US Court Gives 15 Months' Jail, $415,900 Fine For Game Piracy 525
An anonymous reader writes "A Florida man has been sentenced to 15 months in prison and ordered to pay US$415,900 in restitution for selling video game systems that were preloaded with more than 75 pirated copies of games." If that fine sounds a bit steep, note that his profits on the devices "exceeded $390,000."
Sorry Charlie (Score:5, Insightful)
It obviously wasn't for "backup purposes only or home brewing. I say serves him right. Gives everyone else a bad name.
A Decent Application of Copyright laws. (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm okay with this. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a massive difference between pirating something and selling someone else's copyrighted work. The minute you turn piracy into a for-profit operation is when criminal copyright infringement makes sense.
Some piracy is as bad as theft (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not giving a copy to your friend, this is a direct theft of value from the software writers. Call it "copyright violation" or call it "selling someone's work without paying them for it" this was wrong.
oh noes! (Score:0, Insightful)
Let's see the idiot piracy apologists defend this one.
"Copyright infringement is NOT theft. No one is being deprived of a game...blah blah blah"
or
"It's his right to sell the games! He went through all the work of putting them on the system!"
etc.
Bastards.
Re:I'm okay with this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, how dare he sell games that no-one else is interested in selling.
Thieves belong in jail (Score:0, Insightful)
This includes all the movie pirates as well. I'm disappointed that the Bush administration has not put all the effort needed to shut down The Pirate Bay, for example.
The steal U.S. innovation and hard work for their own benefit...
This and child pornography are the only down sides of the internet.
Not your average bedroom piracy. Serves him right (Score:3, Insightful)
If those NES games had been songs, however, he'd be several million dollars in the hole and jailed for two-digit number of years, not months.
Prison? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know why you'd imprison him though. I mean, it's a "white collar" crime and there's no threat posed to society by him simply through physical contact.
I'd say enough people are in prison already without adding copyright related criminals into the mix. I agree he should be fined (since his crimes were essentially financial ones) but I don't see the point of prison.
jail != prison (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh, the wisdom of Florida's courts. This is probably the most harmless white-collar crime ever, and yet the man gets 15 months in prison. No better way to turn an ordinary citizen into a hardened criminal. If it was jail, it would be a little more understandable, but since he is going to a Florida prison (among the worst in the country), may God have mercy on him. Minimum security prisons (if DOC is nice enough to send him to one) aren't a cake-walk either.
Seriously, fine the man, put him on probation with a suspended sentence before sending him to prison for an utterly victimless crime.
Re:Fair cop... (Score:3, Insightful)
What always makes me wonder about these crimes... what did he think was going to happen? I guess this sentence is good if it stops other, completely clueless, individuals from doing this same thing.
Re:A Decent Application of Copyright laws. (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me, but no. Not everyone does agree with you and it's disingenuous to proclaim that they should.
Every game for the NES should now be out of copyright. 100+ copyright terms for these works is just, simply, unjust.
Re:jail != prison (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to US of A: Where illegally copying a game gets you jail time while driving intoxicated gets you community service.
The land of free, where anyone with enough money never needs to goto jail for any crime.
Re:I'm okay with this. (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFY
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
'One could argue though, that if none of his customers had planned to purchase the original work, then not much harm was done. But that's unrealistic and impossible to *prove*...'
In the US justice system the burden of proof is SUPPOSED to be on the one claiming harm, not the one claiming there was no harm. I would argue that it is not unrealistic that the people purchasing from him would not have purchased from the vendor but likely.
Most of the people I know who consume pirated material have thousands of songs, hundreds of movies, dozens of games, etc. Those same people would NOT have bought tens of thousands of dollars worth of content if they had to pay for it. That collection might turn into one game, two movies, a few CD's, if that.
Re:I'm okay with this. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wish I read about the "Power Player" before... (Score:5, Insightful)
...it sounds like a neat little device. Come to think of it, I may have seen a few of these things in malls and flea markets or something similar not long ago. I believe one version of such a device offered a bunch of really old games like Atari 2600 games, and there have been others.
