Orphan Works Legislation Would Be A Small But Important Step Toward Copyright Reform
from the baby-steps dept
We've long promoted the common-sense idea of orphan works legislation. Orphan works are works still under copyright whose present owners are unknown. This is a serious problem because there's no way to license orphan works and a big risk of a subsequent infringement lawsuit if they're used without a license. My co-blogger Jerry Brito has a post examining a pair of bills (one in the House, one in the Senate) that would address the problem. Under the proposal if someone is unable to find the owner of a copyrighted work after a diligent search, then the work could be used without the fear of a crippling lawsuit later. If a copyright holder comes along later, he won't be able to obtain draconian punitive damages. Rather, the court would estimate how much a reasonable licensing royalty would have cost and assign that amount to the copyright holder. One of the best things about this proposal is that it would give an incentive to copyright holders to start placing copyright notices on their works, something that was mandatory until the 1970s. If more copyright holders marked their works, that would dramatically reduce the orphan works problem going forward, because it would be easier for people to find copyright holders and negotiate licenses.
Of course, it should be said that "statutory damages" for copyright infringement -- which can be as high as $150,000 per work infringed -- are way too high across the board. It will be great if we can reduce that burden for the users of orphan works, but I'd like to see punitive damages lowered across the board so we don't see any more travesties of justice like the 2000 MP3.com case. In that case, the damages were so excessive that MP3.com couldn't even afford to appeal. Orphan works legislation is a good first step toward reforming the copyright system, but there's a lot more that needs to be done.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, orphan works
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Danger?
This all being said, the only real thing that changes is the punitive damages element. If you do discover that your work is being used, then these bills don't say you don't get paid. Also, you don't lose your right to say "take my work down". You just end up getting paid what a judge thinks you should have been paid for the usage for the time it was in use. (which could be crappy). This is more of an issue if you have a philosophical belief that no company should use your stuff.
I'm always wary though of these types of changes since any laws usually get gamed eventually.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watermarks
On my own photos posted online, I put watermarks on all except the smaller size. I'd rather not do this but it's the only way to know they won't be (easily) used without permission.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Watermarks
If it's shown that they do this, then they'll be in much more trouble, so I don't see how this encourages that type of action.
On my own photos posted online, I put watermarks on all except the smaller size. I'd rather not do this but it's the only way to know they won't be (easily) used without permission.
Just out of curiosity, why do you care so much about the photos being used without permission?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So...
1) I make some visual art/writing/song... and by default, I don't own the rights to it.
2) I have to pay an American Corporate entity to, in essence, buy back my right of ownership
3) BUT, the 'ownership' the American Corporations are selling back to me is not 100% ownership or protection... because other companies may not find the work in competing corporate registries (meaning that the ones I've reg'd with get missed in the client's search).
They are stealing your rights... not stripping them, actually stealing them... in order to sell them back to you - with loopholes for them to walk through.
THIS SOLE CONCEPT SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR THIS BILL TO GET DESTROYED BY EVERY CREATIVE PERSON OUT THERE!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adding copyright notices is good?
The big problem I see is that it creates an easy opening to reuse works of recent vintage without any payment. A 10-year window from the estimated creation date until a work has been orphaned would be a reasonable compromise. I'm all for copyright reform, but there's no question that many small publishers will see this as an opportunity to publish outstanding photography at no cost and now minimal risk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Watermarks
Not sure that this legislation would truly raise that issue, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is simply untrue.
http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If anything, history show us when copyright become a tool to enhance the competition and the free market rather than a tool to further one's monopolies, then it become beneficial to society. For this to happen, people have to give up their monopolies.
As it stand, you all going to have to convince me that people deserve monopoly rights embodied in copyright and patent laws.
I wouldn't be giving anybody copyright and patent so freely unless they demonstrate that it will be beneficial to society in the long run.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I wouldn't be giving anybody copyright and patent so freely unless they demonstrate that it will be beneficial to society in the long run.
Then perhaps you should read a book. Like this one:
The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law by William Landes and Richard A. Posner
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why the Orphan Works bill is not written to protect living artists
Sent Via Facsimile
RE: Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 – S. 2913
Dear Distinguished Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Bill. Our
law firm focuses extensively on the creative arts industries and
represents both manufacturers and individuals through counseling,
Registration and litigation. After a thorough review of the proposed
Bill, the following comments are offered from a legal professional
who would be "in the trenches" if this Bill were to pass.
Nullification of the Copyright Act of 1976
Artists relied on the provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976 that
did not require them to place the copyright notice on their work in
order for them to own their copyright. The additional provisions of
this bill do not change the language of §401(a). The Act clearly
states that "copyright…subsists from its creation." The Bill does
not state that this language will be changed to "copyright…subsists
from its creation provided that you register, use the correct search
terms, and can pay for it." This Bill puts a large requirement on
individuals to register and use large amounts of financial resources
to protect an artistic work.
Public Notice and Private Databases
Copyright registration continues to be the most accessible
intellectual property protection available to the public. The fees
are minimal and the forms understandable so that an average person
could complete the task with relative ease. The proposed Bill
changes that premise. The use of private databases creates two very
significant problems:
1) Private Databases force individuals to become intimately
familiar with search terms and remain current on any case law that
would direct what constitutes a "qualifying search." The bill
requires the use of search terms that require the average public to
become attorneys or highly skilled researchers to know what terms to
use so that a work of art can be located.
2) The cost for registration for both the US Copyright Office
and any private database(s) could be substantial to most artists who
create multiple works in a short time frame. As well, if an artist
does not feel comfortable filing such documentation due to the
burdensome requirements, he or she will need to hire an attorney
which will prevent the vast majority of artists from registering
copyrights.
The use of search terms and registration with the US Copyright Office
and private databases takes some of our country's greatest treasures
and places them in the hands of private individuals. The Federal
Government is privatizing part of a constitutional function (the
protection of intellectual property). The burden placed on the
individual artist is a far greater crime under this Bill than the
potential that a work of art will not be able to be used because the
owner is not found. The passage of this Bill would eventually mean
there will only be works of the past. It will be almost impossible
for the individual artist to survive and protect his or her work
while making a living as an artist.
Reasonable Compensation & Relief
The majority of creative individuals do not make large sums of
money. The large corporations, libraries, museums, and the like that
are attempting to have this bill passed hold the position that
national treasures are being lost because the creator cannot be
found. This could not be further from the truth. There is a great
amount of art available for use and many times the compensation asked
is minimal.
The term "Reasonable Compensation" opens the door for a significant
amount of litigation. Highly qualified individuals disagree on
what "reasonable compensation" would be on any given license. Daily
our firm works with licenses and knows the complexity that goes into
them. It is impossible to determine the value of a license without
having the license actually go to full term. Allowing an infringer
to only pay "reasonable compensation" would require an artist to wait
for compensation and then would limit his or her abilities to exploit
the art, as the art is already in use in public. For example, an
infringing use of artwork on textiles would prevent the rightful
owner from entering into a potentially far more profitable exclusive
licensing arrangement with a manufacturer of his/her choice.
It is true in the realm of merchandising that you only get "one shot"
at the public. The artist's right to fair compensation and further
exploitation would be ruined. In this scenario, the artist would
only be able to be compensation for the use and not the loss of the
art's exploitation value. Even personal injury victims are allowed
some type of future or speculative damages, but creators of art would
not be permitted such rights.
Litigation is expensive. Many artists are only able to bring such
cases forward because of contingency arrangements made with a law
firm. This type of litigation has not over burdened the court system
nor has it been shown to be abused. This type of litigation permits
an injured person his or her day in court. This Bill would remove
such an opportunity. Not only would it remove any financial
incentive for attorneys and artists to work together, it would also
make it almost impossible to bring a case forward because of the
heavy financial requirements placed on the artist. The financial
(and technical) requirements of this Bill truly assume that an artist
is "guilty of failing to comply until proven innocent" instead of the
reverse.
