Discussion: On Copyright
738 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
-
Damn.
-
“I called the company to explain that a lot of this material was NOT in fact registered with the US copyright office, instead we did the ol’ poor man’s copyright."
this one smells a little funny.
my understanding is that a creative work is copyright the minute you finish it. the onus is on you to prove you were the first with it which is where the getting your finished disc in a library somewhere thing comes into it.The web host asking for proof of copyright would simply require a letter from the record label (ie himself) saying yep, this is his shit.
Then they have written consent.I would also have thought that someone would have had to have complained. maybe the did and it was bogus.
that end bit about how the label owner didn't keep copies of the material or artwork so is asking the public to send him his own music????? not doing a great deal for the notion that artists and labels are intelligent beings. I'm having a hard time believing it.
-
So did rob(bery) get an acceptable explanation of why copyright has a term, whereas physical propety is forever?
-
So did rob(bery) get an acceptable explanation of why copyright has a term, whereas physical property is forever?
not really so far we've had,
it isn't property - even though it has the word property in the phrase 'intellectual property' and we've seen a continual movement to understanding and assigning greater rights to IP over the last few hundred years and more so in the last 100.Then there was that's the way it is - accept it which didn't offer any real explaination
also the society has seen fit to grant this much right, be grateful which disturbingly harks back to the days of royal decree and aristocrats allowing the masses certain rights which they can take away at any time. example a: some property in the UK can be bought by you but after a period of time (100 years) reverts to the upper class twit family.
hopefully in the colonies we've managed to break free of the old ways and move forward to reasoned and intelligent responses to such questions as "if I create it is it mine". -
OK, so here's my take on it then.
An artist could create a piece of art and keep it under lock and key which would effectively mean that it remains property of the artist, or part of the artist's legacy forever (assuming that it's locked away and never sold, never looked at by others....as they might steal it's intangible form and...put it on the internet for example).
But it seems that the value is often (perhaps) in sharing the piece. As to some degree there are not tangible/physical property rights associated with an image (including the image of a sound) or idea (story...call it what you will), an artificial right is created to protect the right of the artist (author...perhaps owner also needs to be covered). The consideration (in the legal sense) that is provided, is that as this is an artificial right (i.e. not one that occurs naturally as would with physical property), the period for which the right exists is limited.
Thus...
If the piece of art (in whatever form) was locked away in a vault forever, then yeah the rights would be forever....as nobody would ever see what it was and thus the idea/image would be (in theory) safe.
But if on the other hand, the idea/image is to be shared in some way, the notion of copyright exists to allow the right(s) of the artist to be protected.
The term is there as a pragmatic step. What else can the artist give up in all cases as a form of consideration for the protection of copyright?
(anyway, there I've tried....to not to try would have simply been to fail...I'm sure I've been fair from elegant and for that I apologize).
-
oh yeah an explanation of consideration in the legal sense may assist... Consideration is what you give up in order to be bound by a contract....It's one of the legal requirments for a contract. If there is no consideration, then there aint no contract. Copyright is like a contract between the artist and the entity that enforces copyright...being "the Crown". The Crown gives up the right not to not enforce (if asked). The artist gives up the right to forever and replaces it with the term of the copyright. Hey presto copyright is a contract!...then again I could be completely wrong and just have dreamt that I attended all those lectures...but I hope my imagination is better than this/that :o)
-
What I'm curious about is this sense people are expressing that property is a "natural" right ("natural" is a loaded term, and best handled like a loaded gun;-)) while intellectual property is essentially artificial.
I don't see it.
Property rights- unless you simply mean "possession is nine-tenths of the law"- seem quite artificial to me. (You might have a point if you were simply asserting "might is right"!)
I presume you're refering to what are called principles of natural justice.
Intellectual property is a different sort of property, to be sure, in its "mode of existance": that is, it doesn't inhere in any one physical object.
But as the product human toil, what principles of natural justice would you appeal to, to assert the creator's right to IP be different?
(And please: can we stop talking about people being able to copyright "ideas". It's misleading, because it implies copyright impinges on freedom of thought. And it's bugging me!) -
The term is there as a pragmatic step. What else can the artist give up in all cases as a form of consideration for the protection of copyright?
The question to your question is why do they have to give up anything in consideration for a recognition of their rights, and do we require this in recognition of rights for something like land,
You have a big farm, i'll just live on one corner of it near the stream, you'll hardly notice, no, I own it etc.the entity that enforces copyright...being "the Crown"
since we don't have a crown anymore, isn't that concept outdated. you're not bargaining with the all powerful wealthy any more, we're developing a society that strives for equality and fairness, even on an intellectual level. apparently we've seen fit to acknowledge creative work as belonging to someone in the past and are slowly developing an understanding of that and extending rights and control.
The entity that enforces copyright at the moment is the law, and the right to sue, ie not much is stopping it, which is why some 'backup' is being looked for by copyright holders. Why have a law if you don't enforce it?.
As pointed out it isn't yet classified as a criminal offense, as in enforced by the police and gets you a criminal record, but it is illegal. when you infringe copyright you break the law.
Interesting to note police are involved in closing down pirate dvd stores and duplication rings so there must be some level of 'force' involvement at the higher levels of it.
so for the the pedants who argue over the terms 'theft' and 'crime', have a go at 'illegal', 'against the law'. a not very well enforced law, like drunk driving was a few years back.
-
However, Jon - Rob did dismiss out of hand some of the relevant intellectual underpinnings from academic cultural theory - that culture is not created solely by artists and authors, and that this changes the "ownership" equation and therefore any consequent "rights". He also doesn't seem to be paying much heed to the views of the copyright specialists who have contributed to this conversation.
Some mutual respect might allow deeper understanding. Running an indie record label and a recording studio brings valuable lessons but to think it supplies all the relevant knowledge guarantees a certain lack of illumination. Perhaps the dark feels somehow more comfortable, or a bonfire is needed for those with weak sight. Match, anyone?
-
since we don't have a crown anymore, isn't that concept outdated.
Umm, yes we do.
-
Intellectual property is a different sort of property
It is different. Mainly because intellectual endeavour is akin to a classic "Commons". It is hard to identify where the personal ownership starts and ends.
It obviously and demonstrably does usually survive without tragic consequences.
-
Rob did dismiss out of hand some of the relevant intellectual underpinnings from academic cultural theory - that culture is not created solely by artists and authors,
come on sasha, that's not true, I disputed that theory, not dismissed out of hand. I don't agree with it. can't we still be friends?
Some mutual respect might allow deeper understanding. Running an indie record label and a recording studio brings valuable lessons but to think it supplies all the relevant knowledge guarantees a certain lack of illumination.
:) come on mate, just cos you know who I am. I try not to make this about me and in most of my arguments I think Ive succeeded. my critcism of drm is most definitely not about me or my music. you can't find my shit on line even if you did want to download it. i've gone out of my way to make my criticism on NZ on Air not about how and indie label fits into the picture.
likewise my comments on copyright are not about how that reflects on my label or studio, although I do call on my experience and contact with creatives in that argument to back up my thoughts. is that such a bad thing?
I'm sorry if you've taken personal offense and taken my comments on your ideas to heart. While I do agree that there is a partnership between society and what becomes culture I don't think its a relevant thing to introduce into the equation when assessing copyright. not all creative work is deemed culture, and it can be our culture with out society owning it. it confuses the issue which is if I create something should I own it. Its cultural value is an add on side benefit, not the crux of the matter.
I mean counting the beat is very much a part of our present culture and its still in copyright. why should it ever go out of copyright. it doesn't hurt our society to have it owned and controlled by someone.all of these thoughts I have constructed as an individual, not some pigeonholed label, studio dude.
I don't go asking you about your back ground and I don't even think its relevant to the discussion, I take what you say purely on its face value.
I could have been the guy who told islander to get a real job, if that was my point of view. it helps to know who people are purely from the point of not accidentally putting your foot in your mouth.
you know who I am, now forget it and critique my comments purely on what I say. -
Umm, yes we do.
true, but mostly in name alone. how much power do they have left over the colonies now?
its hard to feel ruled by someone who is pretty much a tourist attraction. -
true, but mostly in name alone. how much power do they have left over the colonies now?
its hard to feel ruled by someone who is pretty much a tourist attraction.All laws in NZ come from 'the crown'. It's not a reference to the person, it's a reference to the state when the head of state is royalty.
-
Don- maybe there's a gap here between "intellectual" and artistic endeavour? FWIW I'm not against copyright lapsing, and I'd probably tend more towards "life plus 20" than "life plus 50". I'm just puzzled noone seems to be able to answer roobery's basic question!
Do you think there's a problem with the current distinctions between the "commons" of ideas (you can't copyright an "idea" for a work- or stop anyone else creating along the same lines), genres, structures etc- and the copyright that does exist on a particular "expression" of those (a "work")? Seems straightforward enough to me- though seldom as simple where the legal rubber hits the road.
But perhaps I'm biased towards creative work and against scientific/technological? (FWIW I think at least some science and technology is marvellously creative). I hate the idea of algorithms (or genes) being patented: it seems to me these are "common goods" which noone should be able to fence off; and perhaps also that they are things more discovered than created. -
All laws in NZ come from 'the crown'. It's not a reference to the person, it's a reference to the state when the head of state is royalty.
yes, that's where they originated from true, but we have or are moving away from that. we're not a monarchy anymore.
wasn't there some sort of commotion about our courts being cut off from the uk courts now, on you're own now and all that?we're heading for a republic if we're not there already and world politics and copyright are no where near the system of publicly admitting power to hereditary succession.
so the question is what relevance does a right granted by an ancient system have in today's more illuminated world and is there any point in arguing based those old conditions, when we obviously should and do look at things in a different light.
-
"natural" right ("natural" is a loaded term)
I'm confused about that argument too.
do people mean other property is defendable on the grounds that you can club someone over the head if they try to take what's yours. surely if you as a 'caveman' thought some collection of notes you used to call your family in for spit roast oxen was yours cos you wrote it and used it, (and in modern times we do deem music to be ownable if only for a limited period of time at present) then you could by your own natural logic of the time go club someone who was using it without your permission. does that make it a natural right now? -
I'm just puzzled noone seems to be able to answer roobery's basic question!
robbery asks a lot of basic questions. Answer one and he moves on claiming you haven't answered "this one".
I have seen the question about property rights answered a number of times in perfectly reasonable ways. I just gave you a short one myself. You disagree with the answer but it does not mean that the "basic question" has gone unanswered.
you can't copyright an "idea" for a work- or stop anyone else creating along the same lines
Which is why Copyright is certainly a superior concept than patenting. I think we have complete common ground there. I think your Copyright terms are too prescriptive and as others have maybe implied there should be and are different terms different types of work. There are very good arguments for keeping terms short which have been explored up this thread.
However, the core issue right now is not really whether life, five, ten 100 years is the correct term, the core issue is that as a society we are trading away so key civil rights to help with the short term enforcement of Copyright. this is at the same time as Copyright holders are demanding huge increases in term. It will be hard to get those rights back once they have been handed over to the people robbery doesn't represent and this is bad.
-
@don
Yes.
-
Answer one and he moves on claiming you haven't answered "this one".
That wasn't me claiming it, it was simon, rob stowell, kerry etc who felt no one had answered it sufficiently in a logical and clear way. Apparently that still stands. I listed the answers above, they don't seem to wash with a few people. they want to know why they should expire if they're deemed to be enough of a right in the first place to give creatives control over it.
-
yes, that's where they originated from true, but we have or are moving away from that.
It's not a historical reference to an ancient system. Copyright laws were written by a modern parliament in NZ, the head of state had no input into them. Jon's original quote was:
Copyright is like a contract between the artist and the entity that enforces copyright...being "the Crown".
That's the situation now for copyright laws, and all other laws - they're enforced by the crown, through government agents such as police, courts etc.
There's a reason why the Governor General opens parliament, and why the PM has to indicate to them that they can form a government. If you want a different example, America is a republic, and you can use that word in much the same over there.
-
That wasn't me claiming it, it was simon, rob stowell, kerry etc who felt no one had answered it sufficiently in a logical and clear way.
Agreed Rob...I really don't think, Don, that anyone here has been able to argue persuasively why one physical object with income earning rights differs from another. Why does the master tape differ from the house?
-
Why does the master tape differ from the house?
Simon, a house is fundamentally useful for shelter, though it also has cultural aspects which affect its value. Those differ across places, times and societies (as you'd be well aware comparing Bali with Aotearoa).
However, the realisable value of a master tape depends entirely on cultural context as it is only useful for making cultural products. Despite what Rob thinks that is not an "add-on".
And no, Rob, it's not some personal belief of mine but an entire field of study that you dismissed as "hypothetical". It's a "theory" like evolution is one.
You can keep saying "if I create something I should own it" but that just shows you really don't understand the broader nature of cultural creation or the negotiation of cultural value over time - which copyright is just one mechanism for managing. We probably agree that we need a better mechanism.
I may be grumpy at times but I'm only offended when people waste oxygen and demean shared forums, not when they disagree with me.
-
Hi Simon
It has been pointed out that the master tape as a physical entity is the same as other physical property.
Rather than saying "you haven't answered the question" tell us why:
It [IP] is different. Mainly because intellectual endeavour is akin to a classic "Commons". It is hard to identify where the personal ownership starts and ends.
It obviously and demonstrably does usually survive without tragic consequences.
is invalid as an answer. Maybe then we can progress a little.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.