While initially intended to protect the authorship from being assumed by a usurper and to make sure that the inventor receives due credit for the invention, as well as some more tangible gratification, nowadays copyrights in their current highly evolved shape are killing the culture.

Bastardised by lawyers, as being a handy tool for squeezing cash out of people, as if conceived in the sinister mind of the Daemon of Lawsuit's mind, copyrights are a travesty and mockery of what a right of an individual should be. They are basically a means of enforcing unmerited advertising and extorting ungodly amounts of money from people who are being pushed into the necessity of the use of the patent by the same company which owns the patent. And so does the circle close...

Don't get me wrong, I hate plagiarism and unlawful assumption of authorship. On the other hand, I firmly believe that no law on the earth could possibly legitimatise such a commercial use of it as selling the righ to name yourself the author - for example. That you have invented or created something doesn't mean you fully own it beyond any limitation. Every single invention relies on the chain of previous invention and the millennia of the development of civilisation before the era of copyrights and ridiculous lawsuits.

It also needs to be noted that copyrights are no longer personal quasi-honorary rights of the inventors, authors and artists themselves. They are merchandise and they rest in the hands of corporate giants, many of which specialise in holding "intellectual property", i.e. squeezing cash out of copyrights. That's quite clearly not the intended effect of the introduction of copyright protection in the 19th or even 18th century.

Let us not forget about people barred from music because of the ridiculous prices of records and copyright-related fees dictated by corporations. Or people who can't even learn how to operate the software companies are using, which is one of the basic requirements for any good job nowadays, because they can't afford legal software. Let alone such ridiculous situations as the software companies requiring you to buy a separate copy for each computer you own or have in the house.

What they do to deprive you of your rightful back-up copy is also a pain and the copyright protection excuses are outright lame, especially if you connect the poor quality of CDs with the high quality of copyright protections. In many cases, this is, I believe, purposely done in order to make you buy a new license when your media is damaged. But the license speaks about the content, not about the media... See? There is not even an impression of consitency here.

Below is a large quote from The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050117/DOCS17/TPEntertainment/Film), making a perfect example:

As Americans commemorate Martin Luther King Jr. and his legacy today, no television channel will be broadcasting the documentary series Eyes on the Prize. Produced in the 1980s and widely considered the most important encapsulation of the American civil-rights movement on video, the documentary series can no longer be broadcast or sold anywhere.

Why?

The makers of the series no longer have permission for the archival footage they previously used of such key events as the historic protest marches or the confrontations with Southern police. Given Eyes on the Prize's tight budget, typical of any documentary, its filmmakers could barely afford the minimum five-year rights for use of the clips. That permission has long since expired, and the $250,000 to $500,000 needed to clear the numerous copyrights involved is proving too expensive.

This is particularly dire now, because VHS copies of the series used in countless school curriculums are deteriorating beyond rehabilitation. With no new copies allowed to go on sale, "the whole thing, for all practical purposes, no longer exists," says Jon Else, a California-based filmmaker who helped produce and shoot the series and who also teaches at the Graduate School of Journalism of the University of California, Berkeley.EOF

Flame at will. ;)

[ January 18, 2005, 21:54: Message edited by: chevalier ]

*appalause*

Looks like it's locust season, since I agree wholeheartedly.

And how many people shell our $70 for a game before the word gets out that it sucks major ass? For every person that complains about losses caused by pirating software, there's dozens that feel ripped off somewhere down the line because of the price they pay for a crappy title. The Onus should be on companies to make quality games if they are going to charge big money for it. There are a few titles that will sell huge numbers of copies before the reviews come out. I imagine that Civ 4 will be a hot commodity when it ships this year. As long as the company delivers the goods, there's no problem. But if the company uses the name to sell a million copies before the realization that the game is crap, then the company should pay with more than just their reputation. After the Debacle of Pool of Radiance and the buggy release of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, I'd be very wary of any titles that company produces...

