Your link to The Economist debate -- which, by the way, we linked to at the time it actually happened -- merely shows that two economists they had in the debate both think copyright makes sense. I don't quite see how a sample size of 2 proves anything.
MIKE :"Your link to The Economist debate -- which, by the way, we linked to at the time it actually happened -- merely shows that two economists they had in the debate both think copyright makes sense. I don't quite see how a sample size of 2 proves anything."
ME :
The ECONOMIST is standard reading in elite intellectual circles. Professors , Lawyers, Judges , SCOTUS , and POTUS
read it . It is stand academic fare,
Techdirt is not . You , Mike are not.
Techdirt is "comic book level" debate on COPY RIGHTS for Artists.
Two professors debate copyright laws and the future.
However neither supports abolishing it !!!!
As I said :: "I guess they could not find a sane person in academics who believes that."
They debate copyright at the ECONOMIST, and your basic view and premise Mike , is not even offered as a sane alternative.
That is my point -- which is pretty clear to any intellectually honest mind.
THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS , Mike.
Your View on ARTist COPY RIGHTS , is bizarre by all moral academic standards.
--------------------------
I also watched the video here , on "the ill ethics of IP."
The proff there , really is talking about Patent and DNA stuff at his CORE .
Most of his points are good. His conclusions , in an academic laboratory are fine for what it is - a debate in an academic laboratory -- which little real world application , out side of patents and DNA stuff.
I seriously doubt the the "Is IP unethical Guy " , would want to see commercials like :
"Why MY NEW Car NEVER Weeps",
, w/o Mrs. Olivia Harrison's very clear OK. ( She won't ok it ,, thank G-D !)
---------------------------
MIKE :
"Also, Karl completely destroyed your arguments in the past, with multiple links to sources, and your response was "pirate logic."
ME: If you are havering to lean on KARL, you are really in a bad spot. Karl, was harping on my Beatle Cover @ MySpace, till Suzzanne L. explained to him Musician Culture.
You , Mike. even highlighted "Artist Culture means no suing other ARTISTS" in you AP photo Obama re-work-photo post . Good faith-ed ARTIST almost never SUE , good faith-ed ARTISTs.
My point for weeks , that KARL , just could not understand , till Suzanne L. [SL],
a professional MUSIC , writer and PR person , supported my musician culture point clearly in her "objective " writings/ ( I notice you never respond to her post Mike, either. [Coward!!] )
SL and I have become quite good cyber-friends here,, and at Facebook , and in our private emails.
SL thinks , I am sane on copyright , and that your gang here has a lot of "mis-perceptions" . ( She is always polite in here writings)
------------------
And Mike ,, Still waiting on you for "Bruce Springsteen vs. John McCain".
Do you Mike thing Bruce had the Legal?
Moral ?
Ethical ?
Natural?
G-d given ? --RIGHT ?
to tell McCain to stop using Springsteen Songs???
During the very HISTORIC 2008 Presidential Campaign ..
Answer :
1] clear from all angles asked,
2] please , site sources from
2a] SCOTUS themselves [only] ,
and
2b] major philosophers and
3] detail you positions clearly -- even cite how the "other site might see".
4] PROVIDE your answers with ALL normal academic , intellectual , and journalist integrity ,,please ..
or
5] you will look like a fool at this stage of the game. and get a bad grade -- from your READERS.
--------------
have a nice day.
====================== e === n ==== d ===== //
YOU :"To be fair, anyone with a pol -sci degree would get laughed out of everywhere for having such a useless degree."
ANS : Except President Woodrow Wilson. (PhD Poly -sci)
And both President Bill Clinton . and President Barack Obama were Constitutional Law Professors. ( very good Proffs , people say.)
Constitutional law , is a sub-discipline of Political Science.
And then there is SCOTUS.
All Poly-Sci- political theory -- constitutional Law folks.
It's their Job.
So your comment "To be fair, anyone with a pol0sci degree would get laughed out of everywhere for having such a useless degree.",, really shows what a dismissive fool you are.
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT RESPONSE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES, THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION AND THE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES TO THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
RESPONSE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES, THE
AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION AND THE ASSOCIATION OF
COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES TO THE INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR’S REQUEST FOR
COMMENTS ON THE JOINT STRATEGIC PLAN
Digital technologies and investments in cyber- and information infrastructure have fundamentally changed how science is conducted. This change was noted in the National Science Foundation’s Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21st Century Discovery, which stated that “…converging advances in networking, software, visualization, data systems, and collaboration platforms are changing the way research and education are accomplished.” Central to this transformation is scientific data.
