Copyrfraud is claiming copyright over something that someone else holds the copyright too, or claiming copyright on something in the public domain.
ANYBODY can sell public domain image. You can sell them. Getty can sell them. I can sell them. It happens all the time. It is not even wrong or unethical. Shakespeare? Dickens? Old silent movies? Civil War photos. Someone is out there selling them.
The government exists to protect consumers from business (and business from consumers) so if there is an abuse either way, who else has a fundamental duty and responsibility to deal with that abuse aside from the government?
It's still a horrible comparison. You're judging direct and indirect deaths over 80 years to the direct deaths caused by WWII over 5 years, and then saying the U.S. is as bad as the Nazis.
It's okay to say the CIA is bad without trying to make a bragging game out of it or comparisons to Hitler, and the U.S. was pretty good at killing people before the CIA even existed.
Judging from the history of ASCAP licensing, they'll eventually just demand every website get a license whether they host content or not - "just in case." and take you to court if you don't comply.
Just testing all new electronic devices to ensure they meet FCC regulations and don't disrupt radio communications sounds like enough to employ 1,000 people.
Creating something does give you total rights over it. The right to publish or not to publish.
Once you publish it, it becomes a matter of copyright law, and you do not have total control over it. You are submitting the work to fair use, and any rights you retain are specifically outlined in the law and are limited.
I think it's time that TechDirt retired or at least updated the whole MPAA/Boston Strangler bit. I mean, do you have to keep referring to some 40 year-old comment every time the MPAA is mentioned? Have they not done more dastardly things in the last 40 years?
Then maybe Tennessee voters should tell her to stop messing with the internet and focus on what they care about. She's tried to cause more damage to the internet than most other politicians.
--- "the purpose and intent of copyright law" is protect Creators"
Have you read the constitution? The purpose and intent is pretty clear.
--- "What ALWAYS matters is the protection, otherwise there's ZERO incentive to create new."
Nobody's saying there shouldn't be protection. The question is how much is beneficial to society.
--- "Much of what's "created" now doesn't even need to be "incentivized""
So you're saying there's no need for copyright? And why are "created" and "incentivized" in quotes?
--- it's proper to direct whatever income to more or less "rightful" owners,
Many of these works don't have rightful owners, which is why they're not available.
--- rather than allow undeserving grifters to use them for free.
You mean grifters like Walt Disney? Do you not have a clue how the public domain benefits contemporary culture? "Grifters" using the public domain for free is one of the primary things keeping those old works relevant.
--- old works being in public domain while still have commercial value is just wrong.
The vast majority of old works don't have any commercial value. Just because some old movies and few books and songs are still popular doesn't mean everything ever created will make money in the marketplace, or that if it can't make money that it's not still valuable.
--- NOT languishing in haphazardly funded random places run by one eccentric.
I didn't realize all of the world's public domain was restricted to one person. I thought works were in housed in libraries and archives around the world.
Re: Silo Value
The problem with a decentralized internet is that it takes a lot of effort to make money with it.
Re: Copyfraud
Copyrfraud is claiming copyright over something that someone else holds the copyright too, or claiming copyright on something in the public domain.
ANYBODY can sell public domain image. You can sell them. Getty can sell them. I can sell them. It happens all the time. It is not even wrong or unethical. Shakespeare? Dickens? Old silent movies? Civil War photos. Someone is out there selling them.
Re: The History of Music
Sonny Bono was responsible for the 1996 copyright extension, not the original 1976 disaster.
Re: Re:
Considering Hawley's from Missouri, I'll win that office pool.
Re: Re: Goad News
The government exists to protect consumers from business (and business from consumers) so if there is an abuse either way, who else has a fundamental duty and responsibility to deal with that abuse aside from the government?
It is effectively harassment.
Re: Useful
Google + is dead.
https://support.google.com/plus/answer/9195133?hl=en&authuser=0
Re: Re: Re: Re: An "acquired taste"
It's still a horrible comparison. You're judging direct and indirect deaths over 80 years to the direct deaths caused by WWII over 5 years, and then saying the U.S. is as bad as the Nazis.
It's okay to say the CIA is bad without trying to make a bragging game out of it or comparisons to Hitler, and the U.S. was pretty good at killing people before the CIA even existed.
Re: Re: UPDATE: Rudin Allows Local Theaters to Perform Sorkin's
Sounds more like they get to back out of some really bad publicity (and potential boycott) AND collect the royalties on all those regional shows.
You really think they're putting shows up on Broadway for ideological reasons? Broadway is all about making money.
Re: Re: UPDATE: Rudin Allows Local Theaters to Perform Sorkin's
Yeah, they're not flying to New York to see To Kill a Mockingbird. They're going to see Jeff Daniels and other movie stars.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's actually set in the 1930s.
Re: Re: Re:
Judging from the history of ASCAP licensing, they'll eventually just demand every website get a license whether they host content or not - "just in case." and take you to court if you don't comply.
Re: work?
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/fccorg-12102018.pdf
They do more than you ever imagined.
Just testing all new electronic devices to ensure they meet FCC regulations and don't disrupt radio communications sounds like enough to employ 1,000 people.
Re: Re: "someone else's stuff" is not your "own s
Once you publish it, it becomes a matter of copyright law, and you do not have total control over it. You are submitting the work to fair use, and any rights you retain are specifically outlined in the law and are limited.
If you want total control, don't publish.
(untitled comment)
Re:
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re:
Re: Wow. "Astounding." The treasures we've lost. What a shame.
Re: "the purpose and intent of copyright law" is protect Creators,
--- "the purpose and intent of copyright law" is protect Creators"
Have you read the constitution? The purpose and intent is pretty clear.
--- "What ALWAYS matters is the protection, otherwise there's ZERO incentive to create new."
Nobody's saying there shouldn't be protection. The question is how much is beneficial to society.
--- "Much of what's "created" now doesn't even need to be "incentivized""
So you're saying there's no need for copyright? And why are "created" and "incentivized" in quotes?
--- it's proper to direct whatever income to more or less "rightful" owners,
Many of these works don't have rightful owners, which is why they're not available.
--- rather than allow undeserving grifters to use them for free.
You mean grifters like Walt Disney? Do you not have a clue how the public domain benefits contemporary culture? "Grifters" using the public domain for free is one of the primary things keeping those old works relevant.
--- old works being in public domain while still have commercial value is just wrong.
The vast majority of old works don't have any commercial value. Just because some old movies and few books and songs are still popular doesn't mean everything ever created will make money in the marketplace, or that if it can't make money that it's not still valuable.
--- NOT languishing in haphazardly funded random places run by one eccentric.
I didn't realize all of the world's public domain was restricted to one person. I thought works were in housed in libraries and archives around the world.
Re:
Unfortunately on the internet, and esp. with social media, people feel fine saying things they would never say in front of people.
More comments from jupiterkansas >>
jupiterkansas’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt