And those laws are enforced selectively, against whoever the people in charge don’t like. Look at vagrancy laws as an example.
Cite for anyone suggesting stealing IP is acceptable, please?
In case you’re one of the idiots who don’t know what that means, stealing IP is taking someone else’s IP, and passing it off as your own, for profit. Not piracy.
The philosophical chasm between you and I is also vast, and probably enough to preclude meaningful debate on this subject. But I do have a question on a slight tangent.
Would you say that the protections for creative expression outweigh those of profiting from that expression? Both are important to be sure, but would you agree that the expression is primary, with the profits secondary?
Would you also agree that technological advances, particularly in software but in other fields as well, are creative endeavors as equally deserving of the right to expression as music, literature, or any artistic field?
If so, how do you square the fact that the *secondary * rights protecting art impose restrictions on the primary rights of technology developers? No artist would accept government interference in their creative expression, even if it were somehow demonstrated to be damaging to the public. Perhaps especially so. And they certainly wouldn’t accept any kind of preemptive restriction on their work on the basis that might cause damage to the public or individuals.
And yet you seem to suggest (at least Mr. Oman from the OP does) that this is a valid form of interference when it goes in the other direction; that (as I would put it) the secondary rights of artists somehow outweigh the primary rights of tech innovators.
I am a software developer, and while what I produce isn’t art, it is a form of creative expression on par with artists, and limitations on what I can produce are as offensive to me as limitations on what an artist can produce.
Hyperbole aside, many of the best creators will create less, or not at all, if they don’t get paid for it. Dilettantes will, and obsessives might, but practical professionals (such as Heinlein) won’t.
I haven’t researched copyrights lately, but for most creations isn’t it a few decades and then renewable for a few more? I remember Disney was granted a new exception awhile back which I wasn’t thrilled about.
I think a creator (Stephen King, the Coen Brothers, etc.) should control creations throughout their lifetime, and most people will want to leave a financial legacy for their children and spouse. That’s a powerful (and very human) motivation for accomplishment. As for “great grandchildren”, or even grand children, or even adult children…not so much. If copyrights extend through a creator’s life and while his children are in their 20’s that’s okay with me. That could be 100 years of controlled distribution, but usually more like 70 years, and for most things in demand the product will be available to those willing to buy it.
Again it’s good that patents expire after a few decades and useful technology becomes open-source, but copyrights? No, you’re depriving someone of the benefits of their creativity for no good reason.
As for people “watching television on their phone”, that sounds like something that needs another damn nuanced and practical approach. Are you saying that the fact that they’re watching it on a phone rather than a TV or movie screen means it shouldn’t be protected in the same way it is for a TV or movie screen? Obviously I think it should be, and obviously regulations should be enacted that make it a benefit to both the creators and consumers. (But with the creators ultimately in control of their IP.)
Renewal was done away with 40 years ago when the United States joined the Berne convention.
The basic term is life plus 70 years for persons and 95 years for corporations.
Disney has never been granted an “exception” to copyright law.
The whole notion that whoever develops a new technology ought to be burdened with first proving it will not be used for wrong purposes is inverting how things have been done in our system since anyone remembers.
Man, Baal Houtham is working with some outdated information…
And yes, Disney has been only the most visible lobbyist for continuously lengthening the time that corporate copyrights are in effect, but in the end it has not been something legislated exclusively for them, all corporate rights-holders have benefitted.
Neither the hysterical person who wrote the article to which OP links, nor the hyperventilating Derleth, gets what Oman is saying.
He is merely saying that if you have a new means of distributing IP which you think should be exempt from copyright, you have the onus of showing that copyright does not apply to that distribution or asking Congress to exempt it if it does apply.
Yawn.
Heh. That “40 year” info startled me, too. According to Wikipedia and the Copyright Office the U.S. joined the Berne Convention in 1988 (or '89) so that makes it 24 years. I’m still way out of date, but possibly not startlingly so.
1988 was the official joining date, but the changes in U.S. law in connection with accession started long before then. The landmark law is the Copyright Act of 1976 and renewal was eliminated with that statute at the latest.
Yeah, back to “startlingly so.” Thanks for the info.
That has little to do with copyright; copyrights are not automatically (or even all that often) owned by “creators”. They often aren’t even owned by the people who employ the creators. They are owned by someone who bought it, who bought it from someone else, who bought it from someone else and so forth. Copyrights are a commodity; not something that has anything to do with whether or not the copyright holder created the copyrighted work.
Well, thank you.
I think that we can have some reasoned discussion on this without the hyperbole of the OP.
This is the basic difference, to me, between Aereo and Betamax: Aereo’s entire business model is capturing other people’s signals and retransmitting them to subscribers for a fee. I don’t see why they should be able to do this without a license. VCRs are recording devices that are entirely under the control of the owner. They can do whatever they want with them, and the people who make the VCR really aren’t involved in what goes on after they sell the device. That’s not what Aereo’s doing. You have an industry sector that’s all about making money from controlling the distribution of their signals, and now you have Aereo who’s entire existence is based on sucking up someone else’s signal and reselling it.
Patent = 20 year exclusivity.
Copyright = Liufe plus 70 years.
I never understood why copyright lasted so much longer than patent, especially for things like software. I can understand wanting to preserve stories so taht I can’t take Harry Potter, change the names of the characters and turn it into a movie. But I don’t understand it for a lot of other things, like software.
Patents are on “useful” creations. They expire relatively early so that other people can build other “useful” ideas on them.
Copyright law protects the creative expression component. There can be creative expression in software just like there can be in a story. A lot of software is a story.
If IP is property and deserves protection from theft, patents and copyright should enjoy equal terms of protection. Why should we place more emphasis on protecting revenue generated by the artistic than protecting revenue generated by the technical?
As for creative expression, like patented ideas a lot of copyrighted material is derivative as well, neither is the sole bastion nor devoid of creative expression.
One nasty little feature of the US patents is that you have to pat maintenance fees at specified times during the lifetime of the patent, or else you lose your patent rights. I didn’t know about that (even though I have four patents) until I researched patents for an article. The infamous patent for using a laser pointer to play with a cat (5,443,036) lapsed simply because they didn’t make the first scheduled payment (although the patent probably would’ve collapsed, if anyone ever took it to court).
There are huge differences between different kinds of intellectual property. There’s no sound argument that all their terms should be identical. Trademark protection, for example, can be perpetual, and for good reasons.
If you want to explore the differences among different kinds of IP, it might be a good a idea to start a new thread.
“Derivative” has a particular meaning in copyright law.
Copyright law protects “creative expression,” which includes but is not limited to artistic works.
Patent law does not protect creative expression. It protects useful ideas. So to the extent that a technological invention includes any creative expression, that expression is protected by copyright law.
There was no hyperbole there. As others have pointed out, the current term is life + 70 years for individuals. I could have said great-great-great-great-grandchildren and still not have been exaggerating.
Now that you know that your own notion of copyright was far more conservative than actual law, has your opinion changed any?
I pretty much agree. The original term was 28 years. I don’t think we need to go that far; something like 50 years or death + 25 years, whichever comes first, would be fine by me. The current situation is absurd.
I have many problems with patents but that’s neither here nor there. Are you seriously claiming that patents don’t require creative effort?
No. What I think is that copyright holders should not automatically be granted new rights when a new technology comes down the line.
Note that this does not mean that I think just because (as with Trinopus’ example) that just because something is distributed on CD-ROM instead of paper, that these kinds of rights are lost (unless the contract specified otherwise). That is just a normal contract dispute and as Trinopus found out, resolvable without any extra copyright law.
What Aereo is doing is different. They aren’t simply bundling up TV programs and reselling them–that would be wrong, and already illegal under current law. They are taking a broadcast stream and shuffling the bits to end users. They aren’t, as far as I can tell, stripping out commercials or altering the stream in any way. It’s pretty much identical to a DVR, except hosted over the Internet instead of being local.
So I’m not seeing why content holders should automatically be able to exclude this form of distribution. My opinion in this kind of thing is that if someone comes out with a technology that’s identical to a previous technology except that it’s over the Internet, then they haven’t really done anything novel and the new technology should be treated like the old one until it’s shown that it is somehow different.
And getting back to the motivation for copyright: it’s supposed to spur creators to create more. But how is granting them rights over something that didn’t even exist when they created the work going to do that?
If they haven’t done anything novel, then all they are doing is distribution, which is a right that belongs to the copyright holder. You can’t distribute without permission. So, if you are being technologically neutral, it should not be allowed.