Copyright laws - DPChallenge Forums

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

03/31/2005 11:55:40 PM · #126

nbsca

"I know very well that it applies to those. What I am asking. And frankly, nsbca I find you to be a troll on thise matter, cause I believe you know exaxtly what I am saying....is why do those items get protection and not fashion? Shouldn't bell bottoms be copyrightable like architecture and imagery?

What is the basis to determine "which" forms of intellectual property we protect, and how, and why?

"If I tell 20 people about my idea and someone uses it to write a best selling novel the idea is no longer protected. "
[[[Actually it is, and many have been sued for just that. It is why most such entities as a tv show won't accept unsolicited ideas. ]]]

"don't you have a right to enjoy your property too? Certainly the Human Rights Act, effective throughout Europe, provides that we should have that right. That means that the state should be prevented from legislating away someone's property, including their intellectual property rights."
[[[That part seems to be conveniently forgotten here, basically RIAA, MPAA wave so much money that they get laws passed that are hideous. We actually came very close to having a law that would have allowed RIAA to erase suspect files on someone's computer, and if they were legal or accidentally damaged your system they'd only be held to a $50 liability. Thankfully, it got removed....]]]

nsbca7

04/01/2005 12:09:44 AM · #127

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

You say your post refers only to intelectual property, yet you quote a piece from Thomas Jefferson that is refering to ideas. There is a great deal of difference between an idea and a printed book. If I have an idea for a story about an albino Eskimo who becomes president and I keep that idea in my head it is protected. If I tell 20 people about my idea and someone uses it to write a best selling novel the idea is no longer protected. That is what Jefferson was talking about. If I write the book, the instant the words hit the page the works are protected in the US by copyright law. The idea is not.

The idea is as free to use now as it was when Jefferson had so long ago envisioned it. It is the material products of imagination - the books, the paintings, the musical compositions, the products that come from those ideas - that is what is protected.

Ideas can be intellectual property and can be protected by other means. Such as by design right and patent. Different rules apply, and different time limits, but the concept of protection of an idea and its expression are closely related - I think the quote is still relevant. That is why you cannot take someone's clever invention and use the same idea to make a competing replica, without licensing the design. The trick is in doing something similar but using a different idea - eg try producing a Cyclonic vacuum cleaner to compete with Dyson and see how far you get! Hoover tried and failed: they did not copy the Dyson, but used the same idea that Dyson had spent time and money developing and had protected. Now they try and produce something that works similarly, but using different principles.

Patents are very time limited (20 years after invention, I think in the UK) and cannot contain any "prior art" - existing ideas. Different issues arise for copyright, which is 50 years after creator's death (70 in US), I think.

Patents are controversial when used to patent electronic processes, such as Amazon's one-click ordering patent.

There is a clear and fundamental difference between ideas and the expression of those ideas under the law. Jefferson was not refering the the expression, but as he clearly stated the ideas themselves. Ideas are not copyrightable and therefore are not at issue here. If you have a problem with selecting the right words to get your message across be aware that Thomas Jefferson rarely shared that same problem. If he used the word ideas rest assured that is exactly what he meant.

Message edited by author 2005-04-01 00:31:03.

gwphoto

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/01/2005 12:16:54 AM · #128

Originally posted by theSaj:

Here's a question....

Clothes and fashions...should they be copyrightable?

You can't copyright that. You might be able to get a patten, but not a copyright.

nsbca7

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

04/01/2005 12:29:33 AM · #129

Originally posted by theSaj:

You see me as a troll in the matter as I see you as highly uneducated in this matter. You have strong oppinions but they are not based on the facts of copyright law. No. bell bottoms are not copyrightable and should not be copyrightable because they do not fall into any of the categories of what copyright covers. If you can not tell the differnce between a book and a pair of blue jeans then I can not help you.

Originally posted by theSaj:

What is the basis to determine "which" forms of intellectual property we protect, and how, and why?

That would be the law. In the United States copyright law is based originally on the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers that were written when the country was founded. It has since been revised and modified by acts in the US Congress.

Originally posted by theSaj:

[[[Actually it is, and many have been sued for just that. It is why most such entities as a tv show won't accept unsolicited ideas. ]]]

Lawsuits pop up over every aspect of life. That does not suggest that because someone sued another person over an idea that US copyright law protects ideas. US copyright law, if you would take the time to read it, specifically states that indeed ideas are not covered.

You may call me a troll again for suggesting this, but before you continue to comment on this please read the law.

gwphoto

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/01/2005 12:34:06 AM · #130

Hey nsbca7, don't you just love those that think they know stuff, just because the have a itch up there #$@ and have never even read the laws.. Keep up the good work..

04/01/2005 05:18:00 AM · #131

Originally posted by nsbca7:

I am defending joebok's cross reference and his apology for word selection: the cross reference validly points to a principle that modern law respects, in that ideas are protected. However, I agree that ideas are not protected by copyright, but by other forms of IP right. Copyright is the protection of expression only.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that copyright should extend to ideas. I think that there is some confusion, as theSaj is confusing protection created under other forms of IP law (such as patents on ideas, design rights), which he attempts to use to criticise copyright legislation, and the limited protection offered by copyright. I recognise in this discussion that copyright can rarely be considered in isolation, as almost all IP disputes invariably involve a raft of issues and reliance on the gamut of IP protection.

I have been trying to explain the distinction, as it is not necessarily helpful to say

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by theSaj:
Clothes and fashions...should they be copyrightable?

Again, read the copyright laws. You say you have, but I find that very hard to believe based on your past statements.

Copyright applies literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; architectural works

You are technically correct, but that would imply that there is no protection in respect of fashion design. There is protection, but you have to look at other forms of IP right (trademarks, patents in the cutting patterns and any processes (eg material fabrication), copyright in any pattern on the material, confidentiality, prohibitions on passing off etc). Copyright can arise in certain aspects, such as in a catwalk show, in which the show, the script, the music (words and notes), the televised performance, the editing etc are all protected by copyright.

04/01/2005 11:50:32 AM · #132

"You see me as a troll in the matter as I see you as highly uneducated in this matter"
[[[Likewise, I see you as very uneducated in the matter. You look at the law, in a current form and none other. I look at the law, the original motivations, the historical context at the time of the law's implementation and the historical aspects through out history.

Example: Books...

There were no copyrights a few hundred years ago. If you wanted you could copy a manuscript by hand. That was not uncommon. There was no copyrights on music. But music was still made.
]]]

"No. bell bottoms are not copyrightable and should not be copyrightable because they do not fall into any of the categories of what copyright covers."
[[[Sounding brass...you keep saying the same thing. The law doesn't cover. I am not asking you about the technicalities of the law but the reasoning for the law. If the law said tomorrow fashion, garments, etc were copyrightable. You'd have listed that as one of the coverings. I see no real difference between architecture and clothing. Why is one looked at differently than the other? What about landscaping? Why can't I copyright a landscaping? ]]]

"That would be the law."
[[[Exactly, this is why I say you're a troll. I am not arguing what the law entails. But why and what it should entail. I am arguing for changes to that law. Based on your beliefs, if the law was changed tomorrow to grant only a 1 year copyright you'd support it cause it was the law? ]]]

Nsbca, I've read the laws. I understand what you are saying. You are addressing just "copyright", I am addressing "intellectual property", which are covered by several right laws (copy, plagiarism, patent, trademark). Sorry, if you can't understand where I am coming from.

But here is an example, I submit a song. The record label rejects it. Than takes the song and uses it. Sure, sometimes they might re-write it with new synonyms but it's the same song, concepts, and structure. A few words here and there replaced. They'll get sued for it (ask Millie Vanillie). Why not for a movie....if I have an hour film and sketch out 24 scenes and then get rejected to see a movie with the same plot and scenes. Should that be protected or not? Is that copyright infringement?
]]]

"theSaj is confusing protection created under other forms of IP law (such as patents on ideas, design rights), which he attempts to use to criticise copyright legislation"
[[[I am addressing all "IP Right". Copyright & Patents are both IP Rights. They are, IMHO, both infringements when extended permanently or for exceedingly long periods (beyond the average life-span of human beings is excessive).

Should someone be allowed to paint a replica of the "mona lisa"? if no? then should someone be able to take the same photograph from the same place of the same object? OMG....my moon shot looks just like Joe's... if so, how come I can't record my own version of Metallica's One? There is not a uniform standard and the reason is because the justifications are flawed and not fully balanced.]]]

"You are technically correct, but that would imply that there is no protection in respect of fashion design. There is protection, but you have to look at other forms of IP right (trademarks, patents in the cutting patterns and any processes (eg material fabrication), copyright in any pattern on the material, confidentiality, prohibitions on passing off etc). Copyright can arise in certain aspects, such as in a catwalk show, in which the show, the script, the music (words and notes), the televised performance, the editing etc are all protected by copyright."
[[[Very true...and part of my comment is that even though there are similar aspects (architecture design and fashion design) they need differing IP protections. Why? What determines which one gets what aspect of IP. Thus you prove my point that much of this blurs over into other IP rights. Which is why I address ALL of the IP rights and not just copyright...]]]

As for those arguing the specifications of the law. I don't care about those. I am aware of what they protect and don't protect. That is why I've become an objectionist to the laws. As they have added so many protections and abuse the gift. Thus, having been restricted, robbed, and having my assets devalued I no longer support IP protections as they currently are. I believe they fail at their primary objectives (encourage creativity and innovation). Those are THE ONLY REASON why IP rights exist. If those are NOT met. Then Congress has no authority to grant them. It is my belief that in patent and several areas of copyright, those criteria are no longer being met or have at the least been put into question.

- The Saj

04/01/2005 01:24:45 PM · #133

Originally posted by theSaj:

Example: Books...

There were no copyrights a few hundred years ago. If you wanted you could copy a manuscript by hand. That was not uncommon. There was no copyrights on music. But music was still made.

There are many laws that are not old - does not make them wrong. Society is increasingly complex. IP is more valuable than it used to be, and protection is needed because it is easier to copy/infringe on that valuable property than it used to be.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I see no real difference between architecture and clothing. Why is one looked at differently than the other? What about landscaping? Why can't I copyright a landscaping?

You have a bundle of rights. In respect of landscaping, you wil have copyright in the design (the blueprints). But not over the 3d representation.

Copyright arises automatically, it is not "made" or "applied for". The right is the right not have your expression of an idea copied. Copyrighting ideas would be far too complicated (ie every idea is automatically protected - completely unworkable). So it works as it does for largely practical reasons.

Originally posted by theSaj:

But here is an example, I submit a song. The record label rejects it. Than takes the song and uses it. Sure, sometimes they might re-write it with new synonyms but it's the same song, concepts, and structure. A few words here and there replaced. They'll get sued for it (ask Millie Vanillie). Why not for a movie....if I have an hour film and sketch out 24 scenes and then get rejected to see a movie with the same plot and scenes. Should that be protected or not? Is that copyright infringement?

Copyright arises in respect of different aspects of the song. The words and music separately. Each recording will attract its own copyright, as will each edit.

Using any one aspect of the song without permission, or falling into an exception, will breach that element of the bundle of copyrights tied up in a song.

Same with a movie - all of the constituent parts have their own copyright, as does the whole. You can recreate a movie with similar words, scenes, score, but you cannot "copy" precisely any of them (including copying them for the purpose of a mechanical alteration that is not a precise copy) without permission.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I am addressing all "IP Right". Copyright & Patents are both IP Rights. They are, IMHO, both infringements when extended permanently or for exceedingly long periods (beyond the average life-span of human beings is excessive).

But you treat patents as having a similar applicability as copyright, which they do not. You consider them on the basis that they are all the same, rather than individually, but together.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Should someone be allowed to paint a replica of the "mona lisa"? if no? then should someone be able to take the same photograph from the same place of the same object? OMG....my moon shot looks just like Joe's... if so, how come I can't record my own version of Metallica's One? There is not a uniform standard and the reason is because the justifications are flawed and not fully balanced.]]]

Mona Lisa is out of copyright. You may be restricted in taking photographs, however, for different reasons. Eg the terms of the licence of yourentrance ticket to the Louvre. You cannot copy a photo, as the photographer (or his assignee) will have a copyright in that photo of the Mona Lisa, until that expires. Buy a postcard instead!

As for Metallica - you cannot copy the words or the music, each of which are individually subject to copyright, as stated above. By reproducing it live, you are in breach of those copyrights, though not in breach of the copyright in the recording. But I guess no-one is going to stop you singing to yourself in your own bedroom.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Very true...and part of my comment is that even though there are similar aspects (architecture design and fashion design) they need differing IP protections. Why? What determines which one gets what aspect of IP. Thus you prove my point that much of this blurs over into other IP rights. Which is why I address ALL of the IP rights and not just copyright...

I have always said you must look at the whole bundle of rights. But don't confuse them. They are different because they protect different aspects of IP. Patents protect ideas for commercial exploitation in the short term (so the inventor can recoup an investment). Cannot copyright an idea for the practical reason outlined above. Trademarks need long term protection, because they represent a growing brand that must be invested in. So we have a perpetual protection system that requires renewal, but subject to its own limits (such as not using a dictionary word as a brand name, not copying other brand names too closely etc). We have design rights to permit very short term exploitation of less original but valuable design creations. We have copyright for those items that can be copied, but the creator has some invested value in it not being copied. It is a medium term protection.

Originally posted by theSaj:

As for those arguing the specifications of the law. I don't care about those. I am aware of what they protect and don't protect.

I think that it is senseless to mix up all of the rights and argue about them as if they are all the same. They are all different and have separate specific purposes.

Originally posted by theSaj:

That is why I've become an objectionist to the laws. As they have added so many protections and abuse the gift. Thus, having been restricted, robbed, and having my assets devalued I no longer support IP protections as they currently are.

I think that there is a popular culture myth that the internet has broken copyright and other IP law, perpetuated by people who don't want to subscribe to it, or have a vested interest in breaching it. Seductive, but technically unsound. Devil is in the detail.

Message edited by author 2005-04-01 13:28:50.

04/01/2005 02:19:39 PM · #134

"IP is more valuable than it used to be"
[[[Yes it is, but is that due to the laws increasing it's value? this is EXACTLY my argument.]]]

Copyright arises automatically, it is not "made" or "applied for".
[[[Copyright is automatically attributed. But you have to have a "registered" copyright

Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin. Secondly, if you want to re-coup
statutory damages and attorney's fees you need a copyright.
]]]

"Copyrighting ideas would be far too complicated (ie every idea is automatically protected - completely unworkable)."
[[[This was NOT an answer to my question with regards to architecture design and fashion design.]]]

"The words and music separately."
[[[Yes, but no one can own the actual words. So what is REALLY copyrighted is the composition of said words. But regardless of changing a few words or re-arrangement of said words it is still regarding as copyright infringement. Now, images in a picture are just objects (like words). So if I take a picture of a monument. It's just a composition of objects. And if someone basically takes the same picture. Why can't you file suit with them for copyright infringement?]]]

"You can recreate a movie with similar words, scenes, score, but you cannot "copy" precisely any of them (including copying them for the purpose of a mechanical alteration that is not a precise copy) without permission."
[[[Even similar is usually judged in courts as a copyright infraction.]]]

"Mona Lisa is out of copyright."
[[[Yes...bad example but it was one everyone knew. Let's say it's not. Because copyright laws are heading (and in many places are already at) permancy. In which case Mona Lisa would never be out of copyright. As such, to say the old is out of copyright is moot. Except to prove my argument that we shall never receive such open out of copyright works ever again.

But let's take oh a recent work by Gockel, and artist who is alive. Plug that in....so if you could, please re-answer this question in light of a copyrighted artwork. We are not discussing photographing that work but actually painting a copy of said work, a replica, counterfeit, you have it...

"Should someone be allowed to paint a replica of one of Gockel's (a modern artist) work? if no? then should someone be able to take the same photograph from the same place of the same object? OMG....my moon shot looks just like Joe's... if so, how come I can't record my own version of Metallica's One? There is not a uniform standard and the reason is because the justifications are flawed and not fully balanced."

"such as not using a dictionary word as a brand name"
[[[You mean, like Windows? Who got the idea from Mac. Was sued...but the judge decided that Windows was a generic word and decided in Microsoft's favor. Only later as IP rights became even more primo... We have Microsoft Trademarking "Windows". The more and more I keep seeing this as a broken system.]]]

"It is a medium term protection."
[[[And once it becomes permanent...and Congress no longer has the authority to grant copyright. And if a judge were to invalidate on that Constitutional basis. Our highest legal basis. Then what...???
]]]

"I think that it is senseless to mix up all of the rights and argue about them as if they are all the same. They are all different and have separate specific purposes."
[[[Actually, they are all of the same purporse..."To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".]]]

Clause 8: 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;

"I think that there is a popular culture myth that the internet has broken copyright and other IP law, perpetuated by people who don't want to subscribe to it, or have a vested interest in breaching it. Seductive, but technically unsound. Devil is in the detail."
[[[I think there is a popular myth that copyright holder's "own" something. When in fact all they have is a grant by The People to a limited term monopoly. One that can be revoked if excessively abused as certain industries that utilize copyrights have done.

It seems many believe that they have an inherent right or ownership. If such was true no provision would have needed to be made. These were new, and experimental concepts. As such, they are breaking (on both sides) and need to be re-evaluated to ensure the primary and sole purpose...

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
]]]

bod

04/01/2005 02:31:48 PM · #135

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

In respect of landscaping, you wil have copyright in the design (the blueprints). But not over the 3d representation.

Although not quite the same as this, two recent copyright cases spring to mind ...
The Eiffel Tower - it is illegal to sell photos of the tower taken at night because the owners have copyrighted the light display. In lifetime + 70 do they just need to change the colour of one of the bulbs to get a whole different light display to copyright?

The Bean. Slap bang in the middle of a public park in America. Not only is it illegal to sell photos of it, but I believe the owners wanted people who attempted to take photos of it to be arrested and charged. What eventually happened over that? I know there were a lot of people taking photos of it in protest.

So, if we have a Bean in every park and a light show in every city where does that leave us? I have my ducks ... until the entire duck gene pool has been polluted by copyrighted genetically enhanced ducks that is. (I hope I'm just joking, but ...)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

04/01/2005 06:48:58 PM · #136

Originally posted by bod:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
In respect of landscaping, you wil have copyright in the design (the blueprints). But not over the 3d representation.

Although not quite the same as this, two recent copyright cases spring to mind ...
The Eiffel Tower - it is illegal to sell photos of the tower taken at night because the owners have copyrighted the light display. In lifetime + 70 do they just need to change the colour of one of the bulbs to get a whole different light display to copyright?

The Bean. Slap bang in the middle of a public park in America. Not only is it illegal to sell photos of it, but I believe the owners wanted people who attempted to take photos of it to be arrested and charged. What eventually happened over that? I know there were a lot of people taking photos of it in protest.

So, if we have a Bean in every park and a light show in every city where does that leave us? I have my ducks ... until the entire duck gene pool has been polluted by copyrighted genetically enhanced ducks that is. (I hope I'm just joking, but ...)

don't know much about French copyright law. But yes - understand that is true.

Copyright applies to works of art and applies to copying by reproducing in 2d a 3d object (carve outs for architecture - except in Australia, apparently). Hence photography being problematic unless you have permission (individually or by general release). I agree that putting a monument is pretty foolish if you want to protect its image - for technical reasons. But the theory is sound. If you are carrying your valuable sculpture through a park, third parties should not be able to profit from representing it in another medium (ie photo it). Guess that the same could apply to landscape if enough work is done to it, to bring it within a protected category. Whether an individual case is or is not within a category is a question that would be determined on the facts and precedent.

Am sure that in practice there is limited enforcement of these rights. Commercial interest will be the most affected. Though it is hard to defend the decision to buy in a piece of work for display in a park and not secure a general release for photos - maybe an issue for the park buying the statue, rather than the law. Not sure I like trying to defend that position...!

Like the duck issue - will start lobbying straight away... though in practice I think that the genetic code would prob be protected, but a picture would not be copy of the genetic code in any useful fashion (would be like arguing that a photo of a library would offend the copyright of every author whose book is represented in it).

joebok

Fujifilm X100F

04/01/2005 06:57:21 PM · #137

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Thanks!
(Â© Joebok, all rights reserved.)

bod

04/01/2005 07:12:03 PM · #138

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Am sure that in practice there is limited enforcement of these rights.

Because of the law or just restraint on the part of the copyright holders? It doesn't bode well that it's started happening though. The worst case that I can see is that we end up with photography being like music. If you "sample" a building you have to pay royalties.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Though it is hard to defend the decision to buy in a piece of work for display in a park and not secure a general release for photos - maybe an issue for the park buying the statue, rather than the law.

Agreed. I don't know if the park knew just what they were letting themselves in for when they allowed the artists to keep the copyright.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Like the duck issue - will start lobbying straight away... though in practice I think that the genetic code would prob be protected, but a picture would not be copy of the genetic code in any useful fashion (would be like arguing that a photo of a library would offend the copyright of every author whose book is represented in it).

You can probably see that the duck "example" is influenced by the recent possibilies of patented GM crops polluting non-GM fields and farmers having to pay for something they didn't even want. Would the image of a duck which produces a particularly spectacular plummage because of genetic enhancements be copyrightable?

04/01/2005 07:35:12 PM · #139

Originally posted by theSaj:

Yes it is, but is that due to the laws increasing it\'s value? this is EXACTLY my argument.

No - lute players did not invest billions in chemical advances. Music was not a global market with billions of consumers for a single track. Books had to be hand written, and a few copies were sold, not millions. IP benefits from massive investment. In a non-manufacturing society (like the UK, increasingly) our entire economy depends on it. Wars in Europe were not fought over IP in the middle ages. Wars are fought (luckily in court) now.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin. Secondly, if you want to re-coup
statutory damages and attorney\'s fees you need a copyright.

UK/US distinction.

Originally posted by theSaj:

This was NOT an answer to my question with regards to architecture design and fashion design.

see response to Bod.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Yes, but no one can own the actual words. So what is REALLY copyrighted is the composition of said words. But regardless of changing a few words or re-arrangement of said words it is still regarding as copyright infringement. Now, images in a picture are just objects (like words). So if I take a picture of a monument. It\'s just a composition of objects. And if someone basically takes the same picture. Why can\'t you file suit with them for copyright infringement?

Nice flexible law uses words like a \"substantial part\" may not be copied - will be determined on a case by case basis and by reference to precedent to determine if copying is reasonable. Recreating is different to copying - you are not prevented from taking a picture that someone else has taken (as long as subject matter is free of copyright aka architecture). Or coming up from scratch an entire novel that is identical to another - if you thought it up and it is coincidence that they are the same (though proving this may be difficult!).

Originally posted by theSaj:

Even similar is usually judged in courts as a copyright infraction.

Only if copied, rather than similar.

Originally posted by theSaj:

...we shall never receive such open out of copyright works ever again.

This is a risk in the US - vote accordingly (suggestion: not Bush!)

Originally posted by theSaj:

Should someone be allowed to paint a replica of one of Gockel\'s (a modern artist) work? if no? then should someone be able to take the same photograph from the same place of the same object? OMG....my moon shot looks just like Joe\'s... if so, how come I can\'t record my own version of Metallica\'s One? There is not a uniform standard and the reason is because the justifications are flawed and not fully balanced.\"

Copyright is unlikely to prevent you painting a similar painting (though in the hands of a good lawyer...!). Copyright would prevent you photographing his painting (that is direct copying). You would be prevented from selling a painted copy as a Gockel by all kinds of other laws (eg fraud, misrep, passing off etc).

Originally posted by theSaj:

You mean, like Windows? Who got the idea from Mac. Was sued...but the judge decided that Windows was a generic word and decided in Microsoft\'s favor. Only later as IP rights became even more primo... We have Microsoft Trademarking \"Windows\". The more and more I keep seeing this as a broken system.]]]

\"Windows\" is trademarked as a reference to an Operating System. Windows is not a generic word for an operating system (eg, \"Operating System\" could not be used as a trademark for an OS.) \"Windows\" cannot be trademarked as a brandname for a type of physical window. You are not prevented from abusing the word \"windows\", except in connection with a particular OS. The MS/Apple dispute was about the \"look and feel\" of an OS - was that something that could be protected? Not a question about the name, which is uncontentious.

Originally posted by theSaj:

And once it becomes permanent...and Congress no longer has the authority to grant copyright. And if a judge were to invalidate on that Constitutional basis. Our highest legal basis. Then what...???.\"

Don\'t know - seems unlikely to me. Any US Constitutional lawyer reading this might want to answer (or maybe not...)!

Originally posted by theSaj:

Actually, they are all of the same purporse...\"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts\"

Don\'t know quote (Constitution again? Remember that the US Constitution is not fundamentally \"right\", but a collection of principles that policy at various times has dictated). In any case, within that overarching purpose, there are many subsidiary aims. Protecting different types of IP interest in different ways, with different periods of protection and exploitation. Nothing you have said suggests that these are themselves inappropriate, merely that certain of them have too long an exploitation period (70 years for copyright), and that some of them have been interpreted as protecting too broad a class of IP interests (one-click for Amazon). These are technical details - easily tightened or relaxed, determined by policy decision. Vote and lobby accordingly.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I think there is a popular myth that copyright holder\'s \"own\" something.

It *is* called Intellectual Property for a reason. It is a property interest that creators do own. The proprietary right is constructed by society in the same way as the concept of \"owning\" physical property is a construct (how can you \"own\" an animal or land... property is crime... an anarchistic view that is not useful here). Try and work out what inherent right you have over the dollar bills in your pocket. What do you \"own\", if not a societal construct?

(cue the Matrix...)

Again - the law is not \"failing\". It is working with astonishing flexibility: the law has not been radically changed throughout the modern era of the internet, yet society has not collapsed, and the huge wealth tied up in IP hs not ceased to grow. And you want to throw it away because... you want to download some music and copy photos without paying, don\'t like restrictions on what you can take photos of, and... not sure what else. Don\'t you care that this wealth, upon which our respective nations depend, would evaporate as soon as you abolished the protection? Do you want a carve out for your interests, but no-one else\'s?

System might need tweaking. Maybe a a rule about certain types of copying of certain types of publicly displayed property, say. Almost certainly needs to stop increasing time limits ad infinitum. But revolution? I don't think so.

Message edited by author 2005-04-01 19:49:43.

04/01/2005 07:48:32 PM · #140

Originally posted by bod:

Agreed - interesting suggestion. You could be prevented from copying a substantial part of another buildig in a new architectural work. Wonder how much "substantial" might be in an "architectural sampling" context?

Carve out for architecture and photos generally. More difficult with artworks, as difficult to define which ones you should be able to photograph (eg in middle of park) and should not (eg in middle of art gallery). And what if you are in the middle of a park shooting a statue that is in a commercial gallery past the fence...!

Usually sense reigns and only commercial photographers should beware - but in a similar way to DPC rules(sort of). If they are making a photograph of someone else's work of art, and make money, and the artistic value is in the art work not the photo - shouldn't the artist have a right to make some recovery? Similarly DPC stops us using artistic works to win ribbons (though obviously ribbons are far more valuable...).

Originally posted by bod:

Again - interesting idea. I am sure that there will be disputes over that kind of issue in 20 years (or sooner). Would be like saying that taking a photo of the shadow of the "bean" is also prohibited. If it was designed to cast an unusual shadow - that might be a valid claim.

04/02/2005 06:39:13 PM · #141

Music was not a global market with billions of consumers for a single track. Books had to be hand written, and a few copies were sold, not millions. IP benefits from massive investment.

[[[Yes, and all of that took much greater labor. So you're telling me that because a man can print a book in 1.2 seconds instead of writing it for 3 months that it goes UP in value? don't buy it...won't accept...and will fight it.]]]

"UK/US distinction. "
[[[US, as that is where i live.]]]

"you are not prevented from taking a picture that someone else has taken"
[[[But i can't paint that same picture?]]]]

"This is a risk in the US - vote accordingly (suggestion: not Bush!)"
[[[No difference, the DMCA was passed in 1998 by Democrat President William Jefferson Clinton, and is perhaps the worst piece of copyright legislature ever passed.]]]

"You are not prevented from abusing the word \"windows\", except in connection with a particular OS."
[[[Yes, but when Macintosh tried to make such a claim, as they used the term windows long before Microsoft, it was rejected. Now it's protected. The same argument is judged differently. Something is inherently wrong in that.]]]

"Remember that the US Constitution is not fundamentally \"right\", but a collection of principles that policy at various times has dictated"
[[[True, but it is our highest law. And it must be ammended if to be otherwise addressed. Don't tell me to ignore the Constitution cause it's imperfect and respect your lesser laws, which I believe to be grossing imperfect. In which case, based on this, i should ignore copyright laws...because they are NOT fundamentally right.]]]

"These are technical details - easily tightened or relaxed, determined by policy decision. Vote and lobby accordingly."
[[[I can't, sure I contact representatives, I vote accordingly, i just don't have the $$$ to buy the votes as these entities and their lobbies due.]]]

" It is a property interest that creators do own. "
[[[Is is leased to them by The People.]]]

"Again - the law is not \"failing\""
[[[I greatly disagree....]]]

" the law has not been radically changed throughout the modern era of the internet,"
[[[You are greatly mistaken, the DMCA was a major change. Including the change of the offense from civil to criminal. Including the destruction of numerous fair use rights. Including granting more power to license even when none should exist. You are absolutely wrong here.]]]

"Don\'t you care that this wealth, upon which our respective nations depend, would evaporate as soon as you abolished the protection?"
[[[Nope...because i believe new wealth, means, can be found. As I said before, I have no issue with a photographer being paid for his service, or selling his prints. (Work for Hire vs Licensing. I have a problem when they try for both.) New wealth will be found. Sure all the cotton plantations in the U.S. are gone. That was our main source of finances in the early 1800's. Did America cease profitibility because of such...nope. I know one day, there will be few programmers in the U.S. (my profession) most will be in India, China, the middle-east, etc. However, there will still be work on design, implementation, communication and review here in the U.S.]]]

"Do you want a carve out for your interests, but no-one else\'s?"
[[[Actually, that is exactly what i am asking you pro-copyright people?]]]

"System might need tweaking. "
[[[Big time...like RIAA's move to force all online radio stations to pay them licensing fees. (Now mind you, all broadcast stations already pay performance licensing fees.) RIAA's argument, was the caching technology of the internet (to buffer audio from pauses) is a recording. Thus should be compensated. However, almost every major radio station uses a digital delay that does the same. Essentially, online radio broke the RIAA's control by easily making independent bands accessible. Independent record sales sky-rocketed from this. So they bought legislation to kill a rival industry. This happens ALL the time. Why should i respect such rights?]]]

04/04/2005 09:47:50 AM · #142

Originally posted by theSaj:

because a man can print a book in 1.2 seconds instead of writing it for 3 months that it goes UP in value? don't buy it...won't accept...and will fight it.

Books, music, photos etc can now be distributed a million times over - more valuable to the creator, cheaper for the consumer. Except if you remover copyright protection, in which case it has no value to creator and the consumer would only have to pay for distribution costs. The only person turning a profit would be the distributor (the "middleman" you don't like), whether in paper format (books, printed photos) or electronic format (ISP and computer manufacturers).

Originally posted by theSaj:

US, as that is where i live.

Principles are unchanged.

Originally posted by theSaj:

But i can't paint that same picture?

Yes - you can. That is not a "copy" for copyright purposes. As said before, you just cannot sell it as an original for other reasons (fraud etc).

Originally posted by theSaj:

No difference, the DMCA was passed in 1998 by Democrat President William Jefferson Clinton, and is perhaps the worst piece of copyright legislature ever passed.

Have heard about DMCA but don't know enough about it to comment sensibly. As for who passed it, irrelevant: you have a version of democracy - if you want change, vote accordingly. If no-one is representing your view, ask yourself why. If you are offering a fundamentally better option, contact your representatives and explain why. If it is a better option, they'll seize upon it.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Yes, but when Macintosh tried to make such a claim, as they used the term windows long before Microsoft, it was rejected. Now it's protected. The same argument is judged differently. Something is inherently wrong in that.

This case had little to do with the word "Windows" as far as I know - it was whether MS could use the visual look and feel of framed workspaces on the computer screen. In any case - a trademark, not copyright issue. If you propose to scrap trademarks, existing brands will become value-less and no one will invest in new brands. Every traded US corp would plummet in value. You could trigger a new depression with that kind of talk!

Originally posted by theSaj:

True, but it is our highest law. And it must be ammended if to be otherwise addressed. Don't tell me to ignore the Constitution cause it's imperfect and respect your lesser laws, which I believe to be grossing imperfect. In which case, based on this, i should ignore copyright laws...because they are NOT fundamentally right.

My only point was that quoting the constitution as justification does not substantiate a point: it merely reflects a view (that of the founding fathers). Not sure how "my" laws are "lesser"! They are slightly different. "Your" laws are based on them. As are half of the world's laws. But the principles are the same. There is no "fundamental" law: the law is a series of compromises, imposed by the legislature, that enable society to conduct itself profitably (in the broadest sense ofthe word).

Originally posted by theSaj:

I can't, sure I contact representatives, I vote accordingly, i just don't have the $$$ to buy the votes as these entities and their lobbies due.

Don't know how to fix the failings in modern "democracies". But if your idea was genuinely better, and you could show it to be the case, I don't think you would have a problem getting someone to represent it. Not an issue in respect of copyright, however.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Is is leased to them by The People.

I do not understand - is all property in the US "leased" from the "people"? IP is not significantly different to other forms of property interest. Eg the intangible interest in shares, money etc.

Originally posted by theSaj:

"Again - the law is not \"failing\""
[[[I greatly disagree....]]]
How has it "failed" - okay, not operating perfectly in your mind, but how is it collapsing, or failing to apply? In practical terms, for most people most of the time, it works well to protect interests in valuable IP, while permitting that IP to be used by society proportionately and at reasonable cost. The only debate here is the extent of a couple of variables: the correct proportion of "benefit to creator" v "use by society", and the proper cost. Two small variable in a very complex system. Not "failing".

[quote=theSaj]You are greatly mistaken, the DMCA was a major change. Including the change of the offense from civil to criminal. Including the destruction of numerous fair use rights. Including granting more power to license even when none should exist. You are absolutely wrong here.

While I agree that such changes do not sound beneficial, they are not fundamental changes to the principles. There have been relatively few changes in the rest of the world caused by the internet.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Nope...because i believe new wealth, means, can be found. As I said before, I have no issue with a photographer being paid for his service, or selling his prints. (Work for Hire vs Licensing. I have a problem when they try for both.) New wealth will be found. Sure all the cotton plantations in the U.S. are gone. That was our main source of finances in the early 1800's. Did America cease profitibility because of such...nope. I know one day, there will be few programmers in the U.S. (my profession) most will be in India, China, the middle-east, etc. However, there will still be work on design, implementation, communication and review here in the U.S.

What use is design if it can be copied without payment of a fee? Arguably, in the age of increasing reliance on intellectual property wealth, we need increasingly to protect interests, not relax them. Not sure why you are promoting release of this wealth, as I cannot see any benefits. The only point you have raised is that you do not agree with photographers owning the copyright over their pictures when employed (which is only the case unless is is agreed otherwise). And you don't want to pay for music. I do not agree with either motivation, but even if I did, I cannot see any other benefit that would justify releasing so much wealth into the free domain! If the US decided to lead the world with such a manouvre, as one of the world's biggest owners of intellectual property, it would suffer the hardest economic fall.

Originally posted by theSaj:

"Do you want a carve out for your interests, but no-one else\'s?"
[[[Actually, that is exactly what i am asking you pro-copyright people?]]]

I want to protect my work from being used by third parties to make a profit for themselves without me receiving a bean. You appear to want the freedom to take my work without paying me anything. As the existing situation supports me, I think that it is you is seeking to carve out a protection for yourself, rather than me!

Originally posted by theSaj:

"System might need tweaking. "
[[[Big time...like RIAA's move to force all online radio stations to pay them licensing fees. (

These are very specific examples, that follow on from an understanding of the legislation. They are consequences rather than principles. If you accept that musical artists are entitled to a fee for licensing use of their music, then it is reasonable that online radio stations should pay similar fees as broadcasting radio stations.

My question for you, is what benefit, and for whom, you are seeking to achieve by changing the system? What financial motivation is there for doing this? Then, what change are you actually proposing (more than "scrap it")?

mikasi

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

04/04/2005 09:56:14 AM · #143

I am all for the strict enforcement of copyright laws and big ass penalties for infringements. Hell, you've seen my photos - the only way I'll ever make money is by having a no-nothing ignoramus steal my shit so I can sue him/her for the big buckies.

Oh but I live for the day....

bod

04/04/2005 10:06:10 AM · #144

Originally posted by mikasi:

:D

Which is exactly the same way that patent law is used nowadays!