Broadcasters also collect fees from cable and satellite companies that pay to retransmit the broadcasts
That's not entirely true: apparently, some TV stations are classified as "must-carry", and they cannot charge cable companies. The flip side of the coin is that cable companies (surprise) must carry the TV station.
But aside from that, my outrage is more one of principle than legality. I don't care for the whole double-dipping thing, as it just serves to raise cable rates without any benefit to the consumer.
It would be much simpler to just require registration and an extension fee. This would ensure publisher's can't keep things out of the public domain for long periods of time but still give them plenty of time to earn a return.
That does not encourage new works: Fox could keep re-registering Firefly's copyright, but what good does that do the public if Fox doesn't actually do something with it?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Base term on half-life of a product
Also, what if the one doing the adapting is not the original copyright holder. Can the adaptation be considered as exercising copyright by the original holder? Does the adaptor get a separate copyright?
Remember that the goal is to see works created and kept in print.
The adaptation would get its own Copyright, since it's a new work. This would also serve to make the original work eligible for extension.
I compared Star Trek and Firefly on another thread. The comparison fits here:
Based on a 10 year inital term of Copyright, episodes of the Star Trek series would have required renewal in 1980. Since then, there have been more movies, books, spinoff shows, and video games. This is more than enough to allow the Copyright on all those works to be renewed.
Now Firefly, on the other hand, is being all but ignored by Fox. People want to revive the TV series and even build a Firefly MMO. But Fox won't allow it, even though they're not doing anything to leverage their rights. Serenity was the last Firefly motion picture, produced in 2005. So barring any other investment by Fox, the Firefly franchise would enter the public domain in 2015. (Yes, I know there have been comics and stuff... but let's ignore that for now.)
Under current Copyright law, Fox can just sit on Firefly forever, never doing anything about it.
Under my proposal, Fox would have to "use it or lose it", effectively forcing them to make a decision: do we produce half-assed works just to keep the license (effectively throwing money away to no good end), do we put money in to producing a genuine effort, or do we just let the rights expire?
Now I have to confess.. the real intent here isn't to force companies like Fox to give up Firefly, but rather to eliminate the ambiguity around orphan works or works where the ownership is in dispute.
Look at the Robotech franchise: essentially, Harmony Gold owns all the US Copyrights for Robotech, but there are legal issues surrounding other Macross movies. So basically, Robotech and Macross are both off-limits for US distribution. My plan would end the legal fight by basically eliminating the Copyright.
In this instance, the original Robotech TV series and the characters and artwork created for the series would enter the public domain, but any new movies or TV shows would be Copyrighted.
Autocomplete is when the text box you're entering text in to automatically fills in words for you.
Instant is when Google automatically starts bringing back search results before you're done typing them. The two work together (Instant returns results based on autocomplete), but they're two different things.
I have turned off Instant (because it basically doesn't work anyway), but I still get automatic completion in the search box.
I could see the point if this was a cable network, but broadcast television stations make their income from advertising, anyone with a receiver can pick up the signal for free.
So it makes no sense to me that adding an intermediary in the process should suddenly mean that the TV network deserves more money: they are already MAKING more money in the form of increased revenue from the higher ad rates as a result of the higher ratings of you watching their network.
All this BS can be traced back to the FCC changing the rules on must-carry and broadcast TV stations being able to charge cable networks. I think we should go with a much simpler system: sell advertising or programming, but not both.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting, but is it still relevant?
Your personal papers -- the actual physical objects -- are yours, and should not be stolen, or unlawfully accessed for just the same reason that people should not steal your clothes or furniture. But if the intangible information those copies contain does leak out somehow, the public is better off with that than with nothing.
You're making an awfully specious argument: it's not okay to steal my diary, but it is okay to steal the information on my diary. I don't agree, and you're not going to come up with an argument that will convince me that it's ethical to copy my personal papers or my confidential business documents.
feel you may not understand what copyright is, precisely. Copyright is a right to prohibit other people from doing certain things -- copying, distributing, etc. -- with works. It isn't a right to actually do anything, just a right to exclude others from doing things.
You are the one who misunderstands: Copyright is a two way street. It grants rights and restrictions to the creator and the consumer of content. It also LIMITS the rights a creator has in regards to his content: things like parody, news reporting, or classroom use are rights that are explicitly granted by Copyright. In short, Copyright actually grants certain permissions to the users of a published work.
Now look at industrial espionage regulations: it is illegal to steal trade secrets from a business, for example. What does that have to do with Copyright? Absolutely nothing.
In my opinion, a trade secret and an unfinished manuscript are both in the same category: none of the public's business.
Wait, you mean the bad guys are the ones sending the signal?
Honestly, the attempts to stop us from using broadcast television amaze me: The attempt to ban VCR's, the attempts to stop people from having Superbowl parties.
How is it STEALING when someone INCREASES your viewer base? Isn't that the point of television, to get your content to as many people as possible? You'd think that the networks would be trying to help aero, not trying to shut them down.
ANYONE should be free to reprint old Trek episodes and ancient Sci-Fi movies.
ancient SF movies, yes... but Trek? Star Trek is still an active, ongoing enterprise, and all of those old episodes are still being printed, produced, and sold.
If you go back to my original proposal, you'll see that I endorse active creation, and
Star Trek is possibly the most prolific science fiction franchise in history. In terms of sheer volume, it's got more movies, TV episodes, and books than just about anything else.
Contrast this with Firefly: they're not producing any new TV episodes or movies, and Fox actively blocks anyone else who tries to create derivative works. THIS is not what Copyright was intended to accomplish. The best thing for society would be to release the Copyright and let people create new stuff.
The difference? Star Trek is still making money, so people are still producing. Firefly isn't, so nobody is producing.
So the answer is simple: when something is no longer making money, let its Copyright expire. The easy way is something I've already proposed: after 10 years, you can't extend Copyright protection to a work that is no longer being actively extended through derivative works.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting, but is it still relevant?
Absolutely not. The purpose of copyright is not to kowtow to your miserliness, it is to cause the greatest number of works to be created and published which otherwise would not be, to enter the public domain as fully and quickly as possible.
So you think it should be acceptable for someone to publish my diary or an incomplete story that I haven't finished yet?
No, that's completely unacceptable. Copyright should only apply to PUBLISHED works. Unpublished works should be my property, absolute and inviolate, and there should be NO rights to copy or reproduce my private, unpublished property.
Re: Re: Re: Interesting, but is it still relevant?
The problem with requiring registration is that so many works are not formal publications: for example, if I post a poem on a forum somewhere to cheer up a friend, do I need to register that with the LoC?
And certainly, unpublished works should be inviolate: until the day I actually publish something, it should be my property.
1 and 4 can both be satisfied by simply finding a published instance of the work in question.
I'll be honest: I'm not a fan of autocomplete. I'd rather that Google just turned it off altogether. At least then, I wouldn't have autocomplete trying to jump in and "fix it for me" when I'm trying to search a domain name and autocomplete puts in a search phrase instead.