01-07-2012, 11:03 AM | #61 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,195
Karma: 70314280
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Device: iPad Pro, iPad mini, Kobo Aura, Amazon paperwhite, Sony PRS-T2
|
No, answering your question of where I get this from. I can call a cat a dog, but that doesn't make it a dog.
The term copyright has been used in two different ways. The first is a legal monopoly on the right to publish written material. This was used in an attempt to control the flow of thoughts and ideas, i.e. censorship, as well as a method of generating revenue and was historically fairly common. For example, in 1469 the Venetian Senate gave a German printer the sole rights to print the letters of Cicero and Pliny. It had nothing to do with an author's rights to control the publication of his writings, though sometimes there were specific grantings to specific authors for specific works they wrote. In England, in 1556, printing was reserved to members of the Stationeer's Company which was founded under Royal Charter. The other usage is the modern usage of giving authors the right to control the publication of their work. The first known copyright law of this sort was the Statute of Anne in 1709, which was titled "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned". |
01-07-2012, 08:28 PM | #62 | |
Wizard
Posts: 4,538
Karma: 264065402
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Taiwan
Device: HP Touchpad, Sony Duo 13, Lumia 920, Kobo Aura HD
|
Quote:
And it seems likely that this wasn't the first case, since everything was so well thought out. Just the earliest example I have heard of. As far as the Chinese example is concerned, copyright is still copyright. Your premise was that such restrictions were alien to Chinese culture. I have shown you that they are not. And the period mentioned was a rather liberal period, so censorship was not the issue, but revenues. Last edited by HansTWN; 01-07-2012 at 08:43 PM. |
|
Advert | |
|
01-08-2012, 12:05 PM | #63 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,195
Karma: 70314280
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Device: iPad Pro, iPad mini, Kobo Aura, Amazon paperwhite, Sony PRS-T2
|
Right. In your eagerness to show me wrong, you aren't reading what I wrote. Your example is another example of the first type of copyright, a monarch giving a monopoly to a specific person for a specific work. It isn't a general granting of the control for all authors to the works which they author, which is the modern definition of copyright.
I also say that the first method was also used to generate revenue. It's right there in the post that you quote. My initial premise is that the idea that works of art such as books and music are intellectual property which belongs to the creator of the work as a matter of course is historically not found outside of Europe. You haven't shown anything that challenges that premise. Your examples were of rulers asserting the right to control the copying of books themselves rather than a general assigning of such a right to the authors of the works. |
01-08-2012, 12:20 PM | #64 |
monkey on the fringe
Posts: 45,481
Karma: 158151390
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Seattle Metro
Device: Moto E6, Echo Show
|
|
01-08-2012, 08:23 PM | #65 | |
Wizard
Posts: 4,538
Karma: 264065402
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Taiwan
Device: HP Touchpad, Sony Duo 13, Lumia 920, Kobo Aura HD
|
Quote:
As for your "initial premise", that was a rather belated premise which only appeared after I gave you an example of early Chinese copyright. Tou did not state in your original post. You were talking Chinese historically enjoying free, uninhibited copying. |
|
Advert | |
|
01-09-2012, 06:29 PM | #66 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,195
Karma: 70314280
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Device: iPad Pro, iPad mini, Kobo Aura, Amazon paperwhite, Sony PRS-T2
|
If you wish to assert that a monarch giving specific rights to a specific person for a specific work is the same as a general assigning of rights to all authors, then you are welcome to do so. I disagree. I've explained what I was talking about in my initial post and explained why I consider to two concepts different. Once again, I was and am talking about the general assignment of rights to all authors, not just a ruler giving a monopoly to a specific person the rights to copy, i.e. publish, a specific work which that person may or may not have been the author.
|
01-10-2012, 05:51 PM | #67 | |
Connoisseur
Posts: 54
Karma: 52080
Join Date: Jul 2011
Device: nook color
|
Quote:
Disney was the strongest lobbyist pushing for ridiculously long copywrite periods and one of the main players in the draconian DRM measures in place. |
|
01-10-2012, 06:11 PM | #68 |
monkey on the fringe
Posts: 45,481
Karma: 158151390
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Seattle Metro
Device: Moto E6, Echo Show
|
|
01-11-2012, 06:51 AM | #69 |
eBook Enthusiast
Posts: 85,544
Karma: 93383043
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
|
Perhaps the answer, then is to make corporate copyright last for the lifetime of the company (just as individual copyright lasts for the lifetime of the individual + "X" years). That way, Disney get to keep their Mouse, and the rest of the US gets sensible copyright terms.
|
01-11-2012, 07:05 AM | #70 | |
monkey on the fringe
Posts: 45,481
Karma: 158151390
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Seattle Metro
Device: Moto E6, Echo Show
|
Quote:
|
|
01-11-2012, 07:08 AM | #71 | |
Wizard
Posts: 4,538
Karma: 264065402
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Taiwan
Device: HP Touchpad, Sony Duo 13, Lumia 920, Kobo Aura HD
|
Quote:
But unlimited copyright for books is a different story. The problem now is that the two are linked. |
|
01-11-2012, 10:13 AM | #72 | |
Guru
Posts: 826
Karma: 18573626
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Canada
Device: Kobo Touch, Nexus 7 (2013)
|
Quote:
Canada's Hudson Bay Company started in 1670, so I'm not sure a copyright term of 342 years+ is really what people think of as a "sensible" copyright term. The problem with this suggestion (and other copyright maximizing suggestions like it) is that equating copyrightable expressions with physical property is comparing apples to oranges. Tubemonkey seems to think there's an inherent right to your ideas but that's not true; the rights are a fiction created by copyright law, law designed to encourage new ideas while understanding that any new ideas are recombinations of old ideas or incremental changes to same. If you want to keep your ideas forever, just don't share them, problem solved. |
|
01-11-2012, 10:20 AM | #73 | |
Guru
Posts: 826
Karma: 18573626
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Canada
Device: Kobo Touch, Nexus 7 (2013)
|
Quote:
The point you bring up actually demonstrates how counter-productive copyright that lasts too long can be; the idea behind copyright is to encourage creators to create by giving them a limited monopoly, but the length of current US copyright actually encourages creators to rest on valuable IPs rather than take the risk of building new ones. |
|
01-11-2012, 10:52 AM | #74 |
Wizard
Posts: 2,549
Karma: 3799999
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: O'Fallon, Missouri, USA
Device: Nokia N800, PRS-505, Nook STR Glowlight, Kindle 3
|
See, that's the thing, why would it mean a huge loss of jobs? Has Disney stopped making new content? Also, if one thing ends up in public domain, it does not mean that all related materials would end up in public domain as well. I mean, look at the Three Stooges. There are 4 episodes in public domain, yet they're still very tightly locked down. For a while, things stooge related were so bad that Comedy III (the company started by Moe, Larry, and Joe Derita back in the 50s when they were getting a raw deal from studios) went around suing everyone who even made fan websites. I'd say that public domain hasn't hurt them any, if they've been able to hold on the copyright for the likenesses through other, newer works.
|
01-11-2012, 02:39 PM | #75 |
Guru
Posts: 808
Karma: 2260766
Join Date: Apr 2008
Device: Kindle Oasis 2
|
There is a huge amount of confusion between copyright and trademark in this thread. Even if "Steamboat Willie" went into the public domain, it wouldn't mean that anyone could simply use Mickey Mouse in any new movie that they wanted to. The character is still trademarked by Disney.
Would Disney go bankrupt if someone else could release a DVD of early Mickey Mouse movies, which is the kind of thing we're actually talking about with an expiring copyright? I somehow doubt it. It's also amusing to me that those who would defend Disney's right to perpetual copyright to the death somehow manage to forget that if perpetual copyright had been the law in the 1930's, Disney probably couldn't have made, say, Snow White, which would still have been under copyright to the heirs of the Grimm brothers. |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Public Domain Recs | covingtoncat73 | Reading Recommendations | 4 | 07-25-2011 09:59 AM |
January 1st is Public Domain Day | mikemc2 | General Discussions | 15 | 01-06-2011 08:34 AM |
Are reprints public domain? | bobcdy | General Discussions | 16 | 04-23-2010 10:11 AM |
Public Domain Authors | pgd1 | News | 12 | 08-04-2009 10:17 AM |