This man did not make these devices. He did not load the software onto the devices -- they shipped to him that way. He sold devices he imported. While for many people born and raised in the US, it would seem very obvious that such devices would be of dubious legality, to this guy it's hard to know whether or not he knew it was wrong to begin with. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" -- okay... especially if you're the President of the United States violating the nation's Constitution. But seriously, this guy just bought and sold. He may not have had a full understanding of what he was selling and that it wasn't legal in the U.S. (It this device legal in other countries? That would be interesting to know!) Supposing this guy had no knowledge that these devices were actually illegal in the U.S., and had no prior offenses, don't you think it would be more fair to simply have the profits seized?
if it wasn't for the jail time (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the sentence is fair, the financial reward of the crime was removed and the guy deserves some time. I mean this is above and beyond lending your friend a copy of your stuff for "off site backup". He was out to make a profit and doing pirating in large scale.
Re:For once they got it right (Score:5, Insightful)
People who make a profit have the money to fight back. Casual infringers tend to be easily cowed into settling.
Re:Term? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some piracy is as bad as theft (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, one of you people that claim piracy is always okay, riddle me this. If this person profited by selling a piece of software that took money, time, and labor to make, how did he not deny someone the money they should have made?
Because these games are old enough that they should be in the public domain. More than a fair return for them has already been made.
Copyright is supposed to be an incentive to create new works, not a license to print money.
Mario still has a bed time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A Decent Application of Copyright laws. (Score:1, Insightful)
Every game for the NES should now be out of copyright.
That is not a decision that you have any right to make on behalf of the copyright holder. The copyright holder, NOT YOU, owns the rights to the sale and reproduction of that software. Are you a Communist?
100+ copyright terms for these works is just, simply, unjust.
No it is NOT unjust to imprison and punish software thieves.
-- Don't steal the dream - don't steal music.
Re:I'm okay with this. (Score:2, Insightful)
so if I sell something I didn't create and collect 100% of the profits I'm a criminal?, I guess I won't be able to sell any of my possessions then
Wow, I think you are having trouble with the term Profit. The only way that you can be selling your personal possessions for 100% profit is if you stole them.
Re:A Decent Application of Copyright laws. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, as a citizen of a democracy, it is my right to decide what should be law and what should not.
Unfortunately my rights are being stomped on by people buying my political representatives.
But don't worry, sooner, not later, globalization will end these ridiculous restrictions on trade called "copyright" that the western nations are trying to push as beneficial to the rest of the world.
Re:I'm okay with this. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sorry Charlie (Score:5, Insightful)
Get yours now! http://www.amazon.com/Super-Power-Player-Joystick-Game/dp/B000AXWEVU [amazon.com]
I'll be Jeff Bezos won't be going to jail any time soon.
Re:Software Freedom Fighters (Score:1, Insightful)
Besides, we all know ninjas are cooler. Nobody ever accuses ninja of these things.
Which is why ninjas are ruling the coast of Somalia at the moment...
Re:Sorry Charlie (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you out of your mind? Going to jail for selling old games?
This is the kind of sentences that actually turn normal people into real criminals. What is he going to do when he gets out of jail, no job, probably unable to get one, out of money, etc?
Re:I'm okay with this. (Score:1, Insightful)
You performed the sneer properly, but the insightful part needs work.
Here's a real property parallel for you to think over. You know that fourteen year old laptop you have in storage? The one you barely remember exists and have no intention of selling? Well, I know someone that's looking to buy it, so I'll just sell it. I won't even bother to ask your permission as you're certainly not getting a cut of the profit. What the heck, it's an old machine anyway.
No, the situations are not identical, as real property is a unique thing by definition, but the principles are pretty much the same. This isn't fair use or casual noncommercial copying: this is a person taking someone else's (intangible) property and selling it without permission.
Re:For artworks, a copyright can be held for 70 ye (Score:5, Insightful)
If an artist only produce a few "hits" in their lifetime, then they must have another job to pay the bill. If copyrights are here for the one-hitters, then something is wrong. Copyright is here to help creator to live from their arts not to go to in an early retirement after a few hits. If for example a singer can live from compilation of his old songs without creating new ones, then copyright doesn not promote creation and by it's own definition is not working.
Finite Copyright? Less lazy inventors! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Then, 12 years later someone says, "Oh, sorry! Your rights to that device are up! Ours now bitch!" and hauls it away."
Physical property != to IP. Going by your analogy, that person would have had 12 years to market the product and find a place in the market for it, build units, sell them, etc. Nobody would come in and seize their current inventory.
Also as the original inventor he would retain any attached trademarks, could market new versions with improvements (instead of laying on his/her laurels for 12 years) and would be the best equipped to set up/ offer support for that product.
Same thing with the Beatles (say the copyright *had* expired) they could release *authorized* anthologies (with value added material to set their product apart from the competition). Collectors would dig this up, and heck, people would pick up the "official" version of something vs the brand x item if the price is close enough (see grocery stores for example - people still buy Kellogs brand corn flakes, Coke brand cola, Advil brand Ibuprofen, hell even Bayer brand aspirin!).
So lets say the copyright of these Nintendo games were expired? Then Nintendo could just continue selling older games for the Wii and people would pay for the convenience (granted Nintendo would be more pressured to add value by either: including a large anthology of games, delivering a higher quality product than the competition, charge a decent price (that isn't $5 per 25 year old game...), or a combination of the above.
Re:For artworks, a copyright can be held for 70 ye (Score:3, Insightful)
How big is the hit?
Some things are worth a lot of money. I don't think any professional athlete is worth $20 million or more, but the market disagrees. If they work for five years at $5 million a year, they never need to work again if they manage their money well. Corporate executives, raking in $1-25 million each year in salary and bonuses could easily retire after a few years. Why should an artist, who spends two years crafting a sculpture from a $200,000 block of marble, or one who spends that time writing, composing, and recording an album, not be entitled to make a few million dollars from that endeavour, if that's the value the market places on it?
Their contribution can't be less valuable than the athlete or the executive.
So don't try to say that it's copyright that allows people to strike it rich and milk it forever--it's the market, and it would exist without copyright. Entertainment is big business. We build $300 million stadiums, finance dozens of $100 million movies, and spend billions on the people who make it all work. Just because you or I are not in a position to make millions in a couple years does not mean that no one should be allowed to, or that a system that preserves anyone's right to do so is somehow flawed.
If there's a flaw, it's the value that the market places on the products, irrespective of copyright. If the album were only worth $500,000, then the royalties wouldn't make anyone rich.
Re:For artworks, a copyright can be held for 70 ye (Score:5, Insightful)
Where do you get off saying that something that doesn't physically exist belongs to someone else?
The whole concept of copyright is arbitrary. It was arbitrarily decided upon that, to offset the costs of creation, a short term monopoly would be provided on duplication of said creation so that the creator could attempt to recoup the costs of creation, if not make a profit.
However, without this creative work entering the public domain, no one else gets to use it in any way other than as a consumer. Maybe you don't think this is a bad thing, but there are those who disagree with that sort of stance vehemently.
Re:For artworks, a copyright can be held for 70 ye (Score:4, Insightful)
COPYRIGHT MUST BE TO STIMULATE GOOD NEW WORK, NOT TO ENDLESSLY CELEBRATE PAST ONE.
copyright excuse is that it must promote the society advancement by encouraging good artist to produce more good works.
if an artist could not make enough good work paid enough to sustain himself it's unfortunate, maybe he is not good enough, not famous enough, the industry is not kind enough on him, or simply he is really not so much able to significantly improve humanity culture.
SO there are 2 possibilities:
- you make the industry pay him more (attention, the industry pay more the artist NOT the user pay more the industry)
- he simply is not good enough to sustain itself with his art so he must work like everyone else (at least part time) and make what it could during spare time.
it's unfortunate that maybe some good art piece could be missed, but the really good and driven artist had always worked even when starved and broke, if they were appreciated they somehow find a way to be paid, if they are not appreciated the future generation still has some of their pieces.
if a current artist that produce a single great hit is not paid enough to survive till his next hit (or is not really good enough to produce a next hit) there is no way that the society must pay him a lifetime pension!!!
