I wish Harlan Ellison would just die already...

[David cgc]

tl;dr

You can just say "snip," or do the first line with an elipsis or something, rather than quote the whole thing, including the part directed at a totally different person, to say you ignored it. It clutters the thread.

I don't care about your arguments. I think you're wrong. We'll have to leave it at that.

No, you don't. You don't think I'm wrong that material should pass into the public domain sooner or later. You don't think I'm wrong that the current law is a patch that doesn't adequately cover the current situation. You don't think I'm wrong that excessive copyright claims could restrain future creative expression.

All I can think of is believing I'm wrong for advocating civil disobedience of copyright (I wasn't), or that moral correctness can be distinct from legal correctness (which is getting a little philosophical).

Those situations are usually seen as wins for the claimant because it's the defendant who lacks confidence that they'll prevail in court. Otherwise, why pay anything at all? Cameron can say whatever saves face, but the studio wasn't willing to roll the dice.

Well, Cameron himself said that he wasn't willing to roll the dice, since the studio said he'd be responsible if they lost the case. I can understand why, it's a hell of a lot of money for one guy to have to pay out of pocket. Under circumstances like that, I'd probably agree to settle even if Ellison accused me of raping a kitten as part of the suit, and I'm a fairly prideful person who puts great stock in his reputation.

I'm reaching the limits of my legal knowledge, though. Don't both parties have to agree to a settlement? Couldn't Ellison have forced a trial if he thought he had a slam dunk and walked away with the really big money and a lasting win against the people who try to steal from him?

(By the way, thank you for not talking to me like I'm a moronic, thieving, author-hating, hippy-dippy communist son of a bitch. At this stage of a thread like that, that's really appreciated)

 

[RJDiogenes]

Explain how. I explained why they were different, and you declared I was wrong by fiat, without any specifics. I guarantee you I will not do you the same discourtesy if you explain how intellectual property is exactly like physical property.

You did not explain how intellectual property is inferior to physical property. You explained how it's easier to steal and that you think people should steal it. Artistic and intellectual creations have value and the creator has the right to preserve them and profit (or not) by them.

Okay, you definitely need to watch Everything is a Remix and read How to Steal Like An Artist, because you've got some funny ideas about where ideas come from.

No, I know exactly where ideas come from.

There is nothing simple about it, which you'd probably have already concluded if you didn't dismiss my points about the differences between intellectual and physical property out of hand. I cannot emphasize enough how rude I consider that to be.

You can take offense to creator's rights if you want, but it's still no argument.

Bullshit. Somebody used them first, somewhere. In your framework, the fact that you don't know who doesn't make them public domain (since that doesn't exist by your reckoning), it makes them orphaned works, so no one would be allowed to use them.

Nonsense. If there's no owner, there's no violation of rights.

Okay, so you allow for folk lore, but not folk music. Explain.

There's nothing to explain. You said you were stealing. Of course there is folk music that's in the public domain.

I think the only question left is whether you are actually serious or just being deliberately obtuse for the fun of it.

 

[JarodRussell]

And now we "rip off" the story during the author's lifetime, AND compensate him for it.
The author gets money for every use of every creation he made. For his entire life. But everyone is allowed to adapt his works. It's a win win situation.

It's only a win win situation if the author is only concerned with money. What if an author is more concerned with the integrity of the original work? What if the author simply doesn't want someone else using his ideas for their own profit? Why shouldn't that be his right?

I realize that's a very valid point. But 50 years after his death the integrity of his work is "in danger" automatically anyway, under current laws. Everything in the public domain can be perverted, distorted and raped. If a writer was TRULY concerned about integrity, then he would also have a problem with that.


Based on his quotes, Admiral James Kirk does seem to be concerned with money and property, and less integrity. He wouldn't lose anything in the system I'm advocating, but gets totally agressive about it.

 

[Jan]

But 50 years after his death the integrity of his work is "in danger" automatically anyway under current laws. Everything in the public domain can be perverted, distorted and raped. If a writer was TRULY concerned about integrity, then he would also have a problem with that.

However the only solution to that problem would be to not create at all. Now that would be detrimental to society!

