Thread: Absolute must-read in the copyright wars
View Single Post
Old 12-09-2009, 09:23 PM   #64
Kali Yuga
Professional Contrarian
Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Kali Yuga's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,045
Karma: 3289631
Join Date: Mar 2009
Device: Kindle 4 No Touchie
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon View Post
It's utterly and totally irrelevant to the point.
No, it's pretty much on point. For whatever reason, you are failing to comprehend, and therefore respond to, my argument.

Again:
• Copyright is automatic. Contracts are not; they require an explicit act of consent.
• Copyright is comprehensive. If I fail to specify a certain right in my contract, I may be SOL.
• Copyright protection protects against the proper specific offender. E.g. if some assistant "agrees" to a "tear-through" contract, accidentally hands it over to another producer without your explicit consent, and rips it off, you may never know or be able to prove who violated your contract.
• Copyright duration may be too long, but contracts can be longer. In fact, in the absence of a law saying that "works must eventually go into public domain," there will be no reason why a work ever needs to go into public domain ever again. (Even if the publisher doesn't hold the rights indefinitely, the contract could specify 100 years for the publisher, and then rights return to the creator or his/her estate.)
• A contractual situation will not prevent publishers et al from suing the actions we now call "infringing." They'll just sue people for violating contracts instead of copyright infringement.

Contracts are insufficient to protect a creator's rights; that's why copyright was developed in the first place, and one reason why it not only persists, but has been altered and in some ways enhanced over the years.
Kali Yuga is offline   Reply With Quote