At the end of the day there is no such thing as invention only a discovery of something that is already possible (Usually a combination of already discovered ideas) but we the People dont know about yet Why should someone take eternal credit for The ALMIGHTYS Creation Rewarded yes encouraged yes there little Bit of reality UUuuum NO At the end of the Day the only reason someone can have Copyright and Fame is because we the people Like what they do BUT WE set the rules WE allow them to be famous and WE can take those rights away.

The biggest copiers of others work is the Film / Music industry Film after Film all telling the same old stories Actors Copying each other how many clint clones are out there. Or bruce Or Marilyn quite often in the same Film The Singers All sound similar the Song Loops Its got worse it used to be Bands like Pink Floyd The Beatles well I can go onnn But now A lot a times Its Someone who looks good Different ECT then there voice is corrected the loops added or Musicians never seen before all drafted in to create a marketable image for the industry. THEN after ripping everyone off they make sure no one else gets a look. Perhaps. I believe if we are to progress people need to use others Ideas. And allow others to improve Those ideas making room for copyrights ect but LETS be realistic. Also lets encourage "Talent" I feel at the moment its being Stifled. The real Original Thinkers are being kept down, in favour of artificially created Music and Films.

It shouldent be about the way you look or how much Money you have. OR who you Know.. Or the return of the Casting couch. But based on talent alone. It saddens me when You are told you cant do SOMETHING No matter the fact that its not costing or losing the Copright holder any money You could develop and take a slice of the pie yourself ! Its all greed and keeping you out so they can have it all. Making sure you stay down.

But they will get too Greedy in the end and the laws will be changed Thats a shame too because I think everyone in this world no matter who or where Or how Rich Or Famous Or Poor they/ You are. Everyone should be given the same chances to play the game of life. and have there endeavours legally protected. FAIRLY.

An absurd view (SPOT's) is some stupid little ditty like Happy Birthday, a mere six words, should have coyright protection.

I'm sorry, "artisits" have far too much protection under current law. The consumer is ripsawed constantly harassed so mostly some money grubbing corporatons can reach into your pocket had grab money for a song as absurd as Happy Birthday if you dare to play it at a birthday party and someone includes in a video sold for profit. And the music industry suing 12 year old kids. Maybe SPOT think's that cool too. I think its nuts like most people.

I haven't read this book, but I do want to give my two cents on copyright.

Copyright is absolutely necessary. As we are a post-industrial and information-based society, many livelihoods are dependent on copyright. At least in the entertainment realm, independent content creators require copyright to protect their work. Since we don't live in a communist society where there is no concept of personal property, we have to appreciate what copyright does for economic and personal reasons. To what extent it should extend, however, is of considerable question.

The first issue is that of what can be copyrighted. Unique information and content from individuals or corporation should be copyrightable. Not all information should be copyrightable or be enforceable. For example, an artist who recorded a track on his CD containing nothing but silence was succesfully sued by another artist who had "composed" a similar silence on a previous production. One has to wonder if it will be safe to take pictures in public of information that is trademarked or has the same artistic style. Whatever the case, the issue of what can be copyrighted has to balance out with some reason.

Another big issue is that of fair use. If the commercial value of a production is materially dependent on the content of currently copyrighted material, then the producers should be able to pay. Most people don't dispute that aspect of copyright. Fair use can be turned into unfair abuse in many cases. There is the ever-present issue of music downloading for personal use and the ensuing lawsuits for sharing it. Another situation was the case of ASCAP demanding per-song fees on songs sung by children at summer camps for songs under their umbrella. No child who sings This Land Is Your Land should need to pay royalties and sync fees, nor should a videographer filming children when his intention is to film the camp, not the song performance. If organizations like ASCAP had their way, they would bill individuals on their birthdays for singing Happy Birthday to the tune of Good Morning To You. By overextending the intention of fair use, practical use becomes impossible and creates significant and unwarranted overhead for producers of otherwise unique material.

The biggest issue is that of the length of time of copyrights. For content creators, a copyright should last long enough to be able to reasonable extract revenue and property rights on. This is necessary to make content creation fair and for the owner to retain rights within the context of their sphere of influence. Overextension of the time of copyrights or perpetual copyrights can significantly hamper innovation and the natural cycle of information flow. The most egregious example of copyright extension abuse is the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998. The terms of this act retroactively extended copyright to works created by corporate entities to 95 years from creation and for individuals to life plus 70 years. This is a problem because it hampers the natural entry of works into the public domain and acts as a form of corporate welfare for entertainment companies and content creators. If a content creator is so reliant on century-old copyrighted material that its revenue streams are threatened, they are probably not innovative enough to be able to effectively conduct business. The worst aspect is that it is inconsistent with patent law, where ideas are patentable only for a maximum of twenty years. It appears, therefore, that there are very strong political lobbies for copyright law.