That you have invented or created something doesn't mean you fully own it beyond any limitation. Correct, Patent law means that the invention has to be fully documented so that when the patent runs out (in 20-25 years or so) then anyone is (theoretically) able to recreate the device by refering to the patent. Though it's difficult to get hold of old patents, it's not impossible. Somethings should not be allowed to be patentable, such as peoples genes. (I believe is has or is being tried)

extorting ungodly amounts of money from people who are being pushed into the necessity of the use of the patent My simple argument is that in the vast majority of cases no-one is forced to make the product. If you want to make it then you should be prepared to pay the inventor and sensibly get a written contract with them.

I personally don't have a problem with patent laws, the amount of research undertaken by companies in order to produce something needs to be recouped somehow. Drugs industry for example, less than 1% of drugs ever make it to market, yet Billions are spent researching that other 99% for viability. If you don't somehow protect the invention, another company could quite happily do no research and therefore market someone elses product at a much lower price.
I don't agree that patents should be able to be extended, though I can see that in some cases it might be meritted. The Laser, for example, never made the inventer any money as it didn't have a commercial use until after the patent had run out.

Copyright is a different issue as being "owned" by corporations effectively means they own it for ever. There should be limitations placed on the length of copyright to bring it back to it's original intent - the life of the writer, so somewhere between 50 to 100 years would seem reasonable. I don't think copyright should be allowed to be sold, but the rights to publish something can be.

[ January 19, 2005, 11:28: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

Yeah, patents are almost necessary if you're doing any kind of research. Last thing you need as a small research lab is for a pharmaceutical giant like Roche to take your ideas and make millions from it while you are left with nothing. Research is expensive and time consuming enough as it is.

There should be limitations placed on the length of copyright to bring it back to it's original intent - the life of the writer, so somewhere between 50 to 100 years would seem reasonable. I don't think copyright should be allowed to be sold, but the rights to publish something can be.
There are limits placed on the length of a copyright. Any copyright is good for the length of the author's life, plus fifty years.

I don't think copyright should be allowed to be sold, but the rights to publish something can be.Why not? You own your own hard work, why can't you decide to let someone else have it instead?

chevalier, your argument comes off more as a criticism of big business than as a criticism of copyright law. In fact, the vast majority of patents and copyrights are not owned by corporations but by private individuals.

Don't get me wrong, I hate plagiarism and unlawful assumption of authorship. On the other hand, I firmly believe that no law on the earth could possibly legitimatise such a commercial use of it as selling the righ to name yourself the author - for example. That you have invented or created something doesn't mean you fully own it beyond any limitation. Every single invention relies on the chain of previous invention and the millennia of the development of civilisation before the era of copyrights and ridiculous lawsuits.
You're contradicting yourself. You also deliver a flawed argument. Patents and copyrights encourage innovation and culture, not stifle it. Very few people would bother to do research if someone else benefits from your time and effort. While a more logical argument could be made over artistic material, the evidence is still strongly in favor of patents and copyrights benefiting the advance of society as a whole.

few people would bother to do research if someone else benefits from your time and effort. Actually, the whole point of research is to have others benefit for it. I don't know about other fields, but take the basic biomedical sciences. Once you publish an article in a journal, anyone reading your article practically has full access to every thing you did. And let's say you've genetically engineered a new cell line, if any other researcher asks for it he will get it. I don't know if it's an obligation, but people do it all the time without a second thought. Of course, if someone uses something you've done they have to acknowledge your work, which in a way is benefiting you.

As for "artistic" material, copyright laws aren't very good there, if you ask me. Suppose you've written a book and want it published. You have trouble finding a publisher, until one suddenly comes in and agrees to publish it, on the condition that it's a "work for hire" contract. The minute you sign the contract, you lose ALL rights to the book - under such a contract, the copyright belongs to the publishing house. That's not what I'd call "owning your own hard work".

Things are even worse in the music industry. Very few musicians own the copyright to any of their stuff, unless they get really famous and can afford to stand up to the company (which doesn't occur very often) - most copyrights are owned by the recod company. Same thing again in the movie industry - find a single Hollywood director/screenwriter/whatever who owns the full rights to his movie if you can. Copyright almost always belongs to the studio, exclusively.

That's not exactly my idea of innovation. It's simply a very convenient way for corporations to make huge amounts of money (ever looked at the percentage of their own sales that musicians get? It's pathetically low). Then again, this seems to be the way the world works.

