Semi-OT: Congress about to limit artists' copyright rights

[Jeffrey Watts]

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Billy Crook <billycrook at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, uh, that means they should be able to just squander it?  Meanwhile
> other people who independantly make something similar are either out
> of luck if they do want to sell it?  It's THEIR WORK after all...

No one independently makes a Mona Lisa in parallel.  There's only one.
 The problem with this bill isn't its impact on "similar" works, the
problem is that it will enable the theft of works.  Again, it's a very
blunt instrument to deal with the frivolous lawsuit problem.  See my
other comments on that.

> No.  It basically says, if you have a *reason* to want copyright, you
> can have it.  It says that if you actually don't want people
> infringing on your rights, they will be able to avoid it or contact
> you to negotiate licensing.

See my "if you don't want your stuff stolen" analogy.

> Wrong.  Once this bill is passed, you will be able to safely derive
> from the works of others without wondering if they indended it to be
> "public domain" or if they wanted to control it.  No more confusion,
> just type it's UPC/product name/fccid, hit enter, and know.

What happened to asking?  This bill is clearly originator-unfriendly.
Your example is from the perspective of someone who wants to use
someone else's work more easily.  That's nifty, but their needs are
trumpted by the needs of the artist's.

> This legislation has nothing to do with your belongings, and in no way
> promotes burglary

It's called an "analogy", and it's a rhetorical tool used to make a point.

> ... and copyright holders ... and American citizens...

... and not independent artists.  Last I looked they're citizens too...

J.

-- 

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a
precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine