January 4, 2012 at 8:15 am
Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension.
January 4, 2012 at 8:27 am
Revenant (1/4/2012)
Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension.
Count me in for disagreement ;-). Is it the same for patents, I believe it's only 15 years for patents? I also believe it differs from country to country. (Just FYI for those who are unaware, Patents <> Copyrights)
January 4, 2012 at 9:08 am
Dev (1/4/2012)
Revenant (1/4/2012)
Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension.Count me in for disagreement ;-). Is it the same for patents, I believe it's only 15 years for patents? I also believe it differs from country to country. (Just FYI for those who are unaware, Patents <> Copyrights)
Yes, patents are 15 only. Re the 70 years I mentioned, check whether Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted. (Yes, it is, and not to a company.)
I forgot to mention that lkately there is also considerable pressure on fair use, among others, that even spoofing a work (such as say putting a moustache on Mona Lisa) is not fair use and if Mona Lisa were still copyrighted, Leonardo would be entitled to royalties. And museums are lobbying to get copyright on all works they have in their collections.
January 4, 2012 at 9:17 am
Revenant (1/4/2012)
Dev (1/4/2012)
Revenant (1/4/2012)
Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension.Count me in for disagreement ;-). Is it the same for patents, I believe it's only 15 years for patents? I also believe it differs from country to country. (Just FYI for those who are unaware, Patents <> Copyrights)
Yes, patents are 15 only. Re the 70 years I mentioned, check whether Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted. (Yes, it is, and not to a company.)
I forgot to mention that lkately there is also considerable pressure on fair use, among others, that even spoofing a work (such as say putting a moustache on Mona Lisa) is not fair use and if Mona Lisa were still copyrighted, Leonardo would be entitled to royalties. And museums are lobbying to get copyright on all works they have in their collections.
In that sense, heir of Leonardo will enjoy (born to be rich :-D).
January 4, 2012 at 9:20 am
Revenant (1/4/2012)
Dev (1/4/2012)
Revenant (1/4/2012)
Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension.Count me in for disagreement ;-). Is it the same for patents, I believe it's only 15 years for patents? I also believe it differs from country to country. (Just FYI for those who are unaware, Patents <> Copyrights)
Yes, patents are 15 only. Re the 70 years I mentioned, check whether Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted. (Yes, it is, and not to a company.)
I forgot to mention that lkately there is also considerable pressure on fair use, among others, that even spoofing a work (such as say putting a moustache on Mona Lisa) is not fair use and if Mona Lisa were still copyrighted, Leonardo would be entitled to royalties. And museums are lobbying to get copyright on all works they have in their collections.
What would it get to the museums? Wouldn't the $ go to the authors? I'm sure they could then negociate a share of the sales in the souvenir shop but that's about it.
January 4, 2012 at 9:26 am
I got (almost) an opportunity to work on Intellectual Property Rights Management project. We analyzed the requirements & put forward the proposal. But customer wasn’t ready to accept any solution except open source (or cheap) database and my company was absolutely against it. Finally we lost the bet.
It would have been fun (missing it already) :hehe:
January 4, 2012 at 11:25 am
Ninja's_RGR'us (1/4/2012)
Revenant (1/4/2012)
Dev (1/4/2012)
Revenant (1/4/2012)
Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take care about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension.Count me in for disagreement ;-). Is it the same for patents, I believe it's only 15 years for patents? I also believe it differs from country to country. (Just FYI for those who are unaware, Patents <> Copyrights)
Yes, patents are 15 only. Re the 70 years I mentioned, check whether Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted. (Yes, it is, and not to a company.)
I forgot to mention that lately there is also considerable pressure on fair use, among others, that even spoofing a work (such as say putting a moustache on Mona Lisa) is not fair use and if Mona Lisa were still copyrighted, Leonardo would be entitled to royalties. And museums are lobbying to get copyright on all works they have in their collections.
What would it get to the museums? Wouldn't the $ go to the authors? I'm sure they could then negociate a share of the sales in the souvenir shop but that's about it.
If the meuseums got their way - which I think they will not, for the time being -, if you wanted to reproduce say Mona Lisa in a book on history of art, you would have to pay royalty to the Louvre.
January 4, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Revenant (1/4/2012)
Ninja's_RGR'us (1/4/2012)
Revenant (1/4/2012)
Dev (1/4/2012)
Revenant (1/4/2012)
Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take care about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension.Count me in for disagreement ;-). Is it the same for patents, I believe it's only 15 years for patents? I also believe it differs from country to country. (Just FYI for those who are unaware, Patents <> Copyrights)
Yes, patents are 15 only. Re the 70 years I mentioned, check whether Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted. (Yes, it is, and not to a company.)
I forgot to mention that lately there is also considerable pressure on fair use, among others, that even spoofing a work (such as say putting a moustache on Mona Lisa) is not fair use and if Mona Lisa were still copyrighted, Leonardo would be entitled to royalties. And museums are lobbying to get copyright on all works they have in their collections.
