My point was that Congress has that power. I wasn't trying to imply that the Constitution forces Copyright on us, but that it allows it and that the concept was already explicitly established when the Constitution was written.
When properly concatenated with the beginning of the section, it reads:
The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
That does two things:
1. It gives Congress the exclusive power to establish Copyright law.
2. It even says what form that law will take - that authors and inventors will have exclusive rights.
Congress has the power to do it. Nobody else does. I was responding to the original assertion that Copyright is Unconstitutional, and I believe I've made my point. It's not, since Copyright is essentially written in to the Constitution - and not even as an amendment, but the actual main body of the Constitution itself.
If I worded it wrong, then sorry... but let's not pick nits here. =)
This is an old battle that's been fought for years and years, and is basically a tax on broadcasters for the benefit of the RIAA. It's silly since it's obvious that the record labels directly value radio airplay, because they pay for it via payola. Arguing that radio stations should have to pay back for the "right" to promote a musician seems kind of silly.
What about the fact that streaming stations have to pay for music? Why does Sirius/XM get a different rate? Shouldn't terrestrial and streaming radio stations play under the same rules?
IMO, all public performances of recordings should play by the same rules: you pay n cents per listener per song, period. I don't care whether it's terrestrial radio, satellite, cable music channel, or Internet music channel.
Aside from that, I think that Copyright law has gotten out of sync with the expectations of the American Public. Law should reflect common morality, not the other way around.
What is happening with Copyright law is that an industry is forcing its desires on the public, and no one is asking us (the public) what WE want.
It's our country, and it should be OUR laws... everyone's laws, not just the laws of one select group of people.
Sorry, but no. The US Constituion explicitly directs Congress to create a system of Copyright and Patent protection.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
I'm thrilled that orphaned works are being addressed.
I strongly believe that works should not be able to go "out of print" in our modern digital age. If a work can't be reasonably and reliably purchased, then some sort of mandatory licensing should be invoked to allow people to buy out of print movies, books, music, and software. The specific fees can be based on industry standards for the type of media and its age.
My solution is actually very simple: when a work is registered with the LOC, the LOC creates a contact entry in their database. That person is required to update his contact information once a year - by Internet or mail.
If the Copyright holder fails to register his address after a period of time, and if a work is no longer reasonably and reliably found for sale, then the work should be classified as abandoned. While a work is abandoned, the owner cannot make any claim under Copyright.
If the person re-connects to the LOC and updates their address, then the owner's rights are restored, and he can assert his rights. Anything distributed during the abandoned phase may continue to be used but not re-distributed.
* Reasonable and reliable: by this, I mean that a work is currently offered for retail sale and is easily available at market value for that type of work.
Examples: You can buy this CD on Amazon for $9. That's reasonable.
There's one copy of a 20 year old CD on EBay from a band that broke up 18 years ago, and it's going for $300. That's neither reasonable nor reliable.
A comic store in Iowa has the only remaining copy of a 40 year old comic book. Not reasonable or reliable.
I'm all in favor of setting up a fund for orphaned works and using these funds to pay owners who re-claim their Copyright. Use the current iTunes/Amazon pricing model as a guideline: $1 for a song, $5 for a book, and $10 for a movie. Let the seller keep 30% and put the rest in the recovery fund. If no one claims it after 5 years, the money can go to a fund that helps legitimate Copyright holders protect their works.
A bill to that effect would totally have stopped the PS3 "other OS" scandal, wouldn't it? Except that the EULA's in place would probably still have had the same result.
What we need is an overhaul of the law regarding EULA's and companies' ability to take away rights with clickwrap agreements. IMO, consumers should be held accountable ONLY to Federal Copyright law when it comes to the purchase of software. A company should not be able to add other restrictions to a software's use, such preventing the program from being resold, through legal or technical means.
If I get bored with an on-line game, I should be able to sell my account, and the developer should not have the right to stop me. If I want to sell an old copy of AutoCAD or OEM copy of an OS, I should be able to.
There are actually GOOD parts to the DMCA. The DMCA was far from a one-sided affair. Among other things, it paved the way for Internet radio stations, which we would probably not have today without some of the framework set up in the DMCA.
But I am with you regarding digital locks: a consumer should have the right to reverse-engineer and unlock a device - whether it be a subsidy lock or a bootloader lock. And this right should not be revokable through a private contract.
People don't seem to realize that a lot of our "rights" are signed away in software EULA's, including the right to reverse-engineer software. IMO, we need more consumer protection when it comes to EULA's, First Sale protection, and consumers being forced to give up their rights in order to purchase or use a piece of software.
And yes, I totally think that consumers should have the right to resell digital downloads.
The law states that lost property should be returned to its owner. You either hand it over to its owner or to the police. You don't take it home and sell it or turn it in to a planter.
If the NSA or the CIA is operating covert surveillance aircraft, they'll probably have some cover company's contact info on it, such as "Ace Arial Photography. If found, please call 212-555-1234."
RC guys do the same thing with their planes. They all include a business card or sticker inside the body of the plane. A model plane with good positive stability could fly for 20 miles or more before its fuel is exhausted.
it's more like: I type in "Iron Man Download" in to Google.
I should get links to iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, and other legit movie download sites. I should not get links to Pirate Bay, P1rat3Streemz, or MegaWarez.
The real issue there, of course, is that TPB does also host legitimate CC and PD downloads, as well as files that are otherwise free to distribute, such as freeware and demo software.
On the other hand, you can usually get free and demoware through non-pirate sites, too, so TPB can't really complain about being downranked when their business model is predicated around illegal downloads to begin with. That would be a little like robbing a bank I work for, then complaining when the same bank shorts me on my paycheck.
I release code under GPL, and I don't do it for any political reason.
I just happen to believe that a "pay it forward" license like the GPL makes the most sense for free software. While the license isn't perfect, it's a lot easier than writing my own license.
Ideally, I would like to see a GPL variant that excludes commercial exploitation.. I don't want to see my free programs bundled up and sold on EBay, for example.
But GPL works perfectly for what it was designed for; it keeps projects like Linux free for people that need free, and it mandates that companies like Red Hat and Google to give their improvements back to the community.
I honestly don't think the current free software ecosystem would be doing nearly as well today without a license like GPL behind it.
I'm also with the LOC on this. The law itself needs to be changed; the exemption should have been a stopgap which should have been permanently fixed before it expired.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
The only problem with the N4 is that both ATT and T-Mobile do not have uniform coverage where I live... they both cut out in enough places that I can't rely on either network exclusively.
And the Nexus 4 does not work on Verizon or Sprint.
Re: Re: If you don't want a locked phone, don't buy one!
This would cover both locked booloaders, which prevent you from installing your own operating system on the device, and subsidy locks, which is what prevents you from using the phone on other carriers.
Both locks are a form of protection and may be covered by the DMCA. (I'm actually not sure if the DMCA actually prohibits this, since subsidy and bootloader locks are not for the purposes of copy protection. Copyright has no interest in enforcing contracts or preserving subscription fees.)
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
The last time I checked, a Copyright has a finite time span. The time is variable, but there is still a finite end to the term of any Copyright.
Is that somehow unlimited (the opposite of limited)?
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
That does two things:
1. It gives Congress the exclusive power to establish Copyright law.
2. It even says what form that law will take - that authors and inventors will have exclusive rights.
Congress has the power to do it. Nobody else does. I was responding to the original assertion that Copyright is Unconstitutional, and I believe I've made my point. It's not, since Copyright is essentially written in to the Constitution - and not even as an amendment, but the actual main body of the Constitution itself.
If I worded it wrong, then sorry... but let's not pick nits here. =)
On the post: More Details On Copyright Office's Suggestions On Copyright Reform; Some Good, Some Bad
What about the fact that streaming stations have to pay for music? Why does Sirius/XM get a different rate? Shouldn't terrestrial and streaming radio stations play under the same rules?
IMO, all public performances of recordings should play by the same rules: you pay n cents per listener per song, period. I don't care whether it's terrestrial radio, satellite, cable music channel, or Internet music channel.
Aside from that, I think that Copyright law has gotten out of sync with the expectations of the American Public. Law should reflect common morality, not the other way around.
What is happening with Copyright law is that an industry is forcing its desires on the public, and no one is asking us (the public) what WE want.
It's our country, and it should be OUR laws... everyone's laws, not just the laws of one select group of people.
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Unconstitutional
from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Orphan Works
I strongly believe that works should not be able to go "out of print" in our modern digital age. If a work can't be reasonably and reliably purchased, then some sort of mandatory licensing should be invoked to allow people to buy out of print movies, books, music, and software. The specific fees can be based on industry standards for the type of media and its age.
My solution is actually very simple: when a work is registered with the LOC, the LOC creates a contact entry in their database. That person is required to update his contact information once a year - by Internet or mail.
If the Copyright holder fails to register his address after a period of time, and if a work is no longer reasonably and reliably found for sale, then the work should be classified as abandoned. While a work is abandoned, the owner cannot make any claim under Copyright.
If the person re-connects to the LOC and updates their address, then the owner's rights are restored, and he can assert his rights. Anything distributed during the abandoned phase may continue to be used but not re-distributed.
* Reasonable and reliable: by this, I mean that a work is currently offered for retail sale and is easily available at market value for that type of work.
Examples: You can buy this CD on Amazon for $9. That's reasonable.
There's one copy of a 20 year old CD on EBay from a band that broke up 18 years ago, and it's going for $300. That's neither reasonable nor reliable.
A comic store in Iowa has the only remaining copy of a 40 year old comic book. Not reasonable or reliable.
I'm all in favor of setting up a fund for orphaned works and using these funds to pay owners who re-claim their Copyright. Use the current iTunes/Amazon pricing model as a guideline: $1 for a song, $5 for a book, and $10 for a movie. Let the seller keep 30% and put the rest in the recovery fund. If no one claims it after 5 years, the money can go to a fund that helps legitimate Copyright holders protect their works.