Recent reports such as the National Academies report, Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, reflect the pressing need to ensure an environment that is conducive to enabling the United States to meet the global challenges of the 21st century. This means that researchers, scientists, students, and members of the public must be empowered by having the full array of information resources including scientific data available to them to promote discovery and advance science, research, and education. To this end, many federal agencies are considering and/or implementing data policies. http://www.arl.org/pp/access/data/index.shtml
ARL Copyright Statement
Unless otherwise noted, copyright of the material on this server is held by ARL. Permission is granted to reproduce and distribute copies of the work for noncommercial purposes, provided that copies are distributed free of charge, and that the author, source, and copyright notice are included on each copy. This permission is in addition to rights of reproduction granted under Sections 107, 108, and other provisions of the US Copyright Act. These items may be further forwarded and distributed in the network, so long as the statement of copyright remains intact. For further information, contact Lee Anne George, Publications Program Officer, Association of Research Libraries.
It is a principle of American law that an author of a work may reap the fruits of his or her intellectual creativity for a limited period of time. Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States for original works of authorship, including literary, dramatic, musical, architectural, cartographic, choreographic, pantomimic, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, and audiovisual creations. “Copyright” literally means the right to copy. The term has come to mean that body of exclusive rights granted by law to authors for protection of their work. The owner of copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and, in the case of certain works, publicly perform or display the work; to prepare derivative works; in the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission; or to license others to engage in the same acts under specific terms and conditions. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, slogan, principle, or discovery.
Role of the Copyright Office
The Copyright Office is an office of record, a place where claims to copyright are registered and where documents relating to copyright may be recorded when the requirements of the copyright law are met. The Copyright Office furnishes information about the provisions of the copyright law and the procedures for making a registration or recordation, explains the operations and practices of the Copyright Office, and reports on facts found in the public records of the Office. The Office also administers the mandatory deposit provisions of the copyright law and the various compulsory licensing provisions of the law, which include collecting royalties.
In addition, the Copyright Office provides expert assistance to Congress on intellectual property matters; advises Congress on anticipated changes in U.S. copyright law; analyzes and assists in drafting copyright legislation and legislative reports; provides and undertakes studies for Congress; and offers advice to Congress on compliance with multilateral agreements, such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The Office works with the executive branch’s Department of State, the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office, and the Department of Commerce in providing technical expertise in negotiations for international intellectual property agreements; and provides technical assistance to other countries in developing their own copyright laws.
-----------------
Notable Dates in United States Copyright
August 18, 1787
James Madison submitted to the framers of the Constitution a provision “to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time.”
June 23, 1789
First federal bill relating to copyrights (H.R. 10) presented to the first Congress.
May 31, 1790
First copyright law enacted under the new U.S. Constitution. Term of 14 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years. Books, maps, and charts protected. Copyright registration made in the U.S. District Court where the author or proprietor resided.
June 9, 1790
First copyright entry, The Philadelphia Spelling Book by John Barry, registered in the U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania.
April 29, 1802
Prints added to protected works.
February 3, 1831
First general revision of the copyright law. Music added to works protected against unauthorized printing and vending. First term of copyright extended to 28 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years.
August 18, 1856
Dramatic compositions added to protected works.
December 31, 1864
President Abraham Lincoln appoints Ainsworth Rand Spofford to be the sixth Librarian of Congress. Spofford served as the de facto Register of Copyrights until the position of Register was created in 1897.
March 3, 1865
Photographs and photographic negatives added to protected works.
July 8, 1870
Second general revision of the copyright law. Copyright activities, including deposit and registration, centralized in the Library of Congress. Works of art added to protected works. Act reserved to authors the right to create certain derivative works including translations and dramatizations. Indexing of the record of registrations began.
March 3, 1891
First U.S. copyright law authorizing establishment of copyright relations with foreign countries. Records of works registered, now called the Catalog of Copyright Entries, published in book form for the first time in July 1891.
January 6, 1897
Music protected against unauthorized public performance.
February 19, 1897
Copyright Office established as a separate department of the Library of Congress. Position of Register of Copyrights created.
July 1, 1909
Effective date of third general revision of the copyright law. Admission of certain classes of unpublished works to copyright registration. Term of statutory protection for a work copyrighted in published form measured from the date of publication of the work. Renewal term extended from 14 to 28 years.
August 24, 1912
Motion pictures, previously registered as photographs, added to classes of protected works.
July 13, 1914
President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed U.S. adherence to Buenos Aires Copyright Convention of 1910, establishing convention protection between the United States and certain Latin American nations.
July 1, 1940
Effective date of transfer of jurisdiction for the registration of commercial prints and labels from the Patent Office to the Copyright Office.
July 30, 1947
Copyright law codified into positive law as title 17 of the U.S. Code.
January 1, 1953
Recording and performing rights extended to nondramatic literary works.
September 16, 1955
Effective date of the coming into force in the United States of the Universal Copyright Convention as signed at Geneva, Switzerland, on September 6, 1952. Proclaimed by President Dwight Eisenhower. Also, date of related changes in title 17 of the U.S. Code.
September 19, 1962
First of nine special acts extending terms of subsisting renewal copyrights pending congressional action on general copyright law revision.
February 15, 1972
Effective date of act extending limited copyright protection to sound recordings fixed and first published on or after this date.
March 10, 1974
United States became a member of the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms, which came into force on April 18, 1973.
July 10, 1974
United States became party to the 1971 revision of the Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris, France.
October 19, 1976
Fourth general revision of the copyright law signed by President Gerald Ford.
January 1, 1978
Effective date of principal provisions of the 1976 copyright law. The term of protection for works created on or after this date consists of the life of the author and 50 years after the author's death. Numerous other provisions modernized the law.
December 12, 1980
Copyright law amended regarding computer programs.
May 24, 1982
Section 506(a) amended to provide that persons who infringe copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be punished as provided in Section 2319 of title 18 of the U.S. Code, “Crimes and Criminal Procedure.”
October 4, 1984
Effective date of Record Rental Amendments of 1984. Grants the owner of copyright in a sound recording the right to authorize or prohibit the rental, lease, or lending of phonorecords for direct or indirect commercial purposes.
November 8, 1984
Federal statutory protection for mask works became available under the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act, with the Copyright Office assuming administrative responsibility. Copyright Office began registration of claims to protection on January 7, 1985.
June 30, 1986
Manufacturing clause of the Copyright Act expired.
March 1, 1989
United States adhered to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
November 15, 1990
Section 511 added to copyright law. Provides that states and state employees and instrumentalities are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit for copyright infringement.
December 1, 1990
Effective date of the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act. Grants the owner of copyright in computer programs the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the rental, lease, or lending of the program for direct or indirect commercial purposes.
December 1, 1990
Protection extended to architectural works. Section 106A added to copyright law by Visual Artists Rights Act. Grants to visual artists certain moral rights of attribution and integrity.
June 26, 1992
Renewal registration became optional. Works copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977, automatically renewed even if registration not made.
October 28, 1992
Digital Audio Home Recording Act required serial copy management systems in digital audio recorders and imposed royalties on sale of digital audio recording devices and media. Royalties are collected, invested, and distributed among the owners of sound recording and musical compositions, certain performing artists and/or their representatives. Clarified legality of home taping of analog and digital sound recordings for private noncommercial use.
December 8, 1993
North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (NAFTA) extended retroactive copyright protection to certain motion pictures first fixed in Canada or Mexico between January 1, 1978, and March 1, 1989, and published anywhere without a copyright notice; and/or to any work embodied in them; and made permanent the prohibition of sound recordings rental.
December 17, 1993
Copyright Royalty Tribunal Reform Act of 1993 eliminated the CRT and replaced it with ad hoc Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels administered by the Librarian of Congress and the Copyright Office.
December 8, 1994
Uruguay Round Agreements Act restored copyright to certain foreign works under protection in the source country but in the public domain in the United States; repealed sunset of the Software Rental Amendments Act; and created legal measures to prohibit the unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings of live musical performances and music videos.
November 16, 1997
The No Electronic Theft Act defined “financial gain” in relation to copyright infringement and set penalties for willfully infringing a copyright either for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain or by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means phonorecords of a certain value.
October 27, 1998
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended the term of copyright protection for most works to the life of the author plus 70 years after the author’s death.
October 28, 1998
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provided for the implementation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty; limited certain online infringement liability for Internet service providers; created an exemption permitting a temporary reproduction of a computer program made by activating a computer in the course of maintenance or repair; clarified the policy role of the
Copyright Office; and created a form of protection for vessel hulls.
November 2, 2002
The Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act provided for the use of copyrighted works by accredited nonprofit educational institutions in distance education.
November 30, 2004
The Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act phased out the Copyright Arbitration Rlyalty Panel system and replaced it with the Copyright Royalty Board
April 27, 2005
The Artists’ Rights and Theft Preservation Act allowed for preregistration of certain works being prepared for commercial distribution.
December 11, 2006
New Copyright Public Records Reading Room opened to the public.
July 1, 2008
Electronic registration on the Copyright Office website made available to the public.
---------------------------------------- http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html
Re: Re: Re: Re: In other words, the constitution does not require the government to grant copyrights or patents, only allows it.
Automatic copyright was only in effect in 1"891 and beyond. So where are you getting 233 years from?"
Does not affect my point :
I do NOT have to get FORMAL copyright for my songs. NOR A poet for their poems.
Public , witnessed , dated performance is all you need to LEGALLY establish copyright.
The Copyright office , just centralized the data , of who owns what , an from what date. That is ALL it does.
All you show is that the LAW WAS improved in 1891 , to make artist protection easier.
Thank you for you help there . Really.
Shot yourself in the foot often ? While your foot is in your mouth?
--------------------
YOU "My interpretation is just fine thank you very much. It's very much in line with the statements of T.J. and J.M. as well as with the wording of the clause itself.
Ans : what is your college degree in? Clearly not Poly-Sci of a related discipline. You would be laughed out of a poly -sci , civil liberties ,or philosophy class
Re: Re: Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.I have a right to copy, their ability to prevent me from copying is a privilege. No, they don't get to determine my rights and take them away.
YOU :"I have a right to copy, their ability to prevent me from copying is a privilege."
ME : Then Overthrow the Government and Write a new constitution.
(but , if you go carrying a picture of chairman Mao.. you ain't gonna make it with anyone any HOW... shooby -do-whop, bop -shoopy do whop http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imb4tYOk8GE
The Beatles - Revolution (Live))
Re: Re: In other words, the constitution does not require the government to grant copyrights or patents, only allows it.
What you state is correct. Your interpretation is backwards.
As , i stated ,, UNDER LAW as it stand now and for 233 yrs, since the Constitution was ratified, I do NOT have to get FORMAL copyright for my songs. NOR A poet for their poems.
Public , witnessed , dated performance is all you need to LEGALLY establish copyright.
The Copyright office , just centralized the data , of who owns what , an from what date. That is ALL it does.
-------------
War & the War Powers Act , and funding undeclared war , is to too far afield to start here. Apples and oranges, No parallels
In the world Mike would like we can paste his head on the body in the video attached to article and Mike can claim it. Why not? After all any claim to IP rights by Kinesela is unethical and therefor should be suppressed, even made a criminal act.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: still shilling? // n the Copyright Clause was passed unanimously and without quarrel.
n the Copyright Clause was passed unanimously and without quarrel.
ANS : thank you for pointing that out.
But the Pirates will ignore the facts of history , law and philosophy-- and keep their , illegal downloading , circumventing file-sharing ,, & cheating something for nothing,, ways of crime.
Laws will get stronger as time marches on..
Piracy will not go away ,, ----but it will be curtailed , and fought & prosecuted by Governments all over,
No evidence the founding fathers believed in intellectual property, and there are other documents indicating some of them explicitly rejected the idea that the products of the mind can be owned.
you :"No evidence the founding fathers believed in intellectual property, and there are other documents indicating some of them explicitly rejected the idea that the products of the mind can be owned."
ans : re: "rejected the idea that the products of the mind can be owned."
Thoughts and ideas still within the mind : YES
Creations: No !! Art , songs, Book, Poems, Inventions,, all con be owned -- Controlled ,, by the creating person for limited time-- as set by Congress.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Your link to The Economist debate -- which, by the way, we linked to at the time it actually happened -- merely shows that two economists they had in the debate both think copyright makes sense. I don't quite see how a sample size of 2 proves anything.
ME :
The ECONOMIST is standard reading in elite intellectual circles. Professors , Lawyers, Judges , SCOTUS , and POTUS
read it . It is stand academic fare,
Techdirt is not . You , Mike are not.
Techdirt is "comic book level" debate on COPY RIGHTS for Artists.
Two professors debate copyright laws and the future.
However neither supports abolishing it !!!!
As I said :: "I guess they could not find a sane person in academics who believes that."
They debate copyright at the ECONOMIST, and your basic view and premise Mike , is not even offered as a sane alternative.
That is my point -- which is pretty clear to any intellectually honest mind.
THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS , Mike.
Your View on ARTist COPY RIGHTS , is bizarre by all moral academic standards.
--------------------------
I also watched the video here , on "the ill ethics of IP."
The proff there , really is talking about Patent and DNA stuff at his CORE .
Most of his points are good. His conclusions , in an academic laboratory are fine for what it is - a debate in an academic laboratory -- which little real world application , out side of patents and DNA stuff.
I seriously doubt the the "Is IP unethical Guy " , would want to see commercials like :
"Why MY NEW Car NEVER Weeps",
, w/o Mrs. Olivia Harrison's very clear OK. ( She won't ok it ,, thank G-D !)
---------------------------
MIKE :
"Also, Karl completely destroyed your arguments in the past, with multiple links to sources, and your response was "pirate logic."
ME: If you are havering to lean on KARL, you are really in a bad spot. Karl, was harping on my Beatle Cover @ MySpace, till Suzzanne L. explained to him Musician Culture.
You , Mike. even highlighted "Artist Culture means no suing other ARTISTS" in you AP photo Obama re-work-photo post . Good faith-ed ARTIST almost never SUE , good faith-ed ARTISTs.
My point for weeks , that KARL , just could not understand , till Suzanne L. [SL],
a professional MUSIC , writer and PR person , supported my musician culture point clearly in her "objective " writings/ ( I notice you never respond to her post Mike, either. [Coward!!] )
SL and I have become quite good cyber-friends here,, and at Facebook , and in our private emails.
SL thinks , I am sane on copyright , and that your gang here has a lot of "mis-perceptions" . ( She is always polite in here writings)
------------------
And Mike ,, Still waiting on you for "Bruce Springsteen vs. John McCain".
Do you Mike thing Bruce had the Legal?
Moral ?
Ethical ?
Natural?
G-d given ? --RIGHT ?
to tell McCain to stop using Springsteen Songs???
During the very HISTORIC 2008 Presidential Campaign ..
Answer :
1] clear from all angles asked,
2] please , site sources from
2a] SCOTUS themselves [only] ,
and
2b] major philosophers and
3] detail you positions clearly -- even cite how the "other site might see".
4] PROVIDE your answers with ALL normal academic , intellectual , and journalist integrity ,,please ..
or
5] you will look like a fool at this stage of the game. and get a bad grade -- from your READERS.
--------------
have a nice day.
====================== e === n ==== d ===== //
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
HUGE difference. You have no links backing you up.
I source when ever necessary. With links. Often at the bottom of the page. Like this thread, see bottom of page,
ALSO : Feel free to use Google to check my facts and viewpoints based on Law and History
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: Except President Woodrow Wilson. (PhD Poly -sci)
our postings crossed. Please accept apologies .
with people posting against me 100 to 1 , I jumped the gun , i did not realize you were joshing.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Except President Woodrow Wilson. (PhD Poly -sci)
ANS : Except President Woodrow Wilson. (PhD Poly -sci)
And both President Bill Clinton . and President Barack Obama were Constitutional Law Professors. ( very good Proffs , people say.)
Constitutional law , is a sub-discipline of Political Science.
And then there is SCOTUS.
All Poly-Sci- political theory -- constitutional Law folks.
It's their Job.
So your comment "To be fair, anyone with a pol0sci degree would get laughed out of everywhere for having such a useless degree.",, really shows what a dismissive fool you are.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT RESPONSE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES, THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION AND THE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES TO THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
RESPONSE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES, THE
AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION AND THE ASSOCIATION OF
COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES TO THE INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR’S REQUEST FOR
COMMENTS ON THE JOINT STRATEGIC PLAN
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arl-ala-acrl-ipec-comments.pdf
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
© Association of Research Libraries
http://www.arl.org/pp/access/data/index.shtml
Digital technologies and investments in cyber- and information infrastructure have fundamentally changed how science is conducted. This change was noted in the National Science Foundation’s Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21st Century Discovery, which stated that “…converging advances in networking, software, visualization, data systems, and collaboration platforms are changing the way research and education are accomplished.” Central to this transformation is scientific data.
Recent reports such as the National Academies report, Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, reflect the pressing need to ensure an environment that is conducive to enabling the United States to meet the global challenges of the 21st century. This means that researchers, scientists, students, and members of the public must be empowered by having the full array of information resources including scientific data available to them to promote discovery and advance science, research, and education. To this end, many federal agencies are considering and/or implementing data policies.
http://www.arl.org/pp/access/data/index.shtml
ARL Copyright Statement
Unless otherwise noted, copyright of the material on this server is held by ARL. Permission is granted to reproduce and distribute copies of the work for noncommercial purposes, provided that copies are distributed free of charge, and that the author, source, and copyright notice are included on each copy. This permission is in addition to rights of reproduction granted under Sections 107, 108, and other provisions of the US Copyright Act. These items may be further forwarded and distributed in the network, so long as the statement of copyright remains intact. For further information, contact Lee Anne George, Publications Program Officer, Association of Research Libraries.
Last modified: April 21, 2010
http://www.arl.org/copyrightstmt.shtml
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
United States Copyright Office A Brief Introduction and History
A Brief Introduction and History
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html
It is a principle of American law that an author of a work may reap the fruits of his or her intellectual creativity for a limited period of time. Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States for original works of authorship, including literary, dramatic, musical, architectural, cartographic, choreographic, pantomimic, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, and audiovisual creations. “Copyright” literally means the right to copy. The term has come to mean that body of exclusive rights granted by law to authors for protection of their work. The owner of copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and, in the case of certain works, publicly perform or display the work; to prepare derivative works; in the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission; or to license others to engage in the same acts under specific terms and conditions. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, slogan, principle, or discovery.
Role of the Copyright Office
The Copyright Office is an office of record, a place where claims to copyright are registered and where documents relating to copyright may be recorded when the requirements of the copyright law are met. The Copyright Office furnishes information about the provisions of the copyright law and the procedures for making a registration or recordation, explains the operations and practices of the Copyright Office, and reports on facts found in the public records of the Office. The Office also administers the mandatory deposit provisions of the copyright law and the various compulsory licensing provisions of the law, which include collecting royalties.
In addition, the Copyright Office provides expert assistance to Congress on intellectual property matters; advises Congress on anticipated changes in U.S. copyright law; analyzes and assists in drafting copyright legislation and legislative reports; provides and undertakes studies for Congress; and offers advice to Congress on compliance with multilateral agreements, such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The Office works with the executive branch’s Department of State, the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office, and the Department of Commerce in providing technical expertise in negotiations for international intellectual property agreements; and provides technical assistance to other countries in developing their own copyright laws.
-----------------
Notable Dates in United States Copyright
August 18, 1787
James Madison submitted to the framers of the Constitution a provision “to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time.”
June 23, 1789
First federal bill relating to copyrights (H.R. 10) presented to the first Congress.
May 31, 1790
First copyright law enacted under the new U.S. Constitution. Term of 14 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years. Books, maps, and charts protected. Copyright registration made in the U.S. District Court where the author or proprietor resided.
June 9, 1790
First copyright entry, The Philadelphia Spelling Book by John Barry, registered in the U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania.
April 29, 1802
Prints added to protected works.
February 3, 1831
First general revision of the copyright law. Music added to works protected against unauthorized printing and vending. First term of copyright extended to 28 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years.
August 18, 1856
Dramatic compositions added to protected works.
December 31, 1864
President Abraham Lincoln appoints Ainsworth Rand Spofford to be the sixth Librarian of Congress. Spofford served as the de facto Register of Copyrights until the position of Register was created in 1897.
March 3, 1865
Photographs and photographic negatives added to protected works.
July 8, 1870
Second general revision of the copyright law. Copyright activities, including deposit and registration, centralized in the Library of Congress. Works of art added to protected works. Act reserved to authors the right to create certain derivative works including translations and dramatizations. Indexing of the record of registrations began.
March 3, 1891
First U.S. copyright law authorizing establishment of copyright relations with foreign countries. Records of works registered, now called the Catalog of Copyright Entries, published in book form for the first time in July 1891.
January 6, 1897
Music protected against unauthorized public performance.
February 19, 1897
Copyright Office established as a separate department of the Library of Congress. Position of Register of Copyrights created.
July 1, 1909
Effective date of third general revision of the copyright law. Admission of certain classes of unpublished works to copyright registration. Term of statutory protection for a work copyrighted in published form measured from the date of publication of the work. Renewal term extended from 14 to 28 years.
August 24, 1912
Motion pictures, previously registered as photographs, added to classes of protected works.
July 13, 1914
President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed U.S. adherence to Buenos Aires Copyright Convention of 1910, establishing convention protection between the United States and certain Latin American nations.
July 1, 1940
Effective date of transfer of jurisdiction for the registration of commercial prints and labels from the Patent Office to the Copyright Office.
