
Cost to ship.
Cost to distribute, including losses from distributors and discounters/resellers.
Cost to create a promotion(s).
Cost of copywriter/videographer/editor and sound mixer for promotion.
Cost to generate promotion on all platforms.

New media? What a joke.

Profit from a real CD that costs 10 to 15 dollars?
Profit from a digital CD that costs 2.99?

Even with digital delivery, you can’t cut out most of the costs. So the argument is mostly bogus.

With all due respect,

Ed

 

[JacquesMaritain]

Equally as well as your post, which just dismisses not only views but also facts that you don’t like. Hyperbole. Cool PR, little merit. Unless you believe the margin of profit on cars is as large as on CDs, DVDs etc.
Unlike cars, the latter can be multiplicated, as in content can be copied onto new media, the cost of which is near zero.

Hi Chevalier:

Good post. Cars cost a lot to make/manufacture…but if there were some magical way to “copy” a car, for say 2 cents, don’t you think people would be making back-up copies of their cars all the time? Every time they got a scratch or ding or bump they’d just make another two cent copy of their original one…of course this is all fantasy, we all know cars cannot be copied…

gizmag.com/the-pirate-bay-physibles-3d-printing/21208/

The real “problem” here I think, is that technology is just evolving too fast for the corporations and lawyers to keep up with it all. How much should an MP3 copy of a song “cost”? What is it worth? You’re quite right, the cost is basically zero. If I copy a collection of (say) 6 megabyte MP3 files onto a cheap MP3 player or jumpdrive (say a 16 GB one), the cost for each song works out to be about 0.3 cents (that’s for the storage). It’s so cheap that nobody thinks about it anymore. 99 cents seems to be the “standard” cost for an MP3 song you get online, say at Itunes or something; there are plenty of other places where you can get it for 49 cents, or 29 cents, or 15 cents, or hey…for free. Are they legal? Depends on who you ask, I guess.

Let’s think about a real song, for a minute. I like an old song by a 1970s band, the Eagles, called “Hotel California”. Say I have an 8-track tape of that album/song. Let’s hope I still have a working player, because if I don’t, you can’t fix them anymore. But wait…I have the analog phonograhic record (the LP, as we used to say). Maybe one night I heard the album on my “Classic Rock All Night CD Party”, and I tape it off my FM radio (backups are supposedly legal in computers, but can you backup a radio program? I don’t know…although home taping is killing the music industry, doncha know)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music

Okay…say I find an old cassette copy of Hotel California in a thrift store for 25 cents, and I buy it. Cool. Now I have a little copy of the artwork on the big LP in my basement. Next, I get a copy of the CD at a garage sale on my street. $1…wow, now I can play it on my CD stereo player. But it’s a hassle going through my CD collection and putting it in all the time…so I waltz over to Itunes, and but a copy for 99 cents, say. Or maybe I get it for 49 cents, or 29, or whatever…Now I can play it on my computer.

So let me see…I have an 8-track tape (legal), an LP (legal), a home tape off the radio (maybe legal, who knows), a tape that I bought second hand (legal, I guess) and a second hand CD (legal, supposedly), and an MP3 copy I downloaded off the computer (legal, but we can argue about that if you want). The recording industry has sold me that song about 5 times so far.

Now I’d like to play that song on my smartphone while I’m going for a walk, so I copy it over there. Is that legal? I mean, I’ve paid for it. Many, many, many times, as they say… Well, no. Check the fine print. Can I transfer the song somewhere else? I guess that depends on Itunes or wherever you bought it. But hang on here, I can play it off Youtube on my smartphone, can’t I? Apple even helpfully gave me a free app for that, so they obviously think it’s ok. How is that different? Or should Youtube be shut down for copyright infringement?

youtube.com/watch?v=NUbTW928sMU

There are dozens of Hotel California’s on Youtube, some with millions of viewers…but they are still there. I guess the recording companies are ok with that. Bizarre…when they tell us that filesharing is stealing. Say I have an app that downloads Youtube videos…can I save them for later playback when I’m not in an area served by wireless? (time shifting, I think they call it…like what you do on your TV/PVR) Or is that “stealing”? I mean, it’s OK if Youtube “streams” the video, but not if I download it?

