Present copywrite laws are insane and stifle innovation ... Discuss

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Persol

I can just as easily ask what obligation society has to the artist.

None at all. You're anthropomorphizing the concept of society too much. One does not become indebted to some faceless abstract concept of people living together, when he is born, or when he produces something of value. What's his is his, society owns nothing, not even in a socialistic or communistic society, in that situation government owns everything.

Originally posted by Persol
As soon as it is in the public. We aren't taking your original, only duplicating it. That said, an amount of time should be allowed for you to make money of duplicating your work.

So your answer, is that when someone produces a work of art, it belongs to you only just as soon as you take it? It's theft pure and simple. Knowing that something exists, seeing it, and understanding it does not entitle you to it.

Originally posted by Persol
Thoughts are not property. Why should they be treated as such?

So your thoughts are not your own? We aren't even talking about thoughts anyway, we are talking about the product of thought: Art and technology. I would also contests that my own thoughts belong solely to me, simply because I can't fathom who else they should belong to.

Originally posted by Persol
I disagree. I think it is more uncapatalistic and communism to control ideas. It inhibits free markets from forming.

It is uncapitalistic to alow someone to own that which he has created, and to let him make money usinig the product of his thought as he wills? Yet somehow it is capitalistic to steal that thing from him, and make it available to everyone with no consideration given to the creator all in the name of the "public good"? Perhaps you need to redefine your concept of capitalism.

Originally posted by Persol
The painting doesn't. The idea does. It should be fully within my right to photograph a painting in my house which I bought.... after all, when I bought it, it belongs to me too. What I then do with my property is, as you say, my business. The end effect is that as soon as it is sold to the public, the IDEA is public property.

Yes, the painting is yours, and if you bought it from the artist, and there were no special terms agreed upon when you bought it, then rightly it should be yours to do with as you please. It should be your right to make copies, alter it, or whatever, so long as no agreement to the contrary was made BEFORE you purchased it. That's why software comes with a licence agreement, saying that you are not buying the information on the disk, it does not belong to you, but rather you are buying permission to use it from the company which produced it.

Originally posted by Persol
Why should we protect your ideas from being used by other people? Don't I own something when I buy a copy? Can't I then do what I want with it?

That all depends on what you were really buying. If I were to sell you a print of my own artwork, then you wouldn't have any right to make copies or redistribute, you'd have a right only to own that one copy, because those are the terms which we set (and if you want to buy under other terms, then I would not sell, and if you wouldn't buy under those terms then we wouldn't have this hypothetical situation, so lets just assume for a moment that you did agree to buy). If I were to sell you the original, (or even just a print) and not give you specific terms as to the condition of the purchase, then I don't have any real legal legs to stand on if I want to get upset when you make copies, and sell them to others, or what have you.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Persol
They are only willing to pay for your work because you have a monopoly.[/B]

Yes a monopoly on the work which you yourself have created, and that is as it should be. You're the one who made it, so you are the one who should get the credit for it, making a copy doesn't entitle you to the money that it may bring in, that's called theft.

Originally posted by Persol You can keep what you produce, but people don't produce ideas... they have them. [/B]

People produce ideas and they produce art or technology based upon them. People don't just "have" ideas.

 

[buffys]

Mauka

Quote - "So, by saying that 14-20 years is a good term for copyright ownership you are omitting the fact that some material might take years to to have published or even to have fully completed within that time frame."


Great point! man, is this a complex issue or what. I still lean to the "shorter is better" side (overall) but thats one of the better arguments against that ive run across.

thnx for posting.

 

[Mystech]

Why should intellectual property be treated differently than physical properties? How would you like it if after a few months of owning your computer then suddenly you no longer had the right to keep it in your home and everyone in the world had just as much right to use it as you do?

 

[buffys]

Mystech


Quote - "Why should intellectual property be treated differently than physical properties? How would you like it if after a few months of owning your computer then suddenly you no longer had the right to keep it in your home and everyone in the world had just as much right to use it as you do?"


im definitely not an expert in this area but it seems to me that your analogy is false. Its true that if i took your computer you would no longer have it but that is not the case with intellectual property. It would be more like me entering your house after a few months and making a duplicate of your computer, you'd still have it after i left.


any thoughts?

 

[Mauka]

Copyright Info.

I was glad to see that my previous post was somewhat helpful. There are some really great points being brought up....I honestly had no answers for the questions I saw about how copyright law pertains to the fields of science and technology. I have never dealt with that before. I always discussed copyright in relation to art or business......it made me think.

However, something I did notice was that the term "idea" was being used frequently. I understand that it is most likely being used in reference to artistic vision, but copyright law doesn't apply to ideas. Copyright law protects tangible artistic material from theft or infringement. There are specfic steps to federally obtaining a copyright. It is true that as soon as your "idea" is transfered into a tangible it has copyrights. However, if it isn't registered with the government, it doesn't really have a chance in any legal situation.....you can go to court with it......but you won't win.

So, in order for anything to have true government copyright protection it has to be registered and in a tangible form. So, ideas are unable to have copyright protection and since most science is based on theories, principles, mathmatics, concepts and discoveries.....I would imagine that there is little that can obtain copyright protection in the field of science. ( I'm not 100% sure about this......I mean I can see Scientific literature having copyright protection........but not auctual scientific theories. I could be wrong......if I am, feel free to let me know).

Here is the Basic principles of what is and is not protected under copyright law. I pulled it from the Government webpage.

WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:

literary works;
musical works, including any accompanying words
dramatic works, including any accompanying music
pantomimes and choreographic works
pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
motion pictures and other audiovisual works
sound recordings
architectural works
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[buffys]

yea, I agree with your concerns about "idea" being used so broadly but for me its the best (all around) word i can think of to use instead of typing "invention/creation/discovery/concept". My understanding of the proper legal terms is inadequate so i went for the most easily comprehensible.

 

[Mauka]

Other facts

Here are two other interesting facts concerning copyright law.

Several countries don't recognize copyright law

South Korea for example.


Also when dealing with copyright law in music, the only aspects of a musical compostion that can be protected by copyright is the melody and lyrical content. Chords and progressions are fair game.....( A great example of this is the case involving George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" and the Chiffons "He's so Fine"....the Chiffons won the case......strictly because the melody was allmost identical......the lyrics were different but the melody infringed on the Chiffons copyright of "He's so Fine" cost Harrison a fortune.

Just something interesting pertaining to copyright law.

 

[buffys]

Mauka,

im not positive what the point about South Korea was (my understanding of international issues and how they relate to this topic is weak to say the least) but I'm very interested to hear in more detail how exactly it fits in.

You also noted:

Quote - "Also when dealing with copyright law in music, the only aspects of a musical compostion that can be protected by copyright is the melody and lyrical content. Chords and progressions are fair game.....( A great example of this is the case involving George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" and the Chiffons "He's so Fine"....the Chiffons won the case......strictly because the melody was allmost identical......the lyrics were different but the melody infringed on the Chiffons copyright of "He's so Fine" cost Harrison a fortune."

As an artist myself it is hard for me to differentiate between the importance of chords and lyrics, from a creative standpoint that is. They are both a construct of the creator. Why is one protected and the other not?

yahoo! fun discussion guys! thnx so much.

 

[buffys]

step314

(Sorry for the late response but it took me a while to actually read your post)

Quote - "It would have been inconvenient for people to have had to search for that particular material amid the rest of my book."

True enough, i apologize but whenever i see a post whose content is a quote from their own book i instantly think "and this quote was brought to you by SPAM!". After rereading it seems appropriate here.

 

[Mauka]

Sorry about that...

buffys,

Sorry, I didn't explain my post about South Korea. Here is why I mentioned they have no copyright law. In South Korea it is completely legal to reproduce material and claim that it is the original. It is common practice for South Korean market retailers to buy products, art, etc. and replicate it and sell the replica as the orginal.

For example: When an artist puts out their new album all the Market Retailers have to do is get an orginal copy and burn off as many replicas as they like......they also copy the CD's artdesign linear notes in order to produce an exact replica of the orginial and then they sell the CD for the orginial price or for a "bargain". This is legal in South Korea. This practice is also done on electronics, clothing, art, jewelery, etc and the real kicker is they can claim the items authenticy with forged certificates or documents without any legal repercussions.

Rolex watches are very popular to replicate in South Korea. They use the exact Rolex designs and Trademark to produce an exact copy of the real item.

People and companies around the world loose millions of dollars in revenue to this practice.

So, I think this is a good example of how copyright laws within the United States and other countries work to help preserve an artists creations........b/c as soon as it slips into public domain not only can it obtained.......but also reproduced and altered.

 

[coolsoldier]

Copyright is, in general, a good thing BUT I think (i.e. this is just my insignifigant opinion) that to get the most innovation:
a) Copyright should be non-transferrable--You may licence the rights but they remain yours to licence (and revoke) for as long as the copyright exists.
b) Copyright should be limited to the amount of time necessary for the idea to proliferate. Instead, the government is doing the opposite--As computers and the internet become increasingly mainstream for the distribution of information, a resonable profit can be made in a shorter time, but yet they keep making the term of copyright Longer.
c) Most of the work ever done is in the public domain, and this is good for society and good for innovators and for the common body of knowledge. Almost all ideas are based on somebody else's previous ideas. If today's ideas don't find thier way into the public domain, tomorrow's innovators will have nothing to base their ideas on.

I wrote an article after the passage of the Copyright Term Extention Act passed a whil back. If I can unearth it, I'll post it.

 

[coolsoldier]

Damn, can't find it. I wish I remembered where I published it

Oh well, It mostly said, more eloquently, what I said above anyway.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
c) Most of the work ever done is in the public domain, and this is good for society

Why is it, though, that what's supposidly good for society is not good for any one person in general?

 

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by Mystech
Why is it, though, that what's supposidly good for society is not good for any one person in general?

work in the public domain is good for every person except one, while work that is copyrighted is good for exactly one person