Neither the current copyright law (Copyright Act of 1976)1 nor prior law (Copyright Act of 1909)2 contain any provision explicitly allowing copyright owners to dedicate their works to the public domain, or explaining how it can be done.3
Section 6.02[4]
If a copyright owner abandons his copyright, does the abandonment last forever, or can he later change his mind and re-claim his copyright rights? There are no cases directly addressing this issue.
Seems to support what I have been describing all along. Imagine that.
See above. The copyright can be abandoned. And it's rather easy to do.
You can't abandon copyright. Not one lick. You can only choose not to enforce your copyright. Once you are dead though, all bets are off as the copyright is out of your hands.
That would require understanding actual copyright law
Please show me in copyright law where it says that a copyright can be abandoned. I am not asking for you to point at a CC license or a "public domain" license. I am asking for actual law that says that you can opt out of actually having a copyright on a work for life + 70 years.
Obviously the Year Zero book is the product of copyright.
You have such a twisted view of the creative process. I seriously wonder what color the sky is in your fantasy land. Year Zero was written because Rob Reid wanted to write a funny science fiction story.
But I guess you could say it is the product of copyright, because if copyright did not exist or was not insane, he probably would have had to choose a different muse if he wanted to still tell a story. But I doubt that is what you meant.
Copyright allowed him to cut a deal with his publisher.
Do you honestly think that nothing would be created if copyright didn't exist? I guess fashion and textile is just a worldwide figment of the imagination. Without copyright, he would still be able to publish and make money. People do it all the time.
Mike would not approve of the rightholder of the book suing any infringer.
Suing fans for often grossly inflated and imaginary "damages" is not something anyone should encourage. Please show a case where someone was sued for real damages.
What they didn't do was dedicate the work to the public domain. I wonder why. Oh yeah, 'cause copyright is awesome and they want those rights just like so many others.
Well, some authors maybe (as was pointed out above). But think about it for a moment. Why are there people who choose to opt out of some parts of copyright? IS it perhaps because the public perception of fairness under copyright is shifting? You wouldn't be willing to accept that though.
And yet the book is copyrighted and they indicate the desire to retain certain rights rather than dedicate them to the public domain. Weird.
Again, they can't opt out of copyright altogether. But since the work is the compilation of various people with various ideas on what they feel is appropriate level of enforcement they had to appease everyone. Imagine that. Multiple people having multiple opinions on what is fair.
You might want to read up on copyright abandonment. They could dedicate the work to the public domain.
Dedicating the work to the public domain does not abandon the copyright.
It worries me that you don't understand this.
I do have problems understanding the underlying thought process of someone with mental deficiencies. Sorry.
But an author can then abandon the copyright and put the work in the public domain
There is no "abandoning" copyright. It is with you for life plus 70 years (barring any future extensions) The best you can do is choose not to enforce any aspect of copyright till you are dead, at which point your estate can then do a 180 from your position and enforce the crap out of it.
The CC license works via copyright;
It works in spite of copyright. Big difference.
So yeah, it's hilarious that the pirate work is copyrighted, with a huge copyright notice on the second page to boot.
"Ha ha. Look at that water. It is so wet. Isn't that hilarious."
And it's hilarious that Pirate Mike keeps featuring books that use copyright
Please provide a current book that is not covered by copyright. All the books from prior to 1923 don't have a lot to do with current copyright, patent, trademark and technology.
I think you missed a word there. But in response, the book is copyrighted by default. There is no opting out of copyright. So highlighting that the book is covered by copyright is like saying water is wet.
Copyright-as-business model? Yep.
Um...No. Copyright itself is not a business model and never will be. It is a fact of doing business. That's like say "driving on roads is the business model of transport."
Would Mike approve if the copyright holder enforced its copyright against an infringer? Nope. He'd blame the rightholder and not the pirate for the pirate's decision to violate the rightholder's rights. Every time.
