Trademark is about giving you tools to protect your customers from being fooled into accidentally buying a product that appears extremely similar to your product.
But how does this work in practice? Once the copyright period is over, it would seem okay for someone to draw a comic book with Mickey stories and refer to him by name, label the cover "Detective Stories" and sell this.
What would surely get you in trouble would be to make the cover closely resemble Disney product by using a big "Mickey Mouse" logo, using a Mickey picture, and aping the style of the graphic design off Disney's product.
I am not a lawyer. Maybe someone with a better grasp of trademarks and the law could confirm or deny this and provide specifics? I wonder how plush Mickeys or Mickey posters, where the product is virtually nothing but the character, would get treated.
If the character is trademarked, then that character can't be used for anything. The same thing is true of the name.
The old, now no longer copyrighted comic, can be duplicated and sold by third parties. But, even if it's out of copyright, the courts might side with the original owner if the comic was emasculated to have a completely different meaning. That has happened.
Satires are legal even during the copyright period.
The person never owned the car in the first place. The error in billing didn't end his obligation to pay. It's also rather difficult to believe that it took him 5 years to notice that he never had to pay for it. He would have known after the very first payment came due, and wasn't billed for it on time.
Of course he had no business keeping it.
What you are doing by trying to extend this to the industry is absurd. The industry isn't in the position of that man, but rather in the position of the credit company.
The car is the monopoly privilege. They have no business keeping possession the monopoly when they no longer provide anything in return. In short, their copyright should be fully revoked.
Quote:
It doesn't matter one whit that you don't like the music companies. If they own the content, then that's that.
The point is no one can own an idea. Not music companies, not artists, not song writers, not music listeners. No one. I don't care about the music companies, I am protesting the pointless special privilege given to all copyright holders in general and to those that use a legal loophole to shut off fair use in particular.
Quote:
Your understanding of ownership, or copyright, is incorrect from the beginning. Carey would get royalties for every copy of the song that was sold. She also gets royalties every time it is played on the air.
... because she has limited monopoly for using the song. Exactly like I said.
Quote:
The song is not an "ideal". I don't know where you got that from.
It is an idea, an intangible bunch of information. This is obvious. You can't destroy a song. You can't steal a song. You can't give a song. You can not own a song. You could do all that and more to tangible property.
Quote:
It is a work of art that is also a product. The words, the music, and the performance are all parts of that product for which royalties are paid. The writer of the lyrics gets paid, the writer of the music gets paid, and the performer gets paid. If one person does all of that, then that one person gets paid for all the parts. If the musicians are studio musicians then they get paid for their time spent making the recording. If they are part of her band, then they also get performer royalties.
All part of the limited usage monopoly.
Quote:
Copyrights are often assigned to the record company because they pay all of the money up front, do all of the promotion, pay for all of the expenses, etc.
... so?
Quote:
It isn't the way you make it out to be.
When you "buy" a recording, you are not buying the content. You are buying the physical media, and are being granted a license to play the music in a non commercial setting. If you play it in a commercial setting, you are supposed to apply for permission, and when it is granted, pay all royalties to the organization that is empowered to collect it and distribute it.
Yes, but I don't see how I would have said anything to contradict that. I was replying to your last post, in which you said "The copyright does not CREATE ownership. It restricts the decision about how the distribution and payments for those items is to be made to the copyright holder, who almost always owns the material..."
The items being sold are the physical media, and after sale the buyers own them. The copyright holder owns nothing except his cut from the sales.
The car is the monopoly privilege. They have no business keeping possession the monopoly when they no longer provide anything in return. In short, their copyright should be fully revoked.The point is no one can own an idea. Not music companies, not artists, not song writers, not music listeners. No one. I don't care about the music companies, I am protesting the pointless special privilege given to all copyright holders.... because she has limited monopoly for using the song. Exactly like I said.It is an idea, an intangible bunch of information. This is obvious. You can't destroy a song. You can't steal a song. You can't give a song. You can not own a song. You could do all that and more to tangible property.All part of the limited usage monopoly.... so?Yes, but I don't see how I would have said anything to contradict that. I was replying to your last post, in which you said "The copyright does not CREATE ownership. It restricts the decision about how the distribution and payments for those items is to be made to the copyright holder, who almost always owns the material..."
The items being sold are the physical media, and after sale the buyers own them. The copyright holder owns nothing except his cut from the sales. [/B]
Actually, it feels you are replying to imaginary posts which I never wrote.
The crux of the matter is that I read your post as claiming that information is property. This is absurd. There is no such thing as theft of a song. There is no transfer of ownership of a novel. You won't find these things in law, either.
But I have no interest in digging lawbooks. I'm not a lawyer. I'm talking of the principles that are supposed to form the basis of the law. Can you explain on what moral principle men should recognize and respect copyrights at this time and hour when the only thing we ever got in return from that deal is gone?
Actually, it feels you are replying to imaginary posts which I never wrote.
The crux of the matter is that I read your post as claiming that information is property. This is absurd. There is no such thing as theft of a song. There is no transfer of ownership of a novel. You won't find these things in law, either.
But I have no interest in digging lawbooks. I'm not a lawyer. I'm talking of the principles that are supposed to form the basis of the law. Can you explain on what moral principle men should recognize and respect copyrights at this time and hour when the only thing we ever got in return from that deal is gone?
Without the lawbooks anything said is just imaginary.
The rights to a song are indeed "owned". As are the string of words that make up a book.
melgross, I think recording HD is going to be fundamentally expensive, no matter whether the equipment is "consumer" or "professional". Where are the TiVos with HD component input? Where are the DVHS decks with HD component input?
If the IT Industry has different goals for their components they have designed interfaces compatible with Consumer Electronics and maintain autonomy over their own goals and solutions while retaining compatible information exchange with Consumer Electronics, as long as CE adheres to their own standards.
If Apple wants to manage their own Digital Rights they only have to satisfy interface compatibility while retaining their own approach to managing their solutions.
Bullshit. It's profit driven executives who created the "need" for DRM. It's the other way round, people like me are considered pirates because we do things we otherwise wouldn't do if DRM didn't exist. If I can't purchase music online for instance, that I can use fairly, then I will download it for free. There are of course many artists and producers who provide me with a way to purchase their music without DRM, and I do so, as do many others.
Hey, that is a good site that you linked in there. DRM is a lot about protecting the big music/film companies. For the companies to say that they are about protecting the artists is a crock.
melgross, I think recording HD is going to be fundamentally expensive, no matter whether the equipment is "consumer" or "professional". Where are the TiVos with HD component input? Where are the DVHS decks with HD component input?
There were D-VHS decks. I don't know if they are still around. But this was years ago, and D-VHS didn't catch on for the consumer. The first D-VHS deck cost $1,000. The second cost $7000. But, due to lack of interest, they were discontinued.
Recording to a computers HD costs no more than it does for anything else. Those boxes cost what they do because they have to have chips for the HDCP.
When I mentioned what it would cost to intercept the HD signal, I was clearly talking about what the cost would be if there was NO HDCP. That was the point to the discussion we were having.
Right now broadcast, cable, and satellite send either 720p or 1080i. That is very easy. 1080p is more difficult. But even that isn't a show stopper.
If HDCP weren't involved, every small periferal maker would have one out. If I were still in the business, I would have one out.
Right now HD is being recorded onto DVR's from Scientific Atlanta. I have one myself. It's the 8300 HD model.
Comments
Originally posted by Gon
Trademark is about giving you tools to protect your customers from being fooled into accidentally buying a product that appears extremely similar to your product.
But how does this work in practice? Once the copyright period is over, it would seem okay for someone to draw a comic book with Mickey stories and refer to him by name, label the cover "Detective Stories" and sell this.
What would surely get you in trouble would be to make the cover closely resemble Disney product by using a big "Mickey Mouse" logo, using a Mickey picture, and aping the style of the graphic design off Disney's product.
I am not a lawyer. Maybe someone with a better grasp of trademarks and the law could confirm or deny this and provide specifics? I wonder how plush Mickeys or Mickey posters, where the product is virtually nothing but the character, would get treated.
If the character is trademarked, then that character can't be used for anything. The same thing is true of the name.
The old, now no longer copyrighted comic, can be duplicated and sold by third parties. But, even if it's out of copyright, the courts might side with the original owner if the comic was emasculated to have a completely different meaning. That has happened.
Satires are legal even during the copyright period.
Originally posted by melgross
That's an extremely tortured analogy.
The person never owned the car in the first place. The error in billing didn't end his obligation to pay. It's also rather difficult to believe that it took him 5 years to notice that he never had to pay for it. He would have known after the very first payment came due, and wasn't billed for it on time.
Of course he had no business keeping it.
What you are doing by trying to extend this to the industry is absurd. The industry isn't in the position of that man, but rather in the position of the credit company.
The car is the monopoly privilege. They have no business keeping possession the monopoly when they no longer provide anything in return. In short, their copyright should be fully revoked.
It doesn't matter one whit that you don't like the music companies. If they own the content, then that's that.
The point is no one can own an idea. Not music companies, not artists, not song writers, not music listeners. No one. I don't care about the music companies, I am protesting the pointless special privilege given to all copyright holders in general and to those that use a legal loophole to shut off fair use in particular.
Your understanding of ownership, or copyright, is incorrect from the beginning. Carey would get royalties for every copy of the song that was sold. She also gets royalties every time it is played on the air.
... because she has limited monopoly for using the song. Exactly like I said.
The song is not an "ideal". I don't know where you got that from.
It is an idea, an intangible bunch of information. This is obvious. You can't destroy a song. You can't steal a song. You can't give a song. You can not own a song. You could do all that and more to tangible property.
It is a work of art that is also a product. The words, the music, and the performance are all parts of that product for which royalties are paid. The writer of the lyrics gets paid, the writer of the music gets paid, and the performer gets paid. If one person does all of that, then that one person gets paid for all the parts. If the musicians are studio musicians then they get paid for their time spent making the recording. If they are part of her band, then they also get performer royalties.
All part of the limited usage monopoly.
Copyrights are often assigned to the record company because they pay all of the money up front, do all of the promotion, pay for all of the expenses, etc.
... so?
It isn't the way you make it out to be.
When you "buy" a recording, you are not buying the content. You are buying the physical media, and are being granted a license to play the music in a non commercial setting. If you play it in a commercial setting, you are supposed to apply for permission, and when it is granted, pay all royalties to the organization that is empowered to collect it and distribute it.
Yes, but I don't see how I would have said anything to contradict that. I was replying to your last post, in which you said "The copyright does not CREATE ownership. It restricts the decision about how the distribution and payments for those items is to be made to the copyright holder, who almost always owns the material..."
The items being sold are the physical media, and after sale the buyers own them. The copyright holder owns nothing except his cut from the sales.
Originally posted by Gon
The car is the monopoly privilege. They have no business keeping possession the monopoly when they no longer provide anything in return. In short, their copyright should be fully revoked.The point is no one can own an idea. Not music companies, not artists, not song writers, not music listeners. No one. I don't care about the music companies, I am protesting the pointless special privilege given to all copyright holders.... because she has limited monopoly for using the song. Exactly like I said.It is an idea, an intangible bunch of information. This is obvious. You can't destroy a song. You can't steal a song. You can't give a song. You can not own a song. You could do all that and more to tangible property.All part of the limited usage monopoly.... so?Yes, but I don't see how I would have said anything to contradict that. I was replying to your last post, in which you said "The copyright does not CREATE ownership. It restricts the decision about how the distribution and payments for those items is to be made to the copyright holder, who almost always owns the material..."
The items being sold are the physical media, and after sale the buyers own them. The copyright holder owns nothing except his cut from the sales. [/B]
You're making this up as you go.
Read the relevant law.
Originally posted by melgross
You're making this up as you go.
Read the relevant law.
Actually, it feels you are replying to imaginary posts which I never wrote.
The crux of the matter is that I read your post as claiming that information is property. This is absurd. There is no such thing as theft of a song. There is no transfer of ownership of a novel. You won't find these things in law, either.
But I have no interest in digging lawbooks. I'm not a lawyer. I'm talking of the principles that are supposed to form the basis of the law. Can you explain on what moral principle men should recognize and respect copyrights at this time and hour when the only thing we ever got in return from that deal is gone?
Originally posted by Gon
Actually, it feels you are replying to imaginary posts which I never wrote.
The crux of the matter is that I read your post as claiming that information is property. This is absurd. There is no such thing as theft of a song. There is no transfer of ownership of a novel. You won't find these things in law, either.
But I have no interest in digging lawbooks. I'm not a lawyer. I'm talking of the principles that are supposed to form the basis of the law. Can you explain on what moral principle men should recognize and respect copyrights at this time and hour when the only thing we ever got in return from that deal is gone?
Without the lawbooks anything said is just imaginary.
The rights to a song are indeed "owned". As are the string of words that make up a book.
http://www.spatz-tech.de/spatz/dvi_hdcp.htm
http://www.spatz-tech.de/spatz/dvi_magic.htm
melgross, I think recording HD is going to be fundamentally expensive, no matter whether the equipment is "consumer" or "professional". Where are the TiVos with HD component input? Where are the DVHS decks with HD component input?
Originally posted by melgross
Everything will have DRM in some form or another.
Unless you plan to pirate all cable, satellite, video, music, and digital radio, you won't have anything to watch or listen to. It's that simple.
If it weren't for pirates in the first place, we wouldn't HAVE DRM.
It's the chicken and the egg. [/B]
That's why I'm going back to a hand-cranked stereophone, kinescopes and an abacus from now on.
8)
Originally posted by melgross
It doesn't matter one whit that you don't like the music companies. If they own the content, then that's that.
[/B]
That's why I love sites like www.icompositions.com and www.garageband.com
Free music and plenty of it. There ARE gems among the many available songs for download.
I haven't bought anything from iTunes for months. Mostly I use it for the podcasting subscriptions.
If the IT Industry has different goals for their components they have designed interfaces compatible with Consumer Electronics and maintain autonomy over their own goals and solutions while retaining compatible information exchange with Consumer Electronics, as long as CE adheres to their own standards.
If Apple wants to manage their own Digital Rights they only have to satisfy interface compatibility while retaining their own approach to managing their solutions.
Originally posted by Somynona
Bullshit. It's profit driven executives who created the "need" for DRM. It's the other way round, people like me are considered pirates because we do things we otherwise wouldn't do if DRM didn't exist. If I can't purchase music online for instance, that I can use fairly, then I will download it for free. There are of course many artists and producers who provide me with a way to purchase their music without DRM, and I do so, as do many others.
http://www.downhillbattle.org/
Hey, that is a good site that you linked in there. DRM is a lot about protecting the big music/film companies. For the companies to say that they are about protecting the artists is a crock.
Originally posted by wmf
Instead of beating around the bush, here are the boxes that supposedly strip HDCP:
http://www.spatz-tech.de/spatz/dvi_hdcp.htm
http://www.spatz-tech.de/spatz/dvi_magic.htm
melgross, I think recording HD is going to be fundamentally expensive, no matter whether the equipment is "consumer" or "professional". Where are the TiVos with HD component input? Where are the DVHS decks with HD component input?
There were D-VHS decks. I don't know if they are still around. But this was years ago, and D-VHS didn't catch on for the consumer. The first D-VHS deck cost $1,000. The second cost $7000. But, due to lack of interest, they were discontinued.
Recording to a computers HD costs no more than it does for anything else. Those boxes cost what they do because they have to have chips for the HDCP.
When I mentioned what it would cost to intercept the HD signal, I was clearly talking about what the cost would be if there was NO HDCP. That was the point to the discussion we were having.
Right now broadcast, cable, and satellite send either 720p or 1080i. That is very easy. 1080p is more difficult. But even that isn't a show stopper.
If HDCP weren't involved, every small periferal maker would have one out. If I were still in the business, I would have one out.
Right now HD is being recorded onto DVR's from Scientific Atlanta. I have one myself. It's the 8300 HD model.
Stop thinking that this is a big deal. It's not!