Sonny Bono, Disney and the Supreme Court betrayed the American people

[e1618978]

Copyright is not like property ownership -
it is an agreement between the author
and the general public:

- The Author gets the right to control
the publication during a set period of
time (the public agrees not to sell
copies of the work during this time).

- In exchange, the work is released into
the public domain after the set period,
and it can be used by anyone for any
purpose.

Sony Bono increased the copyright period,
in effect stealing from the public domain,
in order to protect Mickey Mouse. This
was a direct gift to Disney, who has profited
dramatically from public domain works
(Cindarella, Jungle Book, Snow White, etc).

The supreme court, by allowing congress to
perpetually raise the bar, participated
in this theft.

Because of this, I no longer respect copyright,
and I don't think that people who download
music or movies off the internet are doing
anything particularly wrong. I don't do it
myself, because I am rich and lazy, but I would
do it if I was less rich and less lazy.

Any comments? Disagreements?

[pfflam]

Originally posted by e1618978
Copyright is not like property ownership -
it is an agreement between the author
and the general public:

- The Author gets the right to control
the publication during a set period of
time (the public agrees not to sell
copies of the work during this time).

- In exchange, the work is released into
the public domain after the set period,
and it can be used by anyone for any
purpose.

Sony Bono increased the copyright period,
in effect stealing from the public domain,
in order to protect Mickey Mouse. This
was a direct gift to Disney, who has profited
dramatically from public domain works
(Cindarella, Jungle Book, Snow White, etc).

The supreme court, by allowing congress to
perpetually raise the bar, participated
in this theft.

Because of this, I no longer respect copyright,
and I don't think that people who download
music or movies off the internet are doing
anything particularly wrong. I don't do it
myself, because I am rich and lazy, but I would
do it if I was less rich and less lazy.

Any comments? Disagreements? Go gettem tiger!!

[BRussell]

It's the ultimate conspiracy theory. Sonny Bono, Disney, and the Supreme Court.

Here are the rules. Your conspiracy has to involve one individual, one corporation, and one government institution.

Here's my conspiracy: Ahmed Chalabi, Halliburton, and the Pentagon betrayed the American people. Oh wait that's too real sounding. How about David Hasselhoff, L. L. Bean, and the California Department of Corrections betrayed the American people.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by BRussell
It's the ultimate conspiracy theory. Sonny Bono, Disney, and the Supreme Court.

Here are the rules. Your conspiracy has to involve one individual, one corporation, and one government institution.

Here's my conspiracy: Ahmed Chalabi, Halliburton, and the Pentagon betrayed the American people. Oh wait that's too real sounding. How about David Hasselhoff, L. L. Bean, and the California Department of Corrections betrayed the American people.

Except I explained what I meant, and
everything is a matter of public record.

Rule 1 - use ridicule if you can't think of a good reply.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
Except I explained what I meant, and
everything is a matter of public record.

Rule 1 - use ridicule if you can't think of a good reply. Lighten up, friend. You clearly posted this in part because of the amusing juxtaposition of those three entities. Don't be surprised when a reader has the exact reaction that you were expecting.

And it might help people to respond to your post if you provided links to external sources with something, anything, relevant to what you wrote.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Bjork, Sunny Delight, and the Congressional Addiction Caucus are all in cahoots... :err: There ya go! The Congressional addiction caucus?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by BRussell
Lighten up, friend. You clearly posted this in part because of the amusing juxtaposition of those three entities. Don't be surprised when a reader has the exact reaction that you were expecting.

And it might help people to respond to your post if you provided links to external sources with something, anything, relevant to what you wrote.

Sorry - I was getting overwhelmed by
trite attacks on many threads at once.

I apologise.

The case was "Eldred vs. Ashcroft"
http://eldred.cc/

[giant]

Or you can watch a great video of Lessig explaining it (http://www.oyez.org/creativecommons/lessig.mp4).

[addabox]

Originally posted by giant
Or you can watch a great video of Lessig explaining it (http://www.oyez.org/creativecommons/lessig.mp4).

Hmm.... a 220 MB video. Pass.

Um, e1619378, I'm not trying to be contentious, but I don't think your formatting makes your posts more "readable". I honestly think they make your ideas seem like doggerel.

I'm not saying they are, mind you, but as a native English speaker I can't help but read short lines of text in a column as having a slight pause at the end of every line,

and that makes even
the best thought out notions
appear to be light verse.
Which may be why
people aren't taking you
as seriously as they might.

[giant]

Originally posted by addabox
Hmm.... a 220 MB video. Pass.
Maybe you should upgrade from that Quadra. :p

[e1618978]

Originally posted by addabox
Hmm.... a 220 MB video. Pass.

