Secret Copyright Law Reported

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

What??? Where in the world did that come from? If you CHOOSE to give permission for anyone to copy your IP and make it freely available then wonderful. I love it! But it has nothing to do with anything that has been said in this thread with regard to stealing other people's I.P.

It follows logically from the golden rule as you stated it.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

BTW I just want to say I really appreciate all the civil discussion/contention. It definitely stimulates my thought on the matter.

I agree, it's stimulating to hear about different perspectives, and that can only happen where people with different views get together.

kennyc for being the target for most of the slings and arrows in the discussion (inc. mine), and for taking them in good part.

[osnova]

Originally Posted by kennyc

If authors (and IP creators) cannot make a living by the fruits of their labors they will be forced to do it some other way and the result will be lost culture.

While what you are saying is plausible, it remains to be seen if "the result will be lost culture." The culture would surely change. There will be no Disneys; yet there would be Aristotles, Shakespeares, samizdats (the samizdat authors were not only uncompensated, they risked being imprisoned in the Gulag for their works), Linuses Torvaldses.

Copyright is a relatively recent invention (since the Statute of Anne/Copyright Act of 1709). It could be that our culture has been greatly impoverished compared to what it might have been without the invention of the copyright.

By the way, only after the 1886 Berne Convention, the copyright became automatic. Before that time, the authors had to opt in (i.e. assert, declare, register etc. their claim) in order to be covered by the copyright. And the United States did not join the Berne Convention until 1989!!!

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

If authors (and IP creators) cannot make a living by the fruits of their labors they will be forced to do it some other way and the result will be lost culture.

And if the only reason they are doing it is for the money, I say good riddance to them. The ones who do it because they have a passion that they want to share will continue to do so, even if it never makes a penny for them-- even if it costs them money.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

So... Kennyc, I have a Kindle. There is a book I can buy, but I can't read it on the Kindle, because of the DRM. The only option I have available to me is to somehow remove the DRM, and now I can read the book. I paid for the rights to read the book, but now I'm a criminal. Can't you see the madness from all the DRM mess? Those people are more concerned with profit, and less concerned with the ability of end users to read the books they read.

I'll say this again. I hate drm, it is immoral (to choose a word)

I've never said removing drm is criminal (while it is according to the current ephemeral law). I don't think drm should be used at all, but also don't think you should steal things. If you purchase the book and have the means to remove the drm in order to read it as you please then more power to you. That's not anything I'm arguing at all. Whatever you wish to do for you only personal use with something you purchase, whether an ebook, an apple or a newspaper then enjoy.

DRM and Intellectual property rights are completely different things.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by osnova

Not exactly correct. The 1955-56 Montgomery Bus Boycott started with an act of civil disobedience, an intentional violation of the then existing law. See the excerpt below:

"Thursday, December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks was sitting in the front-most row for black people. When a Caucasian man boarded the bus, the bus driver, James F. Blake, told everyone in her row to move back to create a new row for the whites. While all of the other colored people in her row complied, Rosa refused, and was arrested for failing to obey the driver's seat assignments, as city ordinance did not explicitly mandate segregation, but did give the bus driver authority to assign seats.

When found guilty on December 5,[5] Parks was fined $10 plus a court cost of $4, but she appealed. The boycott was triggered by her arrest. As a result, Rosa Parks is considered one of the pioneers of the civil rights movement."

from Wikipedia

Fair enough, I did not know that.

Upon further reading though it appears her conviction was appealed. Whilst waiting for it to be heard the US Supreme court ruled bus segregation to be unconstitutional. As a consequence of that ruling, the driver had no lawful right to order her to move. Hence she did nothing illegal by disobeying the order.

A technicality really but isn't that what most of this thread has been about? Technicalities?

My point being that not all revolutions need begin with illegal acts. A prime example being this here. A revolution could begin by people deciding not to buy or support DRM'd products. Of course it wont because that would mean going without the product and it is more important to most people to have the product that it is to actually live up to their stated aim and ideal.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

And if the only reason they are doing it is for the money, I say good riddance to them. The ones who do it because they have a passion that they want to share will continue to do so, even if it never makes a penny for them-- even if it costs them money.

That's a very poor attitude and as I said will result in damage to culture -- Cory said that as well. The problem is that if you have the passion but do not have the time cause you have to make a living the art is lost, the culture is damaged. The whole purpose (as Cory said as well) of Copyright is to allow intellectual property creators to earn a living from their work thus enhancing the arts and culture.

It's not nearly as black and white as you are attempting to paint it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

It follows logically from the golden rule as you stated it.

Please go back and re-read those few posts that were involved in this sub-topic.