The corporations and copyright lawyers have basically boxed themselves into a corner. Technology has outrun them, and they can’t catch up anymore. Companies like Sony sell us the hardware (Cassette Recorders and CD Copiers and DVD Burners on the one hand), then complain that the people who buy them use them to back up their Sony software (programs, music, movies). Maybe the Recording Companies and Copyright Lawyers should just sue themselves and each other to death, and we can all sleep peacefully. I can already see the headline: Sony vs. Sony

By choosing not to do it, publisher accepts smaller turnover and absence of whatever gain he could make, whereas at a lower price more sales could be made. I’m not negating the cost of bills to pay, salaries of workers, rent for realty, other compensations, taxes and insurance, investments, marketing and PR, advertising etc., but a lot comes down to how you want to price an “item” of “intellectual property”, where prices can be very arbitrary. They are not reasonable. Even more unreasonable is the habit of putting huge EULAs on everything… Part of the copyright business. And I don’t think a copyright business should exist. Some copyright legislation and some copyright lawyers, and a couple of lobbyists and that’s it. When there’s an entire copyright industry, the system is sick. Personally, I believe that what’s happening with music and films is depriving the broad general audience of access to culture.

Absolutely. I already posted this in another thread…we are losing access to a lot of human culture because of an unreasonable fear of copyright infringement, and that’s too bad.

chronicle.com/article/Out-of-Fear-Institutions-Lock/127701/

Jacques

 

[Aunt_Raven]

Actually I would not mind if the writer could renew the copyright and start over again, but this is not what happens. Few writers benfit from the lengthening of the copyright because their books don’t stay in print that long, and if they do, they have already earned *a lot *of money from the book.

But what is currently happening is that books remain under copyright and are *not printed. *The authors don’t get any money from that, *and *the society loses the book.

You are confusing two issues: whether a book goes out of print, or enjoys many reprint editions, has nothing to do with the author’s rights to keep the income rights of his book. As a matter of fact most authors are lucky to get into print, and only a tiny minority write best-sellers which enable them to quit their day jobs; far fewer become millionaires. If a book is out of print while still under copyright it may be morally justifiable to photocopy it for your own use, but not to sell copies for your profit. It has happened that an unpopular and long out-of-print book unexpectedly gains a larger new audience, and the author has a right to enjoy income from its late as well as any early popularity.

Recently the heirs of Margaret Mitchell donated all the profits from “Gone with the Wind” to the Catholic Church in Atlanta. Having copyright exceed the author’s death permits philanthropy like this … Also, suppose a person who had a severely handicapped child wrote a book, and then died suddenly. It makes sense to have the copyright exceed the person’s life so that the book’s income could care for the lifetime of the handicapped child.

As a “non-rich” author, I have no problem with the current Copyright laws.

 

[edwest2]

I think the internet is making people stupider.

You want to publish an ebook on Kindle? Amazon gets a cut. There’s no pure profit.

You want to sell your indie music on iTunes? Guess what?

apple.com/itunes/content-providers/music-faq.html

After you got through the application process, you find out that Apple takes a cut.

Once again, no pure profit.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Cristiano]

I think the internet is making people stupider…

Derogatory self assessments are still considered ad hominem attacks and the are only anecdotal evidence.

I think that my IQ just dropped two points while typing this comment.

 

[edwest2]

Interesting. I’d like to hear Ed’s take on the disparity between patent terms and copyright terms. That’s quite a substantial difference. I wonder why that is.

And I’m being genuine. I know Ed knows a lot about this stuff, so I really want to hear his thoughts.

Well, Joe, if you really want to know the answer you’re going to have to look at the case law for copyrights and trademarks. Since I’m not going to post lengthy examples, I’ll just point out the basics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States

It’s just the way the law is structured.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Joe_5859]

Well, Joe, if you really want to know the answer you’re going to have to look at the case law for copyrights and trademarks. Since I’m not going to post lengthy examples, I’ll just point out the basics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States

It’s just the way the law is structured.

Peace,
Ed

I understand that’s just the way the law is structured, but do you think that’s as it should be? Don’t both have to deal with intellectual property? If I write a book, my descendants can control it for 70 years after my death, but if I invent a contraption that uses bacon grease to power my lawn mower, then I only get 20 years? How is that fair?

I know that if I want to understand how we got to where we are, a thorough look at case law would be called for. The law is what it is. This is more of a subjective question. I’m just curious if you think patent terms should be lengthened, copyright terms shortened, or if you think everything is just fine as it is. And if it’s fine the way it is, then perhaps you could share your thoughts on why it’s okay that there is such a disconnect between the two. Maybe there’s a good reason for it that I’m missing.

 

[edwest2]

Joe,

There’s no such thing as 50-50 fairness in any business I can think of. And it’s not about what’s fair. A few years back, the US Postal Service decided to cut a form of shipping called “Surface Mail” for shipping any product that fell under that category to foreign countries. Pounds and pounds of books, for example, could be shipped relatively cheaply to Australia, for example, but we and a lot of other companies lost a lot of sales to non-North American companies because of it.

