No Mike & Techdirt & co,,, should give up their quest to weaken or abolish copyright.
I am defending an establish right.
Life is about defending rights from those who wish to destroy them
I think Jefferson , Thomas Paine , and their gang of rebels against King George would agree .
---------
The Rev Martin Luther King once said," if a man has not found anything worth dying for, he is not fit to live."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." - Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural
The Constitution does not actually say that artists and inventors have rights.
"The Constitution does not actually say that artists and inventors have rights. "
Fundamentally wrong. The law formalizes the particulars of those rights , i.e. limited times,, what is infringement.
But the fundamental right is ..well right there. I make Art or music , the moment I make it is FORMALLY protected. You do NOT have to register it w/ the Gov't to protect your RIGHTS. It is a good idea to , in case the there is legal stuff down the road ,, but even then ,, you just have to prove you composed on a set date. Today you can copyright by emailing yourself a MP3 of you song. In the old days ,, many artists printed out their lyrics had it notarized and sent it back to themselves by registered mail
THE RIGHT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION , that artist activates by creation.
"Why did [ James Madison] explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist when he clearly understood that copyright and patent were inevitable monopolies to promote science and literature? He seemed to believe it would be easier to persuade the people, amid the current mood of antipathy toward monopolies and England, to accept copyright and patent as natural rights than as trade regulation "
In this debate Madison played both sides of the fence, supporting natural or common law rights for Creators on the one hand,
In this debate Madison played both sides of the fence, supporting ***natural or common law rights for Creators ***on the one hand, and promoting regulation and limitation of the publishing industry through statute on the other. His apparently contradictory opinions are expressed in his correspondence with Jefferson and in the Federalist papers.
"The framers of the United States Constitution, suspicious of all monopolies to begin with, knew the history of the copyright as a tool of censorship and press control. They wanted to assure that copyright was not used as a means of oppression and censorship in the United States. (Loren 1999)
This consuming fear of monopoly and censorship is captured in the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush ,September 23, 1800.
(Thomas Jefferson Online Resources, ME 10:173)
And, with respect to the copyright monopoly and the 1774 reasoning of Chief Justice Mansfield in Millar v. Taylor,
Thomas Jefferson, in 1788, exclaimed: "I hold it essential in America to forbid that any English decision which has happened since the accession of Lord Mansfield to the bench, should ever be cited in a court; because, though there have come many good ones from him, yet there is so much sly poison instilled into a great part of them, that it is better to proscribe the whole."
(Commons 1924: 276)
Four years after the Continental Congress called on the States to introduce copyright the US Constitution was adopted in 1787 and was ratified a year later in 1788. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is now known as the "Intellectual Property or Copyright Clause" and states:
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;
The importance of the clause is evidenced by the fact that the power to promote 'progress' was one of very few powers to regulate commerce initially granted to Congress. Two years after ratification of the US Constitution, Congress passed the first Copyright Act of 1790: An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.
The state copyright statutes, most of which were enacted in response to the Continental Congress Resolution, were modeled on the Statute of Anne and thus presaged the inevitable. The federal copyright was to be a direct descendant of its English counterpart. The language in the United States Copyright Clause was almost surely taken from the title of the Statute of Anne of 1710; the American Copyright Act of 1790 is a copy of the English Act; and the United States Supreme Court in its first copyright case, Wheaton v. Peters, used Donaldson v. Beckett as guiding precedent in confirming copyright as the grant of a limited statutory monopoly.
(Patterson 1993)
Inclusion of a 'monopoly-granting' power in the Constitution and the Copyright Act of 1790 involved great debate and deliberation particularly between Thomas Jefferson, who initially opposed all monopolies including copyright, and James Madison who proposed its benefits and inclusion.
In this debate Madison played both sides of the fence, supporting natural or common law rights for Creators on the one hand, and promoting regulation and limitation of the publishing industry through statute on the other. His apparently contradictory opinions are expressed in his correspondence with Jefferson and in the Federalist papers.
These documents prove that Madison accepted traditional English ideas of copyright. That is, he understood copyright as a monopoly granted for only a limited term. Why did he explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist when he clearly understood that copyright and patent were inevitable monopolies to promote science and literature? He seemed to believe it would be easier to persuade the people, amid the current mood of antipathy toward monopolies and England, to accept copyright and patent as natural rights than as trade regulation laws which were monopolistic in nature. It is well known that the Americans adopted the common law after screening aristocratic or prerogative elements out. The Founding Fathers understood the nature of copyright as a monopoly that was granted for administrative purposes to promote the sciences and they adopted copyright law after modifying its doctrine to suit American taste. That was America's first copyright statute, the Copyright Act of 1790.