Um, e1619378, I'm not trying to be contentious, but I don't think your formatting makes your posts more "readable". I honestly think they make your ideas seem like doggerel.

I'm not saying they are, mind you, but as a native English speaker I can't help but read short lines of text in a column as having a slight pause at the end of every line,

and that makes even
the best thought out notions
appear to be light verse.
Which may be why
people aren't taking you
as seriously as they might.

OK - I will give it a try. Regarding my objections earlier - I didn't really notice that my title was funny until afterwards.

This topic really ties into the "what could Democrats do to beat Bush" themes of other threads. Democrats could take up the cause of the people on the copyright issue, and promise to pass a law that limits copyright to 30 years. A change to the constitution that prevents congress from making retroactive changes to the copyright period would also be welcome (as retroactive copyright changes are gifts to vested interests).

[addabox]

Originally posted by e1618978
OK - I will give it a try. Regarding my objections earlier - I didn't really notice that my title was funny until afterwards.

This topic really ties into the "what could Democrats do to beat Bush" themes of other threads. Democrats could take up the cause of the people on the copyright issue, and promise to pass a law that limits copyright to 30 years. A change to the constitution that prevents congress from making retroactive changes to the copyright period would also be welcome (as retroactive copyright changes are gifts to vested interests).

I absolutely agree with you, and not just because of the longer line breaks (although it helps! :) ).

[applenut]

I seriously think his original post was a chain email I received several years ago.

weird.

[giant]

Originally posted by e1618978
This topic really ties into the "what could Democrats do to beat Bush" themes of other threads.
The serious problems with what's going on in copyright really shouldn't be reduced to anything partisan. It's a serious issue and goes way, way beyond politics.

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by e1618978


Because of this, I no longer respect copyright,
and I don't think that people who download
music or movies off the internet are doing
anything particularly wrong. I don't do it
myself, because I am rich and lazy, but I would
do it if I was less rich and less lazy.

Any comments? Disagreements?

I completely disagree. If a company or individual creates original content and then copyrights it, what right does the public have to ever get the right to profit from it as well. This isn't like drug or technology patents, where there is a time limit for public benefit and to incourage competition. And lets face it, copyright laws are abused all the time as it is, and this law simply prevents all out pillaging of coyright material.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by giant
The serious problems with what's going on in copyright really shouldn't be reduced to anything partisan. It's a serious issue and goes way, way beyond politics.

It is completely political. Politicians set copyright laws, and politicians are the only people that can make it right.

Do you think that politicians should only be involved in trivial issues? Who should handle these 'serious issues'?

I wish that I could say that the current widespread civil disobedience of file downloaders was in response to the rape of the public domain, but it is probably the other way around. As copyright becomes less and less enforcable, the laws become more draconian.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by the cool gut
I completely disagree. If a company or individual creates original content and then copyrights it, what right does the public have to ever get the right to profit from it as well. This isn't like drug or technology patents, where there is a time limit for public benefit and to incourage competition. And lets face it, copyright laws are abused all the time as it is, and this law simply prevents all out pillaging of coyright material. I think everyone agrees there should be a time limit on copyrights. That principle is even in the US Constitution, Article I, section 8:

The Congress shall have Power...

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

[giant]

Originally posted by e1618978
It is completely political. Politicians set copyright laws, and politicians are the only people that can make it right.
But we also have a situation where the public isn't informed enough about what's going on and why it's a problem. And it doesn't really have a partisan face to it now. In fact, the recent california INDUCE act that would effectively ban the internet was introduced by a democrat.
I wish that I could say that the current widespread civil disobedience of file downloaders was in response to the rape of the public domain, but it is probably the other way around. As copyright becomes less and less enforcable, the laws become more draconian.
Which is why the best way to fight it is to copyright reform while releasing as much content under open licenses as possible. At the same time, people in my line of work (libraries) are negotiating with publishers to open access up and academics, authors and other content providers are creating open access resources. The focus right now needs to be squarely on the publishers.

One of the problems is that so much in copyright is open to interpretation and much of the system is determined in court. It's because of those rulings, the actions of publishers and the lack of knowledge on the part of the public that politicians are able to make insane extensions on copyright.

But don't think I disagree with you. I actually agree 100%

[e1618978]

Originally posted by the cool gut
I completely disagree. If a company or individual creates original content and then copyrights it, what right does the public have to ever get the right to profit from it as well. This isn't like drug or technology patents, where there is a time limit for public benefit and to incourage competition. And lets face it, copyright laws are abused all the time as it is, and this law simply prevents all out pillaging of coyright material.

I think that you also disagree with Thomas Jefferson and most of the other founding fathers.

Think what the world would be like now with unlimited copyright. Every song would have an owner, and you would have to pay them to write new songs (the copyright definition of a unique song means that there are only 50,000 conbinations). You could not make Frankenstein or Dracula movies, because those would be copyrighted names. The heirs of Shakespere would demand a cut of every movie and book. This all stifles innovation.

It particulary rankles when Disney does it, because they would not exist if it were not for public domain materials.

[giant]

Originally posted by the cool gut
I completely disagree. If a company or individual creates original content and then copyrights it, what right does the public have to ever get the right to profit from it as well.
You have it completely backwards. The public grants the author or researcher the privilege for a limited period of time as encouragement for more work. The public has right to do whatever it wants with the work, but has decided to give up some of the right for a limited time in order to help the arts and sciences progress. Copyright expires for a reason. Meanwhile, the public can still use the work under fair use.

Copyright is really just a very limited intangible pseudo-property right that the public temporarily bestows on content creators/aggregators.

In addition, anyone in the public that supports what is happening in copyright is just uninformed. period. As an example, I have an uncle who is a senior copyright lawyer, and even though his work is for publishers, he recognizes that the situation is fucked.

I could give you example after example after example (there are more and more every day) of restrictive copyright practices and the recent explosion of greedy IP companies have stood in the way of progress in many fields. This is why so many researchers are creating and supporting open access alternatives.

[giant]

Originally posted by e1618978
It particulary rankles when Disney does it, because they would not exist if it were not for public domain materials.
Which is a significant point that many people miss.

Lessig goes over the whole disney hypocrisy in detail during the first part of that very good video (http://www.oyez.org/creativecommons/lessig.mp4). (large video file)

[bergz]

Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) is what we're talking about here.

If you don't like to read, here's a figgity phat video (http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/movingimages/Building_on_the_Past.mpg) which does a def job explaining what creative commons is.

Or if you prefer a comic that shows (http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1) what CC is all about.

From the site:
Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright — all rights reserved — and the public domain — no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work — a "some rights reserved" copyright.

As for the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act", it is well documented, and NOT a conspiracy. From Wikipedia:

In addition to Disney (whose extensive efforts in lobbying for passage of this lent it its darkly humorous nickname of "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act"), Mary Bono (Sonny Bono's widow and Congressional successor) and the estate of George Gershwin supported the act. Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, noted that "Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever", but that since she was "informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution", Congress might consider Jack Valenti's proposal of a copyright term of "forever less one day".


--B

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by e1618978
Sony Bono increased the copyright period...
When you run out of original ideas, you become fat and bloated and hope to live off your past glory.

Babe, I got you babe.

Son- son- son- Sonny Bono, fast as you can be.
Aiyaaaaaa, watch out for that tree!

[tonton]

Sonny Bono is dead, Disney is dying, and the Supreme Court is losing its autonomy.

Anyway, I just attended a seminar given by Professor Jay Dratler, Jr. on this very topic.

It should be noted that the 20 year extension was simply to catch America up to the rest of the world, who already had a 70 year post mortem or 95 years from first publication period for copyright, while the US only had 50 and 75.

[Ebby]

While I can't justify downloading music that I can purchase, there are many songs I simply can't get or order because they 1) don't sell well or 2) are discontinued/live/unpublished. P2P networks are the solution. If you think I'm a bad person, well: Dear RIAA;
Give me an alternative.
The RIAA is a tired old joke to me. Its not funny or sad anymore; its downright sick what they are doing to our government, us citizens, and now other nations. If they truly wanted to a solution to filesharing, they would have done it by now. There are just too many obvious solutions. That is no longer the goal. I believe they are using file-sharing as a scapegoat to bring perceived-honor to the music business despite crippling fair use and consumers rights with controversial laws, Cd-Label trickery, price fixing, unwillingness to please consumer demand, and loss sales... need I say what is up with todays music? :vomit:

They funded a massive campaign of blatant misinformation to spin copyright law into a business tool.
Exibit A:
http://www.ssba.com/lad/copyright.jpg
Note the text: "... giving whoever creates an original work exclusive control over how it is used."
That was never, ever the intention if copyright laws! Copyright laws were created to prevent someone from profiting from another's work. Fair use laws were created to PREVENT "exclusive control."
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

EDIT: Ahh, Its nice to let out a rant now & again. 8)

[Gon]

Blame Supreme Court not Disney. Disney doesn't make laws... oh well, it shouldn't be let to make laws.

[applenut]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx
When you run out of original ideas, you become fat and bloated and hope to live off your past glory.

Babe, I got you babe.

Son- son- son- Sonny Bono, fast as you can be.
Aiyaaaaaa, watch out for that tree!

get some class:rolleyes: