Re: singers versus songwriters - just what is a royalty for?
"Singwriters" got paid for their performance. "SONGwriters get the royalties, or part of it, according to contract. THAT'S what this is all about - the owner of the copyright wants a royalty for each public performance beyond the sale of the performance medium, that is, they want to get paid for the CD sale, then also get paid for anyone additionally listening to that CD.
Unreasonable fear superscedes reasoned logic every time!
Peter Blaise responds:
This is the Rush Limbaugh syndrome where someone links three consecutive sentences only by saying them quickly in succession, otherwise there is no underlying logic whatsoever that could possibly tie them together.
In Catholic grammar school, I saw this all the time: "If I let YOU go the bathroom, I'll have to let EVERYONE go to the bathroom, then there will be CHAOS." Conclusion? Sit down and hold it till the end of class. Result? Kidney stones!
BS then as now. In fact, that's all Catholic school ever really helped me refine is a BS filter a mile thick.
BS, BS, BS. This is a commerce and civil matter, government bureaucracy and tax payer money keep out!
Ahh, this is BS. No one is stopping anyone from using so-called "orphaned" works. It's up to the original copyright owner to resolve this, not the government. The government, on the tax payer's bill, should not rush around and try to help competitive publishers fight and win against each other in the commercial marketplace.
We should not be spending tax payer dollars to have some newly invented (and trained by whom?) investigative police to officially declare the impossible - that a copyright owner does not exist ... according to some bureaucrat's investigation?!? What would be the exhaustive search criteria? If the copyright holder is retired to a mountaintop in Africa and returns a day after the government officially declares them unfindable? Or is a return envelope with "return to sender, no forwarding address on file" enough to disenfranchise the owner of any intellectual property, registered or not? BS, BS, BS! That is a commerce and civil mater, and not of governmental and tax payer interest.
This silly legislation would have begged for yet another examination bureaucracy like the dysfunctional Patent Office, and like the Trademark Office, creating a new Copyright Office of examiners that reviews applications for copyright use and applications (from whom? at what price?) to declare intellectual property officially "orphaned".
Earlier: "... Never tried it. Never will ... Not sure why Google ... announce a browser. WTF, Google? There are already enough browsers out there ... Firefox is my choice ..."
Versus, from the same poster: "... adding too much to a browser no longer makes it a browser. Worse, it makes it more difficult for the stupid users out there to properly set up (think ActiveX here, folks). Why is just a basic program so hard for people to actually develop anymore? Complaints about memory "hoggage", crashing apps, and other issues just seems totally stupid for a program that's main purpose is to surf the web ..."
I think you just sold yourself on the reason to try Chrome. Unlike Firefox or IE, it's not adding too much, not disrespecting memory, not crashing itself, and, rather painfully obviously, it's "... main purpose is to surf the web ..." - period.
Maybe you should rethink "... Never tried it. Never will ..."
Earlier: "... Uninstalled the first day... Simply because there's no home button. My iGoogle page is my homepage because it has all of my news, email and weather on it.
Opening a new tab to be taken to the same thing opera has had for quite a while was a hassle, I want a home button and there simply wasn't one there and no way to easily add it..."
Yes, I found a was missing familiar features, presuming the benefits of those features could not be gotten any other way. I was as wrong as you are wrong!
For instance, I missed not being able to continue to build my encyclopedic hierarchy of bookmarks. Then I found that if I type what I am looking for into the address field, Google helps me find it faster than I could have found it in my arcane bookmark system anyway. The address fiels also behaves as Google search field - clever! One down.
Home page? Google remembers previous pages if you want, so why not close Chrome with your "home" page on screen, so it always opens there next time, or just make your Chrome icon a shortcut to your home page URL so it opens there first? Same same, and then you're getting what you're after without adding another control, a single purpose control, to the dashboard.
Look at our cars. Yes, we have a map box (ne glove compartment!), but do we always ask the map box for permission to go anyplace when we drive? Or do we go most places directly, and use feedback on the road to guide our specific daily trajectory? How many people even have maps in their cars all the time anymore?
I don't need the map's help or permission anymore to go to 99% of my routine destinations. Browser wise, I find that some of my bookmarks were aging anyway, and lead to dead ends where I had to web search to find where it had moved or to find a replacement anyway. So what good was the bookmark after all?
Try right clicking a page - "save as..." appears, so we don't needs a traditional [File],[Save as] pull down menu strip across the top. Google Chrome found another way to provide the benefit without having the constant on-screen feautre of a fime menu bar. And so on. Chrome is smarter than we think.
My point is that the simplicity of Chrome belies it's sophisticated intelligence and capability. C'mon back and explore it a little more, and you'll probably find neater, faster ways to accomplish your goals. As Apple once said, "Think different." It won't hurt!
Chrome works and survives though Windows dies a horrible BSOD crash
While backing up a customer's drive via USB to one of my internal native ATA backup drives, my system locked and crashed (not resolved yet, perhaps a problem with the customer's system - in the meantime, I'm using Plan B, another native internal ATA drive already prepped for my machine).
Chrome was "the only man standing", and continued to work flawlessly while Microsoft XP Pro Windows Explorer and the backup program (Microsoft DOS XCopy), and even Microsoft Task Manager crashed all around it, became unstable, and inoperative. I was very impressed at Chrome's integrity, as I continued to browse and open and close Chrome windows/tabs/sessions (they are apparently mixed, as some tabs appear to share memory sessions with each other). I continued to browse for hours using Chrome to successfully do my business work, even though the computer in which Chrome was running was completely crashed.
Upon reboot, I got an unresolvable blue screen of death, by the way, the Microsoft crash in which Chrome uniquely stood tall and functional was that bad. I am now very very confident that what we have all been asking Microsoft to do - build a reliable operating system, a quick, neat, clean, simple, RELIABLE operating system - is possible, very possible. My experience of Chrome proves it's possible, for me.
Oh, yes, Chrome crashes for me daily, usually after downloading ZIP files and trying to open them from within Chrome's download file status bar. So, instead, I close Chrome's download file status bar, and open the file using Microsoft XP Pro Windows Explorer. After each Chrome crash, it immediately re-opened into the previous tabs and had saved all my typing that I had entered into web pages but had not completed and sent yet. Amazing! Nothing lost.
Chrome stands when Microsoft falls, and stands up again even when Microsoft finds a way to momentarily pull Chrome down. Chrome protects my data and gives me access to my data long after Microsoft has given up and shut down and locked me out.
I'd like to offer some insight in clearing up what I think are conceptual, er, misconceptions:
Earlier: "... competition ... drives innovation ...but, to [the law suit filer] apparently it's a threat that needs to be stamped out ..."
No. Attempting to stamp put competition IS an expression of competition. Attempting to get our taxpayer dollars to help by asking the government step in is anti competitive marketplace. They are, in effect, asking for government protection against competition as a monopoly. I think the author knows this, but the subtlety of the point is worth exploring, I think.
Earlier: "... generic and descriptive -- which are two no-nos in getting a trademark ..."
No. Anyone can use anything as trademark, The author is talking about getting a federal trademark registration, where the legal examiners in the trademark office have legal criteria to review before registering a trademark. But, no one needs a registration to have a trademark. Yes, it good protection to have a successfully registered trademark. I think the author knows this, but the subtlety of the point is worth exploring, I think.
I switched to Chrome immediately upon announcement, saw how fast it was, how clean it's interface is, and never looked back.
I crash Chrome at least once a day.
Yes, the whole Chrome thing crashes, not just one tab - but all tabs come back upon reloading, and it's still faster than anything else. It's still impossibly waay better than anything Microsoft offers, and Firefox is waay too complex to setup and maintain (and incompatible between v2 and v3).
I'd rather spend my time productively, not waiting for Microsoft nor configuring Firefox. I like Opera, but Chrome does what I want - let me browse and get out of the way.
Earlier: People who copy and upload copyrighted material to world-popular web sharing sites "... they're not trying to get revenue from it ..."
And that's the point seen by the copyright holder, and the basis for their "benevolent" decision. The copyright law is the vehicle supporting the copyright holder's ability to make choices, in this case, to co-opt the upload. Without copyright law, they couldn't claim it as their own. There's nothing wrong with copyright law, and copyright law is unrelated to business models, as illustrated here. The copyright holder chose an alternate business model, but that alternate business model was not forced upon them by any law, nor should it be just because digital copying is easy.
Earlier: "... the efforts put forth by the IOC to get special trademarks on certain words, like 2010 and Vancouver and 2012 and London ..."
International treaties and "special law" legislation protect various trademarks from competitive registrations from others, such as Smokey The Bear, the Red Cross, and the Olympics: Section 103(4) of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, 36 U.S.C. 373(4), which defines Corporation as the United States Olympic Committee, and Section 110 of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, 36 U.S.C. 380, which provides to the Corporation exclusive rights in specified Olympic symbols and terms for one of the organizations responsible for organizing and presenting the Olympic Games, and so on.
Earlier: "... I thought that you could not patent, copyright, or trademark a number. If you can, I guess Intel would like to know. Remember the 486 ? ..."
Don't confuse unrelated things:
1 - you can USE anything in a trademark, you just can't successfully REGISTER anything with the US Trademark Office.
2 - Intel lost "486" because it was DESCRIPTIVE, meaning that "486" merely described the product (four 8086 chips on one chip), so they were denied REGISTRATION.
Go to the USPTO Trademark web site and search for any number ("1", "2" and so on) and find many numbers used in trademark registrations as a source identifier for good or services:
I wonder where the call to disenfranchise authors comes from, and the call to empower copyists?
I still do not understand why anyone feels (a) they have to claim that my ownership and control of my own authored intellectual property is inappropriate, and (b) that it can only be seen as a monopoly. What am I denying anyone else access to by monopolizing my own creative artifacts?
No one seems able to succinctly answer: what limits do you prefer?
"... The Congress shall have Power ... To secur[ing] for limited Times to Authors ... the exclusive Right to their respective Writings ..."
Seems like "secure" is the operative word, not "grant".
Anyway, moot point since subsequent US Supreme Court decisions and opinions recognized innate unalienable copyrights in authorship.
Rewording: How some author's Copyright practices are Holding Back Their own Creativity
Maybe the opening title should be reworded:
Rewording: How some author's Copyright practices are Holding Back Their own Creativity
Okay, thanks everyone for valuable and vigorous, productive and provocative contributions. Great that we can keep these discussions of Copyright so active. I'm thrilled that there is real interest in a subject that is so critically important to my own relationship with my society.
I think I get a couple of things:
Mike, I think you believe in a new way of marketing authored and copyable works. You suggest that authors get with these new technologies and marketing concepts and stop trying to wrestle with a moving marketplace that is leaving them behind, stop trying to use Copyright law as a means of throwing the brakes on the market and trying to pick the pockets of other hard working people who are making money off of copying other people's works but don't offer those author any royalties. You suggest that the authors quit whining and just super-publish and be better than those who may have ripped them off. You suggest that these authors are hanging onto Copyright as if it were a floatation device or buoy, but you see Copyright as an anchor, dragging those non-productive authors down. You have great sympathy for such authors, don't want them to suffer, and you wish to help disabuse them of unworkable marketing gambits that, though legal, are not profitable for them nor beneficial to their potential audience or consumers. Your complaint against copyright law is that authors use it to diminish their own creativity and distribution, so if others have learned to just say no to copyright, why not toss copyright altogether, and have a really free marketplace, intellectual property wise. Have I got it? What is your alternative suggestion, specifically?
Mike, you also suggest that there is a difference between plagiarism and copying. I wonder if you think the difference matters, or should an author just ignore any copies, attributed or not, accurate or not, and just go ahead and super-publish on their own and hope they win out over their competition (their competition who has accurately or inaccurately copied their works)? Could you specify what you think an author should do about unauthorized copies or inaccurate copies, and how the law should (or should not) respond or support the author (or not)?
Mike, you suggest that publishing the 9/11 reports, and fashion copies, are excellent examples of why copyright is not needed, however, you may like to know your choices of examples here convince me against your points because: there are no author's Copyright involved in the republication of public domain material such as Shakespeare or the publicly owned 9/11 report; and copying garments and jewelry (like my $20 street Fauxlex) are Trademark issues, not Copyright issues. Otherwise, keep those examples comin' as they help me confirm that I'm absolutely accurate in my understanding of the current practice of Copyright both in the US and Internationally.
No problem here. I think may of us get confused between patents, copyrights, trademarks, campaign and advertising slogans, designs, original ideas, and, of course, creative marketing and business models that cut new paths across our experience and challenge us to not rely on previous methods. But, only 3 of these are law - patent, copyright, and trademark - and the others are personal choices, whim, and have nothing to do with law. It's great that you propose new and clever marketing and business models, and any author can pursue them at the moment unhindered by law. I'm not sure what is your point in asking the government to stop supporting other methods of authorship participation in society. You seem to admit they are unrelated, so what do you care if some authors choose alternate societal relationships to your ideas? Even without copyright formalized in the way it is, there might be equivalent contract law effectively establishing the same end. In other words, in a free market place, some people choose to market one way, and others choose to market other ways.
To others, regarding "extreme" amounts of time for copyrights - that's one way of assessing differing preferences. I think anything less than my lifetime and the life of my first assignee is "extremely" short, and you may think that anything more than (... um, you don't specify ...) is "extremely" long. Could you specify without adjectives what specific "limit" you prefer? Regardless, the US Constitution suggests "for a limited time" and Shakespeare's time is up, so I guess that's "limited", and we can all have at it. After the limited time I prefer, please feel free to copy my stuff without prior permission or royalties - that is, after my lifetime and my first assignee's lifetime. Regardless, at least by 400 years from now, I'm confident my interests will have expired with me.
"Securing" rights does not mean granting them, as all people inalienably have all the rights to begin with. The government has no rights, and therefore has no rights to give. The people have all the rights, and empower our self-governance with certain powers derived from the people. "Securing" rights means protecting them (not granting them in the first place). We already have copyright as an inalienable part of our creation of our own artifact. In the late 1800s, in the early days of photography, the US Supreme court recognized that photographers have authorship and copyright immediately in the creation of even the latent image (at the time, the undeveloped negative - no development, printing, nor publishing needed). All the government is doing is securing those rights -- protecting those innate, unalienable, rights, authorship copyrights. A copyright registration with the Library of Congress does not give us copyrights. We already have authorship copyrights before registration. A copyright registration gives us a professional witness in court in a prima facie case against infringers. Neither the US Constitution nor subsequent Amendments nor laws give us any rights - we already have all the rights. The US Constitution and Amendments and laws circumscribe the powers of government who protect or prohibit expression of rights in certain circumstances (exceeding the speed limit on public roads, protecting a peace march, and so on). Let's not forget how this thing called constitutional democracy works. Okay, constitutional republican capitalist democracy. Okay, ... anyone wanna add some adjectives here? My fingers are getting' tired! ;-)
Earlier: "... The Framers specifically expressed their abhorrence for monopolies ..."
Oh, point me to the place where this is written and is the model by which all property law, especially intellectual property law is governed, please!
Earlier: "... given the experiences of authors giving away their books leading to greater sales, I think that many are finding better business models every day ..."
... and the only way they get paid is through copyright licensing via contracts that hold up in court because they are based initially on respect for authorship copyright. If there were no respect in court for authorship copyright, they'd get nothing once their first book copy was bought by a competing publisher, who can then copy it and republish it for no further royalty costs paid to the author.
As far as I can tell, the "new business model" depends entirely on respect for authorship copyright in order to work to the benefit and incentive of the author of any work - which I think was the point made earlier. The 9/11 Commission was paid otherwise and was not depending on authorship copyrights and royalties for their income, so they are not an example of authorship copyright in a free marketplace of ideas, unless you propose a welfare state where all authors are paid directly by the state as the 9/11 commission was, an then all author's written products are given away or sold to the highest first bidder. Of course, once published and the fist copy hits the public, no one needs to bid again since they can just freely copy, and the flow of capital in exchange for intellectual property content value never again returns to the originator or author of the intellectual property.
I suggest Trent Reznor as an example of an author with copyrights who is giving it away and, at the same time, selling copies, and doing well. But notice that Trent is not giving it away to other publishers to republish without royalty. He is giving it away to consumers to download free, and encouraging them to buy collector's editions with real cover art and supplemental artifacts not available in download. He is doing well, but he is totally dependent on our society's support and respect for authorship copyright as shown in the US Constitution, Amendments, Laws, and the Court decisions and opinions - oh, and international copyright treaties, too. He's just picking and choosing which copyrights to pursue and which to abandon. He's happy with direct downloads form him. He's not happy with competitors selling his work without permission and without paying him royalties.
Earlier: "... right now, the market is unfortunately blocked by gov't monopolies and regulations ..."
Oh? Do tell. What government monopoly? The one that paid for and gave away the 9/11 report as public domain? Oh, there isn’t one. What regulation? The one prohibiting anyone from publishing without claiming copyright or taking advantage of Creative Commons copyright contract examples? Oh, there isn’t one. I'm lost to identify any "gov't monopolies and regulations" blocking my marketing of my authored intellectual property. In fact, it's the non-governmental free market vendors who both empower, and yet at the same time provide insurmountable challenges to my creative sharing. I can't get Time Warner on the phone, but Lulu will publish my stuff on demand tomorrow. Gotta love this free marketplace and all the choices I have! And al lof it, Time Warner, Lulu, and myself, are backed by strong government support of respect for my authorship copyright. I'm lookin' good today! And maybe, just maybe, I may successfully stick my finger into the stream of royalties flowing out there on the Internet that O Might be able to retire on. That is, if my intellectual property offering is valued. Gosh, I hope enough people like my stuff to buy some of it. And I'm so happy the government has provided a platform of protection I can call on if I want to against anyone trying to rip me off!
Earlier: "... All content is based on earlier works ..."
Not mine, and even if it were, it certainly is not based on anyone's extant copyright. And even if it were, I could simply ask for permission to copy. Nothing is standing in my way creating new work, certainly not "gov't monopolies and regulations". Do you know of any, and can you name any, authors who are inhibited by "gov't monopolies and regulations"?
Earlier: "... everyone plays by the rules of giving these artists a monopoly on their rights ..."
There's no problem here. What's the problem here?
Earlier: "... not letting anyone do any work on top of their work? ..."
There's no problem here. The courts can resolve trivial issues where unauthorized copies are considered "fair use" and are not under the control of the author's copyright anyway. Yet, where the author's copyright is extant, what's the problem with asking permission, or, god forbid, creating one's own new works! Isn't that your whole read on the US Constitution wording?:
Earlier: "... The government felt that there was a market failure, where not enough "content" would be produced without a limited monopoly, and thus, copyright was born ... back in the day when creating content wasn't easy ... You pretty much had to go through a professional process ..."?
You want new content? Then why are you harping on rehashed content as the reason to abandon societal and government support for respect for author copyrights? Which way do you want it - new work, or rehashed work? Today, there's both, unhindered by anything but societal and government support for respect for author copyrights in the otherwise free marketplace of ideas and capital. Have at it, and play nice -- play fair -- respect others as you would have them respect you. Don't plagiarize, and pay what another author asks if you copy.
Earlier: "... You two are debating copyrwrite on books ..."
No, we are debating copyrights. "Copy writing" is writing advertising copy. However, I appreciate our typos, misspellings, and even the YELLING going on here, and, by now, I usually just read past it looking for the real content. We all have greater and lesser resources. I end up writing in a word processor, spell check, miss "from" versus "form" typos, then publish, and go, "Doh!" -- too late, I missed my own typos. I appreciate others would like a nice, perfectly edited read, but I suggest that that ain't gonna happen in the heat of blog replies!
Earlier: "... Should somebody who creates something five minutes long get to profit for it for 100+ years? ..."
If they deserve it, yes. But, we're not talking about profit, we're talking about respect for authorship copyrights, and I believe that denying a living person within our society control over and benefits from their work is theft, and society should strive to prevent that by one member over another, and to support all it's members intact. If someone wants that author's content 100 years from now (what, they were 1 year old when they authored that 5 minute piece?), then pay for it, or make their own creative burst to compete. The logic here escapes me. People keep saying that the more value something has, the less the author should get. Aside from being the inverse of marketing experience, is there a basis in law that suggests societal and governmental support for individual's rights are to be inversely proportional to the value of those rights? The more something has proven it's worth, the less the creator should be able to control it and reap benefits from it? Huh?
Oh, and I love the example of not being able to build a satisfactory web site for a lawyer - hahahah. ROTF-LOL! I also had to fire my lawyer customer mid project just to get the dang thing completed. Lawyers tend to hammer away at anything that they believe could cause them a liability, and they have no awareness of marketing and advertising as investments regardless of certain affordable risks. As John Wanamaker, considered the father of modern advertising, once said, "Half of all advertising money is wasted. We just don’t know which half." Lawyers hate that, and become immobilized by trying to come up with the perfect presentation as if they had one and only one chance before a judge to prove their case. Advertising is a hit-and-miss broadcast universe that is anathema to lawyers to completely and successfully persuade and convince each and every judge and jury member they come across, one at a time, no exceptions. The example says more about an uninitiated person's fear of the unknowns of advertising than it does about copyright.
Anyway, thanks again and again, everyone, for this great discussion. Keep it up. More, please. Vote early, and often!
Okay, what was it again that each of us believes is appropriate for Copyright law?
I can't figure out what each of us believes anymore, so I have no idea where the arguments are come from or are going to.
I think there is much confusion about non-copyright issues, such as a creative class, publishing monopolies, the US FBI and US Customs pursuing copyright infringement of commercial products prompted by those publishing monopolies, the fear of theft from the public if an author holds or withholds their own copyright works, the fear of drying up the culture if copyright is maintained, expanded, reduced, or repealed (hey, let's do all four - hahaha). There's hatred of copyright because it is connected with historical monarchies, and respect for copyright because it is a revolutionary declaration (US and French to be specific) that all people have rights once only tendered to a sovereign. There's the perpetual confusion of patents, trademarks, and copyrights in the minds of authors, intellectual property holders, lawyers, and the general public, let alone in the minds of the government (US executive, judiciary, legislative branches, what to other governments do?).
Great that Creative Commons was mentioned, which quickly empowers anyone, especially the common author of digital works, to specify their preference for copy rights and wrongs of their work (intellectual property, personal property, even if respected as singularly owned for a brief period, but universally respected as property nonetheless).
Hardly mentioned are international treaties.
I summarize for me: All I'm saying is, if I am the author of any work, respect it as mine, obey my preferences on copying it, including paying me to copy it if I stipulate that I want payment for copying (or don;t copy it, move on, and create your own, or copy someone else's). Respect me as owner of my authored works throughout my life and the life of my first assignee.
While I appreciate others objecting to such long copyrights, I think your arguments prove my point - that my authored work has value, and anyone who wants to reap the benefits of that value should pay me what I ask. when I and my interests (including the interests of my first assignee) are gone (we each die), then my interests are gone, and you can have at it without paying me anymore. Otherwise the theft is real value from me, where you are not paying me for my work, and slave labor is universally illegal.
You can disagree, but please, tell us what you prefer as society's way of implementing and respecting authorship and copyright to control copies of one's authored works therein. Thanks.
Copyright respects authorship and treats it as property
Earlier: "...The government felt that there was a market failure, where not enough "content" would be produced without a limited monopoly, and thus, copyright was born...back in the day when creating content wasn't easy...You pretty much had to go through a professional process..."
No, "back in the day" you pretty much had to be ROYALTY, not "professional", in order to reap any benefits from your authorship, thus copyright for authors was born.
There have been authors galore throughout history, nothing has changed that. Copyright is about a society respecting authorship through it's constitution and laws, not "to provide an incentive for the creation of more content".
Does nobody remember that the US Constitution was a document written by greedy bastards who didn't trust each other, were afraid each would become the next monarch, and so knew that the only way to prevent another monarchy was to respect the greed to the common man, was to ennoble the common man with property rights.
The original draft of the Declaration of Independence went: live, liberty and pursuit of property.
Not: there is a market failure, not enough "content" is being produced without a limited monopoly, and thus, we declare copyright.
You're confusing copyright, which is respect for the property value of authorship, and licensing the bifurcation of the free public airwaves, which is distribution. If anything, the expansion of the free public airwaves to include instant and accurate digital copying and instant world wide distribution via the Internet, copyright is more at risk, not less.
While I appreciate you incessantly suggesting that people who own intellectual property should just get over it and change their marketing paradigm and give it away and sell advertising, you've got it ass-backwards, copyright wise. You're suggesting weakened copyright (respect for authorship) as a way of respecting stronger distribution (broadcast, or copies), but if anyone else can copy and profit from my authorship and I no longer can reap royalties, what's my incentive? If anything, the Internet begs for stronger copyright to respect the ease with which copies can be made.
Go ahead, copy and distribute my work, populate your copy-cat web pages with my authorship, but pay me. That's copyright, and it is needed stronger now more than ever.
Earlier: "...when creations are restricted it is the creator who suffers more because his creation won't find its full and true public, its spark finds no kindling, and the fire dies..."
Huh? On what planet have you been hiding? Have you not seen http://www.Flickr.com/ and http://www.Lulu.com/ and so on? People are publishing directly in drives. What "restriction" on creativity or communication are you thinking of? You're complaining about the restriction on COPYING, and there is no restriction on copying, unless you think actually paying the author for the content you copy is a restriction. Oh, that bothers you? And you don't want to create your own content because ...? You are your own worst enemy, argument wise. Nothing proves your points wrong as well as you do yourself:
Earlier: "...let's assume that instead of a scarcity there is an abundance of talent and a limitless will to create but it has been tamped down by an educational system that insists on sameness; starved by a mass economic system that rewarded only a few giants; and discouraged by a critical system that anointed a closed, small creative class. Now talent of many descriptions and levels can express itself and grow. We want to create and we want to be generous with our creations. And we will get the attention we deserve..."
.. and that attention is called respect for our authorship and respect for authorship is called copyright.
I'm sorry and sad that you think you live in a world where there is a creative class and the rest of us are suppressed, but if there be anything like that, it's called the monopoly of the publishing world and the corporate (second class) citizen having enough money to persuade legal authorities to favor them instead of individual (fist class) citizens. That is the problem, and taking away copyright won't kill communication monopolies, it will only kill communication autonomies. I will never share another picture on the web again if I can't reap the benefits of my authorship, I will only sell them at local art fairs.
Earlier: "... copyrights can be bought by the highest bidder..."
No. Copyrights can be SOLD TO the highest bidder. The difference is in respect for the authorship of property, and that's where copyright protects the individual.
Earlier: "... copyright law justifies the withholding of creative works to maintain the celebrity worship paradigm..."
I must have missed the withholding part. What planet are you on? This is so wrong, I can't imagine what you are referring to, and what copyright has to do with whatever it is you are complaining about. Care to resend, with examples? Thanks.
Earlier" ... humans were too stupid to revolt against their masters ..."
Is this a religious reference, calling on the US to be religion free?
Earlier: "... Copyright is not holding back the creative class. It may be holding back Neanderthals of the creative class who want to make money there from. Some of us do not worry. We create...."
Can someone help me understand what a creative class is and where I may find it? Are we talking about the movie studios or YouTube?
So much for free publicly owned airwaves, free speech (which photography is), free press, copyright, free trade, free enterprise ...
If the FCC asked them to get a broadcast license to use the free public airwaves (NOT a permit, a license) to broadcast, that makes sense, I suppose, for anything broadcast over 1/4 watt, right?
Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/landsat/15USCch82.html is based on Landsat, but seems open ended, calls their issue a license, not a permit, requires all data be made available to the Government (wow), demands flight path plans and such, 120 days prior notice, also demands national security not be compromised (wow again, that's a catch all!).
Burocrats seem more intent on expanding their powers and usurping the powers of the people, rather than protecting the US Constitution (their only sworn duty) that in turn protects the people ... of the people, by the people, for the people.
PS - Regarding spil chick - please, everyone, use Firefox and or the Google-style toolbar for their in-built spell check, or edit off line and cut and paste. And, dear web designer, please allow us to later re-edit our own posts. Thanks.
Centre Tomi Ungerer
4 rue de la Haute-Montée, 67000
Tél. et Fax 03 88 32 31 54
I suppose if Tomi allowed it to go into the public domain, then NOBODY owns it, and all can use it to their own satisfaction, and your The Literacy Community can rest knowing their investment is sacrosanct and indemnified against suit. However, exclusive use as a source identifier of a public domain image? I dunno?!?
And yes, Trademark is a source identifier for a product or service. The following is for the WORDS only, NOT the drawing:
Word Mark FLAT STANLEY
Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: (Based on Intent to Use) Articles of clothing, namely, T-shirts, polo shirts, trousers, pullovers, jackets, waistcoats, raincoats, coats, hats, gloves, scarves, shoes and boots
IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: (Based on Use in Commerce) association services, namely, promoting reading and literacy. FIRST USE: 19950000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19950000
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 77052642
Filing Date November 29, 2006
Current Filing Basis 1A;1B
Original Filing Basis 1A;1B
Published for Opposition January 15, 2008
Owner (APPLICANT) Hubert, Dale INDIVIDUAL CANADA 64 Forward Avenue London CANADA N6H1B7
Attorney of Record Peter Macrae Dillon
Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Re: Anything less than 2 generation's lifetimes STINKS!
Gotta love ya, Dan.
Essentially, we agree over initial copyright, right?
However, we disagree over duration, and the meaning of authorship to one's life's work and to one's life's earnings, the meaning of ownership regarding assignment, and the possible or speculative incentives for subsequent useful creativity.
Other than that, we agree, right?
However, I'm basing my argument on being a creator.
You're basing your argument on speculation.
I KNOW, as a creative artist, I'm disensentivised if my copyright is to be taken from me in my lifetime. Let me tell you that I am not less connected because of the passage of time with my writing, my songs, my pictures, from 50 years ago. In fact, I'm more connected than ever before with their importance in piecing together the jigsaw puzzle of my life, and presenting it to the world in a useful way. Don’t take my pride and joy, my personal resource away from me! You say I nave no incentive to create new stuff if I own my copyright for my life, but that's exactly the incentive I have to create - because I will own my creation for my entire life. And, I plan to retire on my creative investments, just as anyone else who works for a living plans to do in this country. It's just that, being self-employed, and having no employer's retirement plan otherwise, my copyright royalties are my only insurance against dying in poverty. Also, copyright royalties are my only way to provide continuity of support for those whom I promised to support - my family! Hey, this is my WORK. You want to nix the value of my work and the value of my retirement! Why? Why would you single out creative artists as the ones to disenfranchise from the value of their life's earnings? Sounds unconstitutionally discriminatory to me.
You claim lifetime copyright is welfare, but you forget who's paying for copyright - the consumer who values my work, not the general taxpayer. If my work is valueless, I’ll get nothing. If my work has value, I get money. That's the plan. That's how society and I work together. I'm a part of society just as any consumer is, just as any other creative artist is, and just as any other productive worker is. Sounds fair to me to live in a society that's set up that way. You're suggesting that if my work has value as time wears on, I should not continue to get rewarded for my efforts. Why? It sounds as if you want people who do not create to get a free ride on my creativity. Why? That sounds exactly like a definition of "freeloader" that you so object to. I'm the hard working, creative one, NOT the freeloader. Why reward them and not me? Why GIVE my reward to them, and not me?
You did not answer my point: are YOU a freeloader if you live in a house inherited from your parents? More importantly, is being a freeloader illegal? What about someone who wins the lottery? Isn’t that government incentive to be a freeloader? Where in the US Constitution doe sit say we the people empower the government to prevent freeloaderism? Actually, I see your desire to steal my copyrights as government created freeloaderism. Have you spoken to yourself lately?
Anyway, why do I have to be the creative one TWICE in order to fulfill the US Constitution's imperative to "promote the progress of the useful arts? As the initial creative artist of useful copyright works, I've already done my part, and I'm trying to live off the benefits of selling valued copies of my creativity to an appreciative society. Why can't someone else be the creative one next? Why should they get to steal my creativity? GIVING them my work is no incentive for them to create, and it certainly disincentivises me form creating, too!
Dan, the US Constitution is there to instruct the government on what they can and cannot do, not to instruct the populace. The government has "...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 ..." You and I are arguing over how to influence policy makers to accomplish that, with constant growth considering society's developments. I do not think we are convincing each other to change our minds, however. Me? I can’t imagine giving some non-creative person unearned profits from my creativity. You? You think I should be disenfranchised and disconnected from the revenue stream of my own hard work. What was the word you used ... "ludicrous"? Yeah, that's the word. Got it. Now I have an example of what "ludicrous" means. Thank you.
Derivative works are not blocked by me retaining ownership of my works. Anyone can ask and negotiate incorporating my work into their own new creative work. Nothing's stopping them from asking now, and nothing's wrong with me asking back that they share the wealth of the results of our combined creative efforts.
Thanks again, Dan. Your persistence has helped me clarify for myself, if not for others, what makes sense to me as a creative artist in this society, copyright policy wise.
So. Does anyone else have alternative ideas NOT discussed so far?
Anything less than 2 generation's lifetimes STINKS!
Great points, Dan. Thanks for hanging in there and helping to work out and clarify each other's points. Your energies are quite helpful in polishing points here.
Firstly, I see that we're talking about different things. Yes, we disagree, but, on top of that, we're still talking about different things.
