|
Grex > Music3 > #188: The Twentieth "Napsterization" Item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 80 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 26 of 80:
| 
May 8 02:02 UTC 2005 |
Because the corporations most responsible for shaping public opinion
have a lot of money riding on their current business models, which are
founded on certain assumptions about intellectual property law?
|
steve
|
|
response 27 of 80:
|
May 9 03:47 UTC 2005 |
And, because some parts of IP are reasonable. The problem is that
IP law and the realities of technology have gone comepletly apart.
|
remmers
|
|
response 28 of 80:
|
May 9 13:21 UTC 2005 |
I was really happy to hear the the courts struck down the broadcast flag.
Re #26: Indeed. I think that current intellectual property law is more
about preserving the business models of the middlemen rather than
protecting the rights of the creators themselves. How else to explain
the absurd extension of copyright terms far beyond the probable lifetime
of the creator of the copyrighted work.
The Boyle article that Ken cites in #24 does a good job of explaining
how modern IP law works against the public interest and stifles rather
than promotes creativity. If Shakespeare had had to work in today's IP
legal environment, he'd probably have been sued out of business. After
all, he shamelessly borrowed his stories from other sources.
Another good read along the same lines as the Boyle piece is "The
Copyright Cage," by Jonathan Zittrain. URL:
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2003
/feature_zittrain_julaug03.html
(Or, if long URLs are problematic for you, http://tinyurl.com/fbqd will
also work for a while.)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 29 of 80:
|
May 11 14:23 UTC 2005 |
There is no such thing as intellectual property. All information is public
domain, the government just enforces limited-time monopolies to the people
who discover or invent the information first. It is hoped that these
monopolies will motivate people to discover and invent more.
I mean, how can you own something, and then suddenly not own it just because
a specific amount of time has passed? Intellectual property is a concept that
was constructed by corporations in order to maximize profit.
|
gull
|
|
response 30 of 80:
|
May 11 16:59 UTC 2005 |
Re resp:29: "I mean, how can you own something, and then suddenly not
own it just because a specific amount of time has passed?"
It occasionally happens in real estate. Adverse possession is a good
example.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 31 of 80:
|
May 11 17:11 UTC 2005 |
Adverse possession means different things in different states, but it usually
implies an abandonment of the real property. I'm not sure if that fits in very
well.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 32 of 80:
|
May 11 18:02 UTC 2005 |
There's a little variation but basically it means there must be possession,
it must be notorious (obvious) and hostile (no permission was given.)
It doesn't require abandonment, just that you not do anything to stop
it. Another example of losing something based on time is encroachment,
although the underlying nature is similar.
In the grand scheme of things, none of us ever really owns anything, we
just are granted limited use of it for limited times for limited
purposes. And, given recent changes in the law, it's unclear that
certain IP laws (copyrights) don't de facto last forever.
|
tod
|
|
response 33 of 80:
|
May 12 15:29 UTC 2005 |
Intellecutal property rights are good for protecting the value of one's
intellect. I guess if you're a communist then you might prefer to say that
intellectual property rights are a corporate construct but as an engineer or
inventor one might find a different truth.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 34 of 80:
|
May 12 17:12 UTC 2005 |
You don't have to be a communist to see that intellectual property rights are
only in the best interest of corporations. And even without copyright or
patent laws, there would still be engineers and inventors.
It is pretty ridiculous that copyrighted works last almost a hundred years.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 35 of 80:
|
May 12 17:27 UTC 2005 |
> You don't have to be a communist to see that intellectual property
> rights are only in the best interest of corporations.
What do you have to be, then? Because I can't agree with your claim
as written. Replace the word "only" with "mostly" and I'll be there,
but that's a pretty substantial difference.
> And even without
> copyright or patent laws, there would still be engineers and inventors.
Sure, but what would they be engineering and inventing? Certain kinds
of invention require resources that are far beyond what individual
innovators can usually put together. Shall we just write off further
progress in those areas?
> It is pretty ridiculous that copyrighted works last almost a hundred years.
At last we agree..
In my opinion some form of *LIMITED* intellectual property rights are
appropriate to provide a sufficient economic incentive to invent and create.
The problems are many but the foremost two (again, in my opinion) are:
1) extension/distortion of traditional IP rights at the behest of
financially interested parties, with insufficient concern given to the
public benefit, and 2) a flawed application and examination process which
routinely grants improper patent rights for inventions which are trivial
or obvious and which are so fundamental that the resulting patents have
great value as an instrument of legal extortion or to prevent competition
from others wishing to enter the field.
|
gull
|
|
response 36 of 80:
|
May 12 19:30 UTC 2005 |
I agree with resp:34.
As someone who works in IT, and who has a roommate who is an artist, I
don't have the luxury of arguing that "information wants to be free" and
intellectual property should be abolished. I enjoy eating and being
able to pay rent.
|
naftee
|
|
response 37 of 80:
|
May 12 22:31 UTC 2005 |
your artist roomie pays for your food & rent ?
|
gull
|
|
response 38 of 80:
|
May 13 14:47 UTC 2005 |
Part of it, yeah.
|
naftee
|
|
response 39 of 80:
|
May 13 14:49 UTC 2005 |
right on ! teamwork, man
|
remmers
|
|
response 40 of 80:
|
May 13 17:01 UTC 2005 |
Re #35: Agreed.
A few decades ago, a work could be copyrighted in the US for a couple of
dozen years or so (I think it was 29 years); the copyright was renewable
once, for an equal period of time. After that, the work went into the
public domain. With those time limits, copyright was in reasonable sync
with authors' expected lifetimes. An author had economic incentive to
create, yet the public interest in free dissemination of information was
served as well. The great American literary works of the 19th century
and most of the 20th century were created under these time limits.
A couple of decades ago, they started lengthening copyright lengths
drastically. I think this was not about incentives to create or serving
the public interest, but all about certain politically influential
corporations wanting to protect their profitable franchises. Sonny Bono
should've stuck to singing and/or appearing in John Waters movies.
Somehow, knowing that some publisher might be getting rich off of
exclusive publishing rights to my novel 100 years from now is no
incentive at all for me to write that novel. Spare me the arguments
that long long copyrights encourage creativity.
The patent system is also badly broken, as Mike points out in #35.
|
krj
|
|
response 41 of 80:
|
May 13 17:58 UTC 2005 |
News item from a couple of weeks ago:
Sharing certain kinds of "pre-release" files is now a 3-year felony,
and the standards of proof required have been greatly lowered from the
No Electronic Theft act of 1997, which had proven difficult to
impossible to use. (To the best of my knowledge, the NET act was used
to prosecute : one guy for pre-releasing "The Hulk," a handful of
people who ran large-scale software distribution operations, and
NOBODY for filesharing music.)
One point I find interesting is that the wording defining what kinds
of files qualify for this legal protection is very restrictive. TV
shows which have had their initial broadcast in America, and music
concert bootlegs, appear not to be covered; released CDs and DVDs
are not covered.
http://news.com.com/New+law+cracks+down+on+P2P+pirates/2100-1028_3-5687495.
html?tag=nefd.pop
Music journalist Bob Lefsetz thinks the music industry is being
incredibly short-sighted in attempting to make criminals out of people
who are creating "buzz" in advance of new releases.
http://www.celebrityaccess.com/news/letter.html?id=215
|
marcvh
|
|
response 42 of 80:
|
May 13 18:25 UTC 2005 |
The MPAA is now promoting draft legislation to explicitly grant the FCC the
authority to regulate consumer electronics. Dunno if it'll go anywhere.
|
remmers
|
|
response 43 of 80:
|
May 13 22:57 UTC 2005 |
<shudder>
|
gelinas
|
|
response 44 of 80:
|
May 14 02:58 UTC 2005 |
(The extended copyright/patent terms are also intended to benefit heirs and
assigns: Kids want what their forebears created.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 45 of 80:
|
May 14 05:29 UTC 2005 |
They're excused as being intended to benefit heirs of the creators but
I highly doubt that that was more than a convenient rationale for the
people who fight for copyright extensions every time the clock starts
ticking down and it looks like some will be allowed to expire.
|
remmers
|
|
response 46 of 80:
|
May 14 15:14 UTC 2005 |
Indeed; corporations like Disney have more political clout than "heirs".
|
gelinas
|
|
response 47 of 80:
|
May 15 03:41 UTC 2005 |
Disney *is* an heir, but point taken.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 48 of 80:
|
May 15 06:36 UTC 2005 |
The Disney corporation is not an heir of Walt Disney, the original
creator of Mickey Mouse and several other of the classic Disney
characters. In fact, in a number of instances in recent years the
Disney family (Roy Disney in particular) has been publicly at odds
with the Disney corporation.
Also, virtually every major work created for (and owned by) the Disney
corporation in the last fifty years has been work for hire. No heirs
of the creative talents continue to benefit from the copyrights on
works their parents created unless those creators took their compensation
in the form of Disney stock.
This fight really isn't about looking out for the orphan children of
the tortured artist, though Disney's lawyers might like you to think
that some such sympathetic figures are involved..
|
jep
|
|
response 49 of 80:
|
May 16 21:50 UTC 2005 |
re resp:40: I have never seen any opposition to that viewpoint on Grex,
and so I am going to run my ideas up the flag pole and see what happens
to them when people try to shoot them down.
Up until this century, all works of art were created by individuals or
in rare cases, very small teams such as husbands and wives, or pairs of
brothers. As far as I know, no corporation had ever created a work of
art before this century.
Patent law also had to go through the transformation from individual
creation of inventions (Edison, Whitney, Tesla, etc.) to corporate
creation (Bayer Corp, IBM, GE). No one person ever owned, or should
have owned, the patent on the transistor, or Viagra. Those couldn't be
created by an individual. The resources of a corporation were required
or they never could have happened.
The Disney Corporation has been a leader in expanding copyright law to
cover materials created by a corporation, but they were also among the
leaders in creating works of art in this manner.
Copyright law was written to cover the period of time when the creation
was of economic benefit to it's creator. For an individual, that is
his lifetime. After he's dead, he's not much interested in protecting
his copyright. But Disney does get a lot of continuing benefit from
Walt Disney's signature creation, Mickey Mouse. Walt Disney built his
corporation up from that image to it's current status as a multi-
billion dollar empire.
The Disney versions of "Cinderella", "Pocahantos" and "Toy Story"
couldn't be done by a single individual. Too much manpower, and too
many resources, are needed. "Toy Story" couldn't even be done by a
single corporation. Disney and Pixar cooperated on it.
So for these corporate creations, which had no existence preceding the
initiative of their corporate originators, why shouldn't their
corporations continue to have perpetual ownership? I don't think it
has anything to do with sympathetic figures. I think it has to do with
what's right. No one else is hurt by Disney continuing to own Mickey
Mouse.
|
scott
|
|
response 50 of 80:
|
May 16 23:10 UTC 2005 |
To nitpick, don't you mean "the previous century"? ;)
I guess that I'd say that perpetual copyrights do have a negative influence
on art, though - eventually we'll end up with all the ideas used, and big
corporations (with vast armies of lawyers) ready to pounce on any possible
infringement.
|