Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. US copyrights will now last.. forever

US copyrights will now last.. forever

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
comquestionannouncementlearning
42 Posts 11 Posters 1 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • C Chris Losinger

    since the US Supreme court has decided that the phrase "limited times" in the US constitution means nothing and that Congress can, at the behest of Disney and pals, extend copyright terms indefinitely. so what? Snow White, Cinderella, Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Robin Hood, etc.. all of these are works that passed into the public domain (ie. their copyright expired) that Disney turned into movies. but, you should not expect to ever see a work based on a Disney movie (becuse that would violate their copyrights). likewise, you should never expect to see anything that has been created since 1920 pass into the public domain. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=&e=4&u=/ap/20030115/ap_on_bi_ge/scotus_copyrights[^]

    I'm not the droid you're looking for.

    ThumbNailer

    C Offline
    C Offline
    Christian Graus
    wrote on last edited by
    #7

    Isn't this the American way ? Freedom for those who can pay for it ? I doubt this would meet the approval of the writers of the Constitution, but I also have no doubt it's an accurate reflection of the way the system has changed. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
    C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
    Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002

    C 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • C Christian Graus

      Isn't this the American way ? Freedom for those who can pay for it ? I doubt this would meet the approval of the writers of the Constitution, but I also have no doubt it's an accurate reflection of the way the system has changed. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
      C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
      Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002

      C Offline
      C Offline
      Chris Losinger
      wrote on last edited by
      #8

      correct on all counts. the US govt. could certainly use a good reboot. sadly it will never happen (not in my lifetime, anyway) -c

      I'm not the droid you're looking for.

      ThumbNailer

      R 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • C Chris Losinger

        since the US Supreme court has decided that the phrase "limited times" in the US constitution means nothing and that Congress can, at the behest of Disney and pals, extend copyright terms indefinitely. so what? Snow White, Cinderella, Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Robin Hood, etc.. all of these are works that passed into the public domain (ie. their copyright expired) that Disney turned into movies. but, you should not expect to ever see a work based on a Disney movie (becuse that would violate their copyrights). likewise, you should never expect to see anything that has been created since 1920 pass into the public domain. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=&e=4&u=/ap/20030115/ap_on_bi_ge/scotus_copyrights[^]

        I'm not the droid you're looking for.

        ThumbNailer

        R Offline
        R Offline
        Roger Wright
        wrote on last edited by
        #9

        Darn... I was almost done with my masterpiece featuring the Hunchback of Notre Dame and the Little Mermaid.:(( All that work for nothing... I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

        P K 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • C Chris Losinger

          Stan Shannon wrote: Seems like a valid interpretation of the constitution to me wow. for a self-proclaimed conservative, that's a pretty liberal interpretation. "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." copyrights, like patents are a bargain between the inventor and the public. the public (via the government) grants monopoly protection to the author on his invention or work, for a limited time, so that the author can profit from his invention. but the time is limited, so that the work will eventually pass into the public domain, where everyone benefits. this is clearly the intent of the constitution and fits with other writings from the Framers themselves who were wary of the British system during the late 1700's (which the current US system has nearly become). if works are not allowed to pass into the public domain, the public does not benefit from use of the works: exactly as Disney clearly benefitted from the availability of the works i mentioned. the original copyright clause allowed 14 years from date of publication. it has now been extended to life of the author plus 70 years, retroactive from 1998. this is absurd in many ways: 1. why should the public grant monopoly rights on a work to the author's estate? presumably his heirs did nothing to create the work (else their name should be on it already). 2. the retroactivity was put there by Disney to protect Mickey Mouse. 3. "life plus 70" is clearly stretching the definition of "limited". 4. the SCOTUS has just made it clear that congress can keep adding onto that life+70, as often as Disney needs. this does nothing to promote the "progress of the arts", since everything is a derivative work, in some way. -c

          I'm not the droid you're looking for.

          ThumbNailer

          R Offline
          R Offline
          Roger Wright
          wrote on last edited by
          #10

          That's the second time I've agreed with you! Have you been hospitalized recently, and the recipient of a transfusion perhaps tainted by the blood of a Conservative? I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

          C 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • S Stan Shannon

            Point taken. But in this case it would seem the constitution is purposefully open to interpretation. I would also argue that something such as copy-right law is well within the legislative authority granted to congress by the constitution. It is certainly not a state's rights issue. And while I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the decision, they do seem to be erring on the side of capitalistic principles and private ownership, which is a good thing. Intellectual products are now a much more tangible form of property than they were in the 18th century. I can understand Disney's interest in the issue. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

            R Offline
            R Offline
            Roger Wright
            wrote on last edited by
            #11

            The purpose of copyright law and patent law was originally to promote innovation by allowing the inventor/author a time during which (s)he could derive exclusive benefit from the idea or product. At the end of that period of exclusion, the property right was to pass to society so that all might benefit from it. This ruling defeats the purpose of the law, and while it does extend personal property interests ( a good thing, I agree), it does nothing to benefit the general population. Innovation builds upon the works of others. I don't recall who said it, but it has been said that, "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Shame on me for forgetting the author (it's still copyrighted I guess), but the vision contained within that statement gives clear insight into the process by which this nation became great. To prohibit future visionaries from building upon the innovations of the past, be it in the arts or the sciences, is to cripple the nation and the world. Such interpretations of the law condemn future generations to re-inventing the wheel. I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

            L S 2 Replies Last reply
            0
            • C Chris Losinger

              correct on all counts. the US govt. could certainly use a good reboot. sadly it will never happen (not in my lifetime, anyway) -c

              I'm not the droid you're looking for.

              ThumbNailer

              R Offline
              R Offline
              Roger Wright
              wrote on last edited by
              #12

              It's been over two hundred years since we had a good revolution. We're overdue. I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

              S 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • R Roger Wright

                That's the second time I've agreed with you! Have you been hospitalized recently, and the recipient of a transfusion perhaps tainted by the blood of a Conservative? I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

                C Offline
                C Offline
                Chris Losinger
                wrote on last edited by
                #13

                Roger Wright wrote: Conservative if Conservative actually meant constitutionalist instead of corporatist, moralistic Federalist, i'd wear the label proudly. but it doesn't. -c

                I'm not the droid you're looking for.

                ThumbNailer

                R S 2 Replies Last reply
                0
                • C Chris Losinger

                  Roger Wright wrote: Conservative if Conservative actually meant constitutionalist instead of corporatist, moralistic Federalist, i'd wear the label proudly. but it doesn't. -c

                  I'm not the droid you're looking for.

                  ThumbNailer

                  R Offline
                  R Offline
                  Roger Wright
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #14

                  You're dead right. Moralism has no place in our country, nor does any favoritism for corporations. We are supposed to be a melting pot, drawing upon the diversity of the world for the best each culture has to offer, and I favor that. Unfortunately, we're given the choice every 4 years to select leaders who either want big business to run our lives, or those who want to tax the life out of the few productive people left here to give handouts to the worthless. I'm registered Republican, not because I believe in the principals they espouse, but because the Democrats have values that are far more noxious. I wish there was a party that truly represented the values America is supposed to stand for, but one has yet to be born...:(( Wouldn't it be fun to have a time machine, just to bring James Madison, Tom Jefferson, et al forward to get their opinion of what we've become? I wonder what changes they'd incorporate in their Constitution after seeing us as we are now!:-D I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

                  C S 2 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • R Roger Wright

                    You're dead right. Moralism has no place in our country, nor does any favoritism for corporations. We are supposed to be a melting pot, drawing upon the diversity of the world for the best each culture has to offer, and I favor that. Unfortunately, we're given the choice every 4 years to select leaders who either want big business to run our lives, or those who want to tax the life out of the few productive people left here to give handouts to the worthless. I'm registered Republican, not because I believe in the principals they espouse, but because the Democrats have values that are far more noxious. I wish there was a party that truly represented the values America is supposed to stand for, but one has yet to be born...:(( Wouldn't it be fun to have a time machine, just to bring James Madison, Tom Jefferson, et al forward to get their opinion of what we've become? I wonder what changes they'd incorporate in their Constitution after seeing us as we are now!:-D I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

                    C Offline
                    C Offline
                    Chris Losinger
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #15

                    well looky there. here i am agreeing with you now. :) :beer: -c

                    I'm not the droid you're looking for.

                    ThumbNailer

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • R Roger Wright

                      Darn... I was almost done with my masterpiece featuring the Hunchback of Notre Dame and the Little Mermaid.:(( All that work for nothing... I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

                      P Offline
                      P Offline
                      Paul Watson
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #16

                      Roger Wright wrote: the Hunchback of Notre Dame and the Little Mermaid Sounds a bit crooked and wet to me...

                      Paul Watson
                      Bluegrass
                      Cape Town, South Africa

                      My photoSIG portfolio[^]

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • R Roger Wright

                        Darn... I was almost done with my masterpiece featuring the Hunchback of Notre Dame and the Little Mermaid.:(( All that work for nothing... I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

                        K Offline
                        K Offline
                        KaRl
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #17

                        Some samples of your work to show us :rolleyes: ? You just don't have to use specifically Disney's way of representating these characters, do you :confused: ? Otherwise, I don't think Andersen or Hugo will sue you (perhaps their descendants) :~ ?

                        Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • R Roger Wright

                          The purpose of copyright law and patent law was originally to promote innovation by allowing the inventor/author a time during which (s)he could derive exclusive benefit from the idea or product. At the end of that period of exclusion, the property right was to pass to society so that all might benefit from it. This ruling defeats the purpose of the law, and while it does extend personal property interests ( a good thing, I agree), it does nothing to benefit the general population. Innovation builds upon the works of others. I don't recall who said it, but it has been said that, "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Shame on me for forgetting the author (it's still copyrighted I guess), but the vision contained within that statement gives clear insight into the process by which this nation became great. To prohibit future visionaries from building upon the innovations of the past, be it in the arts or the sciences, is to cripple the nation and the world. Such interpretations of the law condemn future generations to re-inventing the wheel. I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

                          L Offline
                          L Offline
                          Lost User
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #18

                          Roger Wright wrote: I don't recall who said it, but it has been said that, "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Shame on me for forgetting the author (it's still copyrighted I guess)... I don't know Sir Isaac Newton was English and part of a Communistic Monarchy. So he wouldn't have benefited from all the amazingly good things that are American. ;P Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • C Chris Losinger

                            Stan Shannon wrote: I would also argue that something such as copy-right law is well within the legislative authority granted to congress by the constitution and i wouldn't argue. my problem with this is that Disney and pals wrote and purchased (and i mean both literally and can provide references) the latest law to extend copyrights. one could argue that it's good to have strong businesses like Disney pumping americas economy. but at the same time, these laws prohibit any new companies from developing the same way Disney did (by exploiting new ways of presenting public domain content - children's stories in cartoon form) because there will be no more public domain content, if Disney has their way. so, it's easy to see why Disney wants this: it continues their own copyrights and it effectively prevents others from getting into their content repackaging business (if that content was written after 1920). -c

                            I'm not the droid you're looking for.

                            ThumbNailer

                            M Offline
                            M Offline
                            Michael P Butler
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #19

                            Chris Losinger wrote: because there will be no more public domain content, if Disney has their way. so, it's easy to see why Disney wants this but does it really matter. Whilst I agree Disney will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes. Do we need public domain content whilst we still have imaginations. Okay so we can't redo Steam Boat Willy (Although as Mickey Mouse is trademarked, copyright wouldn't be the issue here). We can still write all our own stories using our own characters and situations. Why would I want to write a story about Donald Duck when I could quiet easily write a story about a Penguin with a speech impediment instead. Creating new original content rather than repackaging other peoples crap is surely the way forward. Michael You gotta roll with it You gotta take your time You gotta say what you say Don't let anybody get in your way - Oasis

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • R Roger Wright

                              It's been over two hundred years since we had a good revolution. We're overdue. I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

                              S Offline
                              S Offline
                              Stan Shannon
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #20

                              Yes, but what new ideas would we unite around? The left is inherently Marxist, the Right is overwhelmingly religious zealots of one type or another. The problem is people who get bent out of shape over this Copyright ruling (which does not represent any abuse of the constitution even though it does expose weaknesses in our system ) will turn a blind eye to constitutional travisties such as Roe v. Wade. What do we unite around? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

                              R 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • C Chris Losinger

                                Roger Wright wrote: Conservative if Conservative actually meant constitutionalist instead of corporatist, moralistic Federalist, i'd wear the label proudly. but it doesn't. -c

                                I'm not the droid you're looking for.

                                ThumbNailer

                                S Offline
                                S Offline
                                Stan Shannon
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #21

                                But Chris, this ruling is not an abuse of the Constitution. It may indicate needed reforms in our government, but it hardly represents a gross violation of the constitution. I would happily join in just about any revolution to overthrow the government you guys could come up with just for the hell of it. But I have serious doubts about how we could actually improve the system. We need both the Constitution and capitalism - they are the two sides of the same coin. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

                                C 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • R Roger Wright

                                  You're dead right. Moralism has no place in our country, nor does any favoritism for corporations. We are supposed to be a melting pot, drawing upon the diversity of the world for the best each culture has to offer, and I favor that. Unfortunately, we're given the choice every 4 years to select leaders who either want big business to run our lives, or those who want to tax the life out of the few productive people left here to give handouts to the worthless. I'm registered Republican, not because I believe in the principals they espouse, but because the Democrats have values that are far more noxious. I wish there was a party that truly represented the values America is supposed to stand for, but one has yet to be born...:(( Wouldn't it be fun to have a time machine, just to bring James Madison, Tom Jefferson, et al forward to get their opinion of what we've become? I wonder what changes they'd incorporate in their Constitution after seeing us as we are now!:-D I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

                                  S Offline
                                  S Offline
                                  Stan Shannon
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #22

                                  Roger Wright wrote: Wouldn't it be fun to have a time machine, just to bring James Madison, Tom Jefferson, et al forward to get their opinion of what we've become? I wonder what changes they'd incorporate in their Constitution after seeing us as we are now! They would be far angrier about the Federal government imposing its will through Income Taxes, Roe V Wade and disallowing prayer in School then they would be about any silly Copy Right law. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

                                  R 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • R Roger Wright

                                    The purpose of copyright law and patent law was originally to promote innovation by allowing the inventor/author a time during which (s)he could derive exclusive benefit from the idea or product. At the end of that period of exclusion, the property right was to pass to society so that all might benefit from it. This ruling defeats the purpose of the law, and while it does extend personal property interests ( a good thing, I agree), it does nothing to benefit the general population. Innovation builds upon the works of others. I don't recall who said it, but it has been said that, "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Shame on me for forgetting the author (it's still copyrighted I guess), but the vision contained within that statement gives clear insight into the process by which this nation became great. To prohibit future visionaries from building upon the innovations of the past, be it in the arts or the sciences, is to cripple the nation and the world. Such interpretations of the law condemn future generations to re-inventing the wheel. I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

                                    S Offline
                                    S Offline
                                    Stan Shannon
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #23

                                    I think the founders were first and formost respectors of private property rights. Given the role intellectual property plays in the modern world, I think they would have agreed with the court on this issue. The concept of a company being forced to surrender ownership of their own property so that society can benefit from it is something Marx would have been far more comfortable with than Jefferson. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

                                    C 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • S Stan Shannon

                                      Yes, but what new ideas would we unite around? The left is inherently Marxist, the Right is overwhelmingly religious zealots of one type or another. The problem is people who get bent out of shape over this Copyright ruling (which does not represent any abuse of the constitution even though it does expose weaknesses in our system ) will turn a blind eye to constitutional travisties such as Roe v. Wade. What do we unite around? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

                                      R Offline
                                      R Offline
                                      Roger Wright
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #24

                                      Stan Shannon wrote: The left is inherently Marxist, the Right is overwhelmingly religious zealots of one type or another. I don't find either to be true; people on both sides of the fence tend to gather closer to the middle than to either extreme. Stan Shannon wrote: What do we unite around? Paraphrasing an old western movie: "Whiskey, and fresh women for my men!" I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

                                      S 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • S Stan Shannon

                                        Roger Wright wrote: Wouldn't it be fun to have a time machine, just to bring James Madison, Tom Jefferson, et al forward to get their opinion of what we've become? I wonder what changes they'd incorporate in their Constitution after seeing us as we are now! They would be far angrier about the Federal government imposing its will through Income Taxes, Roe V Wade and disallowing prayer in School then they would be about any silly Copy Right law. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

                                        R Offline
                                        R Offline
                                        Roger Wright
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #25

                                        Stan Shannon wrote: They would be far angrier about the Federal government imposing its will through Income Taxes, Roe V Wade and disallowing prayer in School then they would be about any silly Copy Right law. No doubt! And they'd be furious with the blatant usurpation by the Judicial and Executive branches of the powers reserved to the Legislature. I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • R Roger Wright

                                          Stan Shannon wrote: The left is inherently Marxist, the Right is overwhelmingly religious zealots of one type or another. I don't find either to be true; people on both sides of the fence tend to gather closer to the middle than to either extreme. Stan Shannon wrote: What do we unite around? Paraphrasing an old western movie: "Whiskey, and fresh women for my men!" I've gone to find myself. If I should get back before I return, please keep me here.

                                          S Offline
                                          S Offline
                                          Stan Shannon
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #26

                                          Roger Wright wrote: I don't find either to be true; people on both sides of the fence tend to gather closer to the middle than to either extreme. Well, if Hillary Clinton ain't a Marxist and if Jerry Falwell ain't a religious Zealot, I'll eat my hat. Can you imagine either of those two in charge of a new constitutional convention?!!!!! Roger Wright wrote: "Whiskey, and fresh women for my men!" Sounds like my kind of revolution... :) "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

                                          R A 2 Replies Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes

                                          • Login
                                          • Don't have an account? Register
                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups