Copyrights, Copylefts, and Copywrongs

[Beavah]

Da parent thread on Scoutcraft books took da usual odd turn in Scouter.Com threads of becomin' a discussion of legal issues. Who would have guessed?

 

Still, I reckon this is an important area where citizens should become better informed, and it also conveniently is one that is interesting to the scouts because it involves stuff in their lives, and can draw 'em in to discussions of citizenship.

 

So I'll seed da conversation with a bit of ol' Beavah perspective, and others can jump in.

 

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.8

[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.

 

Now call me a strict constitutional constructionist if yeh want (I am in many ways), but I believe that the first clause is an important one, eh? Compared with the other enumerated powers of the legislature in Article I, it is the only one which conditions the power by limiting it to a specific purpose - to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. So to my mind, grants of limited-time monopoly protection to authors or inventors are only constitutionally valid if in fact they promote progress.

 

How is that done? Well, by ensuring enough return that authors continue to write and inventors continue to invent, while also strictly limiting the monopoly so that other people can use and build on the work to further advance progress.

 

Early copyright law in the U.S. extended only 14 years worth of monopoly protection to authors, with a broad understanding of fair use so that others could reference and build on the work. To get a patent was such a big deal that it required a specific act of Congress to decide if your invention was important enough to merit granting you a monopoly so that you would reveal your design.

 

Those both seem about right to me. Long enough that the author is given a fair return so that he/she can keep writing, but short enough and with enough fair use protection that others can build on it to advance science and the useful arts. In fact, I'd go even shorter for some works like software. And patents should be granted only for those inventions which are truly worth the public paying lots of $$ to learn how the invention works.

 

Right now, of course, we are granting patents for phones with rounded corners. Does it truly advance science and the useful arts to give a company a twenty year monopoly on phones with rounded corners? Of course not. But the patent office makes money off of every patent issued, and has had to since Clinton took them off budget back in the 1990s. So because we wouldn't pay the patent office salaries with tax dollars, we're now paying the patent office with our pocketbook, while multiple interlocking patent lawsuits actually hinder the progress of science and the useful arts.

 

Right now, of course, we are granting copyrights to the distribution company that long-dead authors once sold their "limited time" monopoly rights to back when yeh needed to work with a middleman distributor to get your work published. Does it truly advance science and the useful arts to give a monopoly to a middleman distributor who has not created anything, 70 years after the author is deceased? Of course not. In fact, if the present rules were in place back then, the tune of the Star Spangled Banner would not have come off of copyright until 1906, so everyone in the U.S. who ever played, performed, or recorded what became our National Anthem would have owed royalties to a British Gentleman's Club (who could presumably have refused to allow us to perform it at all).

 

Would it really be "stealing" if some fellows coming back from Andy Jackson's taking of Florida are singing the Star Spangled Banner? Or are just listening to it without paying royalties to a foreign gentleman's club? Is that what we really want to teach our kids? Is it really advancing science to have journal publishers lock up scientific research that the public financed so the public has to pay a second time to read the results? Does it really advance the useful arts to have every major technology and communications company suing every other major and minor technology and communication company in multiple jurisdictions over cross-cutting patents on things as silly as rounded corners and black borders?

 

Original authors and inventors should get a just return so as to encourage further work, but no more. After all, their writing and inventing itself drew from and built on the writings and inventions of others. To advance science and the useful arts, information wants to be free.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[CalicoPenn]

Interesting take - I would just add that the term "useful" needs to come in to play in the written work as well - using "useful", James Patterson, who seems to publish a book a week sometimes, wouldn't get a copyright at all, nor would 50-cent for any of his rap songs.

 

Of course, they'd probably disagree so we would be seeing court battles over a determination if something is useful or not.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

[Papadaddy]

Forbidding me to make a copy of a department store portrait of myself taken 57 years ago by an unknown photographer in an unknown store that has long since closed its doors is a bit much in my opinion. Too much Government.

[CalicoPenn]

Papa,

 

That's not too much government, that's too much idiots working at the copy shop not knowing what the heck they're talking about.

[packsaddle]

Papadaddy, if that photo processor claimed its refusal to copy that old photo was based on its corporate deeply-held religious beliefs, there is a person in this thread who would be bound to defend that corporate policy.

 

In fact, you ARE free to copy it. YOU might have to do it though. The probability that the photographer will ever sue over it is infinitesimal. As Harry Calahan would say, "Do you feel lucky?"