(Shirata 1999) "
"This course focuses on the legal issues arising from the creation, ownership, production, marketing, and distribution of literary, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, musical, digital, and related works. "
T"his will include examination of copyrightable subject matter, the idea/expression dichotomy, compilations and derivative works, duration and renewal, fair use and the impact of past laws, related state laws, and international copyright law."
Re: Re: "Our nation and our economy is what it is today, because of the ingenuity and ideas of our people -- ideas that have been safeguarded through strong intellectual property rights protections," Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican
"Where is the citation here?
not you, i mean the citation from the Representative and senators?"
ANS : Senator Hatch , is no one's dummy. One of the few Pols, who I can say that for . And though I (usually) strongly disagree w/ him on most issues, I know he is an honorable and fair person & Senator.
The Word in the quote are his. The principle expressed in his words , are clearly not new,, they are taught in every social studies and/or Pol-sci class , from the 3rd grade up.
"Once something has been released to the public whether be it commercial or free it no longer has the exclusive rights it once had. We all have a natural right at that point to comment on it, interpret it, and do pretty much anything we damn well please with it."
-----------
Reply : That is mostly in reality true,, and the risk the Artist takes by putting his Art /soul out there.
This is also why J.D. Salinger refused to any movie deals or other derivative works to "catcher in the rye. It is also why JDS , locked all his writings and letters away. He knew he would not be able to fully control them , if he made his writings public.
--------------------
"We all have a natural right at that point to comment on it, interpret it, and do pretty much anything we damn well please with it."
Reply :
*As long as your pay proper royalties. OK
* Parody is OK & protected.
*Danger Mouse ,,I got mixed feelings,, I lean towards calling a new work , but he should pay royalties to Jay-Z , and the Beatles, but "danger mouse" too , is a NEW protected copyrighted work in my humble opinion. ( but it ain't a cut and dry thing here.)
====================
In the realm of Artist to Artist , the culture is MUCH different , than it is Artist to Pirate.
Artist unite ( for the most ) against Pirates.
Artists acting in good-faith ,, are rarely sued for infringement by other Artists.
( In cases where the Copyright holders are not the original Artists ,, and then in it only for the $$,, these types of biz folks sue on Artist infringement issues at a higher rate.)
With a response like that I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't nameless one's alt or something. Or maybe angry dude is his alt. I've always suspected he is just trolling these comment threads
I've said it before and I'll say it again: just because the business models of the riaa/mpaa fail in a free market system does not entitle them to exceptions to it.
"Our nation and our economy is what it is today, because of the ingenuity and ideas of our people -- ideas that have been safeguarded through strong intellectual property rights protections," Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican
"Our nation and our economy is what it is today, because of the ingenuity and ideas of our people -- ideas that have been safeguarded through strong intellectual property rights protections," Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican.
----------------
Copyright infringement is not a victimless crime, as it is often portrayed, added Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican.
"Piracy denies individuals who have invested in the creation and production of these goods a return on their investment thus reducing the incentive to invest in innovative products and new creative works," he said in a statement. "The end result is the loss of billions of dollars in revenue for the U.S. each year and even greater losses to the U.S. economy in terms of reduced job growth and exports."
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
Re: Re:
I am defending an establish right.
Life is about defending rights from those who wish to destroy them
I think Jefferson , Thomas Paine , and their gang of rebels against King George would agree .
---------
The Rev Martin Luther King once said," if a man has not found anything worth dying for, he is not fit to live."
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re:
Piracy is illegal.
Find me one member of congress who endoreses abolishing copy right & Patent LAW.
As cited above , Congress is working hard to kill the Pirates.
Welcome to reality.
If you do not like it . Use Democracy , run for office , on a platform of abolishing copyrights -- MIKE & co.
See how far you get
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: Re: Re: Why did he explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist
Copy right is Law.
Piracy is illegal.
Find me one member of congress who endoreses abolishing copy right & Patent LAW.
As cited above , Congress is working hard to kill the Pirates.
Welcome to reality.
If you do not like it . Use Democracy , run for office , on a platform of abolishing copyrights -- MIKE & co.
See how far you get
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." - Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
for a limited time.
Eternity is unlimited. Really pretty plain sight.
-------
Go to law school karl,, discipline your mind.
Now you are scattered and sloppy in your thinking.
You will never be a Jedi.
May the force be with you.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
The Constitution does not actually say that artists and inventors have rights.
Fundamentally wrong. The law formalizes the particulars of those rights , i.e. limited times,, what is infringement.
But the fundamental right is ..well right there. I make Art or music , the moment I make it is FORMALLY protected. You do NOT have to register it w/ the Gov't to protect your RIGHTS. It is a good idea to , in case the there is legal stuff down the road ,, but even then ,, you just have to prove you composed on a set date. Today you can copyright by emailing yourself a MP3 of you song. In the old days ,, many artists printed out their lyrics had it notarized and sent it back to themselves by registered mail
THE RIGHT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION , that artist activates by creation.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Why did he explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist
"Why did [ James Madison] explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist when he clearly understood that copyright and patent were inevitable monopolies to promote science and literature? He seemed to believe it would be easier to persuade the people, amid the current mood of antipathy toward monopolies and England, to accept copyright and patent as natural rights than as trade regulation "
http://www.guardster.com/?Tutorials-Copyright_Law_in_the_U.S.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
In this debate Madison played both sides of the fence, supporting natural or common law rights for Creators on the one hand,
http://www.guardster.com/?Tutorials-Copyright_Law_in_the_U.S.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Copyright Law in the U.S.
"The framers of the United States Constitution, suspicious of all monopolies to begin with, knew the history of the copyright as a tool of censorship and press control. They wanted to assure that copyright was not used as a means of oppression and censorship in the United States. (Loren 1999)
This consuming fear of monopoly and censorship is captured in the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush ,September 23, 1800.
(Thomas Jefferson Online Resources, ME 10:173)
And, with respect to the copyright monopoly and the 1774 reasoning of Chief Justice Mansfield in Millar v. Taylor,
Thomas Jefferson, in 1788, exclaimed: "I hold it essential in America to forbid that any English decision which has happened since the accession of Lord Mansfield to the bench, should ever be cited in a court; because, though there have come many good ones from him, yet there is so much sly poison instilled into a great part of them, that it is better to proscribe the whole."
(Commons 1924: 276)
Four years after the Continental Congress called on the States to introduce copyright the US Constitution was adopted in 1787 and was ratified a year later in 1788. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is now known as the "Intellectual Property or Copyright Clause" and states:
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;
The importance of the clause is evidenced by the fact that the power to promote 'progress' was one of very few powers to regulate commerce initially granted to Congress. Two years after ratification of the US Constitution, Congress passed the first Copyright Act of 1790: An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.
The state copyright statutes, most of which were enacted in response to the Continental Congress Resolution, were modeled on the Statute of Anne and thus presaged the inevitable. The federal copyright was to be a direct descendant of its English counterpart. The language in the United States Copyright Clause was almost surely taken from the title of the Statute of Anne of 1710; the American Copyright Act of 1790 is a copy of the English Act; and the United States Supreme Court in its first copyright case, Wheaton v. Peters, used Donaldson v. Beckett as guiding precedent in confirming copyright as the grant of a limited statutory monopoly.
(Patterson 1993)
Inclusion of a 'monopoly-granting' power in the Constitution and the Copyright Act of 1790 involved great debate and deliberation particularly between Thomas Jefferson, who initially opposed all monopolies including copyright, and James Madison who proposed its benefits and inclusion.
In this debate Madison played both sides of the fence, supporting natural or common law rights for Creators on the one hand, and promoting regulation and limitation of the publishing industry through statute on the other. His apparently contradictory opinions are expressed in his correspondence with Jefferson and in the Federalist papers.
These documents prove that Madison accepted traditional English ideas of copyright. That is, he understood copyright as a monopoly granted for only a limited term. Why did he explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist when he clearly understood that copyright and patent were inevitable monopolies to promote science and literature? He seemed to believe it would be easier to persuade the people, amid the current mood of antipathy toward monopolies and England, to accept copyright and patent as natural rights than as trade regulation laws which were monopolistic in nature. It is well known that the Americans adopted the common law after screening aristocratic or prerogative elements out. The Founding Fathers understood the nature of copyright as a monopoly that was granted for administrative purposes to promote the sciences and they adopted copyright law after modifying its doctrine to suit American taste. That was America's first copyright statute, the Copyright Act of 1790.
(Shirata 1999) "
http://www.guardster.com/?Tutorials-Copyright_Law_in_the_U.S.
=======================
Gre at Page here . A MUST READ .
http://www.guardster.com/?Tutorials-Copyright_Law_in_the_U.S.
