Comments on: Copyright to infinity… and beyond! http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/05/20/copyright-to-infinity-and-beyond/ News from the Staff of Podiobooks.com Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:44:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3 By: Ben parker http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/05/20/copyright-to-infinity-and-beyond/#comment-38542 Ben parker Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:00:26 +0000 http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/05/20/copyright-to-infinity-and-beyond/#comment-38542 The “will someone think of the children” part is hilarious, the rest of the article is just sad The “will someone think of the children” part is hilarious, the rest of the article is just sad

]]> By: Steve, http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/05/20/copyright-to-infinity-and-beyond/#comment-28464 Steve, Mon, 28 May 2007 22:44:30 +0000 http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/05/20/copyright-to-infinity-and-beyond/#comment-28464 There are points on both sides of the argument. Yes, if the direct descendents of an author could benefit from the copyright in the work, it might be good if that were so. However I would only be inclined to think this fair if that right could not be owned by to third parties like large corporations, and was only allowed to continue for the authors direct descendants. Also there should be some means by which unfair withholding, or punitive royalty demands, should be protected against. There are points on both sides of the argument. Yes, if the direct descendents of an author could benefit from the copyright in the work, it might be good if that were so. However I would only be inclined to think this fair if that right could not be owned by to third parties like large corporations, and was only allowed to continue for the authors direct descendants. Also there should be some means by which unfair withholding, or punitive royalty demands, should be protected against.

]]> By: Thomas Garrison, Korea http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/05/20/copyright-to-infinity-and-beyond/#comment-27871 Thomas Garrison, Korea Wed, 23 May 2007 10:44:30 +0000 http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/05/20/copyright-to-infinity-and-beyond/#comment-27871 Here's a link to a 6 part series on this very subject as well as DRM by well known sci-fi author Eric Flint (look for it on the right side). His mode of thinking is very similar to the creators of Podiobooks.com. I know he won't mind if you 'borrow' his arguments. Also, he provides a link in one of the articles to a famous speech made in the UK Parliment over 150 years ago on this very same subject! http://www.baens-universe.com/ Here’s a link to a 6 part series on this very subject as well as DRM by well known sci-fi author Eric Flint (look for it on the right side). His mode of thinking is very similar to the creators of Podiobooks.com. I know he won’t mind if you ‘borrow’ his arguments. Also, he provides a link in one of the articles to a famous speech made in the UK Parliment over 150 years ago on this very same subject!

http://www.baens-universe.com/

]]> By: Doug Kress http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/05/20/copyright-to-infinity-and-beyond/#comment-27649 Doug Kress Mon, 21 May 2007 21:07:43 +0000 http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/05/20/copyright-to-infinity-and-beyond/#comment-27649 It is unfortunate that Mark Halprin didn't use the example of the Disney debacle mentioned by tim hall (above). This case is far more compelling an argument for the inequality of copyright laws between individuals and large corporations. If you have $6 million or so laying around, I guess you can protect your rights too! (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html) It is unfortunate that Mark Halprin didn’t use the example of the Disney debacle mentioned by tim hall (above). This case is far more compelling an argument for the inequality of copyright laws between individuals and large corporations. If you have $6 million or so laying around, I guess you can protect your rights too! (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html)

]]> By: tim hall http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/05/20/copyright-to-infinity-and-beyond/#comment-27604 tim hall Mon, 21 May 2007 14:39:13 +0000 http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/05/20/copyright-to-infinity-and-beyond/#comment-27604 Re Sylvia, what he's arguing is if copyrights supposedly only benefit the wealthy, then why aren't the heirs of a famous (dead) poet rolling in wealth--and if they aren't, why should they be penalized by copyright expirations? Why shouldn't they be able to continue reaping the (presumably modest) revenue stream created by their ancestor's work? Another angle on this is the Disney case--all Disney's copyrights were set to expire, until Sonny Bono and some others gave them a big extension. That's a case worth looking up if you have the inclination, it bears a bit closer on the arguments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act Re Sylvia, what he’s arguing is if copyrights supposedly only benefit the wealthy, then why aren’t the heirs of a famous (dead) poet rolling in wealth–and if they aren’t, why should they be penalized by copyright expirations? Why shouldn’t they be able to continue reaping the (presumably modest) revenue stream created by their ancestor’s work?

Another angle on this is the Disney case–all Disney’s copyrights were set to expire, until Sonny Bono and some others gave them a big extension. That’s a case worth looking up if you have the inclination, it bears a bit closer on the arguments here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

]]> By: g. http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/05/20/copyright-to-infinity-and-beyond/#comment-27548 g. Mon, 21 May 2007 02:36:37 +0000 http://www.podiobooks.com/blog/2007/05/20/copyright-to-infinity-and-beyond/#comment-27548 Actually, there are some things that prevent people from conducting their business exactly like walmart - as the <a href="http://www.vjolt.net/vol4/issue/v4i2a9-grusd.html#text96" rel="nofollow">amazon v walmart case</a> has shown walmart thinks it indeed has so called business-method patents (ie. "intellectual property") on conducting business in a certain way. (btw there's a whole section of the <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/pbmethod/" rel="nofollow">uspto dedicated to business patents</a>) - and yes it is relevant to the discussion, because it is basically the patent of an idea (something the author suggest shall now also be granted within copyright too). Protecting certain designs (an assembly of certain properties) used to be an issue closely related to copyright law, but now these former "registered designs" have been redubbed "design patents" and are an issue of patent law. (I suspect because patent law granted them longer protection periods (up to 50years instead of 14-30).) I guess what the author gets fundamentally wrong is the difference between a inalienable right (like a human right) and a privilege. a privilege is a right granted to you by a higher authority. Taking it away is in no way a sign of the higher authorities beeing unjust, since it is understood that the granting of the right itself is an unjust act towards all the other persons to whom the right is not granted. The "will someone think of the children" part is hilarious, the rest of the article is just sad. oki, before I continue rambling incoherently any longer, I need to get a coffee, it's much too early over here. thanks for sharing. Actually, there are some things that prevent people from conducting their business exactly like walmart - as the amazon v walmart case has shown walmart thinks it indeed has so called business-method patents (ie. “intellectual property”) on conducting business in a certain way. (btw there’s a whole section of the uspto dedicated to business patents) - and yes it is relevant to the discussion, because it is basically the patent of an idea (something the author suggest shall now also be granted within copyright too).
Protecting certain designs (an assembly of certain properties) used to be an issue closely related to copyright law, but now these former “registered designs” have been redubbed “design patents” and are an issue of patent law. (I suspect because patent law granted them longer protection periods (up to 50years instead of 14-30).)

I guess what the author gets fundamentally wrong is the difference between a inalienable right (like a human right) and a privilege. a privilege is a right granted to you by a higher authority. Taking it away is in no way a sign of the higher authorities beeing unjust, since it is understood that the granting of the right itself is an unjust act towards all the other persons to whom the right is not granted. The “will someone think of the children” part is hilarious, the rest of the article is just sad.

oki, before I continue rambling incoherently any longer, I need to get a coffee, it’s much too early over here. thanks for sharing.

]]>