Works Based on the Infringed Art
The most appalling and morally outrageous part of this Bill pertains
to the registration of new works created from the infringed upon work
and the prohibition of the injunctive relief if a work"…. integrates
the infringed work with a significant amount of the infringer's
original expression." The US Courts have never adopted a bright
line test in regards to the changes of an original work in order for
the new work not to be an infringer of the old. This bill suggests
that there is a rule for changing an existing work and making it a
new work, yet it fails to state the exact rule.
Failing to specify a rule creates legal havoc. Not only does it
create legal havoc, it causes substantial confusion to the public and
requires significant money to be spent in order for a judicial body
to determine what is a "significant amount."
Thieves are not allowed to keep the stolen property, but this Bill
would allow infringers to steal work and call it their own. Mistakes
happen and innocent infringement occurs. However, an artist loses
twice under the proposed bill. An artist loses money and future
opportunity when the work is stolen. The artist loses a second time
when the infringer is allowed to register the work and then claim it
as "new" which creates commercial value. Once again, a criminal
can't be tried twice for the same crime, but this Bill permits a
victim to lose twice from a crime.
International Implications
The global marketplace will become even more difficult to navigate
because of this bill. International Artists' rights will be greatly
compromised here in the US. This invites sanctions under the World
Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS).
Furthermore, if a manufacturer were to rely on the US "Safe Harbor"
for orphan works and ship the merchandising containing an infringing
work to a Berne Convention country, the manufacturer could face stiff
penalties for infringement as the Berne Convention does not recognize
such a term as "orphan works" and states that copyright ownership is
free from formality. The Berne Convention gives US Citizens the
rights to protect their work in other countries, but this bill would
mean that US Citizens may not be able to protect his or her own
rights in their homeland if "formalities" were not followed.
Everyday Application
This Bill will take the copyright registration and enforcement out
of the hands of the individual artists and place them squarely in
attorneys' hands. It establishes systems to determine what is fair
and what is reasonable in a field where individual facts and
situations dictate the outcome, thus making "bright line" rule
burdensome and unfair. The windfall for the legal profession will
come at the cost of untold artists whose works will be free for the
taking. Citizens will no longer be able to register their own
copyrights without significant expertise or expense, and in fact this
Bill essentially states that copyright registration is not sufficient
to protect one's work. This Bill takes a piece of the government out
of the citizens' hands and places it in the hands of a select few.
68% of all Americans say that this nation is in a recession. The
nation is at war against terrorism. Untold millions of American's
are without jobs. The need for this type of Bill that would take
opportunities for the average American to make a living is shocking
and beyond comprehension. National Treasures are not going unused,
but large corporate interests are trying to get to items that they
couldn't use thus far, so that profits can be reaped. It's about
the economy and not copyrights. It's time to get back to the
problems facing the nation and move forward to creating a fair
economy for all.
Please know that our firm is willing to answer any questions that you
may have or provide testimony on this matter at any time. We are a
law firm that handles these issues on a daily basis. Our
representation is diverse including famous brands, famous artists,
manufacturers and those waiting to be discovered. I personally hold
a Juris Doctor and a Master of Laws in Intellectual Property. We
live copyright law on a daily basis and would see first hand what
consequences this Bill would have on both sides of this issue. Thank
you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Tammy L. Browning-Smith, J.D., LL.M
BROWNING-SMITH, P.C.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Isn't funny
I really would like libraries to be able to utilize orphaned works, or the grandma in Turtle Fart, Iowa to be able to have her historical photos restored, without worry about copyright infringement. But that's not what's fueling this legislation, is it? It's the new captains of industry, the tech squad, the doc.com billionaires and wannabe billionaires, who are only too happy to push this legislation through, without listening to the concerns of actual working (and living ) artists.
I find this arrogance, irritating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Orpans are not works of art, they are someones children
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Watermarks
If you were a commercial artist whose livelihood is based on licensing original artwork (in my case photographs), then you would care a great deal about that art being used without permission and without compensation. I care because it's food out of my childrens' mouths.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Watermarks
That's like saying "if you were a horse and buggy maker, you'd care very much about automobile makers making cars." It's true, but it doesn't need a gov't solution. It just means you need to change your business model.
And, my livelihood *IS* based on my creative work. It's just that I chose a business model that isn't obsolete. You didn't.
I care because it's food out of my childrens' mouths.
And that's why I chose a different business model. The US gov't shouldn't be protecting business models.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Watermarks
Phase One: "The Orphan Works Bill is going to be great for everyone- especially visual artists! It’s going to get more work used and more people paid"
Phase Two: "The Orphan Works Bill isn’t that bad! Read it and think for yourself, and stop spamming art sites with petitions and trying to organize against it."
Phase Three: "Okay, visual Artists have some legitimate concerns about the Orphan Works Bill, but you have to balance that against the concerns of museums, non-profits and the Granny Lobby. After all, this isn’t being backed by large corporations or anything."
Phase Four: "Okay, this is being backed by the AAP and Google. However, you artists are just being greedy asking for copyright protection, what with your wealth and powerful lobbying abilities. Besides, copyrights were invented by Disney, so you’re hypocrites if you don’t want corporations stealing your work."
Phase Five: "You artists are the visual equivalent of a horse and buggy. We are cars. You’re cobblers. We are the mills of Manchester. Your resistance is futile. We’re the new industrial revolution and we will crush your way of life, because you don’t deserve to exist."
Artists, by the time the Pro-Orphan-Works person is screaming "Die old man," you ought to know they don't have your best interests at heart. Act accordingly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Watermarks
Can you point to a single one of the arguments you list here as being presented in the post above?
Please do not build strawmen. It does not help your argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Watermarks
2. Is from Radio Free Meredith's much linked and BoingBoinged LJ entry
3. Is Public Knowlege, most library boards and copyleft advocate Lawrence Lessig's NY Times piece (which does not support the Orphan Works act)
4. Is from Public Knowlege president Gigi Sohn's latest speech on the Orphan Works Act
5. Is making fun of your last post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Watermarks
I'll note, by the way, that you don't explain why any of these positions are wrong.
As for the one you accuse me of saying, you have it exactly backwards (which is part of the problem when people are so focused on *protecting* an obsolete business model, they fail to bother focusing on what people are telling them).
I didn't say "resistance is futile," I said resistance is dumb. And it is. If you understand the economic impacts of what we're talking about, you'll recognize how they absolutely will open up more opportunities for artists to make money. It's just that it involves a different business model that you're afraid to adopt because it's different.
Just like it was dumb for horse and buggy makers to resist making automobiles, because that would have made them BETTER OFF. It's equally dumb for you to resist having to change your business model in a way that will make you better off.
So, feel free to point out what's incorrect in any of the statements we have said, but don't misrepresent what we have said. It's not convincing.
So, no, I don't think (nor did I say): "We’re the new industrial revolution and we will crush your way of life, because you don’t deserve to exist."
I was saying the opposite. I was saying that just as the automobile industry opened up tremendous new opportunities, so will the new business models that are now available to you. It's got nothing to do with inevitability or you being "crushed." It has to do with basic economics, that you (and the horse and buggy makers) apparently would prefer to deny.
Trust me, the only way you get crushed, is by ignoring the opportunities.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE: Mark
The thing is, I'm not a technophobic, control-freak artist. I love the internet. I love its power to create fans and allow niches to bloom. I love sharing my work online. I gladly let people make desktops and LJ icons and myspace layouts of my work. If a blog posts my stuff- I'm happy. I don't mutilate my work with giant watermarks. I encourage fan art. I also run something called Dr. Sketchy's, which is as close to viral as a physical event can get. I think the internet, and internet culture, presents amazing opportunities for artists, and I've written extensively on how they can use it.
The thing is, we're not talking about amazing, share-happy internet culture here. We're talking about a law that claims it's for the use of libraries and artists, but equally allows large corporations to steal work and perhaps make a token payout. While I'm glad to have blogs and fansites use my work pro-bono, I'm less thrilled if Disney or Pat Robertson does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RE: Mark
Ah, the myth of the orphan works legislation.
