Posted on 05/17/2008 1:56:40 PM PDT by ShadowAce
Well, well, well. The RIAA is not having a particularly good week. In the Tanya Andersen case (where the RIAA sued an innocent person), the court has awarded Andersen $108,000 in legal fees from the RIAA. You may recall that the RIAA had protested having to pay legal fees, which the judge smacked down. Note that this is entirely separate from Andersen's racketeering case against the RIAA.
However, the much bigger news concerns the infamous Jammie Thomas case. As you'll recall, the RIAA won that case, even though it now admits that it said false things under oath. Much of that decision hinged on the fact that the court said that "making available" was infringement, which is the opposite of what many other courts have been saying. In fact, it turns out that it went against the binding precedent in a different case within the same circuit. The judge has now admitted that he may have committed a "manifest error of law" in his jury instructions, and it sounds like he's going to order a new trial.
This is a big deal. The RIAA has been holding up the Thomas case over and over again as proof that (a) "making available" is infringement and (b) that courts will award huge fines for those caught file sharing. If that decision gets tossed out (not even by an appeals court, but by the judge who ruled in the first place), it will suddenly make the RIAA's claims relating to that case disappear completely.
Guess we don’t need to torture the RIAAs lawyers now. They’re cutting their own throats! (Bwahahahahaha)
A reasonable change to copyright law would be to require that copyright holders must retail market their copyrighted product on an annual basis to a certain dollar amount, or else they lose their government protection.
If a copyrighted work, like Mickey Mouse, is retailed for a large amount of money every year, Disney should be able to retain that copyright as long as it makes money. But at the same time, Disney could not *refuse* to market other works, such as Song of the South, because they don’t want to. If they refuse to market the product, they deserve no copyright protection.
This would make available for sale vast libraries of copyrighted works that are not now legally available, though they have been in the past. Either the copyright holder sells them, or stands back and lets someone else sell them.
Unfortunately, while most people would *prefer* that the copyright revert to the creator of the work, in the vast majority of cases, this cannot be, as the creator of the work has sold their rights, or ceded them by contract, to the existing copyright holder.
The RIAA, especially, has for years included a contract clause for artists that they are employees, who have no rights at all for their own works, but this was not enforced. However, a few years ago, they got the US congress to pass a bill saying that the clause was enforceable. This means that the RIAA holds the copyright of the creator of the art, not the artists themselves.
Overall, the effect of this change would not affect first run copyrights, the majority of profit for corporations; it would only affect older works.
The public would see a vast increase in the amount of public domain content. Artists not seen for decades would return to the limelight, newly repackaged. And if the library holders didn’t want to market them, it wouldn’t matter, because somebody probably would.
If the artist wants to give their work away fine, but no one can make a reasonable, just argument for obtaining a illegal copy of a copyrighted media product. The RIAA is trying to protect it's investments with these stupid lawsuits, and although I think they are doing it in a very marketable destructive way, I hope it will lead them to discover a more viable way to deliver it's product material.
I think that orphaned software be made public domain too. Any company that refuses to support the product they sold looses the rights to that work.
Was he guilty of breaking the "copyright law" according to the extortionist thugs at the RIAA? Probably. But F the RIAA if they think that these lawsuits are legitimate in their own right. What if a kid records Metallica off of the radio station with his cassette player?
The RIAA is an evil organization that destroys the lives of college students and kids who SUBSCRIBE to music sites. See their stories here, along with a video debate of the scumbags who run these types of organizations:
http://media.www.thegeorgetownindependent.com/media/storage/paper136/news/2007/03/28/Commentary/Riaa-Evil-2808823.shtml
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/09/the_riaa_sees_the_face/
http://www.herroflomjapan.com/2006/04/06/riaa-to-students-drop-out-of-college-to-pay-settlement/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhiYYOQcO-A&feature=related
Does this mean that anyone who downloads SP material can be sued by RIAA?
The problem with your idea is that many items protected by copyright have very limited value or the value may not be apparent for years.
A famous example is the photo of Clinton and Lewinsky. The photographer who took that photo had it in his back catalogue of images, but it was without value until the scandal broke.
As a photographer, I can tell you that this is not uncommon. I have sold images of student athletes who made it in the pros. In one case, I had photos of a political activist who became very high profile and a major magazine came calling.
The real issue is that music, movies, books and photos have different markets. A musician sells millions of copies of a few songs and with few exceptions, most of their money is made in the first few weeks of release.
A photographer sells a few copies of many photos. Often the photos only have value in certain contexts or to certain people.
The other thing that concerns me as a photographer is the misuse of my work. I want to be able to stop people from using the work for commercial purposes without consent — which is critical in situations where the photos were shot for editorial purposes and there are no releases.
I don't think that idea is reasonable at all. The concept of private property means you can use or not use what you own as you see fit. Furthermore, copyright law exists to protect all manner of intellectual property, much of which is not created to be retailed. Corporate logos and sales slogans are two cases in point. The purpose of copyright law is not to force owners to sell what they own.
In a sense, it is this way already. Every few years, Disney donates to various Congressional campaigns, and the limit on copyrights after the author’s death gets extended another few years....but then a lot of stuff that should revert to public domain gets protected along with Mickey Mouse.
I like the idea though. Maybe give a few years free for newly created works, then the copyright owner would have to pay an annual fee to keep the copyright.
Now once a copyright is expired it ought not be allowed to be renewed. “It’s A Wonderful Life” used to be public domain. It would never have become a popular movie if TV stations hadn’t been allowed to show it for free. Then NBC or somebody donated to somebody’s campaign (Clinton’s for sure, probably many others) and poof! It was proprietary once again.
Wolfstar - Your comment is wrong on 2 counts.
1. You cannot equate “intellectual property” to private property. One has scarcity and the other does not.
2. Corporate logos and sales slogans are protected by trademarks, not copyrights.
Intellectual property is private property. Scarcity, or lack thereof, has nothing whatsoever to do with what is or is not private property. For example, when someone writes a song, it is scarce until it is recorded, distributed, and becomes a hit. The song is then widely available, but the songwriter retains ownership of the intellectual property until (and unless) he sells those rights.
2. Corporate logos and sales slogans are protected by trademarks, not copyrights.
The point I was making remains 100% correct. However, I'll rephrase it in terms you will understand. Intellectual property that is either copyrighted or trademarked is private property. The owners of said private property should not be forced by the government to sell it at any time, for any purpose. Government may let copyright and trademark protection expire, but such action should not be due to non-use of the property by the rightful owner.
Say you create something. The item is entirely the product of your own imagination and/or toil. To protect yourself, you copyright it. Then, for reasons outside your control (lack of funds, illness, whatever), you can't market it for several years, although you intend to in the future. Someone waits out the short copyright period you advocate and, as soon as the copyright expires, he steals your idea/concept/product, slaps a new copyright on it, and successfully markets it. Where's the justice in that?
Nope, I disagree with you and others who are advocating a weakening of our copyright protections. Private property is one of the few bedrock principles that distinguish Western democracies from Marxist states.
A lot of people run around these days crowing that they are "real" conservatives. They hold extremely harsh views of anyone whom they see as deviating from their vision of what "real" conservatism means. Yet when it comes to conserving true bedrock principles such as private property, they are just as eager as the Left is to participate in the destruction of our very foundations.
But that was taken into account. A photographer who has not sold his work does not need a copyright until he sells his work. It remains proprietary precisely because it has not be released.
In the case of your example, if his Clinton-Lewinsky photo was just sitting idle, no need for a copyright. But if he had already introduced it to the market, but then it had sat idle for over a year, it would become public domain unless he re-introduced it for sale. It would be his choice when copyright began and ended. He would just not show his pictures in a reproduceable medium if he thought they had value. Nothing would stop him from exhibiting them, however.
Your suggestion is most unreasonable due to the risk it introduces in creating and exploiting copyrighted works. What if a copyrighted work only sporadically generates income? What if it takes four years to finally realize income? Such works would immediately revert into the public domain for failing to meet "standards."
Furthermore, copyright holders with more funds available to expend into marketing a particular product would gain an advantage over individuals and small businesses. It's easier to market a copyrighted work when you have millions in the bank and access to bank credit lines and securities markets.
The most reasonable system is that which was originally implemented. Give authors the exclusive and implied rights to exploit their works for a period of not more than fifteen to twenty years in the case of printed works (books) and five to seven years in the case of non-printed works (software, music, movies, and so forth). Obviously, the time limits are adjustable. Protection should be automatic, without registration, though registration makes it easier to prove the copyright ownership in a court of law. And, only specific ideas of expressions should be copyright eligible, not general ideas. Trademarks should receive indefinite legal protection or until the original holder ceases to exist.
No, but copyright is a government monopoly license. It shouldn’t be given away to an individual just because of the niceness of their smile. Just as the government shouldn’t be expected to provide free locks and a policeman just to guard your house.
The legitimacy of the RIAA's lawsuits is questionable, but businesses that run on a model of "sue your customer to death" do not last very long.
Copyright should be automatic for any eligible work from the moment of creation. However, it's still up to the holder to defend himself in cases of infringement. And, per your last remark, copyright infringement ought to remain a civil matter and not a criminal matter as the latter would imply that the public would essentially be subsidizing the cost of providing free locks and police guards to copyright holders.
No it won't. They're liberals. So, like the 400,000 who die a year from obesity (not) and the 50,000 killed by drunk drivers (not), they'll just keep on citing it because the sheeple aren't informed and don't know any different.
Yes, just like, when you buy a DVD or music CD (or LP or cassette of old..) you don’t OWN the work. What you have bought is a personal license to access and play it for your own use. Something like that... right?
A bad day for the RIAA is a good day for just about everyone else.
Yes, until the copyright expires and the right to use the work returns to the public at-large.
That's a great idea. Any software that has met its end of life cycle should be made open source and free to anyone who wants to use it. Why would microsoft care if someone installed and used Windows 200 illegally for example? They aren't losing anything, because Microsoft is no longer selling, or even supporting it. I suppose the only drawback for them would be that Windows 2000 is better than Vista and they would be afraid a lot of people would use it instead.
I have to disagree with that. If somebody creates something, they can do - - or not do - - whatever they please with their creation. Either way, a third party should not be able to steal and make money from somebody else's creation.
Under current law, copyright begins at the moment of creation.
Your idea undermines the fundamental nature of copyright. It essentially introduces the doctrine of adverse possession into copyright issues.
The concept of private property means you can use or not use what you own as you see fit.
Copyright is not property. It's a limited monopoly right. That right can be bought and sold like property and you can make money off that right like poperty, but it's still not property.
Furthermore, copyright law exists to protect all manner of intellectual property, much of which is not created to be retailed. Corporate logos and sales slogans are two cases in point.
By logos and slogans I take it you are talking about trademark and service mark. The authority for trademark doesn't come from the Copyright Clause, and there is no legal relation (although trademarks are registered by the same office that does patents). It is a trade law designed to eliminate confusion in the marketplace. This is why unlike copyrights trademarks have to be constantly renewed to show you're still using them, but they can last forever.
We still have a problem with that confusing term. The only reason to have a trademark is to protect your trade. If you don't need it to protect your trade, then there is no reason to have the trademark. Thus trademarks can be taken away through lack of use. It's not a government-initiated action, but if others start using it and you weren't using it or protecting it, you may lose it in court.
Copyrights don't cover ideas, concepts or products. They cover the specific creative expressions. And when the copyright expires it is in the public domain for all to use. It can't be re-copyrighted.
I do agree that copyright shouldn't expire simply because of disuse. But we need to go back to the beginning, shorter extendable terms (was 14 + 14) and a requirement to register. If you can't make a profit in 28 years, then you don't need the protection of copyright.
Perjury goes unpunished. Thank you, Clinton Legacy....
Requiring some kind of definite action at reasonable intervals to re-confirm a copyright would address the abandonware problem.
The term established during the early years of the Republic (14 years, renewable once) seemed to work fairly well.
You are 100% wrong. My point is, and has been throughout my comments on this thread, that what a person produces is their property. What a person produces is their property whether or not it is a physical object or something that emerged from their thought processes. Something that emerged from a person's thought processes can be music and works of art, but also inventions, architectural designs, and a whole host of things that are commonly (if not legally) thought of as intellectual property.
A person can choose to sell what he produces, or keep it for private purposes. A person can use or not use something he produces. A person can choose to apply for -- or not to apply for -- a patent, copyright and/or trademark.
Article 1 of the United States Constitution lays out the powers granted to Congress. Article 1, Section 8 reads:
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;
The fundamental purpose of those legal devices is to protect the creator/inventor's right to be the first -- not the only, but the first -- to exploit and benefit from what he created. Being able to exploit and benefit from one's own work and/or creativity before it passes into public domain is the incentive that fulfills the first clause of Section 8, which is that Congress must PROMOTE the progress of science and the useful arts.
Yes, the times are to be limited, but if we ever get to the point when Congress essentially says use it or lose it within an excessively short period, as suggested by some on this thread, then Section 8 of the Constitution will have been essentially revoked. Why? Because the incentive to create and produce will be non-existent.
The concepts embodied in Section 8 are an absolute bedrock principle of a free society. More than any other, they are what distinguish a free society from Marxism and its several derivatives (i.e., National Socialism, Fascism, euro-style "democratic" socialism, etc.). As such, I would rather have Congress "err" on the side of caution and allow longer rather than shorter copyright/patent/trademark terms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.