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

[Jim Bauer <jfbauer(at)home.com>]

microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> > 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.

If I write a book, I would then enter into a contract with
some publisher to publish the book for some consideration.
The publisher has no need whatsoever to hold the copyright.

>> > 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.

If they want someone to administer the copyright.  The creator
can always hire someone to do that.  That would be just like
not wanting to clean you house so you hire a maid.

>            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. 

Yep.

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

The creator should be able to just grant all (or a subset of) the
rights they have to someone else, but at the same time they must
always retain those same rights.  There is no real need for
transferability.  That just gives control to non-creators.

If the rights are transfered, then the creator no longer has
"the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
which congress was authorized to grant to the "authors and inventors".
Someone else would now has that right.

-- 
Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com