"I think that not giving authors any copyright rights is fundamentally unfair."
The copyright in a film is not held by any of the "authors" (here, actors and other artists) who work on the films. It is held by a corporation, and the "authors" never held it at any point.
But those revenues are still derived from revenues generated by copyrighted content.
You're assuming that the current copyright levels are necessary for those revenues, which is almost certainly false. But never mind.
The point was that the revenue going to actors is not derived from copyright. Nowhere in the copyright statutes are actors granted any kind of royalty rights.
If this situation is not "unfair" for them, why is it "unfair" for other artists?
The purpose of copyright law is not to create some kind of "fairness". It's purely to benefit the general public.
I disagree (slightly). The purpose of copyright law is to create some kind of "fairness."
It is to benefit the general public, by increasing public access to works of art.
If we are talking about copyright law, that is the only kind of "fairness" that we can talk about. The more copyright law benefits the general public, the more fair it is. The less it benefits the general public, the more unfair it is. There is literally no other moral consideration to make.
You can't say that exclusive rights are not guaranteed. They are. It's in plain English.
The Constitution does not say that authors are guaranteed exclusive rights. It says "Congress shall have the Right" to grant them. It grants rights to Congress, not to authors.
The Constitution does not establish copyrights, but provides that Congress shall have the power to grant such rights if it thinks best. Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public, such rights are given.
Yes, and what the Constitution says is "moral" is the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
If there is any moral imperative, it is this, and this alone: copyright "must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts." (Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken.)
The granting of exclusive rights is not a moral good. In the words of Congress: "The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly."
There is nothing moral about copyright's exclusive rights. It is a purely utilitarian construct, designed to promote a different moral good: a moral good that accrues to the general public, not to copyright holders.
A moral good that you haven't even mentioned in this discussion. The only thing you're obsessed with is some kind of right to the "evil" of the temporary monopoly.
You are simply demanding that others respect your right to be evil. That is not a moral standpoint. By criticizing others for not agreeing with you, you have shown that you have no particular regard for morality.
All of that is derived from copyright, paid from the copyright owners to members.
Yes, actors receive royalties. But they are not derived from the actors' copyright on their performances, because they never had it. By law, acting is a "work for hire" profession.
They got those royalties, not through copyright law, but through collective bargaining. The same way that the UAW bargains for higher wages.
I'm trying to get you to talk about what your normative values are and why you believe what you believe.
And this is a problem - on your part. Copyright is a completely utilitarian concept. Normative values are completely irrelevant.
The entire purpose of copyright is to benefit the public, by increasing access to works of art, and (eventually) by placing more works of art into the public domain. Copyright can be measured objectively by seeing whether it fulfills this purpose.
But you are totally disregarding this objective measurement, and trying to bring your own morality into the equation. Moreover, you are doing it while denying that copyright should be measured in any way other than through your own moral compass.
This is exactly how valid ideas are suppressed.
Let's say that you were one of the Catholic priests who were questioning Galileo. Here's what you would be asking:
"I'm trying to get you to talk about what your normative values are and why you believe that the Earth rotates around the Sun."
You can, I hope, see the flaws in this question. The idea (read: fact) that the sun rotates around the Earth is not a "belief," and does not depend upon "normative values."
So it is with copyright. Copyright theory does not give a rat's ass if "no exclusivity" is unfair to authors. (Indeed, copyright theory has never once given a shit about the exploitation of "authors" at all - something that I do not particularly like, but recognize.) All that matters is whether the public has increased access to artistic works. Everything else is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Look at the history of AFTRA. Look at what payments and royalties they've managed to get.
Now keep in mind that throughout most of its history, AFTRA members did not hold any copyright rights.
That should give you an idea of how useless copyright is to artists' rights. All of the benefits that artists and musicians got from AFTRA, they got without copyright.
That's just one particular example. Others abound. The plain fact is that artists don't gain power by exploiting their copyrights. They gain power through collective bargaining, and threatening to withhold their labor, not their copyrights.
I think that not giving authors any copyright rights is fundamentally unfair.
Why is this more "unfair" than not copyrights to plumbers, assembly-line workers, auto mechanics, secretaries, customer service representatives, chefs, or lawyers?
Why is it more "unfair" to authors than it is to graphic designers, commercial jingle writers, recording engineers, radio/TV personalities, actors, or wedding-band musicians?
