Copywrite laws are they to vague?

Erax · #1 June 18th, 2003, 10:52 PM

Yes, it might be two or three now that you mention it. Information travels at the speed of light, after all.

Atrocities · #2 June 18th, 2003, 10:57 PM

Quote:

It can hurt a business severly if someone is freely distributing stuff that is closely related to the product the business is selling. That is actually part of the reason for patent and copyright laws; it helps protect the little businesses. Suppose, for instance, that company X produces a new (copyrighted/patented) software algorythm that allows an OS to intelligently adapt to a new situation invisibly. Now, suppose Microsoft feels threatened by this, steals the algorythm, and starts distributing it free of charge. Microsoft is big, and can absorb the loss. X is not, and can't compete. Once X goes out of business, Microsoft can buy and use or suppress the algorythm. Copyright and patent law helps to prevent this. It used to be that patents expired after 20 years and copyrights after 75 - but I have heard that has changed recently.

Oh ya like this has ever happened.

Jack Simth · #3 June 18th, 2003, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Oh ya like this has ever happened.

I said helps to prevent, not prevents.

Geckomlis · #4 June 18th, 2003, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It used to be that patents expired after 20 years and copyrights after 75 - but I have heard that has changed recently.

As for unconstitutional: The constitution actually makes specific allowance for copyrights and patents:

quote:
From The United States Constitution, Article 1, section 8(Powers vested in Congress):
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inverntors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

The problem is that “for limited times” has become a defacto “for all time”. When that limited time expired, works were supposed to enter the public domain. This is not occurring anymore. Congress regularly extends the period of copyright, so essentially nothing has entered the public domain from this process since the late 1940’s. Congress does this in response to lobbyists working on the behalf of the uber media corporations. This corrupts the balance between author’s rights and the public good. FYI: The USA is very unique in its view of copyright. Other countries have author’s rights traditions and are not particularly concerned about an abstract public good.

[ June 18, 2003, 22:21: Message edited by: geckomlis ]

Jack Simth · #5 June 18th, 2003, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geckomlis:
The problem is that “for limited times” has become a defacto “for all time”. When that limited time expired, works were supposed to enter the public domain. This is not occurring anymore. Congress regularly extends the period of copyright, so essentially nothing has entered the public domain from this process since the late 1940’s. Congress does this in response to lobbyists working on the behalf of the uber media corporations. This corrupts the balance between author’s rights and the public good. FYI: The USA is very unique in its view of copyright. Other countries have author’s rights traditions and are not particularly concerned about an abstract public good.

Yes, I know - unfortunately, the constitution has been "interperted" out of much of its meaning on many different issues. However, it is still useful to bring it up every now and then.

Also, it's not just congress - before anything becomes law, the senate must also pass any such thing, and the president must abstain from vetoing it - Further, the Supreme Court is the body that rules on wether a law is unconstitutional or not, and are the offical interperters of law, and they haven't been keeping quite as close to the original constitution as I might like.

[ June 19, 2003, 00:15: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]