[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 02:48:46PM -0800, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> 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.

no, but it does mean that you can not automatically assume
transferability. some rights can be transfered (property rights of all
kinds, for example), others can not (the right to vote, human rights,
but also more mundanes ones, for example in some countries certain
consumer rights can not be signed away with a 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. 

uh, no. contracts are more general, a formalized agreement between two
parties. and the purpose of having something recognized by the law is
the ability to deal with it legally. human rights are put into law in
most western countries, and the purpose of that surely is not to
provide a means of conveying them to others.

> > 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?

maybe our countries differ, but the german copyright (more aptly named
"creators right") includes a lot of things that don't have anything to
do with copying.

> > 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....

as you say: written by some human beings.

> 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. 

absolutely not. the fact that a publishing house doesn't write means it
is not and never can be the CREATOR. so the CREATORS RIGHTS (german
term, see above) should not apply to it.

the consideration is still intact. they give (money) and they get (for
example an exclusive right to publish for the duration of the

> > 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?

no pain, no gain. if he wants the return, he can do something for it.

> That solution removes freedom from the creator to dispose of his 
> creation as he sees fit 

how? the only thing that changes is that the corporation does not own
the "full" copyright, but only a subset of it, and the true creator is
never out of the game completely.

> 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. 

I don't see a problem.

> IF they want it into the public domain. They may do so. 

same with this solution.

> If they want to have it copyright protected they must be able to 
> do so. 

same here.

> If they want to relinquish all rights to some third party they 
> must be free to do so. 

only difference. however, they can assign most rights to a 3rd party.
using the evil term, they would always remain the owners of the
"intellectual property", but could rent it out to others as they see

> 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.

I don't think the solution to criminals is to make sure they can only
murder or rob one person at a time, or can only do so for a few years.

and yes, in my book the content industry is a criminal, mafia-like
grouping. I don't think telling them they can only rob you $1000 at a
time is the right deal.

pub  1024D/D88D35A6 2001-11-14 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
     Key fingerprint = 276B B7BB E4D8 FCCE DB8F  F965 310B 811A D88D 35A6