REMEMBER: COPYRIGHT MUST BE TO STIMULATE GOOD NEW WORK, NOT TO ENDLESSLY CELEBRATE PAST ONE.
Performance != Authorship (Score:1, Insightful)
WTF?
You are aware that in many cases the person PLAYING the song is not the person who COMPOSED the song, right?
Re:Term? (Score:3, Insightful)
While I have fundamental issues with copyright law as it exists in the US, I have to actually agree with your stance on this issue. If they are no longer making and actively seeking profit from an application, then it should be up for grabs. However, when the maker is still selling and profiting from it, then someone who is actively pirating software for his own profit should be prosecuted.
Re:For artworks, a copyright can be held for 70 ye (Score:2, Insightful)
What you are advocating is copyright to act as social security.
I would argue that doing so is placing an undue cost to society (in the loss of public domain).
It would make more sense, and be far less expensive to let works enter the public domain, and provide social security for artists who make a few hits. This can be a special social security pool that allows basic needs to be met for people who have contributed to the arts, while they can continue to supplement that with less popular art. A fair way to decide who is eligible is a problem though. Perhaps if a certain amount is made through art you become eligible, and if you make over a certain amount you are not anymore (different thresholds for year/lifetime).
Of course the added burden of keeping track of that leads to a lot of waste to society, which may in the end outweigh the benefit of free flowing art.
Re:Term? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. You believe that a work should stay protected by copyright for as long as it sells?
Then the works of J.S. Bach would still be protected, putting music teachers all over the world out of business.
If "relevancy" is the measure of whether a work should have extended protection, pray tell, how the fuck do you measure "relvancy"? Is it relevant if it sells one copy a year? A thousand copies a year? A million? How about five copies a month?
Believing that it's a crime to sell a console filled with pirated video games is a long jump from granting everlasting property rights to "anything that keeps selling".
Re:Term? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Steamboat willie, the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, really ought to be in the public domain by now. It's a piece of our culture. It is because it became a part of our culture that Diseny has made billions of dollars on the property, but it is because it becomes part of our culture that it ought to be freed after a reasonable time to make a profit has elapsed.
Our language, and our culture requires the assimilation of the arts. That same assimilation can make people rich, but when an old man's childhood memories are subject to copyright, and will be until decades after his death, copyright has become an unreasonable limitation on our culture.
Best example: The birthday song my parents sung me on my 1st birthday will be copyrighted until after I'm dead. How is that just?
Re:For artworks, a copyright can be held for 70 ye (Score:3, Insightful)
If the industrial plant I design continues to run for 100 years, I don't get a 100-year stipend from the company. Why should anyone else get an eternal pension for a one-off work?
Re:For artworks, a copyright can be held for 70 ye (Score:4, Insightful)
So? You're free to ignore them and choose alternate sources of entertainment.
If everyone followed this logic then nothing would ever change. What about "If you don't like your government then you're free to choose another country to live in"? And "If you don't like priests molesting children you're free to convert to Islam"? Moreover this is not a debate about giving people free entertainment but amending laws which go counter to their purpose.
And copyright lawyers have exactly what interest in the length of the copyright?
I don't know either but most of them are in favor of long terms, so there must be a reason.
If you don't like it, don't buy it
GP is not in favor of abolishing copyrights but shortening the term. The argument is not about stuff that is actively marketed and available. It is about obscure stuff that you can't easily buy and "artists" making 3-4 hit songs and then sitting on them indefinitely without further activity.
It's up to them how they want to make their money.
It's not. They can make money on vintage stuff only because WE (the society) are letting them by instituting copyright laws.
Copyright was never intended to be anything less than the life of the author
First, citation needed. Second, "Life of the author" is a shitty measure because:
1. It discriminates against people who create late in their life.
2. It makes determining whether a given work is copyrighted difficult if the author is obscure. You need to know his/her death date, and that is an information that is not supplied with the work itself, while the year of creation / publication usually is.
3. What happens if an organization holds the copyright? Does it ever expire? (I don't know here but probably some aspects of cipyright are non-transferable)
4. What about works by multiple authors?
survivorship is an important issue in Western society, so the term has extended to ensure preservation of benefit.
I don't know what you mean. What preservation of benefit? Why we should preserve the benefit of authors' descendants at the expense of society when the authors are long dead? What did the descendants do to deserve special rights to protect them?
For 95% of the entitled
The discussion is not about the 95% of people but the 5% elite of "content producers" that long copyright creates.
Re:Term? (Score:0, Insightful)
Ok, completely off topic, but which culture would that be that you are referring to? The United States doesn't appear to really have a culture, just the opposite. We are bombarded daily by those with agendas telling us we are supposed to embrace other people's cultures, or else we are labeled as intolerant (racist, sexist, ?culturalist?).
That said, the only culture that Steam Boat Willie belongs to is the culture of capitalism, and that one is where Disney is a major party.
Better example? (Score:5, Insightful)
Best example: The birthday song my parents sung me on my 1st birthday will be copyrighted until after I'm dead. How is that just?
I may have a better example: Thanks to copyright and royalties, I have to suffer hearing shitty non-infringing happy birthday jingles at restaurants till death!
Just so u know: this was INFRINGEMENT not theft (Score:1, Insightful)
He didn't steal anything. It was just a bunch of bits on plastic, plastic he very well paid for !! Where is the crime ?? So he made lots of money, what does that matter ?? It's ONLY INFRINGEMENT !! Has the world gone crazy over some arrangement of magnetic and optical bits ?? I ask you, when will it end ?? Stop the INSANTITY !!
Pssst, need a cable hook up cheap?
Re:For artworks, a copyright can be held for 70 ye (Score:3, Insightful)
Because of the effort taken to produce it.
As for such an idea being arbitrary, you could make the same arguments for property ownership in general.
Lastly, I assume you're refering to things like sampling songs. Personally, I don't think that practice should constitute a violation of copyright. Nor do I think that fair use should be limited.
My main beef with the OP isn't so much a pro highly restrictive copyright stance as it is a rejection of the bullshit quasi-populist idea content creators aren't entitled to continually derive and income from a past work. Half the comments on this issue can be summed up as:
"Why should that guy still get paid for work he did once 20 years ago?"
I completely reject that view as nothing more than petty jealousy.
Re:Term? (Score:1, Insightful)
Then the works of J.S. Bach would still be protected, putting music teachers all over the world out of business.
Haven't liked him since he left Skid Row.
Re:For artworks, a copyright can be held for 70 ye (Score:2, Insightful)
You also hit my exact problem with the OP: not the copyright issue itself, but rather this bullshit idea that content creators aren't entitled to payments on a work in perpetuity.
If you want something someone produced, unless they're willing to give it to you, you should have to pay for it.
To be perfectly clear: I'm not talkng about heavy restrictions on fair use or derived works or draconian penalties for violations. I'm not even saying that the right sholud be transferable. If you want to suggest that only the original artist is entitled to receive payment limited to their life span...ok, I'll listen.
The problem is that most of these arguments are just thinly veiled jibes at the fact that someone who produced a popular item once can live easy after that. Just because you think they shoud have to toil for a living doesn't entitle you to their product.
Re:For artworks, a copyright can be held for 70 ye (Score:3, Insightful)
It would if you put that in the design contract and they agreed.
Why should anyone else get an eternal pension for a one-off work?
Thank you for putting this is sharp relief. This was my problem with the OP. This all boils down to jealousy. A pseudo-populist idea that since you don't work in a fashion that gets royalties, then no one else should.
That sentiment doesn't even make sense in the context of your example since your talking about a presumably single-use design. Let's turn it around a bit:
You produce a design that is suitable to many plant owners. You make this design widely available. So, you don't think you should get paid by each one who uses it?
Land of the free, ha? (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of the subject of my comment, there is a saying:
There's no greater flattery than imitation.
- this can be rephrased like so: There's no greater flattery than copying. Really, it's the same thing. But I guess there is no greater flattery than a payment.
Re:Term? (Score:2, Insightful)
Patents expire in 17 or 20 years, even if people are still buying the item. I don't think anybody proposes that we would be better off if that were longer.
