I firmly agree that consumers need more explicit, unalienable rights under Copyright:
The right to first sale, fair use, and any other right granted by Copyright should not be given away by "clickwrap" or other unilateral agreements. I don't agree that buying something in the store is a "license", especially when you have no power to negotiate that license. All retail style purchases, whether they be digital downloads or physical media, should be treated exactly like a book: one person can use it, shelve it, or sell it as they see fit.
As to sampling, I don't see the problem with having to get permission to use samples. As a musician, I may not want my song about flowers being used in a song about pimps 'n ho's. If you make sampling a "right", you lose the ability to control who your work is associated with. After all, no one has ever repurposed the lyrics to a song. I tend to agree that people should have the right to say where their music is re-used.
As for "transparency"... if all digital goods purchases had to abide by the terms of Copyright and only the terms of Copyright, those EULA's would be a lot shorter and readable, wouldn't they?
Re: Mike sez: "I don't know the specifics," -- and the NEW is?
As a REPORTER, and not an advocate, I think that it's completely fair for for Mike to not state a public position.
I don't think news reporters should be advocates for a particular position; doing so cheapens the work of reporting the news, which is to take the facts as they are - not try to twist them to mean something they don't.
Exactly. Because no one over 30 gets work in Hollywood.
Amanda Tapping din't get hired to play a soldier at 32 years old, a doctor at 42, and an angel at 47.
Lucy Lawless didn't turn 30 during the filming of a show all about two hot women who spend all their time together and totally aren't gay. Neither did she turn 40 during the filming of a groundbreaking sci-fi series.
Gina Torres didn't star on Suits, a show all about pretty, young lawyers (and one older, ugly one that is not Gina Torres) at 40 years old.
And certainly, in no universe ever, did a 46 year old Marion Ross star in the premier of a show that would become one of the most well loved television shows of all times. Happy Days are definitely yours and mine when Mrs. C is cooking dinner.
Obviously Hollywood doesn't hire actresses over 30, and this woman has been seriously wronged. Or something.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:51am
I give up. I can't have a meaningful discussion when you guys are simply going to argue technicalities, rather than try to talk about the actual issue at play.
My stance is simple: take away Copyright, and you take away the ability to sell books, movies, music, and computer software through any sort of conventional retail channel. People will not pay for what they can get for free.
Without Copyright, Books, recorded music, and movies would have to be produced under some sort of patronage model, where artists either have to find a rich person to support them, turn to crowdfunding and donations to earn a living, or they simply create stuff on a hobby level.
The whole purpose of Copyright is to promote artistic creation by allowing artists to own their own work. This model was put in to place, because the patronage system was obviously not working, or Copyright would not have been necessary.
If someone can outline how modern society would promote artistic creation without the need for Copyright, I'm all ears... but I have yet to see or hear a reasonable proposal that would actually work in the modern world.
"If we can’t have our rights properly protected through legal and governmental solutions, we will pursue business solution."
The software industry already does this: that's what all of the crazy copy protection schemes really are - a way to enforce one-user-per-purchase outside of Copyright.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:51am
I know very well what GPL is. Other than simply releasing something in to public domain, it just happens that the GPL is the closest thing we have to what the world would be without Copyright.
In fact, I release most of my projects under the GPL, but they're usually not significant enough to make an impact anyway.
Congratulations on being able to use Linux in your life. I can't. I mean, I *could* use Linux at home, but there's a lot of stuff I'd have to lose out on: most of the AAA video games come to mind. (And as to WINE... why bother with WINE when you can just run Windows? It's the same question I have for Mac users who run a virtual Windows box in their Macs.)
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:51am
And what makes you think I don't I understand both? Have you published a book, written and published a record, a movie, or a commercial software package?
I've created stuff because I want to, and often to fill a need. Would I love to publish this and be a professional writer or musician? Sure, but I can't afford to take a year out of my job to actually write, edit, and publish my works.
I'm not saying that creative works wont' exist at all: I'm saying that they won't exist in nearly the quantity or quality that we see today when the financial structure isn't there to support it.
Yes, there's some awesome, free stuff out there... but most of us need to eat, and it's the financial model.
Oh yes, the GPL movement, including Linux, OpenOffice, and related stuff shows us that it's possible to create quality works without encumbering it with Copyright, but let me ask you a question: Which operating system is on more computers, one that's free or one that costs $100 a pop?
If a Copyright-free world is better, then Copyright free software should be winning the war. Businesses everywhere should be using Linux PC's with OpenOffice on them.
But I'm typing this on a Windows 7 PC that has the full MS Office suite installed.
The world runs on money, and you're not going to convince me you can take the profit motive out of the game and still get the same results we get now.
I don't think the buyer is forcing a new deal on anyone. I think the buyer wants to offer the Night Shade authors a new set of contracts based on their existing deal.