Icon 1 posted January 24, 2005 01:27 Offline Profile for Ziad Email Ziad Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post

quote: few people would bother to do research if someone else benefits from your time and effort.

Actually, the whole point of research is to have others benefit for it. I don't know about other fields, but take the basic biomedical sciences. Once you publish an article in a journal, anyone reading your article practically has full access to every thing you did. And let's say you've genetically engineered a new cell line, if any other researcher asks for it he will get it. I don't know if it's an obligation, but people do it all the time without a second thought. Of course, if someone uses something you've done they have to acknowledge your work, which in a way is benefiting you.You also get money for doing the research. And I actually meant more like developing new technologies and such as opposed to sitting in a science lab and studying things. You do benefit with money in the latter, however.

Suppose you've written a book and want it published. You have trouble finding a publisher, until one suddenly comes in and agrees to publish it, on the condition that it's a "work for hire" contract. The minute you sign the contract, you lose ALL rights to the book - under such a contract, the copyright belongs to the publishing house. That's not what I'd call "owning your own hard work".Not entirely correct. The author does retain the copyright in nearly all cases. The publisher does make some money on the material (as they have a right to), however the publisher rarely has all the rights.

Very few musicians own the copyright to any of their stuff, unless they get really famous and can afford to stand up to the company (which doesn't occur very often) - most copyrights are owned by the recod company. Same thing again in the movie industry - find a single Hollywood director/screenwriter/whatever who owns the full rights to his movie if you can. Copyright almost always belongs to the studio, exclusively.In that case, then yes, you're correct. However, your argument still doesn't make any sense.

That's not exactly my idea of innovation. It's simply a very convenient way for corporations to make huge amounts of money (ever looked at the percentage of their own sales that musicians get? It's pathetically low). Then again, this seems to be the way the world works.I am really getting tired of all the corporation-bashing that runs rampant on these forums. Musicians get to keep most of the money that they make on their tours. I really don't want to get into the economics of why things work this way but believe me, it is better than the alternative.

There is much sense to the corporation bashing on these boards, actually. Just how much does the original inventor or artist get out of his invention/creation? Most rights end up becoming a merchandise like any other and belonging to a corporate giant. That's not the way it was intended, I believe. And not healthy, either.

Patents and copyrights should first of all protect the authorship and this is their primary role.

Nowadays, patents are often designed to make other people pay for using something they would create on their own just a while after you, such as in patents for algorithms in computer programming. The first guy to come up with an algorithm gets the crust and all others have to pay him, even if they would still come up with it without using his original work. That's silly.

Next, I don't like the idea of patent fees especially if taken to such an extreme as bills for using certain computer programs - i.e. the Bill bill, the eternal dream of M$. Especially if someone would have come up with the same idea at a later time on his own and would charge less or nothing at all.

The author does retain the copyright in nearly all cases. In the case of a work-for-hire contract, he has zero rights. Nothing. And these were the cases I was talking about. The copyright belongs entirely to the publishing house, as well as most of the money. The author does not get any royalties (unless he's really lucky and got a good contract), only a set amount of money.

In that case, then yes, you're correct. However, your argument still doesn't make any sense. I don't see why it doesn't. My point is that copyright should belong to the person who creates the work, not to the corporation that funds it (hence my corporation bashing). While it can be rather complicated to assess who should own the copyright to a movie, since so many people are involved in its making, I don't see why it should belong *exclusively* to the studio. The only explanation I can find is so that the studio can cash in most of the money. I'm not formulating an opinion here - it's simply how the movie (and book, and music) industry works.

Musicians get to keep most of the money that they make on their tours. If you consider 10-20% to be "most"...

it is better than the alternative Which alternative? That a writer should always own *some* of the rights to a book he wrote, even if it's work for hire? That a director/screenwriter/whoever should have some rights to a movie? That a musician shouldn't have to go to court every time he changes record companies, because by default the record company gets to keep all the rights? I don't see these as a bad alternative.

On a completely unrelated note, ever since the debate on attitudes in the Alleys, I'm starting to notice a certain amount of aggressivity I had not noticed before.