15 Jan 2003 | SU said...

In other recent copyright news, WIRED discusses a new pact between the technology and recording industries:

The agreement "minimizes the distracting public rhetoric and needless legislative battles," she said. "Our industries need to work together for the consumer to benefit and for our respective businesses to grow."

In other words, how about we just cut all that legislative nonsense out of the picture and put the decisions into the hands of the RIAA and tech companies like Intel, MS, Apple, and Sony? Why fix the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when you can put power into the hands of big business?

15 Jan 2003 | ry rivard said...

In meaning 'economically feasible' you must mean a lot of weblogers and a couple of small authors, people who haven't much at stake if a couple of their MoveableType entries are used elsewhere.

For someone like Disney giving up Mickey Mouse, the spokesrodent of their $billion enterprise, IP-freedom isn't economically feasible. It would mean any company could slap Mickey Mouse on anything they've got and Disney would be stuck with nothing but their name and a production house out of new ideas.

But with the grassroots movement of the issues Lessig's brought to the forefront and with the Creative Commons site, it should become more and more accepted that being totalitarian with ideas isn't the best use of them.

Disney will never give up because of what Lessig talks about in Future of Ideas, they have the vested interest in this current, perpetually restrictive system.

The victory for Lessig, and every up-start creator and even the public, is that people are aware of the problems. Sure, Disney won't give up--and it is doubtful our current Congress, campaign finance reform or not, will make them--,instead the rug will be pulled from beneath them by the next generation aware of, and pissed off at, the current atmosphere of restriction.

15 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

I think it's pretty obvious that our system has long abandoned the original reasoning behind the copyright and patent system and is now a system based purley on greedy capitalism at the expense of everything else.

Sigh.

As SU said, we might as well put the media giants in charge of the copyright committee and trim a bit of fat from our government payrolls...no need for the middle man in this case.

(Though do note that Apple has been quite agnostic when it comes to any sort of physical copy protection schemes...as consumers, we should praise them for that stance.)

15 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

you had once made a comment about companies not embracing new technologies, but rather fighting against them to prevent loses in sales, and that it will catch up with them.
I agree. I cant find a decent MP3 website where I can pay for & download individual songs. (anyone got any tips?) But I feel like all these legal battles have held up progress and otherwise lucrative markets. Im afraid were stuck with what weve got for a while because money talks - especially to the current administration.

15 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

For someone like Disney giving up Mickey Mouse, the spokesrodent of their $billion enterprise, IP-freedom isn't economically feasible. It would mean any company could slap Mickey Mouse on anything they've got and Disney would be stuck with nothing but their name and a production house out of new ideas.

Actually, it wouldn't mean that at all. There's a difference between a Mickey Mouse cartoon and Mickey Mouse as a trademark. The expiration of copyright would mean that "Steamboat Willie" could be shown by anyone, anywhere, and the content thereof appropriated and used (such as creative a new work that follows the plot line of the short exactly and uses the same character). But, if I understand trademark law correctly, it would not mean that Mattel could start making Mickey Mouse toys without getting rights from Disney to do so.

I do agree that the copyright and patent laws are getting twisted beyond their original intentions. One of the ironies is that patents were originally intended in part to encourage sharing of innovation; otherwise, without a period of protection, companies would keep their innovations to themselves, and others wouldn't be able to improve upon them.

I rather liked the old copyright format of extending rights x years beyond the creator's death. But, that doesn't cover corporate copyrights (for instance, who would have to die to kick in the clock for a film's copyright - the director? the producer? the production company?) Adjustments should be made to copyrights, but they shouldn't become permanent rights. A fair time limit (Europe's is ~50 years) or something tied to the death of the creator seems the most equitable. I do think the creator should retain rights during his/her lifetime.

15 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

Dammit, forfot to close my <em> tag after the first paragrpah there. Sorry. [SU: Fixed]

15 Jan 2003 | David said...

Current copyright law is a sick demented and creativity-defusing set of nonsense that deprive the economy of growth. The irony of Disney continuing to derive exclusive profits of Mickey Mouse while also spinning gold on public domain stories such as Snow White is apparently lost on the supreme court.

Revert copyright law back to the original 14 years with the possibility of a 14 year extention and all will prosper. Disney will be forced to innovate once again and the public domain will grow richer.

15 Jan 2003 | Aaron Sittig said...

Lawrence Lessig, of Napster trial ... fame

Close. David Boies was Napster's hot-shot lawyer. Larry Lessig was an advisor to Judge Jackson in the Microsoft case.

15 Jan 2003 | Cade Roux said...

Steve - The Sonny Bono Act brings the US into line with Europe, which already had these longer terms (and they have historically always had much longer terms). Copyright in England, at least, was designed to allow the restrict of speech by the crown. In the US, it was designed to promote creative endeavors. Now it's used to protect income streams. Oh well...

15 Jan 2003 | SU said...

Close. David Boies was Napster's hot-shot lawyer. Larry Lessig was an advisor to Judge Jackson in the Microsoft case.

Good catch -- fixed now.

15 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

Cade, I thought the Sonny Bono act made the US longer in its copyright period (something like 75 years instead of 50 - which still would have "Steamboat Willie" expiring, so maybe I should just read the article).

As much as I don't like the way copyright law is going in the States, this isn't the Supreme Court's problem or fault. The question they had to answer was whether Congress overstepped its bounds in extending the copyright period. Since the Constitution gives Congress the right to do just such a thing, I can't find fault with the Court's decision.

15 Jan 2003 | Scott said...

I love how Disney has used public domain stories (snow white) to build an empire that fights to keep things out of the public domain

16 Jan 2003 | Cade Roux said...

Steve - it's completely harmonized for new works: - for older works it varies because congress has extended so many times - some things went into the public domain accidentally before anyone had a chance to pay congress to rape us.

19 Jan 2003 | K said...

I love how Disney has used public domain stories (snow white) to build an empire that fights to keep things out of the public domain.

You could have done the same thing. Why don't you pick some public domain stories now and build your empire. Then you can release them back into the public domain.

22 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

Todd Dominey said:
Verizon Ordered to Hand Over Kazaa User
According to this New York Times article, the RIAA has successfully argued their case in front a federal judge to allow them access to a subscriber of Verizon Communcations suspected of making available hundreds of unauthorized mp3 files. Essentially, the judge is allowing the recording industry to demand from internet service providers lists of their subscribers, subscribers they suspect of distributing content, without the need for a copyright holder to file a formal lawsuit. If the case fails under appeal, it will likely mean that anyone and everyone with an internet account could have their private information turned over to the entertainment industry for them to hold you - the consumer - in judgment. With power like this, would anyone be able to adequately defend themselves?

20 Nov 2003 | affordable insurance said...

family guy wonderfully violates copywright

16 Jan 2004 | Meredith said...

If an application is designed well, the reward for users is that they will learn it faster, accomplish their daily tasks more easily, and have fewer questions for the help desk. As a developer of a well-designed application, your returns on that investment are more upgrade revenue, reduced tech support, better reviews, less documentation, and higher customer satisfaction. The rewards of building a good-looking Aqua application are worth taking the extra time.

16 Jan 2004 | Garret said...

If an application is designed well, the reward for users is that they will learn it faster, accomplish their daily tasks more easily, and have fewer questions for the help desk. As a developer of a well-designed application, your returns on that investment are more upgrade revenue, reduced tech support, better reviews, less documentation, and higher customer satisfaction. The rewards of building a good-looking Aqua application are worth taking the extra time.