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

[Pax]

Originally posted by PvK:
It's yet another power grab by corporations motivated entirely by greed, and an attack on freedom of expression, in my opinion.

As long as you aren't selling, it shouldn't be illegal. If that's not the law, then the law should be unconstitutional.

PvK

Lack of monetary compensation cannot become a defense. I know of people who would copy someone else's work and hand the copies out for free, solely because they can ... thus denying the copyright holder their rightful income from the production and distribution of that work.

That is the very sort of thing copyright law is supposed to address.

While I do disagree with the indefinite extension of copyright, I also cannot agree with "no profit, no foul" fallacies.

That is not a matter of a power grab (the letter from Marvel, below) ... it's a matter of law: if marvel DOESN'T actively and aggressively protect it's trademarks and associated intellectual property, they lose them. Marvel exists to profit form selling stories and other products based on that intellectual property.

Take the recent X-Men films; if copies and derivations (etc) could be made and distributed for free and without penalty by persons OTHER than those who made the films and/or own rights to the intellectual properties with which the films were told, then, the films would never have been made.

MOST films owuldn't get made, nor would most books be published. It's a business, and it's about profit. Just like the inventor of a new machine should profit from his or her creation, the creator of a new piece of intellectual property should be able to do likewise.

Put it in perspective WRT SE4: if anyone were allowed to hand out copies of SE4, without Aaron seeing a penny, and with him unable to seek any sort of legal intervention ...

... then SE would probably never have happened, let alone be onthe FOURTH Version. The man has to put food on his table, after all.

[Erax]

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

You just about said it all. But no one has come forward with such a system. Many people have tried and many more are still trying. But while we are not yet there we are, well, here, where the law is quite harsh but also ultimately unenforceable.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Rojero:
So does it mean that batman and superman are already public domain?

As I mentioned, this has changed recently (I believe it has finally been extended to infinity, but I don't have a source on that, and may be recalling incorrectly). A 1910 Version might be; however, the comic industry slowly changes the character concept and images over time; the Batman and Superman of today aren't the Batman and Superman of 1910. There may be similarities, but they aren't the same.

Originally posted by Rojero:

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

There is a simple solution: ask the copyright holders for permission (in writing), describing your methods and intent. They will often grant you a license for non-commercial use, but not always. It is up to them to determine if your production of skins is going to hurt their market position or not.

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