[osnova]

Just to continue my earlier post on the history of the copyright,

Under the U.S. Constitution art. I, § 8, cl. 8 (1787), Congress has the power “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Without this constitutional grant of authority, it would be an open question (other Congressional powers such as the Commerce Clause could probably be read to allow it) whether the U.S. Congress has the authority to adopt a copyright legislation. The corollary is that the Congress's copyright-legislating authority is limited by the IP clause of the Constitution.

Note the words "limited times" and "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." Initially (U.S. Copyright Act of 1790), these words had meaning (14 years from the first publication that had to include the copyright statement and another 14 years if the copyright was renewed). In other words, the most likely beneficiary under the 1790 Act was the actual author. Now, the beneficiaries are corporations and author's progeny.

Now the Congress and the courts appear to have interpreted these words to mean "for as long as Disney (or put your favorite) company is in existence."

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I agree, it's stimulating to hear about different perspectives, and that can only happen where people with different views get together.

kennyc for being the target for most of the slings and arrows in the discussion (inc. mine), and for taking them in good part.

No problem Sparrow. I tend to have opinions and offer them up freely. Sometimes they draw fire. And sometimes I handle the fire better than other times.

[Hogan]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

And if the only reason they are doing it is for the money, I say good riddance to them. The ones who do it because they have a passion that they want to share will continue to do so, even if it never makes a penny for them-- even if it costs them money.

You are joking, right? How do you expect these authors to earn a living? Take a second job (which pays) and forget about sleeping

As to the people saying that you give up your claim when you sell the product (ebook in this case) .... seriously, get a grip. So you'd be happy for an author to sell their first copy of a book, and have that purchaser send copies to everyone else who wanted one? There wouldn't be many authors left if that was the case.

When an author sells you a book, you get a single license for that book. That does not give you the right to make copies and send them to whomever you like. Sure you can sell the license on, but at that point you no longer own it. Its laughable saying that you wouldnt have obtained a copy of an ebook if you'd had to pay for it, so no sale was lost. The bottom line is that you have a copy and you didnt pay for it, therefore its an unlicensed copy. You can draw your own conclusions....

I broadly agree with Kennyc but I wouldnt go as far as to use the word "thief" as that only serves to get peoples backs up.

Like everything else, this will work itself out over time through pricing and other strategies, but dont kid yourself that obtaining an unlicensed copy of a book is fine and dandy.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Hogan

You are joking, right? How do you expect these authors to earn a living? Take a second job (which pays) and forget about sleeping

I believe a second job is exactly how the majority of authors do earn a living. Don't kid yourself that any more than a minority earn a living from their writing. (The same goes for musicians and their music).

I'm reminded of Eric Flints assertion that the biggest threat to authors is not copyright infringment but obscurity. Now that is a real threat to their livelyhood...

[osnova]

Originally Posted by Hogan

As to the people saying that you give up your claim when you sell the product (ebook in this case) .... seriously, get a grip.

I was saying that outside of the copyright law you do not have a claim in the first place. Then there is nothing to give up. You can keep your work to yourself or share it.

Originally Posted by Hogan

So you'd be happy for an author to sell their first copy of a book, and have that purchaser send copies to everyone else who wanted one? There wouldn't be many authors left if that was the case.

No, I wouldn't be happy. That's why a reasonable copyright law that benefits the actual authors would be a good thing. Without the copyright law, we would have to come up with other sets of incentives for authors (that is in addition to the desire to create and share if it is not sufficient). In the past, the royalty and the wealthy financed authors and artists. I find it not agreeable. There could be a public stipend for content creators, which is also not acceptable for me personally. So, a copyright law narrowly tailored to provide sufficient incentives to authors without stifling the public domain (the current public domain is a joke) would be the proper answer. Our culture should not be an investment asset for speculators at the NYSE.

Originally Posted by Hogan

When an author sells you a book, you get a single license for that book.

No, it is the author who receives a public license to control distribution for a limited time under the copyright law. What I am saying is that we, the society, should watch closely what license we give to authors. Now, Disneys grab what they want without asking us.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It's not nearly as black and white as you are attempting to paint it.

Damn, my irony meter just broke.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by osnova

While what you are saying is plausible, it remains to be seen if "the result will be lost culture." The culture would surely change. There will be no Disneys; yet there would be Aristotles, Shakespeares, samizdats (the samizdat authors were not only uncompensated, they risked being imprisoned in the Gulag for their works), Linuses Torvaldses.

Copyright is a relatively recent invention (since the Statute of Anne/Copyright Act of 1709). It could be that our culture has been greatly impoverished compared to what it might have been without the invention of the copyright.

By the way, only after the 1886 Berne Convention, the copyright became automatic. Before that time, the authors had to opt in (i.e. assert, declare, register etc. their claim) in order to be covered by the copyright. And the United States did not sign the Berne Convention until 1989!!!

Fact correction. The US did not join Berne until 1976, not 1989...*and then it did it only half way, to protect Hollywood....