Comments on: Obama and Copyright http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/11/obama-and-copyright/ Copyright Information Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:02:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Obama Again Bullish on Enforcing IP Owners’ Rights http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/11/obama-and-copyright/#comment-49690 The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Obama Again Bullish on Enforcing IP Owners’ Rights Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:45:46 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=332#comment-49690 [...] his Cabinet here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for [...] [...] his Cabinet here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for [...]

]]> By: Who gets pretected? http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/11/obama-and-copyright/#comment-16223 Who gets pretected? Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:05:05 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=332#comment-16223 I find it amusing that there is so much protection for the copyright holder, but none for the copyright originator. I find it amusing that there is so much protection for the copyright holder, but none for the copyright originator.

]]> By: Valorie Wilson http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/11/obama-and-copyright/#comment-10267 Valorie Wilson Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:18:28 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=332#comment-10267 I think I tend to agree with Frances - another of Obama's advisor, Larwrence Lessig backed up a little around election time, but is right back vocally advocating his 'HYBRID' economy theories and promoting the dissolution of the current copyright system. Colbert was hilarious when he hosted him on his show, but you can't help but sense how opposed Lessig is to copyright in general. (he applauded Flickr's profit from their unpaid contributors - that's kind of like proposing a modified type of slavery to me personally) Let them eat cake I guess. If I make it and can't profit from my own work and will be forced to compete with my own work as infringers 'REMIX' it - there's absolutely no reason to publish work any longer. This concept of this "copyright free" compents for the artistically impaired marks an end to alot of creativity on the web and in public in general and a sad regurgitation of pirated material. The removal of penalties doesn't eliminate the problem, it just facilitates it - as Colbert put it, "legalizing arson" doesn't stop a pyromaniac. I think I tend to agree with Frances – another of Obama’s advisor, Larwrence Lessig backed up a little around election time, but is right back vocally advocating his ‘HYBRID’ economy theories and promoting the dissolution of the current copyright system. Colbert was hilarious when he hosted him on his show, but you can’t help but sense how opposed Lessig is to copyright in general. (he applauded Flickr’s profit from their unpaid contributors – that’s kind of like proposing a modified type of slavery to me personally) Let them eat cake I guess. If I make it and can’t profit from my own work and will be forced to compete with my own work as infringers ‘REMIX’ it – there’s absolutely no reason to publish work any longer. This concept of this “copyright free” compents for the artistically impaired marks an end to alot of creativity on the web and in public in general and a sad regurgitation of pirated material. The removal of penalties doesn’t eliminate the problem, it just facilitates it – as Colbert put it, “legalizing arson” doesn’t stop a pyromaniac.

]]> By: Frances Grimble http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/11/obama-and-copyright/#comment-4214 Frances Grimble Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:11:21 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=332#comment-4214 Well, I hope you're right, but Obama is tight with Google's CEO. Google just scanned hundreds of thousands of copyrighted works without permission, and is now asserting that they own the rights to sell those works, unless the copyright holders explicitly opt OUT of the Google/Author's Guild Settlement. Which is stated to apply to every copyright holder in the US and in every country that signed the Berne Agreement. This "we take it if you don't opt out" provision is completely counter to US and international copyright law. The Settlement is an outrageous document. For those who don't opt out--and no way will every copyright holder hear it exists before the opt-out deadline in May 2009--Google pays only $60/title in copyright damages. Google asserts the right to sieze control of documents out of print for only one year--regardless of the intentions of their copyright holders--to declare print-on-demand books out of print and sieze them, and many more provisions very damaging to copyright holders. Well, I hope you’re right, but Obama is tight with Google’s CEO. Google just scanned hundreds of thousands of copyrighted works without permission, and is now asserting that they own the rights to sell those works, unless the copyright holders explicitly opt OUT of the Google/Author’s Guild Settlement. Which is stated to apply to every copyright holder in the US and in every country that signed the Berne Agreement. This “we take it if you don’t opt out” provision is completely counter to US and international copyright law. The Settlement is an outrageous document. For those who don’t opt out–and no way will every copyright holder hear it exists before the opt-out deadline in May 2009–Google pays only $60/title in copyright damages. Google asserts the right to sieze control of documents out of print for only one year–regardless of the intentions of their copyright holders–to declare print-on-demand books out of print and sieze them, and many more provisions very damaging to copyright holders.

]]> By: Shahab http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/11/obama-and-copyright/#comment-4038 Shahab Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:09:04 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=332#comment-4038 Neal's comments above may overstate things a little bit but I agree with his basic tenets. I understand you are part of a lobby group and you need to represent that group's interests but please do not expect your views to be swallowed blindly. Give people more credit than that. I could talk about intrusive, potentially harmful "anti-piracy" measures put into many of today's computer games but there are already lawsuits pending that will shine light on that despicable practice. A practice that in reality has little to do with piracy, as these games are ALWAYS available for free from the known sources before or close to release. It is about making an end run around our right to second sell and closing up the second hand game market, a goal your interests couldn't enforce legally so now you try and enforce it technologically. The RIAA lawsuits, disgustingly flimsy cases with evidence obtained in ways that are not always clearly lawful, against your own consumer base! You hold huge, DISPROPORTIONATE figures over their heads then offer them settlements for a several thousand dollars, effectively coercing a settlement. I agree that content creators have the right to profit from their work. But in most cases the people you represent have created nothing except a distribution network and legal team. The way you go about enforcing those rights I find despicable. You say there is no "war" and if that is the case it is because the general public is still ignorant of what is going on to know that war is being waged on their fair use rights. Neal’s comments above may overstate things a little bit but I agree with his basic tenets. I understand you are part of a lobby group and you need to represent that group’s interests but please do not expect your views to be swallowed blindly. Give people more credit than that.
I could talk about intrusive, potentially harmful “anti-piracy” measures put into many of today’s computer games but there are already lawsuits pending that will shine light on that despicable practice. A practice that in reality has little to do with piracy, as these games are ALWAYS available for free from the known sources before or close to release. It is about making an end run around our right to second sell and closing up the second hand game market, a goal your interests couldn’t enforce legally so now you try and enforce it technologically.
The RIAA lawsuits, disgustingly flimsy cases with evidence obtained in ways that are not always clearly lawful, against your own consumer base! You hold huge, DISPROPORTIONATE figures over their heads then offer them settlements for a several thousand dollars, effectively coercing a settlement.
I agree that content creators have the right to profit from their work. But in most cases the people you represent have created nothing except a distribution network and legal team. The way you go about enforcing those rights I find despicable.
You say there is no “war” and if that is the case it is because the general public is still ignorant of what is going on to know that war is being waged on their fair use rights.

]]> By: Neal http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/11/obama-and-copyright/#comment-4020 Neal Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:17:48 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=332#comment-4020 "A few vocal blogs and a few sympathetic media outlets tend to create this notion of a war between creative industries and, well, I suppose consumers, but such a war doesn’t really exist." Maybe in your head, but that's about the only place it doesn't. This kind of copyright law is motivated by *greed*. Nothing else. The RIAA and MPAA are bullies and extortionists. Copyright does not exist for the sole purpose of making corporations money, as you seem to think it does. We will fight you tooth and nail until you and your goons stop your *extortionism* - because that's what you're doing. You're no better than corrupt mobsters. “A few vocal blogs and a few sympathetic media outlets tend to create this notion of a war between creative industries and, well, I suppose consumers, but such a war doesn’t really exist.”

Maybe in your head, but that’s about the only place it doesn’t.

This kind of copyright law is motivated by *greed*. Nothing else.

The RIAA and MPAA are bullies and extortionists.

Copyright does not exist for the sole purpose of making corporations money, as you seem to think it does.

We will fight you tooth and nail until you and your goons stop your *extortionism* – because that’s what you’re doing.

You’re no better than corrupt mobsters.

]]> By: Patrick Ross http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/11/obama-and-copyright/#comment-3950 Patrick Ross Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:46:43 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=332#comment-3950 Rob, The US is part of an international organization of more than one hundred nations that requires the countries to respect the intellectual property rights of owners in other countries, so you don't have to do anything to ensure international protection. Of course, collecting actual payment for use is another matter. You belong to ASCAP, which is a good thing because they work with collection agencies worldwide. I would contact an ASCAP representative to learn more about what services they can provide you and what more you might need to do to collect from iTunes. Patrick Rob,

The US is part of an international organization of more than one hundred nations that requires the countries to respect the intellectual property rights of owners in other countries, so you don’t have to do anything to ensure international protection. Of course, collecting actual payment for use is another matter. You belong to ASCAP, which is a good thing because they work with collection agencies worldwide. I would contact an ASCAP representative to learn more about what services they can provide you and what more you might need to do to collect from iTunes.

Patrick

]]> By: rob charles http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/11/obama-and-copyright/#comment-3932 rob charles Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:02:04 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=332#comment-3932 I wonder if I'm protected internationally by having a Federal Copyright and listing with ascap on my music. If not, what must I do to be pretected as I am going on itunes in a few months? I wonder if I’m protected internationally by having a Federal Copyright and listing with ascap on my music. If not, what must I do to be pretected as I am going on itunes in a few months?

]]>