Leaks show U.S. swayed Canada on copyright bill

[bush_cheney2004]

It is? How odd. So are you arguing that a work should remain the exclusive right of the creator and his heirs in perpetuity? Can you imagine what culture would look like if William Shakespeare or John Locke's descendants could force book stores to burn unauthorized copies?

Yes, it would look like any other burning pirated product. As long as the copyright is renewed, I don't see a problem at all. Why should somebody's intellectual property pass into public domain just because they are dead? What's next, outright plagiarism

and changing the author's name?

At any rate, that certainly wasn't the intent even in the United States. What you're invoking is a very modern notion of copyright, and one that most certainly would not have been familiar to the Founding Fathers.

It is a modern idea, but springs from the same foundation for copyright protection, regardless of duration.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Yes, it would look like any other burning pirated product. As long as the copyright is renewed, I don't see a problem at all. Why should somebody's intellectual property pass into public domain just because they are dead? What's next, outright plagiarism

and changing the author's name?

... so, would you extend that to intellectual property. Like patents?

Patents should be able to be infinitely renewed to prevent competition? Never to become the public domain.

I need to trace my ancestry back and figure out who invented the wheel... I'm going to make a frickin' killing on penalties owed. Suckers, you'll all need hoverbikes now!

Edited October 9, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[bush_cheney2004]

... so, would you extend that to intellectual property. Like patents?

When such use is for the express purpose of making profits that would have otherwise gone to the property owner, yes.

Patents should be able to be infinitely renewed to prevent competition? Never to become the public domain.

Yes...such property is available under license.

I need to trace my ancestry back and figure out who invented the wheel... I'm going to make a frickin' killing on penalties owed. Suckers, you'll all need hoverbikes now!

What is your patent number?

Edited October 9, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[MiddleClassCentrist]

When such use is for the express purpose of making profits that would have otherwise gone to the property owner, yes.

Yes...such property is available under license.

What is your patent number?

You do understand that you are arguing for permanent monopolies on all new technology, right?

And my example was showing just how ludicrous your idea would be. The wheel is considered public domain becuase it has been around for so long. Imagine if it have never become public domain. I could stop producing wheels, as the only legal producer of wheels, and hold the entire world at randsom. There are reasons why exlusivity of patents ends some decades.

We'd still be in the dark ages if patents made to be infinite from the start of civilization. Innovation would have grinded to a halt in favour of milking patents. Innovation would stop. You wouldn't be able to make the wheel better without the guys family royalties for inventing the first wheel.

[August1991]

Actually, Mickey Mouse is trademarked, which is of unlimited duration.

We should distinuish a Trademark (brand) from a copyright or a patent - all are forms of intellectual property rights.

In principle, I have no problems with Louis Vuitton or Holiday Inn wanting to ensure that their brand name/trade mark indicates their products alone for as long as they want. As a consumer, if I rent a Walt Disney video, I don't want to be shocked to discover Debbie Doing Dallas. How far should this trademark idea be carried? Should it include all smiling black mice?

Why should somebody's intellectual property pass into public domain just because they are dead? What's next, outright plagiarism and changing the author's name?

Why not? We do that now with intellectual property covered by patent.

Patent law is relatively shortlived - about 17 years. You can buy cheap "splendida" (marketed under a different brand name) now since the patent has expired. Similarly, you can buy generic ASA, or you can buy Bayer's Aspirin.

But I do agree on the point that Disney, as well as the other large media companies, have bent US copyright far from its intentions, and have used that clout with its trading partners.

When Disney originally created its material, copyright was typically 50/60 years after the death of the creator. Disney knew that and presumably created with that knowledge.

So, yes, large media companies have bent US copyright. After the fact, they are trying to milk the cow a second time.

I happen to think that copyright should be closer to a patent right. It should not be seen as a trademark.

=====

Intellectual property rights should encourage creation - but no more.

In any case, I happen to think that technology will drive this debate as much as law. A property right that is unenforceable amounts to no right at all.

