On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Billy Crook [email protected] wrote:
So, uh, that means they should be able to just squander it? Meanwhile other people who independantly make something similar are either out of luck if they do want to sell it? It's THEIR WORK after all...
No one independently makes a Mona Lisa in parallel. There's only one. The problem with this bill isn't its impact on "similar" works, the problem is that it will enable the theft of works. Again, it's a very blunt instrument to deal with the frivolous lawsuit problem. See my other comments on that.
No. It basically says, if you have a *reason* to want copyright, you can have it. It says that if you actually don't want people infringing on your rights, they will be able to avoid it or contact you to negotiate licensing.
See my "if you don't want your stuff stolen" analogy.
Wrong. Once this bill is passed, you will be able to safely derive from the works of others without wondering if they indended it to be "public domain" or if they wanted to control it. No more confusion, just type it's UPC/product name/fccid, hit enter, and know.
What happened to asking? This bill is clearly originator-unfriendly. Your example is from the perspective of someone who wants to use someone else's work more easily. That's nifty, but their needs are trumpted by the needs of the artist's.
This legislation has nothing to do with your belongings, and in no way promotes burglary
It's called an "analogy", and it's a rhetorical tool used to make a point.
... and copyright holders ... and American citizens...
... and not independent artists. Last I looked they're citizens too...
J.