 

On the other hand that shop might have simply refused and used copyright as an excuse. Who knows, the REAL reason just might BE a deeply-held corporate religious belief.

 

As for the reasons for the law to be what it is and to be interpreted the way it is interpreted, I quote good ol' Gordon, "Greed....is good". Talk about deeply-held beliefs...there it IS! That's the American economic system: love it or leave it.

[Twocubdad]

Interesting post Beav. My B-I-L, a computer guy, is a copyright nazi. Can't wait to send it to him.

 

Last week I bought a couple new USGA topo maps for the troop. I make copies at a blueprint shop for the boys to uses and leave the originals at home. The new geek at the copy shop refused to copy them for fear of violating the copyright.

 

"Dude, they are government douments."

 

"Yeah, he said, but they may be copyrighted."

 

The manager copied them for me.

[packsaddle]

While most federal government documents are public domain, I have been involved with projects in which contractors retained IP rights, even in the products they produced for the public. If someone wanted to go 'under the hood' so-to-speak, they have to pay the contractor whatever fee he charges for that access. So while those USGS maps are OK, it isn't a 'blanket' rule.

In addition, documents produced by state or local governments are OFTEN copyright-protected.

[Eagle92]

As someone who has dealt with copyright lawyers personally, let me tell you how anal retentive and stupid some can be.

 

A college student does book reviews as part of a college course. Paper gets submitted, without the student knowing about it, for a library association's student paper contest. She's one of the finalists, and part of the "prize" is getting her book review published in the association's journal, which goes to every library in the state.

 

Now, the books reviewed were all positive on the books, and actually recommended that public libraries and those academic libraries that deal with children's lit should get them. IMHO, the review was essentially free advertising for the books. I don't know how much advertising rates are in library journals, but this was a freebie that went to every single library and association member. When I checked, the association had over 400 members, and I don't know how many libraries. And that doesn't include the folks who have access to it electronically.

 

Now the student in good faith attempted to secure the copyright permission before publication. But a national emergency occurred that directly the three publishers. No response was heard from the publishers, and the association goes ahead with publishing the paper.

 

Now 3 years after submitting permission for approval, the publishers' lawyers come calling and wanted to know if she still needed permission. When told that it was published, when two of the lawyers lawyers found out the details above, they basically said OK, no problem.

 

However the third lawyer would not accept the situation, and hounded the student for several months. First they wanted $300 for permission, over time it went down to $100. They were reminded constantly that A) no money was exchanged for the article B) it was a student paper, etc, etc. Finally I had enough of the calls, and told the lawyer off. I asked how much does a 1.5 page spread advertisement cost because that was essentially what they got for free, and maybe I should ask the library association to charge them and advertising fee since the article was promoting the author and illustrator, and they probably had a bump in sales in the state the journal was published as a result.

 

The last call I got from the lawyer said they were waiving the fee and not to let it happen again. I said no problem and I probably won't use the publisher again either.

 

 

 

[Eagle92]

In regards to the USGS topo maps, if memory serves you fill out some type of user form, that give you persmission to download and print them. 2 topo maps for $16 bucks compared to $30 if I bought them form the USGS.

 

An aside, don't ya love the new satellite imagery on the maps.

[packsaddle]

Eagle92, for purposes of map reading exercises I have close to 1000 old topos available. I'll send some to you for the cost of postage if you want.

Or if anyone else wants some, just let me know. They're all stored flat, unfolded. Random maps from different places around the country.

[Lisabob]

Cool, pack. Send me a couple?

 

 

[shortridge]

Eagle 92 - That sounds utterly bizarre. Book reviews are clearly covered under fair use. Unless she was reprinting gigantic sections, that shouldn't have been a problem.

[Eagle92]

Short,

 

I too thought it was bizarre. If memory serves, they needed permission to use the cover art in the article. for whatever reason, illustrated children't books have 2 copyrights: one for the author and one for the illustrations.

 

Although the other half is in the other room, I AINT BRINGING THIS TOPIC UP WITH HER ANYMORE! I might get something thrown at me

[acco40]

Rounded corners - Beavah, you should know that there are three types of patents. Look up a design patent.

 

You are just thinking of utility patents.

[packsaddle]

Son is three years out of college, working on gas turbine design, and already has more than a dozen patents. I'll ask him about those rounded edges, lol.

As if the derivatives market wasn't already bewildering enough, take a look at the patent trading markets.