It's more of a "rock and a hard place" thing, because the authors don't have to take the offer... but if they don't, then they have to wait through a Bankruptcy proceeding before they can work on these projects again.
When Replicators come in to being, it will end nearly every form of manufacturing and distribution job there is... but it will create a serious need for energy and replicator mass.
But in the end, we'll probably have 25% of our population without steady jobs and probably half of what's left would work a lot less.
Fortunately, the cost of living would also plummet to the point where you don't need to work to eat.
Now imagine the creative potential of 2 or 3 billion people with nothing but time on their hands... a lot of those people would just waste their life in front of the TV or on the beach, but can you imagine how many Michaelangelos or Shakespeares are out there working at 7-11 or flipping bugers?
It won't go unfinished... they'll just have to wait until the bankruptcy is discharged and they can negoiate with the new owners.
In the meantime, why can't they start another series? Are you saying that they only have ONE good idea?
I know lots of creative people, and NONE of them has just ONE good idea. Look at how many pans Scott Kurtz has in the fire.... look at authors like Jim Butcher, who has a cash cow in the form of the Dresden Files novels, but is still producing other stuff.
Like I said, it sucks. But this isn't a Copyright problem. It's a contract problem.
Actually, I think you could recover a leased or rented asset, since the debtor doesn't own it... but you're not going to get full value for any collateral against loans, such as the money used to buy the building.
Oh, there are systems that could work... but aside from crowdfunding, I can't see any that don't rely on limited access.
Selling tickets? That's the essence of what Copyright is. You're only making the product available to people who pay for it.
Your example about DVD rental is a pretty good one: of course, you're also making the MPAA, RIAA, and video game publishers' arguments for them.
Here's a hypothetical:
I have an idea for a AAA video game title. I think it'll cost about $50 million to create, since I want fully voiced and acted cut scenes, a full orchestral score, the works.
I take that idea to Kickstarter, along with some storyboard, some concept art, and maybe even a pre-rendered "prototype gameplay demo."
So I take that $50 million game idea to Kickstarter and ask people to fund it... oh, and it will take 3-5 years to make.
How many people will buy in to that model? Do you think the game would actually get made?
I'm not saying the model can't work - I just don't think it will work in our current society. People want to buy a finished product, and they want to get it as cheaply as possible... hence the reason people wait until sales to buy things, or they buy the paperback version of Harry Potter, rather than buying the hardback the day it comes out.
I just don't see any sustainable business model for content creators that doesn't involve restricted access. Call it what you want, but it comes down to some form of Copyright.
You're right, they're not just assets, and it's clear that the authors have the choice about whether to go to the new publisher.
But it's a Hobson's choice, since NOT going to the new publisher means that your IP gets tied up in court for quite some time.
Man, if it's this complicated for a single book, imagine what it's like for a movie - with overlapping contracts, Copyrights, and licenses for everything from the soundtrack music to the merchandising.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:51am
Think about what you're saying for a minute:
Copyright laws were brought in to being about the same time as the printing press which was the first time it was cheaper to copy a book than it was to create it in the first place.
We didn't need Copyright in the days before the printing press and the phonograph because the very act of reproducing a work was an effort in an of itself. It requires skilled musicians to play a symphony: I know because I am one. It takes a lot of time and effort to hand write a 50,000 word story. Heck, it took me a month of nights to just to type the zeroeth draft of a novel.
And don't get me started on the work to reproduction ratio of computer software. I'm at the tail end of a decade long project that is the culmination of hundreds of thousands of man-hours... and I can copy the entire thing in five minutes with a thumb drive.
You argument is nonsense, because Copyright wasn't necessary until technology made it so.
Just so there's no confusion, I'm not in favor of abolishing copyright. I am in favor of reforming it so it stops being abusive and causing harm to people both individually and collectively.
I'll agree with that point. The term is ridiculous, and it's far too easy to accidentally offend.
But I do think that the creator of a work should have the exclusive right to that work for at least as long as the work is commercially viable.
If you were to limit Copyright to 5 years, for example, doesn't that just mean that after 5 years, the author will get NO royalties to his work?
The way things are today, a book or a movie that's 5 or more years old is already so cheap that the cost is trivial. I bought Spaceballs last night on Blu-Ray for $10.
Would the studio have bothered creating a new, HD master for that movie without some financial motivation?
Copyright serves two purposes: yes, it provides incentive to create. But the right to one's creation is ALSO a natural right, in my opinion.
ALL of the rights in our Constitution are there for some reason other than that they're natural rights. Look at the right of Freedom Of Speech. It's not there because it's a natural right. It's there because empowering the people to speak without fear of arrest is the only way to keep a democracy functioning.
That doesn't mean it's not ALSO a natural right. It's just that so-called natural rights all have their roots in a more fundamental underpinning: that society functions best when the individual's natural rights are preserved.
