« State Dept opposes ITU attempt to control Internet | Main | So, how big is the Internet? »

November 18, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c398553ef017ee5566e43970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Excellent analysis of US copyright law, suppressed within 24 hrs of publication:

Comments

look inside

But in travel we directly experience and directly know every object and everything. We develop the qualities of painstaking, patience and frugality as we travel. We learn how to contact unknown people.

Rob

Copied. Thanks :)

Jim

Is compensating the creator not a method of encouraging innovation?

Ken

@Jim - of course it is. Being able to make a living off of your efforts is central to making any art a career rather than a hobby. The current copyright duration is by any measure too long and has been extended for the benefit of massive copyright holders like Disney, but copyright itself is necessary, especially and particularly when an artist's output is easily copied. Without copyright, NBC could use anybody's song as a theme for a hit show without paying them a dime. The Westboro Baptist Church could use a Frank Ocean song in an advertisement without his permission. Copyright reform needs to focus on bringing the copyright terms back into the sphere of rationality without eliminating the innovation-encouraging aspects such as allowing for compensation.

Telessar

Of course compensating the creator is a method of encouraging innovation - the point is that the GOAL of copyright is promoting progress. Compensation to the creator will encourage innovation to some degree; however, granting an exclusive monopoly over a work will discourage innovation to some degree (the enriching value of the work may not be accessible to the general public, and other creators cannot use the work in their own creative endeavors). The point of the paper is that we need to figure out what the best balance is between allowing access to a work and compensating the creator. (Rather than just saying more $ to the owner of the copyright (rarely the actual author/creator) is a benefit to progress)

Orion Blastar

The problem is that patents and copyrights were not meant to be used in the manner they are today, to put competitors out of business by suing them until they are bankrupt and then buying out their stock at 'fire sale' prices and then buying up their patents and copyrights to use to sue others.

There is a lot of 'prior art' out there when it comes to copyright and patents, a lot of it owned by IBM and others. Modern companies have invalid patents because the patent office doesn't understand technology. So things that are 'public domain' like 'linked lists' are granted patents and then used to sue others as most software uses a form of 'linked lists' to sort records.

They are also used for censorship and DMCA takendown of materials that do not violate any patents or copyrights but compete with big companies anyway.

If you want to know what it is, it is really bullying and the work of sociopaths, something that needs to be stopped because it has reached monstrous levels. Instead of innovating and competing to get better products, companies have decided to just sue other companies to get as much money as they can out of them, or force them into bankruptcy via legal bills and court costs to defend themselves.

Greg

I'm glad there are some well-thought-out replies to Jim's seemingly knee-jerk response; thank you Orion and Telessar.

Wes

Why not just make a torrent file with this to share it? I'm sure many of us would seed.

me

....perhaps a copyright lawyer saw it...
/roll

uncoveror

Locking up ideas as property is just as much a form of censorship as trying to suppress them. If I can't say things that are similar to things that have been said before because someone owns those words, I do not have freedom of speech. That is why the original term of copyright was so much shorter than Disney has bribed it into being to keep Steamboat Willie out of the public domain. No one on the hill stops to consider that Walt Disney died a long time ago, and cannot be encouraged to continue creating through copyright, or any other means.

The sickest part about it is that Walt did not respect so-called "intellectual property" when he ripped off his former employer by creating Mickey Mouse, an obvious derivative work based on Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. If Universal had considered him to be useful arts and not just frivolous entertainment, they could have gotten litigious, but they understood and respected the difference between those things back then. Recently, Disney acquired the rights to Oswald just in case someone decided to make an issue of it. It was part of the deal that let Al Michaels go to NBC from ABC.

OsoFlojo

You're right, but wrong in your interpretation of the Constitution's clause “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." You're right when you say it is meant "to further progress and innovation in our country", but the mechanism for doing that is to provide a monetary incentive for such innovation in the form of exclusivity for a certain period of time. In that respect, the clause is designed to protect Disney, at least temporarily, from a copycat artist who could simply trace Mickey Mouse onto some cells and create a duplicate of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". Disney created that character, that script, and possibly that technique for animation (not sure about the last part), and in doing so furthered the art of animation (and created thousands of jobs in doing so). You can argue the length of time a copyright should be enforced, but please don't argue that the copyright clause of the Constitution was designed for anything other than to further the progress and innovation in our country through a monetary mechanism built on exclusivity. That's absurd.

John Hunter

It is a very insightful paper. And actually very telling response by the republican party to those giving them money. They did say it was being pulled to give it a more thorough review. Now we can jump to the conclusion they are lying and pulled it because they don't agree with fixing the flawed system in place now. However, it seems to me that they have the opportunity to show they were not lying when they quickly repost their edited version. It is getting to be quite a while, so the evidence that they were honest when they removed the paper is becoming less believable.

I find it much more disconcerting that lies are accepted as ok than that the current political parties are bought and paid for. The evidence they are without independent thought and just do what those giving them cash tell them to do seems overwhelming to me. Yet we just continue to put them back into office. So that behavior repeating itself is hardly surprising. I suppose they may just openly lie and not be called on it by the press. I don't pay close enough attention. I thought they often just refused to answer and gave meaningless statements that are not lies because they contain no actual content.

I would like to see them post their updated version. Then we can evaluate their honesty in their reason for removing the very good paper originally posted. And we can see if there revisions seem to improve the paper or, sadly, much more likely, seem to abandon the principles stated in the paper (which theoretically the party says it values) for the wishes of those giving them money.

chris

I still think that patent law is not much more than a government protectionist racket, and I am a mechanical engineer by trade. Patents stifle productivity because they put lawyers in bed with engineers. At least some places, like China for instance, have the decency to serve customers by disregarding intellectual property claims. Nobody owns physics.

somoul

I think is hard to say,different people have different thoughts...

click here

Many people are surprised to learn there is no international copyright law. Yes, that is right. There is not an international copyright law that will protect your work on the other side of the world. However, it is important to note that most countries do offer some form of protection known as "foreign" works.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Search this Blog

Subscribe by Email

March 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

Technorati


Site Meter

Upcoming Travel & Conferences


Twitter Feed

Become a Fan