First off, a large corporation may *infringe* on your work, not steal it. It's important to keep that straight.
Second, the law is quite clear that the corporation looking to make use of the work needs to make a thorough search for the copyright holder. People protesting this law seem to think that this means the company can just *claim* they made a thorough search. But that is not the case.
While I'm glad to have blogs and fansites use my work pro-bono, I'm less thrilled if Disney or Pat Robertson does.
You do realize, of course, that copyright has never been about "control", right? It's always been about incentive to create. You're trying to force what you want the law to be about ("control") on something that it's not designed to do. And that's what leads to problems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ah, the myth of the orphan works legislation.
First off, a large corporation may *infringe* on your work, not steal it. It's important to keep that straight.
What we're talking about is large, well-funded companies taking something an artist has created, and using it to make money in a way that takes money away from the artist. For instance, by selling it as clip art, something that many companies, Google included, have expressed interest in doing with large collections of Orphan Works. "Theft" (which is what I'd call it) or "infringement" it's still taking money out of our pockets while using our creations.
I'd love to hear an explanation of how google making our work into clipart will make us more money. This is not in image-makers interests. Thus, we're fighting it.
Second, the law is quite clear that the corporation looking to make use of the work needs to make a thorough search for the copyright holder. People protesting this law seem to think that this means the company can just *claim* they made a thorough search. But that is not the case.
There are very few good ways to search for images. Tineye.com is the only visual search engine I've seen- and it's still in beta. Until I actually use it, I'm not sure I trust it works well for art as well as photography. Otherwise, it's very difficult to figure out who did a non-famous piece of art if the identifying data isn't on it. Clients don't print our contact info on work we've done. Watermarks and credits are constantly taken off online. Stuff is posted around without identifying data. It's quite easy to find a piece of work and be unable to figure out who created it-even after searching. Furthermore, there's no definition in the bill on what a reasonable search is.
You do realize, of course, that copyright has never been about "control", right? It's always been about incentive to create.
What this law does is provide a strong disincentive for artists to share their work online. While now, I might be happy to let blogs and fans post my work, if this bill were passed, that would make me at a much higher risk of having worked orphaned (because images are so often taken out of original context and posted unattributed online). There would be no reason for me to post anything besides a bare minimum of hideously watermarked pieces. After all, what's "exposure" if it means that you lose money and have to compete against your own previous work?
You're advocating a law that discourages artists from participating in the very culture I think we both enjoy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What we're talking about is large, well-funded companies taking something an artist has created, and using it to make money in a way that takes money away from the artist. For instance, by selling it as clip art, something that many companies, Google included, have expressed interest in doing with large collections of Orphan Works. "Theft" (which is what I'd call it) or "infringement" it's still taking money out of our pockets while using our creations.
Infringement isn't taking money away from you. It's merely a challenge to your business model.
I'd love to hear an explanation of how google making our work into clipart will make us more money. This is not in image-makers interests. Thus, we're fighting it.
You still make this assumption that companies are going to turn your work into clipart. That's a stretch, to say the least.
But the real point is that you're so focused on controlling your old work, that you're missing the bigger picture. Why NOT let these other sites *promote* your work for you in a way that will earn you new commissions and opportunities to make new works?
There are very few good ways to search for images. Tineye.com is the only visual search engine I've seen- and it's still in beta. Until I actually use it, I'm not sure I trust it works well for art as well as photography. Otherwise, it's very difficult to figure out who did a non-famous piece of art if the identifying data isn't on it. Clients don't print our contact info on work we've done. Watermarks and credits are constantly taken off online. Stuff is posted around without identifying data. It's quite easy to find a piece of work and be unable to figure out who created it-even after searching. Furthermore, there's no definition in the bill on what a reasonable search is.
Yeah, but if you did have watermarked images, then a decent search (even on an image where the watermarks are removed) should turn up the watermarked version.
What this law does is provide a strong disincentive for artists to share their work online
I doubt it. Those artists who chose not to participate online would quickly discover the universal truth: obscurity is a much bigger threat than piracy.
You should be using your existing works to advertise your ability to *create* new works. Stop worrying about what happens to your old works and figure out how to embrace the fact that others can promote your works for you (even if they also get to earn some money from it).
You're advocating a law that discourages artists from participating in the very culture I think we both enjoy.
Again, obscurity is a much bigger threat than piracy. If you choose not to participate in the online market, others will, and they'll do so in ways that embrace the fact that others are promoting their stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My family doesn't eat publicity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It was a lonely search.
According to Marilyn Henry, author of Confronting the Perpetrators: A History of the Claims Conference, the process of reclaiming looted art has always been one of the most prickly of all Holocaust restitution issues.
"Countless Nazi victims spent decades trying to find artworks that once belonged to their families. It was a lonely search. The burden was on the victim to find what had been taken, to prove it belonged to him and to convince whoever had it to give it back," she says from her home in New York.
"Imagine looking for a needle in a haystack, finding the needle, and being told by the haystack owner that you had to prove you owned the needle before the war, and then convince him that he should return the needle to you."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Infringement isn't taking money away from you. It's merely a challenge to your business model.
No, it's taking money away from me. It's also taking a job away from another artist. And it's forcing me to compete against my older works"
You still make this assumption that companies are going to turn your work into clipart. That's a stretch, to say the least.
No it isn't. Many companies have expressed plans to sell orphan works in batches. Tell me how this is good for my business
But the real point is that you're so focused on controlling your old work, that you're missing the bigger picture. Why NOT let these other sites *promote* your work for you in a way that will earn you new commissions and opportunities to make new works?
Yes, that's what I do now, and any sensible artist does. Promote does not equal "commercially exploit". Also, an Orphan Work, by definition, is one where the owner can't be found. If people had no idea who did the work, and used it sans credit, how would that promote me? It wouldn't have my name on it.
Yeah, but if you did have watermarked images, then a decent search (even on an image where the watermarks are removed) should turn up the watermarked version.
How?
I doubt it. Those artists who chose not to participate online would quickly discover the universal truth: obscurity is a much bigger threat than piracy.
So, you're saying that its a good thing to force artists to risk having their work stolen in order to promote their businesses?
You should be using your existing works to advertise your ability to *create* new works. Stop worrying about what happens to your old works and figure out how to embrace the fact that others can promote your works for you (even if they also get to earn some money from it).
Those old works are what I use to support myself through slow periods. They're also what artists use to support themselves when they're too old and sick to work any more. How do you think someone like Frank Frazetta makes a living? Or, do you think that someone who spends their lifetime making brilliant work but suffers a stroke should be codemned to poverty because they can't make new work?
Besides which, this isn't about letting cool blogs post your work or documentary filmmakers to use it. This law is about allowing corporations to make money off your work without compensation, consent or credit. You still haven't told me how that's a good thing for artists. You keep talking about a "new economic model", but you haven't said how an artist will make money off of a system where their work is far, far easier to infringe, and where there are less gig openings for them because of the ease of infringement.
If you can't explain this, you have no business trying to convince people to change laws against their benefit, and any artist, photographer, or fan of art or photography would do best to disregard you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My family doesn't eat publicity.
That's no reason to not put this law in place.
Did you support a law that would forbid automobiles so horse and buggy makers could earn a living?
Did you support a law that would forbid self-dialing phones so phone operators could keep their jobs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well, you can say it all you want, but it doesn't make you right. Making you compete isn't taking money away from you. Changing where the opportunity is isn't taking money away from you. It's merely changing how you need to view a market.
I get that you don't want to. But that doesn't mean that the laws should be set up just to favor a business model you happen to like.
No it isn't. Many companies have expressed plans to sell orphan works in batches. Tell me how this is good for my business
That's fantastic. That means people value your work and more people will get to experience and be familiar with your work. It's a bizarre world where someone thinks that more publicity is a bad thing.
Promote does not equal "commercially exploit"
Um. Yes, it does actually. You can deny it all you want, but then you'll have to give up all the benefits of capitalism you enjoy. Or, if you don't recognize that capitalism is a net benefit to society than we can end this debate now, because I'm not going to go through a basic economics lesson for you.
Also, an Orphan Work, by definition, is one where the owner can't be found. If people had no idea who did the work, and used it sans credit, how would that promote me? It wouldn't have my name on it.
So... um... what, exactly is the problem here? If you can't be found, then you won't even know that this is happening, and that means that the work has had almost no impact on the marketplace. If you can be found, then you can use it to your advantage.
How?
Do you want me to explain the basic technology? Or are you asking something else here?
So, you're saying that its a good thing to force artists to risk having their work stolen in order to promote their businesses?
Well, there you go again, calling something stealing that is not stealing.
But, no, you miss my point. I'm saying that smart artists will learn to embrace this and use it to their advantage. The *market* will then force everyone else to adjust.
That's (again) how capitalism works.
And the ones who adjust and adapt will find much larger opportunities because of it.
Those old works are what I use to support myself through slow periods. They're also what artists use to support themselves when they're too old and sick to work any more. How do you think someone like Frank Frazetta makes a living? Or, do you think that someone who spends their lifetime making brilliant work but suffers a stroke should be codemned to poverty because they can't make new work?
Oh come on. Are you really going to resort to that sort of argument?
What about my grandfather? He built a nice career. And he saved up money for when he retired. Do you support a law that grants him continued payment for the work he did 30 years ago too?
Do you support laws that grant any poor person guaranteed salaries? What about the makers of horse and buggies? After all, once those companies went out of business, their skills were no longer in need. Should we have had a special law that kept paying them?
Besides which, this isn't about letting cool blogs post your work or documentary filmmakers to use it. This law is about allowing corporations to make money off your work without compensation, consent or credit.
You conveniently (again) leave out the part where it's only when that person cannot be found.
Funny how you continually miss that huge point.
You still haven't told me how that's a good thing for artists. You keep talking about a "new economic model", but you haven't said how an artist will make money off of a system where their work is far, far easier to infringe, and where there are less gig openings for them because of the ease of infringement.
Again, if the artist cannot be found or connected to a work, that would suggest that the work is not at all well known, and thus an artist would certainly benefit from more promotion, if only for the person to be able to step up and say "hey, that's my work!"
If it's not getting that much attention, then what's the loss?
And you fail to explain how there will be "less gig openings" because you are assuming (incorrectly) a static world. However, the history of economic growth shows that as you add more infinite goods into a market, the market for the related scarce goods only grows much much bigger. Use your content to expand your market.
If you can't explain this, you have no business trying to convince people to change laws against their benefit, and any artist, photographer, or fan of art or photography would do best to disregard you.
I have explained it. Your response seems to be that you don't want to hear it. If that's the case, I can't help you. But I warn you, you disregard the research on this at your own peril.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My family doesn't eat publicity. by Mike on Jun 4th
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
U.S. Const. (September 17, 1787) art. I-VII
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. I.
Section. 9.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Mike, currently the Orphan Works law as proposed, would in fact be unconstitutional. Any law that could survive, could only address any Orphan Works created after the law is passed. This legislation as it now stands would not constitutionally resolve current orphan works.
Lloyd
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ex post facto expressed in other issues
an excerpt from http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/ex-post-facto-law
As one commentator (warning: minor foul language) notes, any person in Congress voting in favor of immunity is breaking their oath of office, and therefore worthy of arrest:
The moment that Congress passes an ex post facto law, every Member and Senator voting AYE has committed a felony. Felony forfeits legislative immunity, as in the Constitutional provision, “… They shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest. …”
No better case for crimes against the Constitution can be given than this. Congress, seemingly ignorant of the document they have sworn to support and defend, goes about discussing and passing whatever law they choose. In this manner, the Constitution hangs by a thread; the way to save it is to abide by its principles and implement its mandates.
It appears, in light of such disregard for the rule of law, that most of Congress should be impeached, tried for crimes against the Constitution, and left exposed to the consequences of their actions—with no ex post facto law to save them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: My family doesn't eat publicity. by Mike on Jun 4th
My statements are not based on any "utopian" concepts. They're based on hard facts, economic reality, economic history and plenty of historical evidence.
So far, the only thing you have come up to contest that, are a few people who are upset that their business model might change.
In the meantime, if you are against any ex post facto change to copyright, then clearly, you believe that the last few copyright law extensions were unconstitutional and should be thrown out. In addition, you must also be against the ex post facto change to copyright law that made all content subject to copyright, even without registration.
So, tell me, do you support going back to that world with copyright terms of 14 years and registration a necessity?
If so, then I can agree that the orphan works bill is not needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All I want is to FREELOAD
Mike…I am not using any ellipses. It must be a formatting issue; somewhere.
My statements are not based on any "utopian" concepts. They're based on hard facts, economic reality, economic history and plenty of historical evidence.
You have yet to produce any meaningful hard facts, economic reality, economic history, or historical evidence; in any of you post. You allude to such, but it never materializes any of your words. I for one would be very interested in reading your plan illustrated with all that you elude will solve the issues. Bring it on
So far, the only thing you have come up to contest that, are a few people who are upset that their business model might change.
Do you have a retirement plan? I am much curious how you would accept the idea of changing that, so now instead of receiving the match that your employer contributed was washed away, and by the way you won’t be receiving any interest on that retirement investment, because in the new world, same as the old world, any interest is usury.
In the meantime, if you are against any ex post facto change to copyright, then clearly, you believe that the last few copyright law extensions were unconstitutional and should be thrown out. In addition, you must also be against the ex post facto change to copyright law that made all content subject to copyright, even without registration.
Previous changes to the copyright laws affected new works, old works were subject to the existing laws. Registration was in fact never required under common law copyrights, it was added to the US laws, inapposite to world convention, specifically the Berne Convention 1887. Our constitution charged the congress with securing the bargain in intellectual productions, not the judiciary. What in essence happens is congress puts forth failed legislation, and then forces those in interest to litigate their interest. That is exactly what will happen under this proposed Orphan Works legislation.
So, tell me, do you support going back to that world with copyright terms of 14 years and registration a necessity?
In that world, copyright meant “Copy Right” as it related to the printing of books.
If so, then I can agree that the orphan works bill is not needed.
Orphan Works, are available under the current laws both US, and International laws. Anything in the Public Domain, and anything under Fair Use.
In this day and age, older works that may still be under copyright, the author/rights owner can be found in most instances. The reason Orphan Works are an issue only in the US, is because our laws lack Moral Rights, and Attribution. Or the new user doesn’t want to invest the time in searching out the true owner.
Really, what you want isn’t Orphan Works, you want to freeload on someone else’s rights, so that you can capitalize without the investment of creative investment, and labor. It’s one thing to build on someone’s ideas, but clearly another thing to take someone’s whole work and mash it up, and say it’s your creative expression. Your idea that because it doesn’t cost anything to reproduce in this day and age, is only a justification or pure piracy. You speak of failed business models…I’m sure you believe that because an author has assigned his/her rights to some corporation…that the works lack any remaining economic value, or that the corp. shouldn’t be able to capture that value, of its investment. The reason we are enriched with the Internet is solely because of copyrights. I find it ironic that most of the orgs that espouse free use of copyright works also claim protection of their own intellectual property.
If your world isn’t Utopia, it can only be communism or socialism. It certainly isn’t capitalism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
New world Order
I now understand your new world order, and marketing/capitalization approach. It all starts here http://eldred.cc/aboutus/ and digresses to just as I thought. Re-packaging/mashup Orphan Works (someone else’s creative works) into a marketable product so that they can sell and capitalize.
It sure is funny how everyone involved wants their copyright protection, while at the same time wants to exploit all others copyrights free of charge....this is utopia
http://www.eldritchpress.org/ ©Copyright 1999 Eric Eldred
http://www.higginsonbooks.com/ No part of this web site may be copied or reproduced in any form without the written permission of Higginson Book Company
Copyright ©1997-2008 by Higginson Books Company (All Rights Reserved)
http://www.lucksmusic.net/ © 2006 Luck's Music
http://www.kalmus-music.com/ ©1998, 2007 Edwin F. Kalmus & Co., Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.moviecraft.com/ COPYRIGHT: All video releases listed in this catalog are subject to copyright and may not be copied, duplicated, reproduced, or transmitted without permission from Moviecraft, Inc..
http://store.doverpublications.com/ DOVERPUBLICATIONS.COM TERMS OF USE, by the way which seems to grab everyone’s copyrights or at least a license, that chooses to participate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Utopia
I now understand your new world order, and marketing/capitalization approach. It all starts here http://eldred.cc/aboutus/ and digresses to just as I thought. Re-packaging/mashup Orphan Works (someone else’s creative works) into a marketable product so that they can sell and capitalize.
It sure is funny how the new market users want all the protection of copyrights while using everyone else’s copyrights to profit. This is utopia.
http://www.eldritchpress.org/ ©Copyright 1999 Eric Eldred
http://www.higginsonbooks.com/ No part of this web site may be copied or reproduced in any form without the written permission of Higginson Book Company
Copyright ©1997-2008 by Higginson Books Company (All Rights Reserved)
http://www.lucksmusic.net/ © 2006 Luck's Music
http://www.kalmus-music.com/ ©1998, 2007 Edwin F. Kalmus & Co., Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.moviecraft.com/ COPYRIGHT: All video releases listed in this catalog are subject to copyright and may not be copied, duplicated, reproduced, or transmitted without permission from Moviecraft, Inc..
http://store.doverpublications.com/ DOVERPUBLICATIONS.COM TERMS OF USE, by the way which seems to grab everyone’s copyrights or at least a license, that chooses to participate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: All I want is to FREELOAD
Um. Ok. I've been writing on this subject for over a decade, linking repeatedly to research, historical evidence and the like. What would you like to see? As a starter, you can read the book Against Intellectual Monopoly, which explains some of these theories, and points to much of the historical evidence.
As for the plan I "allude to" it's available for all to see:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml
That's the simplified version, but there's much more behind it.
Do you have a retirement plan? I am much curious how you would accept the idea of changing that, so now instead of receiving the match that your employer contributed was washed away, and by the way you won’t be receiving any interest on that retirement investment, because in the new world, same as the old world, any interest is usury.
Copyright was never designed as a "retirement plan." If you used it as such, that was your mistake. Copyright was an incentive to create. If the content was created, then the incentive plan worked. Trying to wedge it into a "retirement plan" or acting like it's some form of welfare is a gross distortion of the purpose and clearly stated reason for copyright existing.
And, I take care of my own retirement plan, rather than relying on any company's.
Previous changes to the copyright laws affected new works, old works were subject to the existing laws.
And on that statement you have shown that you have no knowledge of what you are talking about. If previous changes to copyright law only impacted new works, can you explain why Mickey Mouse is still under copyright?
This is the point where you apologize and admit you were wrong.
In that world, copyright meant “Copy Right” as it related to the printing of books.
I'm confused. I thought you were against any changes to copyright law? If it was only meant to apply to printing of books... then why are you okay with it applying to other works?
In this day and age, older works that may still be under copyright, the author/rights owner can be found in most instances.
If that's the case, then what do you have to fear about the orphan works bill. If the author/rights owner can be found in most instances, then there's no issue. The orphan works bill doesn't apply to those people.
Really, what you want isn’t Orphan Works, you want to freeload on someone else’s rights, so that you can capitalize without the investment of creative investment, and labor.
Not at all. To accuse me of that is to show that you are arguing against what you think I have said, rather than anything I have actually said.
Nice strawman though.
Your idea that because it doesn’t cost anything to reproduce in this day and age, is only a justification or pure piracy.
Not at all. I don't defend "piracy" in the slightest. I'm merely explaining the basic economic forces at work. The *fact* that there's no marginal cost isn't up for dispute. It's not a question or an opinion, it's a fact.
You speak of failed business models…I’m sure you believe that because an author has assigned his/her rights to some corporation…that the works lack any remaining economic value, or that the corp. shouldn’t be able to capture that value, of its investment.
When have I EVER suggested such a thing? I've said no such thing. The works have plenty of economic value. Your problem is that you don't seem to understand the difference between price and value. Try learning that. It'll help you understand the economics I'm talking about.
You're really good with the strawmen.
But, you know, if you want to convince me I'm wrong, it might help to actually argue against what I said.
The reason we are enriched with the Internet is solely because of copyrights. I find it ironic that most of the orgs that espouse free use of copyright works also claim protection of their own intellectual property.
That's a pretty broad and totally unsubstantiated statement. Can you explain why the internet is here only because of copyrights. I'm intimately familiar with the history of the internet, and I'd argue the opposite. Almost all of the internet's success stories have been in spite of copyright, not because of it.
If your world isn’t Utopia, it can only be communism or socialism. It certainly isn’t capitalism.
Wow. That's an impressively ignorant statement. Can you please explain to me how a theory backed up by free market economics and letting the market decide is somehow more "communist" or "socialist" than the world you espouse, where we have special gov't monopolies "protecting" the retirement money of a special class of people?
I'm curious to see how that's possibly more capitalist than the free market model I espouse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
From the bottom up
If your world isn’t Utopia, it can only be communism or socialism. It certainly isn’t capitalism.
Wow. That's an impressively ignorant statement. Can you please explain to me how a theory backed up by free market economics and letting the market decide is somehow more "communist" or "socialist" than the world you espouse, where we have special gov't monopolies "protecting" the retirement money of a special class of people?
I'm curious to see how that's possibly more capitalist than the free market model I espouse.
Capitalism at its core is freedom to contract, anything else is not. You speak of allowing the market to set rates. Well if can be pirated who will contract? Second market price is between a willing buyer and seller. The offer and the acceptance. price in a capitalist market is always based on supply and demand. Premium to price from quality of goods as compared to other goods in the market. Price is also based on prestige of brand. The reason that it works is the market determines value other wise no sales- no producers.
Now take a market and fill it with piracy and moral acceptance of those acts and you get market failure from the lack of producers. Producers can't stay in a market with out sales
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's a pretty broad and totally unsubstantiated statement. Can you explain why the internet is here only because of copyrights. I'm intimately familiar with the history of the internet, and I'd argue the opposite. Almost all of the internet's success stories have been in spite of copyright, not because of it.
I now understand your new world order, and marketing/capitalization approach. It all starts here http://eldred.cc/aboutus/ and digresses to just as I thought. Re-packaging/mashup Orphan Works (someone else’s creative works) into a marketable product so that they can sell and capitalize.
It sure is funny how the new market users want all the protection of copyrights while using everyone else’s copyrights to profit. This is utopia.
http://www.eldritchpress.org/ ©Copyright 1999 Eric Eldred
http://www.higginsonbooks.com/ No part of this web site may be copied or reproduced in any form without the written permission of Higginson Book Company
Copyright ©1997-2008 by Higginson Books Company (All Rights Reserved)
http://www.lucksmusic.net/ © 2006 Luck's Music
http://www.kalmus-music.com/ ©1998, 2007 Edwin F. Kalmus & Co., Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.moviecraft.com/ COPYRIGHT: All video releases listed in this catalog are subject to copyright and may not be copied, duplicated, reproduced, or transmitted without permission from Moviecraft, Inc..
http://store.doverpublications.com/ DOVERPUBLICATIONS.COM TERMS OF USE, by the way which seems to grab everyone’s copyrights or at least a license, that chooses to participate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
New world order
That's a pretty broad and totally unsubstantiated statement. Can you explain why the internet is here only because of copyrights. I'm intimately familiar with the history of the internet, and I'd argue the opposite. Almost all of the internet's success stories have been in spite of copyright, not because of it.
I now understand your new world order, and marketing/capitalization approach. It all starts here http://eldred.cc/aboutus/ and digresses to just as I thought. Re-packaging/mashup Orphan Works (someone else’s creative works) into a marketable product so that they can sell and capitalize.
It sure is funny how the new market users want all the protection of copyrights while using everyone else’s copyrights to profit. This is utopia.
http://www.eldritchpress.org/ ©Copyright 1999 Eric Eldred
http://www.higginsonbooks.com/ No part of this web site may be copied or reproduced in any form without the written permission of Higginson Book Company
Copyright ©1997-2008 by Higginson Books Company (All Rights Reserved)
http://www.lucksmusic.net/ © 2006 Luck's Music
http://www.kalmus-music.com/ ©1998, 2007 Edwin F. Kalmus & Co., Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.moviecraft.com/ COPYRIGHT: All video releases listed in this catalog are subject to copyright and may not be copied, duplicated, reproduced, or transmitted without permission from Moviecraft, Inc..
http://store.doverpublications.com/ DOVERPUBLICATIONS.COM TERMS OF USE, by the way which seems to grab everyone’s copyrights or at least a license, that chooses to participate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Utopia
It sure is funny how the new market users want all the protection of copyrights while using everyone else’s copyrights to profit. This is utopia.
Huh? I'm not sure what any of those other sites have to do with my position on all of this.
Must you always fall back on strawmen?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: From the bottom up
Ok.
You speak of allowing the market to set rates. Well if can be pirated who will contract?
Well, that's where you're confused. Without copyright there is no issue of piracy. Content is used in a way the free market wants, where contracts are *easier* to engage in because there isn't a big gov't monopoly issue in the way.
So, yes, people will contract: they'll contract for the creation of new content. But the whole concept of contracting for abundantly available content simply won't make sense any more.
Second market price is between a willing buyer and seller. The offer and the acceptance. price in a capitalist market is always based on supply and demand.
Yes, price in a capitalist market is always based on supply and demand IF that market is a free market. If that market is artificially restricted (which is what copyright does), then you know longer have a capitalist market.
Now take a market and fill it with piracy and moral acceptance of those acts and you get market failure from the lack of producers. Producers can't stay in a market with out sales
This is a myth. There is no market failure in such a situation. You have merely defined your market too narrowly -- focusing solely on that single product, rather than the actual market, which is the benefit provided to the consumer.
History has shown, over and over again, that a lack of copyright does not stifle content production. Producers *can* and *do* produce -- it's just that they do so with different business models: models that don't involve the direct sale of infinitely available content, but that involve the sale of scarce goods.
That's a true free market at work.
Stop assuming market failure. Market failure is a very rare situation, and you need to show proof that there's actual market failure before you assume it. Folks like yourself assume the market failure when the evidence suggests the market functions perfectly well without copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Utopia by Mike on Jun 11th, 2008 @ 3:29am
Huh? I'm not sure what any of those other sites have to do with my position on all of this.
http://eldred.cc/aboutus/ This site is the core of the free from copyright movement. Yet if you follow the links to each of the sites listed, you will see. They each take public domain works, either create an abridgment or derivative work in their mashup, protected by copyright. Then offer it to the public by exclusive license, protected by DRM. This is exactly what will happen under the new orphan works legislation. So really your only shifting the value to company's that are free riding on the creative energy/production of others.
The issues that I have with the current legislation is that it shifts the burden to the copyright owner to prove that the work isn't orphaned. That cost will be in the hundreds of thousands per case if it runs the full judicial process. So what will happen is those that create the lions share of valuable creative works will lack the capital to protect. Not to mention what it will due to our standing with the rest of the world. Do you really advocate that we bail on the Berne, Trips, and WTO?
Exclusivity=Value It is also the mechanism that Brands are built on. This brand value is how consumers are protected. Lacking the ability, the market would be flooded with knock offs...many lacking in the quality of the original, but consumers will be unable to tell the difference. Tell me you don't think Brand Knock-off isn't pirating or harmful to the idea of capitalism
Must you always fall back on strawmen?
Strawmen?...Mike, in my mind a strawman is a sort of false prophecy, certainly not a complete review of how an issue relates on both sides of the isle.
The reason we are enriched with the Internet is solely because of copyrights. I find it ironic that most of the orgs that espouse free use of copyright works also claim protection of their own intellectual property.
That's a pretty broad and totally unsubstantiated statement. Can you explain why the internet is here only because of copyrights. I'm intimately familiar with the history of the internet, and I'd argue the opposite. Almost all of the internet's success stories have been in spite of copyright, not because of it.
Mike, as an MBA I'm sure I don't really need to direct you to real market issues, but I'll humor you just the same.
The internet was built on the backbone of government/university networks all built on copyright protected and licensed software, not to mention hardware protected by license/IP. I started on the internet before GUI, when access was by a DOS window into UNIX.
A prime example of Market Failure is Shareware short of maybe a couple of software startups in the shareware market none exist as they existed, today and I'm not sure that any true market can be traced to the plethora of titles created. Any that do exist accepted the copyright model...because without protection there is no R&D money from venture capital. You show me a Venture Capitalist who doesn't require intellectual property protection, before investment.
As it stands now Open Source lacks a true ability to displace the current model of the software market. As there is no real way to attract the capital investment required, to assure paychecks to all that participate.
sorry for the double post above
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Utopia by Mike on Jun 11th, 2008 @ 3:29am
Well, that's a gross misrepresentation of Eldred. I'll note that I disagree with the Eldred position on many things, but Eldred is NOT against copyright. Eldred is just in favor of the public domain.
And, despite what you claim, they cannot have exclusivity over public domain works.
The issues that I have with the current legislation is that it shifts the burden to the copyright owner to prove that the work isn't orphaned. That cost will be in the hundreds of thousands per case if it runs the full judicial process. So what will happen is those that create the lions share of valuable creative works will lack the capital to protect. Not to mention what it will due to our standing with the rest of the world. Do you really advocate that we bail on the Berne, Trips, and WTO?
Ah, and so you fall back on that? Whenever a copyright maximalist has no argument, he falls back on "but... but... but... we have to live up to international treaties."
That's bogus. Most of those international treaties were heavily written/influenced by the lobbyists for the industries that most benefited from them. They're a joke, and the sooner we got rid of most of them, the better the whole world would be.
Trips is particularly dangerous.
Exclusivity=Value It is also the mechanism that Brands are built on. This brand value is how consumers are protected. Lacking the ability, the market would be flooded with knock offs...many lacking in the quality of the original, but consumers will be unable to tell the difference. Tell me you don't think Brand Knock-off isn't pirating or harmful to the idea of capitalism
Exclusivity does not equal value. Exclusivity may be a perceived benefit on which price is increased, but value is not equal to exclusivity.
As for brands, I have no problem with trademark law -- which is not about intellectual property, but consumer protection. That is, it's designed to prevent you from being "tricked" into buying a good believing it was made by someone else.
So, counterfeiting can be taken care of easily enough through trademark and antifraud laws.
Strawmen?...Mike, in my mind a strawman is a sort of false prophecy, certainly not a complete review of how an issue relates on both sides of the isle.
The strawman was claiming that I somehow supported copyright for myself while trying to deny it to others.
The internet was built on the backbone of government/university networks all built on copyright protected and licensed software, not to mention hardware protected by license/IP.
Um. No. It wasn't. Seriously. Go learn about the history of the internet. What made it take off was the use of *open* standards and *open* software that did not rely on copyright.
A prime example of Market Failure is Shareware short of maybe a couple of software startups in the shareware market none exist as they existed, today and I'm not sure that any true market can be traced to the plethora of titles created.
Um. That's an example of a *business model failure* not a market failure. Shareware is a dumb business model, but plenty of companies have made themselves phenomenally wealthy by giving away their software, but using better business models.
