Theft of intellectual property isn't a crime?
impossible
Under the Copyright Act (1994), it's a criminal offence to:
(a) make a copy of a copyrighted work or have an infringing copy in their
possesion
(b) distribute, publish, issue, exhibit, broadcast, import, export, sell, or
rent a copy of a copyrighted work to the public
(c) enable someone else to do either of these things
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM346602.html
And can you you go to jail for committing these crimes. Yes, absolutely.
"Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on
conviction-
"(a) In the case of an offence against subsection (1), to a fine not
exceeding $10,000 for every infringing copy to which the offence relates,
but not exceeding $150,000 in respect of the same transaction, or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years:
"(b) In the case of an offence against subsection (2) or subsection (3), to
a fine not exceeding $150,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5
years"
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM346602.html
vitw
> (c) enable someone else to do either of these things
That one is the big worry. 'Enabling' can cover running a website which
links to another site which links to an infringing item.
I wonder - can someone be arrested on the strength of a mere accusation,
or will some hard evidence be required first?
Bearing in mind that more and more employers are doing police background
checks on applicants, and automatically rejecting applicants with an
arrest record, even if those applicants have been completely exonerated.
victor
Note how many times "in the course of a business" appears, note that the
copyright holder is only deemed to have lost property if the offense
is committed for profit or gain.
Note that the word "theft" is not used anywhere in this act.
Its used mostly for DVD counterfeiters.
Its never been used against p2p users.
Copyright is a government granted limited monopoly on who may profit
from distribution of content, its quite different to tangible property.
impossible
"vitw" <nos...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:4af5eb84$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:18:40 +0000, impossible wrote:
>
>> (c) enable someone else to do either of these things
>
> That one is the big worry. 'Enabling' can cover running a website which
> links to another site which links to an infringing item.
>
> I wonder - can someone be arrested on the strength of a mere accusation,
> or will some hard evidence be required first?
>
Drama queen! Do you live in NZ or Afghanistan? If NZ, I believe the court
system is still intract, is it not?
Peter
> "vitw" <nos...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4af5eb84$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:18:40 +0000, impossible wrote:
>>
>>> (c) enable someone else to do either of these things
>>
>> That one is the big worry. 'Enabling' can cover running a website which
>> links to another site which links to an infringing item.
>> I wonder - can someone be arrested on the strength of a mere accusation,
>> or will some hard evidence be required first?
>
> Drama queen! Do you live in NZ or Afghanistan? If NZ, I believe the court
> system is still intract, is it not?
That was a big part of the debate earlier this year about s92a of the act.
This required ISPs to punish anyone accused of repeated infringement of
copyright. No conviction, no proof, no government or regulated authorities
involved, just punishment on accusation. There was widespread opposition to
this, and the government backed down.
Now it appears moves are afoot to commit NZ to this type of legislation by a
different route - this time without any public involvement or knowledge
(such as select committee or parliamentary debate).
"It's a Goofy world when Disney writes New Zealand law."
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/fry/0639893EBC847E00CC257666000CA408
Gordon
> Larry D'Loserites should think again.
>
> Under the Copyright Act (1994), it's a criminal offence to:
>
> (a) make a copy of a copyrighted work or have an infringing copy in their
> possesion
>
> (b) distribute, publish, issue, exhibit, broadcast, import, export, sell, or
> rent a copy of a copyrighted work to the public
>
> (c) enable someone else to do either of these things
>
Shit is the law behind the ape ball. Well most often it is.
Look, the vast majority of Open Source Software is copyrighted, and none of the
authours of the software would be al att upset legally if you did anyone to
do any of the three things above.
There are works about which one can also legally do these things. Check out
Creative Commons. Some rights reserved. Ah here *is* the point. Rights.
Copyright, is nothing more, or less, than the author of the work settings
conditions on how their work will be distributed.
Yes, those conditions should be enforced. For if they are made to restictive
the cashflow will dry up. The balance will rule okay.
What the authors of digital work require right yesterday is a market model
which allows income and the satisfaction of the customers.
Ever since the Moving Pictures Experts Group got together and tossed lossy
compression for video and audio out onto the public at large has there been
this need. The old guard have not, as yet been, displaced.Rather like, they
are still riding horses while the horseless carriages are all about.
Gordon
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:49:56 +1200, vitw wrote:
>
>> I wonder - can someone be arrested on the strength of a mere accusation,
>
>
> Why should any other type of case be any different?
>
Indeed. After all it is the accused, and aledgely (sp?)...
impossible
"Gordon" <gor...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:7lmt9vF...@mid.individual.net...
> On 2009-11-07, impossible <impos...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> Larry D'Loserites should think again.
>>
>> Under the Copyright Act (1994), it's a criminal offence to:
>>
>> (a) make a copy of a copyrighted work or have an infringing copy in
>> their
>> possesion
>>
>> (b) distribute, publish, issue, exhibit, broadcast, import, export, sell,
>> or
>> rent a copy of a copyrighted work to the public
>>
>> (c) enable someone else to do either of these things
>>
>
> Shit is the law behind the ape ball. Well most often it is.
>
> Look, the vast majority of Open Source Software is copyrighted, and none
> of the
> authours of the software would be al att upset legally if you did anyone
> to
> do any of the three things above.
Really!?! Ms Penguin seesm remarkably out of touch with the GPL -- all
versions.
>
> There are works about which one can also legally do these things. Check
> out
> Creative Commons. Some rights reserved. Ah here *is* the point. Rights.
>
Ms Penguin needs to explain whatr she means by "creative commons". Is that
when I get to steal your invention?
> Copyright, is nothing more, or less, than the author of the work settings
> conditions on how their work will be distributed.
>
Yes, so long as you understand that copryright is an exlusive property
right. No one other than the author of the original works gets to decide
what is the fair/proper way to distribute a coipyright work -- that includes
Ms Penguin.
> Yes, those conditions should be enforced. For if they are made to
> restictive
> the cashflow will dry up. The balance will rule okay.
I have no idea what that means. Has Ms Penguin perhaps swallowed an oversize
guppy?
>
> What the authors of digital work require right yesterday is a market model
> which allows income and the satisfaction of the customers.
>
> Ever since the Moving Pictures Experts Group got together and tossed lossy
> compression for video and audio out onto the public at large has there
> been
> this need. The old guard have not, as yet been, displaced.Rather like,
> they
> are still riding horses while the horseless carriages are all about.
>
Quick! Someone, please, Ms Penguin is choking on her ideology!
impossible
"Peter" <nospa...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hd541h$pll$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> impossible wrote:
>> "vitw" <nos...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:4af5eb84$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:18:40 +0000, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> (c) enable someone else to do either of these things
>>>
>>> That one is the big worry. 'Enabling' can cover running a website which
>>> links to another site which links to an infringing item.
>>> I wonder - can someone be arrested on the strength of a mere accusation,
>>> or will some hard evidence be required first?
>>
>> Drama queen! Do you live in NZ or Afghanistan? If NZ, I believe the court
>> system is still intract, is it not?
>
> That was a big part of the debate earlier this year about s92a of the act.
> This required ISPs to punish anyone accused of repeated infringement of
> copyright. No conviction, no proof, no government or regulated
> authorities
> involved, just punishment on accusation. There was widespread opposition
> to
> this, and the government backed down.
>
> Now it appears moves are afoot to commit NZ to this type of legislation by
> a
> different route - this time without any public involvement or knowledge
> (such as select committee or parliamentary debate).
>
ISPs set terms and conditions of service that are integral to the contract.
You can choose to accept those terms or not -- it's up to you. If you feel
that your piracy is warranted under law, feel free to sue the ISP.
impossible
"Carnations" <Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@carnations.com...
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:34:41 +0000, impossible wrote:
>
>> Ms Penguin needs to explain whatr she means by "creative commons". Is
>> that when I get to steal your invention?
>
> from reproducing by means of
> applying for and receiving a valid patent.
>
Copyright protects any original work.
> Software is like the contents of a book - you protect it by means of being
> able to prove that you had the
> first copy.
>
The author of an original work does not need to "prove" a thing. Copyright
subsiusts from the time the original work is created in fixed form -- i.e. a
manuscript, film, recording, etc.
> In both the above cases if you need recourse to a court of Law, then you
> go to a civil court, not to a
> criminal court.
>
Absolutelty false. You clearly have not read the Cop[yright Act.
> Strictly speaking infringing on either a patent or a copyright is not
> theft - it is a rights issue.
>
Strictly speaking, infringement ofd copyright is a crime under the Copyright
Act.
Peter
> ISPs set terms and conditions of service that are integral to the
> contract. You can choose to accept those terms or not -- it's up to you.
> If you feel that your piracy is warranted under law, feel free to sue the
> ISP.
The only winners then would be the lawyers.
Far better to write fair and just laws in the first place.
impossible
The winners would be the authors of original works, you dolt!
Nicolaas Hawkins
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:34:41 +0000, impossible wrote:
>
>> Ms Penguin needs to explain whatr she means by "creative commons". Is
>> that when I get to steal your invention?