I can never agree that my work as a creative type should be free. You're essentially saying that I can never own what I create, and that somehow my creative work is not mine...
I do not agree that you can simply take something I create and give it away. Limiting the term of Copyright is one thing, but I'm seeing people say it should not exist at all, and that's got to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.
On the post: Here's Another Inventor Who Willingly Gave Away His Greatest Idea In Order To Establish It As A Global Standard
Re: Re: Re: Shame
On the post: Police Search For Mugger For 3 Weeks, Internet Finds Him In An Hour
Apparently I need to get out more.
On the post: White House Petition Launched To 'Recast Copyright For The Digital Age'
Agree but disagree
The right to first sale, fair use, and any other right granted by Copyright should not be given away by "clickwrap" or other unilateral agreements. I don't agree that buying something in the store is a "license", especially when you have no power to negotiate that license. All retail style purchases, whether they be digital downloads or physical media, should be treated exactly like a book: one person can use it, shelve it, or sell it as they see fit.
As to sampling, I don't see the problem with having to get permission to use samples. As a musician, I may not want my song about flowers being used in a song about pimps 'n ho's. If you make sampling a "right", you lose the ability to control who your work is associated with. After all, no one has ever repurposed the lyrics to a song. I tend to agree that people should have the right to say where their music is re-used.
As for "transparency"... if all digital goods purchases had to abide by the terms of Copyright and only the terms of Copyright, those EULA's would be a lot shorter and readable, wouldn't they?
On the post: White House Petition Launched To 'Recast Copyright For The Digital Age'
Re: Mike sez: "I don't know the specifics," -- and the NEW is?
I don't think news reporters should be advocates for a particular position; doing so cheapens the work of reporting the news, which is to take the facts as they are - not try to twist them to mean something they don't.
On the post: Sorry, Having IMDB Accurately List Your Age Doesn't Entitle You To A Million Dollars
Re: She really hasn't got a prayer
Amanda Tapping din't get hired to play a soldier at 32 years old, a doctor at 42, and an angel at 47.
Lucy Lawless didn't turn 30 during the filming of a show all about two hot women who spend all their time together and totally aren't gay. Neither did she turn 40 during the filming of a groundbreaking sci-fi series.
Gina Torres didn't star on Suits, a show all about pretty, young lawyers (and one older, ugly one that is not Gina Torres) at 40 years old.
And certainly, in no universe ever, did a 46 year old Marion Ross star in the premier of a show that would become one of the most well loved television shows of all times. Happy Days are definitely yours and mine when Mrs. C is cooking dinner.
Obviously Hollywood doesn't hire actresses over 30, and this woman has been seriously wronged. Or something.
On the post: Sorry, Having IMDB Accurately List Your Age Doesn't Entitle You To A Million Dollars
Re:
They were all fully-grown adults playing teenagers.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:51am
My stance is simple: take away Copyright, and you take away the ability to sell books, movies, music, and computer software through any sort of conventional retail channel. People will not pay for what they can get for free.
Without Copyright, Books, recorded music, and movies would have to be produced under some sort of patronage model, where artists either have to find a rich person to support them, turn to crowdfunding and donations to earn a living, or they simply create stuff on a hobby level.
The whole purpose of Copyright is to promote artistic creation by allowing artists to own their own work. This model was put in to place, because the patronage system was obviously not working, or Copyright would not have been necessary.
If someone can outline how modern society would promote artistic creation without the need for Copyright, I'm all ears... but I have yet to see or hear a reasonable proposal that would actually work in the modern world.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
The software industry already does this: that's what all of the crazy copy protection schemes really are - a way to enforce one-user-per-purchase outside of Copyright.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:51am
In fact, I release most of my projects under the GPL, but they're usually not significant enough to make an impact anyway.
Congratulations on being able to use Linux in your life. I can't. I mean, I *could* use Linux at home, but there's a lot of stuff I'd have to lose out on: most of the AAA video games come to mind. (And as to WINE... why bother with WINE when you can just run Windows? It's the same question I have for Mac users who run a virtual Windows box in their Macs.)
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:51am
I've created stuff because I want to, and often to fill a need. Would I love to publish this and be a professional writer or musician? Sure, but I can't afford to take a year out of my job to actually write, edit, and publish my works.
I'm not saying that creative works wont' exist at all: I'm saying that they won't exist in nearly the quantity or quality that we see today when the financial structure isn't there to support it.
Yes, there's some awesome, free stuff out there... but most of us need to eat, and it's the financial model.
Oh yes, the GPL movement, including Linux, OpenOffice, and related stuff shows us that it's possible to create quality works without encumbering it with Copyright, but let me ask you a question: Which operating system is on more computers, one that's free or one that costs $100 a pop?
