Jedi Council Forums - Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 7/19/02 2:09pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both? - Date Edited: 7/19/02 2:10pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	However, there are places in our area that will rent you time in their shops to work there, on their tools. Their tools are higher-quality than what we can afford. They have experts on hand to help those who need it. They are a valuable resource for us (and others) when we need it. Some places will even help market your work, if that is what you want (and it meets their standards). In the same way, the recording studios have access to high-quality equipment. They have marketing experts and recording experts who can help artists who may want those services. You can build up a nice home studio (I know people who have done this), but not everyone has those resources available. You can do your own marketing, but you could also hire them to market it for you. Here's the problem... you're confusing recording studios with recording companies. A wood workshop at its core is akin to a recording studio. Regardless of whatever value-added services recording studios include, they aren't record companies--which are built upon a business model whose sole function is to commission, package, distribute and market the work for profit. Some record companies own studios, but most do not. Let's use two similar examples... Ikea and Warner Bros. Ikea is a furniture manufacturer, Warner Bros. is a media conglomerate (specifically, the television, film and music/music publishing arm of AOL-TimeWarner). Ikea's employees do not retain rights to things they design for Ikea... nor do Warner Bros. contractors (recording artists). The only difference is the methodology of employment... one is fully employed, the other is an independent contractor. Ikea is more than likely not going to, as a huge manufacturer of upscale furniture, going to make a paradigm shift and suddenly decide to forego their profit margins by committing more resources to helping woodworkers with their projects at no return to Ikea. Likewise, Warner Bros. would never do that... and furthermore, one of the biggest reasons they would not is shareholders. Shareholders want a return on investment. Internet Underground Music Archive, however, is an organization dedicated to doing exactly what you're proposing. In addition, there are other producers out there, such as myself, who will gladly share their resources with those who want to independently distribute their works. I am committed to eliminating the middleman precisely because we don't need them. They are an anachronism in the digital age. -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 7/19/02 2:19pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	Again, you miss part of the point of what I was saying. Recording studios are only one part of it. There is also the marketing and physical production and distribution of the work as well. Basically, the recording companies need to turn to a services-based model, not a content-based model. My plan would, in part, force that by making the artists the clear content owners. At that point, the record companies need to move to a distribution-based model (which is at its core a service). I agree with you on many points, but there needs to be a legislative change to help reign in the abuses first. Copyright needs to be scaled back to the limited period of time mentioned in the Constitution. Until that happens, the media companies will continue to wield too much power over politicla matters. If people did as you suggest, the media companies would claim their losses are frompiracy and find ways to force people to pay them even more money (like they are doing now). Until the legislative options for them are eliminated, we will have little recourse in the end. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 7/20/02 11:13am Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	Kimball: Legislating the structure and function of the entertainment industry would bring us one step closer to Communism... Again, you miss part of the point of what I was saying. Recording studios are only one part of it. There is also the marketing and physical production and distribution of the work as well. I understand your point quite well... I simply disagree with it. Basically, the recording companies need to turn to a services-based model, not a content-based model. Why do they need to? My plan would, in part, force that by making the artists the clear content owners. Why should artists own the content of something they didn't finance? Do you own everything you create for your employers? At that point, the record companies need to move to a distribution-based model (which is at its core a service). All major record companies are distributors already. I agree with you on many points, but there needs to be a legislative change to help reign in the abuses first. What abuses are occurring without the artists' written consent? Copyright needs to be scaled back to the limited period of time mentioned in the Constitution. Until that happens, the media companies will continue to wield too much power over politicla matters. Until we, the audience, start changing the channel, turning off the TV or stop buying CDs, nothing will change. You actually trust politicians to "clean up" big business? On what historical basis should we give them such trust? If people did as you suggest, the media companies would claim their losses are from piracy and find ways to force people to pay them even more money (like they are doing now). They already do claim their losses are from piracy. That doesn't change the fact that they're an anachronism. They aren't "forcing" anybody to do anything. You have to have heat to live in Minnesota in December... you don't have to have Britney Spears, though. Until the legislative options for them are eliminated, we will have little recourse in the end. Are you that blind to the power of the consumer in a free-market economy? Legislation amounts to a corporate bailout. We don't need to do to the music industry what we've done with the telecom and airline industries... overregulated them just so that anachronistic business models with poor customer service and a horrible product can continue to thrive. caveat emptor. ("Let the buyer beware...") It is a consumer's right to demand whatever crap they're willing to pay for. The increasing price of cigarettes has been determined to be a considerable factor in the recent decline in teen smoking. If tomorrow they suddenly started charging $50 for a CD, its not likely anyone would buy them... and prices would return to the supply-demand market equilibrium. Record companies only push their prices as far as the public are willing to pay. The fact that the public is still buying millions of CDs every year (9.2 billion CDs and DVDs last year alone) says that we haven't broken that threshold. The simple answer is that if we start regulating record companies, they will become just like the behemoth airlines and telecom companies that are putting a drag on our nation's technological, economical and social progress. If Americans want record companies to change their ways, they'll tell them through their purchasing habits. Right now, with the trend increasing towards online file sharing, there's no purpose the record companies can serve that cannot be achieved through other, more cost effective means. Preserving the monopolistic function of record companies is what has maintained the horrendous cost of recording hardware... Eliminating them by way of natural market forces, not legislation, is just a matter of spring cleaning... wiping away the cobwebs and starting anew. Speaking from a competitive standpoint, there's nothing record companies can offer today that cannot be achieved through other channels of production, distribution, marketing and promotion. If an artist wants to retain rights to their masters, the answer is simple, and already available to them... don't sign a record deal. Artists stand a much greater chance of making money (much less breaking even on the costs of recording) without a record label backing them, anyway. The regulation of the entertainment industry in America is borderline Communism and should never be supported because it will reduce the fluidity of the music market... Thanks to MTV, artists who would have never gotten any exposure at all are now getting it... Likewise, the internet is opening up those doors for the most obscure of talents, only far more so than MTV... It is because of the pervasiveness, flexilibility, interactive nature and ease of use that the internet can surpass all other forms of distribution for music. Record companies should not be given carte blanche to dominate the internet by way of "forcing" change to their business model. If they can't compete with me, the independent producer with no overhead expenses, no employees, and a global marketplace at his fingertips via the internet, too bad. By the way, Paisley Park Studios went bankrupt, even when trying to do what you're suggesting... although through rather nefarious means. Prince tried to "raise" several "protéges" at his expense... i.e. women who slept with him... they all failed miserably in the marketplace... and his studio, and record label, went bankrupt in the process... Now, big surprise, he markets and distributes his music exclusively via the internet. He's finally making a profit. -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 7/20/02 2:07pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	SnowDog, you seem to misunderstand a lot of what I am advocating. Let me clarify. The simple answer is that if we start regulating record companies, they will become just like the behemoth airlines and telecom companies that are putting a drag on our nation's technological, economical and social progress. 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; -- U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 8 That is what I am advocating a return to. I have said absolutely nothing about regulating record companies or anyone else. I have, instead, talked about returning copyright to its original constitutional intent. Note a few things in that paragraph. First (and foremost), the phrase "limited times": Do you consider 95 years (or life of the author, whichever is longer) with automatic extensions being added on a regular basis an appropriate definition of "limited times"? If not, then do you agree that copyright law needs to be reformed? If so, why? Second, note that it says to authors and inventors. No mention is made about transferring copyrights or patents, nor is there any mention of producers or financers receiving this "exclusive right". What constitutional basis is there for work-for-hire? You asked Why should artists own the content of something they didn't finance? Do you own everything you create for your employers?. I say, if you are going to finance someone to create something, it is still their creation. You can still make money off of it, but, according to the Constitution, the author or inventor is the one with exclusive rights, not the financer. What many people do not realize is that Intellectual Property does not really exist. Ideas are freely available. What copyright and patent laws do is allow someone exclusive rights (not ownership, hence not property) for a limited time. Property can be held by a sole owner for perpetuity. Ideas cannot. The first judicial steps are already underway to declare much of the modern copyright law unconstitutional. Lawrence Lessig and others have filed a case to have the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (1998) declared unconstitutional. It should come before the Supreme Court within the next year (according to many experts). You can speak of Capitalism and Free Markets all you want, but I was not speaking on that at all. I was speaking of the constitutional basis for copyright and the need to correct the abuses against it. That can only be done through legislative and judicial means. In case you hadn't noticed, the Constitution is not a Capitalistic document. It is quite neutral in the economic system it supports. You can use the Constitution as the basis for a socialist economy as well as a Capitalist one. It could even be used (with very little modification) in a Communist economy. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 7/21/02 12:55pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both? - Date Edited: 7/21/02 1:14pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	Kimball: I'm not arguing that Title 17 should not be amended. I'm not arguing that we cannot refine the principles of copyright law. However, I am arguing against your idea that record companies should be made into anything... if they are not themselves capable of adapting to the changing needs of the American consumer. Let them become obsolete, and in their place, a better model arise for the "free exchange" (by "free" I mean "uninhibited", not for lack of consideration should one ask for it) of such intellectual property. Constitutionality is a separate discussion, because it addresses what government can and cannot do. If, under the legal provisions of copyright law, an artist decides to assign rights to a publisher, distributor or record label, it should be their prerogative to do so. If they do not wish to relinquish such rights, simply don't sign any contract that would relinquish such rights. You do have that option, and no facet of government is forcing you to forsake that option. That's all I'm saying. While there are improvements that can be made, and I agree with the concept of advocacy for the little guy... I am also an advocate of responsibility. I cannot feel blind sympathy for every artist who is popular enough to get an offer from a major label, and yet fool enough to not to have a lawyer explain the fine print to them before they willingly trade their artistry and creative control away for the love of money in a contract the size of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Ultimately, I think the bottom line is, changes or no changes to copyright law, the pandora's box of independent artistry has been opened and is not going to be closed any time soon. It is presently possible, for less than it costs to get an album made in a professional studio, to set up a digital recording studio at home, record, mix, master, produce, manufacture and market your own work from your home... retaining full creative control and rights to your work. Furthermore, with broadband internet access on a rapid incline, many internet users can now download an entire album's worth of material in roughly half an hour (MP3 compression) and burn it to a CD. Why anyone would sign a record deal is beyond me. Mechanical rights aren't required to be transferred, they are willingly given up in contracts... There is nothing in Title 17 that requires anyone to relinquish them. Though compulsory license allows one permission to reproduce the lyrics/music at the licensee's own expense, that is considerably different from mechanical rights to the original recording utilizing the artist's own work... and does not constitute a relinquishing of any rights to the original masters. -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 7/21/02 2:58pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both? - Date Edited: 7/21/02 3:00pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Kimball_Kinnison
	There is nothing in Title 17 that requires anyone to relinquish them. That is actually incorrect. The principle of "work for hire" can require someone to relinquish the copyright to their work. Let me provide an example from a related industry: computer software. I am a very big advocate of Open Source Software. OSS is primarily developed by people (mostly professional programmers) as a hobby, apart from their normal work. In a few recent cases, some employers have laid claim to OSS projects run by their employees, even when no development was done on company time or using company resources. The argument used was that those programmers were hired to write code, so all code they wrote while employed by the company was owned by the company. In the case of salaried employees, it was found that the companies did have a claim to the code. I am a copyright holder (specifically of software that I have written with my father). I work on OSS as a hobby as well. The code I write is mine (for now). I write code for fun (and happen to do it for my job as well). Unfortunately, my school or employer could even lay claim to any code I write while a student/employee there (I have a specific agreement with my current employer to grant me an exemption). That is the true danger of "work for hire". It can allow an employer to lay claim to the work of an employee even if it does not relate to their job. Market forces alone cannot correct such abuses. It is a legislative problem that requires a legislative solution. In the same way, I never advocated the government forcing the recording industry to change. I advocate reforming the copyright laws (restoring the balance that was intended) which will allow the market forces to make them change or destroy them. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 7/21/02 7:12pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both? - Date Edited: 7/21/02 7:23pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	That is actually incorrect. The principle of "work for hire" can require someone to relinquish the copyright to their work. Let me provide an example from a related industry: computer software. I disagree with this conclusion for a couple of reasons. First, let's get to the source of the matter. Title 17 establishes in Chapter 2, §201(b): (b) Works Made for Hire. - In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright. Nowhere in this provision does it declare precisely the scope of works made for hire. By this I mean that Title 17 does not assert a blanket statement about which works are considered for hire and which works aren't. Those provisions are stipulated in an employment contract or release form. The employer and employee, or independent contractor in the case of recording artists, outline in their binding agreement what works are considered "for hire" for the duration of the individual's (or band's) employ or contract. If you signed a release form with your employer that declares that any and all code/software written during their employ is considered their property, then that is your fault. It is the burden of the employment agreement or release form to establish what belongs to them and what doesn't... because Title 17 does not designate it. §201(b) does not state at all that code made without the resources of the employer, on your own time, outside the time for which the employer is paying, is automatically their property. Again, if an employer hires you on a contract to create a piece of software, it is the piece of software for which you have been contracted to write which is considered the "work for hire"... absolutely nothing else. If an employer has hired you indefinitely, not under a contract, but on "at will" employment, and they have not established a release form declaring what they want to consider "for hire", and they are yet claiming anything and everything you create, including that without their resources, or that which is outside the scope of your employment, or outside of the time for which you are paid... I would advise you to consult a lawyer. In the recording industry, the affects of "work for hire" are far less nebulous because the recording company is not an employer, per se, and the recording artist is an independent contractor. "Works for hire" in the record industry are defined and outlined very clearly in recording contracts, precisely because Title 17 does not define which works of the artist are for hire. They have to be defined in the contract, and typically as follows: 1. Record label gives artist an advance to cover recording expenses; in exchange for: 2. Exclusive rights to a certain number of songs. This is the first provision that defines which works are for hire: Namely, those recorded for their demo which will require the approval of A&R (Artist & Repertoire) personnel before any commitment of release... to which they are not obligated if they are not satisfied with the material produced... much as you would demand a refund (effectively terminating the contract) from the dry cleaner if they didn't clean your suit to your liking. 3. "Options" for a specific number more songs. This is the first place the record companies screw you. In the contract. This provision is expressly stated because there's no such protection offered by law. Breach of this term constitutes only a tort, because there are only civil penalties, no criminal penalties, inherent in breach of contract... whereas breach of US law is a different matter. What optioning means is that they may have optioned you for 20 more songs... and allowed you another $800,000 for the right to these 20 more songs which you are required to record for them, but, according to the terms of the contract, they have no obligation whatsoever to commercially release. Obviously you can see the problem here. If I sign a contract with options to the record company, and they do not release any of the songs they've optioned, and my first album didn't sell enough albums to break me free from the $400,000 debt... I stand no chance whatsoever of recouping my debts to the record label which must be repaid before I am given a penny of royalties. 4. "Right of first refusal." As with 1-3., this is another specific contractual provision... not defined in law, defined in the agreement between artist and record label. What it does is establishes that part of the binding consideration in return for the advance money given to the artist is that the record label retains all ownership of the master recordings. It also establishes that the artist, in return for that money, cannot shop any material from the demos they recorded with these advances to any other labels for the duration of their contract without the prior express (written) consent of the record label. This is what it means that they have the right of first refusal of any demos you record with their finances for the duration of this contract. Again, this provision is specifically written into the contracts because there are no such rights guaranteed automatically to the record label in Title 17. These are not entirely fair stipulations, some of them are downright tricky if you don't have a lawyer go through them... I don't know why anyone making enough of a following to get a record deal wouldn't have a lawyer... but at any rate, the contract provisions are what establish which works are considered for hire in an agreement between a record label and a recording artist. Once again, all Title 17 does is declare that "works for hire" need not be assigned because they are automatically assigned to the person/entity for whom the works have been specifically created. If I create "Song X", it must be declared somewhere that I have been paid for this work, or it must be declared by release form that all musical works I create for the duration of my contract with record label Z are considered "works for hire"... otherwise Record Label Z cannot automatically claim rights to Song X. I have referenced numerous entertainment lawyers and books authored by music industry attorneys on this subject. You can find two great books on the subject at virtually any library. One is called All You Need to Know about the Music Business by Donald Passman, Harvard Law graduate, industry attorney, member of Harvard's Committee on Sports and Entertainment Law (CSEL) and Professor of Entertainment Law at USC. An acquaintance of mine is one of Don's clients. The other book I would highly recommend on the subject, regarded as the bible of the music industry for nearly 40 years, This Business of Music, was authored by two music industry attorneys, the late Sidney Shemel and M. William Krasilovsky. The conclusion is simple: If you do not want all material you create to be declared as "works for hire", don't sign a contract or release form that declares them all "for hire"... or vaguely interprets which are and which aren't. At the very least, any recording artist should have their attorneys require a provision in the contract that excludes certain types of works from the contract. M. William Krasilovsky is an attorney specializing in music and copyright matters. A former Adjunct Professor at New York University where he taught a course on ethics in the entertainment business, Krasilovsky has also served as associate counsel to the Songwriters Guild of America, as attorney for Warner Bros. music companies, and as special music counsel to the United Nations and UNICEF. He is a frequent contributor to entertainment and law journals and has lectured on music and copyright law at universities across the country. Co-author Sidney Shemel died in 1994. Although Mr. Shemel did not collaborate on the 7th or present edition, his work on the first six editions was of inestimable value and is still very in evidence throughout the current text. Sources: Krasilovsky, M. William and Sidney Shemel. This Business of Music. Watson-Guptill Pubns; ISBN: 0823077578; 8th Bk&cdr edition (June 2000). Passman, Donald S. All You Need to Know About the Music Business. Simon & Schuster; ISBN: 0684870649; Rev&Updtd edition (October 2000). -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Coolguy4522 Registered: Dec '00	Date Posted: 7/21/02 8:03pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	I have ignored this thread for the most part and most of this is too long for me to read all of it, but I find the idea of suing people like me scary. I had Cox Communications and downloaded quite a few movies and MP3's through Napster and then Bareshares. I have deleted most of the movies but I don't consider it stealing, as I wouldn't have bought or watched the movies otherwise. -----signature----- http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=9777663&replies=7 -My farewell thread The Senate Floor: A Higher form of flaming! (and fun) Green Apples!
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 7/21/02 10:18pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	Snowdog, you seem to have overlooked a certain part of my example. Remember, I am not speaking just of music, but of all copyright in general. Those provisions are stipulated in an employment contract or release form. Again, not always. As in the example that I pointed out, in the case of salaried employees, it was found that if they were hired by a company as a programmer, then all their code over the period of employment can belong to their company, regardless of whether they used company time or resources to develop it and independent of any contracts (unless it is specifically excluded by their company, as in my case). That is because of the logic that a salaried employee is not paid by the hour and so they have been paid for all the code they write. You quoted §201 of Title 17, speaking of a work made for hire. Unfortunately, you seem to have missed Chapter 1, §101 which defines what is a "work for hire". It states: A ''work made for hire'' is - (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. For the purpose of the foregoing sentence, a ''supplementary work'' is a work prepared for publication as a secondary adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing, concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or assisting in the use of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords, pictorial illustrations, maps, charts, tables, editorial notes, musical arrangements, answer material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and indexes, and an ''instructional text'' is a literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional activities. Now, following that definition, let's review §201 again, as you quoted it: In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright. (Emphasis added) In other words, Title 17 does state what is a work for hire or not. You do not need a contract in order to have your copyright reassigned to your employer. All it would take is for the employer to show that programming (in general) is "within the scope of [your] employment" or that you had a specific contract to create that work for them. That is the danger of work for hire. An employer can decide that something is within the scope of your employment, or they could change the scope of your employment. Allow me to demonstrate, using my example of programming. Assume that I am hired as a programmer for a company and am assigned to write a financial application. In my spare time at home, I study Linux and Unix networking and write an Open Source tool for a networking-related purpose. Then, after working on the financial application, I am moved to maintaining their network. Suddenly, my company could lay claim to any further changes I make to my program and force me to stop distributing it for free. They could also make a case (in court) that they own the entire program (if I wrote it since I had been hired), regardless of what projects I had been working on since then. This would be unless I had signed a document that specifically allowed me to keep code I had writen in my own time. While this is mostly true for programming, it can become a problem for music or writing as well. For example, I could write songs while working as a singer for an organization. Under some conditions, that organization could then claim the songs I have writtne as their own. Same thing with writings. In fact, many standard employment contracts reinforce that fact by claiming everything you write, including personal letters to grandma. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 7/22/02 7:10am Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both? - Date Edited: 7/22/02 7:25am (4 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	While this is mostly true for programming, it can become a problem for music or writing as well. For example, I could write songs while working as a singer for an organization. Under some conditions, that organization could then claim the songs I have writtne as their own. Same thing with writings. In fact, many standard employment contracts reinforce that fact by claiming everything you write, including personal letters to grandma. No, this is specifically not true. On October 12, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 5107, amending the statutory definition of works made for hire as made by the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 (IPCORA). IPCORA had inserted the words "as a sound recording" into the second paragraph of the definition of "work made for hire" in Section 101 of Title 17. For a year, the statutory definition of "work made for hire" included sound recordings... but that change was quickly repealed. The repeal sought to preserve termination rights of recording artists. By restoring the definition to it's original status, the Copyright Act's present form preserves an author's right to terminate a grant of right after 35 years. Granted, you're absolutely correct about the interpretation of Chapter 1, Section 201... I stand corrected on it with regard to full-time employees, such as yourself, and do not have any immediate answer without further consideration as to how I think this definition ought to be amended. Should it be? Most certainly I think there needs to be better clarification. However, recording artists are not employees of record companies, and as such, the section of Title 17's definition of "work for hire" which applies to your line of work does not apply to recording artists. What does apply in their case is the contractual basis of "work for hire"... wherein the particulars of what is considered "for hire" must be outlined in the recording contract. -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 7/22/02 7:26am Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	However, recording artists are not employees of record companies, and as such, the section of Title 17's definition of "work for hire" which applies to your line of work does not apply to recording artists. Like I said before, my proposal is to reform copyright law in general and hopefully correct many of the abuses in various fields (recording and software industries included). To that end, market forces are a valuable tool, but they cannot prevail until some significant legislative actions occur as well. It is something that must be attacked on many fronts. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 7/22/02 7:33am Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	I do agree... however, I believe in all cases that the lawyers and legislators do go where the money goes. In the entertainment industry, if the money leaves record companies, the problem is solved. Hence, the idea is to let record companies in particular become obsolete. Anyone who doesn't have the money to buy a home recording setup nowadays, much less a musical instrument, isn't likely gaining enough attention of record labels in the first place to even be confronted with the option to sign a record deal anyway. The reason I say this is because you have to already have the money to be recording, touring and doing other activities independently to even get their attention and interest... much less a contract thrown down in front of you. So, for those who have the option, I say don't sign. For those who don't... tell me who they are, I'll try to help them by sharing my resources in return for credit on their album. -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 7/22/02 8:00am Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	Since we agree (I know, it's a miracle, but it had to happen sooner or later), my original question still stands: What are your opinions of the reform that I propose? I ask this because I am trying to build a proposal to send to my Representative, Senators and a few others (including Rep. Boucher who is from my state, but not my district). Rep. Boucher especially has talked of copyright reform in the past, but has failed to articulate a clear vision of how it should be reformed. I'd like to help him in his efforts. In order to do that, I'd appreciate any input you would care to give on how my proposal could be improved. Again, in short, I am proposing: Reduce copyright terms to 20 years, renewable once for an additional 20 years (As opposed to life of the author plus 70 years or a total of 95 years from date of publishing, whichever is longer). Make copyrights non-transferable, except to the legal heirs of the copyright holder. Eliminate the principle of "work for hire". In its place I would place a mandatory offer of exclusive licensing to the person who commissions a work. This mandatory license would be limited to the first copyright term. The author/creator would be under no obligation to license the work after that (although they are not prohibited from doing so). The terms of such a license must be worked out in advance (i.e., if you hire an employee, you sign an agreement at that time for exclusive licensing of their code for the first copyright term). Copyright renewal would not be automatic. If you are dependent on the royalties from the copyright, it is your responsibility to renew it. Common law (non-registered) copyrights would be limited to the initial copyright term, since if you don't register the work, there is no way to renew it. You would be notified by the copyright office in advance to renew, but it is your responsibility to keep contact information current with them. Finally, once something has entered the Public Domain, its copyright cannot be renewed. To this end, all DRM technologies must be able to be removed at the end of the copyright period, allowing the public access to the work without restriction. I would also add that music, software, writings or any other copyrightable work would fall under the same rules, regardless of medium. Source code should be protected the same way if it is compiled into a binary (executable), included in a book or made into a song (this has been done before). Music should be protected whether it is the written notes or a recording, or a digital reproduction of a recording. The same rules for everyone. I'd really be interested in ways to improve this proposal. I think that it would help curb many of the current abuses and return copyright law to that which was intended by the Constitution. What do you think? Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
tenorjedi Registered: Aug '00	Date Posted: 7/22/02 8:19am Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	I disagree that the same rules should apply to everyone. It is all based on lifespan. Written work has a longer life span than a performance of the work. A performance has a longer life span than source code or a game. The laws need to reflect this or else you'll end up with the abuses we have with ROMs, and P2P software/music swapping. I agree that the renewal shouldn't be automatic, and that if it is a source of revenue for them, that they have to make an effort, otherwise, what's the point of having something copywrited that has no concievable chance of profit? Pong and tetris are good games, but who's going to pay enough money to make it worthwhile to worry about? Meanwhile the person/company can still retain the rights to the franchise for whatever reason (the re-re-re-release of ET Special special edition, or ET2:20 years later Mom kicks ET out of the basement). -----signature----- "Over here we have the same stereo, except all the numbers go to 11" "Does that mean it's any louder?" "Well it's one number higher. It's certainly not 10 is it?"
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 7/22/02 8:32am Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	I disagree that the same rules should apply to everyone. The problem with that is that you can then create different sets of rules for the same work, depending on its medium. For example, I could write a book. Its copyright would follow the book rules. Then, the book-on-tape would have to follow the sound recording rules while the E-book would follow the software rules. If each one has a different term, when would my work enter the public domain? How would you do it? Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »