|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
much to my amazement, I discovered the entire text of Neal Stephenson's epic online, with this disclaimer:
in spite of the legal grey areas, i want to have online [we'll just say for my own purposes], all the books i have read. Where the book is not copyright-expired, i own the book anyway.
I won't post a link here, as he's prolly got enough potential problems (it can easily be googled) -- this character doesn't have the shadow of a legal leg to stand on, does he?!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I'd say his 'grey' is about 0x010101.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
I love the © notice on his home page, one directory up. Irony, hubris, forgetfulness? ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I've read ten on his list. I agree. The fellow is hosed when he gets caught.
To state the trivially obvious: Despite what the DOI says, rights are not unalienable. We get them to the extent that we are able to defend them or have them defended for us. There is no natural right to anything. I wish it were otherwise.
We think it is necessary to human happiness that we have property. Also, we believe that an increase of knowledge and culture will improve the human lot, so we have patent and copyright laws to protect "intellectual property." Surely it's a convenient fiction (as are all rights) - but it's a fiction we believe we need because we want to encourage people to participate in certain pursuits. We want people to make movies, to write books, and to invent things. If we have an environment that is conducive to this sort of creativity and discovery, we will get more of it. One way to make the environment more conducive is to guarantee the creator or discoverer exclusive access to the profits of his discovery for a small amount of time.
We can argue that a book and all its contents belong to the person who purchases it to do with as he pleases, but such a right is every bit as much a fiction as the rights conferred by patent or copyright.
We could argue whether the chain of reasoning is correct. For example, does granting exclusive rights really increase the act of invention. My gut feeling is that it does, but I'm uncertain.
We could argue whether the proper role of the government to promote human welfare, but our own constitution seems to make that quite clear.
We could argue that invention does not necessarily promote human welfare - and in fact it doesn't (not necessarily). But the creation of books - even trashy books - enriches culture. The creation of inventions leads to further inventions.
There are lots of arguments that one might make, but I don't know that any of them would get one very far.
OTOH, there is a strong tendency (it seems to me) to treat copyright as a natural right of some kind. Congress has extended the Disney copyright (and others) from 50 to 70 years. I'm not sure of the details of this, but it seems silly to me. (Extending the years of a patent would make a lot more sense to me, considering the amount of time that certain products require for testing and the huge investment required up front. But for copyright? 70 years after the dude is dead? This seems completely insane to me.)
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
I agree, Fal. it is a sign of the immaturity of our civilization that we must selfishly hold onto those things which eventually should belong to all of us. let somebody else make their living off of something that has provided so well for you. but then, I'm an idealist... 
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
The first patents were royal and at the pleasure (i.e.,, the length of which) of the monarch. In the US, they were supposed to be for 17 years, insuring that somebody who came up with the idea could exploit it first and then later it'd go into the public domain. Copyrights were for the lifetime of the author. Seems equitable to me. Now, though, the length stretches on out into the infinite future. And, you can now patent algorithms and ideas rather than just processes. 17 IT years is huge these days. And just having a patent doesn't mean much, except you have a right to go after those who infringe on your patent. He with the most money usually wins.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
RE:Congress has extended the Disney copyright (and others) from 50 to 70 years. I'm not sure of the details of this, but it seems silly to me.
its not just disney--all copyrights have been extended..
of course disney wants them, because it has hitched its wagon to the likes of MickeyMouse.. if any amusment park/entertainment group could feature Mickey or other disney characters, we could end up with Minnie goes down on pluto--XXX rated toons for adults!--something disney doesn't want--even though Walt is dead, and Micky is over 70 years old (and should have become a public domain character by now)
but its getting ridiculous. copyrights are to protect intelectual property.. Disney is dead. you can't libel the dead, and i don't think (works of) the dead should be able to copyrighted for extended period of time. Real property has to be handed over to someone..remember too, if you die, you insurance policy dies with you (ie, you car is no longer insured!--because you are no longer at risk--the policy is on the car, but issued to a person) why should 'intelectual property' be different?
(disney corporation argues differently)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
Lawrence Lessig's latest book, "Free Culture," on the topic of copyright, is available for download free of charge, for a limited time, at Amazon.com. It's a very interesting read, if you like that kind of thing. Lessig is the Standford Atty who argued before the US Supreme Court that the Sonny Bono Copyright Act is unconstitutional. He did not, in spite of what may have been the better argument, prevail. (Bono felt copyright is forever).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
Ironically, Mickey Mouse's first cartoon was a blatant rip-off of Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill, Jr.. What the Diznee shysters could've done back then if it were their movie being parodied. Shrugs.
|
|
|
|
|
