Posts by Robin Sheat
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think I can quite fairly speak for the local artist, being one, working with many and fiercely independent and outspoken on it, I am that dude.
I also create stuff covered by copyright. However, I say that anyone can take it, use it, and adapt it if they like. I get paid reasonably well for it, too. Much more than I initially expected (which was zero), I just started because it was "scratching an itch".
I also encourage you to look at Jamendo. Over 12,000 albums, all free.
-
as a fair society its our responsibility to make sure we're consistent across the board.
If that's true, then once you've sold your story, you can never sell it again. That's consistent with property, but doesn't make sense.
I also don't consider 'everything else is selfish, therefore this must be too' to be a valid argument.
intellectual property is a relatively new concept and people have difficulty understanding it.
copyrights and patents at least, probably trademarks too, have been around for hundreds of years.
the owners of the original recordings could and should have the right to exploit the worth of those recordings but be cause of expired copyright they can now be duplicated and sold by people that had nothing to do with that material, even me.
They've had a long, long time to exploit the worth of those recordings. Now you can remix them if you want. More music! Yay!
You can (I believe) even copyright the remix you make. Hey, so that's even more capitalism going on there. You can take it, adapt it, and sell it. More money for you, too! We all win. You can't, of course, resell the original recording and then forbid others from doing the same.
if oil well ownership expired after 50 years
That argument doesn't make sense. The owner of the oil well could sell it if they wanted. Once. After that they have no say what happens to it. I could buy it, and make a fancy sculpture out of it. So really, copyrighted works have more protection than physical works.
Your consistency argument is starting to appeal to me ;) if we accept it, once I've bought an album, I can do anything I like with it. Copy it, remix it, etc. OK, I'd better stop that line of thinking before I put the head on the strawman :)
kfc's 11 herbs and spices for example.
(salt, pepper, msg, and 8 others no doubt)
what are their legal rights there. do they ever expire?As trade secrets, there is nothing to expire. I can write a book and not show it to anyone, then noone can copy it ever. Expiry doesn't make sense in this case. However, if someone at KFC posted the recipe on the internet, it is effectively public. There is no time limit whatsoever. You could go into your kitchen and make it right now. This also makes sense, why should someone have the right to tell you what you can or can't do to food?
Out of curiosity, do you think Project Gutenberg should stop? I mean, Herman Melville isn't getting anything from it publishing Moby Dick. Of course, now anyone who wants to get some literary history into them can, and thus we have a better educated populous, but is that enough? As it is, it'll be about 15 or so more years before they can add more recent books to their catalogue.
-
that seems a strange bargain to make in a capitalist society. i'm cool with the whole peace and hippy love vibe society thing but is that really the world we live in and the rules we apply to other aspects of our life,
Not really. There are many things like this. It would seem capitalist to mug someone and take their wallet, but we don't because as a society we have decided we don't like that sort of thing. It strikes me that most of law is exceptions to, or special cases within, pure capitalism.
Besides, what is so wrong with trying to make things better for people? Just because it goes against a perceived trend of ruthlessness doesn't make it wrong.
There's nothing particularly hippy about it. I'm too young to be a hippy :) Shorter copyright terms help me, they help you, and they help millions of others have increased ability to create and experience art (where by art I mean paintings, music, books, films, so on and so forth).
I also expect (although I have no evidence on this point) that most authors are getting very little from something that they did 30 or 40 years ago.
-
it doesn't make it any less wrong because everyone is doing it.
I don't consider it wrong to want to adapt some art into another form that interests me. I shouldn't have to have permission to do so. However, as a member of society I'll allow the author some rights to encourage them to create more art. I do think though that those rights should be more limited than they are.
Once an idea has been spread, in any form, to someone else that idea now belongs to all people involved in it. We just allow the author a little leeway for a while to help them out.
I have to say, the US constitution puts it quite well:
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.
Note that the focus of this is that it is done to promote science and arts. By having too long terms, you don't achieve this. If I can't create more art from existing stuff that is a part of my culture, then culture loses out on more art. No promotion going on there.
-
Various patented products have done that for people quite often. If there's nothing wrong with that for an object based on a good idea, then I can't see why there should be something wrong with that for a story based on a good idea.
Patents are short term too, for exactly the same reason as copyrights. Someone is allowed a short-term monopoly on an invention, provided that when that term is up, that design is able to be used and improved by anyone and everyone. It encourages innovation. People just don't seem as upset by the duration of patents, which is up to 20 years in New Zealand.
So on this point, we agree :)
(note: with great effort do I avoid discussing software patents here. I hope you're thankful ;)
You can steal something which isn't physical. You can steal information from a company, or the identity of a person.
If you can steal it, then it's physical. I guess you could break into their computers, copy, and then delete it. But I still consider that two different acts. I think 'identity theft' is something of a misnomer. It's not like the victim no longer has an identity. It's really just fraud.
Assume you break into a company's office and take their ... I dunno ... operations manual. You've stolen the physical item. That's theft (and breaking and entering, but we'll ignore that for now). Say, instead, you photocopy it. That's either copyright violation or misappropriation of trade secrets, which I think are considered equitable rights rather than property rights. (I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV).
Both are illegal, and neither is protected for only X years from its creation.
True. But in the case of trade secrets, if company C gets their trade secrets stolen, and they aren't able to demonstrate reasonable measures were taken to secure them, then it's their own hard luck.
Society has no bargain with trade secrets, we don't expect them to become public, and they are never published anyway. Thus, they are given comparatively weak protection and it's up to their holder to be careful of that.
Things like music are given to the public to enjoy, so we give them reasonably strong protections to encourage more to be made. But the bargain is that we'll give you that incentive, but we get complete access to it in the end.
-
if mark had just lifted the line virbatim I would have felt differently about it.
Just so you don't mistake me, I'm in no way advocating plagerism. I'm all for the reuse of material, but I do draw the line at copying it and calling it your own.
i'm cool with the whole open source peace love and sharing vibe so long as all society plays the same game, ie open surce gas, land, food, power and internet connection
The latter don't make sense though. They're all scarce resources. Ideas aren't, as it takes no resources to copy them. Tell me a story and we now both hold the story. Give me all your food, and you no longer have any.
-
OK, all replies rolled into one, I need to stop procrastinating and get back to the writing that I'm supposed to be doing.
Copyright law allows some people to be dicks about it, but that doesn't mean creators don't deserve protection.
While some people are being real dicks, they are enabled by the strictness of law. And, keep in mind I'm not saying that there shouldn't be copyright - I think it's an effective method of encouraging people to create - I just think it needs to be balanced against the benefit to society at large, and currently I believe that society is getting the short end of the stick.
What if rights couldn't be bought and sold like that?
That would be interesting, but I don't think effective. IIRC, Europe has the concept of 'moral right', in that the original author can never give away their right to make copies for themselves. However, there is a purpose behind being able to transfer, or at lease, sublicense copyrights. It prevents everyone from having to become both a creator and publisher.
Hollywood originally wanted to "update" it though to be about the war on terror. If you haven't read it, take my word for it that it's a terrible idea, completely undermines the central theme and clearly demonstrates a lack of respect and understanding for the source material.
Certainly. Same goes with free speech. I don't have to agree or like what you're saying to support the idea of free speech. I think that they should be able to do this, it doesn't have to be good. Maybe something that the author doesn't like enhances the story for everyone else (although, in this case, probably not. But hypothetically.:)
Copyrights entering public domain might be a good thing for innovation and access, but there will be people in there bastardising the source material and reaping the rewards while the creator looks on.
Sad but true. But, I rank innovation and access way, way above the downside of some people making crap out of it. You don't have to watch/read/listen to the crap. Unlimited copyright means noone has the chance to make anything else from it, crap or award-winning.
Culture is not made by those who create cultural products. Establishing meaning and value is a joint effort of all those who receive as well as those who produce.
I wish I'd thought of putting it that way :) Your post is almost exactly what I'm trying to say.
yeah I know that's how it is but you're not illuminating me as to why it is.
I'm trying :) It is that way because otherwise there is no incentive for society to provide you copyright at all. Copyright isn't a natural right. If you make something, and I copy it, we're both enriched. You don't lose out on your creation, and if I modify it to make it more interesting, you can copy that and gain. But the way society works now, that isn't (always) good enough.
So, we give copyright holders a limited time to keep control, in exchange for which the public gets unfettered access in the end. If this didn't happen, there would be much less incentive for copyright to exist in the first place, as there would be no benefit to everyone else respecting the doctrine of copyright in the first place.
That's one way of looking at it, anyway.
Another way is that society doesn't want cultural items to be unusable for all eternity (so, no copyright is best in this respect), but we do want to encourage people to create works, so we allow a limited copyright.
Try looking at it from the point of view of the whole of society (damn, I'm abusing that word today) rather than that of the content creator, and working from that direction.
just cos we say so isn't good enough, it has to compare to similar property rights
No it doesn't. It's not particularly similar to property rights at all. I can't steal a copyright, I can steal a table. I can steal a book, but I can't steal a story. The most I can do is copy a story, but you don't lose your access to it.
you make it sound like all created things are done in an afternoon (some are, most aren't by a long stretch).
Trust me, I know.
installing it. its a service job, not a production job.
OK, how about building a table? Once you've sold it, you have no control over it. And that's as it should be. The catch with this is that a table is hard to freely copy, and requires significant resources to do so. Ideas don't, and naturally propagate. Why should that be hindered more than necessary?
Er, i suspect you can -- i think it'd the criticism -- or education --? bit of the applicable law, there's probably a fair use right somewhere in there.
Under the old copyright law, I don't think we had any such thing. I'm not sure about the current one. But, even then they're too restrictive for my tastes. (At least in US law) it's also not an exception to copyright, it's a possible defence against claims of infringement. Which means that it still goes to court.
But, while satire, criticism and educational use are important, they're not all that's important.
what do you think a hip hop artists motivation for sampling is?
its expense. that great 60's drum loop. you can re create that in a studio, but that costs money.
Possibly that's some motivation (disclaimer: I don't listen to hip-hop), but may not evoking memories of that other track in listeners minds be a useful goal also? I know that's why samples are used in industrial (which I do listen to). You can't recreate that, because to do so would mean that it simply doesn't work, unless you recreate it exactly the same, which is a pointless waste of time.
-
Yes it does, essentially. Any fool can place a classified ad, and bingo, income generation. It seems to me it's a lot more difficult to produce income from a copyrighted work.
I think I disagree, although I'm not 100% sure I get your point.
You can sell the building, and then you get one-off money for it. That's fine. You can lease it, but there is steady work involved in that.
That's why the idea of renewable copyright terms appeal to me. For example, perhaps 15 years from initial publication, and then you can renew for a small fee (basically enough to make it not worthwhile if you're not doing anything with the work) for another 15 years.
This means abandoned stuff is available to the public reasonably quickly, but for stuff still in use by the copyright holder, they can hold the rights for a longer time. I consider that kind of thing a decent trade-off between the social good and providing incentives for creation.
-
err, errata:
To clarify, it's not Mickey Mouse. -
an elvis recording isn't an idea, its a product. why should it ever be public domain.
No, a record containing an Elvis recording is a product.
But in answer to the question, because society says so. The artists are given the right to control copies for a limited time, in exchange for which the public gets to make copies after that time.
why should after 70 years people who are legal owners or inheriters of the recorded work suddenly have to compete with legal thai knock offs of their products.
How about they make more products then?
What it sounds like you're saying is that someone should be able to create one thing, and live off that forever. That works in almost no other space. You can give someone a building, but it doesn't produce income by default. I don't give the plumber a dollar every time the toilet is flushed.
what about the recipe for kfc, or cocca cola, can you take their industrial secret after 50 years?
Umm. They're not copyrighted. If they were patented, then sure. That's how the patent system works too. However, they're trade secret which is basically "don't tell anyone anything", but should someone leak the coke formula, then there is little the company can do about it once it's out there (there is a small amount of legal protection for trade secrets).
I don't see why mickey mouse should become public property when there is a business that legally manages and maintains that icon directly stemming from the creator and his family.
To clarify, it's Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse is a trademark, which is rightfully perpetual as long as it's being used. It's the old films with Mickey Mouse in them.
I take it when it becomes public domain we can have mickey mouse pron? how is that in thw interest of the creator?
It's not. And that's OK. Not everything has to be about the creator. After a while, the creator shouldn't matter. Mickey Mouse films are part of our culture now. Why should I not be able to copy those films if I want to show people about the origins of animation? Or create my own little archive of clips? Or resplice and dub over to create something different. Maybe something that comments on Disney's iron grip of copyright. They'd never approve that, but perhaps society would benefit from the commentary.
It's not about benefitting the one creator. It's about encouraging them to create so that they can further the "useful arts and sciences". Preventing people from adapting and remixing does not help that. We all lose.