Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 Are Copyrights Protecting the Producer?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  22:41:43  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/06/2007 :  07:25:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 07/06/2007 :  12:25:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Original_Intent
SFN Regular

USA
609 Posts

Posted - 07/09/2007 :  16:04:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Original_Intent a Private Message  Reply with Quote
What happened to the rest of this? There was more, including my little rant on Disney.... But I cannot find it.
Go to Top of Page

JohnOAS
SFN Regular

Australia
800 Posts

Posted - 07/09/2007 :  17:05:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit JohnOAS's Homepage Send JohnOAS a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 07/09/2007 :  19:10:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/09/2007 :  19:29:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 07/09/2007 :  20:08:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Original_Intent
SFN Regular

USA
609 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2007 :  06:06:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Original_Intent a Private Message  Reply with Quote
1790..... That old of an Act, I really can't argue with. Thanks for the link.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2007 :  07:13:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2007 :  11:23:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2007 :  18:48:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2007 :  19:28:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/11/2007 :  07:45:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.3 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000