July 30, 1947
Copyright law codified into positive law as title 17 of the U.S. Code.
January 1, 1953
Recording and performing rights extended to nondramatic literary works.
September 16, 1955
Effective date of the coming into force in the United States of the Universal Copyright Convention as signed at Geneva, Switzerland, on September 6, 1952. Proclaimed by President Dwight Eisenhower. Also, date of related changes in title 17 of the U.S. Code.
September 19, 1962
First of nine special acts extending terms of subsisting renewal copyrights pending congressional action on general copyright law revision.
February 15, 1972
Effective date of act extending limited copyright protection to sound recordings fixed and first published on or after this date.
March 10, 1974
United States became a member of the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms, which came into force on April 18, 1973.
July 10, 1974
United States became party to the 1971 revision of the Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris, France.
October 19, 1976
Fourth general revision of the copyright law signed by President Gerald Ford.
January 1, 1978
Effective date of principal provisions of the 1976 copyright law. The term of protection for works created on or after this date consists of the life of the author and 50 years after the author's death. Numerous other provisions modernized the law.
December 12, 1980
Copyright law amended regarding computer programs.
May 24, 1982
Section 506(a) amended to provide that persons who infringe copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be punished as provided in Section 2319 of title 18 of the U.S. Code, “Crimes and Criminal Procedure.”
October 4, 1984
Effective date of Record Rental Amendments of 1984. Grants the owner of copyright in a sound recording the right to authorize or prohibit the rental, lease, or lending of phonorecords for direct or indirect commercial purposes.
November 8, 1984
Federal statutory protection for mask works became available under the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act, with the Copyright Office assuming administrative responsibility. Copyright Office began registration of claims to protection on January 7, 1985.
June 30, 1986
Manufacturing clause of the Copyright Act expired.
March 1, 1989
United States adhered to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
November 15, 1990
Section 511 added to copyright law. Provides that states and state employees and instrumentalities are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit for copyright infringement.
December 1, 1990
Effective date of the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act. Grants the owner of copyright in computer programs the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the rental, lease, or lending of the program for direct or indirect commercial purposes.
December 1, 1990
Protection extended to architectural works. Section 106A added to copyright law by Visual Artists Rights Act. Grants to visual artists certain moral rights of attribution and integrity.
June 26, 1992
Renewal registration became optional. Works copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977, automatically renewed even if registration not made.
October 28, 1992
Digital Audio Home Recording Act required serial copy management systems in digital audio recorders and imposed royalties on sale of digital audio recording devices and media. Royalties are collected, invested, and distributed among the owners of sound recording and musical compositions, certain performing artists and/or their representatives. Clarified legality of home taping of analog and digital sound recordings for private noncommercial use.
December 8, 1993
North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (NAFTA) extended retroactive copyright protection to certain motion pictures first fixed in Canada or Mexico between January 1, 1978, and March 1, 1989, and published anywhere without a copyright notice; and/or to any work embodied in them; and made permanent the prohibition of sound recordings rental.
December 17, 1993
Copyright Royalty Tribunal Reform Act of 1993 eliminated the CRT and replaced it with ad hoc Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels administered by the Librarian of Congress and the Copyright Office.
December 8, 1994
Uruguay Round Agreements Act restored copyright to certain foreign works under protection in the source country but in the public domain in the United States; repealed sunset of the Software Rental Amendments Act; and created legal measures to prohibit the unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings of live musical performances and music videos.
November 16, 1997
The No Electronic Theft Act defined “financial gain” in relation to copyright infringement and set penalties for willfully infringing a copyright either for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain or by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means phonorecords of a certain value.
October 27, 1998
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended the term of copyright protection for most works to the life of the author plus 70 years after the author’s death.
October 28, 1998
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provided for the implementation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty; limited certain online infringement liability for Internet service providers; created an exemption permitting a temporary reproduction of a computer program made by activating a computer in the course of maintenance or repair; clarified the policy role of the
Copyright Office; and created a form of protection for vessel hulls.
November 2, 2002
The Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act provided for the use of copyrighted works by accredited nonprofit educational institutions in distance education.
November 30, 2004
The Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act phased out the Copyright Arbitration Rlyalty Panel system and replaced it with the Copyright Royalty Board
April 27, 2005
The Artists’ Rights and Theft Preservation Act allowed for preregistration of certain works being prepared for commercial distribution.
December 11, 2006
New Copyright Public Records Reading Room opened to the public.
