|
Copyright - What is it good for?
I, Michael (Shmoo) Steely, (your humble die-hard Boycott-RIAA admin) am of the opinion that "copyright" DOES have a legitimate place in the laws of our society. Despite the fact that an "idea" (in and of itself) should not and (rationally speaking) can not quite be considered the same as a tangible object when thinking in terms of "ownership" and "property" ..."copyright" does still have a useful position amongst our laws/mores. IF DONE RIGHT!
I believe the USA's founding fathers were VERY close to IDEAL when in the Constitution they said that the intent and purpose of even having the concept of "copyright" is:
"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."
--------
THINK about that line from the Constitution for a moment. (Think about it OFTEN and a LOT! I know I do!)
--------
Now, ask yourself. WHO benefits from the current/modern applied concept of "copyright"? Do the artists and creators? Maybe somewhat ...IF they are "big name" famous.
Does the PUBLIC benefit from the government granted monopoly? (The People SHOULD, according to how I read that all important line ...but alas, I fear that the Public does NOT get all that much benefit.)
...however, Mega-rich media corporations certainly DO benefit from "Today's Version" of "copyright" because THEY have the lawyers. THEY have they lobby groups who have influence on the hill. THEY control what our society sees and hears on the whole.
--------------
Folks, just remember that the PURPOSE and INTENT of "copyright" was to give the actual originating author of a creative work a (LIMITED in length of TIME) monopoly (meaning he/she "owns/controls" it) over their work...
Uh... BTW, "work" is a VERB, not a NOUN (Think about THAT for a moment!)
---------------
I keep fighting for a return of FAIR and JUST interpretations/applications of "copyright" because I believe that an author/originator/creator should retain his or her "credit/kudos" as the creator or inventor of a "work" of art or science. (Yes! We, as a society should strive to give credit where credit is due throughout eternity for an innovation that benefits us all!)
But, ABUSE of the TRUE concept of copyright is unfortunately where we find ourselves at nowadays.
Intellectual works and ideas ARE what advance us as enlightened humans.
WHY then do we allow the greedy and powerful (mega media corporations) usurp our laws pertaining to the copyright agreement?
User Comments
 independentmusician
|
Date: February 13, 2008 @ 4:23 AM
English/American language sucks/stinks because there are STILL not enough accurate enough/specific enough words to keep me from having to over-use
"/"
------------
lol.
:) |
independentmusician
|
Date: February 13, 2008 @ 4:26 AM
"A poor workman blames his tools"
---
Yup. (But, this is a FREE COUNTRY damnit! Even "poor workmen" get to have a SAY!!) |
Twarrior
|
Date: February 13, 2008 @ 2:45 PM
Copyright, in theory, protects the copyright holder. Back in the old days, fair use wasn't an issue because it was common sense. Copyright was meant to make sure that no one sells your music without you getting your fair share. That any derivative works that are *sold* allow the copyright holder to have a small piece of that pie. It also was a means of preventing plagiarism so that there was legal proof that yes -- you did create that song -- not this other guy who's claiming to have done so.
Copyright is supposed to be like installing an ADT Security System in your home. So, what has copyright become?
Copyright has become like installing an ADT Security System, 6 guard dogs, a legion of infantry, an array of anti-tank and anti-aircraft batteries, several point defense particle weapons topped off with a nuclear warhead -- just to be on the safe side.
It has gone from protecting your copyright to assaulting your neighbors. From protection to invasion. From diplomacy to conquest.
It's the road to hell paved with yet another good intension. The KKK go from a protective multi-racial militant group to a white supremacist menace. The noble Ottimen Empire goes from a multi-millennium old super power to factions of religious fundamentalists, terrorists, dictators and oil entrepreneurs. The USA goes from the land of the free to the land of the lawsuit. Even Jesus Christ himself has been betrayed by a world that would take his message of peace, love and common sense, manipulate and distort it, into a power base system of control that uses propaganda, fear, intolerance, prejudice and hate towards the goal of domination and making money.
So, do we need to abolish copyright? No. But it is in serious need of reform. I don't think increasing or decreasing the length of a copyright is the issue. I think that distracts us from the issue. I think the issue is about HOW copyright is enforced. So that in protecting the copyright holder you are not simultaneously allowing that copyright holder to abolish fair use and infringe on peoples inalienable rights.
I think that someone should be able to take a main stream song -- remix the hell out of it -- and be able to give it away, or sell it (owing royalties to the original copyright holder).
