| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Robert Henderson
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: Time to look again at copyright |
 |
|
Note: The world needs to look again at copyright for three reasons.
First, is it reasonable for the state to give a privilege to one class
of people, namely, those who create media, which allows members of that
class to gain financial benefit for vast periods of time - 70 years at
least in most of the developed world? Someone who invents something will
not get patent protection for anything like that period of time if they
can get it at all because of the cost. More broadly, most things which
are produced for sale, whether goods or services, enjoy no protection at
all.
There is no reason to believe the existence of copyright would suppress
the flow of writing for publication because before there was a powerful
law of copyright in Britain people were just as anxious to write for
publication and even today international copyright protection is very
patchy and people still write. There is also the fact that vast numbers
of people write for nothing for publication on the Internet or for small
scale publications. Why should those who currently gain from copyright
not simply get, as authors once did, a set fee for their work and/or a
percentage of sales made by their publisher? Why should they be put in
a privileged position as they are now?
The second reason is practicality. Where people can copy they will and
digital technology makes it absurdly easy. The law in Britain tacitly
recognises this because it allows reasonable copying for personal use.
This means that it is legal to copy a music track from a CD or record it
from a TV or radio broadcast. (There is no consistency in the law
because it is not legal to download for free the same music from a
"free" website. )
Next, consider the case of material which is available on websites
which can be entered for free. Could, for example, our national
newspapers make any reasonable claim for breach of copyright for
material they make freely available for copying - they could make the
material incapable of being copied - where someone downloads the
material and circulates it without making a charge for it?
Finally, those who get hot under the collar about copyright breaches
should sit down and have a hard, long think about what is actually
happening rather than what they perceive as pure loss. There is a good
argument for viewing most copyright breaches, ie, those made without
commercial intent, as free advertising of the person or organisation
which owns the copyright. People are likely to read or view material
which has been removed from its original source and then be prompted by
that experience to visit the original source for more of the same. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mel Rowing
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: Re: Time to look again at copyright |
|
|
On Jul 13, 7:16 am, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Note: The world needs to look again at copyright for three reasons.
First, is it reasonable for the state to give a privilege to one class
of people, namely, those who create media, which allows members of that
class to gain financial benefit for vast periods of time - 70 years at
least in most of the developed world? Someone who invents something will
not get patent protection for anything like that period of time if they
can get it at all because of the cost. More broadly, most things which
are produced for sale, whether goods or services, enjoy no protection at
all.
|
Intellectual property!
You wouldn't allow anyone who came along to help himself to the use of
your house or car or even to sit in your garden. How is it then that
the abstract non-tangible creation of someone's mind should not enjoy
at least the same property protection as you physical possessions?
There is but one reason that another would want to publish the output
of someone else's talents and that is for profit. Any profit made from
any piece of work regardless of its nature should surely go, at least
in part, to the creator of that work.
You are, as no doubt you appreciate, in a complicated area. It s true
that a written or performed work enjoys (50 years?) protection (based
on recent prouncements of Sir Cliff Richard) A mechanical device or
design apparently enjoys a mere 20 years protection. A painting
apparently enjoys perpetual protection which is vested in its legal
owner unless copyright and possession have been legally seperated.
I've heard of a modern artist who sells his work but retains the
copyright. In fact I know a commercial artist who designs christmas
cards etc. sells on the original designs but continues to use them on
his cards.
A registered brand name or trade mark again seems to enjoy perpetual
protection but you can see the reason for that. The brand name
embraces an element of reputation of the product sometimes built up
through a century of quality production and thousands if not millions
of pounds spent on promotion.
Beyond that it's difficult to see why different forms of intellectual
property qualify for such widely differential forms of treatment in
this respect but this doesn't alter the principle that any creator has
an almost moral entitlement to the rewards of his creation.
| Quote: |
There is no reason to believe the existence of copyright would suppress
the flow of writing for publication because before there was a powerful
law of copyright in Britain people were just as anxious to write for
publication and even today international copyright protection is very
patchy and people still write.
There is also the fact that vast numbers
of people write for nothing for publication on the Internet or for small
scale publications. Why should those who currently gain from copyright
not simply get, as authors once did, a set fee for their work and/or a
percentage of sales made by their publisher? Why should they be put in
a privileged position as they are now?
|
This is true to a point. People freely write to the papers or
contribute articles to specialist or low circulation periodicals and
so on. Professional journalists whether staff or free lance do in fact
write for a fee or salary but the copyright, as I understand it, is
then transferred to the publisher. However, is not not usually the
case that such material quickly dates?
A novel or a factual work on the other hand will have a shelf
(forgiving the pun) life of years, decades and, in the case of the
occasional classical work, a century or more. All that time for
someone potentially to make profit from someone else's efforts.
| Quote: |
The second reason is practicality. Where people can copy they will and
digital technology makes it absurdly easy. The law in Britain tacitly
recognises this because it allows reasonable copying for personal use.
This means that it is legal to copy a music track from a CD or record it
from a TV or radio broadcast. (There is no consistency in the law
because it is not legal to download for free the same music from a
"free" website. )
|
The operative word being "reasonable" A TV or radio broadcaster has
already paid performing rights dues in order to grant his viewer/
listener leave to see/hear the work. From then on it becomes a
question of degree. Is the consumer only going to be allowed to enjoy
it only once? Apparently not!
Regardless of that it's one thing to download a broadcast or
reproduction onto one's MP3 player. It's quite another to re-broadcast
it for profit or to burn CDs for sale.
| Quote: |
Next, consider the case of material which is available on websites
which can be entered for free. Could, for example, our national
newspapers make any reasonable claim for breach of copyright for
material they make freely available for copying - they could make the
material incapable of being copied - where someone downloads the
material and circulates it without making a charge for it?
|
I don't think it would be worth the biscuit. I've already mentioned
how quickly this material "dates". That is why they can put it free to
access onto the web anyway (often before it has had chance to appear
in the papers) and take advantage of the promotion and advertising
opportunities tht affords. All the major newspaper houses are
rebranding themselves as media operations. Just look how many are
incoroporating video onto their websites. This surely is the direction
that they have to go.
Again it's a matter of degree, it's one thing to make freely available
material that would otherwise wrap tomorrow's fish and chips. It's
quite another to make available for free download an important or
popular literary work.
Note how free universities are with research papers and they have an
educational function! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Colin Wilson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: Re: Time to look again at copyright |
|
|
| Quote: |
The world needs to look again at copyright
|
Check out the EU wide rules that the MEP Malcolm Harbour is trying to
get pushed through. We don't have a police state yet, but it sounds
like anyone who claims they might be interested in copyright will be
given free access to anyones' full ISP logs on a whim...
"it isn't the intention..." - perhaps not, but given the ability to do
so, it will be abused by copyright holders with money to burn on
lawyers.
www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/09/eu_telecommunications_legislation/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dr Quite
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: Re: Time to look again at copyright |
|
|
"Robert Henderson" <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vOUM2UIE3ZeIFwfq@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
| Quote: |
Note: The world needs to look again at copyright for three reasons. First,
is it reasonable for the state to give a privilege to one class of people,
namely, those who create media, which allows members of that class to gain
financial benefit for vast periods of time - 70 years at least in most of
the developed world?
|
50 years in this country. Oh wait, you said "developed world".
Yes, it's reasonable for the state to protect creators, but for how long is
debatable.
| Quote: |
Someone who invents something will not get patent protection for anything
like that period of time if they can get it at all because of the cost.
More broadly, most things which are produced for sale, whether goods or
services, enjoy no protection at all.
There is no reason to believe the existence of copyright would suppress
the flow of writing for publication because before there was a powerful
law of copyright in Britain people were just as anxious to write for
publication
|
Not sure this is accurate - the law of copyright is roughly simultaneous
with the expansion of publishing which is roughly simultaneous with the
growth of writing for publication. The possibility of earning money from
writing could be an incentive to write. If you removed copyright, the
certainty that you couldn't earn money from writing could remove that
incentive.
| Quote: |
and even today international copyright protection is very patchy and people
still write.
There is also the fact that vast numbers of people write for nothing for
publication on the Internet or for small scale publications. Why should
those who currently gain from copyright not simply get, as authors once
did, a set fee for their work and/or a percentage of sales made by their
publisher?
|
I though that was how it worked now?
| Quote: |
Why should they be put in a privileged position as they are now?
|
Because writing is work and people deserve payment for work if somebody
wants the benefit of that work. If nobody wants the result of that work,
then nobody has to pay for it. It's not really a privileged position - it's
just making it equal in economic terms to the work involved in driving a
taxi or designing a house.
Writing takes time which could be spent otherwise, so there's an opportunity
cost. Like any other activity, the time could alternatively be spent on
subsistence - growing your own food, for example.
| Quote: |
The second reason is practicality. Where people can copy they will and
digital technology makes it absurdly easy. The law in Britain tacitly
recognises this because it allows reasonable copying for personal use.
This means that it is legal to copy a music track from a CD or record it
from a TV or radio broadcast. (There is no consistency in the law because
it is not legal to download for free the same music from a "free"
website. )
|
There's also the issue that copying costs have fallen to zero. Should
somebody be allowed to benefit infinitely from something useful when it
costs them zero pounds to produce that thing?
A cow produces milk for years. The farmer sells the milk. But then he has to
buy the cow, feed it, give it pills and so on, all of which cost money. But
if cows were free, and cost nothing to feed, everyone would own a cow.
| Quote: |
Next, consider the case of material which is available on websites which
can be entered for free. Could, for example, our national newspapers make
any reasonable claim for breach of copyright for material they make freely
available for copying - they could make the material incapable of being
copied - where someone downloads the material and circulates it without
making a charge for it?
Finally, those who get hot under the collar about copyright breaches
should sit down and have a hard, long think about what is actually
happening rather than what they perceive as pure loss. There is a good
argument for viewing most copyright breaches, ie, those made without
commercial intent, as free advertising of the person or organisation which
owns the copyright. People are likely to read or view material which has
been removed from its original source and then be prompted by that
experience to visit the original source for more of the same. RH
|
Yes, in theory. But nobody's worked out how this can make them money. For
example the most popular UK news website is the Telegraph, but it's
loss-making. The FT tried having a full subscription service, but that
didn't work.
So what do you propose? I get the feeling you want a reduction in copyright
term, which could be reasonable but I'd want to see details... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dead Paul
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: Re: Time to look again at copyright |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:16:36 +0100, Robert Henderson wrote:
| Quote: |
Note: The world needs to look again at copyright for three reasons.
First, is it reasonable for the state to give a privilege to one class
of people, namely, those who create media, which allows members of that
class to gain financial benefit for vast periods of time - 70 years at
least in most of the developed world? Someone who invents something will
not get patent protection for anything like that period of time if they
can get it at all because of the cost. More broadly, most things which
are produced for sale, whether goods or services, enjoy no protection at
all.
There is no reason to believe the existence of copyright would suppress
the flow of writing for publication because before there was a powerful
law of copyright in Britain people were just as anxious to write for
publication and even today international copyright protection is very
patchy and people still write. There is also the fact that vast numbers
of people write for nothing for publication on the Internet or for small
scale publications. Why should those who currently gain from copyright
not simply get, as authors once did, a set fee for their work and/or a
percentage of sales made by their publisher? Why should they be put in
a privileged position as they are now?
|
Exactly so. Why should a lazy arsed parasite (and his nest[estate]) expect
to earn income for the next 130 years for what might be a mere weeks
work? Taking into account the nature of their business I'd trim copyright
down to a couple of years or so - personally.
| Quote: |
The second reason is practicality. Where people can copy they will and
digital technology makes it absurdly easy. The law in Britain tacitly
recognises this because it allows reasonable copying for personal use.
This means that it is legal to copy a music track from a CD or record it
from a TV or radio broadcast. (There is no consistency in the law
because it is not legal to download for free the same music from a
"free" website. )
Next, consider the case of material which is available on websites
which can be entered for free. Could, for example, our national
newspapers make any reasonable claim for breach of copyright for
material they make freely available for copying - they could make the
material incapable of being copied - where someone downloads the
material and circulates it without making a charge for it?
Finally, those who get hot under the collar about copyright breaches
should sit down and have a hard, long think about what is actually
happening rather than what they perceive as pure loss. There is a good
argument for viewing most copyright breaches, ie, those made without
commercial intent, as free advertising of the person or organisation
which owns the copyright. People are likely to read or view material
which has been removed from its original source and then be prompted by
that experience to visit the original source for more of the same. RH
|
No one would buy their copyrighted stuff most of the time anyway. They
should consider themselves lucky they are famous in name.
Same goes for software. Dump microshaft and start using linux or a freebsd
like pcbsd.
--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
mentalguy2004
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:18 pm Post subject: Re: Time to look again at copyright |
|
|
"Dead Paul" <dead_paul@no.reply> wrote in message
news:g5cni4$1eq$1@news.datemas.de...
| Quote: |
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:16:36 +0100, Robert Henderson wrote:
Same goes for software. Dump microshaft and start using linux or a freebsd
like pcbsd.
|
Dump your BMW and ride a bicycle that you can't get parts for? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dead Paul
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: Re: Time to look again at copyright |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:18:12 +0100, mentalguy2004 wrote:
| Quote: |
"Dead Paul" <dead_paul@no.reply> wrote in message
news:g5cni4$1eq$1@news.datemas.de...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:16:36 +0100, Robert Henderson wrote:
Same goes for software. Dump microshaft and start using linux or a freebsd
like pcbsd.
Dump your BMW and ride a bicycle that you can't get parts for?
|
That'd be linux=BMW.