What would it get to the museums? Wouldn't the $ go to the authors? I'm sure they could then negociate a share of the sales in the souvenir shop but that's about it.
If the meuseums got their way - which I think they will not, for the time being -, if you wanted to reproduce say Mona Lisa in a book on history of art, you would have to pay royalty to the Louvre.
Ok so they try the angle that I'm the owner of product X (almost like a hockey franchise). And nobody else got the rights to this because the poor bloke has been dead for more than X years, so I'll take all the money I can. Something like that??
I C why this will have very little chance of succeeding with a judge in his right mind!
January 4, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Revenant (1/4/2012)
Yes, from say American perspective. However, foreign countries are not obliged to follow American law with its 70 years copyright extensible by another 70. Only EU harmonizes its copyright laws with NAFTA (and vice versa). When established first time, copyright was for 15 years after author's death, and was meant to support children until they could take about themselves. Then it was extended to 50 years, and now up to 140. Not everyone agrees with this last extension.
I'm not talking about 70 years. I'm talking about infringements literally within minutes. Write a book, sometime, ol' friend. Then watch it go up on free sites and you get nothing for it like that which has happened to so very many authors. Or write an article on a copyrighted web site (like SSC) and watch it be on some parasitic web site just minutes after it goes up on the original. Sites that refuse to comply with even just the courtesy of not stealing need to be shutdown and, if they can't be, then they need the punishment of not having the American market, IMHO.
Maybe SOPA isn't the way to go but I'm damned happy that people are starting to to think and fight for the rights of intellectual property owners. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 4, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Anyone against SOPA is either making money by stealing others intellectual property or they are not familiar with what the proposed legislation actually say or both.
I would like to see the sheep in the reddit crowd invest tons of time and money into intellectual property and then be able to do absolutely nothing as their material gets sold by Russians on the Internet with impunity.
Google is happy that people are so up in arms about SOPA. They make tons of money off of illegal enterprises.
January 4, 2012 at 8:06 pm
I am all for copyright, because without it I would have very little chance of making my living writing software. (Yes, I am a dev.)
And as a guy who depends on copyright protection, I have sat through over a dozen briefings on software copyright, copyright in general, etc. I hope it shows in my previous postings on this thread.
I am also all for IP. The problem, IMO, is that IP means different things to different people. To lawyers it means Intellectual Property. It is fine, you can make lots of money out of that, most of that legally and some of that even ethically.
To me IP means Innovative Products. I am all for the guy who brings a truly innovative product to the market and makes good living out of that. More power to him. (Much less often to her.) I am trying to be the one.
Please note one difference between the dot com bubble and today: today funding does not go to the companies that claim that they have the right technical vision but to the companies that can prove that they have top-notch lawyers who are able to buy or extort IP rights (including patents) to make the startup the king of the hill, impervious to any legal attack. These days, the first tranche of funding, if you can get it, is typically $10M+ and the next tranche is not dependent on company's R&D milestones but on success in buying patents. That's why lately you don't hear much about companies that got substantial funding.
I have nothing against the law coming down as a ton of bricks on a company that violates someone's copyright. That violated company could be mine.
I do, however, have doubts about a law that, as I wrote in one of my earlier posts, allows the government to shut down ANYBODY'S Web site on someone's say-so, even if that someone is a competitor or a lawyer for a competitor; practically anyone. IMO the biggest error would be to assume that the government will never misuse this law.
There is a reason why in Magna Carta it was established, almost 800 years ago, that is was socially beneficial to give the accused the right to meet his accuser, not to be deprived of his (then only 'his') property without a judgment of a jury of his peers, etc.
Even when this was written in Magna Carta, it was already a centuries old Nordic Common Law.
It seems to me this is quite important if your livelihood depends on that Web site, that an anonymous goverment official cannot just shut it down. And that the government cannot seize your domain, without any recompense, leaving the proof of innocence to you. (At your expense, of course.)
If you guys want to throw your rights out of the window, go ahead. It is your world and you will live in it for most of your lives.
If you think I am making this up, check the briefs at www.eff.org.
January 6, 2012 at 11:49 pm
Revenant (1/4/2012)
I do, however, have doubts about a law that, as I wrote in one of my earlier posts, allows the government to shut down ANYBODY'S Web site on someone's say-so, even if that someone is a competitor or a lawyer for a competitor; practically anyone. IMO the biggest error would be to assume that the government will never misuse this law.
You understand that the government has to go in front of a judge to get permission and the guiding discretion is whether or not the major purpose of the site is illegal activity? The argument against SOPA is sort of like saying the government should not be able to seize property involved in narcotics distribution ... because we don't want the government to be able to take our stuff, right?
As right wing as I am, I do understand that the government has a purpose. Right now the owners of intellectual property and not protected on the web. SOPA is a solution to that problem primarily by shutting down these crooks' ability to receive payment.
