Posted on 05/17/2008 1:56:40 PM PDT by ShadowAce
No it won't. They're liberals. So, like the 400,000 who die a year from obesity (not) and the 50,000 killed by drunk drivers (not), they'll just keep on citing it because the sheeple aren't informed and don't know any different.
Yes, just like, when you buy a DVD or music CD (or LP or cassette of old..) you don’t OWN the work. What you have bought is a personal license to access and play it for your own use. Something like that... right?
A bad day for the RIAA is a good day for just about everyone else.
Yes, until the copyright expires and the right to use the work returns to the public at-large.
That's a great idea. Any software that has met its end of life cycle should be made open source and free to anyone who wants to use it. Why would microsoft care if someone installed and used Windows 200 illegally for example? They aren't losing anything, because Microsoft is no longer selling, or even supporting it. I suppose the only drawback for them would be that Windows 2000 is better than Vista and they would be afraid a lot of people would use it instead.
I have to disagree with that. If somebody creates something, they can do - - or not do - - whatever they please with their creation. Either way, a third party should not be able to steal and make money from somebody else's creation.
Under current law, copyright begins at the moment of creation.
Your idea undermines the fundamental nature of copyright. It essentially introduces the doctrine of adverse possession into copyright issues.
The concept of private property means you can use or not use what you own as you see fit.
Copyright is not property. It's a limited monopoly right. That right can be bought and sold like property and you can make money off that right like poperty, but it's still not property.
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.
By logos and slogans I take it you are talking about trademark and service mark. The authority for trademark doesn't come from the Copyright Clause, and there is no legal relation (although trademarks are registered by the same office that does patents). It is a trade law designed to eliminate confusion in the marketplace. This is why unlike copyrights trademarks have to be constantly renewed to show you're still using them, but they can last forever.
We still have a problem with that confusing term. The only reason to have a trademark is to protect your trade. If you don't need it to protect your trade, then there is no reason to have the trademark. Thus trademarks can be taken away through lack of use. It's not a government-initiated action, but if others start using it and you weren't using it or protecting it, you may lose it in court.
Copyrights don't cover ideas, concepts or products. They cover the specific creative expressions. And when the copyright expires it is in the public domain for all to use. It can't be re-copyrighted.
I do agree that copyright shouldn't expire simply because of disuse. But we need to go back to the beginning, shorter extendable terms (was 14 + 14) and a requirement to register. If you can't make a profit in 28 years, then you don't need the protection of copyright.
Perjury goes unpunished. Thank you, Clinton Legacy....
Requiring some kind of definite action at reasonable intervals to re-confirm a copyright would address the abandonware problem.
The term established during the early years of the Republic (14 years, renewable once) seemed to work fairly well.
You are 100% wrong. My point is, and has been throughout my comments on this thread, that what a person produces is their property. What a person produces is their property whether or not it is a physical object or something that emerged from their thought processes. Something that emerged from a person's thought processes can be music and works of art, but also inventions, architectural designs, and a whole host of things that are commonly (if not legally) thought of as intellectual property.
A person can choose to sell what he produces, or keep it for private purposes. A person can use or not use something he produces. A person can choose to apply for -- or not to apply for -- a patent, copyright and/or trademark.
Article 1 of the United States Constitution lays out the powers granted to Congress. Article 1, Section 8 reads:
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;
The fundamental purpose of those legal devices is to protect the creator/inventor's right to be the first -- not the only, but the first -- to exploit and benefit from what he created. Being able to exploit and benefit from one's own work and/or creativity before it passes into public domain is the incentive that fulfills the first clause of Section 8, which is that Congress must PROMOTE the progress of science and the useful arts.
Yes, the times are to be limited, but if we ever get to the point when Congress essentially says use it or lose it within an excessively short period, as suggested by some on this thread, then Section 8 of the Constitution will have been essentially revoked. Why? Because the incentive to create and produce will be non-existent.
The concepts embodied in Section 8 are an absolute bedrock principle of a free society. More than any other, they are what distinguish a free society from Marxism and its several derivatives (i.e., National Socialism, Fascism, euro-style "democratic" socialism, etc.). As such, I would rather have Congress "err" on the side of caution and allow longer rather than shorter copyright/patent/trademark terms.
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.