Define "public domain"

[King of the Americas]

Wouldn't it be great IF...


Author:
King of the Americas
[Edit]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Posted: 09:30:49 12/12/03 Fri

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...the Internet could become that which it was promised to be?

Imagine being able to type in part of the name of a book or song, and actually being able to access a specific page of that book or song on any album?

Imagine being able to access ANY page of any printed source from the texts of all of humanity past & present...

Why are limitless copyrights holding back the technological master tool that is the Internet?

-Counsel for the Creation of "Public Domain"

[shanek]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Why are limitless copyrights holding back the technological master tool that is the Internet?

Because that's simply how government operates.

It started out so sensibly. You let an author profit from a work for a certain amount of time to encourage him to write it in the first place, then it expires, encouraging him to write more works if he wants continued profits. It was originally 15 years. The reasoning was that if you were 30 years old and published a book, and you lived to be 60, 15 years would be half of your remaining life and so you would be encouraged to write one more book.

Of course, whenever you see a government policy that works and makes sense, take a picture of that magic moment, because it's not gonna last. It should surprise no one that companies are going to want to reap the profits of their creations for a long period of time and don't want to have to create something else to keep the profits if they can avoid it. So once they got the government to recognize copyrights belonging to companies instead of individuals, there was an intense incentive for these corporations to lobby for perpetual copyrights.

That's why things like Winnie the Pooh, Lord of the Rings, musical works by George Gershwin and Aram Khachaturian, etc., all things which by all rights should be in the public domain and belong to all of us, and where the original creator of which is long deceased, are kept in perpetual copyright stifling the continued appreciation of these works by anyone other than companies with deep pockets.

Think of where the works of Shakespeare would be if this system were in place during his life!

[Brian]

Originally posted by shanek


Because that's simply how government operates.

It started out so sensibly. You let an author profit from a work for a certain amount of time to encourage him to write it in the first place, then it expires, encouraging him to write more works if he wants continued profits. It was originally 15 years. The reasoning was that if you were 30 years old and published a book, and you lived to be 60, 15 years would be half of your remaining life and so you would be encouraged to write one more book.

Of course, whenever you see a government policy that works and makes sense, take a picture of that magic moment, because it's not gonna last. It should surprise no one that companies are going to want to reap the profits of their creations for a long period of time and don't want to have to create something else to keep the profits if they can avoid it. So once they got the government to recognize copyrights belonging to companies instead of individuals, there was an intense incentive for these corporations to lobby for perpetual copyrights.

That's why things like Winnie the Pooh, Lord of the Rings, musical works by George Gershwin and Aram Khachaturian, etc., all things which by all rights should be in the public domain and belong to all of us, and where the original creator of which is long deceased, are kept in perpetual copyright stifling the continued appreciation of these works by anyone other than companies with deep pockets.

Think of where the works of Shakespeare would be if this system were in place during his life!
For sake of argument...
Isn't a novel or a song a source of revenue, like a business. Isn't the creator of the work, like the founder of a business entitled to profit from his work for life and then pass it to his heirs in his will? Shouldn't the creator be able to sell the rights to anyone he pleases, including a corporation? Why should the creator or current owner lose the right to profit from the work at some arbitrary time?
Just a thought. I realize you could buy the rights to a book you don't like and not publish it to suppress it.

[Michael Redman]

The reason that intellectual property is only protected for a limited time is that is it in the best interest of society to allow free access to useful ideas. The protection of intellectual property for the initial profitable period of time is simply to encourage creators, by allowing them to profit from their creativity for a while, before everyone gets a chance to use the idea. Intellectual property (the exclusive right to profit from a creation) isn't natural, but is created by the government.

When intellectual property rights expire, the creator doesn't lose the right to sell his creation, he just loses the right to keep others from selling knockoffs.

[Jim_MDP]

That sounds more like patent law than copyrights.

But what the hell do I know… I don't even play a lawyer on TV. :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

One interesting thing is that we all holler for the eventual right to use published material, as intellectual property, but we don't holler for the right to use ideas in people's heads. For example, how come a consultant doesn't have to give away his expertise for free after 15 years?

Write it down, lose it. Keep it in your head, retain it. Odd.

I demand a free ride on the back of every consultant!

~~ Paul

[evildave]

http://www.clwbar.org/resipsa/jan99/copyright.html

The reason people are miffed about copyright law is that holding corporations grab up "properties", hold on to them more or less permanently, and sue people for using them.

As long as there is money being produced by these "Intellectual Properties", congress will continue to be successfully lobbied for infinite extensions. Therefore, people will forever "own" parts of our culture.

So, expect in 2023 to have the Disney (and other) copyrights extended again. And again, and again...

As for consultants, they're a dime a dozen. Most of them aren't worth spit. Whatever they know, someone else knows, and is probably posted on the internet as the first hit of a "Google" search. It's just convenient for the consultants that the morons who are over-paying them to "help" seldom realise it, because they're utterly clueless about what they hired the consultant for in the first place; hence the need for consultation.

[xouper]

evildave: As for consultants, they're a dime a dozen. Most of them aren't worth spit. Whatever they know, someone else knows, and is probably posted on the internet as the first hit of a "Google" search. It's just convenient for the consultants that the morons who are over-paying them to "help" seldom realise it, because they're utterly clueless about what they hired the consultant for in the first place; hence the need for consultation.As someone who makes his living as a software engineering consultant, I take great offense to your characterization of what I do.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
One interesting thing is that we all holler for the eventual right to use published material, as intellectual property, but we don't holler for the right to use ideas in people's heads. For example, how come a consultant doesn't have to give away his expertise for free after 15 years?

Write it down, lose it. Keep it in your head, retain it. Odd.

I demand a free ride on the back of every consultant!

~~ Paul You don't lose it by virtue of writing it down. Just the opposite. You only get it protected by virtue of writing it down. If you overhear a consultant describing good strategy, you're free to use it. He only gets to keep it if he doesn't let it out. Likewise, if you want to protect your written work forever, just don't show it to anyone. The only way to let out a good idea, and protect it at the same time, is to get the protection of intellectual property status.

That's the bargain the intellectual property system makes. We grant you exclusive use of an idea that everyone can see, and could otherwise adopt for themselves, but you agree to allow the public to freely use your idea after you've had the a sufficient period of monopoly to profit from your creation.

For reference, US Consititution, Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 8 states that Congress shall have the power: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;

[King of the Americas]

...so we know WHY these copyrights are limitless.

The next question is how do we use the Laws to bypass these things?

I mean don't 'I' have the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Press-to record that which I see and hear in Public, for the purpose of mass distribution?

Do I not also have the Right to have ALL of my records accessible to whomever I wish?

Aren't we all granted the Freedom of Information?

[Michael Redman]

You're not likely to see or hear copyrighted material "in public". Generally, when you get access to copyrighted material, you're getting access to it under license, and the license does not include the right to copy and distribute the material. If you do so, you violate the license under which you were given permission to access the information.

The First Amendment protects your right to express whatever ideas you wish, but not necessarily the means of expression. If you hijack a radio station to broadcast your views, you will not be protected by the First Amendment. Your ideas are protected, but your theft of the means of broadcasting your ideas is not. Likewise, if you steal intellectual property to use as the means to express your ideas, you have committed an illegal act, outside of the expresion of the ideas themselves.

By the way, I don't know why these rights should be unlimited. The Constitutions specifically says they should be granted for a limited time.

[King of the Americas]

...aren't public...I don't know is???

I mean I never heard of broadcasters of Radio signals 'masking' their broadcast. I am talking about common AM & FM bands, or UHF, and VHF bands.

To ME, those seem like Common/Public Venues, and NOT private ones. and so too would be Barnes & Noble. If you distribute your material herein, you offer it up for public consumption, and thus cease to OWN it.

Indeed, copyrights WERE intended to be limited, in order to help create initiative in FURTHER production...

*Knabe, in favor of the creation of Public Domain*

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
If you distribute your material herein, you offer it up for public consumption, and thus cease to OWN it.No, you don't.

If I own art, and choose to put it on public display, I don't cease to own it. The limited purpose for which I make it avalable does not end my control of other uses to which it could be put. People generally understand that when they're invited to view the artwork in a museum, for example, that doesn't mean that they can take the artwork home with them, or even take it to Kinko's to make a copy.

For an intellectual property owner to put their property into public domain means that they either lose the right to the property, or intentionally surrender that right (or, in limited circumstances, simply fail to protect it.)

"Public domain" does not simply mean putting something out for public consumption. It's a more specific legal characterization.

[Psiload]

Posted by King of the Americas:

To ME, those seem like Common/Public Venues, and NOT private ones. and so too would be Barnes & Noble. If you distribute your material herein, you offer it up for public consumption, and thus cease to OWN it.

Really? Might I suggest a little experiment to test your theory of how the world seems vs. how the world actually is?

Go down to your local Barnes & Noble tonight, pull out your kettle drum, and your harmonica, and start belting out your favorite Credence Clearwater song at the top of your lungs... I think your notion of just exactly what consitutes a "Public Venue" will be up for revision.

[evildave]

Originally posted by xouper
As someone who makes his living as a software engineering consultant, I take great offense to your characterization of what I do.

As someone who has made a living as a consultant, and who has dealt with the output (almost always garbage) of other consultants, I don't.

[xouper]

xouper: ... I take great offense to your characterization of what I do.

evildave: ... I don't.DUH. We already knew that from your previous post. Anyway, thanks for the insult, moron.

[King of the Americas]

Understand that MY RECORDING of that which I see and hear, affords you NO "loss". I am NOT taking your item of creation, you'll still have it in your possession. 'I' am protected by the 1st Amendment in MY Freedom of Press to record (and mass distribute) that which I cover, period.

You're not 'allowed' to tell me what kind of technology I can or can't use.

I've got a master tool, that YOU are they to legislate against.

[Michael Redman]

Are you trying to say that you are free to copy copyrighted material, and that doing so doesn't harm the copyright holder?

[King of the Americas]

...a 'record' of the product or event. He doesn't LOSE his actual item, and is NOT prevented in performing such a trask again for profit and gain.

And "Yes." If I see, hear, or read something, I should and DO have the right to make Press of it, and even Sell it for profit.

However, 'I' am in favor of the creation of "Public Domain"-if it has been seen, heard, spoken, written, pictured, videoed, and made 'public', you can see, hear it, and get your own copy for FREE. Or at the VERY least get to view in entirity of the event or work. Such that you could see EVERY page of a book, hear every song by any artist, see any movie, and access every public speech or broadcast. Aren't we ALL due the Fredom of Information through technology...?

...somebody stop me...

...these copyrights were intended to be "limited", not perminate.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Are you trying to say that you are free to copy copyrighted material, and that doing so doesn't harm the copyright holder? Sadly, yes he is.

He also believes that any author who publishes a book, is essentially giving that book to the public without restriction.

He believes that these same authors should have to make their living by giving book reading to public audiences.

I wish I was making this up... I truly do.:con2:

[King of the Americas]

Stop it...

I said that was ONE way they could ALWAYS make money, if there was market demand for them...

Just because I have a copy of your work, that doesn't mean you can't still make money off of it. Hell, if your good enough, I may even pay you more to hear you play or read it live!

Why would you want to limit the distribution of your product, especially when it infringes upon MY Freedom of Press & Record???

[Michael Redman]

There would be absolutely no benefit to a copyright protection that only extended to hidden, unpublished works.

This is going nowhere. You go ahead and rip off creators. It's illegal whether you believe it or not.

[Psiload]

Posted by King of the Americas:

I said that was ONE way they could ALWAYS make money, if there was market demand for them...

Alrighty then, name some other ways an author would make a living. Performing at weddings and, bar mitzvahs perhaps?

Just because I have a copy of your work, that doesn't mean you can't still make money off of it. Hell, if your good enough, I may even pay you more to hear you play or read it live!

Alrighty then, pray tell HOW would an author go about making money off of a work that was considered "public record"? Maybe a mega-popular author, like Stephen King, could eke out a living, but then again, Stephen King would probably have initially chosen to make his living as a car salesman if he was faced with your "public record" system.

Not everyone is motivated by generosity, or egotistical megalomania like certain self-coronated monarchs I could name.

Why would you want to limit the distribution of your product, especially when it infringes upon MY Freedom of Press & Record???

Uhhhh... because I'd like to be compensated for my labors, perhaps?

Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?

You would force people to give away their work for free? What would be their incentive for producing anything in the first place?

[King of the Americas]

..vs public venues, YOU'd understand that perminate copyrights hinder the free flow of information...

[Psiload]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
..vs public venues, YOU'd understand that perminate copyrights hinder the free flow of information... For the love of ED, the word is permanent already!

Damn! I'm usually let these things slide, but after the fourth time I just get a little nuts. :hb:

Anywho, back to your regularly scheduled program...

And if your understod 'private concerts'...vs public venues...

This from a guy who thinks a Barnes & Noble store is a public venue.

:rolleyes:

[King of the Americas]

Barnes & Noble is a Public Market Place, as opposed to a Private Concert Hall, where ONLY ticket holders are admitted.

See the difference?

[Rat]

A bookshop is a private place. They admit people the same way as a concert hall; it's just that the admission is free.

A bookshop, as with any other retail establishment, has a right to refuse admission, but it's not in their interest to do so, unlike a concert hall.

Cheers,
Rat.

[evildave]

Originally posted by xouper
DUH. We already knew that from your previous post. Anyway, thanks for the insult, moron.

You're welcome.

[King of the Americas]

Is it still okay to disallow a certian people into your establishment, or can you just limit certian individuals???

In Dallas there is a smoking ban in public places, to INCLUDE Restaurauts & Bars. I don't know why a book store would be ay different.

Now, I am sure they could hold a private book signing or something, wherein they demand that you buy a book to get in. My point is that wht you do and or say in a place other than your home or an intended private meeting, 'I' have every write to record you saying it. And if you distribute something in print or by broadcast media, and I hear it, I have every right to make record of that event, and even reproduce it for distribution myself as if to say this is what 'I' have seen and heard.

I guess the real question is "Is the Right to Free Press valid?"

[Rat]

"I have a right...."

Do you mean a legal right? If so, then you're wrong.

If you mean a moral right, then you can argue it till you're blue in the face. If nobody respects copyright, there is no incentive for art, etc.

The 'right' to free press refers to the right to freedom of expression.

Cheers,
Rat.

[Rat]

Oh, and I don't know about US property laws, but a restaurant is not a public place either. Here we may be getting laws to ban smoking in public places and bars/restaurants, etc. This is to protect (purportedly) employees.

Do you suggest that a restaurant has no right to refuse admission?

Cheers,
Rat.

[King of the Americas]

...NO you can't.

I think we did AWAY with Whites ONLY Cafes...

I mean, I can understand no shoes, no shirt, no service, but either you are a public, Equal Access place, or you are a private club which is afforded the luxery discrimination.

No if there is specific individual, who has made himself unwelcome, then by all means, oust the gent by his seat if need be.

Now, if 'I' am a wander/buyer in one of these venues, you say I have the Right to Expression. Does this not mean that I can't be complete and thorough in my doing so. Imagine oneself as a 'perfect scribe', being able to capture with absolute accuracy words, notes, facial expressions, costumes, and the mass's reaction to it all. I ask is this not a GOOD thing? That I might use every tool to my best capability to BE as complete a scribe as one might be.

Moreover, limitless copyrights destroy initiative. "Why do I need to write anyother hit, when I can live off this one forever"

[Rat]

But no one is arguing for limitless copyrights. You appear to be arguing for none. No copyrights would also destroy initiative, or at least motivation for initiative.

I think we did AWAY with Whites ONLY Cafes...

I mean, I can understand no shoes, no shirt, no service, but either you are a public, Equal Access place, or you are a private club which is afforded the luxery discrimination.
Yes. You cannot deny blacks, for the same reason as you may be forced to deny smokers. This is because government may regulate private places. As you say, you may discriminate against wearers of casual clothes. How could you do this if it were public?

Cheers,
Rat.

[King of the Americas]

...copyrights shouldn't exist. I am just suggesting that IF you want to enforce them, keep your material OUT of public venues.

Moreover, even IF your copyright runs out, you can STILL perform your material LIVE for whatever price the market would pay.

Copyrights were NEVER intended to hinder technological progress...

[evildave]

Copyrights were NEVER intended to hinder technological progress...

Of course not: that's what software patents are for!

http://swpat.ffii.org/ is an organization that's fighting to keep software patents from infecting the EU. They could certainly have a competitive advantage over the US, in that you don't have to do a #&*@ patent search for every line of code before you publish something.

Some of the examples are hilarious! Well, they would be if they weren't a nuissance.
http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/samples/index.en.html


Basically, YES copyrights and patents are legal and good.

... "But" the government (due to pressure from "contributors" and "gifts" from lobbyists) has turned them all into a completely retarded fiasco that nobody takes seriously at all, except companies like "SCO Group", who claimed out of the blue that they own all flavors of Unix and Linux, and have decided to sue everyone on the planet that uses either. And don't forget Unisys and their lovely GIF related antics.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9367

Not to forget RIAA's recent tactics of suing children.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/09/music.swap.settlement/

And thinking of software again, the DMCA is such a nice thing (not). How about a law making it illegal to publish tools that convert one file format to another? If one file format has a "don't copy me" bit in it (even if it's not published anywhere), then translating it to a file format that doesn't is ILLEGAL. Isn't that nice? Write some code, GO TO PRISON. Naturally, they tend to arrest the programmer instead of officers of the company that asked for the tool and distributed it. Only "fair".

Is it any wonder that patents and copyrights are being portrayed and interpreted as "EVIL"?

Of course, a lot of people just want to be good consumers and stick their heads in the sand about all of these issues. That's fine. Except we're creating an environment where it's literally illegal to do develop software or exchange data in the U.S. That's fine. It's 1/10th the price to hire people in Malaysia to do this work.

America can simply continue its little spiral of specialising in "service" jobs, like flipping BSE burgers and pumping gas. And those who can afford to can go to Wal*Mart and pretend it's really "American Made" products that they're buying. (They aren't.)

[evildave]

And ON TOPIC:

Public Domain is basically where "intellectual properties" end up when nobody has a claim on them anymore (except when someone simply makes a claim on public domain works).

Or it's where works start before someone else slaps copyrights and patents on it in their own name.

If I write a tool, such as "screw you, world":


#include < stdio.h >

int main(void)
{
printf( "Screw you, world!\n" );
}


I can place it in the public domain. That means that anybody can use it for free. Unless some ********* has registered a patent that retroactively makes "printf", or perhaps variable arguments their own intellectual property. (You'd be surprised at what gets a patent from those retards in Washington.) Any element of the library I link to is subject to this happening. If I compile it with gcc for a linux kernel you downloaded, you can be sued by SCO because they believe that they own "elements of" that, too. And maybe they'll throw me in for the heck of it.

Irregardless of that, someone can grab my little public domain application and change the resources/text to their own and then copyright THAT. The original public domain source is usually obscure and the copyright (and patents) placed on it will apply to everyone. Even the original author, especially if he can't PROVE IN COURT that he was first.

Now here's the fun part, if they ADAPT my work to violate the DMCA, the feds may break my doors down and take away all of my electronic stuff, and whether or not they ever file charges, I may never see that thousands of dollars of equipment and software again until years later (if ever). Anyway, I'm out big money in equipment and software that needs to be replaced immediately or I end up pushing around a shopping cart and talking to myself. And guess what? The feds can break my what's left of my door down AGAIN the day after I'm ready to try to make a living again.

Essentially, I have no rights. Negative rights, at that. Every line of public domain code I publish and share is a legal liability to me.

If someone uses the software and their computer crashes, and an industrial robot bisects some hapless assembly line worker, they can blame ME for their (possibly unrelated) problems and sue ME.

Hence, we have the FSF and GNU public license that at least TRIES to protect me for sharing. Apparently, it doesn't really, since companies like SCO don't believe it should be a shelter from their <s>greed</s>, er "rights".

[King of the Americas]

...that's some heavy crazy *****...

The the Law is written to protect the super rich, well I gotta say SCREW that!

'I' want to patent THE 'completely inclusive' Internet Library- to include all that which is KNOWN.

Who's with me!?!?:)

[evildave]

Everybody knows Al Gore "invented" the internet.

[King of the Americas]

...okay...

So who's with me!?!?

[xouper]

King of the Americas: So who's with me!?!?Not me.

[King of the Americas]

...against the Freedom of Press & Informtaion, or just in favor of limitless copyrights?

[xouper]

King of the Americas: Does that make you against the Freedom of Press & Informtaion, or just in favor of limitless copyrights?Neither. It is possible to be in favor of freedom of the press and be against limitless copyrights, and still be against YOUR position on any of it.

To clarify, I am not in favor of eliminating the current legal protections of intellectual property rights, which are not limitless as you seem to mistakenly think.

[King of the Americas]

...define "limitless"?

And moreover, please enlighten me as to why you think the Press should be limited, when it does NOT interfear with national security???

[xouper]

King of the Americas: define "limitless"?In the context of copyrights, it means no expiration date.

[King of the Americas]

...SHOULD be limited, or that they should not be?

What I don't get is WHY?

WHY would you choose to disregard a potentially perfect media exchange system??

Why NOT be able to spread your panderings across the World Wide Web, at no cost???

IF you were judged by the quality of your product, and you were in demand, money would be there to be made.

But what I really don't get is how you can dismise my Historian's Case... As a Historical Scribe , why don't I have the right to use whatever tools possible to 'capture comprehensively' that which has happed????

[xouper]

King of the Americas: What I don't get is WHY?Apparently not.

I am not interested in explaining it to you, though.

I should have known better than to take your troll bait and answer your question, "So who's with me!?!?"

I've expressed my opinion and I'm done here.

[Psiload]

WHY would you choose to disregard a potentially perfect media exchange system??

A system whereby an artist/author has no ability to protect their creative property is a potentially perfect system?

Why NOT be able to spread your panderings across the World Wide Web, at no cost???

You are perfectly able to do just this under the current system. You can offer whatever intellectual or creative property, of your own making, free of charge to anyone who cares to view it, hear it, or download it.

IF you were judged by the quality of your product, and you were in demand, money would be there to be made.

You never answered the question last time a put it to you, so I'll ask you again...

HOW would you go about making money off of something that you had no claim of legal ownership over? HOW would an author make money off of a novel he/she had written, if that same novel became public property the minute one single copy of it was published, and anyone one who cared to could reproduce and exploit it in any manner they saw fit?

But what I really don't get is how you can dismise my Historian's Case... As a Historical Scribe , why don't I have the right to use whatever tools possible to 'capture comprehensively' that which has happed????

Because copyright laws exist to protect intellectual property... no matter how red in the face you become when presented with this fact, it's still a fact.

[shanek]

Originally posted by xouper
In the context of copyrights, it means no expiration date.

What good is an expiration date if they just push it back every time it comes near?

[xouper]

shanek: What good is an expiration date if they just push it back every time it comes near?Is that a rhetorical question?

If not, why are you asking _me_?

I don't even want to be in this conversation anymore.

[King of the Americas]

A system whereby an artist/author has no ability to protect their creative property is a potentially perfect system?

*They have EVERY ability to 'protect' their property. All they have to do is NOT distribute it. They could 'play' their musice to private concerts, INSTEAD of putting it on the public's airwaves/

You are perfectly able to do just this under the current system. You can offer whatever intellectual or creative property, of your own making, free of charge to anyone who cares to view it, hear it, or download it.

*You just don't want the public 'recording' it IF they happen to hear it in one of these punliv venues....


You never answered the question last time a put it to you, so I'll ask you again...

HOW would you go about making money off of something that you had no claim of legal ownership over?

*By offering the public something they don't have. AUTHENTICITY. Sure you can get a Columbia House version of a CD, but there aren't any lyrics in the case. Music with NO connection to its creator is NOT as valued as when it is played live by its creator. Universial availability does NOT keep an artist, writer, or musician from making money off of their work, PERIOD. In fact, it actually broadens the field of possible patrons.

HOW would an author make money off of a novel he/she had written, if that same novel became public property the minute one single copy of it was published, and anyone one who cared to could reproduce and exploit it in any manner they saw fit?

*Because there will ALWAYS be "fans" of the creator who want an actual authographed copy. Sure I can go to the library, check out a copy of "The Hobbit", then go home and photo copy the entire anuscript, and then have a copy of it on my shelf...NOT having paid the author for it. But as a Tolkien fan, I AM willing to go look for that highly valued first edition, or pay for a close version therein.

Because copyright laws exist to protect intellectual property... no matter how red in the face you become when presented with this fact, it's still a fact.

*For a LIMITED time, read the f*cking Constitution! Moreover, when they are NOT "limited", they infringe upon MY Rights to Freedom of Press. Your stance is an ingornant, self serving one refuses to see and understand the bigger picture.

[Psiload]

King of the Americas wrote:

*They have EVERY ability to 'protect' their property. All they have to do is NOT distribute it. They could 'play' their musice to private concerts, INSTEAD of putting it on the public's airwaves/

Who would want to pay to hear a singer/band that they've never heard before? Exposure=poularity. Popularity=success. No exposure- no success. That's the way it goes in the brave new mass media world.

*You just don't want the public 'recording' it IF they happen to hear it in one of these punliv venues....

Because if a single copy made it out, you're screwed... because then it would become public property, no? BTW- preventing a 'recording' is all but an impossibility given today's technology.

*By offering the public something they don't have. AUTHENTICITY. Sure you can get a Columbia House version of a CD, but there aren't any lyrics in the case. Music with NO connection to its creator is NOT as valued as when it is played live by its creator.

Are you seriously telling me that you would pay $19.99 for an "official" copy of a Return of the King dvd, if you could legally, and easily obtain an identical copy for free? Granted, you may not get the fancy plastic box, but who keeps those things anyway? All they do is take up space... than again, with no copyrights, what's to stop anyone from copying the original box? Nothing!

Actually... you couldn't pay $19.99 for an official copy of Return of the King dvd under your system anyway... because it wouldn't exist. No movie studio in their right mind would invest 200 million dollars to make a movie that they would no longer own the minute the first copy hit the streets.

Universial availability does NOT keep an artist, writer, or musician from making money off of their work, PERIOD. In fact, it actually broadens the field of possible patrons.

For how long have you been giving away your "work" now? How many patrons do you currently have? And how much have they paid you?

*Because there will ALWAYS be "fans" of the creator who want an actual authographed copy. Sure I can go to the library, check out a copy of "The Hobbit", then go home and photo copy the entire anuscript, and then have a copy of it on my shelf...NOT having paid the author for it. But as a Tolkien fan, I AM willing to go look for that highly valued first edition, or pay for a close version therein.

First off... no, you can't copy a copyrighted book you checked out of the library. It's illegal.

Secondly... J.R. Tolkien would have had to charge $500 per autographed book to earn himself a modest living... then again, he wouldn't have had to bother with selling autographed books... as he would have starved to death while he waited for his "universally available" book to gain him enough notoriety to begin selling his autograph.

For a LIMITED time, read the f*cking Constitution! Moreover, when they are NOT "limited", they infringe upon MY Rights to Freedom of Press. Your stance is an ingornant, self serving one refuses to see and understand the bigger picture.

Wait a minute, you're changing your tune... are we talking about "universal availability", or limited copyrights? I'd tend to agree with the notion of limiting copyright durations, but that's a far cry from having the God-given right to access and exploit, free of charge, ANY, and ALL intellectual, and creative material that has ever been offered.

[King of the Americas]

Who would want to pay to hear a singer/band that they've never heard before? Exposure=poularity. Popularity=success. No exposure- no success. That's the way it goes in the brave new mass media world.

*Listen carefully. FULL exposure and endless flow of your work, IF your work is of quality, guarantees you fame and fortune. For ANY piece of your work 'documented' as truly your's will be sought after.

Because if a single copy made it out, you're screwed... because then it would become public property, no? BTW- preventing a 'recording' is all but an impossibility given today's technology.

*Okay, then relent that these copyrights are impossible to insure...

Are you seriously telling me that you would pay $19.99 for an "official" copy of a Return of the King dvd, if you could legally, and easily obtain an identical copy for free? Granted, you may not get the fancy plastic box, but who keeps those things anyway? All they do is take up space... than again, with no copyrights, what's to stop anyone from copying the original box? Nothing!

Actually... you couldn't pay $19.99 for an official copy of Return of the King dvd under your system anyway... because it wouldn't exist. No movie studio in their right mind would invest 200 million dollars to make a movie that they would no longer own the minute the first copy hit the streets.

*I guess you aren't a collector... I have stuff in packages I haven't even opened. I buy them as gifts for people whom I know enjoy home theater. And YES, even though I could get a bootleg version from this guy I know who gets prescreened copies, I buy the actual product with all the extras...


For how long have you been giving away your "work" now? How many patrons do you currently have? And how much have they paid you?

*Interestingly enough, I do have some what of a cult following, and indeed they have asked me for and paid me for 'authenticated copies' of my work... I am really just getting started. As my resources build, the broader my reach will be.

*Because there will ALWAYS be "fans" of the creator who want an actual authographed copy. Sure I can go to the library, check out a copy of "The Hobbit", then go home and photo copy the entire anuscript, and then have a copy of it on my shelf...NOT having paid the author for it. But as a Tolkien fan, I AM willing to go look for that highly valued first edition, or pay for a close version therein.

First off... no, you can't copy a copyrighted book you checked out of the library. It's illegal.

*It is criminal to make note & record of the things I've read...?

Secondly... J.R. Tolkien would have had to charge $500 per autographed book to earn himself a modest living... then again, he wouldn't have had to bother with selling autographed books... as he would have starved to death while he waited for his "universally available" book to gain him enough notoriety to begin selling his autograph.

*That was then, and this is now. Markets CHANGE as technology advances. It is something like evolution, when the challenges to make money from your efforts change, and if you wish to stay ahead, you have to change too.



Wait a minute, you're changing your tune... are we talking about "universal availability", or limited copyrights? I'd tend to agree with the notion of limiting copyright durations, but that's a far cry from having the God-given right to access and exploit, free of charge, ANY, and ALL intellectual, and creative material that has ever been offered.

*You have limited copyrights, before the universal avaliability/free press clause kicks in, period. But if you are good, by present market standards then you always be able to make money.

[Psiload]

King of the Americas:

*Listen carefully. FULL exposure and endless flow of your work, IF your work is of quality, guarantees you fame and fortune. For ANY piece of your work 'documented' as truly your's will be sought after.

Once again... It matters not how much exposure your work gets, or how many people want to get their hands on it. If it's available for free, and people have a legal right to obtain, copy, and exploit it in any way they see fit, then there is scant way you could go about turning a profit.

*Okay, then relent that these copyrights are impossible to insure...

Under the current system, and given modern technology, copyrighted material is difficult to protect, but far from impossible.

*I guess you aren't a collector... I have stuff in packages I haven't even opened. I buy them as gifts for people whom I know enjoy home theater. And YES, even though I could get a bootleg version from this guy I know who gets prescreened copies, I buy the actual product with all the extras...

If there were no copyrights, then what would stop someone from exactly duplicating the "actual product" extras and all?

What you're refusing to see, is that under your "abolish copyrights" system, there would be essentially no difference between "bootlegged" and "official" material. If anyone, and everyone is free to exploit, and reproduce anything they choose, then the line between real, and fake would become all but academic.

*Interestingly enough, I do have some what of a cult following, and indeed they have asked me for and paid me for 'authenticated copies' of my work... I am really just getting started. As my resources build, the broader my reach will be.

Alrighty then... the day you start making serious money off of material that you give away for free, I'll start taking your notion of copyright reform seriously. I won't hold my breath however... blue is not my color,

*It is criminal to make note & record of the things I've read...?

You can take all the notes you want. You just can't make exact reproductions "in whole, or part"... there's a little blurb somewhere in the first few pages of every copyrighted books that covers this. You should take a look sometime.

*That was then, and this is now. Markets CHANGE as technology advances. It is something like evolution, when the challenges to make money from your efforts change, and if you wish to stay ahead, you have to change too.

And giving away your material for free is the bold new way to make money? That's not evolution... that's extinction.

*You have limited copyrights, before the universal avaliability/free press clause kicks in, period. But if you are good, by present market standards then you always be able to make money.

But I thought copyrights were evil, and they hindered the free flow of information? Now you're acknowledging the need for copyrights? Why does anyone need to protect their intellectual property? I mean... if your work is quality, people will line up to pay the cow even if they're getting the milk for free, no?

Take your own situation for instance... you don't copyright any of your work, and you distribute it freely, and the bucks are going to come rolling in any day now... right? If you have no need for copyrights then why should anyone else?

[King of the Americas]

Once again... It matters not how much exposure your work gets, or how many people want to get their hands on it. If it's available for free, and people have a legal right to obtain, copy, and exploit it in any way they see fit, then there is scant way you could go about turning a profit.

*Then why are autographs so sought, bought, and sold? Sure I can get a bootleg version of almost anything I want, but I'd rather have the personalized version from the actual creator, just to pay homage to his talant. But that's ME, a collector/consumer of fine art, music, and writing.


Under the current system, and given modern technology, copyrighted material is difficult to protect, but far from impossible.

*Actualy, it IS impossible to enforce them, IF the reproducer is minimally intelligent.


If there were no copyrights, then what would stop someone from exactly duplicating the "actual product" extras and all?

*THAT would defeat the purpose of a pirated copy. Duplications are supposed to be fast and cheap. If you went through the trouble of authenticating bootlegs, they would cease to be fast and cheap.

What you're refusing to see, is that under your "abolish copyrights" system, there would be essentially no difference between "bootlegged" and "official" material. If anyone, and everyone is free to exploit, and reproduce anything they choose, then the line between real, and fake would become all but academic.

*I disagree.

Alrighty then... the day you start making serious money off of material that you give away for free, I'll start taking your notion of copyright reform seriously. I won't hold my breath however... blue is not my color,

*Well, although I am not making millions, I find some satisfaction having moved but a few to give me money for my work. However, I don't feel you should judge for for NOT having made the millions, yet. I am not in the market to sell a book, to make the NY Times best seller list. I write to affect change. As a result, people have written me letters, e-mails and and any number of gifts in thanks. But the point is you are wrong. These patrons sampled my product for FREE, and then because of its quality or lack of it, they found it collectable and sent me money for an authenticed copy.


You can take all the notes you want. You just can't make exact reproductions "in whole, or part"... there's a little blurb somewhere in the first few pages of every copyrighted books that covers this. You should take a look sometime.

*Alright to a machine that could reproduce anything it has seen, read, or heard for purpose of mass distribution in 'perfect form' is or would be ILLEGAL??? That's horked-up, and if you can't see that then YOU are just as horked-up.


And giving away your material for free is the bold new way to make money? That's not evolution... that's extinction.

*You are wrong, and free sampling candy factories the world over prove it daily.


But I thought copyrights were evil, and they hindered the free flow of information? Now you're acknowledging the need for copyrights? Why does anyone need to protect their intellectual property? I mean... if your work is quality, people will line up to pay the cow even if they're getting the milk for free, no?

*You PAY the cow to produce fresh milk, but you can get some free skim samples down at the grocery store. It IS possible to get people to pay for your personal time, regardless of how many copies of your work exist. If you want to protect a copyright, then all you hvae to do is keep it away from public venues. And I never said they didn't have a purpose. However you have yet to recogonize that making them limitless infringes upon My Rights.

Take your own situation for instance... you don't copyright any of your work, and you distribute it freely, and the bucks are going to come rolling in any day now... right? If you have no need for copyrights then why should anyone else?

*Take my work, reproduce it to benefit yourself and the lives of those around you. If by doing so, my work IS able to inspire change for the better then I am sure fame and fortune will be mine. IF I wanted something 'copyrighted', I wouldn't put it on the Internet.