Funny, I can follow your rambling bullshit just fine. Even the comments that have been hidden because people are reporting comments for trolling, as per a stated intended use of that button.
Many of my comments have been "reported," even though they cannot possibly be read to be trolling. People are being extremely abusive to me, yet they are not "reported." I'm surprised you guys think this is a healthy environment for meaningful discussions. It's not.
You're a troll AJ. This is how trolls are treated.
Don't like it? Stop being a troll.
YOU are the problem.
I'm having a calm, rational discussion about issues that are important to many people here. It seems to me that you are trolling. Are you adding anything of value to the conversation?
If this were an honest discussion he might eventually get around to admitting that he doesn't care about the public interest or about the artists but only about the parasite middlemen and that's the true reason he believes copy protection lengths should last forever. But there can be no honesty found in scumbag IP extremists, just attempts to buy politicians and subvert the democratic process through backdoor dealings.
I care about the public interest. That's why I think copyright should be for limited times. I think the Framers were wise to put that in the Constitution. I care about artists--it pains me to see their rights trampled on by those who want to watch a movie or listen to a song without paying the asking price. I care about the middlemen. They provide the resources so that authors and artists can thrive. You seem to think that anyone who supports copyright is pure evil. That's not the way I see it.
So how long do you think copy protection lengths should be and why?
Life of author at a minimum. I think it's the author's personal property, because he deserves it morally, and there is no reason why it should not exist as long as he does. I don't subscribe to any one basis for copyright, so you have to keep that in mind. I think it should go beyond the life of the author. 70 years might be too much, because there is a point where it ceases promoting progress. I don't think anyone can say precisely where that point is. It's not something that can be calculated scientifically because there are noneconomic considerations that cannot be qualified.
What is your opinion on retroactive copyright length extension? I've read all your posts on this page and you've never stated specifically your opinion on retroactive extension. Please do so.
I doubt we'll have any more extensions. If anything, I think we might dial the term back. I don't think copyright needs to be any longer, and there are good arguments for making it shorter. That said, I think the life of the author should be the minimum, and I like the idea of it going one generation after that. There is no scientific way to determine the "optimal" length, IMO. That answer you?
I'd also like to know your specific opinion on ex post facto law, or as Wikipedia puts it, law "that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law."
Why do retroactive copyright length extensions not violate this principle? Isn't Congress barred from passing such laws? When all of the works mentioned in this article were created, and granted copyright, weren't the terms of the deal with the public for the granting of that temporary copyright that the works would pass into the public domain this year?
My understanding of ex post facto is that it applies to criminal law: If something is legal when you do it, it can't be made illegal if the law is changed later. If you do the act after the law has changed, that would be breaking the law. But the fact that you did it before the law was changed means you didn't commit a crime. I guess the same holds true for civil law, but I've not seen it in that context.
I'm not sure how that ties into copyright. Nobody made an ex post facto argument in either Eldred or Golan. Congress can take works out the public domain and give them copyright protection, and this doesn't violate ex post facto because it doesn't change any legal consequences of acts that occurred PRIOR to the change in the law.
This is supposed to be a democracy. The opinions of the corporations that determined the current laws aren't the only opinions that should count just because they have managed to buy and pay for politicians through secretive back door dealings. I know this maybe hard for a shill like yourself to believe but everyone's opinion should count.
So do you think ANY laws are legitimate? I'm not following how copyright laws are undemocratic unless all laws are.
and you haven't shown that it requires the current system. What we are showing is that we disagree with the current system. It's called democracy. We have a right to publicly disagree and if enough of us do so then the laws should be changed. You fear democracy because you don't want enough people to disagree with you to effectively change the laws against your personal interest in favor of the public interest. That's what makes you a lowlife scumbag.
I'm a "lowlife scumbag"? That's not productive. I'm here to have an intelligent debate. Join me?
Constantly nagging Mike to keep on repeating his point of view won't make it happen. You have been around this blog for long enough to have read Mikes opinion several times before. Do you have dementia? That could explain your memory issues.
What is Mike's opinion? Does Mike think there should be any copyright? If it's so easy to find the answer, you should have no trouble telling us what it is.
No, you are playing a silly game. You KNOW his opinion. There are 50,000+ posts on this blog for you to peruse to learn his opinion. There are plenty of articles discussing the reasons for it from every angle.