On the post: Revenge Porn Magnate Gets Hit With $250,000 Defamation Claim
An actual, legit defamation case?
In this case, I have to say - it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
On the post: Congress Rushes To Legalize Phone Unlocking; But Existing Bills Need A Lot More Work
Re: How about this?
What we need is an overhaul of the law regarding EULA's and companies' ability to take away rights with clickwrap agreements. IMO, consumers should be held accountable ONLY to Federal Copyright law when it comes to the purchase of software. A company should not be able to add other restrictions to a software's use, such preventing the program from being resold, through legal or technical means.
If I get bored with an on-line game, I should be able to sell my account, and the developer should not have the right to stop me. If I want to sell an old copy of AutoCAD or OEM copy of an OS, I should be able to.
On the post: Congress Rushes To Legalize Phone Unlocking; But Existing Bills Need A Lot More Work
Re: Easiest way to legalize phone unlocking
But I am with you regarding digital locks: a consumer should have the right to reverse-engineer and unlock a device - whether it be a subsidy lock or a bootloader lock. And this right should not be revokable through a private contract.
People don't seem to realize that a lot of our "rights" are signed away in software EULA's, including the right to reverse-engineer software. IMO, we need more consumer protection when it comes to EULA's, First Sale protection, and consumers being forced to give up their rights in order to purchase or use a piece of software.
And yes, I totally think that consumers should have the right to resell digital downloads.
On the post: What Happens To Drones When They Fall Out Of The Skies?
Re: Drones
See? Now everybody's happy.
On the post: What Happens To Drones When They Fall Out Of The Skies?
Re: Re:
Sorry, lost property laws apply whether the object was dropped there by a visitor or flew in under its own power.
On the post: What Happens To Drones When They Fall Out Of The Skies?
Re: Re:
The law states that lost property should be returned to its owner. You either hand it over to its owner or to the police. You don't take it home and sell it or turn it in to a planter.
If the NSA or the CIA is operating covert surveillance aircraft, they'll probably have some cover company's contact info on it, such as "Ace Arial Photography. If found, please call 212-555-1234."
RC guys do the same thing with their planes. They all include a business card or sticker inside the body of the plane. A model plane with good positive stability could fly for 20 miles or more before its fuel is exhausted.
That's just common sense... isn't it?
On the post: Google Downranks The Pirate Bay In The UK, Because Surely, That Will Make People Buy Again
Re: Re:
My parents' home page is Yahoo!. When I tell them to go to a URL, they actually type the URL in to the Yahoo! search box.
On the post: Google Downranks The Pirate Bay In The UK, Because Surely, That Will Make People Buy Again
Re:
it's more like: I type in "Iron Man Download" in to Google.
I should get links to iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, and other legit movie download sites. I should not get links to Pirate Bay, P1rat3Streemz, or MegaWarez.
The real issue there, of course, is that TPB does also host legitimate CC and PD downloads, as well as files that are otherwise free to distribute, such as freeware and demo software.
On the other hand, you can usually get free and demoware through non-pirate sites, too, so TPB can't really complain about being downranked when their business model is predicated around illegal downloads to begin with. That would be a little like robbing a bank I work for, then complaining when the same bank shorts me on my paycheck.
On the post: Could Open Source Software Be Put Into The Public Domain Instead?
Re: Re: Re:
The first thing I installed on all 3 of my Windows 8 computers is Chrome.
Chrome can run on the Metro full screen interface or on the desktop.
Chrome did NOT come from the Microsoft store.
So please explain how my walled garden OS is allowing me to run a Metro app that I didn't get from Microsoft?
On the post: Could Open Source Software Be Put Into The Public Domain Instead?
Re: Re: Been there, done that.
I just happen to believe that a "pay it forward" license like the GPL makes the most sense for free software. While the license isn't perfect, it's a lot easier than writing my own license.
Ideally, I would like to see a GPL variant that excludes commercial exploitation.. I don't want to see my free programs bundled up and sold on EBay, for example.
But GPL works perfectly for what it was designed for; it keeps projects like Linux free for people that need free, and it mandates that companies like Red Hat and Google to give their improvements back to the community.
I honestly don't think the current free software ecosystem would be doing nearly as well today without a license like GPL behind it.
On the post: Librarian Of Congress Shoots Back At White House Over Phone Unlocking: We're Just Doing Our Job
Re:
On the post: Librarian Of Congress Shoots Back At White House Over Phone Unlocking: We're Just Doing Our Job
Re: Re: Why is it not automatic
On the post: Librarian Of Congress Shoots Back At White House Over Phone Unlocking: We're Just Doing Our Job
Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
And the Nexus 4 does not work on Verizon or Sprint.
On the post: FCC Might Investigate Whether Or Not Ban On Cell Phone Unlocking Should Have Been Allowed
Re: Re: If you don't want a locked phone, don't buy one!
Both locks are a form of protection and may be covered by the DMCA. (I'm actually not sure if the DMCA actually prohibits this, since subsidy and bootloader locks are not for the purposes of copy protection. Copyright has no interest in enforcing contracts or preserving subscription fees.)
Next >>