July 1, 2008
Electronic registration on the Copyright Office website made available to the public.
----------------------------------------
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: Re: Re: In other words, the constitution does not require the government to grant copyrights or patents, only allows it.
Does not affect my point :
I do NOT have to get FORMAL copyright for my songs. NOR A poet for their poems.
Public , witnessed , dated performance is all you need to LEGALLY establish copyright.
The Copyright office , just centralized the data , of who owns what , an from what date. That is ALL it does.
All you show is that the LAW WAS improved in 1891 , to make artist protection easier.
Thank you for you help there . Really.
Shot yourself in the foot often ? While your foot is in your mouth?
--------------------
YOU "My interpretation is just fine thank you very much. It's very much in line with the statements of T.J. and J.M. as well as with the wording of the clause itself.
Ans : what is your college degree in? Clearly not Poly-Sci of a related discipline. You would be laughed out of a poly -sci , civil liberties ,or philosophy class
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: he was either exaggerating his position or simply lying out right, most probably this is a fake person
http://technopoliticalscience.blogspot.com
In NYC ,, famous no ,, well known ,,yes,, politically , and musically.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
he was either exaggerating his position or simply lying out right, most probably this is a fake person
http://technopoliticalscience.blogspot.com/search/label/my%20full%20resume
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.I have a right to copy, their ability to prevent me from copying is a privilege. No, they don't get to determine my rights and take them away.
ME : Then Overthrow the Government and Write a new constitution.
(but , if you go carrying a picture of chairman Mao.. you ain't gonna make it with anyone any HOW... shooby -do-whop, bop -shoopy do whop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imb4tYOk8GE
The Beatles - Revolution (Live))
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: In other words, the constitution does not require the government to grant copyrights or patents, only allows it.
As , i stated ,, UNDER LAW as it stand now and for 233 yrs, since the Constitution was ratified, I do NOT have to get FORMAL copyright for my songs. NOR A poet for their poems.
Public , witnessed , dated performance is all you need to LEGALLY establish copyright.
The Copyright office , just centralized the data , of who owns what , an from what date. That is ALL it does.
-------------
War & the War Powers Act , and funding undeclared war , is to too far afield to start here. Apples and oranges, No parallels
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: Re: I'm saying you're a hypocrite > I am easy to find . i do not hide . I am no AC ,, .REALLY want to sue me or by me a beer.
corrected
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: IP Ethics a Mickey Mouse Argument
ANS : GREAT point. well said .
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Is IP immoral? // The reason for IP laws is that our founding fathers were well aware of the problems of NO IP laws!
ME : EXACTLY
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: still shilling? // n the Copyright Clause was passed unanimously and without quarrel.
ANS : thank you for pointing that out.
But the Pirates will ignore the facts of history , law and philosophy-- and keep their , illegal downloading , circumventing file-sharing ,, & cheating something for nothing,, ways of crime.
Laws will get stronger as time marches on..
Piracy will not go away ,, ----but it will be curtailed , and fought & prosecuted by Governments all over,
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Except there was actually quite a bit of debate about it.
ANS : Not really . And the VOTE was clear.
Copyright was in the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.
The "Bill of RIGHTS" ,, with Free Speech" came AFTER Copyright,, as an amendment offered with the FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS -- the Bill of Rights.
(Grade School Stuff here)
There was more debate on free speech , than there was on copyright.
study history.
Learn the Facts
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
No evidence the founding fathers believed in intellectual property, and there are other documents indicating some of them explicitly rejected the idea that the products of the mind can be owned.
ans : re: "rejected the idea that the products of the mind can be owned."
Thoughts and ideas still within the mind : YES
Creations: No !! Art , songs, Book, Poems, Inventions,, all con be owned -- Controlled ,, by the creating person for limited time-- as set by Congress.
Fact of law and History
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
I write a song. As soon as i play it in public, it is constitutionally protected.
YOU ::
ANS :Sorry WRONG. BIG TIME.
I write a song. As soon as i play it in public, it is constitutionally protected. Every Songwriter & Poet knows that.
It is our job and culture. You do not have to formally copyright.
Creation and public display AUTOMATICALLY protects.
Many folks send a copy registered mail to themselves, and it sets the date of COPY RIGHT fully and legal.
A Patent , MUST be applied for and granted. But the GOV't MUST allow that process and protect the granted Patent.
BASIC Constitutional LAW principles there.
Civil Liberties 101, for non -majors
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: I'm saying you're a hypocrite.
Next >>