You are playing a silly game, demanding that this post (or Mike in the comments) rehash the entirety of Techdirt's philosophy about copyright from top to bottom.
Once again, willful stupidity for the sake of starting a fight. That's all you ever have to offer.
I'm here answering questions directly, stating my opinion, challenging others on their opinions, etc. Isn't that what the comments are for? As far as Mike goes, I do not know whether he thinks there should be any copyright because he has never answered the question. If you think you know the answer, tell me what it is. I think it's obvious that Mike goes far out of his way to avoid answering this very question.
He has given his opinion on many occasions. Just use the techdirt search tool and find the answer yourself. He shouldn't have to repeat himself in each post just because you think you are winning some kind of petty argument.
I will ask you what I ask everyone who says Mike has given the answer and it's obvious. What is Mike's answer?
You understand of course that these works should be in the public domain.
New copyright laws should never be retroactive, copyright laws are sold as an incentive to creators. If the work has already been created it does not need more incentive to be created, does it?
I think the main fault is your premise that copyright is only about incentives to create. It has never been understood to be only about that. Second, authors can be incentivized by the known rewards AND the knowledge that there may be some future rewards.
To all the people "reporting" my comments: I am having an extremely difficult time following threads so that I may respond to the commenters that are trying to engage me in a productive discussion. You are ruining it for everyone. Some of us actually want to discuss these important issues. You are making that next to impossible. If you can't join in, just sit back and let others talk. Thanks.
The OP determined that if copyright is intended to incentivise the creation of works, when these works were created the incentive provided by the then-copyright term was deemed sufficient by the creator to incentivise the work and they would be public domain now on that basis.
The fact that the copyright term was then extended brought no additional incentive to the creation of the works, as they had already been created, therefore they should be in the public domain as that was what was expected by the creator of the work.
Assuming you believe copyright is designed to incentivise the creation of new works.
I think incentivizing authors is just one part of it. I don't read the Constitution as only supporting the access vs. incentives view of copyright. I think that's an extremely narrow view that is unsupportable, frankly. I think copyright also recognizes that authors deserve rewards for their efforts, and it protects their noneconomic interests as well. That said, I don't agree with the premise. I think authors can be incentivized by the rewards that exist when they create the work, but they can also be incentivized by the knowledge that those rewards might be increased later on.
As antidirt wrote, "It seems everyone here can form an opinion."
I'd like to point out that it seems everyone but him. If this were an honest discussion, he might eventually get around to providing specifics and a clear rationale to support his unstated, though implied, opinion that current copyright term length is just peachy (and perhaps should last forever?)
This is an honest discussion, and I'm happy to answer whatever questions you may have as honestly and directly as I can. You seem to be implying that I'm not honest because I didn't answer questions that nobody asked of me. I don't think that's fair. Again, ask me direct and honest questions, and I will answer directly and honestly. I won't run away. I won't not answer and then pretend it's because it's you asking the question. Fire away, friend.
Alright. I'll bite. I do not think that copyright is necessarily a BAD thing, but the term on it is far too long. I honestly think the original 14 years, with the option to reapply for an additional 14 (Heck, even a third 14 years if a fee is paid).
Listen, authors, musicians, actors, et. all are hard working people, and they should get compensation for their work. Copyright is a way of doing that, but:
1. Copyright should NOT be automatic. If one wants to have an item to be covered by copyright, it should be registered as such.
2. Copyright should have a Limited term. 14 years, with one (or two) optional extensions that can be paid for.
I don't have a problem with a limited time monopoly, but Life+70 years is NOT a limited time. For anyone alive when a work is created, that is basically a "You'll never be able to use this." With such long terms, creativeness, is greatly stifled.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Everyone here seems to have no problem stating their opinions--with one glaring omission, of course. That said, you're just telling us what your preferred system would look like. You haven't shown that the Constitution requires your system. The person I was responding to brought up the constitutional standard. My point is that that standard is quite flexible, and anyone arguing that it must be a certain way is just injecting their preferred view.
At this point we've all had this conversation with you at least a dozen times, so it's not worth wasting time and effort on anything other than insults. Other regulars have a pretty good handle on Mike's opinion on copyright, but unfortunately it's not the 'gotcha' answer you so desperately want
How am I looking for a gotcha answer? I'm just asking for his opinion. Everyone here seems capable of stating their opinion. So can he. You might have a "pretty good handle" on his opinion, but you don't know whether he thinks there should be any copyright. He's never said one way or the other. Why do you think that is?
Really? How many dead artists are benefiting from the copyright on their works? How many dead musicians are getting royalty checks from their music? How many dead authors are getting paid for reprints of their stories?
You moved the goalposts. Why are you only referring to dead authors now?
Other people, or more often companies may benefit from current copyright lengths, but the actual creators most certainly don't.
If the rights were transferred to a company, then the company owns those rights. If they weren't, then they are passed down as personal property. So what? If the rights were transferred to a company, presumably it was in exchange for something of value to the author that transferred them. Again, so what? The exclusive rights are benefits to authors. What makes them beneficial, in part, is their transferability.
... did you actually read what you just quoted before posting it? Because it doesn't seem to support your side of the discussion at all.
Of course I read it. I've read all of the Supreme Court's copyright opinions several times.
In other words, the design isn't to provide private benefit, but rather public.
It says it's not designed PRIMARILY to benefit authors. You're reading it to say that it's not at all about benefitting authors. That's not correct. The two ends are not mutually exclusive:
Justice STEVENS' characterization of reward to the author as “a secondary consideration” of copyright law, post, at 793, n. 4 (internal quotation marks omitted), understates the relationship between such rewards and the “Progress of Science.” As we have explained, “[t]he economic philosophy behind the [Copyright] [C]lause ... is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors.” Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 219, 74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954). Accordingly, “copyright law celebrates the profit motive, recognizing that the incentive to profit from the exploitation of copyrights will redound to the public benefit by resulting in the proliferation of knowledge.... The profit motive is the engine that ensures the progress of science.” American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 802 F.Supp. 1, 27 (S.D.N.Y.1992), aff'd, 60 F.3d 913 (C.A.2 1994). Rewarding authors for their creative labor and “promot[ing] ... Progress” are thus complementary; as James Madison observed, in copyright “[t]he public good fully coincides ... with the claims of individuals.” The Federalist No. 43, p. 272 (C. Rossiter ed.1961). Justice BREYER's assertion that “copyright statutes must serve public, not private, ends,” post, at 803, similarly misses the mark. The two ends are not mutually exclusive; copyright law serves public ends by providing individuals with an incentive to pursue private ones.
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 n.18 (2003). I suggest reading that a couple of times. You appear to be erasing the MEANS, i.e., granting authors exclusive rights, from the copyright equation.
And again, the purpose is meant to be benefiting the public. Benefits to the creator, or more often these days copyright owner, are a side-effect, the means with which the public is meant to be served, not the goal of copyright.
The public and private ends are not mutually exclusive. It fulfills its public purpose by granting authors exclusive rights, that is, by bestowing private benefits.
Copyright durations are not even close to limited, at this point they are, for all practical purposes, eternal, given nothing that is created in a person's life will enter the public domain during their life, but only decades, if ever, after they die.
Life plus 70 years is a limited time. Regardless, you missed the part about the "special reward" to authors. You know, the exclusive rights. The rights are the reward. The rights are intended to benefit authors, and this, in turn, benefits the public. You keep erasing the part where authors benefit. That's part of the copyright bargain.
At this point, copyright, which was meant to be an equal deal between creators and the public, is completely and utterly one-sided. The public gets nothing, the copyright owner gets everything.
The public gets what the copyright owner decides the public should get because the exclusive rights give him that control. You state that it's not an "equal deal" as if that were a fact. That's just your opinion. My opinion differs from yours.
So like I said, if the choice was between copyright as it stands now, or no copyright, I'd be for no copyright, as the deal has been broken, and I don't see why the public should have to hold up their end of the bargain, when the other side isn't.
The "deal has been broken"? How? Because you think copyright protections are too broad? That's just your opinion about what the proper scope of copyright should be. You haven't shown that there's an official standard and copyright has gone beyond it.
IOW, your post is irrelevant to the point the OP is trying to make. Do you have something relevant to contribute to the discussion?
It's not irrelevant. OP determined that these works should not be protected by copyright. I'm trying to understand what factors OP uses to determine whether works should be protected. If he has an opinion about one, surely he can share his opinion about the other.
To answer your question, even though you didn't actually want an answer, if the choice is between copyright as it stands now, or no copyright, then I'd go with no copyright.
My question was directed at the author of this post, and I certainly would like the answer. That's why I asked. Thanks for sharing your opinion. It seems everyone here can form an opinion.
At this point it benefits large companies, while only rarely doing so for the actual creators, and since the only valid beneficiary of copyright was meant to be the public, it needs to be either eliminated entirely, or cut back until it actually serves it's intended purpose.
How did you determine that it doesn't benefit actual creators? That doesn't make much sense to me. And how did you determine that only the public was meant to benefit from copyright? The exclusive rights go to authors so that they can control the uses of their works, no? The benefits to authors are the exclusive rights. The public benefits during the copyright term to the extent authors or their assigns want to disseminate the work. The public gets unfettered access AFTER the copyright term has ended. See, for example:
The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.
Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984). You seem to be deleting the entire part of copyright where authors or their assigns get the exclusive rights, that is, where they are the beneficiaries. Are you discussing the actual law, or just your own version of what you think it should be?
It's easy to say drunk driving related car accidents are bad. But do you think people should ever drink in the first place (or, alternatively, do you think people should ever drive in the first place). That is, do you think we should have any alcohol (or cars)?
It's easy to say obesity is bad. But do you think people should ever eat junk or fast food? That is, do you think we should have fast/junk food?
It's easy to say harming the environment is bad and we need to always work to minimize our negative impact on it. but do you think people should ever use anything that potentially pollutes the environment? That is do you think we should have cars, refineries, various household chemicals, pesticides, etc...
It's easy to say too much medicine is dangerous. But do you think people should ever take medicine at all? That is do you think we shouldn't have medicine?
My opinion is "yes" to all of the above. Can you explain what your point is? It's easy for me to state my opinion.
It's easy to say that airline crashes suck. But do you think people should've ever boarded planes in the first place? That is, do you think we should have any airplanes?
Yes, my opinion is that we should have airplanes, crashes notwithstanding.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re:
Many of my comments have been "reported," even though they cannot possibly be read to be trolling. People are being extremely abusive to me, yet they are not "reported." I'm surprised you guys think this is a healthy environment for meaningful discussions. It's not.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re:
You're a troll AJ. This is how trolls are treated.
Don't like it? Stop being a troll.
YOU are the problem.
I'm having a calm, rational discussion about issues that are important to many people here. It seems to me that you are trolling. Are you adding anything of value to the conversation?
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I care about the public interest. That's why I think copyright should be for limited times. I think the Framers were wise to put that in the Constitution. I care about artists--it pains me to see their rights trampled on by those who want to watch a movie or listen to a song without paying the asking price. I care about the middlemen. They provide the resources so that authors and artists can thrive. You seem to think that anyone who supports copyright is pure evil. That's not the way I see it.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Life of author at a minimum. I think it's the author's personal property, because he deserves it morally, and there is no reason why it should not exist as long as he does. I don't subscribe to any one basis for copyright, so you have to keep that in mind. I think it should go beyond the life of the author. 70 years might be too much, because there is a point where it ceases promoting progress. I don't think anyone can say precisely where that point is. It's not something that can be calculated scientifically because there are noneconomic considerations that cannot be qualified.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I doubt we'll have any more extensions. If anything, I think we might dial the term back. I don't think copyright needs to be any longer, and there are good arguments for making it shorter. That said, I think the life of the author should be the minimum, and I like the idea of it going one generation after that. There is no scientific way to determine the "optimal" length, IMO. That answer you?
I'd also like to know your specific opinion on ex post facto law, or as Wikipedia puts it, law "that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law."
Why do retroactive copyright length extensions not violate this principle? Isn't Congress barred from passing such laws? When all of the works mentioned in this article were created, and granted copyright, weren't the terms of the deal with the public for the granting of that temporary copyright that the works would pass into the public domain this year?
My understanding of ex post facto is that it applies to criminal law: If something is legal when you do it, it can't be made illegal if the law is changed later. If you do the act after the law has changed, that would be breaking the law. But the fact that you did it before the law was changed means you didn't commit a crime. I guess the same holds true for civil law, but I've not seen it in that context.
I'm not sure how that ties into copyright. Nobody made an ex post facto argument in either Eldred or Golan. Congress can take works out the public domain and give them copyright protection, and this doesn't violate ex post facto because it doesn't change any legal consequences of acts that occurred PRIOR to the change in the law.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So do you think ANY laws are legitimate? I'm not following how copyright laws are undemocratic unless all laws are.
and you haven't shown that it requires the current system. What we are showing is that we disagree with the current system. It's called democracy. We have a right to publicly disagree and if enough of us do so then the laws should be changed. You fear democracy because you don't want enough people to disagree with you to effectively change the laws against your personal interest in favor of the public interest. That's what makes you a lowlife scumbag.
I'm a "lowlife scumbag"? That's not productive. I'm here to have an intelligent debate. Join me?
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What is Mike's opinion? Does Mike think there should be any copyright? If it's so easy to find the answer, you should have no trouble telling us what it is.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are playing a silly game, demanding that this post (or Mike in the comments) rehash the entirety of Techdirt's philosophy about copyright from top to bottom.
Once again, willful stupidity for the sake of starting a fight. That's all you ever have to offer.
I'm here answering questions directly, stating my opinion, challenging others on their opinions, etc. Isn't that what the comments are for? As far as Mike goes, I do not know whether he thinks there should be any copyright because he has never answered the question. If you think you know the answer, tell me what it is. I think it's obvious that Mike goes far out of his way to avoid answering this very question.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will ask you what I ask everyone who says Mike has given the answer and it's obvious. What is Mike's answer?
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
New copyright laws should never be retroactive, copyright laws are sold as an incentive to creators. If the work has already been created it does not need more incentive to be created, does it?
I think the main fault is your premise that copyright is only about incentives to create. It has never been understood to be only about that. Second, authors can be incentivized by the known rewards AND the knowledge that there may be some future rewards.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that the copyright term was then extended brought no additional incentive to the creation of the works, as they had already been created, therefore they should be in the public domain as that was what was expected by the creator of the work.
Assuming you believe copyright is designed to incentivise the creation of new works.
I think incentivizing authors is just one part of it. I don't read the Constitution as only supporting the access vs. incentives view of copyright. I think that's an extremely narrow view that is unsupportable, frankly. I think copyright also recognizes that authors deserve rewards for their efforts, and it protects their noneconomic interests as well. That said, I don't agree with the premise. I think authors can be incentivized by the rewards that exist when they create the work, but they can also be incentivized by the knowledge that those rewards might be increased later on.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd like to point out that it seems everyone but him. If this were an honest discussion, he might eventually get around to providing specifics and a clear rationale to support his unstated, though implied, opinion that current copyright term length is just peachy (and perhaps should last forever?)
This is an honest discussion, and I'm happy to answer whatever questions you may have as honestly and directly as I can. You seem to be implying that I'm not honest because I didn't answer questions that nobody asked of me. I don't think that's fair. Again, ask me direct and honest questions, and I will answer directly and honestly. I won't run away. I won't not answer and then pretend it's because it's you asking the question. Fire away, friend.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Listen, authors, musicians, actors, et. all are hard working people, and they should get compensation for their work. Copyright is a way of doing that, but:
1. Copyright should NOT be automatic. If one wants to have an item to be covered by copyright, it should be registered as such.
2. Copyright should have a Limited term. 14 years, with one (or two) optional extensions that can be paid for.
I don't have a problem with a limited time monopoly, but Life+70 years is NOT a limited time. For anyone alive when a work is created, that is basically a "You'll never be able to use this." With such long terms, creativeness, is greatly stifled.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Everyone here seems to have no problem stating their opinions--with one glaring omission, of course. That said, you're just telling us what your preferred system would look like. You haven't shown that the Constitution requires your system. The person I was responding to brought up the constitutional standard. My point is that that standard is quite flexible, and anyone arguing that it must be a certain way is just injecting their preferred view.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How am I looking for a gotcha answer? I'm just asking for his opinion. Everyone here seems capable of stating their opinion. So can he. You might have a "pretty good handle" on his opinion, but you don't know whether he thinks there should be any copyright. He's never said one way or the other. Why do you think that is?