--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert Henderson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: Re: Time to look again at copyright |
|
|
In message <4879b94c$0$78092$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>, Dr Quite
<quite@quite.com> writes
| Quote: |
"Robert Henderson" <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vOUM2UIE3ZeIFwfq@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
Note: The world needs to look again at copyright for three reasons. First,
is it reasonable for the state to give a privilege to one class of people,
namely, those who create media, which allows members of that class to gain
financial benefit for vast periods of time - 70 years at least in most of
the developed world?
50 years in this country.
|
Actually, 70 years post mortem because that is the EU directive. That
means a work could be in copyright for 150 years without stretching the
imagination too far. RH
| Quote: |
Oh wait, you said "developed world".
Yes, it's reasonable for the state to protect creators, but for how
long is debatable.
|
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Graham Murray
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: Re: Time to look again at copyright |
|
|
Dead Paul <dead_paul@no.reply> writes:
| Quote: |
Exactly so. Why should a lazy arsed parasite (and his nest[estate]) expect
to earn income for the next 130 years for what might be a mere weeks
work? Taking into account the nature of their business I'd trim copyright
down to a couple of years or so - personally.
|
And in the case of works (books, CDs, DVDs etc) which have been
commercially published, make it a condition of keeping the copyright
that the copyright owner continues to make them available at a
'reasonable'[1] price.
[1] So that, for example, if the work was on sale at £10 that the
copyright owner not be allowed to "withdraw it by stealth" by raising
the price to £100 while the cost of similar 'current' works remains in
range £5-£15. If they do this, then they lose the copyright protection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dr Quite
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:53 am Post subject: Re: Time to look again at copyright |
|
|
"Robert Henderson" <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O0FkooLGpDfIFwwH@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
| Quote: |
In message <4879b94c$0$78092$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>, Dr Quite
quite@quite.com> writes
"Robert Henderson" <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vOUM2UIE3ZeIFwfq@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
Note: The world needs to look again at copyright for three reasons.
First,
is it reasonable for the state to give a privilege to one class of
people,
namely, those who create media, which allows members of that class to
gain
financial benefit for vast periods of time - 70 years at least in most
of
the developed world?
50 years in this country.
Actually, 70 years post mortem because that is the EU directive. That
means a work could be in copyright for 150 years without stretching the
imagination too far. RH
|
50 for musical recordings.
Whatever. I'd actually like to see your answer to Mel's post... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert Henderson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: Re: Time to look again at copyright |
|
|
In message
<041c6e9f-4dfb-4a91-9e92-3c9058784849@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Mel
Rowing <mel.rowing@btinternet.com> writes
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 7:16 am, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Note: The world needs to look again at copyright for three reasons.
First, is it reasonable for the state to give a privilege to one class
of people, namely, those who create media, which allows members of that
class to gain financial benefit for vast periods of time - 70 years at
least in most of the developed world? Someone who invents something will
not get patent protection for anything like that period of time if they
can get it at all because of the cost. More broadly, most things which
are produced for sale, whether goods or services, enjoy no protection at
all.
Intellectual property!
|
Sez what or who? Property is something which exists in its own right. If
something can be copied and have the same value as the original it does
not exists in its own right. If something is copied and has value as a
copy that is the work of the copier not the original creator. RH
| Quote: |
You wouldn't allow anyone who came along to help himself to the use of
your house or car or even to sit in your garden.
|
But if he wishes to use my path to come to my door and breath the air
which is over my plot of land I would expect no payment. RH
| Quote: |
How is it then that
the abstract non-tangible creation of someone's mind should not enjoy
at least the same property protection as you physical possessions?
There is but one reason that another would want to publish the output
of someone else's talents and that is for profit. Any profit made from
any piece of work regardless of its nature should surely go, at least
in part, to the creator of that work.
|
A man opens up a new type of shop, for example, a self-service store
where none had existed before. Others copy his lead. The original
creator of the new type of store gets no privilege from the state simply
because he invents a new type of shop.
Even trades which do involve creativity such as fashion in practice have
little protection from the law as the rapid copying of haute couture
designs by the mass producers demonstrates. There is no real reason why
someone who writes a novel or directs a film should have any more
protection. That such protection exists is testimony to the power of the
intelligentsia rather than any moral need their work engenders.
Nor are all types of intellectual property protected. A scientist makes
a discovery, he has no protection for the discovery. A mathematician c
reates a new branch of maths, he has no protection. RH
| Quote: |
You are, as no doubt you appreciate, in a complicated area. It s true
that a written or performed work enjoys (50 years?
|
Written 70 years post mortem, music 50 years from point of composition.
