Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
Why would a 'small time musician' be expecting 'real money' ? Twenty bucks for a long list of titles? If just ONE of those titles was popular, he would have a big check.
I don't know where you're from, but that's certainly not true in the U.S.
In the U.S., the PRO's collect all statutory royalties for musicians. That money is doled out solely according to the PRO's "sampling" of terrestrial radio alone.
For example, if you play a live gig of all original music, all of the performance royalties from that live gig goes to whichever Top 40 artist is played on the radio at the moment. If you're not one of those artists, you get nothing. Additionally, whatever tiny amount of royalties you should be getting from performance royalties also go to those artists. You are, in essence, paying Top 40 artists for the right to perform your own material.
Much of the PROs' accounting works like this. The collection agencies are basically entities that funnel money from small-time and working musicians, into the pockets of already-popular pop artists.
Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
You guys keep asserting that it's just lack of availability, but actually there's two words always tacked on to that for most people: for free. Those who aren't buying now won't buy any more.
Except that every independent study ever has shown that people who pirate legally purchase much, much more than people who do not.
And history shows that when works are offerred conveniently for a reasonable price, people flock to those services. Or did you forget that more internet traffic is devoted to Netflix, alone, than to all torrents put together?
But, the really horrible part of this which most creators will reject on sight is "compulsory licensing". That just means they'd be forced to allow every grifter in the world to try and gain money from their creation, and it'd be a race to the bottom.
Since compulsory licensing is at a fixed rate, "grifters" wouldn't be allowed to "race" anywhere.
And, since you're so against compulsory licensing, I suppose you also want to shut down ASCAP, BMI, the Harry Fox agency, and SoundExchange? After all, every one of those entities collect royalties from compulsory licensing.
That's why it exists, largely unchanged for a hundred years.
It absolutely has not existed unchanged for a hundred years. In fact, copyright has changed more since 1976 than in copyright's entire history.
One hundred years ago:
- Copyright lengths were half as long as they are today
- Copyright protection was not automatic; it required registration and an affixed copyright notice, or the work was automatically put in the public domain
- Fair use was still a common law doctrine, not codified by statutes
- Copyrights were indivisible; there was only a single "proprietor" (who was almost always the publisher, not the artist)
- Infringement must be done for profit to be unlawful
You know what they did have one hundred years ago? Compulsory licensing.
The basis of copyright is still: I made it, therefore I own it;
This was never the basis of copyright. Let's hear it from 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 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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a simple way to resolve this...
In common law countries, like the US, the common law is actual law
This is true, insofar as you mean civil law (criminal law must be based upon statutes).
But, I don't think OOTB knows what the hell "common law" actually means. It means law that is either recognized or created by the judiciary (depending upon who you ask), not the legislature, and is based upon prevailing social ethics, and basic principles of equity.
As I've explained to him before, Copyright is not, and was never, common law in the U.S. (Nor anywhere else in the world, to my knowledge.) It is wholly and completely a product of legislative statutes - both at the state and Federal level. On the Federal level, copyright arises solely from the Congressional power to "promote the progress of science."
You know what is based on common-law notions of equity? Fair use. Before the fair use doctrine was enshrined in the 1976 statutes, the courts long recognized that the rights of copyright holders could not be absolute:
From the infancy of copyright protection, some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has been thought necessary to fulfill copyright's very purpose, "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...." [...]
Congress meant S.107 "to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way" and intended that courts continue the common law tradition of fair use adjudication.
the only legit reasons I can think of for still writing in C is a) target system has less than 2MB of RAM or b) it fits in with other archaic corporate practices
That's not true. There are other reasons, such as more direct access to the hardware layer (drivers, embedded systems). Or when garbage collection causes problems, and you want to manage memory yourself (audio, games).
But, yeah, writing a slider in C is just asking for trouble.
Correction, Fox News pays less taxes by doing these nefarious (if legal)things. They do not get more of my taxes.
I get your point about the money not flowing from the government to Fox News. But the plain fact is that if Fox News paid the same taxes as you and I, it would pay for NPR's annual budget many times over, and NPR wouldn't be getting your tax money at all.
So, criticizing NPR for this seems a little weak.
What you said equates to saving $250 by buying a $500 dress for $250.
More like, retailers jack up the price from $250 to $500, to pay for the dresses that they give away to their rich friends.
Or more likely, to shake down companies for donations.
I agree that the whole PAC money thing is ridiculous. But that has nothing to do with tax codes, nor with either NPR or Fox News.
By this reasoning you contribute to every religion in the US
Believe me, I don't want to. If I had a choice, all religions would be taxed to the fullest extent of the law.
But, regardless, that's a distraction. The plain fact is that Fox News gets more of the taxpayers' money (in the form of tax breaks) than NPR does. So, criticizing NPR for taking money out of the taxpayers' pockets is misguided, to say the least.
Last I checked my wallet, I haven't "donated" a dime to Fox News.
Yes you have, in so far as Fox News consistently uses loopholes and shell companies to avoid paying any income tax. (See e.g. these articles from The Economist or the New York Times. You can dig up more if you try.)
In the meantime, NPR gets just 4.6% of its funding from state or local governments.
Re: Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
I know this thread is dead, but I just thought of one more point on the matter. After that I'll let it be.
I previously said this:
The purpose of copyright, however, is enshrined in the Constitution
But, thinking about it, this is not quite true either. The reason I thought about it was as a response to this:
The copyright clause simply tasks Congress and provides a rationale.
Promoting the progress is not "a rationale" for the power that Congress is granted. Neither is it really the "purpose" for granting that power.
Rather, promoting the progress is itself the power that is granted to Congress. The Constitution reads "Congress shall have the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." It does not read "In order to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, Congress shall have the power... (etc.)"
Were that the end of it, then Congress could promote the progress in any way it chose - whether through IP laws, or through the establishment of national arts acadamies, or through direct funding of artists, or whatever. But that is not the end of it, for the Constitution restricts the power granted to Congress, by explicitly defining the method by which that power can be exercised: "by securing for limited Times to Authors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings."
Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
Actually Karl, the Constitution tasks Congress with that. Copyright itself is not enshrined in the Constitution.
The purpose of copyright, however, is enshrined in the Constitution:
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.
- House Report on the Copyright Act of 1909
It may seem unfair that much of the fruit of the compiler's labor may be used by others without compensation. As Justice Brennan has correctly observed, however, this is not "some unforeseen byproduct of a statutory scheme." It is, rather, "the essence of copyright," and a constitutional requirement. The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
- Feist v. Rural
That's why the cries of "unconstitutional" surrounding various enforcement actions or court decisions fall on deaf ears.
The Courts have traditionally allowed Congress a huge amount of leeway when they determine what does or does not "promote the Progress of Science" (here, meaning "learning" or "culture"). Far too much leeway, IMO, but there is a good reason for this. Congress is supposed to be the voice of the people. And copyright is supposed to be a voluntary contract between the public and authors: the public voluntarily gives up some of its free speech and property rights, granting a monopoly on those rights to authors, in exchange for "broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts." (Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken.)
Thus, if the people (through Congress) decide what contract is fair, it is largely outside the scope of the Courts to intervene. But it is a fact that Congress is required to make this sort of determination, and in any challenge to copyright statutes, the Courts have determined whether they did. If they did (and they have thus far), then the Courts have a hands-off approach, even if that "determination" is questionable.
Simply put: to the degree (which you overstate) that "the cries of 'unconstitutional' [...] fall on deaf ears," it's primarily because the Courts trust the judgement of Congress. This is unfortunate, because when it comes to copyright law, almost no members of Congress are the "voice of the people." They are the voice of the highest donor, and corporate copyright interests have been throwing money at Congress for decades.
...But this is all a red herring. OOTB believes that all of us would turn on Mike, because he is "pro-copyright" for thinking that copyright must adhere to its Constitutional requirement. He is right that it makes Mike "pro-copyright," to some degree, but wrong that most people here ever thought any differently.
Mike simply believes that copyright must in fact benefit the public - as shown by empirical evidence, and not taken on faith or unproven theories, or from the biased beliefs of rights holders. That does not make him, or anyone who agrees with him, "anti-copyright." But OOTB can't accept that anyone who doesn't adhere to their own beliefs is anything other than "anti-copyright."
I'm just pointing out that he's wrong. Then again, he's always been obviously wrong, about pretty much everything, so maybe I shouldn't have bothered.
At least according to Cowardly Joe, who will claim that Goldman's argument is that the ISP's are state actors, and that the laws are completely beyond Constitutional scrutiny if that argument is wrong.