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You moved the goalposts. Why are you only referring to dead authors now?
Other people, or more often companies may benefit from current copyright lengths, but the actual creators most certainly don't.
If the rights were transferred to a company, then the company owns those rights. If they weren't, then they are passed down as personal property. So what? If the rights were transferred to a company, presumably it was in exchange for something of value to the author that transferred them. Again, so what? The exclusive rights are benefits to authors. What makes them beneficial, in part, is their transferability.
... did you actually read what you just quoted before posting it? Because it doesn't seem to support your side of the discussion at all.
Of course I read it. I've read all of the Supreme Court's copyright opinions several times.
In other words, the design isn't to provide private benefit, but rather public.
It says it's not designed PRIMARILY to benefit authors. You're reading it to say that it's not at all about benefitting authors. That's not correct. The two ends are not mutually exclusive:Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 n.18 (2003). I suggest reading that a couple of times. You appear to be erasing the MEANS, i.e., granting authors exclusive rights, from the copyright equation.
And again, the purpose is meant to be benefiting the public. Benefits to the creator, or more often these days copyright owner, are a side-effect, the means with which the public is meant to be served, not the goal of copyright.
The public and private ends are not mutually exclusive. It fulfills its public purpose by granting authors exclusive rights, that is, by bestowing private benefits.
Copyright durations are not even close to limited, at this point they are, for all practical purposes, eternal, given nothing that is created in a person's life will enter the public domain during their life, but only decades, if ever, after they die.
Life plus 70 years is a limited time. Regardless, you missed the part about the "special reward" to authors. You know, the exclusive rights. The rights are the reward. The rights are intended to benefit authors, and this, in turn, benefits the public. You keep erasing the part where authors benefit. That's part of the copyright bargain.
At this point, copyright, which was meant to be an equal deal between creators and the public, is completely and utterly one-sided. The public gets nothing, the copyright owner gets everything.
The public gets what the copyright owner decides the public should get because the exclusive rights give him that control. You state that it's not an "equal deal" as if that were a fact. That's just your opinion. My opinion differs from yours.
So like I said, if the choice was between copyright as it stands now, or no copyright, I'd be for no copyright, as the deal has been broken, and I don't see why the public should have to hold up their end of the bargain, when the other side isn't.
The "deal has been broken"? How? Because you think copyright protections are too broad? That's just your opinion about what the proper scope of copyright should be. You haven't shown that there's an official standard and copyright has gone beyond it.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re:
It's not irrelevant. OP determined that these works should not be protected by copyright. I'm trying to understand what factors OP uses to determine whether works should be protected. If he has an opinion about one, surely he can share his opinion about the other.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re:
My question was directed at the author of this post, and I certainly would like the answer. That's why I asked. Thanks for sharing your opinion. It seems everyone here can form an opinion.
At this point it benefits large companies, while only rarely doing so for the actual creators, and since the only valid beneficiary of copyright was meant to be the public, it needs to be either eliminated entirely, or cut back until it actually serves it's intended purpose.
How did you determine that it doesn't benefit actual creators? That doesn't make much sense to me. And how did you determine that only the public was meant to benefit from copyright? The exclusive rights go to authors so that they can control the uses of their works, no? The benefits to authors are the exclusive rights. The public benefits during the copyright term to the extent authors or their assigns want to disseminate the work. The public gets unfettered access AFTER the copyright term has ended. See, for example:Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984). You seem to be deleting the entire part of copyright where authors or their assigns get the exclusive rights, that is, where they are the beneficiaries. Are you discussing the actual law, or just your own version of what you think it should be?
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re:
It's easy to say obesity is bad. But do you think people should ever eat junk or fast food? That is, do you think we should have fast/junk food?
It's easy to say harming the environment is bad and we need to always work to minimize our negative impact on it. but do you think people should ever use anything that potentially pollutes the environment? That is do you think we should have cars, refineries, various household chemicals, pesticides, etc...
It's easy to say too much medicine is dangerous. But do you think people should ever take medicine at all? That is do you think we shouldn't have medicine?
My opinion is "yes" to all of the above. Can you explain what your point is? It's easy for me to state my opinion.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re:
Yes, my opinion is that we should have airplanes, crashes notwithstanding.
Next >>