If a Copyright-free world is better, then Copyright free software should be winning the war. Businesses everywhere should be using Linux PC's with OpenOffice on them.
But I'm typing this on a Windows 7 PC that has the full MS Office suite installed.
The world runs on money, and you're not going to convince me you can take the profit motive out of the game and still get the same results we get now.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Is that legal?
It's more of a "rock and a hard place" thing, because the authors don't have to take the offer... but if they don't, then they have to wait through a Bankruptcy proceeding before they can work on these projects again.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: What happens when the next tech...
When Replicators come in to being, it will end nearly every form of manufacturing and distribution job there is... but it will create a serious need for energy and replicator mass.
But in the end, we'll probably have 25% of our population without steady jobs and probably half of what's left would work a lot less.
Fortunately, the cost of living would also plummet to the point where you don't need to work to eat.
Now imagine the creative potential of 2 or 3 billion people with nothing but time on their hands... a lot of those people would just waste their life in front of the TV or on the beach, but can you imagine how many Michaelangelos or Shakespeares are out there working at 7-11 or flipping bugers?
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: tomxp411
In the meantime, why can't they start another series? Are you saying that they only have ONE good idea?
I know lots of creative people, and NONE of them has just ONE good idea. Look at how many pans Scott Kurtz has in the fire.... look at authors like Jim Butcher, who has a cash cow in the form of the Dresden Files novels, but is still producing other stuff.
Like I said, it sucks. But this isn't a Copyright problem. It's a contract problem.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Selling tickets? That's the essence of what Copyright is. You're only making the product available to people who pay for it.
Your example about DVD rental is a pretty good one: of course, you're also making the MPAA, RIAA, and video game publishers' arguments for them.
Here's a hypothetical:
I have an idea for a AAA video game title. I think it'll cost about $50 million to create, since I want fully voiced and acted cut scenes, a full orchestral score, the works.
I take that idea to Kickstarter, along with some storyboard, some concept art, and maybe even a pre-rendered "prototype gameplay demo."
So I take that $50 million game idea to Kickstarter and ask people to fund it... oh, and it will take 3-5 years to make.
How many people will buy in to that model? Do you think the game would actually get made?
I'm not saying the model can't work - I just don't think it will work in our current society. People want to buy a finished product, and they want to get it as cheaply as possible... hence the reason people wait until sales to buy things, or they buy the paperback version of Harry Potter, rather than buying the hardback the day it comes out.
I just don't see any sustainable business model for content creators that doesn't involve restricted access. Call it what you want, but it comes down to some form of Copyright.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it's a Hobson's choice, since NOT going to the new publisher means that your IP gets tied up in court for quite some time.
Man, if it's this complicated for a single book, imagine what it's like for a movie - with overlapping contracts, Copyrights, and licenses for everything from the soundtrack music to the merchandising.
Sheesh.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:51am
Copyright laws were brought in to being about the same time as the printing press which was the first time it was cheaper to copy a book than it was to create it in the first place.
We didn't need Copyright in the days before the printing press and the phonograph because the very act of reproducing a work was an effort in an of itself. It requires skilled musicians to play a symphony: I know because I am one. It takes a lot of time and effort to hand write a 50,000 word story. Heck, it took me a month of nights to just to type the zeroeth draft of a novel.
And don't get me started on the work to reproduction ratio of computer software. I'm at the tail end of a decade long project that is the culmination of hundreds of thousands of man-hours... and I can copy the entire thing in five minutes with a thumb drive.
You argument is nonsense, because Copyright wasn't necessary until technology made it so.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll agree with that point. The term is ridiculous, and it's far too easy to accidentally offend.
But I do think that the creator of a work should have the exclusive right to that work for at least as long as the work is commercially viable.
If you were to limit Copyright to 5 years, for example, doesn't that just mean that after 5 years, the author will get NO royalties to his work?
The way things are today, a book or a movie that's 5 or more years old is already so cheap that the cost is trivial. I bought Spaceballs last night on Blu-Ray for $10.
Would the studio have bothered creating a new, HD master for that movie without some financial motivation?
Copyright serves two purposes: yes, it provides incentive to create. But the right to one's creation is ALSO a natural right, in my opinion.
ALL of the rights in our Constitution are there for some reason other than that they're natural rights. Look at the right of Freedom Of Speech. It's not there because it's a natural right. It's there because empowering the people to speak without fear of arrest is the only way to keep a democracy functioning.
That doesn't mean it's not ALSO a natural right. It's just that so-called natural rights all have their roots in a more fundamental underpinning: that society functions best when the individual's natural rights are preserved.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can never agree that my work as a creative type should be free. You're essentially saying that I can never own what I create, and that somehow my creative work is not mine...
I do not agree that you can simply take something I create and give it away. Limiting the term of Copyright is one thing, but I'm seeing people say it should not exist at all, and that's got to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.
Next >>