>
> To be fair, an "invention" is a physical thing that you prevent others from reproducing by means of
> applying for and receiving a valid patent.
>
> Software is like the contents of a book - you protect it by means of being able to prove that you had the
> first copy.
If you can prove you had the 'first copy' and I can prove I had - and
created - the original, then what?
By definition 'copy' != 'original'.
It seems your enthusiasm for argument for its own sake is driving you to the
use of terminological inexactitudes.
>
> In both the above cases if you need recourse to a court of Law, then you go to a civil court, not to a
> criminal court.
>
> Strictly speaking infringing on either a patent or a copyright is not theft - it is a rights issue.
--
- Nicolaas
Peter
Perhaps you haven't heard the views of any artists, musicians, authors and
other creative folk. Check out this website, for example ...
http://creativefreedom.org.nz/
Roger_Nickel
A search did not find the word "theft" used anywhere in the Copyright Act
(1994). Maybe something is wrong with the document search function in my
browser?. Can you point to the part of the Act where copyright
infringement is defined as theft?.
impossible
Any creative folk who want to give their intellectual property away are free
to do so -- thanks to copyright protection, they have the exclusive right to
make that determination, and I respect their decision. Do you likewise
respect the decision of creative folks who prefer **not** to give their
intellectual property away?.
Adam
< snip >
> Any creative folk who want to give their intellectual property away are
> free to do so -- thanks to copyright protection, they have the exclusive
> right to make that determination, and I respect their decision. Do you
> likewise respect the decision of creative folks who prefer **not** to give
> their intellectual property away?.
Isn't this where the trouble starts, though ?
"Creative folk" are usually NOT free to give their material
for free, when the P & R copyrights are held by corporate
entities such as recording labels and recording companies.
The Creative Commons license goes quite some way to achieve
clarity in this. It allows copying, and sharing with certain
restrictions, and is legally enforceable in many countries.
The will of the artist is rarely completely in synch
with the desires of their publishing houses, who are
usually the (P)erformance and (R)ecording copyright
holders.
See the Courtney Love rant on this,
http://www.gerryhemingway.com/piracy2.html
You use the term 'intellectual property' as a catch-all,
and here you use it to mean Copyright.
Sharing (under the CCL), copying (under the GPL), fair-use
(quoting), seem to be all problematic for the new ACTA
laws. And the fact that these will threaten a prison term
for kids sharing their crappy mp3 files, is simply unattractive.
impossible
"Adam" <nos...@example.com> wrote in message
news:hd73gp$ql0$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>> Any creative folk who want to give their intellectual property away are
>> free to do so -- thanks to copyright protection, they have the exclusive
>> right to make that determination, and I respect their decision. Do you
>> likewise respect the decision of creative folks who prefer **not** to
>> give
>> their intellectual property away?.
>
> Isn't this where the trouble starts, though ?
>
> "Creative folk" are usually NOT free to give their material
> for free, when the P & R copyrights are held by corporate
> entities such as recording labels and recording companies.
>
If an artist transfers intellectual property rights to a recording company,
that's their choice.
> The Creative Commons license goes quite some way to achieve
> clarity in this. It allows copying, and sharing with certain
> restrictions, and is legally enforceable in many countries.
>
Whoever holds the copyright is entitled to set the terms of distribution. If
an artist wants to freely share their original works, then transferring
intellectual property rights to a recording company is probably a bad idea.
Do you think artists are unaware that recording companies are businesses
that strive to make a profit?
> The will of the artist is rarely completely in synch
> with the desires of their publishing houses, who are
> usually the (P)erformance and (R)ecording copyright
> holders.
>
> See the Courtney Love rant on this,
> http://www.gerryhemingway.com/piracy2.html
>
Hmmm....Nothing there about the "Creative Common". All I see is a call for
artists to get a bigger piece of the pie. The can't do that if they're
giving away their music for free.
> You use the term 'intellectual property' as a catch-all,
> and here you use it to mean Copyright.
>
Copyright is the relevant form of intellectual property in this discussion.
Is it not?
> Sharing (under the CCL), copying (under the GPL), fair-use
> (quoting), seem to be all problematic for the new ACTA
> laws. And the fact that these will threaten a prison term
> for kids sharing their crappy mp3 files, is simply unattractive.
>
There's no prohibition on sharing. But you do have to respect property
rights. Is that so difficult to understand? Anyone who wants to release
their copyrighted works under CCL is free do so. But a handful of internet
pirates don't get to make that decison for them -- they simply have no right
to do anything with copyrighted works without the permission of the
copyright holder.
impossible
"Roger_Nickel" <rni...@RemoveThis-actrix.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4af6...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
Literalism is a terrible disease.
Roger_Nickel
How can intellectual property be stolen?. Think about it. Literalism may
be a terrible thing but it is one of the foundations of our law and the
word "theft" has a specific legal meaning. A trespass or infringement on
property rights is not theft. The preamble to the Copyright Act
explicitly states that "--copyright is a property right..". Rights by
their very nature *cannot* be stolen. They can be trampled, infringed,
misused, ignored etc. but not stolen.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> Under the Copyright Act (1994), it's a criminal offence to:
>>
>> (a) make a copy of a copyrighted work or have an infringing copy in
>> their possesion
>>
>> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM346602.html
Interestingly, that page doesn’t say any such thing.
Ted
> > See the Courtney Love rant on this,
> >http://www.gerryhemingway.com/piracy2.html
>
> Hmmm....Nothing there about the "Creative Common". All I see is a call for
> artists to get a bigger piece of the pie. The can't do that if they're
> giving away their music for free.
The system we have now has resulted in the abuses described in the
Courtney Love rant. Have you any prescription for an alternative
system which would deliver a bigger slice of the pie to the artists?
Donchano
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:47:11 +1300, Adam <nos...@example.com> shouted
from the highest rooftop:
>The will of the artist is rarely completely in synch
>with the desires of their publishing houses, who are
>usually the (P)erformance and (R)ecording copyright
>holders.
I didn't have an agent to help me negotiate the contract for my first
book. As a result, the publishers took advantage of my inexperience by
assigning the copyright to themselves.
Fortunately, I was able to show a "friend of a friend" agent the
contract and although he couldn't represent me at that stage of
things, he did give me some valuable advice and suggested some
specific changes to the contract.
Amongst the changes I listed in the second round of negotiations I
asked that the copyright be put in my name.
A copy of the contract with all the changes arrived by courier a few
days later and I was able to confirm that all the changes I asked for
had been made.
An appointment was made for me to come in so we could exchange signed
contracts and celebrate.
My publishers were very genial, but even though I assumed the contract
put in front of me was the one we last agreed on, the agent had
advised me to read it one last time.
That turned out to be good advice, because when I glanced through the
contract for the last time I found that the copyright had somehow
reverted back to the publishers.
They appeared to be embarrassed and my handwritten change had to be
initialed by both parties. But I retained copyright over that and
subsequent books.
Even so, I am totally opposed to the proposed legislation and have
made submissions to that effect, because I think this kind of
draconian "sledgehammer to crack walnuts" legislation is specifically
designed to protect large corporate entities rather than individual
"artists" such as myself and colleagues, and I want nothing to do with
it.
Ted
So it appears that the publishers thought they were able to make
money, even if you retained the copyright. Suppose the law were
changed so that copyright always remained with the originator.
Wouldn't that give better results in general?
Bret
> Interestingly, that page doesn?t say any such thing.
No it doesn't :)
impossible
"Ted" <ted....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c831eda-a0b9-4968...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 8:15 am, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> See the Courtney Love rant on this,
>>> http://www.gerryhemingway.com/piracy2.html
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm....Nothing there about the "Creative Common". All I see is a call
>> for
>> artists to get a bigger piece of the pie. The can't do that if they're
>> giving away their music for free.
>>
>>
> The system we have now has resulted in the abuses described in the
> Courtney Love rant. Have you any prescription for an alternative
> system which would deliver a bigger slice of the pie to the artists?
>
>
I have nothing against artists organizing a union to negotiate better deals.
But what does that have to do with copyright law?
Thanks to copyright protection, artists actually have something of value to
bargain with -- their original works. But if they're foolish enough to
transfer this intellectual property to the recording companies in exchange
for the opportunity to become a star, then it's the record companies that
have the upper hand. So be it.
impossible
Take it up with your lawyer. Theft of intellctual property occurs whenever a
copyrighted work is taken (i.e., copied, distributed, exhibited, etc )
without the permission of the copyright holder -- no different than stealing
a car. The Copyright Act clearly defines infringement as a criminal
offence -- that's all that should really matter to you.
Ted
> > The system we have now has resulted in the abuses described in the
> > Courtney Love rant. Have you any prescription for an alternative
> > system which would deliver a bigger slice of the pie to the artists?
> I have nothing against artists organizing a union to negotiate better deals.
That's one thing they could do. But I meant: can you see any
alternative to the way the system currently works that would result in
a better deal for the artists?.
> But what does that have to do with copyright law?
That's what the current system uses at the moment. Could copyright
law be changed to give fairer results?
> Thanks to copyright protection, artists actually have something of value to
> bargain with -- their original works.