Re:Term? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the whole "copyright" regime is supposed to be for. It is not to "work once and make oodles and oodles of cash, like, foreveah!" (and the very fact that you seem to think so and others here agree with you is a sad testimony as to how far the whole idea has been corrupted by greed-mongering mega-corporations).
The purpose of copyrights is to "promote arts and sciences". To that effect the public grants a (naturally non-existant) temporary privilege to the artist for a time-limited monopoly on his works. In exchange for that monopoly, the time limitation (which is supposed to be wholly unrelated to how much money is the dude making) was originally set to expire after a sane period and the works were to enter the public domain.
Unlimited (for practical purposes) copyrights are a perversion of this idea and serve no communal purpose. A never-ending copyright has no societal justification (and in fact it is extremely dangerous to the society - just imagine someone still holding copyright on this thing called "the Latin alphabet" and charging everyone per word, which would be the case if copyrights were based on "sales" and "money earned" as you seem to suggest).
Any attempts to extend the copyright warrant only one sane response from the society: abolishment of the vast and unjustifiable privilege of copyrights. Facing utter corruption by the money resulting from abuse of copyrights of the responsible for this mess officials, a fully justifiable and righteous response by the society is to ignore copyrights (after all it is the society which grants such extravagant privileges to the authors), which is what is happening at a global scale, represented by phenomena such as the mass scale proliferation of P2P networks.
Re:Term? (Score:3, Insightful)
They're a part of our culture, but only to the extent that they're allowed to be.
You can only sing the song or reference the cartoon if you're willing to pay royalties, and it'll be that way until after I'm dead.
To me, that sounds like a massive sucking parasite. Lobby for perpetual copyrights, worm your way into our culture, then charge perpetually for access to our own culture. Don't sing that lullaby your mother put you to sleep with in a movie or documentary, because you'll be sued, even if you're on your deathbed.
Re:Term? (Score:3, Insightful)
Touche'!
In my defense, many here truly don't believe that anyone would pay for something they can get for free. Many here think "free" equals "worthless", that only the RIAA makes recorded music worth listening to, that Linux isn't ready for the desktop, and refuse to drink anything but bottled water.
Re:For artworks, a copyright can be held for 70 ye (Score:3, Insightful)
'My main beef with the OP isn't so much a pro highly restrictive copyright stance as it is a rejection of the bullshit quasi-populist idea content creators aren't entitled to continually derive and income from a past work.'
You are ignoring the REASON we grant an ARTIFICIAL monopoly to a content creator in the first place. The purpose is not 'give them their fair share'. Copyright exists only to inspire the creation of new content. If someone is not producing new content then society would be better served by not granting them copyright. Jealousy has nothing to do with it.
Re:For artworks, a copyright can be held for 70 ye (Score:5, Insightful)
Should their great grandkids be entitled to a cut from each copy sold?
As it stands if an author dies before his works become popular then someone who never did a tap of work on the book gets bags of money for nothing.
Why are authors/artists "special"?
If a mathamatician writes an equation which later gets used in designing cars to to make them safer- why does he not get a cheque for each car sold while a musician who writes a piece which later gets encoded on magnetic strips or optical disks and is used to make the environment in the car slightly more pleasant get a pile of money for each copy of the magnetic strip sold?
Both works are creative, both works have value, both works are used in items sold for profit.
What make artists more special than scientists?
My great grandfather helped the a friend who invented reinforced concrete by doing the math for him, why am I not being handed a check for every reinforced concrete building? What makes those math equations less special than "happy birthday"?
Or inventors even? inventors get a chance to make money off their inventions but patents expire much more quickly than copyright, why? why are inventors less special than artists? You seem to think it's right that a singer should be able to live off a single hit his whole life...and his grandkids should be able to do the same.
But why shouldn't the great great great grandkids of the inventor of the mouse trap still be getting money for every mouse trap sold?
Re:Some piracy is as bad as theft (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents are 17 years.
Copyrights WERE 17 years. They're now 140+ years.
The idea behind Patents and Copyrights is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
"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."
Does excessive time promote the progress of sciences and arts? Is 140+ years "limited times"?
Companies bought legislation to extend the time to current. We the people only have one real weapon: downloading and sharing.
