My apologies, allow me to rephrase. Why are authors given no specific provision for placing their work in the public domain, and why is the legal effect of stating an abandonment not clear? (source)
I suppose to keep this from becoming an argument over semantics I'll rephrase my question to be, why should work be automatically copyrighted and have to be specifically dedicated to the public domain which is a legally iffy solution at best instead of automatically in the public domain and specifically requiring a clear legal process to obtain a copyright?
Well, i'm not a legal expert here, but from the sounds of what the people trying to pass these laws want to do, i'd say ultimately they'd like to see the internet be a place with no anonymity that requires permission to do anything, and essentially turn it from a communications medium into a broadcast medium. IMO, that would be a very broken internet.
Note, this is not necessarily what these exact laws will do, but it's easy to extrapolate what the unchecked end-goal would be.
Whenever I see stories like this, it keeps popping into my head that perhaps, things will ultimately get better when all the old guys who are used to this industry have died off and the next generation who gets it can finally take over.
Then I hear my boss telling his kids that copying a CD from a friend is stealing; and from my sister that her kids obviously don't value music because they download it to their ipods and she needs to teach them better, and I start wondering if people aren't trying to indoctrinate the next generation into the old ways already.
Heh, I was just pointing out that the way you argued that it was quite easy to take it any way.
Now, as for this, there's a lot of studies on both sides of the fence, both claiming disincentive to create and claiming that there's still plenty of incentive. It can't really be stated without a shadow of a doubt at the moment that copyright is needed to get people to create.
And yes, there can still be competition within a set of rules, I don't mean to advocate that any rules at all are pointless.
What I will say however, is that it seems that with copyright as it is, as with many many other systems which include rules, people fall in love with the rules so much that the rule itself becomes the be all and end all. It's easy to say "we make these rules to help" or "we make these rules because they're necessary" but eventually, it boils down to "we make rules because we love having rules" and the purpose of the rule and whether or not it works properly is long forgotten.
Yes, illegal activity isn't a free market. But is it illegal because it's bad? Is it illegal because it harms? Or is it illegal because we don't like it?
It often feels like laws such as this get passed not due to necessity, nor due to research, but due to fear, and because 'it's always been that way'
As 'Weird Al' Yankovic so wisely states "It's tradition. That makes it ok"
Because when technology forces your business to change, it makes perfect sense to involve law enforcement!
Y'know, usually, I'm pretty proud of my heritage... but at the moment, I'm glad I can't read dutch because if I could, I'd probably throw up in my mouth a little.
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
Re: Wheeeee!
On the post: Console Manufacturers Pressure Google Into Pulling Emulators From The Android Market
Re: Re: VII
*hugs his original FFIII (aka FFVI) cartridge*
On the post: Russian President Skeptical Of Today's Copyright Laws
Re: Re: Obligatory Joke
On the post: Russian President Skeptical Of Today's Copyright Laws
On the post: NBC News Produces Propaganda Video Highlighting NBC's Views On Domain Seizures
"We'll keep going after them no matter how many times they come back up"
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
On the post: EMI Exec Thinks You Shouldn't Be Able To Listen To Your Own Music Without Paying Again
On the post: Sony's Insane Fear Of 'Piracy' Means Many Movies Now Suck In Digital Theaters
Re:
On the post: Well, That Was Fast: Sony's New PSN System? Hacked!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH*wheeze*AHAHAHAHAH
On the post: Another 'Exception'? Jonathan Coulton Making Half A Million A Year With No Record Label
Re: Re: Re:
I suppose to keep this from becoming an argument over semantics I'll rephrase my question to be, why should work be automatically copyrighted and have to be specifically dedicated to the public domain which is a legally iffy solution at best instead of automatically in the public domain and specifically requiring a clear legal process to obtain a copyright?
On the post: Another 'Exception'? Jonathan Coulton Making Half A Million A Year With No Record Label
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re:
Note, this is not necessarily what these exact laws will do, but it's easy to extrapolate what the unchecked end-goal would be.
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Will time be our saviour?
Then I hear my boss telling his kids that copying a CD from a friend is stealing; and from my sister that her kids obviously don't value music because they download it to their ipods and she needs to teach them better, and I start wondering if people aren't trying to indoctrinate the next generation into the old ways already.
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, as for this, there's a lot of studies on both sides of the fence, both claiming disincentive to create and claiming that there's still plenty of incentive. It can't really be stated without a shadow of a doubt at the moment that copyright is needed to get people to create.
And yes, there can still be competition within a set of rules, I don't mean to advocate that any rules at all are pointless.
What I will say however, is that it seems that with copyright as it is, as with many many other systems which include rules, people fall in love with the rules so much that the rule itself becomes the be all and end all. It's easy to say "we make these rules to help" or "we make these rules because they're necessary" but eventually, it boils down to "we make rules because we love having rules" and the purpose of the rule and whether or not it works properly is long forgotten.
Yes, illegal activity isn't a free market. But is it illegal because it's bad? Is it illegal because it harms? Or is it illegal because we don't like it?
It often feels like laws such as this get passed not due to necessity, nor due to research, but due to fear, and because 'it's always been that way'
As 'Weird Al' Yankovic so wisely states "It's tradition. That makes it ok"
On the post: Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Patent Hawk's Wings Clipped; Editable Toolbar Patent Is Invalid
Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Publishing Organization Says Filesharing Should Be A Criminal Offense
Y'know, usually, I'm pretty proud of my heritage... but at the moment, I'm glad I can't read dutch because if I could, I'd probably throw up in my mouth a little.
... damn you Google Translate... *hurk*
On the post: YouTube Launches Myth Perpetuating 'Copyright School'; Dismisses Remixes As 'Not Original'
Re:
But there wasn't any punchline :(
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows That Students Inherently Know That File Sharing Is Not Theft
Re:
On the post: Why Are Police Going After Mixtapes... And Why Are They Bringing Along RIAA Reps?
Re: Selling Mixtapes...
On the post: Did The Library Of Congress Just Honor Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Slow down there!
Next >>