|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/05/2007 : 22:41:43
|
Example of regulation protecting stolen property.
http://tinyurl.com/3djcyq
What do you think?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 07:07:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Example of regulation protecting stolen property.
http://tinyurl.com/3djcyq
What do you think?
|
I think i don't have time to listen to 18 minutes of this sob story. Unfortunately, this happens sometimes. Think of genericide. |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 07:25:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Example of regulation protecting stolen property.
http://tinyurl.com/3djcyq
What do you think?
|
I think i don't have time to listen to 18 minutes of this sob story. Unfortunately, this happens sometimes. Think of genericide.
|
It is not a sob story. The story is interesting outside of the question I asked.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 12:25:35 [Permalink]
|
The last few seconds of that recording are the important parts. Specifically, the reference to Judge Kozinski's dissent from White v. Samsung:Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture. And he's absolutely correct.
In copyright law, "fair use" was left intentionally vague so that an impartial judge has to be the one making the distinction between what's a fair use and what's an unfair use of copyrighted material on a case-by-case basis. The broad decision in 2004 - that anyone doing any sampling of anyone else's music must pay royalties regardless of how much is sampled - destroyed the intent of copyright law, which in fact gave "derivative works" as one of the examples of fair use of someone else's stuff. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 16:04:04 [Permalink]
|
| What happened to the rest of this? There was more, including my little rant on Disney.... But I cannot find it. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 17:05:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
What happened to the rest of this? There was more, including my little rant on Disney.... But I cannot find it.
|
Yup, see here.
Of course, it could be something else.
[Edited to fix link - Dave W.] |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 19:10:11 [Permalink]
|
Hey, I just happen to have left this thread up on my machine when I put it in standby mode this morning...
Originally posted by Original Intent
Too bad he didn't get a chance to rule on Disney......... |
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I do not understand your meaning. Could you explain it? Thanks in advance.
 |
Originally posted by Original Intent
Disney had a new rule passed that allowed it to keep the copyrights for Mickey and some other chartacters, which were due to expire...
"We can't be profitable" or some such nonscence......
A corporation has to be flexibale, or die... or buy the protection......
I think waht really pisses me off is, not the extension itslef, but the it was unconstitutiona to begin with. Nowhere does it provide for corporations or even family members to inherit rights.....
Article II Section 8:..
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Auhors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries... |
empahis mine.
The Supreme Court could interpret "limited time", however the constitution grants rights exclusively(only to) the writers and inventors, not to anyone else. |
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 19:29:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original Intent
Disney had a new rule passed that allowed it to keep the copyrights for Mickey and some other chartacters, which were due to expire...
"We can't be profitable" or some such nonscence......
A corporation has to be flexibale, or die... or buy the protection......
I think waht really pisses me off is, not the extension itslef, but the it was unconstitutiona to begin with. Nowhere does it provide for corporations or even family members to inherit rights.....
Article II Section 8:..
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Auhors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries... |
empahis mine.
The Supreme Court could interpret "limited time", however the constitution grants rights exclusively(only to) the writers and inventors, not to anyone else. |
This is one of many examples of the words of the contract being "interpreted" from a "living" document to allow those with to pervert the contract for their benefit.
The funny thing is most times, with most people, if the perversion is within in their world view they have no problem. It amuses me beyond description to see this phenomena time and again; especially when it is pointed out.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 20:08:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original Intent
Disney had a new rule passed that allowed it to keep the copyrights for Mickey and some other chartacters, which were due to expire...
"We can't be profitable" or some such nonscence......
A corporation has to be flexibale, or die... or buy the protection......
I think waht really pisses me off is, not the extension itslef, but the it was unconstitutiona to begin with. Nowhere does it provide for corporations or even family members to inherit rights.....
Article II Section 8:..
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Auhors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries... |
empahis mine.
The Supreme Court could interpret "limited time", however the constitution grants rights exclusively(only to) the writers and inventors, not to anyone else. |
Actually, I'm going to have to strenuously disagree with you on this one, OI, unless you can show that the Framers had serious objections to this language from the Copyright Act of 1790:An Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, Charts, And books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passing of this act, the author and authors of any map, chart, book or books already printed within these United States, being a citizen or citizens thereof, or resident within the same, his or their executors, administrators or assigns, who halt or have not transferred to any other person the copyright of such map, chart, book or books, share or shares thereof; and any other person or persons, being a citizen or citizens of these United States, or residents therein, his or their executors, administrators or assigns, who halt or have purchased or legally acquired the copyright of any such map, chart, book or books, in order to print, reprint, publish or vend the same, shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending such map, chart, book or books...
(Emphasis mine.) The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact copyright law as Congress deems "necessary and proper." In the very first Federal copyright law, we see them granting copyright protection to proprietors, assignees and purchasers, not just authors and inventors.
Granted, the law only allowed for a 14-year extension if the author were still alive, but it also only allowed copyright on books, maps and charts, so Disney would have been out of luck in 1790 anyway.
Thankfully things have changed. There's still some work to be done until the U.S. is fully in compliance with its own law, however (since the U.S. signed onto the Berne Convention in 1989). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 06:06:49 [Permalink]
|
| 1790..... That old of an Act, I really can't argue with. Thanks for the link. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/10/2007 : 07:13:21 [Permalink]
|
The circumstance portrayed in the film is the copyrighting of anothers copyright.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 11:23:05 [Permalink]
|
| The thing about copyrights is that the copyright holder must bring suit, the government won't do it for you (except, currently, in cases of outright and massive piracy). So if the original group isn't acting to protect their copyrights, there's not much to be done. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 18:48:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
The thing about copyrights is that the copyright holder must bring suit, the government won't do it for you (except, currently, in cases of outright and massive piracy). So if the original group isn't acting to protect their copyrights, there's not much to be done.
|
I agree, but does the second copyright holder truly own the copyright and the legal protection thereof?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 19:28:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I agree, but does the second copyright holder truly own the copyright and the legal protection thereof? |
It's all about what you can get away with in court.
Alice writes something. Bob copies it, and claims a copyright also. Carl copies it from Bob, and is sued by Bob. Only if Carl's defense team knows about Alice's original authorship is Bob's claim to copyright going to be falsified. If not, then for that one case, Bob may as well own the rights.
Again, the government grants these rights, but it's up to the copyright holders to actually defend them. That's why Cune's link on genericide was relevant, because it's mostly the same thing, but with trademarks instead of copyrights. The government doesn't police patents, either. With all three of the types of property managed by the USPTO, if a rights holder fails to defend against infringement, then whoever does claim the rights will pretty much own them through default. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 07:45:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I agree, but does the second copyright holder truly own the copyright and the legal protection thereof? |
It's all about what you can get away with in court.
Alice writes something. Bob copies it, and claims a copyright also. Carl copies it from Bob, and is sued by Bob. Only if Carl's defense team knows about Alice's original authorship is Bob's claim to copyright going to be falsified. If not, then for that one case, Bob may as well own the rights.
Again, the government grants these rights, but it's up to the copyright holders to actually defend them. That's why Cune's link on genericide was relevant, because it's mostly the same thing, but with trademarks instead of copyrights. The government doesn't police patents, either. With all three of the types of property managed by the USPTO, if a rights holder fails to defend against infringement, then whoever does claim the rights will pretty much own them through default.
|
Very good explanation. Thanks!
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Are Copyrights Protecting the Producer?