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Thomas Jefferson School of Law: Copyright Course syllabus
Copyright
"This course focuses on the legal issues arising from the creation, ownership, production, marketing, and distribution of literary, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, musical, digital, and related works. "
T"his will include examination of copyrightable subject matter, the idea/expression dichotomy, compilations and derivative works, duration and renewal, fair use and the impact of past laws, related state laws, and international copyright law."
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
http://www.tjsl.edu/research_bibliographies
Thomas Jefferson School of Law . 2121 San Diego Avenue . San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: 619.297.9700 . Toll Free: 800.936.7529 . Email: info@tjsl.edu
Website Questions / Comments: webmaster@tjsl.edu . Copyright © 2006 Thomas Jefferson School of Law
==================================================
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
Re: Re: "Our nation and our economy is what it is today, because of the ingenuity and ideas of our people -- ideas that have been safeguarded through strong intellectual property rights protections," Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican
not you, i mean the citation from the Representative and senators?"
ANS : Senator Hatch , is no one's dummy. One of the few Pols, who I can say that for . And though I (usually) strongly disagree w/ him on most issues, I know he is an honorable and fair person & Senator.
The Word in the quote are his. The principle expressed in his words , are clearly not new,, they are taught in every social studies and/or Pol-sci class , from the 3rd grade up.
http://hatch.senate.gov/
============
On the post: Copyright Infringement Charged Over Tao Te Ching... Which Is Only Two Millennia Old
Re: Copyright is always copywrong
-----------
Reply : That is mostly in reality true,, and the risk the Artist takes by putting his Art /soul out there.
This is also why J.D. Salinger refused to any movie deals or other derivative works to "catcher in the rye. It is also why JDS , locked all his writings and letters away. He knew he would not be able to fully control them , if he made his writings public.
--------------------
"We all have a natural right at that point to comment on it, interpret it, and do pretty much anything we damn well please with it."
Reply :
*As long as your pay proper royalties. OK
* Parody is OK & protected.
*Danger Mouse ,,I got mixed feelings,, I lean towards calling a new work , but he should pay royalties to Jay-Z , and the Beatles, but "danger mouse" too , is a NEW protected copyrighted work in my humble opinion. ( but it ain't a cut and dry thing here.)
====================
In the realm of Artist to Artist , the culture is MUCH different , than it is Artist to Pirate.
Artist unite ( for the most ) against Pirates.
Artists acting in good-faith ,, are rarely sued for infringement by other Artists.
( In cases where the Copyright holders are not the original Artists ,, and then in it only for the $$,, these types of biz folks sue on Artist infringement issues at a higher rate.)
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
With a response like that I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't nameless one's alt or something. Or maybe angry dude is his alt. I've always suspected he is just trolling these comment threads
All my posts are with this user name.
My words are my power.
I stand with them in pride,
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
I've said it before and I'll say it again: just because the business models of the riaa/mpaa fail in a free market system does not entitle them to exceptions to it.
See you in the Courts.
See who wins,
you Anonymous Coward you .
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
"Our nation and our economy is what it is today, because of the ingenuity and ideas of our people -- ideas that have been safeguarded through strong intellectual property rights protections," Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican
----------------
Copyright infringement is not a victimless crime, as it is often portrayed, added Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican.
"Piracy denies individuals who have invested in the creation and production of these goods a return on their investment thus reducing the incentive to invest in innovative products and new creative works," he said in a statement. "The end result is the loss of billions of dollars in revenue for the U.S. each year and even greater losses to the U.S. economy in terms of reduced job growth and exports."
both quotes from :
US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
Grant Gross, IDG News
May 19, 2010 4:30 pm
http://www.pcworld.com/article/196692/us_lawmakers_target_the_pirate_bay_other_sites.html
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Copyright infringement is a moral issue.
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Copyright infringement is a moral issue.
How am I a a compulsory copyright infringer creature?
Please explain.
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
Re: Copyright infringement is a moral issue.
CONTROL."
ANS :
Exactly RIGHT is is about
Artist Control 100%.
Art is the Artist's Babies.
( Mingus said , his songs are his children.)
No Pirate , is messing with my babies, EVER ,,w/o me going after them, Luckily the Gov't is on my side .
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
.YA i know what copyright is really about CONTROL
CONTROL."
Exactly RIGHT is is about
Artist Control 100%.
Art is the Artists Babies.
( Mingus said , his songs are his children.)
No Pirate , is messing with my babies, EVER ,,w/o me going after them, Luckily the Gov't is on my side .
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
Copyright infringement is a moral issue.
Next >>