RH
| Quote: |
) protection (based
on recent prouncements of Sir Cliff Richard) A mechanical device or
design apparently enjoys a mere 20 years protection.
|
In the UK, yes. RH
| Quote: |
A painting
apparently enjoys perpetual protection which is vested in its legal
owner unless copyright
|
| Quote: |
and possession have been legally seperated.
I've heard of a modern artist who sells his work but retains the
copyright. In fact I know a commercial artist who designs christmas
cards etc. sells on the original designs but continues to use them on
his cards.
A registered brand name or trade mark again seems to enjoy perpetual
protection but you can see the reason for that. The brand name
embraces an element of reputation of the product sometimes built up
through a century of quality production and thousands if not millions
of pounds spent on promotion.
|
That is a different category of property because one them moves in the
realm of passing off. RH
| Quote: |
Beyond that it's difficult to see why different forms of intellectual
property qualify for such widely differential forms of treatment in
this respect but this doesn't alter the principle that any creator has
an almost moral entitlement to the rewards of his creation.
|
Really, where does this special moral entitlement come from which
encompasses only a small part of human creativity? RH
| Quote: |
There is no reason to believe the existence of copyright would suppress
the flow of writing for publication because before there was a powerful
law of copyright in Britain people were just as anxious to write for
publication and even today international copyright protection is very
patchy and people still write.
There is also the fact that vast numbers
of people write for nothing for publication on the Internet or for small
scale publications. Why should those who currently gain from copyright
not simply get, as authors once did, a set fee for their work and/or a
percentage of sales made by their publisher? Why should they be put in
a privileged position as they are now?
This is true to a point. People freely write to the papers or
contribute articles to specialist or low circulation periodicals and
so on. Professional journalists whether staff or free lance do in fact
write for a fee or salary but the copyright, as I understand it, is
then transferred to the publisher. However, is not not usually the
case that such material quickly dates?
|
Irrelevant to the point. People write all manner of things which are
meant to last without being paid for them, most commonly novels. RH
| Quote: |
A novel or a factual work on the other hand will have a shelf
(forgiving the pun) life of years, decades and, in the case of the
occasional classical work, a century or more. All that time for
someone potentially to make profit from someone else's efforts.
The second reason is practicality. Where people can copy they will and
digital technology makes it absurdly easy. The law in Britain tacitly
recognises this because it allows reasonable copying for personal use.
This means that it is legal to copy a music track from a CD or record it
from a TV or radio broadcast. (There is no consistency in the law
because it is not legal to download for free the same music from a
"free" website. )
The operative word being "reasonable" A TV or radio broadcaster has
already paid performing rights dues in order to grant his viewer/
listener leave to see/hear the work. From then on it becomes a
question of degree. Is the consumer only going to be allowed to enjoy
it only once? Apparently not!
Regardless of that it's one thing to download a broadcast or
reproduction onto one's MP3 player. It's quite another to re-broadcast
it for profit or to burn CDs for sale.
|
But people are being taken to court simply for copying for their own
purposes or sharing material for no profit with their friends. . RH
| Quote: |
Next, consider the case of material which is available on websites
which can be entered for free. Could, for example, our national
newspapers make any reasonable claim for breach of copyright for
material they make freely available for copying - they could make the
material incapable of being copied - where someone downloads the
material and circulates it without making a charge for it?
I don't think it would be worth the biscuit. I've already mentioned
how quickly this material "dates". That is why they can put it free to
access onto the web anyway (often before it has had chance to appear
in the papers) and take advantage of the promotion and advertising
opportunities tht affords. All the major newspaper houses are
rebranding themselves as media operations. Just look how many are
incoroporating video onto their websites. This surely is the direction
that they have to go.
Again it's a matter of degree, it's one thing to make freely available
material that would otherwise wrap tomorrow's fish and chips. It's
quite another to make available for free download an important or
popular literary work.
|
Very few people would try to read a full length book on a monitor. If
you print it out the cost of printing a couple of hundred pages or more
is going to cost you at least as much as buying the the book would cost.
RH
| Quote: |
Note how free universities are with research papers and they have an
educational function!
|
It is worth emphasising what a tremendous privileged position this is,
for not only does copyright allow benefit from the sale of their wares,
(in Britain) it also gives such perks as performing rights fees and in
the case of artist producing physical art, a commission every time their
work is sold after they have sold it. Moreover, unlike patents and
trademarks, copyright (in Britain) does not cost anything to establish
because it is deemed to exist automatically as soon as something is
created. For
There is no good reason why copyright should exist. It is not a natural
phenomenon. It is a privilege - as with patents, trademarks and limited
liability - granted by the state. (Ironically, their most stalwart
defenders are the worshippers at the altar of laissez faire who cannot
see the illogic of decrying state interference in the economy while
defending such blatant interferences with the free market).
