Does DRM violate the 1st Sale doctrine

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

It's there to make sure works stay around for posterity when there's no financial incentive for anyone to keep printing them etc.

Absolute rubbish. Copyright is explicitly that - a limited right granted to authors to temporarily control the right of copying of works they have created. Meanwhile, public domain is also equally explicit - works in the public domain have no restrictions on their commercial use since there is nobody with said rights over them, they're public.

Moreover, in many countries there are categories of information such as simple lists of data which are deemed unprotectable as non-creative! (although, ironically, not in the UK which uses a different test - "sweat of the brow").

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

The public domain existed before 1976 therefore it is unreasonable to claim it only exists to keep available the work of the dead.

It just means the law was wrong before. And hopefully has been permanently corrected to protect creators rights, and let the public domain only serve to keep works available when there's no longer a financial incentive to keep the work in print.

Also you missed my point, people who aren't me can go to a public school it doesn't mean they owe me something for doing so at least no more than someone who went to a private school. There's still a system of laws and a social contract.

No, but they and their family etc. also paid taxes, they're benefiting because they paid taxes. If you don't go to public school, you just decided to not take advantage of the privileged you earned by paying taxes.

They don't owe you anything as they paid taxes as well. Sure, some pay more taxes than others, but that's just the nature of living in a society that has public schools and other public entities. Not everyone pays the same share so their kids can go to school k-12 for free, or go to state universities for very cheap tuition etc.

But that's just completely separate to the issue of whether creator's should own the rights to their property for their full lifetimes or not.

That just comes down to whether you support an economic system were people create works with the aim to make money and have rights to those works for as long as their alive (unless they choose to give those rights up and just give the work away). Or a system where work is done for the common good, and creators at best get to keep the rights for only part of their lives, and not until death and beyond.

But again, we're going in circles and yet I keep responding so I'm just going to through you on ignore as I'm sure other's here are getting tired of this back and forth since we both keep saying the same stuff over and over.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

It just means the law was wrong before. And hopefully has been permanently corrected to protect creators rights, and let the public domain only serve to keep works available when there's no longer a financial incentive to keep the work in print.

Your sense of entitlement is truly astounding. I need to get your viewpoint on FOSS someday...

(Then again, as you've pointed out elsewhere, you're a fanatic. It's hence predictable...)

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Your sense of entitlement is truly astounding.

What sense of entitlement? I'm not an author, musician etc? The only thing I create is scholarly journal articles, which I don't get a dime for. I'll probably never write a book, as those count for next to nothing for tenure and promotion in research universities in the US--which are my sole career goals.

I'm defending other's rights. If people create something, copyright it and want to sell it, that's their decision. And they should maintain the rights and control over their creations at least until their deaths unless they decide to give it up.

It's much more of a sense of entitlement to think people should have thee rights to their creations taken from them for the common good at any time prior to their death.

[DawnFalcon]

The very concept that copyright is anything more than a temporary artificial monopoly granted within certain narrow grounds... I'd point out that patents can be registered by individuals, and there are few objections to their relatively low, fixed span. Are you arguing for those to be lifelong?


Anyway: I disagree with the "to death" concept, which is going to become increasingly problematical over the next century as biology starts to extend Human lifespans. Instead, as I've said before, I feel that the span of copyright should depend entirely on the rights claimed - less restrictive (to the degree of allowing compulsory licensing or free private usage at the lower end) claims to last longer, and more restrictive claims for far shorter periods.

Also, moral rights should be inalienable and last the author's lifetime: Moral Rights are separate from the commercial rights governed by copyright, and I would imagine that your holding them would be important to you (since they govern the rights of attribution) than copyright per-se.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

The very concept that copyright is anything more than a temporary artificial monopoly granted within certain narrow grounds... I'd point out that patents can be registered by individuals, and there are few objections to their relatively low, fixed span. Are you arguing for those to be lifelong?

Yes, patents should as well.

If someone creates something it's their property until at least their death. It's not an artificial monopoly, it's their fucking creation and their property and there's to do with what they will.

Assuming they decide not to just give it away....

They should be the only one who an produce it and try and make money off of it.

People can't edit it, remix it etc. without their permission. There's fair use, but they must be cited etc.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

That just comes down to whether you support an economic system were people create works with the aim to make money and have rights to those works for as long as their alive (unless they choose to give those rights up and just give the work away). Or a system where work is done for the common good, and creators at best get to keep the rights for only part of their lives, and not until death and beyond.

