Obama supporting RIAA's "unconstitutionally excessive" lawsuits...
Just what we need in this economy... not!
This is just a hidden way to bailout the music industry...
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/obama-sides-wit.html
'The position -- that the Copyright Act's monetary damages are not unconstitutionally excessive -- mirrors the one taken by the Bush administration and should come as no surprise.
Two top lawyers in President Barack Obama's Justice Department are former RIAA lawyers: Donald Verrilli Jr. is the associate deputy attorney general who brought down Grokster and fought to prevent a retrial in the Jammie Thomas case. Then there's the No. 2 in the DOJ, Tom Perrilli. As Verrilli's former boss, Perrilli argued in 2002 that internet service providers should release customer information to the RIAA even without a court subpoena.
...parts of the government's brief sounded as if it was taken from the RIAA's public relations playbook.
"Congress sought to account for both the difficulty of quantifying damages in the context of copyright infringement and the need to deter millions of users of new technology from infringing copyrighted work in an environment where many violators believe that their activities will go unnoticed," '
Comments
Whose IP is it "OK" to
Whose IP is it "OK" to steal? How much gray area is "OK" in copyright and patent infringement? If people hadn't openly flaunted violation of IP at the beginning...but no.
Is it "OK" to copy a computer game? Is it "OK" to buy counterfeit Gucci's? Is it "OK" to go to a Cowboys game with a counterfeit ticket?
IP theft is IP theft.
Certain that there will be disagreement.
Theft is theft whether it's
Theft is theft whether it's my lawnmower, my songs, or my money. And, it's not OK.
Creators (writers, movie producers, musicians, inventors) have legal protection from the moment the thing is created; as it should be.
Creators, as a part of their ownership rights, can freely distribute the creation or choose to license its use in other ways.
Removing laws and penalties allowing creators the freedom to do so is wrong. It is the choice of the person who created the thing that matters, not the desires of those who wish to steal it.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
I don't agree with IP theft,
I don't agree with IP theft, but I don't agree with the RIAA's policies (either giant lawsuits, or three-strikes laws) either.
The issue is that many musicians speak out against the RIAA, but it goes on doing what it wants anyway. Creators have been stripped of their rights, because the big companies force things to be done a certain way. This is the problem I see. You can go to the big time with the RIAA way, or you can be indie (marginalized to some extent).
The patent and copyright systems are broken - they last too long, and there are too many patent trolls.
OK: "Improving" the thing is
OK: "Improving" the thing is different than abolition, chaos, and anarchy.
Are we just talking about copyright and music or also patents? Two really different things.
I don't see an issue with "some" or even "many" speaking out against something -- it needs to be "most" or "all" before there is a mandate for change.
If improvements are needed, what specific changes do you see as necessary and how would those changes make the system better?
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
The RIAA should adopt
The RIAA should adopt Creative Commons licensing, step one. Reverse their lawsuits and three step plans, step two. Actually review things for fair use before issuing takedowns, step three.
On patents, it's not music, but a related issue to a lot of techies/geeks - software patents. Here's a quote from one of the top software developers in the world (3D graphics engine creator John Carmack)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151312&cid=12701745
(read the comments too)
OK: You lined out some
OK: You lined out some changes but made no mention of how they would improve anything.
What is "broken" about copyright and how do those three specific changes fix it?
Patents: Apparently these folks don't want to file for patents on their work. That's OK. What's the problem?
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
Save consumers money, and
Save consumers money, and save face for a broken, hated organization.
There are dubious software patents which are only put through because they are not understood. Need better training for Patent Office people.
One big problem I have with
One big problem I have with copyrights is their term, and that has been going the wrong direction. The problem with overly long copyright protection is it actually discourages creativity because people or corporations can rest on their laurels too much. Copyright should be limited to something like 50 years if owned by a corportation or 75 years or the author's lifetime plus 18 years whichever is shorter for individuals. What I don't like is that it appears that congress will just keep extending the term on copyrights forever (ala the Sonny Bono Extension Act) to appease Disney. And people like the heirs to the "Happy Birthday" author and H.P. Lovecraft's heirs who are milking their long dead ancestor's works and doing nothing themselves are just leeches on society.
My problem with the current patent system is that the 17 year term may have made sense in 1790 when the pace of innovation is slow, but 17 years is like 8 generations in many areas of technology these days. Most things in computers are obsolete well before the term is up. Two years would be more appropriate for most computer related patents. Also software patents just shouldn't be allowed at all and in fact traditionally haven't been in a lot of other countries. And the scrutiny of what is patent-worthy should be much tighter -- prior art needs to be much more carefully searched and there needs to be an "obviousness" test... For example if I give an engineering problem to 10 engineers and more than 2 or 3 of them come up with essentially the same solution then its just too obvious to deserve patent protection. And patents need to be specific, too many patent litigations I've heard of are attempting to broadly apply a patent to things well outside the original scope.
I tend to agree that
I tend to agree that copyright should be subject to some kind of reasonable "term limits." However, changing copyright law (unfortunately) won't make leeches dry up and blow away ;~)
On the other hand, if I create something like a, farm, ranch, or build a home, I can leave that to my heirs and they to theirs for as long as they can afford the taxes on it. They continue to be sole beneficiaries of the profit or usage as well.
Wonder why we consider a piece of music, a photograph, a book, or a painting differently?
I just have a hard time understanding why so many people have so much heartburn over the ownership of songs and not houses. Is it possible that some of these folks just don't want anyone to own any kind of property at all?
What's the deal?
I also tend to agree that specificity in patents, better patent searches prior to issuance, and perhaps a re-categorization of patent types might be in order. Some of the precedents set in patent cases are absurd and reasonable rework of the law could reset the balance there as well.
Good points!
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
The bottom line is that a
The bottom line is that a lot of people view material things differently than things than things which can be reproduced without damaging the original. We had the concept of physical property rights a long time before someone came up with the idea of intellectual property rights. There are also lots of ways of looking at things... Say if you have a house, someone else can't take your house without depriving you of your house. But they could build that looks like it on their own land, which theoretically could be a copyright violation. I've never heard of someone suing over that, although I bet it has happened. I bet if it did, it was a builder who copy-catted another builder's designs rather than an individual doing it for a house for his own occupancy. A lot of people view things like "piracy" differently when its for personal use rather than for commercial gain. Things that can be so easily reproduced as digital works just add all the more gray areas. As zratchet noted, groups like RIAA and MPAA have fought for years to ban recording devices or get taxes placed on recording media in order to prevent even things like people recording off the radio or recording a TV show to watch later. They really would like to see things that most people take for granted these days like TiVO banned, or at least regulated so you had to pay them (again or additional) for every use of it.
As for my specific objections to H.P. Lovecraft's heirs... they have sued quite a few writers who have written original stories in Lovecraft's style, even though when he was alive he encouraged other authors to do so. They have also sued book and game publishers for using names of many the characters such as the pantheon of deities in the Lovecraftian lore such as Cthulu, even though they've never as far as I've heard even registered any as trademarks (another type of IP with its own set of nuances of laws). And they aren't very deserving in general because Lovecraft was divorced, and neither his (long since deceased) ex-wife nor he ever had any children. His heirs at the time he died were aunts who got it basically because they were the only living relatives and the nieces and nephews left these days are a generation removed. He died in 1937, but thanks to the Sony Bono Act a.k.a. the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act", his works which would all become public domain in 2012 now probably never will. By 2019 when the act extended them to, it is highly likely that congress will make copyrights be in perpetuity, or at least extend them a few more years.
Agreed. EU policy on patents
Agreed. EU policy on patents seems to be better when it comes to computers and software.
Patents and IP are assets
Patents and IP are assets owned by people and companies that need to be respected, otherwise there will be chaos. Infringe on my patents, and suffer the wrath!
Whether or not musicians and songwriters do whatever it is that you think that they should do is irrelevant to the fact that someone created something from nothing and deserves to be paid for that creation. The same "logic" that somehow permits someone to rip off a musician says that a "hot" copy of "ET" was legal when it first hit the movie theaters!
Maybe the system for music downloads etc. should be re-thought, but until then, "borrowing" someone's music without paying for it it wrong. There is no "common good" or "common property" in the US. And tis is not the old USSR of collective sharing. You do not have the right to someone else's material or assets without paying for it. Period.
And by the way, it is 20 years from first date of priority of filing for a patent after 1995. As for how long it takes to turn a patent into a product and commercialize??? Come on, SWJ!, you have no experience in this area. You have no idea how long it takes or how difficult it is to bring a product from patent to market. NONE! You are playing fast and loose with my assets and my future. My company owns 7 issued patents and has five patents filed. After more than a decade of work, some of that IP is beginning to pay off. Sorry, you shouldn't be opining here. As for software patents and such...how hard is it to re-write code to do the same thing as someone else's functionality? NO CHANGE TO U.S. PATENT LAWS, and by the way, I couldn't give a rat's pitootie what the EU does with their patent laws as long as they respect my IP rights.
Well, respectively, you've
Well, respectively, you've got a right to your own opinion, but you've got no right to tell me I don't have a right to mine. To begin with you really have no idea what knowledge or involvement with patents I've had over my 20+ year career so you are really talking out of your ___. If you read what I said, the "one size fits all" term for patents just doesn't make sense for much of what I work with. Different markets create and commercialize products on vastly different schedules. Companies I've worked for that filed patents (such as business model patents) came and went in less than 5 years.
And you must not understand patents as well as you think you do if you think that re-writing code is enough to keep from getting sued. Even if you win such a suit, you lose because of the huge legal expenses. And when algorithms are allowed to be patented no amount of re-writing will make it non-infringing. Most patents in the software area in particular are granted to a few big corporations (IBM, Microsoft and a few others) so they can shield themselves from each other, not really to protect inventions. And patent trolls are a really big problem, whether you like to admit it or not. You may feel differently about the whole thing the first time you get sued by someone like Unisys or Forgent. And I'm not saying your patents fall into this category, but many of the patents filed by the huge companies are laughable. I'll pick on Microsoft just because I like to... but one of their patents was on a method of anti-aliasing fonts that had prior art that dated back to AT LEAST the Apple II where it was popular. That's like allowing someone to patent the wheel.
I'm sticking to my guns on this one... patent and copyright terms should be getting shorter rather than longer, and the standards for which patents are granted should be considerably tightened up. The system is currently badly broken.
Ok, then I am wrong & I
Ok, then I am wrong & I apologize. You are right that software patents are quite different from anything that I deal with.
Another issue is that
Another issue is that business models are changing, becoming more ad, rental, subscription, and microtransaction based (talking about the game industry mostly, but this could just as easily apply to software in general as well as most media)
The radio has survived plenty long being "free" and recordable... it wasn't till recently that people started making a stink about recording radio programs being stealing. Also, a lot of the same people that support the RIAA and MPAA would love to see things like Tivo and the iPod go away. How would you like that?
Last but not least, you should not have the right to damage or spy on other's property in order to protect your own. Sony and the RIAA both got in big trouble for this (rootkits, MediaSentry, etc)
A song is a lot easier to
A song is a lot easier to make than a house, and just because you write a song doesn't automatically mean you own everyone's vocal chords because they could sing your song.
Think of it as community management: If you're an artist or musician, you want your work out there, sure you want credit, but if people actually see or hear your work out there they are more likely to search you out than if you ban people's using your work and thus get bad publicity for it. (though bad publicity DOES sometimes raise usage... for some strange reason)
I believe in the basics of copyright, but it should not extend into perpetuity. If that happens, the EFF and others will likely take strong action against such nonsense.
It really isn't about
It really isn't about singing a song; it's about writing a song... either music, lyrics, or both. Singing (reading music or "by ear") doesn't require creativity, it requires skill. Caveat: Not suggesting that every song ever written was "good" in the creative sense.
The design of a house or other building (architectural) is not easy. It isn't about physically banging nails or reading blueprints. Building a house doesn't require creativity, it requires skill. Caveat: Same as above for design of homes or other buildings.
The songwriter isn't necessarily a musician in the sense of "performing artist." Neither is an architect a skilled mason or carpenter. The requirements are quite different.
An artist, musician, or architect has the right to turn works over to public use for free if that's what is desired. It's a choice. That's under current copyright law -- the creator can choose to let it go; all or in part. That's OK: Right?
On the other hand, earning a living as a songwriter means someone has to sign a paycheck somewhere / somehow. How does that happen if, by changing copyright law, the songwriter has no rights in the creation? There can be no contracts without rights in the creation.
Who pays?
Why write songs?
What's the alternative?
We've had a lot of good discussion here but I'm still not seeing a way forward for anyone who is "creative" to earn a living from their creation in the absence of strong property rights and legal protections.
Anyone?
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
There needs to be copyright
There needs to be copyright laws, there also needs to be a balance between community relations and copyright. You will see reduced sales if you actively harass your customers.
The conclusion some have come to in the game industry is that those who copy content are not customers and therefore are not supported.
Any "solution" will have someone up in arms, there is no real solution to the problem that I can see at the moment. DRM doesn't work well, lawsuits don't work well, etc etc.
The answer some in the game industry have come to is, provide your product for free, and make money from updates and extra content/features.
We'll see if other industries adopt this thinking.
Of course there are no
Of course there are no updates, upgrades, or maintenance for songwriters, authors, and artists ;~)
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
No, but there are episodic
No, but there are episodic shorts, collections, live performances, and such.
Do we really think that
Do we really think that giving (for free) the publication of a book to a publisher with the plan to make a living on compilations and collections is a viable alternative to what we have now?
In the case of a songwriter, are we saying that giving songs to recording artists or performers for free and planning to support our families on live performances or recording residuals is the path to success?
I know... I'm always asking questions. It's the innate analyst in me, I suppose.
I'm just trying to figure out if there really is something better... some structure or system that can replace what we have, satisfy the dis-satisfied and still allow people to earn a living from what they do.
I'm not seeing it yet.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Senior Project Manager
Software Development, PMO, IT Governance
My door64 Blog
enweave
It may be that it is more
It may be that it is more software oriented, I just get frustrated sometimes with other industries being so different. :p I guess it's a geek-culture frustration thing.
"Free" stuff (like radio - ad-based) has worked in the past... for a long time. So why mess with it now? (I know it hasn't happened yet, but there are those who would like to stop free radio)