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mel Rowing
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: Time to look again at copyright |
|
|
On Jul 16, 1:36 pm, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
In message
041c6e9f-4dfb-4a91-9e92-3c9058784...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Mel
Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> writes
Intellectual property!
Sez what or who? Property is something which exists in its own right. If
something can be copied and have the same value as the original it does
not exists in its own right. If something is copied and has value as a
copy that is the work of the copier not the original creator. RH
|
No! Property is nothing more nor less than a simple legal right of
ownership. As such it is always abstract and intangible in nature.
What I think you are saying is that intangibles should not be the
subject of property rights. In this particular case that intangible
takes the form of a thought, a design or an idea. In that form there
is no point in protecting it since it only exists in the mind of the
creator and so only he has access to it. This question only becomes an
issue once that idea or whatever is presented in tangible form i.e is
written down. As far as I know, nobody has copyright over what they
actually say though if they say it into a recording apparatus
(producing a tangible record) then it does acquire copyright.
| Quote: |
You wouldn't allow anyone who came along to help himself to the use of
your house or car or even to sit in your garden.
But if he wishes to use my path to come to my door and breath the air
which is over my plot of land I would expect no payment. RH
|
Perhaps not but I would bet you. like me, under appropriate
circumstances, would exercise proprietorial rights in respect of you
home. I'd bet you would be miffed were you to come home to find a
couple of campers had pitched their tent on your lawn.
| Quote: |
A man opens up a new type of shop, for example, a self-service store
where none had existed before. Others copy his lead. The original
creator of the new type of store gets no privilege from the state simply
because he invents a new type of shop.
|
Hence the reason for the trade marks Tesco, Asda et al.
There is little novel or creative about a self service store. How long
have we been choosing our own produce from market stalls and handing
it to the stallholder for weighing, packing and charging. Self
service is but and extension of this practice.
| Quote: |
Even trades which do involve creativity such as fashion in practice have
little protection from the law as the rapid copying of haute couture
designs by the mass producers demonstrates.
|
You try knocking something up yourself and then attaching the label
Dior (or even St Michael) to it! Couture designers do of course
create designs but they are not the creators of the technique of
fastening pieces of textile together with needle and thread nor using
scissors to cut them to shape. This does give imitators certain scope.
Nonetheless an exact copy of any original created would create more
than raised eyebrows within the trade.
There is another consideration too (in fact a couple) . The rag trade
by its nature fickle and has to be to remain profitable. The last
thing these patsies want are thousands of women deciding that last
year's seasonal creation will see them through this season. Any design
therefore has a very limited life.
So long as the notion is not taken too literally the top designers are
happy to "influence" the pretenders. This adds to their prestige as
originators and/or trend setters. Similarly the crud of the industry
are happy to be influenced by the upper echelons since their clientele
may well have Next purses but they have Chanel tastes. The wealth
differential between the two customer groups being what it is means
that they are in no way in competition with each other.
| Quote: |
There is no real reason why someone who writes a novel or directs a film should have any more
protection. That such protection exists is testimony to the power of the
intelligentsia rather than any moral need their work engenders.
|
The creation of a novel takes many hours for work to get it from mind
to paper. A film represents a great deal of financial investment
before it hits the screen.
Like it of not people produce novels for a living. Publishers would
not buy an original work if they could instead buy it in a bookshop
and then lift its contents with their reprographic equipment. It would
probably end up with all books being writer published at writer
expense with the real profit going to the copiers.
Like it or not films are produced in the pursuance of commercial
profit. Big media companies are unlikely to invest what could be
millions in a film, carry the attendant commercial risk, if they were
to find that their product was likely to appear within a few days of
publication under another label.
| Quote: |
Nor are all types of intellectual property protected. A scientist makes
a discovery, he has no protection for the discovery. A mathematician c
reates a new branch of maths, he has no protection. RH
|
I don't suppose many academics ever became rich through the
publication rights of their research papers or even their books for
that matter. Outside university libraries, they generally have little
appeal. Nonetheless universities do register patents on the basis of
research work carried out. I'm not sure exactly what the position of
the individuals concerned is with regard to any royalties but
presumably they are earned.
| Quote: |
Beyond that it's difficult to see why different forms of intellectual
property qualify for such widely differential forms of treatment in
this respect but this doesn't alter the principle that any creator has
an almost moral entitlement to the rewards of his creation.
Really, where does this special moral entitlement come from which
encompasses only a small part of human creativity? RH
|
A small part perhaps. A very important part obviously since people are
prepared to pay for the right to exploit the idea. I suppose it boils
down to the fact that one's thoughts are one's own and are
inaccessible to anybody else. There would therefore seem to be need
for an incentive to share the more useful or attractive of those
thoughts.
However, as I have said, very often, the thought or idea is only the
first stage in an overall process. After the idea comes the
development/publication/presentation. This can involve more than
significant investment in time and usually money before the initial
thought process can be fully exploited and further is not without
risk. Without some guarantee of reward I seriously doubt whether such
investment would be forthcoming.
| Quote: |
This is true to a point. People freely write to the papers or
contribute articles to specialist or low circulation periodicals and
so on. Professional journalists whether staff or free lance do in fact
write for a fee or salary but the copyright, as I understand it, is
then transferred to the publisher. However, is not not usually the
case that such material quickly dates?
Irrelevant to the point. People write all manner of things which are
meant to last without being paid for them, most commonly novels. RH
|
Very relevant! A newspaper story is dead from the moment it hits the
streets. Indeed given today's instant news coverage, it's usually dead
before that. Newspaper articles fare little better. Who do you know
who buys yesterday's newspaper? Sales are falling through these very
reasons.
It may again be true that an unknown novelist might put pen to paper
without any real hope of how they might fare. However, just like the
national lottery there has to be a winner. When/if they do eventually
receive that acceptance slip from a publisher and if they hit the
jackpot what then? Would today's popular authors be so profligate if
not for royalties?
Would a lottery player buy tickets if there were absolutely no
prospect of a win?
I wouldn't think so!
| Quote: |
Regardless of that it's one thing to download a broadcast or
reproduction onto one's MP3 player. It's quite another to re-broadcast
it for profit or to burn CDs for sale.
But people are being taken to court simply for copying for their own
purposes or sharing material for no profit with their friends. . RH
|
And that's how it starts before the practice becomes more organised
and an ad hoc arrangement becomes a file sharing website involving
tens of thousands if not millions of participants. Each profits in
kind. They "exchange" files except that it is not a true exchange at
all. When something is exchanged each party acquires something in
return for something else. That's not the case here where each party
gains something yet gives up nothing in return.
Put it another way, if these parties actually did exchange physical
original records/CDs or whatever that had been acquired through the
normal way of retail trade there could not be and would not be any
objection. What they are trading (except that they don't) is something
that they don't own to start with, simply a right sold to them on the
strict understanding that they don't engage in such behaviour.
| Quote: |
Next, consider the case of material which is available on websites
which can be entered for free. Could, for example, our national
newspapers make any reasonable claim for breach of copyright for
material they make freely available for copying - they could make the
material incapable of being copied - where someone downloads the
material and circulates it without making a charge for it?
I don't think it would be worth the biscuit. I've already mentioned
how quickly this material "dates". That is why they can put it free to
access onto the web anyway (often before it has had chance to appear
in the papers) and take advantage of the promotion and advertising
opportunities that affords. All the major newspaper houses are
re-branding themselves as media operations. Just look how many are
incorporating video onto their websites. This surely is the direction
that they have to go.
Again it's a matter of degree, it's one thing to make freely available
material that would otherwise wrap tomorrow's fish and chips. It's
quite another to make available for free download an important or
popular literary work.
Very few people would try to read a full length book on a monitor. If
you print it out the cost of printing a couple of hundred pages or more
is going to cost you at least as much as buying the the book would cost.
|
Oh I don't know!
There are some very snazzy hand held devices available on the market
at this very moment and we live in an age where more and more people
spend more and more time reading from screens. This could become the
future of the hand held book.
| Quote: |
Note how free universities are with research papers and they have an
educational function!
It is worth emphasising what a tremendous privileged position this is,
for not only does copyright allow benefit from the sale of their wares,
(in Britain) it also gives such perks as performing rights fees and in
the case of artist producing physical art, a commission every time their
work is sold after they have sold it. Moreover, unlike patents and
trademarks, copyright (in Britain) does not cost anything to establish
because it is deemed to exist automatically as soon as something is
created. al
|
It all depends of course on the terms of the original sale.
I once had a friend who eventually became a professional playwright.
Prior to that he would allow his works to be performed without charge
by amateur and school groups which meant that scripts (in those days
prepared on a Gestetner copier) did the rounds so to speak.
He was astounded one night while out watching a commercial production
to see a situation in a play that had been lifted verbatim from one of
his. From that point on he vowed that if anybody was going to make
money out of the sweat of his brow it was going to be him. From that
point on, the original script of every new play went into an envelope
was sealed dated signed and witnessed before being deposited with a
solicitor.
As I have said, he eventually decided to take the plunge. He gave up a
professional career at what could have been a crucial time so that he
could dedicate himself to writing. As it happens my story has a happy
ending since his venture was successful.
I relate it as background to a question. Would this talented guy have
been able to do all this in the absence of the copyright laws? I know
for a fact that he would not have been able to afford to do so. Even
as it was he took a grave risk with his and his family's future.
I wonder how many other artists have suffered a similar dilemma. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Andy Walker
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:57 am Post subject: Re: Time to look again at copyright |
|
|
In article <a51fedc9-e361-49ae-9bf2-2ced968d7b0d@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
Mel Rowing <mel.rowing@btinternet.com> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: |
I don't suppose many academics ever became rich through the
publication rights of their research papers or even their books for
that matter.
|
Research papers don't [usually] make money directly, but
they bring other rewards -- promotion, fame [and thereby fortune],
invitations to nice parts of the world, .... -- for a decenr number
of academics. Academic books have a more-or-less guaranteed sale
of a few thousand primarily to university libraries if published
by one of the reputable publishers; this brings in royalties which
don't really compensate for the work involved, but bring in some
money and may, as with papers, lead on to fame [etc]. A lucky few
will sell more, eg by being adopted as course texts in the USA, or
by becoming real classics running into multiple editions. These
not only bring in real money, but they get publishers asking for
your next book. Getting your book onto the front table of the
"popular science" section in Waterstone's helps .... A few years
back, the only maths books there were things like A-level revision
guides and books of puzzles; these days, there are surprisingly
many books on quite arcane topics. Things are looking up ....
| Quote: |
Outside university libraries, they generally have little
appeal. Nonetheless universities do register patents on the basis of
research work carried out. I'm not sure exactly what the position of
the individuals concerned is with regard to any royalties but
presumably they are earned.
|
Most [all?] universities own R&D companies that market
research ideas. There is usually some arrangement by which the
academics concerned take a decent cut and retain intellectual
rights to what they have done.
| Quote: |
[...] Would today's popular authors be so profligate if
not for royalties?
|
Royalties aren't really the point -- that is simply the
contract between publisher and writer. Robert is asking about
the intellectual property rights. The truth is that if we didn't
have such rights, then we would instead have licence agreements,
as we do with software. Copyright seems to me to be much better
[simpler, cheaper] than that.
[RH:]
| Quote: |
Very few people would try to read a full length book on a monitor. If
you print it out the cost of printing a couple of hundred pages or more
is going to cost you at least as much as buying the the book would cost.
|
Depends on the "book". I wouldn't care to read a novel or
a piece of music that way. But a reference book, especially with
hyperlinks, is another matter; so is a textbook with animations or
demonstrations. Come back in a few years time ....
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
nospam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:54 am Post subject: Re: Time to look again at copyright |
|
|
Mel Rowing <mel.rowing@btinternet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I relate it as background to a question. Would this talented guy have
been able to do all this in the absence of the copyright laws?
|
No he wouldn't and that is why we have copyright but copyright is not for
his benefit it is for ours. If for example books could be freely copied
authors would have little incentive to write books, they may be simply
unable to devote the time without some form of compensation. Very few books
would be written and all of us would suffer from the lack of books.
Copyright is a completely manmade invention for the benefit of mankind. It
isn't about protecting authors notional property. Mankind would benefit
more if all books could be copied which would make them free or almost so
but then there would be very few books to copy. Copyright is a compromise
which needs to provide sufficient incentive to authors and no more.
I do not believe that copyright extending beyond the authors death is a
required incentive. I do not believe copyright is a required incentive for
production of trivial works like some poxy web page or newspaper article.
I think the OP has a point the compromise has become distorted and needs to
be bought back into balance.
The patent system is very similar and in dire need of revision to fulfil
its purpose in the modern world.
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Norman Wells
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: Re: Time to look again at copyright |
|
|
nospam wrote:
| Quote: |
Mel Rowing <mel.rowing@btinternet.com> wrote:
I do not believe that copyright extending beyond the authors death is
a required incentive.
|
I see no reason why it should not be limited, as are patents for example, to
a 20 year term, regardless of whether that extends beyond the author's death
or not. Why should artists and authors not be given a push to exploit their
works within a limited time just as the makers of new inventions? We no
longer live in an age where artists and authors cannot get their works known
quickly and widely.
| Quote: |
I do not believe copyright is a required
incentive for production of trivial works like some poxy web page or
newspaper article.
|
The trouble with that is that it requires some assessment of merit, which is
not a feature of the current law. And merit is rather hard to determine.
As it is, the rule is that, if it is worth copying, it deserves protection.
I see no reason to depart from that.
| Quote: |
The patent system is very similar and in dire need of revision to
fulfil its purpose in the modern world.
|
Why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
137 Attacks blocked
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
