[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] [openlaw] Government takes more extreme lineins econd"Eldred" case

> On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 01:09:41PM -0800, microlenz@earthlink.net
> wrote: > 1. What can nontransferablility accomplish? Why can't the
> creator > elect to transfer the copyright or patent wholy? What does
> not > allowing them to dispose of their intellectual property as they
> see > fit?
> because "intellectual property" is not property and the term is a sad
> mistake.

Yes I hate that term and all the connotations as well (Lets callit 
Blop frok) but the fact that it is not real property or chattels does 
not mean that the rights one has with Blop Frok cannot be 
transferred according to some contract.That's the whole point of 
having something that is recognized by the law-to provide a means 
of conveying it to others. That's what contracts are about. If the 
creator has lost the ability to bargain for transfer of those rights 
because of monopoly - address the monopoly first. Changing the 
basis of copyright to deal with a monopoly problem isn't the 
solution to either.(which at least in 1909, the Republican Party of 
Taft know how do do. Looking at the Microsoft case today I'm not 
so certain today.))

> if I write a book, it always is "my" book, not in the
> property sense but in the creator sense. transfering the "creatorship"
> just doesn't make any sense, it's a logical impossibility.

Yes and your name will ALWAYS be listed as author but what 
does that have to do with COPYRIGHT? And progress?

> > 2. Why can't corporations own patents or copyrights? They 
> > bankroll the developement or production.
> because they don't create stuff. if they pay for the development, they
> can (and should) get certain automatic RIGHTS, but never in history
> has a publishing house written a novel. humans write novels.

I don't know...what's that sex novel from the 60s written by a bunch 
of authors for some publisher....Contracts work by consideration. I 
give. I get. They give they get. The TIME of a creator is 
consideration in a contract (as is NOT doing something)...The fact 
that a publishing house doesn't write is irrelevant. The fact that the 
bargain sucks for most creators is a consequence of the 
marketplace. Fix that first. THEN see if it is sufficient.
> > 3. What's the point of giving a corporation an unlimited license by
> > allowing the creator to hold the patent. Since a patent is a
> > monopoly, the corporation probably want to have that as well.
> > Otherwise, if the creator can merely license it to a competitor it
> > rather diminishes the value of his creation in the market place.
> the whole point is that only humans can be creators. corporations can
> pay for stuff, and in return can receive the economic rights, but
> never the full copyright.

WHY? What if the author doesn't WANT to administer the 
copyright but would like some return on the extension? That 
solution removes freedom from the creator to dispose of his 
creation as he sees fit and that's the problem with this proposed 
solution. The creator of a work MUST be free to dispose of it as 
they see fit. IF they want it into the public domain. They may do 
so. If they want to have it copyright protected they must be able to 
do so. If they want to relinquish all rights to some third party they 
must be free to do so. Imposing a totalitarian solution upon the 
creator to redress a totalitarian solution imposed by the publishers 
in the market place does not redress the imbalance. Address the 
totalitarian solution imposed by the publishers first.The solution to 
dealing with corporations having the FULL copyright is to limit the 
times. That way the mischief they can perform is limited in duration 
to one or two generations.

Actually, looking at the history of copyright extension is 
illuminating. The extension to terms in the 1909 copyright act was 
simply to END discussion. Terms were set at those durations 
because nobody argued that they need be longer-end of 
discussion. But greedy people are not greedy because they want, 
they are greedy because they want more after having more 
than enough. 
> -- 
> http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
> pub  1024D/D88D35A6 2001-11-14 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
>      Key fingerprint = 276B B7BB E4D8 FCCE DB8F  F965 310B 811A D88D
>      35A6