Posted on 05/17/2008 1:56:40 PM PDT by ShadowAce
Guess we don’t need to torture the RIAAs lawyers now. They’re cutting their own throats! (Bwahahahahaha)
A reasonable change to copyright law would be to require that copyright holders must retail market their copyrighted product on an annual basis to a certain dollar amount, or else they lose their government protection.
If a copyrighted work, like Mickey Mouse, is retailed for a large amount of money every year, Disney should be able to retain that copyright as long as it makes money. But at the same time, Disney could not *refuse* to market other works, such as Song of the South, because they don’t want to. If they refuse to market the product, they deserve no copyright protection.
This would make available for sale vast libraries of copyrighted works that are not now legally available, though they have been in the past. Either the copyright holder sells them, or stands back and lets someone else sell them.
Unfortunately, while most people would *prefer* that the copyright revert to the creator of the work, in the vast majority of cases, this cannot be, as the creator of the work has sold their rights, or ceded them by contract, to the existing copyright holder.
The RIAA, especially, has for years included a contract clause for artists that they are employees, who have no rights at all for their own works, but this was not enforced. However, a few years ago, they got the US congress to pass a bill saying that the clause was enforceable. This means that the RIAA holds the copyright of the creator of the art, not the artists themselves.
Overall, the effect of this change would not affect first run copyrights, the majority of profit for corporations; it would only affect older works.
The public would see a vast increase in the amount of public domain content. Artists not seen for decades would return to the limelight, newly repackaged. And if the library holders didn’t want to market them, it wouldn’t matter, because somebody probably would.
If the artist wants to give their work away fine, but no one can make a reasonable, just argument for obtaining a illegal copy of a copyrighted media product. The RIAA is trying to protect it's investments with these stupid lawsuits, and although I think they are doing it in a very marketable destructive way, I hope it will lead them to discover a more viable way to deliver it's product material.
I think that orphaned software be made public domain too. Any company that refuses to support the product they sold looses the rights to that work.
Was he guilty of breaking the "copyright law" according to the extortionist thugs at the RIAA? Probably. But F the RIAA if they think that these lawsuits are legitimate in their own right. What if a kid records Metallica off of the radio station with his cassette player?
The RIAA is an evil organization that destroys the lives of college students and kids who SUBSCRIBE to music sites. See their stories here, along with a video debate of the scumbags who run these types of organizations:
http://media.www.thegeorgetownindependent.com/media/storage/paper136/news/2007/03/28/Commentary/Riaa-Evil-2808823.shtml
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/09/the_riaa_sees_the_face/
http://www.herroflomjapan.com/2006/04/06/riaa-to-students-drop-out-of-college-to-pay-settlement/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhiYYOQcO-A&feature=related
Does this mean that anyone who downloads SP material can be sued by RIAA?
The problem with your idea is that many items protected by copyright have very limited value or the value may not be apparent for years.
A famous example is the photo of Clinton and Lewinsky. The photographer who took that photo had it in his back catalogue of images, but it was without value until the scandal broke.
As a photographer, I can tell you that this is not uncommon. I have sold images of student athletes who made it in the pros. In one case, I had photos of a political activist who became very high profile and a major magazine came calling.
The real issue is that music, movies, books and photos have different markets. A musician sells millions of copies of a few songs and with few exceptions, most of their money is made in the first few weeks of release.
A photographer sells a few copies of many photos. Often the photos only have value in certain contexts or to certain people.
The other thing that concerns me as a photographer is the misuse of my work. I want to be able to stop people from using the work for commercial purposes without consent — which is critical in situations where the photos were shot for editorial purposes and there are no releases.
I don't think that idea is reasonable at all. The concept of private property means you can use or not use what you own as you see fit. Furthermore, copyright law exists to protect all manner of intellectual property, much of which is not created to be retailed. Corporate logos and sales slogans are two cases in point. The purpose of copyright law is not to force owners to sell what they own.
In a sense, it is this way already. Every few years, Disney donates to various Congressional campaigns, and the limit on copyrights after the author’s death gets extended another few years....but then a lot of stuff that should revert to public domain gets protected along with Mickey Mouse.
I like the idea though. Maybe give a few years free for newly created works, then the copyright owner would have to pay an annual fee to keep the copyright.
Now once a copyright is expired it ought not be allowed to be renewed. “It’s A Wonderful Life” used to be public domain. It would never have become a popular movie if TV stations hadn’t been allowed to show it for free. Then NBC or somebody donated to somebody’s campaign (Clinton’s for sure, probably many others) and poof! It was proprietary once again.
Wolfstar - Your comment is wrong on 2 counts.
1. You cannot equate “intellectual property” to private property. One has scarcity and the other does not.
2. Corporate logos and sales slogans are protected by trademarks, not copyrights.
Intellectual property is private property. Scarcity, or lack thereof, has nothing whatsoever to do with what is or is not private property. For example, when someone writes a song, it is scarce until it is recorded, distributed, and becomes a hit. The song is then widely available, but the songwriter retains ownership of the intellectual property until (and unless) he sells those rights.
2. Corporate logos and sales slogans are protected by trademarks, not copyrights.
The point I was making remains 100% correct. However, I'll rephrase it in terms you will understand. Intellectual property that is either copyrighted or trademarked is private property. The owners of said private property should not be forced by the government to sell it at any time, for any purpose. Government may let copyright and trademark protection expire, but such action should not be due to non-use of the property by the rightful owner.
Say you create something. The item is entirely the product of your own imagination and/or toil. To protect yourself, you copyright it. Then, for reasons outside your control (lack of funds, illness, whatever), you can't market it for several years, although you intend to in the future. Someone waits out the short copyright period you advocate and, as soon as the copyright expires, he steals your idea/concept/product, slaps a new copyright on it, and successfully markets it. Where's the justice in that?
Nope, I disagree with you and others who are advocating a weakening of our copyright protections. Private property is one of the few bedrock principles that distinguish Western democracies from Marxist states.
A lot of people run around these days crowing that they are "real" conservatives. They hold extremely harsh views of anyone whom they see as deviating from their vision of what "real" conservatism means. Yet when it comes to conserving true bedrock principles such as private property, they are just as eager as the Left is to participate in the destruction of our very foundations.
But that was taken into account. A photographer who has not sold his work does not need a copyright until he sells his work. It remains proprietary precisely because it has not be released.
In the case of your example, if his Clinton-Lewinsky photo was just sitting idle, no need for a copyright. But if he had already introduced it to the market, but then it had sat idle for over a year, it would become public domain unless he re-introduced it for sale. It would be his choice when copyright began and ended. He would just not show his pictures in a reproduceable medium if he thought they had value. Nothing would stop him from exhibiting them, however.
Your suggestion is most unreasonable due to the risk it introduces in creating and exploiting copyrighted works. What if a copyrighted work only sporadically generates income? What if it takes four years to finally realize income? Such works would immediately revert into the public domain for failing to meet "standards."
Furthermore, copyright holders with more funds available to expend into marketing a particular product would gain an advantage over individuals and small businesses. It's easier to market a copyrighted work when you have millions in the bank and access to bank credit lines and securities markets.
The most reasonable system is that which was originally implemented. Give authors the exclusive and implied rights to exploit their works for a period of not more than fifteen to twenty years in the case of printed works (books) and five to seven years in the case of non-printed works (software, music, movies, and so forth). Obviously, the time limits are adjustable. Protection should be automatic, without registration, though registration makes it easier to prove the copyright ownership in a court of law. And, only specific ideas of expressions should be copyright eligible, not general ideas. Trademarks should receive indefinite legal protection or until the original holder ceases to exist.
No, but copyright is a government monopoly license. It shouldn’t be given away to an individual just because of the niceness of their smile. Just as the government shouldn’t be expected to provide free locks and a policeman just to guard your house.
The legitimacy of the RIAA's lawsuits is questionable, but businesses that run on a model of "sue your customer to death" do not last very long.
Copyright should be automatic for any eligible work from the moment of creation. However, it's still up to the holder to defend himself in cases of infringement. And, per your last remark, copyright infringement ought to remain a civil matter and not a criminal matter as the latter would imply that the public would essentially be subsidizing the cost of providing free locks and police guards to copyright holders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.