True enough, but Starving Artist and Garfield226 have been discussing works that have not been in distribution (yet) and they are being told that this should not protect the (not yet distributed, as in “published”) work from being published or distributed by others.
That doesn’t sound unreasonable, on the surface at least. As long as it only applied to previously published works (as in published, like, you know, printed copies or professionally produced CDs, not just taken to the copy shop or shown to the next door neighbor). I understand your concern about abandoned works. I see no harm in allowing someone to publish a work that has truly been abandoned. (As in, the artist is either dead or doesn’t care if it’s published or not, any other copyright holders don’t care, etc. etc.)
Yes, of course I understand that making a copy is illegal, and that scenarios such as making a photocopy of the book then shredding the original are also illegal. Our current law prohibits anyone except the copyright owner or his authorized agents from making copies of the work. And I understand that. And of course the publishers can put all kinds of words on their product telling me not to copy it, but that doesn’t neccesarily mean that I am bound to respect that. They could put a message telling me not to put the book in a closet, only on a bookshelf. Would they be able to enforce that? In my own home?
Clearly the law as it currently stands leads to nonsensical situations, as I tried to show. Just because copying is illegal doesn’t make it unethical, any more than making copying legal would therefore make it ethical.
Making hundreds of billions of copies of a copyrighted file on my hardrive would break the law. Hundreds of billions of times. But it is clear that the owner of the copyright would not be harmed in any way by my malicious copying and deletion of files.
My point is that copy restrictions once made a rough sort of sense in providing incentives for authors to produce works. Our current technology renders that nonsensical, in that copy restrictions are practically very difficult to enforce and lead to perverse situations. Computers make copying trivial. They will force us to rewrite our copyright laws into something that will benefit authors that doesn’t ignore that reality. If we ignore reality then both authors and consumers will suffer. It does no good to simply insist over and over again that you shouldn’t make copies because copying is illegal. Yes it is. But WHY? Why is copying bad? Because the author owns his work? Yes, I will agree with that. But why the emphasis on COPYING the work?
Yes, an author should be able to control and profit from his creation. How does restricting COPYING that work enable him to do that, given today’s technology? If restricting copying was something easy to enforce it might make sense to use it as the definition of “control” over a work. But does that make sense?
Don’t just flatly inform me that copying is wrong because it is illegal and the author owns his work. Why does restriction of copying flow from ownership of the work? Why copying? I understand the historical reasons, but why continue a legal practice that no longer makes sense and can no longer function in the way it was intended to? Why not change to some other method that makes sense and actually works to protect and benefit both authors and consumers?
Depends on who you are and what the work is. If there’s enough interest in you as an artist, or your medium as an art form, then I’d say it’s part of a culture from the beginning.
Even when he isn’t, it’s still fine to judge him by his actions. If you see a football player practicing in the park, or in his back yard, and he’s throwing crappy passes, there’s nothing wrong with judging his skill based on that. If he’s really a good player, and this is just a bad day for him, then he ought to have plenty of good passes out there to serve as better examples of what he can do.
Are we talking about legality now? I thought this was about the ethics of violating abandoned copyrights. What, ethically, gives you the right to tell Someone Famous not to give me a copy of the book?
Interesting. Ethically, what is the difference between Someone Famous giving me his copy of the book, or making me a new copy of it? How does it impact you any differently?
Since we’re talking about intangible property, I assume you mean “anything of yours that I like [and that I can use without depriving you of it or incurring any charges in your name]”. Sure, why not? You can make as many copies of my car as you want! Well, that is, if you can figure out how to copy a car…
Lemur866: Well said. I take the pragmatic view of copyright; while I believe in principle that there should be few or no restrictions on copying IP, I realize that certain types of popular works would not be created unless their creators are given a limited monopoly on distribution. I believe it’s strictly a matter of law, though, not ethics.
Exactly. A manuscript that you’re not through writing is not abandoned if you have concrete plans to finish it and sell it. OTOH, if you aren’t going to release it and you’re just sitting on it, then it’s abandoned.
