Conversation
Notices
-
My thinking is that if we must have !copyright law it s/b for short terms. I've come to agree with @Crosbie that we'd be better off without
about 6 months ago from web- Mike Linksvayer likes this.
-
@LaurelRusswurm Instead of 'shorter term' reforms (solving nothing), try "#Copyright should only apply to corporations, not individuals"
-
@laurelrusswurm 0 is a shorter term. :) but I'm all for any decrement, and more interested in equivalent of negative term.
-
@LaurelRusswurm 'shorter term' #copyright reform is a deckchair rearrangement - a displacement activity for the faint of heart.
-
@mlinksva Is a 'negative term" when the RIAA and MPAA make restitution for retroactive !copyright incursions into the !publicDomain ?
-
@LaurelRusswurm If reform only occurs if #copyright stays, then 'corps only'=no kids in jail. 'short term'=Harsher ©, but Elvis is 'free'.
-
@crosbie !copyright law reform is at best a workaround… since © law varies globally, there is no #onesizefitsall solution (beyond abolition)
-
NB I am an abolitionist. I was commenting on your "if we must have #copyright, it s/b for short terms". Exempting individuals is far better.
-
@crosbie Both term reduction and individual exemption would be good reforms, but could be construed as deckchair rearrangement
-
Ahem. 'Exempting individuals' = 'Lifeboats for all'. 'Shorter, 5-50yr #copyright term' = 'Deckchairs better arranged'.
-
@crosbie these days perpetual copyright denies people access to their own culture, driving many to risk infringement, particularly creators
-
@crosbie The lifeboats are *not* for all… not for creators who want to make creative work for sale …not for culture (stifled by copyright)
-
People are not driven 'to risk infringing #copyright', but to share & build upon their own culture - instinctively - a natural imperative.
-
@crosbie 50 years is too long; perhaps 1-5 years (1 for multinationals, 5 for sole proprietors)
-
@LaurelRusswurm Artists need neither corporations nor #copyright to sell their art. Exempting individuals saves human lives from © predation
-
@crosbie exactly. And the supposed justification for copyright was to support creators to allow them to do just that.
-
@LaurelRusswurm I was defining 'short', not inviting you to haggle. Jail/fines for sharing movies is an abomination, whatever term.
-
@crosbie Here professional free lance creators do indeed need to set up business to sell their services else be employees to make a living
-
Agreed: "Jail/fines for sharing movies is an abomination, whatever term."~Crosbie Fitch !q
-
Those who believe people would wait out a short enough #copyright term are those seduced & corrupted by the monopoly. Liberty does not wait.
-
Exempting non-pro individuals from infringement by sacrificing the Liberty of professional creators submits to !copyright monopoly agenda
-
@LaurelRusswurm Exempting individuals from#copyright means ALL human beings can enjoy their liberty. Corporations have no rights.
-
@laurelrusswurm @ossguy forced disclosure; more broadly, pro-sharing regulation.
Greg Grossmeier likes this. -
@laurelrusswurm play on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_Exposure (zine/distributor) ... seriously though, required disclosure/info...
-
@laurelrusswurm ...revelation where socially beneficial. I doubt writers' drafts usual, but things like software source and product...
-
@laurelrusswurm ...designs, governance info: yes. Some regulation in this direction (eg source-requiring-copyleft, though left to...
-
@laurelrusswurm ...copyright-holder whim, an extremely weak protection of user freedom, auditability, etc; more pro-sharing regs needed).
-
@laurelrusswurm oh, and to keep @crosbie happy ;-) such regulation might only apply to corporations, though I'm not sure that's right line.
-
@mlinksva I get the need for software source code to be shared, but don't really see any equivalence in any other medium
-
@mlinksva It would be ironic if RIAA SWAT teams were replaced by FSF ones - doing dawn raids for Jimmy's unpublished source. @laurelrusswurm
-
@crosbie how about Jimmy, Inc.'s unpublished source?
-
@laurelrusswurm howabout product designs? NB I'm not limiting demand for info revelation to arbitrary category of things currently subj to ©
-
sole proprietors are humans, not corporations. right?
-
@zotz there is a type of corporate entity called a "sole proprietor" ... a 1 person held private company which can be incorporated
-
@zotz most professional indie creators here set up such an entity so they can sell their goods and/or services
-
@mlinksva Regulation of corporations viz transparency is academic (I must reply to your comment one day). Beware encroachment upon privacy.
-
@zotz @laurelrusswurm If individual infringes #copyright they're exempt. If corp. (sole/multi) does (or authorises indiv), corp is culpable.
