Most of this is good, but I have filed suit against
people for doing what you discussed with regards to
the house. Maybe we should stick to sterlings ditch
example!
Keith
PS: please send pictures of the go-kart you made from
Mustang parts - I bet that puppy screams!
;)
- Susan Aker <susan[_at_]the-lanman.com> wrote:
> Re: The Eric Eldred ActLinda,
>
> Sorry, but you should not have brought up the
> property aspect of creative works and compared them
> with the real property created by manufacturing and
> other industry. That is a personal favorite
> argument of mine because it so clearly shows that
> copyrighted works are NOT property.
>
> Say I go down to the Ford dealership and purchase a
> Mustang automobile. I now have an automobile that I
> can drive anywhere, modify to my heart's content,
> open up and study the internal workings of if I
> desire and Ford has NO rights to say anything about
> whatever I do to MY car. However, when I go down to
> Best Buy and purchase a DVD, the only thing I can
> legally do is watch it. I'm not able to take it
> apart, reuse parts to make another work (like I can
> use parts from a car to make a go-cart).
>
> Since I've heard it argued that with a car, I have
> only purchased a copy of the car, I'll use another
> analogy. I purchase a house from the builder. Even
> though he did all the hard work of building it,
> getting all the different materials put together,
> making the whole thing work, once I have closed on
> the purchase, it is mine and he has no rights to it
> whatsoever. If I want to build an identical house
> on the other side of my property, I don't have to go
> to the original builder, I don't even need the
> original blueprints. I can have an expert come in,
> take notes on all the pertinent information and draw
> up a set of blue prints. It probably won't be an
> identical copy, but it will look like an identical
> copy. Even if the original blueprints have their
> own copyright, I have done nothing illegal here by
> creating my own copy for my own use. I can then
> have my property split and can legally sell the copy
> of my house. Try to apply that to copyright.
>
> If you want a natural property right to your
> creations, don't publish. The act of publishing is
> a SALE to the public of your creation. Once you
> have agreed to the terms (current copyright
> limitations - whatever they are) you should be bound
> by those terms. If you don't like the terms, don't
> publish.
>
> Also, your argument about people not respecting
> copyright law is flawed. The disrespect of
> copyright law has everything to do with the
> expansions to copyright law and little to do with
> the majority of people wanting to get something for
> nothing. When I was a teenager, I taped a lot of
> music off the radio (which, by the way, is perfectly
> legal according to the Audio Home Recording Act of
> 1992). But when I went to work and had more
> disposable income, I started my collection of
> purchased music. Now that I understand what the
> extensions to copyright have done, I do very little
> to support the industry that lobbied for it. I buy
> very few books, fewer CD's, and rarely see a movie.
> All because I don't respect a law that honors only
> one side of the contract. The public bought those
> works and should be able to take full ownership of
> them in a timely manner. When they can't, and they
> understand what the government has done, they no
> longer respect copyright law and a lot of those
> people who are copying and distributing over the
> internet are actually engaged in Civil Disobedience
> (most probably want something for free, but they're
> really no worse than teenagers who used to record
> off the radio).
>
> Susan Aker
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Linda Gruber
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 12:23 PM
> Subject: Re: The Eric Eldred Act
>
>
>
> Hello Susan,
>
> The marketing of new creations should work just
> like other industries. However, because of
> government intervention there are forces acting
> against the usual supply and demand scenario. The
> time factor is an arbitrary invention of the
> government which limits the creator's earning
> period. ( The time limit is not for the creator's
> benefit, although extending it helps.) Copyright
> takes away from the creators and enriches the
> government and society with a public domain
> resource. Public domain is an incentive to progress
> only as long as a balance between republished work
> and new work is maintained.
>
> Copyright is not working today as it did
> initially because more people are breaking the law.
> Twenty years ago, the average person didn't have the
> equipment, resources, or distribution channels to
> exploit illegally copied goods to any great extent.
> Now, for copyrights to actually mean "exclusive
> right," creators need a lawyer. And, since many of
> the infringers today have no means to pay a
> judgement, creators also need lots of money before
> they can assert their exclusive rights. If the laws
> were aggressively enforced by some body other than
> the creators themselves, there would be no need for
> Congress to try to amend market forces by extending
> term limits.
>
> Yes, I do believe that I should have a natural
> right to own what I create. I am a capitalist. If
> there were no copyright law, fair use exemption, or
> public domain, I think that goods created as copies
> of an creator's original work would, by law, belong
> to the creator in the same way that a manufacturer's
> molded goods belong to that manufacturer? As I see
> it, if the government had really wanted to benefit
> creators, they would have allowed them to have
> property rights just like everyone else. Creators
> could then call the cops if they found someone
> stealing their work and/or take them to small claims
> court for civil damages.
>
> In my opinion, when Copyright and Patent laws
> were instituted, the government got something for
> nothing, and society saw great benefit because new
> creations provided the fuel for progress, and the
> public domain provided inspiration for improvements
> upon progress. However, creators got diddly for
> works they were forced to give up and have to
> continue to fight to gain more time as it becomes
> increasingly difficult to market and earn from their
> work. Eric's idea is to tax creators for trying to
> hang on to whatever they can for as long as they
> can. Taxation adds insult to injury. A tax
> deduction, recognizes that the creator is giving
> something of value, and it would be voluntary.
>
> I disagree with your characterization of most
> copyrights as valueless after a short time. Maybe
> something like a review of an outdated computer card
> would be valueless, but many works of art,
> literature, and music are timeless. In addition, new
> ways of publishing are being invented that can give
> works new life. The reason many people want a
> shorter term limit is so they can get their hands on
> works that are valuable and republish them in
> perpetuity in all sorts of emerging venues. It's one
> thing to completely revamp a work like Disney does.
> That's contributing to progress. To republish the
> same work in a new venue with only slight
> modifications is just getting something for nothing
> at the expense of the original creator, and it can
> potentially thwart progress by threatening the
> market for new works as well.
>
>
>
> Linda Gruber
>
> Novel Art
> http://www.novelart.com
>
>
>
>
> Susan Aker wrote:
>
>
> Linda,
>
> I'm sorry you believe creating is such an
> arduous effort that it must be rewarded with
> copyrights that extend well beyond the lifetime of
> the creator and probably beyond the lifetime of any
> direct descendents (those who may have suffered
> during the period of creation). Perhaps you, and
> other creators, should take a different view of this
> process. The copyright industry is the only one in
> the world that reaps a reward based on time rather
> than on the principle of supply and demand. Right
> now, there are more creative works published and
> available than any other time in history. Books,
> TV, Movies, Radio, all are so filled with, not only
> the works that are published, but also those who are
> trying to get into the business. And above that,
> there is a proliferation of free content on the web.
> It isn't edited so you get a lot of poor quality
> works, but many of them are simply what publishers
> refer to as 'unmarketable'.
>
> With all these possibilities, the value of any
> single work should - by rules of supply and demand -
> be very nearly valueless. Most of these copyrights
> you want to so ardently protect for the life of the
> creator +70 years have a realistic lifespan of a few
> months
=== message truncated ===
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Received on Thu Feb 06 2003 - 14:05:32 GMT