The current copyright law is anti-creativity. Anti-self expression. Anti-advancement. Anti-progress.
-Dave |
CodeWarrior
|
Date: February 13, 2008 @ 2:47 PM
It continues to be amazing to me that we still have the words of Plato, the drawings of DaVinci, the works of Flavius Josephus, and they are preserved, and still under the authorship of the original authors, and all this without copyright.
I mean, you don't have Joe Shmoo putting out Vitruvian Man and claiming, ala the Jon Lovitz character on Sat Nite Live, the pathological liar, "Yeah, I drew...er, I invented the Vitruvian Man..yeah, that's the ticket, it was all my idea." |
CodeWarrior
|
Date: February 13, 2008 @ 2:56 PM
Now, take the following...
"I love orange cars with a purple passion." I just wrote that, it came off the top of my head, and using the point of creation copyright model, I have the copyright to that unique compilation of words and thought.
But, you think that is going to keep Mike or George the Z or Tom Barger from writing those words if they read mine and think it is cool.
Heeeeeelllllllll NO. And, let's say I get the registration of Copyright on that sentence, and see some idiot writing a column in Podunk Arkansas that evokes, prints, and thus infringes on MY copyright. Think I am going to lawyer up and go sue his ass in Arkansas? Not gonna happen.
Let's not get highminded and artsy fartsy, it's all about the money and protecting the money, not some intellectual property crap.
Now, if I got paid one million bucks every time some goober printed my cool little line, think I might sue their ass then? Maybe...damn near maybe if not a done deal.
If a song was copyrighted, sucked the big one and no one wanted to hear it...do you think the RIAA and copyright owner would be as quick to sue as a song that was number two with a bullet? Some might say yes because of the "principle", but riddle me this Batman, if I had cars for sale...one I was selling for 100 grand, and one on the lot I was ready to pay someone to haul off...which one would I be apt to call the cops about it it got stolen.
Copyright came about as an unholy alliance between the Crown (government) and the Stationers Guild (big business) who wanted sole control and the imprimatur to print certain books.
It's still and unholy alliance between big business and the government toadies who pass the laws.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The king is dead, Long live the King.
~Code |
independentmusician
|
Date: February 13, 2008 @ 4:13 PM
I'm almost past the point where I think there is any hope in simply calling for "copyright reform"
I'm honestly considering REVOLUTION.
But I will wait and see just a LITTLE longer.
Obama MIGHT get elected. He's got Lawrence Lessig on his advisory team (plus John Perry Barlow too ...at least that's a rumor that I heard.)
So, MAYBE there's hope.
----------
But, if our country doesn't WAKE UP to the abuse of copyright (and so many other things) very soon, I'm gonna start reminding folks of the REAL reason why we have the 2nd amendment.
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: February 13, 2008 @ 6:15 PM
"I love orange cars with a purple passion."
I had a deep purple 1972 Barracuda, but that's as close as I can come to stealing that one.
Here's what I used to think copyright was for:
Plagiarism -- So you couldn't do a cover song and claim you wrote it. Or sell a "Rembrandt" that you painted in the basement.
Protection -- As I recall, the origin of copyright has something to do with Queen Anne trying to protect writers from getting screwed too brutally by the publishers.
The sound recording copyright came along to protect the record companies against people making counterfeit copies of their product for profit.
These are all valid reasons for retaining copyright.
Except for the DMCA, the problem isn't the law itself. The problem is the people who are reading things into it which the law does not even address, thus twisting the judicial system in order to extort money from the general public. |
Twarrior
|
Date: February 13, 2008 @ 6:25 PM
"But, if our country doesn't WAKE UP to the abuse of copyright (and so many other things) very soon, I'm gonna start reminding folks of the REAL reason why we have the 2nd amendment."
Why wait? The people have all the power -- the problem is -- if you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
You and I are individuals. Hypothetically if you and I got into a fist fight -- I might win, you might win. But -- if you or I went up against everyone in the WWE at the same time, we'd get creamed.
Power in numbers. You might be able to win against someone bigger than you if you get i a well placed blow to the head with a blunt enough object -- but when it's THE WORLD against the RIAA, the world will win by pure numbers. Getting THE WORD OUT is the only way that can happen. People need to realize it. A lot have. Hundreds of millions have. We've got tons more indies on the net -- the demoscene is almost as popular as it was back in the dialup bbsing days and even main stream artists are starting to drop the RIAA like a bad habit. Why? Because you might not be heard over a loud crowded room -- but that room will surely be heard over you.
We the artists and listeners, are that room. And we're quite loud.
When the RIAA has no artists left, we win. It's that simple. And it's happening. Sure, it won't happen over night. It would be silly to expect it to.
But the more people who hear and understand the word, the faster this process becomes.
I think if Jesus were around today (in more than just "spirit" he'd say to the RIAA:
"You've got this huge ass plank in your eye so stop trying to pull the specks out of the eyes of your customers"
-Dave |
Twarrior
|
Date: February 13, 2008 @ 6:31 PM
I think Jesus would also say....
"The sued shall inherit the music"
"Let the children come to me, for it is such as these that can join me in a class action lawsuit against the RIAA."
"The RIAA can no more enter the kingdom of heaven than Lars Ulrich can removeth the pole from his ass"
"My father in heaven knows your needs even before you ask, so this is how you should pray...
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kindgom Come, thy will be done -- so thankfully those RIAA fuckers won't be around much longer. Give us this day our daily music, and forgive the RIAA their stupidity. As we should also forgive it because we're gonna have their asses whooped anyways. Lead us not into temptation, because suing your fans is EVIL. For thine is the kingdom, and the music, and the concerts -- forever and ever -- ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING!"
:-)
-Dave |
CopyrightLawSucks
|
Date: February 13, 2008 @ 6:41 PM
"I don't think increasing or decreasing the length of a copyright is the issue. I think that distracts us from the issue. I think the issue is about HOW copyright is enforced. "
I couldn't disagree more with the first sentence. Yes the length of copyright IS by far an issue. It is one of the biggest issues and problems with the current copyright law. It is NOT a distraction. Nothing written in my lifetime will reach the public domain. Nothing written in anyone's lifetime will reach the public domain if RIAA lobbyists and the Supreme Dorks (I mean Court, of course) has anything to do with it. When people do not see limits of copyright within their own lives, it is as if there were no limits at all. Nor can they create deriviative works from the public domain.
That being said, I AGREE with your comments about Copyright enforcement. The DMCA is proof enough that something needs to be done to prevent fradulent enforcements of copyrights.
"So that in protecting the copyright holder you are not simultaneously allowing that copyright holder to abolish fair use and infringe on peoples inalienable rights. " I couldn't say it better. Fair use needs more enforcement today, not copyrights.
Finally, giving the copyrights BACK to the creators and away from corporations is a MUST. Corporations kill creativity. Just look at today's RIAA music. |
medwardl
|
Date: February 13, 2008 @ 7:13 PM
copyright is good in theory but once big business got their hands on it, it warped and twisted and perverted to what we have today what needs to happen is to roll back or restart from scratch copyright laws |
Twarrior
|
Date: February 14, 2008 @ 2:42 AM
Seeing as I have absolutely no friggen CLUE when my Legal Music Search article is going to get front paged, no reason to delay the punchline while waiting for the details:
http://legalmusicsearch.com
Fair Use Paradise. Enjoy!
-Dave |
Twarrior
|
Date: February 14, 2008 @ 2:44 AM
"Yes the length of copyright IS by far an issue."
As I said, it wouldn't be if it was enforced properly. Let me put it another way ... if it was enforced for a mere 5 seconds -- then litterallty -- a nuclear bomb could go off in less time.
So I don't really care how long or short of a time complete bullshit is thrown at people. It's still being thrown. Still has nasty repercussions and it's still wrong.
-Dave |
CodeWarrior
|
Date: February 14, 2008 @ 11:49 AM
So...let's throw down with some reality here...Copyright, basically, is self explanatory, it is the "right to copy", and this allegedly comes about because one somehow "owns" said copyrighted work.
But, practically, people copy copyrighted things every day, several times a day and not a damn thing was done.
I had some asshole shysters in a town once, copy and print out my entire website, even though there was a popup that not only said that they specifically could not violate my copyright, but gave the traditional copyright info (they also, by the popup that loaded on top of the page, were strictly advised they were not invitees to the page and could not legally enter).
So, during a deposition, said shyters produced these specific violations by way of reproducing my website on paper. I lodged a formal complaint with the State Bar, and in defiance of all that is holy, they found the assholes did nothing wrong, despite voluminous documentation from me, giving my citations of authority under TIte 17 of the US CODE). I appealed the decision, and STILL nothing was done.
Violating copyrigtht is part and parcel of the American way of business at this point, and we need to address THAT issue.
~Code |
CodeWarrior
|
Date: February 14, 2008 @ 11:56 AM
What I meant was this...people have email set up to automatically copy the text em toto of a sender's mail without authorization...copyright violation,
they make Xerox paper copies of copyrighted documents daily without the copyright owner's permission and distribute them...they copy digital files, not created by them, and without express prior authorization, another violation...in short, your average computer literate office worker is probably spending most of their day copying work that is copyrighted at the point of creation, without getting the green light to do so....
American business is a giant copyright infringement machine, plain and simple.
So, how dare these RIAA , MPAA, BSA assholes get on their high horse and SUE, when undoubtedly, they are copying materials that were created by other folks without getting specific prior approval to do so.
PHUCK COPYRIGHT! |
CodeWarrior
|
Date: February 14, 2008 @ 11:59 AM
The "point of creation" copyright model and standard makes most things created de novo (not counting babies) a "copyrighted work. Of course, you need to "register your copyright" in order to sue under the DMCA, but Title 17 specifically says that one need not register for one to have protection of copyrighted material. |
CodeWarrior
|
Date: February 14, 2008 @ 12:03 PM
From Title 17
"A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work." |
CodeWarrior
|
Date: February 14, 2008 @ 12:05 PM
" http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc
"HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration.""
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: February 14, 2008 @ 12:20 PM
I did need to make ONE clarification (your mileage my vary, contents may have settled during shipping, these results are not typical) about the words "Phuck Copyright". I did not in any way mean to say that was MY feeling about it, but rather, that seems to be the attitude of corporate America.
For example, let's say you work in a big corporation and your boss gives you a ten page document, bearing a copyright notice, and the copyright owner is not anyone you know, not someone your boss knows, and is in fact, not affiliated at all with your company. He tells you to go make him 5 copies of the document.
You stop and tell you can't because you must contact the copyright holder and first get permission in writing to make these copies.
What do you think would be your career at that company? It would be what we used to call a "career limiting move".
~Code |
CodeWarrior
|
Date: February 14, 2008 @ 12:27 PM
error in foregoing "my" should be may.
As a final note, imagine the above scenario (request for permission) multipled by hundreds of times or thosands of times a day that copyright files, pages, etc. are copied in a corporate environment without the permission of the copyright holder.
"Been there, done that" so I know what I am talking about.
~Code |
CopyrightLawSucks
|
Date: February 14, 2008 @ 4:44 PM
"No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration.""
In my opinion, this is another place where copyright law has run amuck. How is anyone supposed to prove who owns what copyrights without registration? Eliminating the registration requirement is a HUGE mistake in current copyright law. Sure, keeping track of copyrights in the copyright office would be burdensome, but is it any less so than the burden that could be put on our court system over who owns what copyright?
It seems to me that the government was just trying to save a buck. Not unlike what corporations do on a daily basis. Who cares if a little guy's copyright gets lost in the shuffle. In my opinion, this move was designed to allow corporations to steal copyrights. Who can afford an attorney to defend your rights these days? Only corporations. |
 leflaw
|
Date: February 15, 2008 @ 11:27 AM
Right. |
 Hatchet666gitmo
|
Date: March 9, 2008 @ 8:31 AM
Copyright has no place on the internet, in the material realm?
Hm, maybe if it's really original but when it comes to the internet, it's just 1's and 0's read by the computer to look like real things but here is the good part...
It'isnt real, it is still a bunch of 1's and 0's, not something one can say one owns.
"Hey I own that picture!"
"Really? You own the one's and zero's the computer is reading in to that pic?"
No, fight the Corporate-fascists that try to controll every aspect of our lives.
Think politicians decide anything?
Well, if you do, stop doing it because they dont.
Elections is nothing but a show to sell papers, and to boost tv-ratings such.
Think about it.
After an election, has anything really changed, I mean really changed.
No, maybe some small inconsequentual things change, but all the major politicians have the same politics where it matters.
The Conglomerates run things in reality. |
drsmrao
|
Date: May 1, 2008 @ 9:15 PM
Mr. Mike (Shmoo) BRAVO in the case of the huge corporations mking millions out of the work of and ideas of the little people.
But as for me I've written a book and have the Copyright and sure want to keep it.
I have to get paid for 2 1/2 years of hard work
|
|
connect 
community 
development 
help 
account info