Side track: All motorized vehicles fall under some rules identically, and yet each category has it's exceptions. A motorcycle rider in court probably can't get away with saying, "Your honor, the speed limit is for cars, and I'm not a car, so going 120 miles per hour on my motorcycle is okay for me." The speed limit applies to the road, not different motor vehicles differently (with exceptions for trucks in some places). But they can say in the inspection station, "The seatbelt requirement is for cars, and I'm not a car, so not having a seatbelt on my motorcycle is okay." Different categories of motor vehicles are treated differently.
Same with the word "property" - all "property" has some commonalities, and each category has differences. Like "real" property, "intellectual" property can be bought and sold, but unlike "real" property, "intellectual" property has a limited time-frame of exclusive ownership by the author or the author's assignees. This is not up for grabs in this discussion, is it? Does anyone argue against that?
I'm not saying intellectual property is exactly in every way like real property. I'm saying I'm all for a societal agreement that intellectual property be considered like real property in terms of the author or owner getting the benefit of it and being able to assign those benefits. I'm acknowledging that intellectual property is unlike real property in some ways, and so I'm all for a societal agreement to limit ownership to the author's and first assignee's lifetimes. You think it should be shorter than author's or assignee's lifetimes. Fine. We agree except in duration.
I'm not sure how I respect intellectual property in the hands of a corporation, though. "Lifetime" seems an inappropriate reference here. Corporations should be second-class citizens, I believe. They already have Trademarks that can last beyond a lifetime, as do "private" citizens, I suppose, but Trademarks are supposed to be different than copyright, although Disney and Abba and authors and others are recognizing the perpetual nature of Trademarks and are trying to get their authored limited copyright works to be also covered under perpetual Trademark law. Hmm ... perhaps we need more-assertive Trademark examiners, or a Copyright law review?
If Copyrights expired during my lifetime, I see that I'd be disinclined to invest in marketing my copyright property near the end of the term, knowing someone else could benefit from my efforts mores than I. That makes me go back to the US Constitution and re-center myself on what the intentions were.
You suggest that "limited time" is important, but I see that is not the only phrase in the US Constitution. I see, "...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 ..."
So, I see the requirement for "limited time" already being satisfied by "lifetime", in comparison to previous "royalty" being all-time. I favor limiting authorship copyright to lifetime plus lifetime of first assignee, or the equivalent of a lifetime or less only for corporations. I think that fits well with the agreement in historical perspective.
More importantly to me, I see "promote the useful arts". I do not feel promoted to an artistic life of sharing my "writings and discoveries", my authorship, my intellectual property, in any useful way if others will get the benefit and I don't. Specifically, if you take away my copyright, why should I create at all in the first place? We've all heard stories of destitute creative artists dying in poverty while others, especially corporations, continued to make a profit off those artist's works. Perhaps we need an intellectual property based pension where an author is entitled to a minimum of, say for example, 1% of the profits of their work regardless of "giving it away", perhaps like social security, where the ongoing sale of any copyright intellectual property would be taxed at least an additional 1% to provide a pension for registered artists. I know, I know, managing an accurate accounting might be a nightmare, but ASCAP and others manage these types of things and do it well enough. Why not think about the "promote" part of the US Constitution, and not the "limited time" part so much?
I don't think we'll resolve who we each think are freeloaders. Do you consider yourself a freeloader if you inherit and live in your parent's house? Do you think anybody else aught to have the equivalent right to just move in and live in that house or rent it to others in spite of your parent's wishes that you continue to reap the benefit of their caring for you? Are you raising the challenge of "family values" where parents cannot express caretaking for their children, that families are declared legally defunct once any member becomes of age? Very provocative!
So, Dan, I think we agree on respect for intellectual property in many of the same ways we consider real property, except for duration of exclusive rights. I do not think it is in the best interests of society, especially for creative authors in society, if we take the benefits of authorship away from them or their family (2 generations). You'd like to take the benefits of authorship away sooner. Ouch!
Now, about copyrights and trademarks - they do not have to be "registered" with the government to have legal effect. Registration is just our society's way of acknowledging and supporting in advance the need to smooth the waters of commerce and promote the general welfare by reducing the need to sue each other. With a registration, we have a professional, court recognized witness, for a prima facie case of our copyrights and trademarks. Without registration, we have a steeper hill to climb in court of we want to sue someone for infringement, but we can, nonetheless. Regardless, though, we have copyrights and trademark rights without registration with the Copyright Office or the Trademark Office. Let's not confuse registration with rights. Registration has nothing to do with the rights themselves. Registration is only a facilitator when asking a court for assistance in obtaining relief against infringement. Nothing more. As a photographer, I have immediate copyrights in the capture of even the latent image, and has been that way, recognized by the US Supreme Court since the late 1800s.
My point about going back in time if you want your own pictures of the past being ludicrous is exactly that. You can't go back in time, can you? So why steal my pictures from back then just because you didn't have the foresight to take your own pictures back then? Your incompetence at anticipating and satisfying your own intellectual property authorship is no excuse for raiding mine.