Staples refuses to print my PDFs....

[jgbrowning]

I think the temporary and transitive copies created by web caches and in RAM of opening documents were actually legalized by the DMCA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html).

I wasn't really talking about computer programs, but I didn't know that so thanks for the link.

joe b.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I was going respond & post something "newish" but in deference to Morrus' post, I'll let the issue fade with the following:

Yes, there are limits I would find acceptible, and some of the proposed changes to current law you listed I'm already on record (elsewhere) as opposing.

 

[the Lorax]

Reading that <WOTC's Copyright Notice> it would seem to prohibit moving the pdf from the original download computer to any other computer you own even if you are just doing a regular upgrade (as is neccesary every 3 years or so) without express written permission from Wizards of the Coast. Technically moving a file from one computer to another even if the original is erased is reproducing the material and in violation of the copyright as epressed in the copyright notice. This to me is why copyright law needs fixing given the new didgital age. If the new DI has anything resembling this kind of copyright statement on the materials they offer they could be making criminals of a majority of thier customers who are not actually intending to break the law.

Not only that, but for a business, some extra things come in to play.

1991: Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp.

A Federal District Court in New York ruled that Kinko's Graphic Corporation infringed copyrights, and did not exercise fair use, when it photocopied coursepacks that included book chapters, and then sold them to students for classwork. The court found that most of the fair use factors worked against Kinko's in this case, especially given Kinko's profit motive in making the copies. Additionally, the court found that the classroom guidelines did not apply to Kinko's. The court did not rule that coursepacks cannot constitute fair use in other circumstances.

Things which may fall well within the limitations of "Fair Use" for an individual become something else entirely when produced by a company who makes money in the reproduction business.

 

[Delta]

I was going respond & post something "newish" but in deference to Morrus' post, I'll let the issue fade with the following:

Yes, there are limits I would find acceptible, and some of the proposed changes to current law you listed I'm already on record (elsewhere) as opposing.

Thanks for your respectful follow-up. I appreciate it.

 

[JustinA]

Other loopholes exist as well. For instance, in music, you need only do 2 things- give credit and pay small royalty fee to the songwriter- no songwiter can actually ban you from recording their song unless he simply refuses to let anyone do so (by not releasing it to the public). Otherwise, our culture would not have been enriched by Hendrix's versions of "All along the Watchtower" and "Hey, Joe"; Elton John couldn't have done his cover of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"; the 900 different versions of "Louie, Louie"; and Rap.

It's tempting to say that extending this type of thing to other media would be appropriate. But then I think of authors watching Hollywood producers making hundreds of millions of dollars off of their creative work while they don't earn any more than a pittance.

A revenue-based (rather than profit-based) royalty might be a way around this. I'd almost be willing to accept perpetual copyright if it meant that anyone could access it by paying a standard fee.

You really want to make me happy? Make copyright have a sliding scale- the number of times your IP can have its protection renewed depends upon its market value (the more valuable, the stronger the protection)- but give it a ceiling- say...life of the creator + 50 years.

Life + 50 seems more than reasonable. It not only allows the original creator of the work to benefit from the creation for their entire lives, it also allows enough time that their immediate heirs to profit.

Here's the thing: The only reason for copyright to exist is to incentivize the creation of new work and investment in the same. Without copyright creators would not be able to profit form their work, particularly in a modern era where duplication of existing content is trivial in the extreme. On a large scale this means that movies with any meaningful budget would no longer be created. On a small scale it means that your favorite author would not be able to write for a living, which would mean that they would have less time to write new books for you to enjoy.

(Actually, this is not strictly true: But it would mean that creators would need to shift back to a sponsor-based structure -- you'll need to pay me to get me to create the product instead of paying me for a copy of the completed product. This can work for writers and other solitary creators; it probably won't work for a $100 million movie.)

But this means that there is absolutely no reason for copyright to outlast not only the creator but anyone the creator would know: There is no way that copyright protection which lasts for three generations could possibly incentivize the original creator of the work any more than copyright protection which lasts for only a single generation.

 

[dcas]

If they're the only people you include in your cost/benefit analysis, then sure. Make it eternal.

As a point of fact, I think that common law or perpetual copyright is a good thing. Why shouldn't one have the right to pass one's intellectual property down to one's heirs, and so on, to profit from it as they see fit?

 

[S'mon]

As a point of fact, I think that common law or perpetual copyright is a good thing. Why shouldn't one have the right to pass one's intellectual property down to one's heirs, and so on, to profit from it as they see fit?

In deference to Morrus, I shall not endeavour to explain why not.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

OK- we've knocked the entertainment lawyer and the IP lecturer out of the copyright discussion...

anyone else care to follow suit?

 

[Glyfair]

The correct statement is "the customer is always right....unless they're wrong".

Actually, the modern principle is "The customer isn't always right, but they are always the customer." (i.e. you might not be able to do what the customer wants, but always treat them with respect).

 

[prosfilaes]

Things which may fall well within the limitations of "Fair Use" for an individual become something else entirely when produced by a company who makes money in the reproduction business.

But if you read the case, it's not just printing one copy for one person; it was printing out copies for a whole class, copies of material they knew they didn't have permission to copy. I'm not sure anything would have come out differently if it had been the professor making the copies for free.