These people do not receive a post-publication monopoly on the work that they did. Yet they all get paid, and their employment is not considered unfair. What makes authors so special?
Say you own a car. We don't walk around saying that you took the car from the public, even though without your right to own the car everyone would be able to own it.
My right to own a car was not granted to me by public servants, so that the public can benefit from the use of my car.
If it was, then the moment I stop letting the public use my car, is the moment I should no longer have the right to own it. If that didn't happen, it would be entirely appropriate to say I took the car from the public.
The right subsists in the author. It isn't taken from some other person and given to the author.
...you were wrong. The rights that are granted to authors, exclusively, under copyright law, would be held by everyone, non-exclusively, absent copyright law.
The rights do not "subsist in the author." They subsist in the public. They are taken, not just from "some other person," but from all other people, and given to the author. That is what copyright does, and that is all that it does.
And theoretically, the rights are taken from the general public, because the benefits to the public outweigh what is taken from them. The moment the laws do not do this, they are unjust.
Whatever duties the public has towards copyright law, is the same duty that the public has to any other unjust law. Whether that duty is to follow them and promote their revision/repeal, or to ignore them and behave justly (and in the process disobey them), is certainly up for debate.
Karl's trying to say that the statute vesting title in the author is the same thing as transferring title from the public. That's not the case. Karl also seems to think that the public domain is legally owned by the public. That's also not the case.
I never said either of those things, and you know it.
I've been talking about copyrights, not property rights in a given particular copy.
Here are your exact words: "You have to argue that the public would have gotten the rights had it not been for copyright. In other words, they never owned the rights. The authors own the rights."
"Had it not been for copyright," the public "would have gotten" all the rights that are exclusive to authors under 17 USC 106. The public would have the right to copy, distribute, perform, make derivative works, etc. These rights would all accrue to members of the public because of private property rights and/or free speech rights. Like I've been saying, consistently, throughout this whole discussion.
You were the one that used the term "own." If such rights can be "owned" at all, they are "owned" by the public originally (meaning: before copyright).
But "own" is a very bad term, which is why I always used sarcasm quotes. Copyright is not traditional property, and is not "owned" in the same manner as traditional property. For example, it would be misleading to say a visual artist "owns" the right to attribution and integrity created by 17 USC 106A.
I prefer the term "held." The rights that are held by authors, exclusively, under copyright law, are held by the general public, non-exclusively, absent copyright law.
Yes, without copyright law the author would not have the copyright and the public would have the right to copy the work.
So then you agree, these rights are "taken from the public and then given to the author."
To be clear, what I explicitly said is that members of the public own their own copies of public domain works.
If Dover creates copies of Macbeth, those copies are their private property. I can't break into their warehouse and take one; that would be theft. Likewise, if I buy a copy of that book, it is my own personal private property.
On the other hand, if Dover creates copies of The Sound and the Fury, those copies are not (entirely) their private property. Because of copyright, the Faulkner estate has the right to demand part of the fruits of Dover's labor as royalties.
And if those copies are unauthorized, they have no private property rights at all. The government, at the request of the Faulkner estate, can break into their warehouse, and take all of those copies, as well as all the money made from previous sales of those copies, and more besides. Because of copyright law, Dover has no rights at all to the fruits of their labor.
Likewise, if I buy a copy of that book, I do not have the right to make derivative works from The Sound and the Fury, or to perform a reading of it in public, or what have you.
So, clearly, copyright is a restriction on private property rights. Rights that would be held by Dover (and any other publisher), and the purchaser, without copyright.
But I never said, or even suggested, that the "legal title" to those copies is "passed" to the author. Nor that the public "legally owns" all public domain works. Those are bullshit straw man arguments.
There is no transfer of legal title from the public to the author.
The public's property rights I was referring to are - explicitly - the ownership rights of physical copies. Copyright limits those rights (and others), by design.
That doesn't mean I'm saying there was a "transfer of legal title," or some other straw man bullshit. Don't put words in my mouth.
I'm not talking about what might exist in some parallel universe where copyright doesn't exist.
That is precisely what you demanded of me: "You have to argue that the public would have gotten the rights had it not been for copyright."
Had it not been for copyright, all members of the public would have full property rights in whatever copies they produced. They would have exactly as many free speech rights in those copies, or their own performances of those works, as they would in copies or performances of works that they authored.
But because of copyright, the public does not have those property rights and free speech rights. That is what copyright is designed to do: take away certain rights that otherwise would be held by every member of the public.
You don't need some parallel universe to see this. All you have to do is compare public domain domain works, vs. works under copyright.
This is not controversial, nor debatable. I know you personally believe that copyright is some sort of inalienable right of authors, that is legally taken away when works enter the public domain. But that is not the theory of copyright as it was envisioned by the Founding Fathers, nor by Congress, nor the Supreme Court.
It will be seen, therefore, that the spirit of any act which Congress is authorized to pass must be one which will promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and unless it is designed to accomplish this result and is believed, in fact, to accomplish this result, it would be beyond the power of Congress.
The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, for the Supreme Court has held that such rights as he has are purely statutory rights, but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will [be] promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings. The Constitution does not establish copyrights, but provides that Congress shall have the power to grant such rights if it thinks best. Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public, such rights are given. Not that any particular class of citizens, however worthy, may benefit, but because the policy is believed to be for the benefit of the great body of people, in that it will stimulate writing and invention, to give some bonus to authors and inventors.
In enacting a copyright law Congress must consider, as has been already stated, two questions: First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and, second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public. The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly.
- House Report on the Copyright Act of 1909
As the text of the Constitution makes plain, it is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly that should be granted to authors or to inventors in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product. Because this task involves a difficult balance between the interests of authors and inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand, and society's competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand, our patent and copyright statutes have been amended repeatedly.
- Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios
This is the theory of copyright in the United States. It is, by design, a limited restriction on the public's natural rights to "the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce," which are "the evils of the temporary monopoly." Copyright statutes must "benefit the public," or they are unjust.
the rights wouldn't vest in anyone because there are no rights.
Wrong. There are property rights. You have property rights in your copies, just as you would have property rights in a chair you built that was based on another chair you own. You would not have exclusive rights in that chair, in the sense that you would not have the legal right to exclude everyone else from building chairs. That does not mean you would not have property rights. You built it with your own labor, so it is yours.
And, since that "property" is expression, you would have First Amendment rights to that "property" as well. Your rights to make "derivative works," for instance, would be protected by the First Amendment. Since it is free expression, Congress shall make no law abridging it.
These are the rights that are removed by copyright law. And this is not debatable, nor controversial. It is recognized by everyone who studies copyright law, and it is recognized by the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and Congress. What is not recognized, or agreed upon, is whether our current statutes ultimately benefit the public.
That makes zero sense and it's the exact opposite of what the actual law says.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. The only rights that are not held by the public are the right to monopolize, that is, the right to exclude others from those rights.
This is literally the only thing copyright grants. If you look at the ability to exercise the rights in 17 USC 106, you'll note that every single one of them is available to everyone (including the author) for public domain works. Which is what works would be without copyright. Copyright does not "grant" authors or publishers anything but the "right" to prevent others from doing what they do.
I can point to hundreds that cite Section 201(a)
Which is completely irrelevant, since we are talking about what rights would exist without the copyright statutes - or what those statutes would be if we, the public, decided to change (or do away with) the copyright statutes. We are not talking about the law as it stands, we are talking about what the law should be under the theory of copyright.
What would happen if 17 USC simply did not exist? And why would that be a bad thing for the public? If you can't come up with an answer to the latter, then we should do away with 17 USC altogether - otherwise it is an unjust law. That is what copyright theory says.
Given the data in this article, artists are not particularly incentivized to produce new works (or publish older ones) by the current copyright statutes. Under the theory of copyright, if copyright statutes are to be just laws, they must benefit the public more than they burden the public. Since the copyright laws burden the public's property and free speech rights, but do not benefit the public by resulting in more (or more widespread) distribution of artworks, the laws must be changed, or they are unjust.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? I know you've studied copyright laws, and know that the above is absolutely true. Are you just being an asshole?
And they end as soon as the work is first published.
Actually, I should have said "as soon as that copy is transferred to someone else." It doesn't really matter if it's published or not. If I buy an author's unpublished manuscript, then I have a natural property right to sell it, copy it, and distribute those copies as my own private property. Because it's expression, I have a free speech right to repeat it or re-express it in a manner of my choosing. These rights are not granted by authors, nor "authorized" by Congress.
Copyright removes those rights from me. You can't deny this. The benefits from giving up those rights may outweigh the detriments; but I, as a member of the public, have the ultimate right make that choice. The fact that I am also an artist is immaterial.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you not understand that "assignment" is not the same as "work for hire?"
According to Title 17, sections 101 and 201:
Actors did not "assign" or "waive" their copyrights (through "union agreements" or otherwise). By law, they never held them in the first place.
Maybe more musicians should join AFM.
And if they do, then you would be OK with musicians not having copyright rights, like actors?
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This directly contradicts your earlier statement:
"I think that not giving authors any copyright rights is fundamentally unfair."
The copyright in a film is not held by any of the "authors" (here, actors and other artists) who work on the films. It is held by a corporation, and the "authors" never held it at any point.
But those revenues are still derived from revenues generated by copyrighted content.
You're assuming that the current copyright levels are necessary for those revenues, which is almost certainly false. But never mind.
The point was that the revenue going to actors is not derived from copyright. Nowhere in the copyright statutes are actors granted any kind of royalty rights.
If this situation is not "unfair" for them, why is it "unfair" for other artists?
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree (slightly). The purpose of copyright law is to create some kind of "fairness."
It is to benefit the general public, by increasing public access to works of art.
If we are talking about copyright law, that is the only kind of "fairness" that we can talk about. The more copyright law benefits the general public, the more fair it is. The less it benefits the general public, the more unfair it is. There is literally no other moral consideration to make.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Constitution does not say that authors are guaranteed exclusive rights. It says "Congress shall have the Right" to grant them. It grants rights to Congress, not to authors.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and what the Constitution says is "moral" is the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
If there is any moral imperative, it is this, and this alone: copyright "must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts." (Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken.)
The granting of exclusive rights is not a moral good. In the words of Congress: "The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly."
There is nothing moral about copyright's exclusive rights. It is a purely utilitarian construct, designed to promote a different moral good: a moral good that accrues to the general public, not to copyright holders.
A moral good that you haven't even mentioned in this discussion. The only thing you're obsessed with is some kind of right to the "evil" of the temporary monopoly.
You are simply demanding that others respect your right to be evil. That is not a moral standpoint. By criticizing others for not agreeing with you, you have shown that you have no particular regard for morality.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, actors receive royalties. But they are not derived from the actors' copyright on their performances, because they never had it. By law, acting is a "work for hire" profession.
They got those royalties, not through copyright law, but through collective bargaining. The same way that the UAW bargains for higher wages.
Yet, you seem to think this is "unfair."
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this is a problem - on your part. Copyright is a completely utilitarian concept. Normative values are completely irrelevant.
The entire purpose of copyright is to benefit the public, by increasing access to works of art, and (eventually) by placing more works of art into the public domain. Copyright can be measured objectively by seeing whether it fulfills this purpose.
But you are totally disregarding this objective measurement, and trying to bring your own morality into the equation. Moreover, you are doing it while denying that copyright should be measured in any way other than through your own moral compass.
This is exactly how valid ideas are suppressed.
Let's say that you were one of the Catholic priests who were questioning Galileo. Here's what you would be asking:
"I'm trying to get you to talk about what your normative values are and why you believe that the Earth rotates around the Sun."
You can, I hope, see the flaws in this question. The idea (read: fact) that the sun rotates around the Earth is not a "belief," and does not depend upon "normative values."
So it is with copyright. Copyright theory does not give a rat's ass if "no exclusivity" is unfair to authors. (Indeed, copyright theory has never once given a shit about the exploitation of "authors" at all - something that I do not particularly like, but recognize.) All that matters is whether the public has increased access to artistic works. Everything else is completely and utterly irrelevant.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look at the history of AFTRA. Look at what payments and royalties they've managed to get.
Now keep in mind that throughout most of its history, AFTRA members did not hold any copyright rights.
That should give you an idea of how useless copyright is to artists' rights. All of the benefits that artists and musicians got from AFTRA, they got without copyright.
That's just one particular example. Others abound. The plain fact is that artists don't gain power by exploiting their copyrights. They gain power through collective bargaining, and threatening to withhold their labor, not their copyrights.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, not "giving" copyrights to plumbers.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which "side" would that be?