I support neither, I support the idea of a system where creativity is encouraged because whatever the personal motivations for creation are, it benefits the whole human race. In this care the way to promote the progress of the useful arts would be to allow creators to limited terms of copyright. The deal is, if you spend some time writing books or painting we'll let you control who gets to make copies for a little while, by the way you might try selling the copies or giving someone else license to do that then there's a chance you'll make a little money for creating cool huh? Then when the copyright term expires the useful arts will have progressed, society will have something else added to the cultural heritage and the next person can dip into the public domain mix in their own stuff and repeat the process.

Those who create dip into the public domain even ones who don't do it on purpose. Every biblical allusion, every word or phrase Shakespeare made up, every reference to a vampire everything comes from somewhere built up over thousands of years if you're not willing to give back to the public domain don't take things from it. Cinderella and Snow white and the lion king and the little mermaid the hunchback of notre dame and pretty much every other damned thing disney has released is a rehash of something from the public domain, why on earth do you think it unreasonable to after 56 years release their often minor changes back into the wild?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Yes, patents should as well.

But patents held by a company? (Also, what's the practical difference between a patent held by a person and exclusively and irrevocably licensed to the company and one held by the company itself?)

Also, is someone "dead" when they've been on life support for 20 years? If they're cryogenically frozen? Oh look, a can of worms...

[dmaul1114]

Again, just have to agree to disagree. I think they limits of copyright have to last at least until death.

While, I guess I'm not a "pure" or "100 %" capitlist as you pointed out before, I do spend every second of every day on stuff that either benefits me directly or indirectly. Nothing I ever do will ever be purely/directly for the common good.

And I don't expect others to do so either. I expect authors to be writing to try to make as much as they can off the work, same with musicians or any other kind of creators be it artists, inventors etc.

So I'll always strongly support that they should have full control over their creations at least until their deaths.

And I'm also an academic. The only thing I'm creating is new knowledge in my field. Yes I take from the past, but I'm also citing the creator(s) of that past knowledge every single time I do so. So maybe that has something to do with my strong respect for creators retaining the rights to their creation. *shrugs*

[DawnFalcon]

That can be accomplished by strong moral rights, though, rather than lifelong commercial protection.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

But patents held by a company? (Also, what's the practical difference between a patent held by a person and exclusively and irrevocably licensed to the company and one held by the company itself?)

Also, is someone "dead" when they've been on life support for 20 years? If they're cryogenically frozen? Oh look, a can of worms...

The company angle would have to change. Companies don't create shit. They pay people to create stuff. They can have control over the creation since they paid for it, but true ownership should be tied to the individual(s) who created it. And the patent should only last until they are dead.

Death is death. Being on life support is still alive. Cyrogenically frozen isn't a can of worms, but a silly example--maybe that will have some relevance in the future when it's possible but not currently. So that bridge could be crossed in the future.

But for now, copyrights and patents last at least 5-10 years after death (so people don't stop publishing when they're old, surviving family doesn't stop publishing posthumously etc.) with death being dead and buried, cremated etc.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

That can be accomplished by strong moral rights, though, rather than lifelong commercial protection.

Both are important and that argument borders on semantics.

A person who creates something and chooses to copyright it should have rights to:

-Be the only person who can authorize making copies of it and selling copies (do it themselves, sign contract with publishers etc.)

-Authorize any remixes or altered versions of their work

-To expect people who steal their content to be punished (regardless of whether its physical or digital versions)

-Not have their work used for advertising etc. without giving permission and being compensated.

And a host of other issues. Some are moral, some or financial, but it all comes down to the fact that it's their creation and they should have full control over it for their lifetimes.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

While, I guess I'm not a "pure" or "100 %" capitlist as you pointed out before, I do spend every second of every day on stuff that either benefits me directly or indirectly. Nothing I ever do will ever be purely/directly for the common good.

Who's paying you to advocate for the copyright lobby?

[dmaul1114]

No one. I just enjoying arguing shit on the internet.

Not all benefits have to be financial. Entertainment is a big benefit.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Both are important and that argument borders on semantics.

I'd suggest you read up on moral rights, since you evidently by your post you simply don't understand them.

edit: Or yea, you can troll like kenny. Your choice