Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
If you're sending out unsolicited manuscripts, in some cases you've already forfeited important rights anyway.
|
Not if copyright exists. With the current system, you don't even need a formal declaration in order to have your work protected. Once it's created, it's protected.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
It's also trivial to break your objection as well - the package or email has "by opening this package/email attachment you agree not to republish or otherwise use this manuscript for anything but evaluation without a further agreement from me" on it. Bong, contract law deals with your objection.
|
And, if you read my entire post, you'd see how that sets the stage for restrictions that are ten times more powerful than what is stipulated by current copyright law. The author could stipulate via the contract that the artist and their descendants, estate and/or foundation (or the publisher) have control into perpetuity, and that the end-user has no rights to duplicate the content on any basis whatsoever. Bong, fair use is completely eliminated and nothing ever goes into public domain ever again.
I might add that if your contract isn't comprehensive or has any kind of loophole, you are SOL.
The publisher could even establish ridiculously restrictive DRM if they wanted, in order to enforce the contract. They might even be encouraged to do so, since they could no longer rely on copyright laws as a means of protection.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
Again, there are uses for copyright, but you are focusing on something which could be handled entirely adequately by contract law. Indeed, in many businesses, it IS handled by contract law... (Non-disclosure agreements!)
|
Great. So now every time I buy
anything I need to sign a contract? How is that any sort of improvement?
I might add that to enforce NDA's, you sue the alleged leaker. So the consumer publishes the contract-restricted content on a P2P site, and the publisher sues for violating the contract. No change there -- or possibly worse, since the contract could stipulate even more outrageous penalties than current laws.
And again: Just because your work is automatically protected via copyright, there is absolutely no requirement whatsoever with the current system for a creator to place any restrictions whatsoever on their works. If you want to record a song, make it into an MP3, and allow anyone in the world at any time to copy it or use it in any context (commercial or non-commercial), that is absolutely allowed. In fact, to the best of my knowledge you could even use your status as the copyright holder to
prevent someone from stealing your work, taking credit for it and charging for it, if that's your druthers.
Copyright protection, post-Berne, is now both automatic once the content is in a fixed medium, and limited in duration. Contracts are not automatic, are not necessarily comprehensive (especially if they aren't prepared properly), could be more punitive, can block fair use (including parodies and academic uses) and have no time limits.
Sounds to me like the contract idea will result in aggravating every complaint I've heard so far about copyright.