Edited October 10, 2011 by August1991

[TimG]

Patent law is relatively shortlived - about 17 years. You can buy cheap "splendida" (marketed under a different brand name) now since the patent has expired. Similarly, you can buy generic ASA, or you can buy Bayer's Aspirin.

The patent system of hopelessly broken because it was designed for a world of stand alone inventions which took a lot of imagination to create. Now we have millions of patents on obvious uses of technology that a small part of a larger product. The net result is patents *discourage* innovation because companies are afraid that some patent troll will claim the new idea they dreamt up violates some obsure patent.

I am not saying patents should be turfed - I am saying the rules need to be rewritten to suit the complex systems we are building today.

Edited October 10, 2011 by TimG

[WWWTT]

We'd still be in the dark ages if patents made to be infinite from the start of civilization. Innovation would have grinded to a halt in favour of milking patents. Innovation would stop. You wouldn't be able to make the wheel better without the guys family royalties for inventing the first wheel.

Actually I believe it would have bein immpossible to "invent" the wheel.

A better term would be to "discover" the wheel.Or "understand" the wheel.

This is because the wheel is a simple machine based on or an elaborated form of another simple machine called the lever.

It works using basic fundamentals of physics.And the fundamentals of physics are a constant that can not be created nor destroyed or changed in any way,however if you are unaware of them,you can "discover" them.

Learning about physics is not the same as "creating" or "inventing"

So to say "invent" the wheel is incorrect.

I use this example to point out how greedy humans in general can be!

Trying to copyright every freekin thing under the sun to make a quick easy buck!

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

...Trying to copyright every freekin thing under the sun to make a quick easy buck!

Yes...so terrible...even as others would clamor to do the exact same thing with somebody else's intellectual property.

[WWWTT]

Yes...so terrible...even as others would clamor to do the exact same thing with somebody else's intellectual property.

The "wheel" is not anybodys "intellectual" property.It is not the same as a "creation" such as a piece of music,film,computer software or art,etc,etc.

I used this example the show that people are so freekin greedy that it blinds them of reality.And that some people will fall for anything!

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

The "wheel" is not anybodys "intellectual" property.It is not the same as a "creation" such as a piece of music,film,computer software or art,etc,etc.

I never said it was...you are confusing me with another member who brought up the "wheel". There were never patent rights on the basic concept of a "wheel".

[Battletoads]

Actually I believe it would have bein immpossible to "invent" the wheel.

A better term would be to "discover" the wheel.Or "understand" the wheel.

This is because the wheel is a simple machine based on or an elaborated form of another simple machine called the lever.

It works using basic fundamentals of physics.And the fundamentals of physics are a constant that can not be created nor destroyed or changed in any way,however if you are unaware of them,you can "discover" them.

Learning about physics is not the same as "creating" or "inventing"

So to say "invent" the wheel is incorrect.

I use this example to point out how greedy humans in general can be!

Trying to copyright every freekin thing under the sun to make a quick easy buck!

WWWTT

Are you saying you can't patent something you discover?

[August1991]

The "wheel" is not anybodys "intellectual" property.It is not the same as a "creation" such as a piece of music,film,computer software or art,etc,etc.

WWWTT, in a civilized society, we want to encourage more people to discover the next wheel. Intellectual property rights do that.

The patent system of hopelessly broken because it was designed for a world of stand alone inventions which took a lot of imagination to create. Now we have millions of patents on obvious uses of technology that a small part of a larger product. The net result is patents *discourage* innovation because companies are afraid that some patent troll will claim the new idea they dreamt up violates some obsure patent.

Tim, you make a very good point.

If we make it easy/cheap to claim a property right, then I now claim ownership of the Moon. (And if someone finds an energy source on the Moon in 2050, my great grandchildren will litigate you to death.)

Defining property rights is, well, not easy.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I never said it was...you are confusing me with another member who brought up the "wheel". There were never patent rights on the basic concept of a "wheel".

But imagine if there were?

I'm not against timed life patents in many cases, but permanent patents are just ludicrous.

Maybe you can wrap your head around a more recent example.

If we had software patents(allowed in recent history) when MS and Apple were originally battling it out, there would only be ONE legal Graphic Operating System (Technically Xerox who created the first graphical OS, then dumbly gave it to Apple for free). This would be the only legally allowable graphical user interface creator for all computing devices.

There would be no iPhone, no iPod. No one would be able to compete because they hadn't thought of a graphical user interface first.

Edited October 16, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Evening Star]

As well, the proposed bill's rules surrounding educational institutions is just nuts.

Link? Speaking as a lecturer, we're living through a serious chill right now: strictly speaking, I can't photocopy a handout from any published source or even leave a copy on reserve in the library; I can't show film clips in class unless the uni library owns a copy of the film; I can't burn songs to a CD for students to listen to, even just leave one copy on reserve. If things are going to get worse, I'm actually terrified. Things were much better in the US, at least when I was there a few years ago.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Evening Star

[bush_cheney2004]

...If we had software patents(allowed in recent history) when MS and Apple were originally battling it out, there would only be ONE legal Graphic Operating System (Technically Xerox who created the first graphical OS, then dumbly gave it to Apple for free). This would be the only legally allowable graphical user interface creator for all computing devices.

That's not true...I was using "graphical" OS and applications years before in defense systems. We just didn't call the pointing device a "mouse".

There would be no iPhone, no iPod. No one would be able to compete because they hadn't thought of a graphical user interface first.

Not the case at all...other interfaces preceded everything from Apple (including GUI) and even if they hadn't, licensing the technology is the standard way for others to use the patented technology.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Not the case at all...other interfaces preceded everything from Apple (including GUI) and even if they hadn't, licensing the technology is the standard way for others to use the patented technology.

And if the company wants to keep a monopoly over it's patent?

[bush_cheney2004]

And if the company wants to keep a monopoly over it's patent?

Then it shall have a monopoly, while others invent and innovate around it. Patent laws already extend such a monopoly for X years. Some countries ignore patent law altogether.

If the true concern is monopoly for financial gain in perpetuity, I have a problem with some other party extinguishing patent rights for their own financial gain in perpetutity.

Edited October 16, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

But imagine if there were?

I'm not against timed life patents in many cases, but permanent patents are just ludicrous.

Maybe you can wrap your head around a more recent example.

If we had software patents(allowed in recent history) when MS and Apple were originally battling it out, there would only be ONE legal Graphic Operating System (Technically Xerox who created the first graphical OS, then dumbly gave it to Apple for free). This would be the only legally allowable graphical user interface creator for all computing devices.

There would be no iPhone, no iPod. No one would be able to compete because they hadn't thought of a graphical user interface first.

The problem with this example is that it would never fly as a patent. Patent law requires the description of a specific innovation to be patented. The concept of a graphic user interface (GUI) is a general concept and could never be patented under present patent law. Just like I can't go and patent "fusion" and sue anyone who ever builds a fusion reactor. To patent a fusion reactor, someone would have to describe, in great detail, the technical design and operation of their reactor, and others would remain free to pursue any of the other potential avenues to achieve fusion.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Bonam

[TimG]

Patent law requires the description of a specific innovation to be patented. The concept of a graphic user interface (GUI) is a general concept and could never be patented under present patent law.

This is not true. People get generic patents all of time. For example, patents on using HTTP with an industrial controller. HTTP is generic. An industrial controller can be almost anything you see in a factory. Yet the combination of the two is deemed to be an 'innovation' Edited October 17, 2011 by TimG

[MiddleClassCentrist]

This is not true. People get generic patents all of time. For example, patents on using HTTP with an industrial controller. HTTP is generic. An industrial controller can be almost anything you see in a factory. Yet the combination of the two is deemed to be an 'innovation'

Or how to load an Open Source text document to XML. Generic concepts of open source public domain that have been patented.

Or how about Apple currently fighting Samsung because Samsungs new device's "look and feel" is too close to Apple's. Look and feel is a concept... apparently Samsungs interface is similar warranting legal action.