No. Mike would have issue withe the idea of suing someone based on IP only evidence, then seeking maximum fines and forcing someone into lifetime debt. Mike would also take issue with efforts to limit the ability to use something covered by copyright in ways the reader wishes.
Copyrighted? Yep. Proudly noticed on Page 2
See my first response. Plus you completely ignore that they are opting out of enforcing the majority of what copyright law allows.
Is it funny that pirates are copyrighting their works? Yes. Absolutely.
Ummm....They want people to share the book for free. Says so right there on page 2 of the book. Why is that funny? Because you can't comprehend that someone would be willing to allow free sharing of their work?
Is it funny that Pirate Mike's pirate buddies are relying on copyright? More than words can adequately capture.
Relying on copyright? Are you insane? If they could, I am sure they would be willing to opt out of copyright completely. But as I have already stated, copyright is forced on them. It is not a choice they made.
Do TDers even read books? I have serious, serious doubts.
Do you comprehend what you read? I have serious, serious doubts.
bob, how do you get by in life for being so stupid? The $750 is the minimum allowed under law for an instance of copyright infringement. There is no estimate in that number, just a "pick a big number out of a hat" method.
Google is making a HUGE contribution, and one that the authors and publishers are not doing. They are making a giant index of all the books it can. This giant index of books is a very useful service, not just for the public, but also for authors who's books would have gone unnoticed in a physical library search.
Actually, They do make an effort to get the authors money. I took a browse around and there were numerous links to places to buy the book. So if I find the book useful/entertaining, I have an opportunity to buy it.
they are doing it to be the look up central for these things
Considering search is part of Google's core business, I don't see why indexing physical works is any different than indexing digital works.
either driving people to buy the book
Are you serious in implying that acting as a free advertising tool for books is a negative?
or more likely to drive the people to download the scanned copy. After all, if the scanned copy is fair use to display online, why would it not be fair use to let people download the full scan?
Google is not arguing that letting people download a full copy of the book is fair use. They are arguing that indexing a book and pointing people to digital text from the book is fair use.
Linux users will claim that you can run any Windows software in WINE, but if you search the net, you can find hundreds of messages from people who have having problems getting software, particularly games, to run in WINE.
And companies like Canonical and Red Hat have been working toward that end for years now and have created soem very user friendly distributions. Pretty much plug and play.
They don't want to have to bodge around with settings and drivers and compatibility issues.
After 7 years of using Linux, I have never encountered a hardware compatibility issue. Most of that is because I do my research before hand. As an interesting aside, My mom bought a wireless Linksys card for one of her Windows PCs. No matter what she tried, she could never get it installed correctly. I plugged it into one of my Linux computers and it detected and started to use the Wireless card in seconds.
Software is moving online anyway, why is that a problem?
Half the software on the net is distributed as source code that you have to compile yourself.
No you don't.
Virtually every Linux program requires you to have at least two other packages installed.
Kind of like just about every Windows program.
The Linux/Unix programming philosophy seems to be "Never do automatically in one step, what you can make the user do manually in 5-10 steps."
That is your perception. However, the reality is that everything comes in one click installs for most common distributions like Ubuntu and Fedora.
Linux users will claim that you can run any Windows software in WINE, but if you search the net, you can find hundreds of messages from people who have having problems getting software, particularly games, to run in WINE.
No, they say that there is a potential to run most Windows software using WINE with little issue.
All the software I normally use including Steam runs fine on Win8 in desktop mode.
I think the problem is that desktop mode is not the default. Installing applications to it is not as simple as it is for the Metro UI. If Microsoft follows through with its plans to make using the desktop as painful as possible for the casual user, it is effectively locked down.
Claiming Microsoft is going to take away the ability to install software you don't buy from them is so far off the mark it's like you're trying to be wrong.
If Microsoft makes it a pain for the casual computer user to install unsigned apps, they have effectively closed off the platform. News has already been spreading that Microsoft is blocking the ability to boot directly to the desktop experience, which forces everyone into the Metro UI first and then switch. Since only signed apps are compatible with Metro, they are forcing people into their walled garden from the start.
A Russian scientist and a Czechoslovakian scientist had spent their whole lives studying the majestic grizzly bear. Each year they petitioned their respective governments to allow them to go to Yellowstone to study these wondrous beasts.
Finally, their request was granted and they immediately flew to New York and then on west to Yellowstone. They reported to the local ranger station and were told that it was the grizzly mating season and it was much too dangerous to go out and study the animals.
They pleaded that this was their only chance. Finally the ranger relented. The Russian and the Czech were given cell phones and told to report in each and every day.
For several days they called in, and then nothing was heard from the two scientists. The rangers mounted a search party and found the scientists' camp completely ravaged. No sign of the missing men.
They then followed the trail of a male and a female bear. They found the female and decided they must kill the animal to find out if she had eaten the scientists because they feared an international incident.
They killed the female and cut open the bear's stomach... only to find the remains of the Russian.
One ranger turned to the other and said, "You know what this means, don't you?"
"Of course," the other ranger nodded. "The Czech is in the male."
But it ends up in the same place after a while - too many authors, too little space, not enough sales per author.
That is the nature of the beast isn't it? There was once a time when authors, through a gatekeeper, had a lock on all the eyeballs. They had a guaranteed audience during that "golden" era. They could release and the publisher could "guarantee" a certain number of sales with little effort on the part of the author.
Now times have changed. The market has been opened. The gates have been torn down. Now there is real competition for authors. Now they have to fight for the eyeballs. No more free rides. It is now a survival of the fittest situation. Despite what you believe, this is actually good for authors. It forces them to not only be better writers, but also better people. More open, more accessible. More human.
End result? Recorded music sales are way down, and remarkably, tours aren't selling out, venues are closing, and business sucks. Moreover an entire generation has been trained not the pay for music.
Recorded music as in physical album sales are down. That is for sure. But over all the total music industry's revenue is growing. What has happened to legacy gatekeeper labels is that a whole lot of competition appeared over night when the internet could support the distribution of music and the income is being spread to more artists. Same thing that is happening in publishing.
Face it, there are no more free rides.
In books, it's worse - because there is no real upsell available. Authors are not out doing 20,000 seat arenas every night. Speaking tours for most have limited appeal.
Obviously, you are not creative enough. Private readings, early access, special edition copies of books, etc.
Dirty cheap / free is the easiest sale in the world, and that's why sellers with no imagination go there.
Or people who understand economies of scale. One thing that people like you complain about is the idea of going from analog dollars to digital dimes. However, the problem with that line of thinking is that you are not thinking in scale. 10,000 digital dimes is worth a lot more that 100 analog dollars.
So you think having one paid editor looking at your work is better than having 1000 people looking at your work for free or even paying you to do it?
I have read a number of books that were "professionally" edited that still contained typos, grammatical errors and even plot holes. All things that a "professional" editor is supposed to catch. Imagine if I was able to inform the authors prior to publishing. The books would have been better than they were.
Wrong? Wrong about what? That those sending take downs aren't properly considering if fair use comes into play? Wrong that the system is completely and utterly imbalanced in favor of the accuser over the accused?
They do not care a lick about the people who do not respond. Since the conversation is weighted wholly in favor of those who support censorship (or can't be bothered to have an informed opinion) then they can safely say that everyone they talked to was in favor os some kind of censorship.
On the post: Join Us Thursday For A Conversation With Rob Reid, Author Of Year Zero; Plus August's Book Of The Month
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
www.lawcatalog.com/samples/ljp_694PublicDomain.pdf
A couple of things to note:
Section 6.02
Neither the current copyright law (Copyright Act of 1976)1 nor prior law (Copyright Act of 1909)2 contain any provision explicitly allowing copyright owners to dedicate their works to the public domain, or explaining how it can be done.3
Section 6.02[4]
If a copyright owner abandons his copyright, does the abandonment last forever, or can he later change his mind and re-claim his copyright rights? There are no cases directly addressing this issue.
Seems to support what I have been describing all along. Imagine that.
On the post: Join Us Thursday For A Conversation With Rob Reid, Author Of Year Zero; Plus August's Book Of The Month
Re: Re: Re:
You can't abandon copyright. Not one lick. You can only choose not to enforce your copyright. Once you are dead though, all bets are off as the copyright is out of your hands.
That would require understanding actual copyright law
Please show me in copyright law where it says that a copyright can be abandoned. I am not asking for you to point at a CC license or a "public domain" license. I am asking for actual law that says that you can opt out of actually having a copyright on a work for life + 70 years.
Obviously the Year Zero book is the product of copyright.
You have such a twisted view of the creative process. I seriously wonder what color the sky is in your fantasy land. Year Zero was written because Rob Reid wanted to write a funny science fiction story.
But I guess you could say it is the product of copyright, because if copyright did not exist or was not insane, he probably would have had to choose a different muse if he wanted to still tell a story. But I doubt that is what you meant.
Copyright allowed him to cut a deal with his publisher.
Do you honestly think that nothing would be created if copyright didn't exist? I guess fashion and textile is just a worldwide figment of the imagination. Without copyright, he would still be able to publish and make money. People do it all the time.
Mike would not approve of the rightholder of the book suing any infringer.
Suing fans for often grossly inflated and imaginary "damages" is not something anyone should encourage. Please show a case where someone was sued for real damages.
What they didn't do was dedicate the work to the public domain. I wonder why. Oh yeah, 'cause copyright is awesome and they want those rights just like so many others.
Well, some authors maybe (as was pointed out above). But think about it for a moment. Why are there people who choose to opt out of some parts of copyright? IS it perhaps because the public perception of fairness under copyright is shifting? You wouldn't be willing to accept that though.
And yet the book is copyrighted and they indicate the desire to retain certain rights rather than dedicate them to the public domain. Weird.
Again, they can't opt out of copyright altogether. But since the work is the compilation of various people with various ideas on what they feel is appropriate level of enforcement they had to appease everyone. Imagine that. Multiple people having multiple opinions on what is fair.
You might want to read up on copyright abandonment. They could dedicate the work to the public domain.
Dedicating the work to the public domain does not abandon the copyright.
It worries me that you don't understand this.
I do have problems understanding the underlying thought process of someone with mental deficiencies. Sorry.
On the post: Join Us Thursday For A Conversation With Rob Reid, Author Of Year Zero; Plus August's Book Of The Month
Re: Re: Re:
There is no "abandoning" copyright. It is with you for life plus 70 years (barring any future extensions) The best you can do is choose not to enforce any aspect of copyright till you are dead, at which point your estate can then do a 180 from your position and enforce the crap out of it.
The CC license works via copyright;
It works in spite of copyright. Big difference.
So yeah, it's hilarious that the pirate work is copyrighted, with a huge copyright notice on the second page to boot.
"Ha ha. Look at that water. It is so wet. Isn't that hilarious."
And it's hilarious that Pirate Mike keeps featuring books that use copyright
Please provide a current book that is not covered by copyright. All the books from prior to 1923 don't have a lot to do with current copyright, patent, trademark and technology.
On the post: Join Us Thursday For A Conversation With Rob Reid, Author Of Year Zero; Plus August's Book Of The Month
Re:
I think you missed a word there. But in response, the book is copyrighted by default. There is no opting out of copyright. So highlighting that the book is covered by copyright is like saying water is wet.
Copyright-as-business model? Yep.
Um...No. Copyright itself is not a business model and never will be. It is a fact of doing business. That's like say "driving on roads is the business model of transport."
Would Mike approve if the copyright holder enforced its copyright against an infringer? Nope. He'd blame the rightholder and not the pirate for the pirate's decision to violate the rightholder's rights. Every time.
No. Mike would have issue withe the idea of suing someone based on IP only evidence, then seeking maximum fines and forcing someone into lifetime debt. Mike would also take issue with efforts to limit the ability to use something covered by copyright in ways the reader wishes.
Copyrighted? Yep. Proudly noticed on Page 2
See my first response. Plus you completely ignore that they are opting out of enforcing the majority of what copyright law allows.
Is it funny that pirates are copyrighting their works? Yes. Absolutely.
Ummm....They want people to share the book for free. Says so right there on page 2 of the book. Why is that funny? Because you can't comprehend that someone would be willing to allow free sharing of their work?
Is it funny that Pirate Mike's pirate buddies are relying on copyright? More than words can adequately capture.
Relying on copyright? Are you insane? If they could, I am sure they would be willing to opt out of copyright completely. But as I have already stated, copyright is forced on them. It is not a choice they made.
Do TDers even read books? I have serious, serious doubts.
Do you comprehend what you read? I have serious, serious doubts.
On the post: Authors Guild Asks For $750 For Every Book Google Scans; While Google Points Out That There's No Evidence Of Any Harm
Re: Well if Google wants to pay by the page....
bob, how do you get by in life for being so stupid? The $750 is the minimum allowed under law for an instance of copyright infringement. There is no estimate in that number, just a "pick a big number out of a hat" method.
On the post: Authors Guild Asks For $750 For Every Book Google Scans; While Google Points Out That There's No Evidence Of Any Harm
Re: Re: Re: big mistake on Google's part
Google is making a HUGE contribution, and one that the authors and publishers are not doing. They are making a giant index of all the books it can. This giant index of books is a very useful service, not just for the public, but also for authors who's books would have gone unnoticed in a physical library search.
On the post: Authors Guild Asks For $750 For Every Book Google Scans; While Google Points Out That There's No Evidence Of Any Harm
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Authors Guild Asks For $750 For Every Book Google Scans; While Google Points Out That There's No Evidence Of Any Harm
Re:
Considering search is part of Google's core business, I don't see why indexing physical works is any different than indexing digital works.
either driving people to buy the book
Are you serious in implying that acting as a free advertising tool for books is a negative?
or more likely to drive the people to download the scanned copy. After all, if the scanned copy is fair use to display online, why would it not be fair use to let people download the full scan?
Google is not arguing that letting people download a full copy of the book is fair use. They are arguing that indexing a book and pointing people to digital text from the book is fair use.
On the post: Game Developers Concerned About A Potentially Closed Windows 8
Re:
And companies like Canonical and Red Hat have been working toward that end for years now and have created soem very user friendly distributions. Pretty much plug and play.
They don't want to have to bodge around with settings and drivers and compatibility issues.
After 7 years of using Linux, I have never encountered a hardware compatibility issue. Most of that is because I do my research before hand. As an interesting aside, My mom bought a wireless Linksys card for one of her Windows PCs. No matter what she tried, she could never get it installed correctly. I plugged it into one of my Linux computers and it detected and started to use the Wireless card in seconds.
On the post: Game Developers Concerned About A Potentially Closed Windows 8
Re:
Software is moving online anyway, why is that a problem?
Half the software on the net is distributed as source code that you have to compile yourself.
No you don't.
Virtually every Linux program requires you to have at least two other packages installed.
Kind of like just about every Windows program.
The Linux/Unix programming philosophy seems to be "Never do automatically in one step, what you can make the user do manually in 5-10 steps."
That is your perception. However, the reality is that everything comes in one click installs for most common distributions like Ubuntu and Fedora.
Linux users will claim that you can run any Windows software in WINE, but if you search the net, you can find hundreds of messages from people who have having problems getting software, particularly games, to run in WINE.
No, they say that there is a potential to run most Windows software using WINE with little issue.
On the post: Game Developers Concerned About A Potentially Closed Windows 8
Re:
I think the problem is that desktop mode is not the default. Installing applications to it is not as simple as it is for the Metro UI. If Microsoft follows through with its plans to make using the desktop as painful as possible for the casual user, it is effectively locked down.
On the post: Game Developers Concerned About A Potentially Closed Windows 8
Re: I can't tell why the anger...
If Microsoft makes it a pain for the casual computer user to install unsigned apps, they have effectively closed off the platform. News has already been spreading that Microsoft is blocking the ability to boot directly to the desktop experience, which forces everyone into the Metro UI first and then switch. Since only signed apps are compatible with Metro, they are forcing people into their walled garden from the start.
On the post: NYTimes Columnist Explains How He Torrented 'The Bourne Identity' Because It Wasn't Available... Then Sent A Check
Re: Re: Re: Weird
Finally, their request was granted and they immediately flew to New York and then on west to Yellowstone. They reported to the local ranger station and were told that it was the grizzly mating season and it was much too dangerous to go out and study the animals.
They pleaded that this was their only chance. Finally the ranger relented. The Russian and the Czech were given cell phones and told to report in each and every day.
For several days they called in, and then nothing was heard from the two scientists. The rangers mounted a search party and found the scientists' camp completely ravaged. No sign of the missing men.
They then followed the trail of a male and a female bear. They found the female and decided they must kill the animal to find out if she had eaten the scientists because they feared an international incident.
They killed the female and cut open the bear's stomach... only to find the remains of the Russian.
One ranger turned to the other and said, "You know what this means, don't you?"
"Of course," the other ranger nodded. "The Czech is in the male."
On the post: Defensive Posturing: E-Book Author Takes On The 'Old Guard' At Crime Writing Festival [UPDATED]
Re:
That is the nature of the beast isn't it? There was once a time when authors, through a gatekeeper, had a lock on all the eyeballs. They had a guaranteed audience during that "golden" era. They could release and the publisher could "guarantee" a certain number of sales with little effort on the part of the author.
Now times have changed. The market has been opened. The gates have been torn down. Now there is real competition for authors. Now they have to fight for the eyeballs. No more free rides. It is now a survival of the fittest situation. Despite what you believe, this is actually good for authors. It forces them to not only be better writers, but also better people. More open, more accessible. More human.
End result? Recorded music sales are way down, and remarkably, tours aren't selling out, venues are closing, and business sucks. Moreover an entire generation has been trained not the pay for music.
Recorded music as in physical album sales are down. That is for sure. But over all the total music industry's revenue is growing. What has happened to legacy gatekeeper labels is that a whole lot of competition appeared over night when the internet could support the distribution of music and the income is being spread to more artists. Same thing that is happening in publishing.
Face it, there are no more free rides.
In books, it's worse - because there is no real upsell available. Authors are not out doing 20,000 seat arenas every night. Speaking tours for most have limited appeal.
Obviously, you are not creative enough. Private readings, early access, special edition copies of books, etc.
Dirty cheap / free is the easiest sale in the world, and that's why sellers with no imagination go there.
Or people who understand economies of scale. One thing that people like you complain about is the idea of going from analog dollars to digital dimes. However, the problem with that line of thinking is that you are not thinking in scale. 10,000 digital dimes is worth a lot more that 100 analog dollars.
On the post: Defensive Posturing: E-Book Author Takes On The 'Old Guard' At Crime Writing Festival [UPDATED]
Re: Using fans to edit and proof-read???
I have read a number of books that were "professionally" edited that still contained typos, grammatical errors and even plot holes. All things that a "professional" editor is supposed to catch. Imagine if I was able to inform the authors prior to publishing. The books would have been better than they were.
On the post: Homeland Security Issuing Its Own DMCA Takedowns On YouTube To Stifle Speech
Re:
On the post: Eleven Year Old Kid Shows That Modern Airport Security Is Not As Secure A You Think
Re:
On the post: Patton Oswalt Explains That There Are No More Gatekeepers In Entertainment
Re: And cue...
On the post: Ubisoft DRM Fiasco: Allows Any Website To Take Control Of Your Computer
Re: Re: Re: Not DRM...
On the post: Time Warner Cable Is Ready For A 'Conversation' About Rising Costs, But Not The One You Want To Have
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>