Copyright History and Logic of use
The original function of "copyright" is literally giving exclusive RIGHT to reproduce work - copy - to a publisher - not to the author. It has since been extended to include authors as having rights on how their work is used. It was a commercial arbitrary restriction imposed on printers by printers so they would have a monopoly to sell and make a profit from what an author created.
These same monopolists have since ensured that a single copyright includes any an all types of delivery and they have exclusive "rights" to profit from them from a minimum of 75 to 105 years after it was created (actually, it is life of author PLUS 75 years, so you could have works copyrighted for up to 191 years based on the oldest person alive; corps get the 105 year max.)
"Fair Use" allows for editorial comments using snippets as an example without the need to get prior permission. The distinction is editorial. Using NFL video as part of a newscast is not editorial - that is commercial and would fall into paying to use based on what I understand current law states - it is using other people's product for "your" commercial gain. The disclaimers NFL puts out is for that reason. If you used a clip to show people how not to tackle or show bad sportsman like behavior as part of a comment on the sport then it would not have to be paid for, but if you used it as part of a training film then it WOULD since it is for your commercial (winning) gain.
Most consumers find it annoying, and with DRM going everywhere people will start finding more reasons to circumvent it - or just stop buying products since the restrictions - and limited ability to use it - will cause them grief. Actually, with DRM when you buy it becomes a PERPECTUAL restrictions since there is NO WAY to remove the DRM rules once copyright runs out - you must then buy AGAIN a DRM free copy. But technically, they could STILL put DRM onto it since the delivery medium IS copyrightable - or compilation of FREE works is copyrightable as it is now a collection! Self perpetuating.
These same monopolists have since ensured that a single copyright includes any an all types of delivery and they have exclusive "rights" to profit from them from a minimum of 75 to 105 years after it was created (actually, it is life of author PLUS 75 years, so you could have works copyrighted for up to 191 years based on the oldest person alive; corps get the 105 year max.)
"Fair Use" allows for editorial comments using snippets as an example without the need to get prior permission. The distinction is editorial. Using NFL video as part of a newscast is not editorial - that is commercial and would fall into paying to use based on what I understand current law states - it is using other people's product for "your" commercial gain. The disclaimers NFL puts out is for that reason. If you used a clip to show people how not to tackle or show bad sportsman like behavior as part of a comment on the sport then it would not have to be paid for, but if you used it as part of a training film then it WOULD since it is for your commercial (winning) gain.
Most consumers find it annoying, and with DRM going everywhere people will start finding more reasons to circumvent it - or just stop buying products since the restrictions - and limited ability to use it - will cause them grief. Actually, with DRM when you buy it becomes a PERPECTUAL restrictions since there is NO WAY to remove the DRM rules once copyright runs out - you must then buy AGAIN a DRM free copy. But technically, they could STILL put DRM onto it since the delivery medium IS copyrightable - or compilation of FREE works is copyrightable as it is now a collection! Self perpetuating.
If you want to change it propose that Patents adhere to the SAME time limits as copyrights - after all they are really two of the same. Patents were conceived as the physical manifestation of a thought process and copyright was the written word reproduced. The argument has gone that it is so good to have written works locked - restricted - for 75+ years then would not patents also be "enhanced" by having them also restricted for the same amount of time?
Tom Philo
http://www.taphilo.com
Tom Philo
http://www.taphilo.com
posted by Tom Philo at 1:21 PM
0 comments