Any that do exist accepted the copyright model...because without protection there is no R&D money from venture capital. You show me a Venture Capitalist who doesn't require intellectual property protection, before investment.
Sure, the VCs who invested in us don't require IP. In fact, within the VC community, many look down on IP as a total waste of time, money and attention:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051220/015253.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articl es/20060414/0120234.shtml
http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2005/07/08/one-venture-cap.html
http://avc.blo gs.com/a_vc/2006/04/patently_absurd.html
http://www.askthevc.com/blog/archives/2007/11/should-start ups.php
http://www.feld.com/blog/archives/2006/04/abolish_softwar.html
Oh yeah, and some actual evidence:
http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-13940/study-shows-most-vc-funded-software-startu ps-don-t-patent
"few software startups benefits from software patents and patents are not widely used by software firms to obtain venture financing. Indeed, among other things, the paper reports that 80% of venture-financed software startups had not acquired any patents within four years of receiving financing."
Please don't repeat myths that VCs require IP protection.
They don't.
As it stands now Open Source lacks a true ability to displace the current model of the software market. As there is no real way to attract the capital investment required, to assure paychecks to all that participate.
Myth myth myth myth myth.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/integration/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=160401 670
http://news.cnet.com/Open-source,-open-wallet/2100-7344_3-5934144.html
http://lawandlifesilico nvalley.blogspot.com/2008/05/venture-capital-funding-for-open-source.html
And that leaves out recent acquisitions like Sun buying MySQL for $1 billion, or Red Hat's success.
And, of course, you're ignoring the ancillary markets for open source software. For example, Google built its system on open source software, and used that open source software to make billions.
These days, in many ways, IBM is an open source software company as well, and they turn that software into billions every quarter.
Come on, man. Lies won't get you very far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let's Pull Back the Big Black Curtain
Mike, I guess I am having a hard time discerning what you are truly advocating. It appears to me that as opposed to providing a true journalistic approach, you have moved to the side of "Cheerleader". In my mind a true journalist seeks information in all of it's glory on both sides, then presents that in an unbiased way, which allows the reader to draw his/her own conclusions based on that info, along with his/her other factual investigations.,Br>
You have a habit of taking bits and pieces from other presentations and skewing them to support you argument (Cheerleading).
Strawmen?...Mike, in my mind a strawman is a sort of false prophecy, certainly not a complete review of how an issue relates on both sides of the isle.
The strawman was claiming that I somehow supported copyright for myself while trying to deny it to others.
What is your true position on copyright and other intellectual property protections?
I am confused as to your position by your words in this blog. After some additional review of you and your company/site. I find http://www.techdirt.com/press/ With this distribution arrangement, Techdirt is now part of Thomson Financial’s extensive research portfolio which includes, among other things, a wide range of quality research inputs produced by sell side brokerage and alternative research firms from around the world.
Techdirt is a leading alternative research firm that produces research offerings built on the basis of its unconventional and proprietary Techdirt Insight Community model.
And then this link http://www.techdirt.com/tdci_iatour.php?p=1 that clearly the screen shot demonstrates that the information provided is copyright Techdirt Inc all rights reserved.
So my only conclusion drawn from the facts is you believe in using the current intellectual property rights, laws and statutes, to engage in your business model. And that exclusive rights are part and parcel of that model
Yet you espouse to all that will listen that they throw that model away, and sell t-shirts when they are really in the business of capitalizing on their creative output. I can tell you that as a former banker, if one of my clients came to me with a business plan to sell t-shirts, by giving away their creative works. I would have to ask what business they were really in? While I understand what it is you are trying to promote. I think the market could not support a shift to where every one was using this model. Especially in the mom and pop operations. Your ideas may be appropriate for enterprise solutions, but the lions share of creative works come from small operators making less than 100,000k per year>
This is a completely ridiculous position Ah, and so you fall back on that? Whenever a copyright maximalist has no argument, he falls back on "but... but... but... we have to live up to international treaties."
That's bogus. Most of those international treaties were heavily written/influenced by the lobbyists for the industries that most benefited from them. They're a joke, and the sooner we got rid of most of them, the better the whole world would be.
Trips is particularly dangerous.
Mike, we absolutely can not unilaterally fail to honor any international agreements that we have entered into. Additional it is ludicrous to think that we can simply bail on these, and not expect it to change how the rest of the world deals with intellectual properties. First it would not only effect IP, but every transaction in the Global Economy. It would conflate the rule of law into complete. anarchy. This link http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop15.7barker.pdf in my mind crystallizes the international issues, of how the rule of law intervenes with our own laws, and those of the global community. Many of these conventions predate any currentlobbyists for the industries that most benefited from them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Utopia by Mike on Jun 11th, 2008 @ 3:29am
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1804&context=expresso
28 A common tactic is to rely on open source development and consequent standardization of auxiliary products in which a firm is unlikely to obtain a comparative advantage, coupled with profitable marketing of an ancillary product or service over which the firm can maintain such an advantage. See FINK 2002 (discussing how proprietary firms can profit from association with open source products);
LEONARD 1995:18-27 (discussion of core capabilities and their importance to strategic decision making); see also MANN & WINN 2005 (discussing hybrid open source licenses that permit proprietary exploitation of derivative products).
29 The fractionation is not new, see, e.g., CAMPBELL-KELLY 2003:167 (noting that the software industry by the early 1980’s was much less concentrated than the parallel hardware industry out of which it had grown), but it has accelerated since the rise of the Internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let's Pull Back the Big Black Curtain
Sure. Who said I was a journalist, though? I have never claimed that I was. I am an analyst -- and I give my opinion and support it with facts.
Don't put labels on me that are inaccurate.
What is your true position on copyright and other intellectual property protections?
I think that there needs to be proof of market failure before I believe they are needed. Without that proof, which no one has yet shown me, I fail to see why they are needed. I think the entire concept of IP causes more harm than good.
With this distribution arrangement, Techdirt is now part of Thomson Financial’s extensive research portfolio which includes, among other things, a wide range of quality research inputs produced by sell side brokerage and alternative research firms from around the world.
What is your problem with our deal with Thomson? It has nothing to do with IP.
Techdirt is a leading alternative research firm that produces research offerings built on the basis of its unconventional and proprietary Techdirt Insight Community model.
"Proprietary" was thrown in by our PR person, and is used to mean our unique process -- not something protected by IP. And, the reason it's unique and not easily copied is because it's done by people. That has nothing to do with IP.
Nice try, though.
And then this link http://www.techdirt.com/tdci_iatour.php?p=1 that clearly the screen shot demonstrates that the information provided is copyright Techdirt Inc all rights reserved.
First, InfoAdvisor is a product we no longer support, so that's rather meaningless. But as for the tag, one of our designers just threw that into the software, but it's meaningless. We do not enforce copyright at all on any of our works. The business model for InfoAdvisor did not rely on copyright in any manner.
Nice try, though.
So my only conclusion drawn from the facts is you believe in using the current intellectual property rights, laws and statutes, to engage in your business model. And that exclusive rights are part and parcel of that model
Not at all. We are quite clear in our agreements: we are selling a *service*, not a product, and we retain no rights to the end result. Our customers are free to do what they want with the output, even if it's to redistribute or resell it.
We do not rely on IP for our business model at all. In fact, we encourage our customers to do what they want with our works, knowing it only helps us more in the end.
Yet you espouse to all that will listen that they throw that model away, and sell t-shirts when they are really in the business of capitalizing on their creative output.
No. If you think the business model I espouse is selling t-shirts, you clearly have not read what I wrote. I said the business model is to sell something scarce, which is made more valuable by something infinite. In a very small number of cases, that might be t-shirts, but I doubt that's very common.
While I understand what it is you are trying to promote. I think the market could not support a shift to where every one was using this model. Especially in the mom and pop operations.
Actually, if you look at the research (which you seem to enjoy ignoring), it shows that this type of model actually helps the mom & pop shops -- often levelling out the playing field. The end result is more competition from smaller firms, and less huge conglomerates.