It seems to me that it's too easy for the originator to lose that
protection.
> But if they're foolish enough to
> transfer this intellectual property to the recording companies in exchange
> for the opportunity to become a star, then it's the record companies that
> have the upper hand.
Sounds to me like prosperity for clever thieves.
> So be it.
Ted
> "Roger_Nickel" <rnic...@RemoveThis-actrix.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> news:4af7...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:33:24 +0000, impossible wrote:
>
Stealing a car deprives the owner of the benefits of having the car.
Making money from a copyrighted work, where that money does not go to
the originator, deprives the originator of the benefits of originating
the work. This applies to pirates who sell copies of the work and do
not return any of the proceeds to the originator. It also applies
when a "copyright holder" sells copies of the work, and does not
return any of the proceeds to the originator. Both are thieving off
the originator. One is illegal; one is legal. The legal device that
allows this to happen is the idea that you can sell a copyright.
Perhaps this should be changed so that a copyright can only be
licensed. And for a fixed term at that...
> The Copyright Act clearly defines infringement as a criminal
> offence -- that's all that should really matter to you.
If the Act is wrong, it should be changed. That is what should matter
to every interested voter.
impossible
>> The system we have now has resulted in the abuses described in the
>>> Courtney Love rant. Have you any prescription for an alternative
>>> system which would deliver a bigger slice of the pie to the artists?
>> I have nothing against artists organizing a union to negotiate better
>> deals.
> That's one thing they could do. But I meant: can you see any
> alternative to the way the system currently works that would result in
> a better deal for the artists?.
You think Copurtney Love isn't rich enough? Why?
>> But what does that have to do with copyright law?
> That's what the current system uses at the moment. Could copyright
> law be changed to give fairer results?
Fairer for whom?
>> Thanks to copyright protection, artists actually have something of value
>> to
>> bargain with -- their original works.
> It seems to me that it's too easy for the originator to lose that
> protection.
As easy as signing a contract that transfers property rights to the record
companies. Why do artists do that ?
>> But if they're foolish enough to
>> transfer this intellectual property to the recording companies in
>> exchange
>> for the opportunity to become a star, then it's the record companies that
>> have the upper hand.
> Sounds to me like prosperity for clever thieves.
Sounds to me like "artists" who want to cash in on stardom. Petty,
individualistic, me-first types who later discover that it makes good
marketing sense to portray themselves as friends of the me-first pirate
community. Is that what you meant?
Ted
> "Ted" <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:60cb9912-8e25-4cc2...@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> The system we have now has resulted in the abuses described in the
> >>> Courtney Love rant. Have you any prescription for an alternative
> >>> system which would deliver a bigger slice of the pie to the artists?
> >> I have nothing against artists organizing a union to negotiate better
> >> deals.
> > That's one thing they could do. But I meant: can you see any
> > alternative to the way the system currently works that would result in
> > a better deal for the artists?.
>
> You think Copurtney Love isn't rich enough? Why?
I have no idea how rich Courtney Love is. However there were examples
given in the link of other artists who were treated unfairly:
- Multiplatinum artists like TLC ("Ain't 2 Proud 2 Beg,"
"Waterfalls" and "No Scrubs") and Toni Braxton ("Unbreak My Heart" and
"Breathe Again") have been forced to declare bankruptcy because their
recording contracts didn't pay them enough to survive.
- Corrupt recording agreements forced the heirs of Jimi Hendrix
("Purple Haze," "All Along the Watchtower" and "Stone Free") to work
menial jobs while his catalog generated millions of dollars each year
for Universal Music.
- Florence Ballard from the Supremes ("Where Did Our Love Go," "Stop
in the Name of Love" and "You Keep Me Hangin' On" are just 3 of the 10
#1 hits she sang on) was on welfare when she died.
- Collective Soul earned almost no money from "Shine," one of the
biggest alternative rock hits of the 90s when Atlantic paid almost all
of their royalties to an outside production company.
- Merle Haggard ("I Threw Away the Rose," "Sing Me Back Home" and
"Today I Started Loving You Again") enjoyed a string of 37 top-ten
country singles (including 23 #1 hits) in the 60s and 70s. Yet he
never received a record royalty check until last year when he released
an album on the indie punk-rock label Epitaph.
>
> >> But what does that have to do with copyright law?
> > That's what the current system uses at the moment. Could copyright
> > law be changed to give fairer results?
>
> Fairer for whom?
>
> >> Thanks to copyright protection, artists actually have something of value
> >> to
> >> bargain with -- their original works.
> > It seems to me that it's too easy for the originator to lose that
> > protection.
>
> As easy as signing a contract that transfers property rights to the record
> companies. Why do artists do that ?
Maybe because their energy and attention is directed towards their
work, rather than to looking all the time to avoid possible parasites.
>
> >> But if they're foolish enough to
> >> transfer this intellectual property to the recording companies in
> >> exchange
> >> for the opportunity to become a star, then it's the record companies that
> >> have the upper hand.
> > Sounds to me like prosperity for clever thieves.
>
> Sounds to me like "artists" who want to cash in on stardom. Petty,
> individualistic, me-first types who later discover that it makes good
> marketing sense to portray themselves as friends of the me-first pirate
> community. Is that what you meant?
No. But thanks for making clear your ideas about "artists".
impossible
Stealing intellectual property deprives the owner of the benefits of having
the exclusive right to determine wheether/how their intellectual property is
copied and distributed.
> Making money from a copyrighted work, where that money does not go to
> the originator, deprives the originator of the benefits of originating
> the work.
Not if the "originator" freely contracted to transfer those rights to
someone else -- say, a record comapny.
>
> This applies to pirates who sell copies of the work and do
> not return any of the proceeds to the originator. It also applies
> when a "copyright holder" sells copies of the work, and does not
> return any of the proceeds to the originator. Both are thieving off
> the originator. One is illegal; one is legal.
Yes, the record company has legal title to the intellectual property.
Pirates do not.
> The legal device that
> allows this to happen is the idea that you can sell a copyright.
No, you can't sell a copyright -- but you can assign/transfer any exclusive
rights you have as a copyright holder to someone else. In the musicindustry,
this is often done by "artists" whose commitment to the goal of stardom is
greater than their commitment to art.
> Perhaps this should be changed so that a copyright can only be
> licensed. And for a fixed term at that...
Why?
>> The Copyright Act clearly defines infringement as a criminal
>> offence -- that's all that should really matter to you.
> If the Act is wrong, it should be changed. That is what should matter
> to every interested voter.
>
Yes. The last vote to go against property rights was....hmmm.....help me out
here... ?????
impossible
impossible
They signed bad contracts. What does any of this have to do with copyright
protection?
>>
>>>> But what does that have to do with copyright law?
>>> That's what the current system uses at the moment. Could copyright
>>> law be changed to give fairer results?
>>
>> Fairer for whom?
>>
>>>> Thanks to copyright protection, artists actually have something of
>>>> value
>>>> to
>>>> bargain with -- their original works.
>>> It seems to me that it's too easy for the originator to lose that
>>> protection.
>>
>> As easy as signing a contract that transfers property rights to the
>> record
>> companies. Why do artists do that ?
> Maybe because their energy and attention is directed towards their
> work, rather than to looking all the time to avoid possible parasites.
>
Maybe because their energy and attention is directed towards achieving
stardom, rather than looking all the time to protect their artistry.
>>
>>>> But if they're foolish enough to
>>>> transfer this intellectual property to the recording companies in
>>>> exchange
>>>> for the opportunity to become a star, then it's the record companies
>>>> that
>>>> have the upper hand.
>>> Sounds to me like prosperity for clever thieves.
>>
>> Sounds to me like "artists" who want to cash in on stardom. Petty,
>> individualistic, me-first types who later discover that it makes good
>> marketing sense to portray themselves as friends of the me-first pirate
>> community. Is that what you meant?
>
> No. But thanks for making clear your ideas about "artists".
You sound like a star-struck teen. Wake up!
Ted
> "Ted" <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I believe the originator of the work should have the monopoly on the
copying and distribution of the work.
>
> > Making money from a copyrighted work, where that money does not go to
> > the originator, deprives the originator of the benefits of originating
> > the work.
>
> Not if the "originator" freely contracted to transfer those rights to
> someone else -- say, a record comapny.
True only if the contracted price of transferring the rights equals
the benefits that flow from the work.
>
>
>
> > This applies to pirates who sell copies of the work and do
> > not return any of the proceeds to the originator. It also applies
> > when a "copyright holder" sells copies of the work, and does not
> > return any of the proceeds to the originator. Both are thieving off
> > the originator. One is illegal; one is legal.
>
> Yes, the record company has legal title to the intellectual property.
In this case, thieving off the artist is legal.
> Pirates do not.
In that case, thieving off the artist is illegal.
>
> > The legal device that
> > allows this to happen is the idea that you can sell a copyright.
>
> No, you can't sell a copyright -- but you can assign/transfer any exclusive
> rights you have as a copyright holder to someone else.
Same difference.
> In the musicindustry,
> this is often done by "artists" whose commitment to the goal of stardom is
> greater than their commitment to art.
Are you saying that selling off your work to a record company
indicates a second rate artistry?
>
> > Perhaps this should be changed so that a copyright can only be
> > licensed. And for a fixed term at that...
>
> Why?
So that the record company has to renegotiate at the end of the
license term and maybe compete with other companies.
Ted
Copyright law, the stated intention of which was to protect the
interests of the creator, failed to do so in practice. It was too
easy for those artists to sign bad contracts.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> But what does that have to do with copyright law?
> >>> That's what the current system uses at the moment. Could copyright
> >>> law be changed to give fairer results?
>
> >> Fairer for whom?
>
> >>>> Thanks to copyright protection, artists actually have something of
> >>>> value
> >>>> to
> >>>> bargain with -- their original works.
> >>> It seems to me that it's too easy for the originator to lose that
> >>> protection.
>
> >> As easy as signing a contract that transfers property rights to the
> >> record
> >> companies. Why do artists do that ?
> > Maybe because their energy and attention is directed towards their
> > work, rather than to looking all the time to avoid possible parasites.
>
> Maybe because their energy and attention is directed towards achieving
> stardom, rather than looking all the time to protect their artistry.
Maybe. A law which protected one sort of artist would also protect
the other. That is not a reason not to have such a law.
>
>
>
> >>>> But if they're foolish enough to
> >>>> transfer this intellectual property to the recording companies in
> >>>> exchange
> >>>> for the opportunity to become a star, then it's the record companies
> >>>> that
> >>>> have the upper hand.
> >>> Sounds to me like prosperity for clever thieves.
>
> >> Sounds to me like "artists" who want to cash in on stardom. Petty,
> >> individualistic, me-first types who later discover that it makes good
> >> marketing sense to portray themselves as friends of the me-first pirate
> >> community. Is that what you meant?
>
> > No. But thanks for making clear your ideas about "artists".
>
> You sound like a star-struck teen.
Unlike you, I suppose. What do you sound like?
> Wake up!
impossible
Even if the originator has sold their property rights to someone else?
> >
> > > Making money from a copyrighted work, where that money does not go to
> > > the originator, deprives the originator of the benefits of originating
> > > the work.
> >
> > Not if the "originator" freely contracted to transfer those rights to
> > someone else -- say, a record comapny.
>
> True only if the contracted price of transferring the rights equals
> the benefits that flow from the work.
>
Who decides what is "equal"? You, in your infinite wisdom, or the parties to
the contract?
> >
> >
> >
> > > This applies to pirates who sell copies of the work and do
> > > not return any of the proceeds to the originator. It also applies
> > > when a "copyright holder" sells copies of the work, and does not
> > > return any of the proceeds to the originator. Both are thieving off
> > > the originator. One is illegal; one is legal.
> >
> > Yes, the record company has legal title to the intellectual property.
>
> In this case, thieving off the artist is legal.
A contract has been agreed to that transfers control of the intellectual
property from one party to another. How is this thieving?
>
> > Pirates do not.
>
> In that case, thieving off the artist is illegal.
>
Pirates, by defintion, have never acquired property rights to anything. They
steal because they can.
> >
> > > The legal device that
> > > allows this to happen is the idea that you can sell a copyright.
> >
> > No, you can't sell a copyright -- but you can assign/transfer any
> > exclusive
> > rights you have as a copyright holder to someone else.
>
> Same difference.
>
> > In the musicindustry,
> > this is often done by "artists" whose commitment to the goal of stardom
> > is
> > greater than their commitment to art.
>
> Are you saying that selling off your work to a record company
> indicates a second rate artistry?
>
I'm sat=ying that an "artist" who sells intellectual propertyy to a record
company gets exactly what they bargained for.
> >
> > > Perhaps this should be changed so that a copyright can only be
> > > licensed. And for a fixed term at that...
> >
> > Why?
>
> So that the record company has to renegotiate at the end of the
> license term and maybe compete with other companies.
>
Why on earth would you want to do that?
Nicolaas Hawkins
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:28:21 +1300, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
>
>>> Software is like the contents of a book - you protect it by means of
>>> being able to prove that you had the first copy.
>>
>> If you can prove you had the 'first copy' and I can prove I had - and
>> created - the original, then what?
>>
>> By definition 'copy' != 'original'.
>
> <sigh>
>
> I believe that you understood what was meant - the "original copy" vs a reproduction of the original copy.
What you believe I may or may not have understood is irrelevant to my point.
'Original copy' is a contradiction of terms (unless we are talking about
journalistic copy - which we are not). An item can be an original, or it
can be a copy. It cannot be both.
By definition, 'copy' != 'original'. Both Oxford and Chambers seem to
agree.
--
- Nicolaas
Ted
> "Ted" <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > I believe the originator of the work should have the monopoly on the
> > copying and distribution of the work.
>
> Even if the originator has sold their property rights to someone else?
I believe that licensing the work for a fixed term is a better
system. The monopoly would be inalienable from the originator. The
originator would be the licensor. Anyone can buy and sell, but the
creator of a work is in a unique position. Under this system, the
"intellectual" part of the property need not be divorced from the
actual creator, but others can be licensed to use it.
>
>
>
> > > > Making money from a copyrighted work, where that money does not go to
> > > > the originator, deprives the originator of the benefits of originating
> > > > the work.
>
> > > Not if the "originator" freely contracted to transfer those rights to
> > > someone else -- say, a record comapny.
>
> > True only if the contracted price of transferring the rights equals
> > the benefits that flow from the work.
>
> Who decides what is "equal"? You, in your infinite wisdom, or the parties to
> the contract?
The usual arrangement. You work out the dollar amount on each side.
>
>
>
> > > > This applies to pirates who sell copies of the work and do
> > > > not return any of the proceeds to the originator. It also applies
> > > > when a "copyright holder" sells copies of the work, and does not
> > > > return any of the proceeds to the originator. Both are thieving off
> > > > the originator. One is illegal; one is legal.
>
> > > Yes, the record company has legal title to the intellectual property.
>
> > In this case, thieving off the artist is legal.
>
> A contract has been agreed to that transfers control of the intellectual
> property from one party to another. How is this thieving?
Because people who never created the work get to benefit from it, and
the benefit (in the main) doesn't get to the creator of the work.
This is legal, and it is thieving.
>
>
>
> > > Pirates do not.
>
> > In that case, thieving off the artist is illegal.
>
> Pirates, by defintion, have never acquired property rights to anything. They
> steal because they can.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > The legal device that
> > > > allows this to happen is the idea that you can sell a copyright.
>
> > > No, you can't sell a copyright -- but you can assign/transfer any
> > > exclusive
> > > rights you have as a copyright holder to someone else.
>
> > Same difference.
>
> > > In the musicindustry,
> > > this is often done by "artists" whose commitment to the goal of stardom
> > > is
> > > greater than their commitment to art.
>
> > Are you saying that selling off your work to a record company
> > indicates a second rate artistry?
>
> I'm sat=ying that an "artist" who sells intellectual propertyy to a record
> company gets exactly what they bargained for.
So they would too under the licensing proposal.
>
>
>
> > > > Perhaps this should be changed so that a copyright can only be
> > > > licensed. And for a fixed term at that...
>
> > > Why?
>
> > So that the record company has to renegotiate at the end of the
> > license term and maybe compete with other companies.
>
> Why on earth would you want to do that?
Competition for the artist's work would get a fairer deal for the
artist. Instead of an individual versus a big corporation, there
would be big corporations versus versus other big corporations.
Potentially a better balance.
Roger_Nickel
I don't need to take it up with my lawyer. I don't support weasels who
sue their best customers. I don't even support them by illegally
downloading their stuff. No doubt the CD's I no longer buy count as sales
lost to piracy. I don't apologise. I have no obligation to support these
scumbags. I have plenty of LP's and CD's already. The whole idea of
privatising our culture sucks, and that's the logical end point of the
thinking surrounding recent copyright legislation. I recommend the
documentary "rip:a remix manifesto" which is in the video libraries and
on the web for free download and which describes the chilling effects of
the current copyright regime on artistic expression better than I can
here. Oh- and by the way- leave the "like stealing a car" crap out of it.
It isn't and you know it.
impossible
"Carnations" <Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@carnations.com...
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:58:05 +0000, impossible wrote:
>
>> Strictly speaking, infringement ofd copyright is a crime under the
>> Copyright Act.
>
> A "crime" is a conviction under the Crimes Act.
>
> A conviction under the copyright act is not a crime.
>
>
Yeah, right. That would explain the title of Section131: " Criminal
liability for making or dealing with infringing objects".
Adam
[ ... ]
>>> Strictly speaking, infringement ofd copyright is a crime under the
>>> Copyright Act.
>>
>> A "crime" is a conviction under the Crimes Act.
>>
>> A conviction under the copyright act is not a crime.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah, right. That would explain the title of Section131: " Criminal
> liability for making or dealing with infringing objects".
Your use of the term "intellectual property" is vague,
so if you mean Copyright why note say it ?
Theft is theft, but that term too is vague when it is
applied to sharing or to fair use.
victor
The criminal acts defined in the copyright act are confined to making
income from infringement.
Copying, uploading, downloading and listening are not criminal acts.
Copyright is a government granted limited monopoly on the income from
copyright works.
Its more like fraud than theft.
"impossible" probably believes that mis-labeling copyright infringement
as theft carries more moral weight.
Piracy is more romantic, robbery is a bit more scary.
Copyright infringing downloads exposed a new music eco-system to a new
generation, and en masse their appetite completely exceeds any moral
weight that an analogy to theft might have.
http://www.digitalnative.org/wiki/Piracy_among_Digital_Natives
Adam
[ ... ]
> The criminal acts defined in the copyright act are confined to making
> income from infringement.
> Copying, uploading, downloading and listening are not criminal acts.
> Copyright is a government granted limited monopoly on the income from
> copyright works.
> Its more like fraud than theft.
OK. And even fraud is something of a long bow to draw.
Its just so case-specific, and seems to depend on how
who's infringing exactly what.
> "impossible" probably believes that mis-labeling copyright infringement
> as theft carries more moral weight.
> Piracy is more romantic, robbery is a bit more scary.
> Copyright infringing downloads exposed a new music eco-system to a new
> generation, and en masse their appetite completely exceeds any moral
> weight that an analogy to theft might have.
>
> http://www.digitalnative.org/wiki/Piracy_among_Digital_Natives
That's a good site.
The ACTA DMCA-like agreement is fraught with problems.
For us oldies its fair use, censorship, software engineering,
retail product interoperability, the locking of open standards,
political incompetence and more.
For the kids and students with their mp3s, education and
intelligent governorship is likely to be more successful.
http://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-ten-years-under-dmca
impossible
Copright is intellectual property. Nothing vague about that whatsoever.
Your use of the term "sharing", however, is much too vague. How can you
"share" something that doesn't belong to you? If you mean piracy why not
say it?
impossible
"victor" <reda...@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:hd9v4a$7hc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Adam wrote:
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>>>> Strictly speaking, infringement ofd copyright is a crime under the
>>>>> Copyright Act.
>>>> A "crime" is a conviction under the Crimes Act.
>>>>
>>>> A conviction under the copyright act is not a crime.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yeah, right. That would explain the title of Section131: " Criminal
>>> liability for making or dealing with infringing objects".
>>
>> Your use of the term "intellectual property" is vague, so if you mean
>> Copyright why note say it ? Theft is theft, but that term too is vague
>> when it is applied to sharing or to fair use.
>>
>>
>
> The criminal acts defined in the copyright act are confined to making
> income from infringement.
Can you not read?
Under the Copyright Act (1994), it's a criminal offence to:
(a) make a copy of a copyrighted work or have an infringing copy in their
possesion
(b) distribute, publish, issue, exhibit, broadcast, import, export, sell, or
rent a copy of a copyrighted work to the public
(c) enable someone else to do either of these things
And ...
"Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on
conviction-
"(a) In the case of an offence against subsection (1), to a fine not
exceeding $10,000 for every infringing copy to which the offence relates,
but not exceeding $150,000 in respect of the same transaction, or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years:
"(b) In the case of an offence against subsection (2) or subsection (3), to
a fine not exceeding $150,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5
years"
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM346602.html
> Copying, uploading, downloading and listening are not criminal acts.
LOL.
> Copyright is a government granted limited monopoly on the income from
> copyright works.
Copyright provides the copyright holder exclusive control over their
intellectual property. Nothing to do with making an income. Without the
permission of the copyright holder, you have no rights to do anything with
that property.
> Its more like fraud than theft.
> "impossible" probably believes that mis-labeling copyright infringement as
> theft carries more moral weight.
> Piracy is more romantic, robbery is a bit more scary.
> Copyright infringing downloads exposed a new music eco-system to a new
> generation, and en masse their appetite completely exceeds any moral
> weight that an analogy to theft might have.
>
> http://www.digitalnative.org/wiki/Piracy_among_Digital_Natives
Call it whatever you like -- it's a crime.
Allistar
No - there should always be choice. People should always have the choice to
assign copyrights to a third party if they so wish. Criminalising that
would be an affront to free trade.
--
A.
Allistar
Unless someone held a gun to their heads I see no problem.
If they signed the contracts willingly, without coercion then it is their
own faults if they don't get the compensation they think they're entitled
to.
It makes no sense to sign a contract that you know will be bad for you.
>> >>>> But what does that have to do with copyright law?
>> >>> That's what the current system uses at the moment. Could copyright
>> >>> law be changed to give fairer results?
>>
>> >> Fairer for whom?
>>
>> >>>> Thanks to copyright protection, artists actually have something of
>> >>>> value
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> bargain with -- their original works.
>> >>> It seems to me that it's too easy for the originator to lose that
>> >>> protection.
>>
>> >> As easy as signing a contract that transfers property rights to the
>> >> record
>> >> companies. Why do artists do that ?
>> > Maybe because their energy and attention is directed towards their
>> > work, rather than to looking all the time to avoid possible parasites.
>>
>> Maybe because their energy and attention is directed towards achieving
>> stardom, rather than looking all the time to protect their artistry.
>
> Maybe. A law which protected one sort of artist would also protect
> the other. That is not a reason not to have such a law.
There already is such a law. The law that uphold contracts. The thing is
that some artists agree to contracts that are more favourable to record
companies that to the artists. That is not a fault with the law though as
it's the artists own free choice to sign, or not sign, the contract.
>> >>>> But if they're foolish enough to
>> >>>> transfer this intellectual property to the recording companies in
>> >>>> exchange
>> >>>> for the opportunity to become a star, then it's the record companies
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> have the upper hand.
>> >>> Sounds to me like prosperity for clever thieves.
>>
>> >> Sounds to me like "artists" who want to cash in on stardom. Petty,
>> >> individualistic, me-first types who later discover that it makes good
>> >> marketing sense to portray themselves as friends of the me-first
>> >> pirate community. Is that what you meant?
>>
>> > No. But thanks for making clear your ideas about "artists".
>>
>> You sound like a star-struck teen.
>
> Unlike you, I suppose. What do you sound like?
>
>> Wake up!
--
A.
Donchano
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:51:59 +1300, Allistar <b...@c.com> shouted from
the highest rooftop:
>Ted wrote:
>
>> On Nov 9, 1:37�pm, Donchano <donch...@notachance.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:47:11 +1300, Adam <nos...@example.com> shouted
>>> from the highest rooftop:
>>>
>>> >The will of the artist is rarely completely in synch
>>> >with the desires of their publishing houses, who are
>>> >usually the (P)erformance and (R)ecording copyright
>>> >holders.
>>>
<snip>
>>>
>>> My publishers were very genial, but even though I assumed the contract
>>> put in front of me was the one we last agreed on, the agent had
>>> advised me to read it one last time.
>>>
>>> That turned out to be good advice, because when I glanced through the
>>> contract for the last time I found that the copyright had somehow
>>> reverted back to the publishers.
>>>
>>> They appeared to be embarrassed and my handwritten change had to be
>>> initialed by both parties. But I retained copyright over that and
>>> subsequent books.
>>>
>>> Even so, I am totally opposed to the proposed legislation and have
>>> made submissions to that effect, because I think this kind of
>>> draconian "sledgehammer to crack walnuts" legislation is specifically
>>> designed to protect large corporate entities rather than individual
>>> "artists" such as myself and colleagues, and I want nothing to do with
>>> it.
>>
>> So it appears that the publishers thought they were able to make
>> money, even if you retained the copyright. Suppose the law were
>> changed so that copyright always remained with the originator.
>> Wouldn't that give better results in general?
>
>No - there should always be choice. People should always have the choice to
>assign copyrights to a third party if they so wish. Criminalising that
>would be an affront to free trade.
I agree that there should always be a choice. Especially for
commissioned work like articles, ghost writing, copywriting and
scripts.
BTW - our son-in-law, who is a fine artist whose originals sell for
healthy sums, always retains a copyright over the image. That means
that, even though someone else owns the original painting or drawing,
the artist owns the right to reproduce that image or say when, where
and how it can be.
A few years ago he did have clients who commissioned a particular
landscape and wanted to retain the copyright so the image could not be
reproduced, but the couple had to pay a significant premium for the
privilege. But since then he has made it clear from the beginning that
he will retain the copyright, even on commissioned work. And, so far,
no one has objected.
Allistar
Isn't that par for the course? I suppose if it was done as "work for hire"
(i.e. a commissioned work) then it's reasonable to assume copyright belongs
to the customer. It's similar in my industry (software development). I do
mostly work-for-hire, and typically my clients get full rights to what I
develop for them, unless we specifically agree otherwise.
--
A.
Donchano
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:08:00 +1300, Allistar <b...@c.com> shouted from
the highest rooftop:
It may be par for the course in your industry and it is for writers
and graphic artists/designers whose work is commissioned. But it's not
for fine artists like painters, regardless of whether or not the work
is commissioned.
Allistar
I wonder what the law says in the case of commissioned works. I would expect
the copyright to stay with the creator of the work unless specifically
transferred to someone else. It makes sense to make the customer clear of
this though.
--
A.
Sailor Sam
Why would you need to wonder when there is a whole new thing, called the
internet, where you could have just looked it up.
victor
Copyright itself is not free trade, its a government granted monopoly on
the proceeds from the sale and hire of copyright content.
Copyright exists for the same purpose as patents and should expire after
similar periods.
Its not necessary for the copright to be transferable for free trade
purposes, as the original copyright holder can always license their
material to third parties.
victor
Copyright is excessive now. and has been made that way by US
political-industrial corruption. It is viewed with increasing contempt
by content consumers and the contempt for attempts to control culture
are becoming embedded in the culture. Its a logjam, and the fools
promoting this ACTA nonsense can't see that all they are doing is piling
a few more logs on top of a big leaky unstable disaster.
Donchano
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:36:59 +1300, Allistar <b...@c.com> shouted from
the highest rooftop:
It certainly DOES make sense and there are times when I will explain
to an editor or publisher that retaining copyright of my work is a
condition of me accepting the commission. Normally, I also make it a
condition that no alterations or amendments can be made without my
explicit approval,and that's led to a few lively discussions.
Nik Coughlin
Not just content consumers, an ever increasing number of content producers
as well.
Adam
[ snip ]
>>
>
> Copright is intellectual property. Nothing vague about that whatsoever.
You're right of course.
And intellectual property is half a dozen things or more.
Trade marks, brands, some patents, etc.
So, as Intellectual Property is a collective noun, subject
to collectively hundreds of pages of different Law in many
countries, the term Intellectual Property Rights is so
diffuse or imprecise as to be meaningless - unless you
specify what you're talking about.
> Your use of the term "sharing", however, is much too vague. How can you
> "share" something that doesn't belong to you? If you mean piracy why not
> say it?
True, I would like to see some contemporary definitions
of piracy.
Re: sharing, take a look at the GPL. That covers Copyrighted
'intellectual property', and has written into it the express
permission to redistribute, modify, share modifications, etc,
and the license permits this to copyrighted material, as long
as the license is unchanged and observed. Its been remarkably
successful. The license itself is copyrighted, and permits
sharing and redistribution of the material it covers.
The CCL also permits sharing under many circumstances.
I'm sure there are others.
victor
>
> No - there should always be choice. People should always have the choice to
> assign copyrights to a third party if they so wish. Criminalising that
> would be an affront to free trade.
Many libertarians consider copyright and patent to be forms of enclosure
– illegitimate government creation of exclusive privilege by prohibiting
most individuals from accessing commons. Copyright and patents are
government-granted monopolies on production, and no better than a
government-granted monopoly on producing food or oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_and_intellectual_property
Adam
> Bullshit!
>
> "Intellectual" is an adjective. "Property" is a noun in singular form -
> "properties" is the plural form.
>
> There is nothing "collective" about it.
>
OK. But I'm looking at my big Collins English dic
'updated edition', ISBN 0 00 470678 1, which says,
intellectual property n. an intangible asset such as
a copyright or patent.
collective noun n. a noun that is singular in form
but that refers to a group of people or things.
property n. pl -ies 3) possessions collectively, or
the fact of owning things of value.
I'll take your word for it.
You and impossible, seem to be suggesting the term
Intellectual Property can unambiguously refer to
Copyright - and I doubt thats the case.
Ted
> Ted wrote:
>
> > Copyright law, the stated intention of which was to protect the
> > interests of the creator, failed to do so in practice. It was too
> > easy for those artists to sign bad contracts.
>
> Unless someone held a gun to their heads I see no problem.
>
> If they signed the contracts willingly, without coercion then it is their
> own faults if they don't get the compensation they think they're entitled
> to.
Don't you accept the possibility that a law can be written badly?
>
> It makes no sense to sign a contract that you know will be bad for you.
>
This sort of reasoning can be used to justify fraud. It's just too
bad that the victim was taken in; they should have looked out better
for their own interests; if they were too stupid to employ a lawyer
they deserved what they got, etc etc. But we have laws against fraud,
so that sort of reasoning is not ultimately accepted.
Ted
If the law were changed so that copyrights could not be sold, but
could be licensed, then the originator would have the choice to
license or not.
> Criminalising that
> would be an affront to free trade.
Remember when you invoke "free trade" arguments, that copyright
involves the imposition of a monopoly.
> --
> A.
Allistar
> On Nov 10, 2:56 pm, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>> Ted wrote:
>>
>> > Copyright law, the stated intention of which was to protect the
>> > interests of the creator, failed to do so in practice. It was too
>> > easy for those artists to sign bad contracts.
>>
>> Unless someone held a gun to their heads I see no problem.
>>
>> If they signed the contracts willingly, without coercion then it is their
>> own faults if they don't get the compensation they think they're entitled
>> to.
>
> Don't you accept the possibility that a law can be written badly?
Absolutely - I think most laws are unnecessary. But this isn't an example of
that as this is plain contract law. Two parties have come to a consensual
agreement.
>> It makes no sense to sign a contract that you know will be bad for you.
>
> This sort of reasoning can be used to justify fraud. It's just too
> bad that the victim was taken in;
Taken in? Didn't they agree to the contract voluntarily?
> they should have looked out better
> for their own interests;
Yes, perhaps they should have. Not doing so it their fault though, not that
of the other party.
> if they were too stupid to employ a lawyer
> they deserved what they got, etc etc. But we have laws against fraud,
> so that sort of reasoning is not ultimately accepted.
What has this to do with fraud? In this case we are talking about an artist
voluntarily signing an agreement with a record/music label. No fraud
involved.
--
A.
Allistar
But they wouldn't have the choice to sell the copyright. Such a law would be
more limiting than the current law.
>> Criminalising that
>> would be an affront to free trade.
>
> Remember when you invoke "free trade" arguments, that copyright
> involves the imposition of a monopoly.
If copyright were to be done away with (and I'm not convinced that's a bad
idea), that would make it less likely for artists to get financial gain
from their efforts.
--
A.
Ted
> Ted wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 2:56 pm, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
> >> Ted wrote:
>
> >> > Copyright law, the stated intention of which was to protect the
> >> > interests of the creator, failed to do so in practice. It was too
> >> > easy for those artists to sign bad contracts.
>
> >> Unless someone held a gun to their heads I see no problem.
>
> >> If they signed the contracts willingly, without coercion then it is their
> >> own faults if they don't get the compensation they think they're entitled
> >> to.
>
> > Don't you accept the possibility that a law can be written badly?
>
> Absolutely - I think most laws are unnecessary. But this isn't an example of
> that as this is plain contract law. Two parties have come to a consensual
> agreement.
>
> >> It makes no sense to sign a contract that you know will be bad for you.
>
> > This sort of reasoning can be used to justify fraud. It's just too
> > bad that the victim was taken in;
>
> Taken in? Didn't they agree to the contract voluntarily?
They probably didn't fully realise the consequences of what they
agreed to. Suppose the other party - the record company, say - did
have a better idea but didn't say anything. That, in my view, isn't
fraud. Fraud would be if the record company did something to
mislead. But it's not a clearcut distinction - you could argue about
it. In any such argument, the company has the advantage; that is part
of its business.
>
> > they should have looked out better
> > for their own interests;
>
> Yes, perhaps they should have. Not doing so it their fault though, not that
> of the other party.
But maybe the fault of the law which does not compensate sufficiently
for unequal power between the parties.
>
> > if they were too stupid to employ a lawyer
> > they deserved what they got, etc etc. But we have laws against fraud,
> > so that sort of reasoning is not ultimately accepted.
>
> What has this to do with fraud? In this case we are talking about an artist
> voluntarily signing an agreement with a record/music label. No fraud
> involved.
I gave examples of the sort of reasons given when attempts are made to
justify unfair practices, Children are a good source of this sort
thing, before they learn to hide it better. Fraud is an extreme
example of an unfair practice; less extreme examples could be
described as sharp practice. In particular cases, you could argue
about whether that was fraud or not. If you signed an agreement
expecting to get some money from your works; money was made; but you
did not get any of it - what would you call that? Probably not the
same as the company's lawyer.
Ted
Yes. If we were to have complete freedom, then anyone could freely
copy the artist's work and make money by selling it. The artist would
not get anything for their efforts. So we impose a restriction on
that sort of activity. The restriction, though, is man-made; it can
be anything we dream up. Some schemes will be better than others.
How does the current scheme rate? Some of the consequences have been
undesirable.
Allistar
The undesirable consequences of the current system is a direct result of
artists voluntarily agreeing to "undesirable" terms. That's not a fault of
the system but a fault of the individual artists.
--
A.
Allistar
> On Nov 11, 9:41 am, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>> Ted wrote:
>> > On Nov 10, 2:56 pm, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>> >> Ted wrote:
>>
>> >> > Copyright law, the stated intention of which was to protect the
>> >> > interests of the creator, failed to do so in practice. It was too
>> >> > easy for those artists to sign bad contracts.
>>
>> >> Unless someone held a gun to their heads I see no problem.