Don't believe the scare tactics that companies like Google put forth because they have a lot to gain from piracy. Read the proposed legislation yourself.
January 7, 2012 at 12:28 am
bteraberry (1/6/2012)
... The argument against SOPA is sort of like saying the government should not be able to seize property involved in narcotics distribution ... because we don't want the government to be able to take our stuff, right?...
I think you provided the perfect argument against SOPA by comparing it to civil forfeiture.
Seizure of property that is alleged to have been used in the drug trade is one of the most outrageous abuses of property rights today. No evidence needed, no drug charges need to be made, no probably cause, no warrant needed; just take property based on the arbitrary decision of a cop. Punishment with no trial, no judge, no due process, or even any pretense of fairness.
Police abuse of this is so common that it is more like robbery than police work, especially because police departments are often allowed to keep the money. Police chief needs a new coffee maker or wants to buy a new car? No problem, just stop some stranger driving through town and seize his cash.
United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Mass. (The Motel Caswell)
Federal & Local Law Enforcement Agencies Try to Take Family Motel from Innocent Owners
https://www.ij.org/privateproperty/4058
State of Texas v. One 2004 Chevrolet Silverado
Ending “Policing for Profit” in Texas
https://www.ij.org/privateproperty/3307
Shining the Light on Georgia's Law Enforcement Slush Funds
https://www.ij.org/privateproperty/3743
IJ's Scott Bullock discusses civil forfeiture abuse with John Stossel
http://www.youtube.com/user/InstituteForJustice#p/u/22/yLSz_p7Q1lg
January 7, 2012 at 7:46 am
Michael Valentine Jones (1/7/2012)
Police abuse of this is so common that it is more like robbery than police work, especially because police departments are often allowed to keep the money.
Although I certainly agree that there will always be abuses by people in positions of authority, I'd really like to see the statistics for how "common" that really is and how often non-drug activity is actually involved. Although such incidents are certainly sensationalized by the media, I believe you're going to find that it's actually a whole lot less common than folks think.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 8, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Jeff Moden (1/7/2012)
Michael Valentine Jones (1/7/2012)
Police abuse of this is so common that it is more like robbery than police work, especially because police departments are often allowed to keep the money.Although I certainly agree that there will always be abuses by people in positions of authority, I'd really like to see the statistics for how "common" that really is and how often non-drug activity is actually involved. Although such incidents are certainly sensationalized by the media, I believe you're going to find that it's actually a whole lot less common than folks think.
I think if you really look into it, you will see it is a whole lot more common than you think. Take a look at some of the links I posted. There are actually many worse cases than these.
The real problem is that because police departments are allowed to keep the money, they have a huge financial incentive to do this. Even when the state law is much more restrictive, they can get around it by inviting the federal government to make the seizure, and then the feds kick up to 80% of the money back to local police.
Plenty more info here:
http://www.fear.org/FEARintro.html
Police in this town of 1,046 people siezed more than $3,000,000 in property in 3 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Police_seizures_scandal
"Police seizures scandal
Tenaha has the dubious distinction of allegedly utilizing a state forfeiture regulation to seize property from unsuspecting motorists to raise revenue for the local police. A Houston Chronicle article detailed the allegations that led Texas State Senator John Whitmire to declare, "The idea that people lose their property but are never charged [with a criminal offense] and never get it back, that's theft as far as I'm concerned." Law enforcement authorities in Tenaha seized property from at least 150 motorists between 2006 and 2008, totaling more than $3 million USD.[3] In most of the cases where the seizures were improper, the victims were African-American or Latino.[3][6]
The allegations are that the town has used its proceeds to build a new police station, reward high revenue generating officers personally,[3] and buy a second police car.[7]
Linda Dorman, an Akron, Ohio, great-grandmother had $4,000 in cash taken from her by local authorities when she was stopped while driving through town after visiting Houston in April 2007. Court records make no mention that anything illegal was found in her van. She's still hoping for the return of what she calls her life savings.[8] In another instance, a man was taken to the local prison and directed to surrender thousands of dollars in cash and jewelry, then released without charges.
The town's District Attorney, Lynda Russell, has been accused of corruption for allegedly making commission payments to one of the arresting officers and local clubs, when Texas law explicitly states that forfeited money can only be used "for official purposes".[9]
In July 2008, 10 plaintiffs filed suit in federal court against Tenaha and Shelby county officials, alleging that police officers had stopped them without cause and unjustly seized their property. The plaintiffs allege that officers threatened them with criminal prosecution if they did not cooperate. Officials named in the suit included Tenaha mayor George Bowers, deputy city marshal Barry Washington and Shelby County district attorney Lynda Kay Russell.[10]
In March 2009, the plaintiff's attorney Timothy Garrigan announced that he would seek class-action status for the lawsuit, citing a large number of similar reports from other alleged victims..."
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 55 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply