Copywrite laws are they to vague?

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by geckomlis:
The problem is that “for limited times” has become a defacto “for all time”. When that limited time expired, works were supposed to enter the public domain. This is not occurring anymore. Congress regularly extends the period of copyright, so essentially nothing has entered the public domain from this process since the late 1940’s. Congress does this in response to lobbyists working on the behalf of the uber media corporations. This corrupts the balance between author’s rights and the public good. FYI: The USA is very unique in its view of copyright. Other countries have author’s rights traditions and are not particularly concerned about an abstract public good.

Yes, I know - unfortunately, the constitution has been "interperted" out of much of its meaning on many different issues. However, it is still useful to bring it up every now and then.

Also, it's not just congress - before anything becomes law, the senate must also pass any such thing, and the president must abstain from vetoing it - Further, the Supreme Court is the body that rules on wether a law is unconstitutional or not, and are the offical interperters of law, and they haven't been keeping quite as close to the original constitution as I might like.

[ June 19, 2003, 00:15: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Oh ya like this has ever happened.

I said helps to prevent, not prevents.

---

I'm sorry Jack, I was not being rude, just facetious. And thank you for the information you've posted.

[ June 18, 2003, 22:16: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
I'm sorry Jack, I was not being rude, just facetious.

That works - sorry for misinterperting your intent.

Originally posted by Atrocities:
And thank you for the information you've posted.

Not a problem.

[ June 18, 2003, 22:18: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Jack Simth]

Geckomlis - I edited my response to your post in response to you editing your post.

[Rojero]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It used to be that patents expired after 20 years and copyrights after 75 - but I have heard that has changed recently.

As for unconstitutional: The constitution actually makes specific allowance for copyrights and patents: So does it mean that batman and superman are already public domain?
the whole issue was about just making skins, but I would think if it is common knowledge like that it would be ok, and most sites that I know of really are for non profit

[Geckomlis]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Geckomlis - I edited my response to your post in response to you editing your post.

Thank you for editing your post. My original post was the result of an accidental "Add Reply" instead of the intended "Preview Post". It happens.

I agree that it is not just Congress (which includes the House and the Senate) making copyright eternal. My post was meant to be informative rather than argumentative. My opinion is simply that the balance has swung towards author’s rights in the United States. I have no opinion as to whether this is good or evil.

Gecko

[PvK]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

PvK:
It can hurt a business severly if someone is freely distributing stuff that is closely related to the product the business is selling. That is actually part of the reason for patent and copyright laws; it helps protect the little businesses.

Mhmm. But in the case of fan art, the corporations waving legal threats are not little businesses, and the fan art is not competing with the corporations' business in any signifigant way. Fan art is in fact a promotion, celebration, and endorsement of the product. Moreover, private citizens should have the right to mention and produce non-commercial images or even duplicates of commercial media. If they can't, then you're very close to prohibiting things like parody or even discussion of corporate media. With even small children participating in discussions by means such as web pages etc., digital images have become a very common form of expression. Trying to make it illegal for the sake of paranoid corporations' intellectual property-mongering is preposterous and well, evil.

Suppose, for instance, that company X produces a new (copyrighted/patented) software algorythm that allows an OS to intelligently adapt to a new situation invisibly. Now, suppose Microsoft feels threatened by this, steals the algorythm, and starts distributing it free of charge. Microsoft is big, and can absorb the loss. X is not, and can't compete. Once X goes out of business, Microsoft can buy and use or suppress the algorythm. Copyright and patent law helps to prevent this.

That's a very different kind of thing from fan art.

For one thing, you're talking about a patent of an algorythm. In many cases, the patent office grants patents for ideas which are something anyone can thing of by considering the problem, so that whole institution is in need of complete reworking.

For another, you're talking about a megacorporation as the perp, not a private citizen.

Megacorps will of course succeed in perpetuating their ownership of anything they can get their hands on, for as long as they can get away with it. I wonder how long it will take for another system to replace it. Clearly it's awfully inefficient to have us designing hardware and software and lawsuits all for the purpose of limiting everyone's access to media, when the technology to freely share all of it is already in place. There needs to be another system developed for rewarding content creators, which allows creative people to earn a living while still making their content available for free distribution.

PvK