We all need our unique ideas protected in one form or another. Copyright is one of essential mechanisms required for this purpose in order to encourage innovation and creativity. As a society, however, we need to revisit the fair use, what can be copyrighted and time extensions of coypright so that we ensure that innovation and creativity can continue as the natural cycle of information ownership had in the past.

I do agree with any merchant suing a parent of a 12 year old child for theft if the theft is damaging to the merchant, yes. Choosing extremes to illustrate the cause is of no benefit to anyone.
Billyboy, howsabout showing just even one copyrighted work you have in the marketplace that I can go into a Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, Sam Goodys, Camelot, or for that matter, Amazon.
My opinion is that those who don't have any copyrighted media have no grounds whatsoever having a say in the rights of copyright holders. Kinda like people who don't have children telling parents how to raise their children. I think they call that "armchair quarterbacking."
Warner Bros' bought and paid for the copyrights to "Happy Birthday" so that they could own the connection of words when coupled with a specific melody. Bitch all you want, someone wrote the lyrics to go with a specific melody. (The melody isn't copyrighted.) Hats off to them for being that creative. I also happen to think that particular example is flawed as at the time, it was a derivative work and shouldn't have enjoyed the same protections as original works. But I wasn't the judge in that case...Had I been, I probably would have decided differently. But it was a different political climate.
"Happy Birthday" is a song that became popular. I suppose that popular songs shouldn't enjoy copyright protection? Maybe Nike shouldn't enjoy trademark and copyright protection with their dumb little swoop. Maybe they shouldn't have a copyright and trademark on their "Just Do It." After all, that's only 3 words. Maybe Bob Kiger shouldn't be allowed to own copyright on the word "videography" either. But he coined the phrase, demonstrated that he did, and won a lawsuit against illegal use of the word. That's free enterprise, protecting your assets.
It's really easy to be a tour guide of a country you've never seen. Problem is, you don't know what you're talking about til you actually visit.
Just think, in a few more years, PD takes over on "Happy Birthday, and you can sing it on video to your heart's content. If you really want to use it now, use it in a satire, politcal commentary, or educational video. Fair Use would allow you to do that.
BTW, do you have locks on your doors?

Copyright law, at least in the English speaking world, took a very long time to evolve. The idea of "copy right" is based, historically, on the notion that the author of a work owns the work, and has the "right" to assign permission to make copies.

The idea of copyright began in the mid-17th century, and paralleled the rise of the book publisher. After exhausting reprints of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, et al, book publishers, a relatively new breed of businessmen (Guttenberg having only moved his type a short time before) began turning to neighborhood writers, especially playwrights and essayists, and publishing their works. Often the playwright received a few pounds while the publisher reaped hundreds.

At the same time, theatrical producers were sending scribes to rival playhouses, having the entire play transcribed, and opening it in their own theatre a week later. Sometimes the title would be changed slightly, often not, but never did the playwright receive a fee or enjoy any of the profits.

Not surprisingly, playwrights took exception to these practices. For the next 150 years, they and their literate brothers and sisters in England (and eventually the United States) struggled with Parliament (Congress) to work out laws that would establish rights of authors and publishers -- as Billy Boy puts it, "artists" and "money grubbing corporations."

It is interesting to note that nowhere in this evolution did the "consumer" come into the discussion, the assumption evidently being that the right to copy was an issue between the person who created the work (artist) and the person who wished to exploit the work (money grubbing corporation.)

The consumer always had to right to access the work: this was never at issue. The issue was who was to receive the benefits of this access, the artist/creator or the exploiter/publisher.

By the end of the 19th century, Parliament (Congress) had reach what seemed to be an equitable solution: the artist "owned" the work he/she had created, and could assign that right as he saw fit, either in part or in whole. He could license the use of the work, and receive a royalty, or sell it outright. Although the specifics of the laws that were finalized in the late 19th century have been modified numerous times during the ensuing years, the concept of ownership, assignability and compensation have remained pretty much the same.

In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, things were pretty clear cut. If I wrote a piece of work and it showed up in a book published by Samuel French, and Sam didn't have a license from me to make these copies, I had a damn good case in court. And by the end of the 19th century I'd win in any English or U.S. court. I didn't have to worry about Sam's book being copied: it was far to technically difficult, time consuming and costly to pirate a book, so why bother. And it was unlikely that my work would be copied by hand and distributed to 45 people who were friends of someone who bought the book.

With the advent of electronic media, the ease with which copies could be made has changed. But one thing hasn't changed: buying the book, or tape, CD or DVD doesn't include permission to make a copy. The author (artist) licensed that permission to a company ("money grubbing corporation," if you like) and they alone have permission to make copies.

Looking back across the more than 350 year struggle with copyright legislation, two things stand out. First and foremost, this has always been a discussion about those who create and those who wish to exploit that creation; about who owns the work that has been created and about those who wish to utilize this work for as little payment as possible. Secondly, there has been virtually no discussion about the consumer, and absolutely no discussion of the notion that the consumer has a right to copy merely because he purchased a book or paid to see a play.

Lets hope that the on-going world wide discussions regarding copyright law in the 21st century continue to focus on the interaction between the producer of the work (artist, writer, videographer, film maker, musician) and the exploiter (publisher, marketer, etc.,) of the work.

We're in a time-warp, back where we were in 1650. Artists struggling to get remuneration for the work they do. Only now they're attempting to stave off another exploiter: the consumer who shares the "something for nothing" mentality of the 17th century book publishers.

The rights of the consumer are as clear now as they always have been: buy it or don't buy it. But where does it say it's o.k. to steal it?

Jack

TVCmike: a very thoughtful response.

I wonder just how different the world would be if there was a very weak copyright law in effect. I suspect that creative people would still be producing creative works, even if it meant less income to them, just because they can't help themselves!

As for the Nike swoosh or the "Just Do It" phrase, just how important to society is it for Nike to have exclusive use of them? Would Nike go bankrupt without them? Would society truly be at a loss without the swoosh? Would a young Phil Knight (founder of Nike) have decided many years ago that there was no future in athletic shoes and that he would go into farming instead?

On the other hand, there are real penalties under the current system. What dad has had to think twice under the current legal climate about videotaping a school recital and distributing copies as mementos to the parents?

here's the link to Lawrence Lessig's website where, of course, you can download for free his latest book:
http://free-culture.org/freecontent/
also, there is a very cool video explaining his statements

SPOT, suppose you show us your license to practice law. That you keep harping about legal issues is well, kind of dumb considering you're NOT an attorney.

Maybe its time you come clean and admit that very long, very bitter nasty email you sent me last December threating to sue me for speaking my mine in this forum and you blowing a gasket because I dared to be just a tad critical of your book. Will the REAL SPOT please stand up. The sweet and nice SPOT you want to show isn't the real SPOT, is it Douglas.

BillyBoy, if you'd prefer, post my letter to you. I felt that addressing some issues privately were better than airing them publicly. Accusing me of plagiarism isn't by any stretch a 'tad criticism.' Took you all of an hour to retreat your comment of plagiarism when others here in the forum called you on it. That's not a light criticism, accusing someone of plagiarism.

Go ahead, post my letter to you. I've nothing to hide. Now that I've learned from your acerbic responses to nearly everyone, I've realized that attempting to be civil was a waste of my time and yours.
Keep hiding behing your cowardice. I still challenge you to show one publically available product that you've created and registered copyright in your name. Bitching about copyright when you have none is just as lame as people who don't vote complaining about the president.
Go for it, dude. Post my "nasty letter" to you. Nothing hidden here. What you see is what you get.

I have nothing in copywrite either. Also I can understand all points of view here.. BUT surely there is a middle ground we all agree on ...Lets put away our Hidden agendas and forget this subject... There is no way anyone would take spots rights away ...But perhaps some of the larger Corporations are not always fair so I vote lets leave it there. And talk about Vegas.

I didn't accuse you of plagiarism, I pointed out your book like ALL computer how-to books relies heavily on repeating much of what's in the manual. That's a fair and accurate description of your book or any book written to say how you do x,y, z with such and such application.

You went blastic and blew what I said out of all proportion, then a week or two after, long after the thread was dead you sent a vicious whinning self-serving email bitching your ass off, even threating to sue me. Laughable. For what, telling the truth? That's always a perfect defense.

Obviously you hold a grudge. I don't. I told you in my response and I'll say again your book was well done, helpful to many I'm sure and I still recommend it. But what I said is also true. Much of what is in your book like ALL computer how-to books IS in the maual. That apparently deflated your ego.

You have a VERY thin skin and anytime anybody disagrees with you on any topic you're passionate about you go ape. You do it all the time with copywrite issues. I guess it never occured to you consumers have rights too.

You took another cheap shot trying to suggest that those of us that may not have a product in the stores somehow are inferior to you. That again is of course self-serving bullshit. You have a bad habit of dredging that up repeatedly.

The whole point is I like anyone else have a right to BITCH about any law I don't think is fair. Its called free speech. Try reading the Constitution some time. You have a right also to take the other side of the issue. Where I draw the line is some bully like you trying to silence other views that differ from yours then taking a cheap shot pretending you have superior knowledge on the law.

You're guilty of acting up every time your two pet issues come up which are copyright issues and the need for fancy external monitors. You're entited to your opinion and you're free to express them.

So am I. That's the point.

I think we've seen enough of SPOT's temper for one night.

Billy, rather than making reference to something out of context, why not just post the letter. I promise, I won't post your numerous rantings that you sent back. As said, I tried to be decent and write you privately rather than encouraging personal attacks in the forums. I think that most anyone could respect an attempt to settle something outside the community.
I may do have thin skin when it comes to my work, or the work of others being stolen and used for the benefit of others whether financial or not. Like I asked before, "do you have locks on your doors? Are you thin skinned about people stealing your equipment, car, possessions?
I don't appreciate accusations of me copying other persons works. The V4 manual wasn't even complete when I'd turned my manuscript for the V4 book in, Billy.
Believe it or not Billyboy, I'd fight for your right to own what you create too. Even if it's just "Hmmmmm" connected to a collage of notes. (which you copyrighted in an earlier thread.

DELETED

Isn't it all really a question of balance?

Artists have a right to the protection of their work. I don't see how anyone can reasonably claim this not be a fundemental truth. That is requires special consideration (as distinct from say, the work of a car builder), is likely due to the fact that such work can be EASILY copied. While the ford motor company might object if an individual were to create a complete Mustang by stripping one down and building the parts from scratch, a ford mustang is sufficiently difficult to reproduce that it doesn't require such special protection. The design of the mustang, it's concept, idea, that's a different story and can be considered an art form in it's own right - therefore worthy of special protection.

Spot - I don't agree with you that only those seeking such protection should be allowed to make the decisions here. That level of control is likely to lead to the runaway nightmare portrayed elsewhere in this thread and on this forum. Without a counterbalance, getting sued by McDonalds for creating a video of a birthday party there becomes open to possibility. You've expressed that such use is acceptable because it's incidental to the core of the event, but that pushes things into a subjective arena. One man's incidental use is another man's flagrant disregard for his protected rights.

BillyBoy - Your argument seems to be based on the idea that everything you wish to use should be freely available for the asking. What then, would be the motivation for anyone to actually create the very work you want available? To say that artists would "do it anyway" because of motivation is to suggest that the healthcare industry is morally obliged to provide their services at no cost - because they like to save lives. I think that's rather <euphemism> silly </euphemism>. Define "too much protection".

What got me all steamed up was that I simply did not know that what I was doing was against the law. I knew about copyright, but I also knew about fair use. I didn't actually read the whole text of either. So I assumed, assumed wrong, and got branded a thief. That led to a sense of outrage. I thought to myself "I'm a decent guy, and here I am being accused of theft" and I got very angry about that. I probably said a bunch of stuff I regret.

The whole thing pushed me off balance, made me irrational. The scope of the accusation prompted some very serious introspection, in turn, that caused it's scope to become very extended and I feel I may have offended some, so I'm taking this opportunity to publicly apologize (doing a lot of that lately too). I'm still not "all better now".

The language on CD's, DVD's and so forth is too vague, often too small, perhaps too often. I haven't actually sat down and read one in years. I don't know anyone who has, they know it's there. Ignorance, however, really is no excuse.

If things change to help recorded music to become easier to use, that's great, I'm first on board. But I can't help feeling that we have to be very careful what we wish for here. Too easy, too cheap, too unrestricted, and we risk losing the very thing we seek.

Like I said, I think it's about balance.

Not my postion at all. All I'm saying is present copywrite laws overly favor the "artist" regardless how trival the work, which is why I keep going back to the ditty Happy Birthday. Its absurd, which is why I made fun of it and SPOT for blindly defending such absurdity knowing full well he would blow a gasket again, dredging up the silly 'don't you have locks on your house ' excuse again, etc..

I think what most people are saying isn't that they want to rip some artist off, rather they want a SIMPLE method to use the song, and are more than willing to pay a REASONABLE fee for the right but the music industry being run by a bunch of pig-headed money grubbers aren't listening. Which is why their sales of CD's are in the toliet and continue to decline.

The copywrite laws were written way before the Internet or any of the curret technologies. Time for a major overhaul. That's what I'm saying. That's what the public wants. If some artists don't like that. Too bad. Its time they wake up and smell the coffee.

The other point I've made in the past is when you have dumb law, people will igore it. They have. Again the blame is squarely on the doorstep of the music industry. They still haven't got it through their thick skulls that if you piss off the consumer, they ain't going to buy. I'm sick of paying a bundle for a CD that has 12-25 songs and one or two are pretty good and the rest are crap. Time for new methods.

Generally speaking, I agree with dvdude. It's time to seek a balance.

My simplistic thinking is this: I agree that the artist/creator should have protection for and control over his work. He should have the ability to exploit it as best he can and earn whatever benefits he can. However, I think that protection/control should end at his death. At that point, the work should move into the public domain.

Now, I realize that's too easy for most of us these days. Our laws, our government, our way of doing business, etc., have all become far too convoluted. I also know it'll never happen. The "powers that be" will not allow it to. After all, that's how they justify their jobs!

Just my two cents.

J--

Thats quite clean Cut Jay I Think there could be instances where it MAY not always work. I was thinking About Elvis estate As an example. When he died there wasent Much left. Without Priscilla and the Family to protect the Name ect It would possibly have disapeared into Obscurity. And a Valuable Part of History.

Elvis' work disappear? I doubt it very seriously.

J--

Well maybe maybe not But the Point is that the estate has been cared for and Grown. Like walt Disney TOO.

Elvis has left the building. I always wanted to say that. Seemed like a good place to squeeze it in. LOL!

LOL its a Shame I used to look forward to the Elvis Spectacular every year. I still remember the radio played his songs all day in 1977 Over here.

>>>My simplistic thinking is this: I agree that the artist/creator should have protection for and control over his work. He should have the ability to exploit it as best he can and earn whatever benefits he can. However, I think that protection/control should end at his death. At that point, the work should move into the public domain.<<<

I could agree with that, but only in the simple sense. One has to look at the reality of this. What happens when someone dies young? Certianly the work of people like Jimi Hendrix, Randy Rhoads and Kurt Cobain are played over and over again all over the world on a daily basis. Yet there is no doubt that these artists would have kept creating music for may years had they continued to live. How many film makers would jump to put a Nirvana song as the theme song to their teen agnst film? Than put it out as a single? AND (The important part based on you idea) not have to pay for it because it was in public domain?

Now age aside - you would have to go into things like marketabiltiy factors. Should a song that Todd Crew or Paula Pierce wrote be any less protected that something Freddie Mercury or John Entwistle wrote? I don't think so, but they are all dead and if things went into public domain when someone passed away you would for sure have more people trying to exploit a song like "We Will Rock You" than "I'll walk away". A huge part of it is that more people stand to loose more money for an extremely popular artists than they do from someone who the masses have never heard of. As long as a label, a publisher or a former manager/band member/in-law feels there is money to be made you can bet there will a hand out looking for it.

And yet again - on the other hand - you have people standing behind the Elvis Estate and the Hendrix Estate. You have Delores Rhoads watching out for Randy's work. And so on. But you don't really have people looking out for lesser known people. That is, to me, where things get fuzzy. Having to clear publishing rights to a song whose sole author has passed away and who has nobody dealing with their estate is simply giving money to someone who has nothing to do with anything. (I speak from testing this theory out. A singer I knew passed away so as a test I went to BMI asking about a song she had written. The rep told me how much it would cost for a sync license. I than asked who got the money because the author, and person who really owned the publishing, was dead. BMI responded they knew the author had passed but pointed out that they (BMI) 'owned' the song because there was no one else to claim legal ownership and therefor they (BMI) got all the money from the publishing. The author was not married, had no children, had no brothers or sisters. In other words - in their death BMI continues to make money - 100% of all publishing related money on any songs this person wrote. I find that very sad and disturbing) Maybe in these cases the song should go into public domain? Who speaks for those who can't? Maybe instead of public domain all money should go into a charity on the artists behalf? Maybe after death all the publishing and sync license fess should go to public schools to fund music programs...now *that* sounds like a good idea.

Nothing is simple anymore. Even death is not simple.