And for those interested in reality to discuss, this might be of interest: Recording artists may be able to recover their song rights

Jan

 

[JarodRussell]

But 50 years after his death the integrity of his work is "in danger" automatically anyway under current laws. Everything in the public domain can be perverted, distorted and raped. If a writer was TRULY concerned about integrity, then he would also have a problem with that.

However the only solution to that problem would be to not create at all. Now that would be detrimental to society!

Or copyright that never expires.



btw... what happened to Admiral James Kirks posts? I can see the quotes in other people's posts, but I don't see his actual posts in this thread. And no, he's not on an ignore list.

 

[David cgc]

btw... what happened to Admiral James Kirks posts? I can see the quotes in other people's posts, but I don't see his actual posts in this thread. And no, he's not on an ignore list.

He appears to have deleted it. Well, fair is fair, I've deleted my response, and I'd appreciate it if Zoom removed it from his quote.

As a consolation, here are a couple links describing cases similar to that I postulated in the now-deleted reply of new creators being taken advantage of under the current copyright system.

Kind of Screwed (Rebuttal)
The Lodsys patent cases (It's not copyright, but it's certainly possible for the same principle to be exploited as a money-making scheme).

Explain how. I explained why they were different, and you declared I was wrong by fiat, without any specifics. I guarantee you I will not do you the same discourtesy if you explain how intellectual property is exactly like physical property.

You did not explain how intellectual property is inferior to physical property. You explained how it's easier to steal and that you think people should steal it. Artistic and intellectual creations have value and the creator has the right to preserve them and profit (or not) by them.

I didn't say it was inferior, I said it was different. You've simply said "infringement = theft" with no explanation of how that is practically possible or reasonable.

Bullshit. Somebody used them first, somewhere. In your framework, the fact that you don't know who doesn't make them public domain (since that doesn't exist by your reckoning), it makes them orphaned works, so no one would be allowed to use them.

Nonsense. If there's no owner, there's no violation of rights.

Concepts do not appear out of thin air. They are originated somewhere, by someone. Saying that creator's rights are voided if the creator is anonymous is folly. There is no intellectually coherent reason why the Voynich manuscript should be public domain but the Mona Lisa shouldn't be.

Okay, so you allow for folk lore, but not folk music. Explain.

There's nothing to explain. You said you were stealing. Of course there is folk music that's in the public domain.

How? It was originated by someone. You're just saying it's okay to steal from people if you don't know their names.

I think the only question left is whether you are actually serious or just being deliberately obtuse for the fun of it.

Funny, I just thought the same thing.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

But 50 years after his death the integrity of his work is "in danger" automatically anyway under current laws. Everything in the public domain can be perverted, distorted and raped. If a writer was TRULY concerned about integrity, then he would also have a problem with that.

However the only solution to that problem would be to not create at all. Now that would be detrimental to society!

Or copyright that never expires.



btw... what happened to Admiral James Kirks posts? I can see the quotes in other people's posts, but I don't see his actual posts in this thread. And no, he's not on an ignore list.

To answer your question I deleted 'em before I got the first response because I realized I blew my top over nothing more than a hypothetical and it seemed a bit silly to invest that much emotion in a BBS post.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, Cameron himself said that he wasn't willing to roll the dice, since the studio said he'd be responsible if they lost the case. I can understand why, it's a hell of a lot of money for one guy to have to pay out of pocket. Under circumstances like that, I'd probably agree to settle even if Ellison accused me of raping a kitten as part of the suit, and I'm a fairly prideful person who puts great stock in his reputation.

I'm reaching the limits of my legal knowledge, though. Don't both parties have to agree to a settlement? Couldn't Ellison have forced a trial if he thought he had a slam dunk and walked away with the really big money and a lasting win against the people who try to steal from him?

One can do that, but (and I'm beyond my experience here as well) that may not be the best advice of one's lawyer either. You're looking at a reasonable chance of prevailing in court while spending a lot of money, the attorney billing a lot of hours and not knowing what the amount of the judgment will be versus a known payout in the settlement.

Whatever Harlan may say when he struts, there's probably not a lawyer in the world who's any good that would tell him going up against the ingrained culture and a studio that can afford lots of billable hours is going to be "a slam dunk."

(By the way, thank you for not talking to me like I'm a moronic, thieving, author-hating, hippy-dippy communist son of a bitch. At this stage of a thread like that, that's really appreciated)

Of course. Among other things, I'm pragmatic about the reality of what the Internet is now and how it works and I don't think I'm alone. The other day I was looking around for an online copy of The Solarians by Norman Spinrad, and found a pirated Romanian translation - on Spinrad's Scribd account. He'd attached a note saying that he'd run across the pirated document elsewhere and decided that he had no objection to what they were doing but would prefer that they transferred the document to his "custody" for distribution.

Anything I put out on the Internet, I assume that any interested parties will appropriate it as they please. If I'm not willing to accept that, I don't put it out here. This has actually returned some fairly nifty unexpected benefits.

I'm not sure that your reasoning about "derivative works" quite holds up where the Star Wars CG mesh is concerned, but I'm not a lawyer either.

 

[David cgc]

I'm not sure that your reasoning about "derivative works" quite holds up where the Star Wars CG mesh is concerned, but I'm not a lawyer either.

Well, here's my primary source on that, written around September of 1999.

You may use this computer model for personal entertainment and
educational uses only. Make your simulation images. Make art. Render
NONCOMMERCIAL freeware screen savers and wallpaper. Post anything you
want free, making certain that I get the original credit for the
original version of the mesh. However, you may not and must not use it
in any advertising or other commercial venture. You don't just have to
worry about me; since I've done work for Viacom, Paramount Legal &
Licensing group knows who I am, and they come after ME when they see my
meshes used illegally. I will, of course, tell them the next time this
happens - as I have each time in the past - that I had nothing to do
with it, at which point they *will* come after you.

My meshes are NOT 'Public Domain' and never have been. Each of my
images and meshes are copyrighted to level 3, Registered and Filed with
the US Patent and Trademark Office. Now, since most of my images and
meshes are clearly infringing trademark-wise, that means I can't ever
use them in commercial ventures without the expressed consent and
permission of the trademark owners, which from time to time has happened
for some CD-ROM game and book cover artwork.

That's right - just because they infringe on Paramount's trademarks
doesn't mean that I can't copyright them. I have, and the copyrights
are MINE. I've already been to Federal Court in Austin twice to back
them up.

That means that under trademark and copyright law, I'm entitled to an
AUTOMATIC $10,000 punitive award per misuse regardless of the ownership
history. That means normally I can't collect squat for my meshes unless
someone ELSE uses them illegally, at which point that someone else owes
me $10,000 per work or copy thereof.....

Sorry in advance for the nastygram. A dozen acts of piracy - that I
know of - on the part of software publishers, computer retailers, game
developers, and book publishers have forced me to add this text to the
latest versions of my old meshes, and has forced to refrain from posting
any in the last three years.

I can't be sure, but it looks like this is the copyright registration he's referring to. I can't find a detailed table of contents on-line, but I'm assuming the model(s) he got damages for were examples included in the CD that came with the book.

Essentially, though, the principle is that two wrongs don't make a right. An infringing work doesn't lose its own copyright protections (even without getting into aspects of things like Fair Use and whatnot).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Not being a lawyer or law student (someone get Alidar Jarok in here) I can't tell what that copyright protects. I don't doubt that Peterson has protected some aspect of his work in court, but what exactly? The contents of the CD apparently submitted as part of the registration process? What exactly was the defendant selling, if that was the issue - a copy of the CD, a copy of the electronic file containing the mesh, an image demonstrably created using the electronic file as one material, or a combination of the three? Those are just the beginning of the possible questions.

If I build a physical model of the Enterprise from scratch, display it in a public space (like, say, a public park) and put a sign next to it saying "you can't photograph this without my permission," what are my legal remedies if a photograph of the model shows up someplace? I concede that I have an opinion of the likely answer here, but it's not an informed one and I wouldn't be shocked to have a lawyer disabuse me of it.

There's a whole question here of what's copyrightable, what's patentable and what can be trademarked. Paramount holds patents on the designs of ships like the Enterprise D or the Reliant, submitted as "toy designs."

Strictly speaking, "copyright" is just that - the right to make a copy of a document. Is an image generated using an electronic file a "copy" of that file, or is the unauthorized trading or sale of copies of the file itself the only direct violation of copyright?

 

[JarodRussell]

I'm not sure that your reasoning about "derivative works" quite holds up where the Star Wars CG mesh is concerned, but I'm not a lawyer either.

Well, here's my primary source on that, written around September of 1999.

You may use this computer model for personal entertainment and
educational uses only. Make your simulation images. Make art. Render
NONCOMMERCIAL freeware screen savers and wallpaper. Post anything you
want free, making certain that I get the original credit for the
original version of the mesh. However, you may not and must not use it
in any advertising or other commercial venture. You don't just have to
worry about me; since I've done work for Viacom, Paramount Legal &
Licensing group knows who I am, and they come after ME when they see my
meshes used illegally. I will, of course, tell them the next time this
happens - as I have each time in the past - that I had nothing to do
with it, at which point they *will* come after you.

My meshes are NOT 'Public Domain' and never have been. Each of my
images and meshes are copyrighted to level 3, Registered and Filed with
the US Patent and Trademark Office. Now, since most of my images and
meshes are clearly infringing trademark-wise, that means I can't ever
use them in commercial ventures without the expressed consent and
permission of the trademark owners, which from time to time has happened
for some CD-ROM game and book cover artwork.

That's right - just because they infringe on Paramount's trademarks
doesn't mean that I can't copyright them. I have, and the copyrights
are MINE. I've already been to Federal Court in Austin twice to back
them up.

That means that under trademark and copyright law, I'm entitled to an
AUTOMATIC $10,000 punitive award per misuse regardless of the ownership
history. That means normally I can't collect squat for my meshes unless
someone ELSE uses them illegally, at which point that someone else owes
me $10,000 per work or copy thereof.....

Sorry in advance for the nastygram. A dozen acts of piracy - that I
know of - on the part of software publishers, computer retailers, game
developers, and book publishers have forced me to add this text to the
latest versions of my old meshes, and has forced to refrain from posting
any in the last three years.

I can't be sure, but it looks like this is the copyright registration he's referring to. I can't find a detailed table of contents on-line, but I'm assuming the model(s) he got damages for were examples included in the CD that came with the book.

Essentially, though, the principle is that two wrongs don't make a right. An infringing work doesn't lose its own copyright protections (even without getting into aspects of things like Fair Use and whatnot).

Wow. Wouldn't that mean that the "Star Destroyer guy" would get something in return? Or wait, no. Because LucasArts didn't use it illegaly, he doesn't get anything. Or did they use it illegaly because they didn't ask him for permission? It's confusing.

 

[David cgc]

If I build a physical model of the Enterprise from scratch, display it in a public space (like, say, a public park) and put a sign next to it saying "you can't photograph this without my permission," what are my legal remedies if a photograph of the model shows up someplace?

Come to think of it, what exactly does happen with people who take pictures in posted "no photography" areas? It doesn't seem like that would be a copyright thing, more of a trespassing thing. I just did a quick google, and all I could find talked about stopping people during the actual photographing, and nothing about measures taken after finding prints later on.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

http://www.nowpublic.com/photography_banned_downtown_silver_spring_maryland

http://www.nowpublic.com/july_4th_first_amendment_rights_march_silver_spring_maryland

The townsfolk pushed back against this bullshit and Peterson had to give it up, though they still claim they have the right to do it. County police officers do patrol Ellsworth, rather than the company having to provide their own traffic enforcement, etc.

 

[OmahaStar]

http://www.nowpublic.com/photography_banned_downtown_silver_spring_maryland

http://www.nowpublic.com/july_4th_first_amendment_rights_march_silver_spring_maryland

The townsfolk pushed back against this bullshit and Peterson had to give it up, though they still claim they have the right to do it. County police officers do patrol Ellsworth, rather than the company having to provide their own traffic enforcement, etc.

That is just ridiculous. Yet the city council isn't saying a thing here? Just what is it that Peterson has on those fine elected folks?

 

[Professor Zoom]

tl;dr

You can just say "snip," or do the first line with an elipsis or something, rather than quote the whole thing, including the part directed at a totally different person, to say you ignored it. It clutters the thread.

I wanted to show what the conversation had become.

I don't care about your arguments. I think you're wrong. We'll have to leave it at that.

No, you don't. You don't think I'm wrong that material should pass into the public domain sooner or later. You don't think I'm wrong that the current law is a patch that doesn't adequately cover the current situation. You don't think I'm wrong that excessive copyright claims could restrain future creative expression.

I'll make it SUPER clear for you. What we disagree on: I think you're wrong.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I didn't say it was inferior, I said it was different. You've simply said "infringement = theft" with no explanation of how that is practically possible or reasonable.

How is it possible or reasonable for infringement to equal theft? By infringing on someone's rights by stealing their property. That's pretty self explanatory.

Concepts do not appear out of thin air. They are originated somewhere, by someone. Saying that creator's rights are voided if the creator is anonymous is folly. There is no intellectually coherent reason why the Voynich manuscript should be public domain but the Mona Lisa shouldn't be.

I really hope you're being deliberately ridiculous. Of course there can be no creator's rights if the creator is unknown. Nor if the creator is dead and has no living heirs. And as far as Copyright goes, it doesn't go backwards in time.

How? It was originated by someone. You're just saying it's okay to steal from people if you don't know their names.

Bloody hell, I really hope that you're being deliberately ridiculous.

 

[RJDiogenes]

And for those interested in reality to discuss, this might be of interest: Recording artists may be able to recover their song rights

Jan

That's awesome. It's just a shame they'll be getting them back just as they lose value due to unrestrained thievery.

 

[David cgc]

I'd say "circular" more than "self explanatory." It's simple theft because it's exactly like taking physical property. It's exactly like taking physical property because it's simple theft. Are you saying if I used Scotty's transporter to make a duplicate of your car, that'd be the same as if I'd stolen it from you so you didn't have it anymore? You'd be just as upset as if I had pirated your great american novel so you couldn't sell it anymore?

And "orphaned works" are a thing that exist, because of respect for creators' rights. If you extend copyright out infinitely, orphans get the same protection, because they may not be orphaned forever. If someone finds a three hundred year old journal that names the first guy who ever sang "The Parting Glass" tomorrow, under your model, his heirs are suddenly entitled to a massive quantity of royalties, and everyone who ever performed it when it was regarded as a traditional song is suddenly a low-down, dirty thief who doesn't care about creators' rights.

And as much as I hate to burst your "kids these days" bubble about "unrestrained thievery," music sales are up this year, despite the bad economy.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I'd say "circular" more than "self explanatory." It's simple theft because it's exactly like taking physical property. It's exactly like taking physical property because it's simple theft. Are you saying if I used Scotty's transporter to make a duplicate of your car, that'd be the same as if I'd stolen it from you so you didn't have it anymore? You'd be just as upset as if I had pirated your great american novel so you couldn't sell it anymore?

It's theft because it's taking something that doesn't belong to you.

And "orphaned works" are a thing that exist, because of respect for creators' rights. If you extend copyright out infinitely, orphans get the same protection, because they may not be orphaned forever. If someone finds a three hundred year old journal that names the first guy who ever sang "The Parting Glass" tomorrow, under your model, his heirs are suddenly entitled to a massive quantity of royalties, and everyone who ever performed it when it was regarded as a traditional song is suddenly a low-down, dirty thief who doesn't care about creators' rights.

Wrong again.

And as much as I hate to burst your "kids these days" bubble about "unrestrained thievery," music sales are up this year, despite the bad economy.

You might want to read that article.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

To some people, the semantics, that when you make a digital copy you aren't erasing the original, makes a difference. Since the original possessor of a digital file isn't deprived of it when a copy is made, they say, it can't be theft in the same way that, when a burglar has broken in and taken my stereo from my house, I don't have it any more.

What's actually being discussed are things like when access to media is authorized, and when and under what circumstances someone has the privilege of marketing certain kinds of merchandise. But this gets obscured by what amounts to a semantic straw man argument over exactly what words best describe things like unauthorized duplication or illegal use of a trademark.