Patent Law is decided by committees and the lawyers. They present their case to a judge regarding all the provisions they want included in patent law and that includes the length of time a patent is in effect. If a judge agrees, then that’s just the way it is. I hope that the judge was fair and that the reasons given him seemed reasonable to him. If anyone thinks the length of time any company can own the patent is unfair, you can file a lawsuit. But you better have something more compelling then you feel it’s just not right. I’d like the temperature outside to stay at 73 degrees, since I think people would benefit.

As I posted earlier, in order for an action to be taken about “unfair labor practices,” or “unfair copyright practices,” or unfair length of trademark," then you need a very compelling argument minus all the emotion, hand waving and “it just don’t sit right with me.”

Face it Joe. People want cheap. They usually have no idea how much time and effort goes into making a movie, music or a book. No idea. I know a number of people who want my job. They think it would be the greatest thing in the world to come here and work. But experience has shown that in the past, a few people got hired on and they had wrong preconceived notions, and they lacked a number of skills, which included a strong work ethic and personal discipline. They were barely carrying their own weight and got let go.

So, the argument is not what’s fair. The argument is simply this: don’t waste any time here. Quit listening to the anarchists who claim culture is being lost, and who don’t want to pay for anything. If they have facts - take it to a judge. Otherwise, nothing changes.

To answer your other questions directly. The length of copyright is just fine. I have seen no compelling argument that shortening the length would benefit anybody. The same with trademarks. No compelling arguments to change that.

Without a compelling argument, all you’re left with is a small bunch of people spouting emotional diatribes, with vague references to greed. Hey, if you won 20 million dollars tomorrow, what would you create with it?

I know of a gentleman who lucked out and became a multi-millionaire by adding a new product to a new company that propelled the company into the multi-million dollar stratosphere. He left that company to start another and it failed. Why? His new product had limited appeal. Now’s he’s started a new company and while he has some business skills, his ability to spot “the next big thing” has left him, if he ever had it in the first place.

I am firmly convinced that shortening the length of copyright will not help anyone, or hurt anyone. Today, right now, and I’ve done this in the past, I can call any Hollywood studio and get the licensing rights to anything. No, I’m not saying that Star Wars would change hands and be mine for 5 years, what I am saying is that I could license it for new novels, or new comics or new toys. And people are doing it. Lego has got a ton of Star Wars stuff on the market.

So nothing’s wrong with current copyright laws.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JacquesMaritain]

Surprised at me for what? For posting my thoughts before using Google? I don’t do lots of research before every post I make.
The first link says sales are down 3%, but the second link says that “Overall Music Sales Break 1.6 Billion Mark for First Time”. So which is it?
In any case, I hope you don’t confuse me for someone who thinks piracy is just fine. Those are not my thoughts at all. I have hundreds of CDs and over a thousand books and I obtained them honestly with money. So, at the very least, it irritates me that people get the same stuff for free. I simply posted a question of curiosity as to what the overall trends are. And I’m not talking about just from one year to the next. The fluctuating state of the economy has as much to do with that as anything else. I’m talking about sales before the internet and sales after the internet. I know the internet has directly led to me spending a lot more money on CDs (especially back when I was in college and bought most of my CD collection). I would have never even heard of 90% of the bands I own CDs from if not for the internet. That’s what I was speculating about. For every person that pirates music illegally, there are people like me who have been afforded more opportunities to spend money that they otherwise would not have encountered. It would surprise me if the music industry was worse off over it.

Hi Joe:

This is a fascinating question, and i don’t know if an answer to it is even possible; have music sales gone up after the invention of the internet (by providing advertising for new bands, band websites, Amazon, Itunes, all that), or have they gone down (Napster, Kazaaa, Limewire, Bittorrent, all that)?

Newsweek had a fascinating article about all this stuff in 2010: It’s called “A Decade of Destruction: How The internet Ruined TV, Music, Movies and Microsoft” Basically, it argues that in order to get to new ways of delivering music (like Itunes and Amazon), what has to happen is what economic historian Joseph Schumpeter called creative destruction; “as the Internet crashes like a tsunami across entire industries, sweeping away the old and infirm and those who are unwilling or unable to change.” Basically it is like the introduction of automobiles in the early 20th century; it was a difficult time for horse and buggy salesmen, and those that made horsewhips, and blacksmiths who made the horseshoes, yes…but they had to adapt to changing conditions or be swept away.

2010.newsweek.com/essay/a-decade-of-destruction.html

Business Insider had an interesting column on this in 2011. Their take on it: “10 years ago the average American spent almost 3 times as much on recorded music products as they do today. But 26 years ago they spent almost twice as much as they do today.” These figures are adjusted for inflation and all that, of course. They basically find that the music industry used to make most of its money from album sales, and guess what? Nobody’s buying full albums anymore. Downloaded singles and music have helped somewhat, but not nearly enough to counter the loss of the physical vinyl record or physical compact disc.

articles.businessinsider.com/2011-02-18/tech/30052663_1_riaa-music-industry-cd-era

So if you just go on the economic model, yes, the “Record Companies” have suffered greatly due to the Internet. On the other hand, I’m going to work in a nice shiny new automobile these days, and frankly I don’t really want to fire up the old Horse and Buggy just because the blacksmiths are complaining about poverty and lost sales. The Horse and Buggy store is now a Ford dealership; at least they figured it out. The record companies? Not so much…

Jacques

 

[3DOCTORS]

Your library system must be a lot different from ours, where they seem to cull books like crazy.

And there are books I have been searching for for years that I can’t find because as a kid, it didn’t occur to me to write their titles and authors down so I could get them for my children. Not to mention books that are just difficult to find.

This problem drove me nuts too, back in the day. It’s been better since Alibris, Amazon.com, and Ebay etc. - before that all you could fall back on was Interlibrary Loan or if you wanted to purchase the book, an Out-of-Print search by a bookstore. The searches could take weeks or months, and the price quotes were often too expensive.

And I’d be willing to bet that a lot of books got tossed out simply because they weren’t in proximity to a potential buyer, and taking up space by whoever happened to have them back then but needed to make room on the shelves for books that sold better. Such a waste.

Nowadays it’s so cool to be able to get a copy of a book for a reasonable price in a reasonable time. Interlibrary loan is much more efficient since the Internet too.

Sorry for interrupting the main thread, I’ll be on my way.

 

[JacquesMaritain]

The argument is simply this: don’t waste any time here. Quit listening to the anarchists who claim culture is being lost, and who don’t want to pay for anything…(snip)

Anarchist? Moi? Quick, Vladimir…he’s on to us! Hide the Molotov cocktails! “да товарищ”

FWIW, anarchism: “a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.” Funny, last time I checked, digital archivists were trying to preserve past cultural works, and make them more available, not destroy them. People who copy files are trying to keep them around for future use. Even those evil people that just want to get stuff for free (ahoy, matey!) normally don’t destroy it once they’ve downloaded it. Maybe you’ve got us confused with those people who press “delete” instead…

Yup, anarchy all right:

Personally, I believe that what’s happening with music and films is depriving the broad general audience of access to culture.

…we are losing access to a lot of human culture because of an unreasonable fear of copyright infringement… chronicle.com/article/Out-of-Fear-Institutions-Lock/127701/

The so-called anarchists that hang out at the universities/schools and other commie left wing institutions think that copyright terms are way too long…they want to put more stuff in the public domain, not less. For the vast majority of human history, copyright never existed at all; it didn’t even start until the 18th century. Somehow the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution and all that art, music and culture happened just fine, without any copyright at all. Impossible, you say? Look it up:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the successive expansion of copyright terms (from 14 to 28 to 50 to 70 to 95 years, and so on…) is removing more and more information and human knowledge from public access than ever before. * “We are the first generation to deny our own culture to ourselves. Almost no work created during your lifetime will, without conscious action by its creator, become available for you to reproduce or build upon*.”

web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday

As you can see, scholars and researchers care a great deal about preserving the public domain. What’s your opinion? No, wait…

Public domain - the dream of the lazy.

The public domain thing again? It is the last resort of the lazy beginning artist and writer.

C’mon Joe. Public domain works are tainted by age. The average kid today never heard of Buck Rogers and the old trappings - the props, the spaceships, the villains - they’re all old. A product of a time long past for most.

They’re only “old” and “tainted” because copyright supporters fight so fiercely AGAINST allowing newer works to become freely available. Well, in the United States, anyway. In other, more free countries, as of 2012, we now have, available for anyone to read:

Sherwood Anderson (American novelist and short story writer)
Gabriel Alomar i Villalonga (Spanish poet, essayist and educator)
Elizabeth von Arnim (Australian-born British novelist)
Robert Baden-Powell (Founder of the Scout Movement)
Frederick Banting (Canadian medical scientist, one of the main discoverers of insulin)
Henri Bergson (French philosopher)
Raffaello Bertieri (Italian publisher, graphic and type designer)
Gutzon de la Mothe Borglum (American artist and sculptor)
Louis Brandeis (Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States)
Frank Bridge (English composer and violist)
August Cesarec (Croatian writer and left-wing politician)
Louis-Joseph Chevrolet (Swiss-born American race car driver and co-founder of the Chevrolet Motor Car Company)
Robert Delaunay (French artist)
Simon Dubnow (Jewish historian, writer and activist)
James Frazer (Scottish social anthropologist)
Arkady Gaidar (Soviet writer)
Amalia Guglielminetti (Italian poet and writer - Works available online)
James Joyce (Irish novelist and poet)
Alter Kacyzne (Jewish (Yiddish) writer, poet, and photographer)
Gustav Gerson Kahn (German musician, songwriter and lyricist)
Tullio Levi-Civita (Italian mathematician)
Lazar Markovich Lissitzky (Russian artist)
George Minne (Belgian artist and sculptor)
Gaetano Mosca (Italian political scientist - Works available online)
Jelly Roll Morton (American ragtime and early jazz pianist, bandleader and composer)
Kole Nedelkovski (Macedonian revolutionary and poet)
Ignacy Jan Paderewski (Polish pianist and second Prime Minister of Poland)
Petar Poparsov (Macedonian revolutionary)
Giuseppe Rensi (Italian philosopher - Works available online)
Rabindranath Tagore (Bengali polymath - Works available online)
Santiago Rusiñol (Catalan post-impressionist/Symbolist painter,)
Adriano Tilgher (Italian philosopher and essayist - Works available online)
Marina Ivanovna Tsvetaeva (Russian and Soviet poet)
Hugh Walpole (English novelist)
Wilhelm II (The last German Emperor)
Virginia Woolf

publicdomainday.org/

This is some of what you’re missing out on, thanks to the newer, extended copyright laws:

web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2012/pre-1976

Yeah, I know, they’re all old and tainted and boring. Maybe we should all read (and don’t forget to pay for it, copyright is SO important!) the most popular book of 2012, instead.

publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/53007-the-bestselling-books-of-2012-so-far-.html

Jacques

 

[thewanderer]

Joe,
So, the argument is not what’s fair. The argument is simply this: don’t waste any time here. Quit listening to the anarchists who claim culture is being lost, and who don’t want to pay for anything. If they have facts - take it to a judge. Otherwise, nothing changes.

Honestly, Ed, all I can say is Wow. Whats fair doesn’t matter? Instead your argument is just since you don’t agree with me you should just shut up and leavve this thread? Oh, and that everyone who disagrees with you is obviously just an anarchist who is trying to squeeze as many freebies out of life as he can.

Seriously, so far your counter-arguments in thiss thread have rested largely on attacking the integrity of those who are involved in this debate rather than actually addressing their points. This has already been pointed out multiple times and I am honestly very surprized that despite that you continue to use this as a form of argument. It really does not help your case.

To answer your other questions directly. The length of copyright is just fine. I have seen no compelling argument that shortening the length would benefit anybody. The same with trademarks. No compelling arguments to change that.

Ed, I am honestly interested in hearing your arguments to say that the copyrights **shouldn’t **be changed. Like I’ve said before, my mind is not yet made up on this matter and it would be interesting to hear an argument from the other side. I mean, its one thing to claim that nobody else’s arguments are worth anything, its another thing entirely to actually show reasons why the laws shouldn’t be changed. I mean, if its a good law, it shouldn’t be changed, and it would in fact be detrimental to change it. So would you mind sharing your reasons as to why you are convinced that there shouldn’t be any changes made to current copyright laws?

 

[thewanderer]

And Ed, I really want to make sure that you understand that that last question is a completely honest one. I do not intend it as an attempt at belittling your position in this debate, I am truly interested.

 

[Joe_5859]

Joe,

There’s no such thing as 50-50 fairness in any business I can think of. And it’s not about what’s fair. A few years back, the US Postal Service decided to cut a form of shipping called “Surface Mail” for shipping any product that fell under that category to foreign countries. Pounds and pounds of books, for example, could be shipped relatively cheaply to Australia, for example, but we and a lot of other companies lost a lot of sales to non-North American companies because of it.

Patent Law is decided by committees and the lawyers. They present their case to a judge regarding all the provisions they want included in patent law and that includes the length of time a patent is in effect. If a judge agrees, then that’s just the way it is. I hope that the judge was fair and that the reasons given him seemed reasonable to him. If anyone thinks the length of time any company can own the patent is unfair, you can file a lawsuit. But you better have something more compelling then you feel it’s just not right. I’d like the temperature outside to stay at 73 degrees, since I think people would benefit.

As I posted earlier, in order for an action to be taken about “unfair labor practices,” or “unfair copyright practices,” or unfair length of trademark," then you need a very compelling argument minus all the emotion, hand waving and “it just don’t sit right with me.”

Face it Joe. People want cheap. They usually have no idea how much time and effort goes into making a movie, music or a book. No idea. I know a number of people who want my job. They think it would be the greatest thing in the world to come here and work. But experience has shown that in the past, a few people got hired on and they had wrong preconceived notions, and they lacked a number of skills, which included a strong work ethic and personal discipline. They were barely carrying their own weight and got let go.

So, the argument is not what’s fair. The argument is simply this: don’t waste any time here. Quit listening to the anarchists who claim culture is being lost, and who don’t want to pay for anything. If they have facts - take it to a judge. Otherwise, nothing changes.

To answer your other questions directly. The length of copyright is just fine. I have seen no compelling argument that shortening the length would benefit anybody. The same with trademarks. No compelling arguments to change that.

Without a compelling argument, all you’re left with is a small bunch of people spouting emotional diatribes, with vague references to greed. Hey, if you won 20 million dollars tomorrow, what would you create with it?

I know of a gentleman who lucked out and became a multi-millionaire by adding a new product to a new company that propelled the company into the multi-million dollar stratosphere. He left that company to start another and it failed. Why? His new product had limited appeal. Now’s he’s started a new company and while he has some business skills, his ability to spot “the next big thing” has left him, if he ever had it in the first place.

I am firmly convinced that shortening the length of copyright will not help anyone, or hurt anyone. Today, right now, and I’ve done this in the past, I can call any Hollywood studio and get the licensing rights to anything. No, I’m not saying that Star Wars would change hands and be mine for 5 years, what I am saying is that I could license it for new novels, or new comics or new toys. And people are doing it. Lego has got a ton of Star Wars stuff on the market.

So nothing’s wrong with current copyright laws.

Peace,
Ed

Ed,

I understand your wanting to keep the discussion to what the laws are unless we’re motivated to actually do something about it. I’m not a big fan of hand-wringing and foot-stomping. I understand life in general isn’t fair and nothing is going to be completely fair this side of heaven (which is actually good for us, because if life were truly “fair” none of us would even make it to heaven ). But I think when it comes to our laws, we absolutely need to take fairness into consideration. That doesn’t have to be (and really shouldn’t be) an emotional thing. I don’t see how observing a potential 100 year disparity between copyright terms and patent terms and thinking that seems a bit off is “emotional.”

I do think there is a place for thinking through these things in a more abstract way. We don’t want to develop tunnel vision. That’s really all I’m here for. I don’t feel so utterly repressed by copyright laws that I feel compelled to dedicate my life to changing the system. If I wrote a book that made me millions, I’d take full advantage of those laws. But I don’t think that disallows me from posing questions and wondering about the whole thing.

I do appreciate your perspective on this, even if it seems like I’m being argumentative with you. () Thank you for taking the time to discuss these things.

 

[edwest2]

Anarchist? Moi? Quick, Vladimir…he’s on to us! Hide the Molotov cocktails! “да товарищ”

FWIW, anarchism: “a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.” Funny, last time I checked, digital archivists were trying to preserve past cultural works, and make them more available, not destroy them. People who copy files are trying to keep them around for future use. Even those evil people that just want to get stuff for free (ahoy, matey!) normally don’t destroy it once they’ve downloaded it. Maybe you’ve got us confused with those people who press “delete” instead…

Yup, anarchy all right:

The so-called anarchists that hang out at the universities/schools and other commie left wing institutions think that copyright terms are way too long…they want to put more stuff in the public domain, not less. For the vast majority of human history, copyright never existed at all; it didn’t even start until the 18th century. Somehow the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution and all that art, music and culture happened just fine, without any copyright at all. Impossible, you say? Look it up:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the successive expansion of copyright terms (from 14 to 28 to 50 to 70 to 95 years, and so on…) is removing more and more information and human knowledge from public access than ever before. * “We are the first generation to deny our own culture to ourselves. Almost no work created during your lifetime will, without conscious action by its creator, become available for you to reproduce or build upon*.”

web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday

As you can see, scholars and researchers care a great deal about preserving the public domain. What’s your opinion? No, wait…

They’re only “old” and “tainted” because copyright supporters fight so fiercely AGAINST allowing newer works to become freely available. Well, in the United States, anyway. In other, more free countries, as of 2012, we now have, available for anyone to read:

Sherwood Anderson (American novelist and short story writer)
Gabriel Alomar i Villalonga (Spanish poet, essayist and educator)
Elizabeth von Arnim (Australian-born British novelist)
Robert Baden-Powell (Founder of the Scout Movement)
Frederick Banting (Canadian medical scientist, one of the main discoverers of insulin)
Henri Bergson (French philosopher)
Raffaello Bertieri (Italian publisher, graphic and type designer)
Gutzon de la Mothe Borglum (American artist and sculptor)
Louis Brandeis (Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States)
Frank Bridge (English composer and violist)
August Cesarec (Croatian writer and left-wing politician)
Louis-Joseph Chevrolet (Swiss-born American race car driver and co-founder of the Chevrolet Motor Car Company)
Robert Delaunay (French artist)
Simon Dubnow (Jewish historian, writer and activist)
James Frazer (Scottish social anthropologist)
Arkady Gaidar (Soviet writer)
Amalia Guglielminetti (Italian poet and writer - Works available online)
James Joyce (Irish novelist and poet)
Alter Kacyzne (Jewish (Yiddish) writer, poet, and photographer)
Gustav Gerson Kahn (German musician, songwriter and lyricist)
Tullio Levi-Civita (Italian mathematician)
Lazar Markovich Lissitzky (Russian artist)
George Minne (Belgian artist and sculptor)
Gaetano Mosca (Italian political scientist - Works available online)
Jelly Roll Morton (American ragtime and early jazz pianist, bandleader and composer)
Kole Nedelkovski (Macedonian revolutionary and poet)
Ignacy Jan Paderewski (Polish pianist and second Prime Minister of Poland)
Petar Poparsov (Macedonian revolutionary)
Giuseppe Rensi (Italian philosopher - Works available online)
Rabindranath Tagore (Bengali polymath - Works available online)
Santiago Rusiñol (Catalan post-impressionist/Symbolist painter,)
Adriano Tilgher (Italian philosopher and essayist - Works available online)
Marina Ivanovna Tsvetaeva (Russian and Soviet poet)
Hugh Walpole (English novelist)
Wilhelm II (The last German Emperor)
Virginia Woolf

publicdomainday.org/

This is some of what you’re missing out on, thanks to the newer, extended copyright laws:

web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2012/pre-1976

Yeah, I know, they’re all old and tainted and boring. Maybe we should all read (and don’t forget to pay for it, copyright is SO important!) the most popular book of 2012, instead.

publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/53007-the-bestselling-books-of-2012-so-far-.html

Jacques

Hello Jacques,

An entertaining reply. Since you are so well schooled about the common meaning of anarchism, allow me to point out that there are many different brands. In the late 1960s, there was a small group of anarchists that threatened to “burn this country down, if we have to.” Of course, they were immediately infiltrated by the FBI. The anarchists I saw in action in the late 1960s were more of this variety:

“Individualist anarchism refers to several traditions of thought within the anarchist movement that emphasize the individual and their will over any kinds of external determinants such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems.[151][152] Individualist anarchism is not a single philosophy but refers to a group of individualistic philosophies that sometimes are in conflict.”

This brand or branch of anarchism sought to change behavior by denying all authority as legitimate and, just like the goth subculture later on, sought to be completely different individuals by dressing, speaking and otherwise acting exactly alike, as opposed to the norms of the time period. They knowingly and some mostly unknowingly, I think, infected the thinking of the media and people like Catholics.

Today, we have what Pope Benedict correctly describes as “radical individualism.” While some struggle to find truth, these people, who never label themselves, have believed a lie: “I am an adult! I get to choose to do anything!” and the associated lie/contradiction: “Some things are not suitable for children.” Really? Then from where do children get their examples for being adults? This poisonous and totally wrong belief has been fostered, including here, by the radical individualists and their blind followers.

Yeah, I know, people want to “build upon” something for nothing. Create your own material and build something yourself. Permission appears to be an evil word. I can, right now, call any publishing house, or its successor, and ask for permission to reprint anything they own. Oh, I forgot, they might ask for money. Or if the company no longer exists, and its personnel, including authors, died long ago, I can contact the copyright office to see what can be legally done. There are conditions where I could reprint it.

Your knowledge of copyright law takes the adversarial approach. I suggest you contact the US Copyright Office for answers to your questions, since some, not you, simply throw up their hands and say “it’s all too complicated!” Going to the moon with a computer on board that was less powerful than a hand-held calculator today was complicated - this is not. Do not assume the US Copyright Office is the enemy automatically.

Here’s one item that may interest you:

If a book was copyrighted between January 1, 1923 and December 1949, it held copyright protection protection for 28 years. If copyright was not renewed by the end of the 28th year, it was lost, permanently.

Read this:

copyright.gov/circs/circ22.pdf

And, by the way, since we have been involved in copyright litigation in the past, the Copyright Office does call us if they notice an error or other problem when we send in our registration form. That official registration helps immensely in court.

And I can find most any English language book you can name, either through used booksellers or a library or university library. Oh, yes, those used booksellers will charge you money. The last time I bought an obscure book from the late 1800s, it cost $80.00. But for those who are unwilling to pay, we live in a free market system that prices old books according to whatever the seller(s) think the market will pay.

Our culture is intact. The sky is not falling.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Ed,

I understand your wanting to keep the discussion to what the laws are unless we’re motivated to actually do something about it. I’m not a big fan of hand-wringing and foot-stomping. I understand life in general isn’t fair and nothing is going to be completely fair this side of heaven (which is actually good for us, because if life were truly “fair” none of us would even make it to heaven ). But I think when it comes to our laws, we absolutely need to take fairness into consideration. That doesn’t have to be (and really shouldn’t be) an emotional thing. I don’t see how observing a potential 100 year disparity between copyright terms and patent terms and thinking that seems a bit off is “emotional.”

I do think there is a place for thinking through these things in a more abstract way. We don’t want to develop tunnel vision. That’s really all I’m here for. I don’t feel so utterly repressed by copyright laws that I feel compelled to dedicate my life to changing the system. If I wrote a book that made me millions, I’d take full advantage of those laws. But I don’t think that disallows me from posing questions and wondering about the whole thing.

I do appreciate your perspective on this, even if it seems like I’m being argumentative with you. () Thank you for taking the time to discuss these things.

Hi Joe,

Thank you for your polite response. The only problem I’m seeing here is there is no “abstract” discussion, just a lot of emotion followed by things have got to change, followed by: “How? Gosh, uh, maybe we should try this… maybe. Or everyone should just listen to me and a handful of people who take the adversarial approach.”

You know, Joe. My company has been called by real people from the US Copyright Office. I’m sure that if I called them and asked a few questions, I would get answers. If you take the “They are all the enemy!!!” approach, what do you learn? The “they” being “big, fat, rich, greedy publishers who should not, in my illegal fantasy world, care that I steal anything” they paid money to make.

Well, apparently a few here are dedicated to yelling and making statements about how much they want the current system to change. Why? Copyrights are too long. So? “Because people like us want copyrighted works in the public domain quicker so that we can make our own Star Wars novels!!” “Star Wars came out in 1977, so if they had stuck to 28 years, copyright could have ended in 2005 (when I was 15 years old), but now that I’m 22, I get to write brand new Star Wars novels!!!” “And make big bucks.” Yeah? Do you have any writing skills at all? I’ve seen submissions for decades and most of them are from total amateurs and most are bad. There are good books out there that will help you grasp the basics and give you clear examples, but what does it take? Writing - a lot of writing. Usually years of writing, before your work can be considered professional. Do they have 4 year college courses for nothing? For decades, it’s been the same drill for artists. First year work is almost always bad across the board, 2nd year, a little better, 3rd year, a few gems, and 4th year, more gems.

There are no abstracts to consider here. Give the copyright office a call and ask them why the terms were extended: 202-707-9100. If you want to.

Thanks again for your politeness,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Honestly, Ed, all I can say is Wow. Whats fair doesn’t matter? Instead your argument is just since you don’t agree with me you should just shut up and leavve this thread? Oh, and that everyone who disagrees with you is obviously just an anarchist who is trying to squeeze as many freebies out of life as he can.

Seriously, so far your counter-arguments in thiss thread have rested largely on attacking the integrity of those who are involved in this debate rather than actually addressing their points. This has already been pointed out multiple times and I am honestly very surprized that despite that you continue to use this as a form of argument. It really does not help your case.

Ed, I am honestly interested in hearing your arguments to say that the copyrights **shouldn’t **be changed. Like I’ve said before, my mind is not yet made up on this matter and it would be interesting to hear an argument from the other side. I mean, its one thing to claim that nobody else’s arguments are worth anything, its another thing entirely to actually show reasons why the laws shouldn’t be changed. I mean, if its a good law, it shouldn’t be changed, and it would in fact be detrimental to change it. So would you mind sharing your reasons as to why you are convinced that there shouldn’t be any changes made to current copyright laws?

My answer is simple: a law is either just or it is not. In this case, in order for a law to be changed, you must prove to a judge that actual harm and/or actual damage is being caused by the law. All law is based on evidence, compelling evidence. I see no compelling arguments or evidence to change current copyright law. Those who disagree have legal recourse.

I hope that answers your question.

Peace,
Ed