Mikael likes this. -
@zotz @laurelrusswurm Thus if you want to infringe #copyright, do it as an individual. If you do it as a corp, the corp risks BIG fines.
-
@zotz @laurelrusswurm Moreover, the corp can't evade #copyright infringement by authorising a director/staffer to infringe on its behalf.
-
@crosbie I'm not sure which academic you mean https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/academic#Adjective
-
@laurelrusswurm no, design *documents* are clearly under ©. The rights to manufacture devices are regulated by patent law.
-
@mlinksva I meant 'academic' as in 'interesting, but not ethically'.
-
@laurelrusswurm I suggest that 'Individuals exempt' #copyright reform IS VASTLY preferable to '14+14 yr short term'. Abolition better still.
-
@kevingranade Then they shouldn't be. Another problem with artificial IP monopolies is the absurd overlaps
-
@laurelrusswurm what overlaps? Software is the only product I'm aware of that has a copyright/patent collision, they're separate elsewhere.
-
@laurelrusswurm I quite agree, but if there must be a step between #copyright and abolition, it is exemption of individuals.
-
@kevingranade as you say there's the software !copyright #patent overlap, also nowadays fictional characters are and titles are trademarked…
-
@kevingranade …with ever expanding categories (some retroactive) and overlapping beneficiaries within !copyright #wantingapieceoftheaction
-
@crosbie the irony is, of course, that that is how it used to be only a scant few years ago #beforetheinternet
-
@LaurelRusswurm Effectively yes. Mostly, to control all communications channels (state is also interested, but it's corporatocracy anyway)
-
@crosbie ...which is why we need liberty for all
Mikael likes this. -
@LaurelRusswurm Liberty is a human right.
-
@laurelrusswurm affected by both, but I don't think current categories of "IP" are helpful in thinking about what is desirable.
-
Ah, different terminology. iirc, here sole proprietorships & partnerships are business but are not corporations & lack limited liability.
-
is there a reason other than limited liability why they do this?
-
Do U really mean corporations only? Here a sole proprietorship is more like drew Roberts doing business as CoolTech. akin a fictitious name
-
@mlinksva good point
-
@zotz Rumour has it a film co hired freelancers who neglected to pay tax; easier for gov to collect from company than chase freelancers...
-
@zotz ... ever after the film co insisted all free lancers be officially registered businesses. (works out better for taxes too)
-
@zotz By 'corporation' I mean any legally recognised (able to sue/be sued) person/entity that is not a human being.
-
@crosbie that definition fails because it would see partnerships, co-op societies and benecom societies as corporations
-
crossed wires: you can have a registered business that is not incorporated here. it does have a business license. lacks limited liability.
-
here, iiuc, a sole proprietorship is essentially a human being doing business, possibly under a fictitious name.
-
http://ur1.ca/cgs5h - is no legal distinction between ...
-
@crosbie one rule for loners, harsher rule for ppl who work together? Seems a bit harsh, no?
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@crosbie not according to your misdefinition of corporation that would include some groups of individuals if they can act legally together!
-
Forgive the netspeak but I was running out of space. But it does seem a clarification of terms is in order.
-
Though perhaps the question must be asked as to why corporations are needed in the first place? Why are we catering to them?
-
@mjray One or more human beings remain human beings, even if they work together. If they create a corporation, the corporation is not human.
-
@blindsite Corporations are indeed a problem: http://identi.ca/url/50534792 Govt/Law is supposed to protect US, not them
-
@crosbie except some organisations have corporate personality for some acts but not others. People create IPS LLP ASBL... not "corporation"s
-
@mjray By 'corporation' I mean any/all species of voluntarily created legal/unnatural entity of the domain/class/genus corporation.
-
@crosbie Hate to break it to you man but your whole country is a corporation, most western countries are.
-
@crosbie And since when is law for our benefit? Gov't and corps are pretty much the same thing and the only good law is natural law.
-
@BlindSite2k So, it would be a good start if we at least stopped treating corporations as equivalent to individuals/human beings.
-
@crosbie they are even treated as far superior to human beings
Crosbie Fitch likes this. -
@crosbie yes corporations are not human and should not be treated as such.
-
@crosbie except there is no such class. Like LLP corp to CoHo, non-corp to HMRC. + good to encourage ppl to document groups. Less tyranny
-
@blindsite corporations differentiate between amateur and professional creators; income is taxed by gov't, business expenses can defray tax
-
@blindsite needed to stop lower class investors losing it all on one bad business decision. we've lost sight of that a bit
-
@blindsite there are grey areas and it can be hard to call sometimes. Agree shouldn't pander to corps. Merely a tool
-
@mjray There is, because I've defined it. I am not referring to any definition within any current legislation of any jurisdiction.
-
the question is whether such would be exempt in @crosbie 's proposal.
-
you have still not answered a simple yes or know on whether an unincorporated sole proprietorship counts in your view.
-
@zotz I suspect not
-
what do you mean by a person's strawman?
-
works for the poor but a little limited liability is nice once in a while once you have something to lose.
-
@zotz Is 'unincorporated sole proprietorship' merely the individual's status, or the name of a legal entity they've voluntarily created?
-
@zotz You know there's the natural person, the human being, and then the legal fiction the create to represent you.
-
@zotz The Strawman Illusion 1 of 10 http://bit.ly/WGURHz
-
@zotz "Natural Man vs. Artificial Person, Law, Money & Banking"Part 1 http://bit.ly/V0nGCa
-
@zotz Dean Clifford - Making it Simple - Full Length Presentation http://bit.ly/10kbLUO Tho this one is targeted for Canadian law.
-
@crosbie Okay now I have no idea what you're on about. Could you clearly and simply describe your idea?
-
@Blindsite2k By reforming #copyright to apply only to unnatural persons (exempting indivs), ©=corporate regulation vs abridgement of liberty
-
@crosbie Ok, but let me ask you, what would an indivuall artist or writer do to make a living? Wouldn't your system discourage freelance?
-
@crosbie wouldn't it be better to have it the other way round, so the indivl can copyright but corps can't since it's the ppl making stuff?
-
@crosbie this would also prevent giant corps from snatching up patents of independent inventors and encourage independent media.
-
off topic, but it is a matter of risk and reward re one's own actions. more so wrt being responsible for other people's actions
-
I get that, but why do you have such a problem giving a simple yes or no answer to the question?
-
he is not saying individuals do not get copyrights on their works. he is saying you can only sue non-humans for copyright violation.
-
if so, i would say it makes his proposal a bit bogus. this is one reason why i am pressing for a clear answer.
-
@zotz yeah, slightly off-topic for this mega thread, but, I would love to explore this (accountability level) more re LLCs
-
re others: think your house being on the line for the acts of your partners or employees in a business setting.
-
@zotz I don't have a position either way on this, but can easily argue system should encourage more responsible action/association, ...
-
@zotz ...purchase of liability insurance, rather than socialized/externalized costs. Separately, encouraging home "ownership" is bad policy
Greg Grossmeier likes this. -
@zotz so then the problem is partnerships in lieu of personal accountability? I may be oversimplifying.
-
you have a business with a delivery van and a hired driver. why whould your entire "fortune" be at risk over his driving? chilling effects.
-
if the risk is not only the entire assets of the business but all personal assets, the rate will be much higher right?
-
both. 1. being personally liable for actions of partners and employees. 2. risking all personal wealth on a business, not just investment.
-
the problem in general? or the problem in relation to Crosbie's proposal and my asking for clarification?
-
@zotz in general, thus slightly (ok, mosty) off-topic. :)
-
@zotz assume it would be. question is, the reason: how much due to externalized risk, how much due to coordination failure? If latter...
-
@zotz ...dominates, current arrangement (ltd liability via decree and bureaucratic compliance) may be ok. OTOH, can coordination improve?
-
@zotz others on road put at life risk by hiring bad driver. chilling effect may be appropriate!
-
@zotz You're the one who's found a corpse in the crypt. I'm just providing criteria to help you identify whether it's vampire or vagrant.
-
In that case what's to stop an individual from infringing on another individual's copyright? Or a corp infringing on an indivl's copyright?
-
cool, i think most of my answers were towards the in general question.
-
Can you explain better what you mean here? (in email if needed.)
-
please, this is unhelpful. I am just trying to see if you consider a human conducting business (perhaps under fictitious name) 2notB exempt.
-
nothin would stop the individual, that's his desired outcome. a corp would be held liable.
-
@Blindsite2k A 'right' that an individual cannot defend without the state is a privilege, not a right. One can have #copyright & sue corps.
-
@zotz I have been trying to answer your questions helpfully. Humans remain human - even if doing business - even if trading as "FluffyBeds".
-
great, thanks, that was not clear to me in your answers until now. until the law changes to that effect, could a copyleft license get there?
-
@zotz #Copyleft is an emancipating license, not law. #btw I've replied to your comment: http://identi.ca/url/74884442
-
I get that, but do you think a human exempt copyleft license could help us get there?
-
@zotz It could be done, but I think it would be too complex/confusing, so not helpful. It's a simple reform, but not a simple license.
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the