And you don’t feel they were “a system where people are participating in a common activity and most are untouched but a few experience significant harm”?
I guess maybe I need to ask you if you’re familiar with Russian Roulette.
I simply asked you to explain something you wrote. Specifically, I asked you to explain what the distinction was between my statement and yours. I didn’t say there was a contradiction. And I didn’t apply the Russian Roulette metaphor to this question.
…are you really talking about something that happened 12 years ago? By “few” you mean statistically insignificant number of people over a decade ago?
I specifically answered that question. That you can’t recognize that I have explains the existence of this thread
The same laws are still on the books so the same system is still in place.
And the fact that it was a statistically insignificant number of people is the point I’ve been making.
Perhaps. Or perhaps you did a poor job of answering it.
From your responses, I tend to feel you haven’t understood some of the things I have posted.
…yet the only case you can think of is over a decade ago? Which specific laws are you talking about?
This isn’t a point against the status quo. The existing system is just fine. I’m willing to hear what you could suggest might improve things. But you haven’t bought anything to the table.
Or perhaps you decided from the outset to literally redefine the debate and you are stubbornly holding onto what you believe instead of how things actually are.
From your responses, I tend to feel you don’t understand how copyright works, so you started a thread to argue within the narrow framework of your misunderstanding.
Copyright laws.
I asked if you were aware of the RIAA lawsuits and you said you were. So you should know they involved copyright laws.
Are you seriously asking me to repeat everything I’ve written in this thread? Wouldn’t it be easier for you to just go back and read it?
I explained in the OP everything I was talking about. And I clearly pointed out when I was suggesting changes in the way things are.
I’m not saying you have to agree with what I’ve said. I started this thread to discuss different ideas. But I feel you’re disagreeing with me without understanding what I’m saying.
… which specific law?
How many lawsuits did they win on points of law and how many did they settle? How much money did the RIAA lose on the suits and why did they stop suing in 2008?
Can you be a tad more specific on how this relates to your argument? Which specific law are you in disagreement with?
I’ve read what you’ve written. Nothing you’ve said would improve the status quo for either the general public or content creators. Do you have anything else to add?
You spent the better part of the first part of the thread arguing terminology didn’t matter. Nothing you have argued in this thread is clear because you have used the wrong words to contextualize an issue you don’t really understand .
You don’t understand copyright. That’s kinda a pre-requisite here.
I’ve tried to steer this back into a discussion of the topic but you don’t seem interested.
I’d like to discuss intellectual property rights but I have no interest in just arguing. So I’m done with this.
Ha ha. I actually think that a few decades (say, somewhere between 20 and 40 years) is an optimal copyright term.
Obviously I was being cheeky when I suggested that we agreed. But, just so we’re clear, by “wait a few decades”, you actually mean “wait 70 or more years”?
Sure it’s relevant. It’s just vagarities in the business models that you have complete control of your pictures but songwriters don’t. There’s no clear cut morality here.
… nope. Still not relevant.
You are making blanket statements that may or may not be true depending on everything from where an artist lives in the world to what agreement they make. For example in New Zealand the songwriter maintains the mechanical, performance and communications rights to the work they create. On the flip side if a photographer is commissioned in New Zealand the copyright is automatically granted to the commissioner unless both parties explicitly agree to opt out.
I know more about this than you probably think. I may be a photographer but I’ve had experience in the film industry as well and understanding copyright and licencing keeps the paycheck coming in.
Perhaps you were wanting to talk to cheesesteak as well?
I will preface my comment with the blanket statement that I heartily reject the idea of giving copyright privileges based on morality. It’s a terrible idea.
Absolutely. The same way it’s moral for someone to profit off the works of Shakespeare, Da Vinci or Mozart. The fact that you’re alive and wish to be the only person profiting from that photograph doesn’t make someone else’s creativity immoral. If they do something, create something, that other people value, why shouldn’t they be compensated?
I only make moral judgements on this topic when I’m told it is for morality sake that we have incredibly lengthy protections. I feel comfortable not only rejecting the concept of using morality as the basis for copyright, but also pointing out that the morality argument itself is flawed, as it is taken only from the original creators point of view.
Let me re-iterate here that “moral” here is used as in the term “moral rights.” It’s a term of art in intellectual property and is not to be confused with general notions of morality. It is based in the idea that a creator should have certain rights not solely based on economic considerations but solely based on the fact that a creator has personal non-economic interests in ēs creations, such as related to ēs reputation. The idea for example that we should give credit to a creator has nothing to do with economics. It’s a moral right. We call it a moral right simply because that’s the customary term.
So please dispense with the arguments that people are advocating for “morality’s sake” and other notions.
I feel that while a discussion of what the law says can ignore the issue of morality, a discussion of what the law should be is almost always going to involve morality. I argued in a past thread that laws are just a society’s codified views on what is moral. I feel the use of moral rights as a specific legal term derives from this.
Having done some (pretty interesting) emergency reading, I can say that these moral rights, having to do with attribution (both requiring or preventing it) and protection of reputation are far down the list of any issues I have with economic IP protections. I retract any presumption that you meant anything different than these specific rights.
I do believe that economic protections are frequently defended by asserting some sort of inherent “rightness” of creators profiting from their work and “wrongness” of others profiting instead, but you did not claim that.
If it is not correct, what is correct? About copyrights, that is what I always saw quoted. And I have seen in my lifetime, copyrights extended from 14 years to life plus 75 and then extended again.
I know I cannot copyright any theorem I have proved only the actual paper. And if someone else wants to expound on it, they are free to do so, only not use my words.
Copyrights protects a creative and original work of expression fixed in a perceivable medium. It doesn’t protect ideas.
Patent protects novel, useful, and non-obvious inventions–it does protect ideas.
Are you sure about that? The copyright term hasn’t been 14 years since 1831.
Interesting bit of trivia. Reading about copyrights, I saw a mention that at one point English law allowed somebody to obtain a copyright for cloth. Any ideas what that would have meant? Was it a specific pattern that was protected?
If you are referring to the U.S. or England the original copyright term was 14 years plus an option to renew for a second 14 years. See the Statute of Anne which applied in England (1710) and the Copyright Act of 1790 which applied in the United States. Timeline 18th Century | U.S. Copyright Office
Note that under the Statute of Anne, only the original author could renew. Also note that the historical debate about perpetual versus fixed copyright was more about driving down book prices and breaking monopolies and corporate censorship than consideration for the authors. Sure, arguments were presented that authors had a natural right to copyright, but everybody knew that copyright would end up with publishers. Until recently, it was never questioned that authors would license their work.
~Max