I’m not sure that it counts as “abandoned” until you’ve published it for the first time. Except possibly when you die. In general, the law of wills does not treat a request to destroy property upon death as soemthing that should be honored. But if you’re just not done, even if you have no plans of restarting just then, I’d say it’s still yours to control or destroy until published.
The issue of “uncreating” works is especially interesting with regards to computer software, where a term of even twenty years of copyright means “forever”. Microsoft will eventually stop supporting Windows 98, for example, and presumably soon after that you won’t be able to buy a legitimate copy even if you want to. The makers of 80s video games don’t have the resources (or existance) to fight over this, but I wonder how that will all work out.
I suppose if you reaaaaally wanted to go into hypotheticals, yes, sure, an abandoned copyright might possibly maybe be withheld with the intention of releasing it at a future date or not releasing it intentionally. But that’s way the hell out in left field for abandonware. The far more common case is that those of us with eclectic tastes want to find a copy of something that is no longer in publication because it wasn’t popular enough to justify the cost. And nobody is going to convince me that there’s anything unethical with finding yourself a copy under those conditions.
it would seem to me that all this talk about “abandoned” copyrights is somewhat specious. (And feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, which I’m sure you will anyway ;).)
As I understand it, under current copyright law, automatic copyright protection is bestowed upon creation of the copyrighted material and is in effect for the legal life of the copyright. It doesn’t matter what the person or entity that created it intends to do with it, and it doesn’t matter whether or not the copyright holder actually does anything with it. It is protected be copyright (barring fair use exclusions) for X number of years and that’s all there is to it at that point. Once the copyright approaches the end of its original protection, the copyright holder (or heirs, etc.) has the option of extending the copyright for the legally allowed time. After the copyright has expired, for whatever reason, the work passes into the public domain and can be used, sold, copied, etc.
Starving Artist, you should go through the thread and read the comments made by Mighty Maximino. The issue is not at all specious; there are a growing number of works (generally older ones) where literally NO ONE knows who holds the copyright, meaning the work cannot be reproduced legally even if the person wishing to do so is willing to pay all the requisite fees and royalties. And now that copyright periods have grown so long, the length of a human lifetime may pass before one can safely assume the legal copyright has indeed lapsed and the work is now public domain. Artistic works need to be brought out in front of the public at somewhat regular intervals if they’re ever to have a chance of becoming one of those “great” works that goes on to be remembered long-term; it’s safe to say that a book that remains continually out of print or a play that is never publicly performed for 70 years or more because no one knows who owns the copyright is far more likely to be forgotten completely and ultimately lost to future generations than one that is reprinted/performed more frequently.
You’re arguing legalities. The question is ethics. Yes, it’s illegal for you to download a copyrighted work someone no longer distributes. It’s also illegal for you to hum the song you heard on the radio where someone else could hear it without obtaining written permission from the copyright holder and paying all associated royalties. It’s illegal for you to play your CDs loudly enough for anyone else to hear them. It’s illegal for you to listen to your friend’s CD in his car.
As for works passing into the public domain, that’s no longer a legitimate argument for not downloading abandonware. Congress extends the term of copyright protection every few years for the purpose of making it indefinite. In reality, nothing produced in recent years will go into the public domain for generations, if at all, barring complete governmental upheaval.
Starving Artist, that is not entirely true. It used to be the case that copyrights lasted a certain term and then required renewal for an additional term, but that is no longer the case. In 1976, Congress changed the legislation so that copyrights for all works created after 1978 would last life plus fifty years for a natural person and seventy-five years for a corporation. In 1992, Congress retroactively changed the status of copyrights prior to 1978 so that they all lasted the maximum term as well. And then, of course, there was the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, which extended that period for twenty years.
That means if you create a work right now, it will be under copyright for the rest of your life plus seventy years without you ever having to do anything. You might have heard of the recent Eldred case where there was an (unsuccessful) challenge against the SBCE. Some of the lawyers who brought that case are trying again on the grounds that (1) the Copyright Act now includes works not intended to be covered by copyright and (2) Congress couldn’t retroactively eliminate the renewal requirement. They may or may not win; from what I can tell they’re not looking too good on that first point but have substantially better arguments about the second.
Something like 85% of copyright holders didn’t exercise their copyright extensions when it was required, which suggests to me that the large majority of copyrights aren’t worth much in either money or effort to maintain several decades after they’re initially granted. I’ll admit that I’m in favor of a large public domain, which does seem to make me suspect in the eyes of some people. But it does lead to situations like I’ve described above, so I think that a registration requirement/periodic renewal would be totally appropriate. I’d also like to see shorter terms, but that’s probably not feasible in today’s political climate. It just doesn’t make economic sense for every copyright to last the maximum term, especially when some artistic works (such as old movies and software) are in danger of being literally lost as a result.
Of course it’s ethical; who on Earth would care? Everyone involved in its creation is dead and the presumably the people that own it are too scared to do anything with it. Though you won’t get to far on filesharing networks, just an episode about one of them putting out a personals ad (they called it a “classified ad” back then, though).
Yes, I was. I was speaking to what appeared to me to be assertions of fact not were not correct, legally speaking.
I understand (and agree with) your point. However, like I just replied to laigle, I was speaking of what is legally allowable, not what would be best in the long run in a big-picture sense. I agree that copyright protection is far too restrictive and goes on for far too long a period of time. However, the fact remains that whether the copyright holder can be found or not, and whether or not he or she has chosen to do anything with the copyright, anyone who takes it upon him/herself to violate copyright protection on any legally copyrighted work exposes him/herself to substantial financial liability.
Mighty Maximo, thank you for your explanation. You point out some things I wasn’t aware of, and I certainly recognize and agree with you on the difficulties and unreasonble restrictions current copyright law entails.
I wonder if you could answer a question related to copyrights prior to 1978. I’ve been under the impression after reading this somewhere, that copyrighted works created prior to 1978 – photos, drawings and paintings anyway – require a legally recognized copyright notice to be present and easily visible on the front of the work itself in order to have copyright protection extending beyond the original term of copyright, and that any work created prior to 1978 that does not have this notice is considered to be in the public domain after the original term of copyright has expired. Can you tell me if this is correct?
So if I’m famous enough, you have the right to see/hear/whatever anything that I should happen to create anytime anywhere, purely for the reason that you’re interested in me. Mmkay. I hate to disappoint you, but I won’t be setting up that whole-house webcam and microphone network anytime soon.
Park = public place. Yard viewable from a public place is also pretty much a public place. I agree, if he’s throwing crappy passes where you can see them, sure, judge all you like. Video tape him for all I care. But to suggest that you somehow have the right to see every pass he ever makes whether it’s made in public, private, videotaped by him, or thrown at a burglar breaking into his pitch-black house is just absurd.
Because I own the information in that book. I made it. It was my creation. If someone wants to view my creation and I have decided that in order for them to do that, they need to pay me for it, then I have that right. Ethically and legally.
Legally there’s a difference. Ethically I’m not so sure. Perhaps if you took it to extremes, all it would take is one person with immense resources to buy my book and create copies for anyone who wanted it. That would certainly impact me differently than if Someone Famous bought my book and gave it to one person. There’s certainly a difference if Someone Famous bought a copy of my book for anyone who wanted it. I suppose you could make the argument that Someone Famous could buy one, give it to someone, and that person could give it to someone else, and so on, and I’m really not sure where that leads, except that it’s inefficient and people would probably rather pay the money than wait.
Cool beans. I’ll be getting a cable internet connection in a few days. I trust it’ll be ok if you open up your hard drive, let me take a look around? Oh, yeah, if you have photos you haven’t scanned in, please get that done by next week. Any handwritten or non-digitized writings would be much appreciated as well. Grandma’s old recipes? Please and thank you.
Starving Artist, before the US adopted the European model of automatic copyright attachment, anything within the US not marked with the circled c and registered with the Copyright Office simply wasn’t copyrighted. Failure to attach the marking meant forfeiture of any copyright as a matter of law. Consequently there is nothing in the US under copyright that would expire in such a manner as you describe. I know that the Berne Convention of 1908 mandated the abolition of copyright formalities but I do not know when the United States ratified that. I hope that answers your question.
Close: Other people have the right to make copies of things you create that they have access to, and I have the right to look at anything that those people show me. You aren’t obligated to lift a finger to make it any easier for those people or for me.
Yes, and I haven’t suggested such a thing… only that if he throws a pass where I happen to see it, then I have the right to judge his pass-throwing skill on it, and to let other people know about it, as you seem to agree.
If he’s down in his basement where no one can see, throwing a football at the walls, then obviously he doesn’t have to worry about me or anyone else watching him. The only interesting situations, as far as this discussion is concerned, are the ones where someone else does happen to see it - or, to get back from the analogy, where an artist shows someone else his work.
So all you have is the assertion that if you write a book, you own the information inside it, and only you may ethically decide who can use it? I will counter with the assertion that you do not own it, the information belongs to everyone, and that you are ethically entitled to no more than compensation from the people who use it.
I never said I’d make it any easier for you. A copyright violator doesn’t ask for the copyright holder’s help to make copies; if you want to keep up this analogy, you’ll have to find your own way in.
So you’re not saying that if I write a book and keep it in my house, I’m ethically wrong for doing that?
You’re saying if someone experiences a creation of mine, they have an ethical right to reproduce and distribute it.
I guess where the analogy breaks down is that you can’t exactly copyright a pass. My position is that if you experience a creation of mine, then you’re perfectly allowed to judge, comment on, and let other people know about it, but you AREN’T allowed to reproduce it and distribute it yourself. Otherwise, newspapers could include the entire book with the review.
Hmm…one assertion against another…sounds like why laws are made…
Correct, if you aren’t reproducing and distributing it yourself.
Well, that’s a matter of law rather than ethics.
And note that we were talking about football passes in the context of something that a creator might consider “inferior” and want to keep secret to protect his reputation - you can’t literally make a copy of a pass to share with your friends, but you could tape it and use the tape to show your friends how sloppy this guy’s passes really are. The only real way to do that with a song is to copy the song; it’s impossible to really describe, with words or pictures, the things that make a song bad.
What’s wrong with including the entire book with a review, as long as they’re compensating the author for it?
I’m not sure. Do you mean that works produced prior to 1978 that do not display the circled c and name of the copyright holder are protected after all and that this protection continues to this day, or have they, like I’ve interpreted what I’ve read, entered into the public domain, with only works since 1978 protected as you describe?
And thank you for taking the time to educate me on this matter. The reason for my concern is that I have been painting and selling reproductions of certain paintings from the early to middle part of the 1900s and I’d like to make sure this is indeed legal.
I’m fairly sure that the mark has not been required in the US to copyright something since 1908 or thereabouts – in other words, that everything created past that date is still covered by whatever copyright might apply unless the copyright holder made a deliberate effort to pitchi it into the public domain.
Thank you! Unfortunately, for that you need a lawyer or an art historian, not some guy on a message board. Anything made by someone who died in or before 1948 or a corporate work prior to 1923 should be OK, but I’m not (yet) a lawyer and certainly not your lawyer. I say this because the Sonny Bono extension act didn’t resurrect any copyrights; anything that had passed into public domain as of its passage in 1998 stayed there. In 1998 the tems were life+70 years for individual works and 75 years for corporate works. (Incidentally, one Mickey Mouse has a copyright date of 1928, and a certain company was extremely eager not to have him enter the public domain in 2003.)
But even a researcher might not be able to tell you whether you’re violating the law or not, because copyrights aren’t necessarily written down anywhere. Which is an absurd situation.