Your ideas may be appropriate for enterprise solutions, but the lions share of creative works come from small operators making less than 100,000k per year
Actually, I've shown repeatedly how this model works for small content creators.
In fact, I find this particularly amusing. For years, we showed how it worked for smaller, independent content creators, and people said "but it'll never work for the big guys." Yet, in the last year, suddenly we've seen big content creators adopting it too... and suddenly people say "but it will never work for the little guys."
You're wrong. It's worked for small content creators long before the big ones adopted it. Why? Because as a small content creator obscurity is a much bigger threat than piracy.
Mike, we absolutely can not unilaterally fail to honor any international agreements that we have entered into.
Heh. Repeating the same thing over again doesn't make your argument any stronger. As I said, these "international agreements" are a joke put in place by those who stood to benefit from the most. The answer isn't to ignore them, but to get rid of them or, at the least, renegotiate them.
Additional it is ludicrous to think that we can simply bail on these, and not expect it to change how the rest of the world deals with intellectual properties. First it would not only effect IP, but every transaction in the Global Economy.
Again, this is a myth that copyright maximalists love. And it's pure crap. These international treaties harm the economy. We should get rid of them. And, yes, if they change how the rest of the world deals with IP, that would be a good thing.
Finally, quoting PFF on IP issues will get you no where. They're a laughingstock on IP issues, as was quite clear when I got to debate one of their supposed IP experts last year in DC. PFF is a widely regarded as a shill organization -- paid by large IP interests to take a maximalist stand and to ignore any reasoned argument against their position. They have been caught, repeatedly, making false and misleading arguments on IP issues, to the point that they are widely considered a laughingstock in DC policy circles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Utopia by Mike on Jun 11th, 2008 @ 3:29am
I notice that you didn't actually apologize for your clearly false statement that NO venture capitalists would invest in IPless companies.
Please admit that you were wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I was just looking for another channel of Information
Have fun Mike...sometimes "Life Gets in the Way"
http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/analyst
analyst
References in classic literature
The analyst was asked by him to report whether strychnine was, or was not, present.The Mysterious Affair at Styles by Christie, Agatha
As the strong man exults in his physical ability, delighting in such exercises as call his muscles into action, so glories the analyst in that moral activity which disentangles.
The Murders in the Rue Morgue by Poe, Edgar Allan
She needed the theory to explain a certain moral irritation by which she was often visited; though, if this explanation was unsound, a deeper analyst than I must give the right one.
The American by James, Henry
Notes:
Analysts are typically employed by brokerage firms, investment advisors, or mutual funds. Analysts do the grunt work for brokers, preparing the research that brokers use. The most prestigious certification an analyst can receive is the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation. Analysts usually specialize in specific industries or sectors to allow for comprehensive research.
An·a·lyze (n-lz)
tr.v. an·a·lyzed, an·a·lyz·ing, an·a·lyz·es
1. To examine methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations.
Cheerleader
Noun 1. - an enthusiastic and vocal supporter; "he has become a cheerleader for therapeutic cloning" admirer, booster, protagonist, supporter, champion, friend - a person who backs a politician or a team etc.; "all their supporters came out for the game"; "they are friends of the library"
Journalist carries a connotation or expectation of professionalism in reporting, with consideration for truth, fairness, balance, decency and ethics - although standards can vary widely between publications.
Most journalists in the USA adhere to the standards and norms expressed in the Society of Professional Journalists ethical code.[1] Foremost in the minds of most practicing journalists is the issue of maintaining credibility, "Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility."
Ad hom·i·nem
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I was just looking for another channel of Information
If you want to be taken seriously, it helps to make a serious argument.
Since you have not made one, then, clearly, you do not intend to be taken seriously.
Fair enough, since it appears you have nothing to back up your argument, and when presented with evidence that you were wrong, you failed to admit it, but continued to attack me personally.
Such is life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I was just looking for another channel of Information by Mike on Jun 16th, 2008 @ 6:50am
As I said in a previous post" http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080425/124144950#c454 "
First I want to say I'm sorry if you feel anything I have written was a personal attack, as none of my words were meant to attack. They were in an attempt to elicit your position, and how you arrive at such. From a pragmatic point of view, I don't understand how you stand on the position that the body of law was developed by US corporate interest only. Nor do I understand your position that we simply just ignore the many international agreements that led to this point in time.
Not to put words in your mouth...but I assume that you believe the members of WIPO http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en are all in this to satisfy the US Corporate Interest, and the body of work that they have created over time is also invalid and lacking any real interest of it's members.
My position is from a number of points of view - 1. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
based on words to live by from one of your older and wiser friends
My personal views as developed "In the attempts of congress to secure those rights, as is now, it might be impossible to create laws that foresee each and every issue. When the congress fails to create succint writings, either because they are misguided by personal or other indvidual interest, the legislation then shifts the burden to the courts. So in the end it is the judicial system that ultimately writes the final laws. The idea behind the preemption of state laws was that everyone would have equal rights, no matter which state you were in, and all of the laws would be enforced the same. In reality this does not happen, because of individual judicial interpretation of the statutes. While I believe that judges endeavor to be fair and equitable, I think it not their job to write the laws in the end. It is in fact the "JOB OF CONGRESS"
I find great wisdom from this link copyright 1879 http://books.google.com/books?id=YcE9AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Drone+copyright+treatis e.#PPR8,M1 while it is a deep read, I think that the preface sums up the real issues. The more things change the more the stay the same.
As I mentioned before, and you discounted so heavily I believe this link does address the http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop15.7barker.pdf many international as well as US laws. While you may not appreciate the topic or it's conclusions, you have to agree that the paper presents both sides of the legal issues in a fair opportunity. I would be certainly interested in a deep read of the counter argument written to the the same standards, allowing for difference of opinion>
Mike, I will yell it from the roof tops that I don't doubt your verasity I think you truley believe in what you believe for what ever reasons. While I think you and I hold many of the same values, I think we are in disagreement on the path to achieve the just results.
In closing, I don't understand how you believe in the "right to contract", in and regarding intlectual property, with out a body of law to enforce that right. I see no path, a contract is good only against the partys, not against the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Welcome to the world of inovation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Protecting Consumers by Protecting Intellectual Property "
Herehere HEAR NOW
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=3416
The witnesses mentioned the growing role the Internet plays in facilitating this counterfeiting. The hearing served three important purposes: 1) It emphasized that IP enforcement enjoys strong bipartisan support. 2) It showed that there are real dangers associated with counterfeiting.
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080425/124144950#c555
Capitalism at its core is freedom to contract, anything else is not. You speak of allowing the market to set rates. Well if can be pirated who will contract? Second market price is between a willing buyer and seller. The offer and the acceptance. price in a capitalist market is always based on supply and demand. Premium to price from quality of goods as compared to other goods in the market. Price is also based on prestige of brand. The reason that it works is the market determines value other wise no sales- no producers.
Now take a market and fill it with piracy and moral acceptance of those acts and you get market failure from the lack of producers. Producers can't stay in a market with out sales
[ link to this | view in thread ]
United States Government Accountability Office Testimony
Why GAO Did This Study
What GAO Found
What GAO Recommends
http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/08-06-16Loren_Yager_%20Testimony.pdf
>Br>Inte llectual property, for which the U.S. government provides broad protection through means such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks, plays a significant role in the U.S. economy, and the United States is an acknowledged leader in its creation. According to the U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement, industries that relied on IP protection were estimated to account for over half of all U.S. exports, represented 40 percent of U.S. economic growth, and employed about 18 million Americans in 2006. These industries must compete with the global illicit market that is being spurred by economic incentives such as low barriers to entry into counterfeiting and piracy, high profits, and limited legal sanctions if caught. In addition, technology has made reproduction and distribution of some products more accessible, and some countries, particularly China, continue to have weak IP enforcement despite U.S. efforts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]