Re:For artworks, a copyright can be held for 70 ye (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say, let's ignore technology for a second. There are ways to violate copyright that don't have anything to do with technology.
For example, I could pick up a guitar and play "happy birthday" at a kids birthday party, and I could be sued. The song is over 100 years old. It's a part of our culture. It's a part of history, but I can't publicly perform it without breaking the law. Odds are I won't be prosecuted, but the song "happy birthday" brings a record company 2 million dollars per year in revenue. I see that as leeching off of society.
I could pick up a copy of "mein kampf". It's an important historical document. The document is 60 years old. It gives a look into the genesis of one of the worst genocides in human history. I can't read it in public. I could be sued for copyright infringement.
More recently, protest songs from the '60s. You can't even buy the CDs, becuase the record companies won't release them. If you are old enough, you could pick up a guitar and play them, trying to show that 40 years ago there was just as much going on as today, but you could be sued for copyright infringement.
I think the biggest problem with calling anything a "compromise" is that it isn't. Disney in particular mined the public domain for their stories, then copyrighted the stories they mined. Diseny didn't create Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. They didn't create Sleeping Beauty. They didn't create Aladin and the magic lamp. They didn't create beauty and the beast. They didn't even create the lion king(though they just blatantly plagurized that one). They built upon stories in the public domain, but now they've lobbied and gained effectively perpetual monopolies on the new resulting properties.
A compromise, in my mind, would balance the rights of content creators with the society and culture they borrowed from in order to create their works(and the society that subsidizes their works by paying to enforce unintuitive unnatural copy rights).
Remember, except possibly for Walden, no work is created in a vacuum. It draws from previous works, and from society, and from the experiences of a culture and an individual. Such a "compromise" ignores this, and makes intellectual property simply a rush to own the commons.
NOT A RETIREMENT FUND (Score:3, Insightful)
The copyright laws are supposed to be neither an inheritance nor a retirement fund. The claim is that they exist to encourage the artist to produce more works. If it were not for the little problem of evil bastards copyright would correctly expire when the artist does.
This is also why copyright should be short, if it's too long, like now, the artist loses any incentive to produce more works if the current is a hit.
Re:For artworks, a copyright can be held for 70 ye (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, it ain't so.
Talent is an empty buzzword nowadays. What happened to the eye of the beholder? I know people who paint pretty ugly pictures by my standards, but whose work finds its way to some collector's home just as easily as mine do. You fall in love with a piece of art, and BAM, nobody can explain it. Rationally, I mean. If Socrates and Hippias couldn't agree on what "beauty" means, what makes you think you can use the word "talent" like that?
Anyway, I am on /.'s side when it comes to being able to download whatever you want. Who cares, really? But this whole article is a thinly-veiled endorsement for selling somebody else's copyrighted material. Without them even knowing you exist. Slap a few roms on a microSD card, sell a DS and an R4, call it an honest living? Why don't we ALL do this?
Now THAT'S a revoltin' development! (last sentence (c)(tm)(r)() Ben Grimm, Smilin' Stan & Marvel until I-don't-know-when)
Re:Term? (Score:3, Insightful)
The GP, just like you, is talking about perpetual copyright. Many things never become "abandonware" or do so after centuries of use, only when they become utterly useless. The point of copyright is not to let the authors to ride the gravy train until their works become so useless as to be irellevant, but to set a finite limit on the authors monopoly (and thus the efforts of the society to protect such monopoly) so that the society can enjoy the works free of charge when they are still useful. Otherwise the copyright is pointless from the point of view of "promotion of arts and sciences" and becomes merely a tool of greedy idiots who wish to lock down the entirety of useful human knowledge as their personal property, no matter how harmful to the progress of arts, science and civilization in general.
If you had it your way, you will be still paying royalties to the Italians for the Latin alphabet and to the Arabs for the numerals, as the descendants of descendants of descendants etc of the original author would still find it profitable to collect them.
Re:Then fix copyright, I guess? (Score:3, Insightful)
you're a democracy, right? If not, fix _that_ first
If you ask me, if you're in a democracy, you need to fix that as well.