If you had a vote for copyright?

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I think you meant "in view of" rather than "in lieu of."

Damn lawyers!

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Damn lawyers!

Yeah, and I'm not even one of the really picky ones...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Harmon

See, you are thinking like a utopian: "design a system & make reality fit it." Rarely works.

No, I'm thinking like a member of a functioning community, a social system that operates on discussion and agreement for mutual prosperity. Communities have worked for a few thousand years now.

Originally Posted by Harmon

And it really doesn't make any difference. The Supreme Court has just said, implicitly, that it will defer to Congress on copyright - and I don't really disagree with them. But Congress has made it clear that it will implement international concensus, and protect corporate interests, absent an uprising like we've just seen on SOPA.

You, the individual creator, and we the readers, are screwed.

Congress changes almost as fast as Lady Gaga's wardrobe. Presently, confusion reigns and dollars break all gridlocks... but that can change if we commit ourselves to enacting change. If we decide to sit back and let others do our thinking for us... then yes, we are truly screwed.

Originally Posted by Harmon

My advice for you is to consider Doctorow. Meanwhile, everyone should drive the speed limit. Except when you don't.

Doctorow already has a publisher, a contract, and printed books making his money. He's in a discussion he's not even a part of.

SLOW DOWN.

[Quexos]

Amen !
Evil, evil ©

Originally Posted by Maria144

Fully do away with copyright! I hate it!!

[TuxGirl]

Neither.

I think that copyright should be automatic for a short length of time (around 10-20 years), then be renewable in perpetuity (perhaps with something like 20$ per renewal, renewing every 5 years). This would require a searchable database, but it could all be handled easily online... So, orphan works would drop out of copyright quickly, allowing them to not be lost permanently, but Disney could keep Mickey Mouse copyrighted forever (since Mickey Mouse is the reason why copyright terms keep getting longer and longer and longer). Honestly, 20$/5 years is way less than Disney spends currently to keep Mickey under copyright, so I can't imagine who wouldn't like this idea...

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

No, I'm thinking like a member of a functioning community, a social system that operates on discussion and agreement for mutual prosperity. Communities have worked for a few thousand years now.

Social systems are not designed, except by utopians. Same goes for economic systems. These things evolve. The common law in the US has always worked by leveraging off what has evolved. Statutory systems, when they work, do the same. Otherwise, they crash & burn, becoming unworkable (Prohibition) or totalitarian (communism.)

Copyright will work when we figure out how the digital environment works, but currently, copyright impedes getting there.

Congress changes almost as fast as Lady Gaga's wardrobe. Presently, confusion reigns and dollars break all gridlocks... but that can change if we commit ourselves to enacting change. If we decide to sit back and let others do our thinking for us... then yes, we are truly screwed.

I am not at all optimistic about that - I hope you are right & I am wrong. But what I see happening is a progression toward more & more legal fetters on the consumer by the special interest groups, left & right.

But be that as it may, what I see is that the digital environment is like acid that dissolves the analog environment, and some but not all creators are trying to stop it. Others see what is happening & are acting without trying to save copyright. Check out Zoe Keating's website http://music.zoekeating.com/
for an example in the music world of someone who is adapting to the real world rather than trying to save the old one. And she isn't relying on making a new law. Act rationally in the emerging digital environment & if we are lucky the law might follow.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Not true. Affirmative defenses are rights, not privileges. The only significant thing about an affirmative defense is that if you have one and fail to raise it on a timely basis, you are deemed to have waived it. It's totally a question of procedure.

I quoted from the report made for Congress by a Legislative Attorney with the title of Fair Use on the Internet.

Originally Posted by Harmon

Judges make determinations about what constitutes fair use at the margins, & within the definitions of this section. Things that are obviously fair use don't get into court, as a rule - exceptions being when you have obtuse plaintiffs.

Nothing is obviously fair use. Everything is on a is determined on a case-by-case basis:

This resource works mostly with 17 U.S.C. § 107 on fair use, which provides the conditions that allow the limited use of copyrighted works. Again, these strategies are general rather than specific, and fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis.

There are no clear-cut rules for deciding what's fair use and there are no "automatic" classes of fair uses. Fair use is decided by a judge, on a case by case basis, after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright statute.

Section 107 is not meant to be specific. Rather, Congress intended for fair use to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Fair use is not a straightforward concept, therefore the fair use analysis must be conducted on a case-by-case basis.

Fair use is decided by courts on a case-by-case basis after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright Act.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Copyright will work when we figure out how the digital environment works, but currently, copyright impedes getting there.

I don't agree, because I say there's no secret to how the digital environment works. We know exactly how the digital environment works: Digital files can easily be copied and redistributed by anonymous users who believe they cannot be caught and should not be punished.

Copyright isn't "impeding" anything; it's being impeded by scofflaws. Copyright doesn't "work" because individuals don't respect it, and governments don't have the power to enforce it in the digital realm; and knowing individuals can flagrantly violate it without the expectation of punishment, violate it they do.

In that light, only improving the ability to identify scofflaws and punish them for violations will make copyright work.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I quoted from the report made for Congress by a Legislative Attorney with the title of Fair Use on the Internet.

Yeah, but I am, or at least was when I was younger, a trial attorney who has actually raised affirmative defenses, and defended against them. The raising of an affirmative defense is NOT subject to a judge's discretion (meaning his permission). It is subject to his determination, but that is a different thing. That means that the judge can decide that the defense is invalid, inapplicable, or does not contain the required elements to sustain the defense.

Nothing is obviously fair use. Everything is on a is determined on a case-by-case basis:

You do not understand what "case by case" means in the legal sense. You are assuming that "case by case" means "non-obvious." That is not correct. Whether a person is a male or a female is determined on a case by case basis. That does not mean that it is not obvious (most of the time).

Most fair use is obvious. The stuff that makes it into court, and comes to the attention of a judge, is a very small subset consisting of what is not obvious.

That's why it's in court. What you are quoting assumes the existence of a dispute - that is, it is only concerned with the non-obvious situations.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I don't agree, because I say there's no secret to how the digital environment works. We know exactly how the digital environment works: Digital files can easily be copied and redistributed by anonymous users who believe they cannot be caught and should not be punished.

Copyright isn't "impeding" anything; it's being impeded by scofflaws. Copyright doesn't "work" because individuals don't respect it, and governments don't have the power to enforce it in the digital realm; and knowing individuals can flagrantly violate it without the expectation of punishment, violate it they do.

In that light, only improving the ability to identify scofflaws and punish them for violations will make copyright work.

That's not what I mean by "works." I'm not talking about the mechanics. I'm talking about the human response to a changing technological environment.(From a writer's perspective, I'm talking about one of the basic types of science fiction.)

Laws meant to govern the traffic in a horse & buggy era do not work on interstate highways. At one time, when a car came to an intersection, traffic laws required the drive to stop, get out with a light, walk into the intersection, and determine that the horses were out of the way before proceeding. That is, in my view, where we are with copyright.

As for enforcing those laws, all I can say is that the current copyright laws, particularly the DMCA, are fairly analogous in their structure to the laws attempting to enforce Prohibition.

Good luck with that. My personal reaction to that sort of law is to support repeal, and make my own beer.

On the whole, I think that copyright is going to disappear as a creator/consumer concern, because I think that the economics of a digital environment will move us to some kind of provider environment in which consumer ownership becomes irrelevant. Like streaming. My kids no longer care about owning their music or movies. What they care about is convenient access.

It seems to me that people in general believe that they are entitled to have the media they want, when they want it & how they want it. They'll pay for that, so long as they don't think they are being gouged. Try to take this away from them on the pretext of enforcing copyright or fighting piracy is a losing proposition.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I don't agree, because I say there's no secret to how the digital environment works. We know exactly how the digital environment works: Digital files can easily be copied and redistributed by anonymous users who believe they cannot be caught and should not be punished.

Copyright isn't "impeding" anything; it's being impeded by scofflaws. Copyright doesn't "work" because individuals don't respect it, and governments don't have the power to enforce it in the digital realm; and knowing individuals can flagrantly violate it without the expectation of punishment, violate it they do.

In that light, only improving the ability to identify scofflaws and punish them for violations will make copyright work.

I doubt it. There have been big trophy cases before, none of those had any affect. In France, if you get accused of downloading more than 3 times your family gets disconnected from the internet, but that hasn't made much difference to downloading rates either. It has increased the demand for proxies and encryption though, so those type of companies will benefit if the idea goes global.

What would have helped, if they hadn't already allowed a whole generation to grow up used to downloading whatever they want would have been education. But it's pretty much too late for that now. There's been a paradigm shift in the way people consume entertainment over the last 15 years or so, and the entertainment industry are only just starting to adapt to that shift. Once they have fully adapted I doubt casual piracy will be much of a problem.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

In France, if you get accused of downloading more than 3 times your family gets disconnected from the internet,

You might find it fruitful to do a little research into the number of people who have been thus disconnected. The answer may surprise you.

[miguel1626]

This is a stupid poll, but if I were forced to choose at gunpoint, I'd vote for keeping copyright forever. Stories don't write themselves, you know

I do admit that a fairly strong case can be made against IP in general, but I remain unconvinced.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Laws meant to govern the traffic in a horse & buggy era do not work on interstate highways. At one time, when a car came to an intersection, traffic laws required the drive to stop, get out with a light, walk into the intersection, and determine that the horses were out of the way before proceeding. That is, in my view, where we are with copyright.

We've had the "horse-and-buggy vs cars" argument around here many times; yes, the laws need to be fixed. I continually notice, though, that no one seems to have a workable model to replace copyright.

In this case, though, it hardly matters, because the details of copyright laws aren't the real problem here...

Originally Posted by Harmon

As for enforcing those laws, all I can say is that the current copyright laws, particularly the DMCA, are fairly analogous in their structure to the laws attempting to enforce Prohibition.

Good luck with that. My personal reaction to that sort of law is to support repeal, and make my own beer.

Are you prepared to write all your own books? Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Harmon

It seems to me that people in general believe that they are entitled to have the media they want, when they want it & how they want it. They'll pay for that, so long as they don't think they are being gouged. Try to take this away from them on the pretext of enforcing copyright or fighting piracy is a losing proposition.

People decide they are "entitled" to a lot of things. Laws and enforcement are there to tell them otherwise.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

What would have helped, if they hadn't already allowed a whole generation to grow up used to downloading whatever they want would have been education. But it's pretty much too late for that now. There's been a paradigm shift in the way people consume entertainment over the last 15 years or so, and the entertainment industry are only just starting to adapt to that shift. Once they have fully adapted I doubt casual piracy will be much of a problem.

People were used to not paying for television in the U.S. for 2 generations. Cable TV, and enforced laws, broke them of that. People weren't used to buying things by using computers in their living rooms... ever. That changed, too.

Lesson: It's never too late to change the habits of a population.

Everyone seems to be allowing the particulars of copyright laws distract them from the real elephant in the room: Enforcement. Without enforcement, it doesn't matter whether your laws are good, bad or non-existent; you'll have chaos either way.

It's not surprising, of course, that no one is immediately in favor of better enforcement of laws; it is a natural inclination to oppose something that seems, on its face, to remove your ability to do something (even if that thing is wrong, like disobeying traffic laws and endangering other citizens).

On the other hand, when citizens have been clearly faced with losing something, like rights, property, health or opportunities, they usually support such laws and enforcement, or accept them once they are in-place. It wasn't speeders that urged enforcement of speeding laws; it was those who were endangered by the speeders.

In this case, we as a people are faced with losing literature... not completely, of course, but we are faced with the shutting-out of independent authors, the higher costs of mainstream published books, continued format and platform disconnections, and a continuing narrowing of choices. A media run by a couple of publishers, Amazon and Disney.

When people fully understand the implications of that, they will be more inclined to appreciate better security and enforcement for copyright laws (as they are, or amended for the digital realm) in order to preserve their access to quality literature.

Until then, copyright might as well be an all-or-nothing proposition... for all the difference it will make.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

We've had the "horse-and-buggy vs cars" argument around here many times; yes, the laws need to be fixed. I continually notice, though, that no one seems to have a workable model to replace copyright.

It might be because there isn't one. Sometimes conditions change to the point where the law becomes irrelevant.

Are you prepared to write all your own books? Good luck with that.

Not to worry. People wrote books before copyright, and they will write them if copyright dies. Particularly if I promise them some of my beer.

Everyone seems to be allowing the particulars of copyright laws distract them from the real elephant in the room: Enforcement. Without enforcement, it doesn't matter whether your laws are good, bad or non-existent; you'll have chaos either way.

There is a small subset of people for whom that is true. But the vast majority of people obey the laws without enforcement entering into the equation. Enforcement only works at the margins. When a significant number of people decide to stop observing the law, enforcement stops working, and indeed, becomes dysfunctional, as witness our drug laws.

In this case, we as a people are faced with losing literature... not completely, of course, but we are faced with the shutting-out of independent authors, the higher costs of mainstream published books, continued format and platform disconnections, and a continuing narrowing of choices. A media run by a couple of publishers, Amazon and Disney.

When people fully understand the implications of that, they will be more inclined to appreciate better security and enforcement for copyright laws (as they are, or amended for the digital realm) in order to preserve their access to quality literature.

See, I think that this situation exists because of the copyright laws we have.