Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:38:26 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>, "Victor R. Cardona" <vcardona@home.com>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stallman stalls again Message-ID: <15021.56450.940181.638227@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010312215702.0445f5f0@localhost> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010311235053.00e26140@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010311230800.00e19bd0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010311193801.0441d3c0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010306122244.04477f00@localhost> <20010305200017.D80474@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010305123951.04604b20@localhost> <20010305205030.G80474@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010305125259.00cfdae0@localhost> <20010305142108.A17269@marx.marvic.chum> <4.3.2.7.2.20010306011342.045fb360@localhost> <20010306081025.A22143@marx.marvic.chum> <4.3.2.7.2.20010306092612.00b79f00@localhost> <20010306174618.N32515@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010312215702.0445f5f0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> types: > At 01:05 AM 3/12/2001, Mike Meyer wrote: > >My point is that the conferred rights do *not* have to be the > >copyright system. > The rights granted by copyright are the only ones that Congress > is allowed by the Constitution to confer. So? One of the first things the US did with the constitution was change it. > >Actually, the things copyright holders have the right to demand > >compensation for are listed in the US copyright code, chapter 1, > >section 106. "Fair use" is a list of exceptions those rights. They > >don't have the right to demand compensation for anything not listed > >in that section, whether it's fair use or not. > > There's no such thing as a "US Copyright Code." There is, however, > a section of the US Code dealing with copyright. Yes, but it's a lot easier to type "US Copyright Code" than to type "The section of the US Code dealing with copyright", or even "United States, Code Title 17 - Copyrights". The chapter and section numbers I gave you are correct for that section of the US Code. > >> You don't have to release your work to the general public. You can > >> license it privately to a small number of individuals if you'd like. > >In which case it doesn't need to have a copyright attached at all; the > >license is more than sufficient. > That's not how copyright works. You own a copyright on any work you > create, whether or not it's published. And it's only because you > have the rights conferred by copyright that you can choose to > give some of them away as part of a licensing agreement! Not only are you once again assuming the solution is what you want it to be rather than discussing the issue, you're also making a false claim. You have the right to create copies of your works and give them away without any copyright laws at all. You also have the right to requires those receiving them to adhere to whatever restrictions you require of them. That's the basis of trade secret protection. > >But the point of copyright is to encourage the authors to release > >their work to the general public, not to a small set of licensees. > That's your interpretation. I'd beg to differ. If it advances the > state of the art, or encourages a creative person to create more, > that's a good thing even if the whole world does NOT initially get > access to it. Those are all good things, but you don't need copyright to encourage those kinds of things. > >For something to be copyrightable, it must be fixed (Chapter 1, > >Section 102, paragraph a of the US Copyright code). A performance > >isn't fixed, and hence not copyrightable. Recordings of it are fixed, > >and hence copyrightable. > Not so. An author and/or a performer has the right to demand that > you not make recordings of a performance, and to take appropriate > action to protect his or her rights if you try. This right exists > BEFORE you've made any "fixation" of the work. That's why you can > be searched for recording devices at the entrance to a concert. I already said the creators had the right to control recording a performance. performance, but that right is *not* granted by title 17. So your claim that this means the performance is a copyrightable thing is a non sequitor. > >"Impacting sales" is a *long* way from "causing a major economic > >dislocation". Get back to me record companies start folding because of > >it. > We don't have ubiquitous broadband yet. It could well happen when we > do. Yup. And when roads became ubiquitous, buggy whip manufacturers folded. That's what happens when there are major technological changes. > >> >with fair use and related rights is threatening an entire profession. > >> Which one? > >Librarians. I posted a URL to the librarians take on this already. > I doubt that libraries will cease to be. The librarians don't agree with you. > >There have been experiments with voluntary contributions, > >but I don't think those have worked very well. Possibly the concept of > >copyright can be made to work, but I suspect it will take a nearly > >complete reworking. > The fundamentals are already sound. Artists should have merchantable > and non-merchantable rights in their work, and the government should > protect those rights. Yes, there are a few logistics to be worked out. The fundamentals aren't sound - they economic balances which are no longer true. > >The real goal is to fix things so that the publishers attempts to > >enforce copyright technologically doesn't take away the publics fair > >use rights or the rights of creators who don't happen to be major > >publishers. > On the other hand, there should also be some measures to prevent > ubiquitous, high bandwidth data pipes from making it impossible > to protect those rights. So simply make high bandwidth data connections illegal. That makes more sense and is violates fewer rights than the existing practices. Of course, the reality is that high bandwidth data pipes don't make it impossible to protect those rights. The existence of publicly available copying equipment makes it impossible to protect those rights. Publishers gave up trying to enforce it for audio cassettes, and got a similar compromise with royalties on audio cd's (which you pay even if your recordings are all fair use or original material). That's why the publishers aren't trying to simply ban high bandwidth connections, they are placing technological limits on peoples ability to make copies, such that I can't, for instance, put anything better than VCR quality videos of family on DVD-RAMs to share with my family. This isn't a new thing - it's been going on since the publishers managed to delay the introduction of DAT tapes to the US market while they discussed audio watermarking and other violations of the public and artists rights. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15021.56450.940181.638227>