>>
>> >> If they signed the contracts willingly, without coercion then it is
>> >> their own faults if they don't get the compensation they think they're
>> >> entitled to.
>>
>> > Don't you accept the possibility that a law can be written badly?
>>
>> Absolutely - I think most laws are unnecessary. But this isn't an example
>> of that as this is plain contract law. Two parties have come to a
>> consensual agreement.
>>
>> >> It makes no sense to sign a contract that you know will be bad for
>> >> you.
>>
>> > This sort of reasoning can be used to justify fraud. It's just too
>> > bad that the victim was taken in;
>>
>> Taken in? Didn't they agree to the contract voluntarily?
>
> They probably didn't fully realise the consequences of what they
> agreed to.
Hardly a fault of the system though.
> Suppose the other party - the record company, say - did
> have a better idea but didn't say anything. That, in my view, isn't
> fraud. Fraud would be if the record company did something to
> mislead.
Isn't this what lawyers are for? Besides, haven't these sorts of deals, and
the consequences of these sorts of deals been going on for decades?
Ignorance of the consequences is hardly likely.
> But it's not a clearcut distinction - you could argue about
> it. In any such argument, the company has the advantage; that is part
> of its business.
The artist starts off with the advantage as they have works that are deemed
valuable enough to trade.
>>
>> > they should have looked out better
>> > for their own interests;
>>
>> Yes, perhaps they should have. Not doing so it their fault though, not
>> that of the other party.
>
> But maybe the fault of the law which does not compensate sufficiently
> for unequal power between the parties.
At the time of negotiation the power is equal as either party can walk away
freely. An imbalance of power comes when an imbalanced agreement is made.
>> > if they were too stupid to employ a lawyer
>> > they deserved what they got, etc etc. But we have laws against fraud,
>> > so that sort of reasoning is not ultimately accepted.
>>
>> What has this to do with fraud? In this case we are talking about an
>> artist voluntarily signing an agreement with a record/music label. No
>> fraud involved.
>
> I gave examples of the sort of reasons given when attempts are made to
> justify unfair practices, Children are a good source of this sort
> thing, before they learn to hide it better. Fraud is an extreme
> example of an unfair practice; less extreme examples could be
> described as sharp practice. In particular cases, you could argue
> about whether that was fraud or not. If you signed an agreement
> expecting to get some money from your works; money was made; but you
> did not get any of it - what would you call that?
Either the contract was broken, in which case you have avenues to see that
you get compensated, or you misunderstood the contract.
Why sign a contract you are not 100% clear about?
> Probably not the same as the company's lawyer.
To sooner artists stop dealing with such companies the better. Yet they
still sign up with them.
--
A.
Ted
Well, I disagree. In my view, a considerable proportion of fault is
due to the system
Allistar
Which part of the system encourages artists to sign unfavourable contracts?
--
A.
whoisthis
<9a957c5e-e1a6-469b...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Ted <ted....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2:56�pm, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
> > Ted wrote:
> >
> > > Copyright law, the stated intention of which was to protect the
> > > interests of the creator, failed to do so in practice. �It was too
> > > easy for those artists to sign bad contracts.
> >
> > Unless someone held a gun to their heads I see no problem.
> >
> > If they signed the contracts willingly, without coercion then it is their
> > own faults if they don't get the compensation they think they're entitled
> > to.
>
> Don't you accept the possibility that a law can be written badly?
Of course they can, but that does not automatically make every law you
disagree with badly written.
>
> >
> > It makes no sense to sign a contract that you know will be bad for you.
> >
>
> This sort of reasoning can be used to justify fraud. It's just too
> bad that the victim was taken in; they should have looked out better
> for their own interests; if they were too stupid to employ a lawyer
> they deserved what they got, etc etc. But we have laws against fraud,
> so that sort of reasoning is not ultimately accepted.
There ARE laws to protect against unfair contracts. However we must also
accept that to sign a contract you must legally be an adult. LOTS of
laws are "unfair", take marriage for example, after 3 years you are
entitled to 1/2... why ??, in many cases they live a life of idle luxury
having not earned the wealth before,during,and after the marriage.....
Ted
The part that tolerates unequal power balance between the parties.
The "licensing for a fixed term" proposal redresses this imbalance to
a certain extent, in my opinion. But I'm open to other suggestions.
Ted
> In article
> <9a957c5e-e1a6-469b-8650-634b019ff...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 2:56 pm, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
> > > Ted wrote:
>
> > > > Copyright law, the stated intention of which was to protect the
> > > > interests of the creator, failed to do so in practice. It was too
> > > > easy for those artists to sign bad contracts.
>
> > > Unless someone held a gun to their heads I see no problem.
>
> > > If they signed the contracts willingly, without coercion then it is their
> > > own faults if they don't get the compensation they think they're entitled
> > > to.
>
> > Don't you accept the possibility that a law can be written badly?
>
> Of course they can, but that does not automatically make every law you
> disagree with badly written.
Indeed it doesn't.
>
>
>
> > > It makes no sense to sign a contract that you know will be bad for you.
>
> > This sort of reasoning can be used to justify fraud. It's just too
> > bad that the victim was taken in; they should have looked out better
> > for their own interests; if they were too stupid to employ a lawyer
> > they deserved what they got, etc etc. But we have laws against fraud,
> > so that sort of reasoning is not ultimately accepted.
>
> There ARE laws to protect against unfair contracts. However we must also
> accept that to sign a contract you must legally be an adult. LOTS of
> laws are "unfair", take marriage for example, after 3 years you are
> entitled to 1/2... why ??, in many cases they live a life of idle luxury
> having not earned the wealth before,during,and after the marriage.....
How true.
Allistar
Before anything is signed there is no unequal power balance.
> The "licensing for a fixed term" proposal redresses this imbalance to
> a certain extent, in my opinion. But I'm open to other suggestions.
Can the artist put such a clause into the contract they sign?
--
A.
Ted
If they had the legal smarts. You could expect an artist's expertise
to be in other areas, though. Better to make it the legal default.
Another question would be what happens if the company sold the
copyright to yet another party. In the licensing scheme, however many
times this happened (and for what monetary compensation, presumably
the artist would see none of that), eventually control would return to
the artist when the license period expired.
Adam
Roger. Copy that. I think we're in general
agreement.
I'm just wondering which is going to be worse,
the ACTA thing or the US-FTA that its designed
to facilitate.
An issue for another thread later, perhaps.
Allistar
Given that artists have been signing contracts with such companies for many,
many years now, you'd think they'd be aware of the pitfalls.
> Better to make it the legal default.
There should be no "legal default" - that what a contract is for.
> Another question would be what happens if the company sold the
> copyright to yet another party.
If the artist doesn't want that to happen, they should put it in the
contract.
> In the licensing scheme, however many
> times this happened (and for what monetary compensation, presumably
> the artist would see none of that), eventually control would return to
> the artist when the license period expired.
Sounds like a good clause to put in their contracts. No change of law
required.
--
A.
Ted
You are using "artists" as a sort of analogue to "company". But in
practice, it is not "artists" with many years of experience who sign a
contract, but an individual artist, perhaps with no years of
experience in signing contracts. So your point is invalid.
>
> > Better to make it the legal default.
>
> There should be no "legal default" - that what a contract is for.
I am suggesting that there should be a default.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> The undesirable consequences of the current system is a direct result of
> artists voluntarily agreeing to "undesirable" terms. That's not a fault of
> the system but a fault of the individual artists.
Blame the victims.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> ... there should always be choice.
There often isn't. How do you propose to fix that?
Allistar
Ideally? Remove all laws that limit our primary freedoms. I.e. move to a
libertarian style system - one based purely on the protection of liberty.
--
A.
Allistar
If they are victims it's because of their own actions.
--
A.
Allistar
You're supporting the signing of a complicated contract by someone who is
not fully aware of the terms of that contract. I'm saying that before they
sign anything they should ensure they *are* fully aware.
Do you think anyone who signs a contract without full knowledge of what it
entails should not be subject to the conditions of that contract?
>>
>> > Better to make it the legal default.
>>
>> There should be no "legal default" - that what a contract is for.
>
> I am suggesting that there should be a default.
Fair enough. I am disagreeing with you. We don't need more regulation, we
need less.
>> > Another question would be what happens if the company sold the
>> > copyright to yet another party.
>>
>> If the artist doesn't want that to happen, they should put it in the
>> contract.
>>
>> > In the licensing scheme, however many
>> > times this happened (and for what monetary compensation, presumably
>> > the artist would see none of that), eventually control would return to
>> > the artist when the license period expired.
>>
>> Sounds like a good clause to put in their contracts. No change of law
>> required.
Surely the details of a contract should be between the two parties it
involves and not the state? The state should not get involved other then th
enforce the contract if that is required.
--
A.
Ted
I'm not sure that I am. I'd prefer to see a simple contract signed by
parties who well understood it, if possible. Needless complexity is a
red flag for sharp practice, in my view.
> I'm saying that before they
> sign anything they should ensure they *are* fully aware.
Good advice.
>
> Do you think anyone who signs a contract without full knowledge of what it
> entails should not be subject to the conditions of that contract?
Yes.
>
>
>
> >> > Better to make it the legal default.
>
> >> There should be no "legal default" - that what a contract is for.
>
> > I am suggesting that there should be a default.
>
> Fair enough. I am disagreeing with you. We don't need more regulation, we
> need less.
Another alternative would be the same amount of regulation, but better
designed.
>
> >> > Another question would be what happens if the company sold the
> >> > copyright to yet another party.
>
> >> If the artist doesn't want that to happen, they should put it in the
> >> contract.
>
> >> > In the licensing scheme, however many
> >> > times this happened (and for what monetary compensation, presumably
> >> > the artist would see none of that), eventually control would return to
> >> > the artist when the license period expired.
>
> >> Sounds like a good clause to put in their contracts. No change of law
> >> required.
>
> Surely the details of a contract should be between the two parties it
> involves and not the state?
Yes
>The state should not get involved other then th
> enforce the contract if that is required.
But then the state is involved.
> --
> A.
Allistar
Indeed it is, so it's a wonder why people sign such contracts given how
dodgy they may look.
>> I'm saying that before they
>> sign anything they should ensure they *are* fully aware.
>
> Good advice.
>
>>
>> Do you think anyone who signs a contract without full knowledge of what
>> it entails should not be subject to the conditions of that contract?
>
> Yes.
Doesn't that effectively render any contract useless? Someone could say "Oh,
I didn't know it meant that!" and then not be held accountable for
renegging on the contract. That would be very dangerous. Contracts only
have worth if they can be upheld. For that reason (and to reiterate the
point you agreed to above), people should be fully aware of what a contract
entails before agreeing to it.
>> >> > Better to make it the legal default.
>>
>> >> There should be no "legal default" - that what a contract is for.
>>
>> > I am suggesting that there should be a default.
>>
>> Fair enough. I am disagreeing with you. We don't need more regulation, we
>> need less.
>
> Another alternative would be the same amount of regulation, but better
> designed.
A better solution would be no regulation, and freedom among parties to make
uncoerced agreements with each other.
>> >> > Another question would be what happens if the company sold the
>> >> > copyright to yet another party.
>>
>> >> If the artist doesn't want that to happen, they should put it in the
>> >> contract.
>>
>> >> > In the licensing scheme, however many
>> >> > times this happened (and for what monetary compensation, presumably
>> >> > the artist would see none of that), eventually control would return
>> >> > to the artist when the license period expired.
>>
>> >> Sounds like a good clause to put in their contracts. No change of law
>> >> required.
>>
>> Surely the details of a contract should be between the two parties it
>> involves and not the state?
>
> Yes
Yet you are suggesting the state get involved by enforcing a "default"
position.
>>The state should not get involved other then th
>> enforce the contract if that is required.
>
> But then the state is involved.
Only if things turn pear shaped. They would not be involved at any point
until then.
--
A.
victor
Bullshit.
Copyright has been successively incrementally revised and extended in
favour of large corporate license agregators over a century.
It has far exceeded the mandate of its original intentions so that the
copyrighted content of generations of culture is locked away by
companies who have no intention of releasing any of it under their
current business model.
These companies purchased these rights under the assumption that they
would only be able to be released on physical media which was only
capable of difficult copying, and wore out just like paperback books do.
The content creators sold their rights under the same assumption that
only this single distribution channel and business method would ever
exist. When digital replay media came along it created a windfall profit
bubble which funded further extension of copyright terms.
Now we are stuck in a cultural Mexican standoff where an entrepeneurial
free market is impossible because of a government granted perpetual
monopoly.
This situation has been created by government intervention, and its not
all bad, but because it is a legislative problem , not a property rights
issue, it can only be solved by government intervention to create
adaptable copyright which fulfills the original mandate to promote
progress. It has been subverted for short term profit to the detriment
of the long term interests of all parties, and is being further
subverted at the moment by those who think that short term profit is
their entitlement.
victor
That would mean the removal of all "intellectual property" laws,
patents, copyrights, trademarks, because they restrict the primary right
to freedom of expression.
Not good for shareholders.
victor
>
> Only if things turn pear shaped. They would not be involved at any point
> until then.
The state created copyright.
The state set the copyright terms.
The state mandated the royalty collection agencies.
The state representatives in the US get campaign funding form the
royalty collection agencies and their clients.
So how do they become "uninvolved" ?
Allistar
There is an argument to say that trademarks should be protected as it would
be protecting fraud. As for patents, copyrights etc? So be it. The world
with be a different place without them, but not a worse place.
> Not good for shareholders.
Shareholders? Why should shareholders have more rights than anyone else?
--
A.
Allistar
> Allistar wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message <SbCdnRU0dradeWTX...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The undesirable consequences of the current system is a direct result
>>>> of artists voluntarily agreeing to "undesirable" terms. That's not a
>>>> fault of the system but a fault of the individual artists.
>>> Blame the victims.
>>
>> If they are victims it's because of their own actions.
>
> Bullshit.
> Copyright has been successively incrementally revised and extended in
> favour of large corporate license agregators over a century.
> It has far exceeded the mandate of its original intentions so that the
> copyrighted content of generations of culture is locked away by
> companies who have no intention of releasing any of it under their
> current business model.
Nobody forced the artists to assign copyrights to these companies.
> These companies purchased these rights under the assumption that they
> would only be able to be released on physical media which was only
> capable of difficult copying, and wore out just like paperback books do.
> The content creators sold their rights under the same assumption that
> only this single distribution channel and business method would ever
> exist. When digital replay media came along it created a windfall profit
> bubble which funded further extension of copyright terms.
> Now we are stuck in a cultural Mexican standoff where an entrepeneurial
> free market is impossible because of a government granted perpetual
> monopoly.
Government formed monopolies are not a good thing. Doing away with it means
doing away with copyright althogether.
> This situation has been created by government intervention, and its not
> all bad, but because it is a legislative problem , not a property rights
> issue, it can only be solved by government intervention to create
> adaptable copyright which fulfills the original mandate to promote
> progress. It has been subverted for short term profit to the detriment
> of the long term interests of all parties, and is being further
> subverted at the moment by those who think that short term profit is
> their entitlement.
Or, artists could stop signing agreements with companies that get involved
in such dodgy practices. Artists could sign contracts that do not hand over
their copyright.
--
A.
Allistar
> Allistar wrote:
>
>>
>> Only if things turn pear shaped. They would not be involved at any point
>> until then.
>
> The state created copyright.
> The state set the copyright terms.
Yes they did. Should those things be repealed?
> The state mandated the royalty collection agencies.
Which they should never have done - it's none of their business.
> The state representatives in the US get campaign funding form the
> royalty collection agencies and their clients.
That's the US, not NZ.
> So how do they become "uninvolved" ?
By people voting for a free, fairer system. Once based on minimal state
involvement.
--
A.
victor
> victor wrote:
>
>> Allistar wrote:
>>
>>> Only if things turn pear shaped. They would not be involved at any point
>>> until then.
>> The state created copyright.
>> The state set the copyright terms.
>
> Yes they did. Should those things be repealed?
They need to be more limited in scope and only the governments can do that.
>
>> The state mandated the royalty collection agencies.
>
> Which they should never have done - it's none of their business.
>
>> The state representatives in the US get campaign funding form the
>> royalty collection agencies and their clients.
>
> That's the US, not NZ.
Thats where our copyright is controlled.
>
>> So how do they become "uninvolved" ?
>
> By people voting for a free, fairer system. Once based on minimal state
> involvement.
The copyright legislation is 100% state involvement, there is no getting
away from it.
Copyright is a construction of the state ever since the statute of Anne,
thats why license fee income is called "royalties".
Allistar
> Allistar wrote:
>> victor wrote:
>>
>>> Allistar wrote:
>>>
>>>> Only if things turn pear shaped. They would not be involved at any
>>>> point until then.
>>> The state created copyright.
>>> The state set the copyright terms.
>>
>> Yes they did. Should those things be repealed?
>
> They need to be more limited in scope and only the governments can do
> that.
Wouldn't repealing them altogether be better?
>>> The state mandated the royalty collection agencies.
>>
>> Which they should never have done - it's none of their business.
>>
>>> The state representatives in the US get campaign funding form the
>>> royalty collection agencies and their clients.
>>
>> That's the US, not NZ.
>
> Thats where our copyright is controlled.
That's cynical, but I fear it has an element of truth in it. It goes to show
how socialism creeps from one state to another.
>>> So how do they become "uninvolved" ?
>>
>> By people voting for a free, fairer system. Once based on minimal state
>> involvement.
>
> The copyright legislation is 100% state involvement, there is no getting
> away from it.
There is if it's abolished altogether.
> Copyright is a construction of the state ever since the statute of Anne,
> thats why license fee income is called "royalties".
Never-the-less, copyright still starts with the person who creates the
works. Not the record companies. The artists are not forced to hand over
control of their works to those record companies, and people are not forced
to buy products from those record companies. If what they are doing is do
bad, why do people continue to deal with them?
--
A.