And which "side" is Trent Reznor on? Amanda Palmer? Jonathan Coulton? Jeff Price? Dave Allen? 50 Cent?
Here's a hint: they're not on your side. By your own logic, then, they're siding with Mike.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is this more "unfair" than not copyrights to plumbers, assembly-line workers, auto mechanics, secretaries, customer service representatives, chefs, or lawyers?
Why is it more "unfair" to authors than it is to graphic designers, commercial jingle writers, recording engineers, radio/TV personalities, actors, or wedding-band musicians?
These people do not receive a post-publication monopoly on the work that they did. Yet they all get paid, and their employment is not considered unfair. What makes authors so special?
On the post: Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My right to own a car was not granted to me by public servants, so that the public can benefit from the use of my car.
If it was, then the moment I stop letting the public use my car, is the moment I should no longer have the right to own it. If that didn't happen, it would be entirely appropriate to say I took the car from the public.
On the post: Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, when you said this:
The right subsists in the author. It isn't taken from some other person and given to the author.
...you were wrong. The rights that are granted to authors, exclusively, under copyright law, would be held by everyone, non-exclusively, absent copyright law.
The rights do not "subsist in the author." They subsist in the public. They are taken, not just from "some other person," but from all other people, and given to the author. That is what copyright does, and that is all that it does.
And theoretically, the rights are taken from the general public, because the benefits to the public outweigh what is taken from them. The moment the laws do not do this, they are unjust.
Whatever duties the public has towards copyright law, is the same duty that the public has to any other unjust law. Whether that duty is to follow them and promote their revision/repeal, or to ignore them and behave justly (and in the process disobey them), is certainly up for debate.
On the post: Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. Here's what you said:
Karl's trying to say that the statute vesting title in the author is the same thing as transferring title from the public. That's not the case. Karl also seems to think that the public domain is legally owned by the public. That's also not the case.
I never said either of those things, and you know it.
I've been talking about copyrights, not property rights in a given particular copy.
Here are your exact words: "You have to argue that the public would have gotten the rights had it not been for copyright. In other words, they never owned the rights. The authors own the rights."
"Had it not been for copyright," the public "would have gotten" all the rights that are exclusive to authors under 17 USC 106. The public would have the right to copy, distribute, perform, make derivative works, etc. These rights would all accrue to members of the public because of private property rights and/or free speech rights. Like I've been saying, consistently, throughout this whole discussion.
You were the one that used the term "own." If such rights can be "owned" at all, they are "owned" by the public originally (meaning: before copyright).
But "own" is a very bad term, which is why I always used sarcasm quotes. Copyright is not traditional property, and is not "owned" in the same manner as traditional property. For example, it would be misleading to say a visual artist "owns" the right to attribution and integrity created by 17 USC 106A.
I prefer the term "held." The rights that are held by authors, exclusively, under copyright law, are held by the general public, non-exclusively, absent copyright law.
Yes, without copyright law the author would not have the copyright and the public would have the right to copy the work.
So then you agree, these rights are "taken from the public and then given to the author."
On the post: Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be clear, what I explicitly said is that members of the public own their own copies of public domain works.
If Dover creates copies of Macbeth, those copies are their private property. I can't break into their warehouse and take one; that would be theft. Likewise, if I buy a copy of that book, it is my own personal private property.
On the other hand, if Dover creates copies of The Sound and the Fury, those copies are not (entirely) their private property. Because of copyright, the Faulkner estate has the right to demand part of the fruits of Dover's labor as royalties.
And if those copies are unauthorized, they have no private property rights at all. The government, at the request of the Faulkner estate, can break into their warehouse, and take all of those copies, as well as all the money made from previous sales of those copies, and more besides. Because of copyright law, Dover has no rights at all to the fruits of their labor.
Likewise, if I buy a copy of that book, I do not have the right to make derivative works from The Sound and the Fury, or to perform a reading of it in public, or what have you.
So, clearly, copyright is a restriction on private property rights. Rights that would be held by Dover (and any other publisher), and the purchaser, without copyright.
But I never said, or even suggested, that the "legal title" to those copies is "passed" to the author. Nor that the public "legally owns" all public domain works. Those are bullshit straw man arguments.
On the post: Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The public's property rights I was referring to are - explicitly - the ownership rights of physical copies. Copyright limits those rights (and others), by design.
That doesn't mean I'm saying there was a "transfer of legal title," or some other straw man bullshit. Don't put words in my mouth.
On the post: Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is precisely what you demanded of me: "You have to argue that the public would have gotten the rights had it not been for copyright."
Had it not been for copyright, all members of the public would have full property rights in whatever copies they produced. They would have exactly as many free speech rights in those copies, or their own performances of those works, as they would in copies or performances of works that they authored.
But because of copyright, the public does not have those property rights and free speech rights. That is what copyright is designed to do: take away certain rights that otherwise would be held by every member of the public.
You don't need some parallel universe to see this. All you have to do is compare public domain domain works, vs. works under copyright.
This is not controversial, nor debatable. I know you personally believe that copyright is some sort of inalienable right of authors, that is legally taken away when works enter the public domain. But that is not the theory of copyright as it was envisioned by the Founding Fathers, nor by Congress, nor the Supreme Court.
- House Report on the Copyright Act of 1909
- Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios
This is the theory of copyright in the United States. It is, by design, a limited restriction on the public's natural rights to "the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce," which are "the evils of the temporary monopoly." Copyright statutes must "benefit the public," or they are unjust.
On the post: Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong. There are property rights. You have property rights in your copies, just as you would have property rights in a chair you built that was based on another chair you own. You would not have exclusive rights in that chair, in the sense that you would not have the legal right to exclude everyone else from building chairs. That does not mean you would not have property rights. You built it with your own labor, so it is yours.
And, since that "property" is expression, you would have First Amendment rights to that "property" as well. Your rights to make "derivative works," for instance, would be protected by the First Amendment. Since it is free expression, Congress shall make no law abridging it.
These are the rights that are removed by copyright law. And this is not debatable, nor controversial. It is recognized by everyone who studies copyright law, and it is recognized by the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and Congress. What is not recognized, or agreed upon, is whether our current statutes ultimately benefit the public.
That makes zero sense and it's the exact opposite of what the actual law says.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. The only rights that are not held by the public are the right to monopolize, that is, the right to exclude others from those rights.
This is literally the only thing copyright grants. If you look at the ability to exercise the rights in 17 USC 106, you'll note that every single one of them is available to everyone (including the author) for public domain works. Which is what works would be without copyright. Copyright does not "grant" authors or publishers anything but the "right" to prevent others from doing what they do.
I can point to hundreds that cite Section 201(a)
Which is completely irrelevant, since we are talking about what rights would exist without the copyright statutes - or what those statutes would be if we, the public, decided to change (or do away with) the copyright statutes. We are not talking about the law as it stands, we are talking about what the law should be under the theory of copyright.
What would happen if 17 USC simply did not exist? And why would that be a bad thing for the public? If you can't come up with an answer to the latter, then we should do away with 17 USC altogether - otherwise it is an unjust law. That is what copyright theory says.
Given the data in this article, artists are not particularly incentivized to produce new works (or publish older ones) by the current copyright statutes. Under the theory of copyright, if copyright statutes are to be just laws, they must benefit the public more than they burden the public. Since the copyright laws burden the public's property and free speech rights, but do not benefit the public by resulting in more (or more widespread) distribution of artworks, the laws must be changed, or they are unjust.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? I know you've studied copyright laws, and know that the above is absolutely true. Are you just being an asshole?
...Wait, I forgot who I was talking to.
On the post: Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quoting copyright law is a red herring, since you and I both agreed that we were talking about what happens when copyright law does not exist.
And, when copyright law does not exist, initial "ownership" vests in every single member of the public.
This is objectively true, and agreed upon by everyone except yourself.
On the post: Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I should have said "as soon as that copy is transferred to someone else." It doesn't really matter if it's published or not. If I buy an author's unpublished manuscript, then I have a natural property right to sell it, copy it, and distribute those copies as my own private property. Because it's expression, I have a free speech right to repeat it or re-express it in a manner of my choosing. These rights are not granted by authors, nor "authorized" by Congress.
Copyright removes those rights from me. You can't deny this. The benefits from giving up those rights may outweigh the detriments; but I, as a member of the public, have the ultimate right make that choice. The fact that I am also an artist is immaterial.
Next >>