Copyright

Again, the public is there to self represent. Our legal documents are written ambiguously so that courts can sort out the details. And individuals can seek their own counsel. It's not always best. But still a possibility. The laws are written for a time when they worked well. They no longer work well because people have figured out how to take advantage of it. I'm suggesting a scrap and rebuild. But it won't happen unless artists are informed and present a unified front.

Artists won't present a unified front, because we all have different needs. That's why so many copyright and licensing alternatives have popped up since the Internet started allowing artists to share their work with a larger audience.

And, regardless of whether the laws still "work" or not, as long as they're laws, breaking them is (inherently, because--say it with me kids--words mean things) still illegal. Until such time as the laws themselves change, acting in any way against current copyright statutes that isn't permitted by those statutes is a breach of the law, and breaches of the law have legal penalties.

Some days I feel like I'm the only person on this forum besides Gist and half of ren that realizes there's a real world out there with actual rules and conventions of behavior.

steamboat28 wrote: words mean things)

I need to make this a quote to post to our FB page

Kamizu wrote:

steamboat28 wrote: words mean things)

I need to make this a quote to post to our FB page

That's a good way to get dissenting opinions...

Word mean what they mean to the people who are using them...

Thats for a different topic Steamboat..

steamboat28 wrote: Some days I feel like I'm the only person on this forum besides Gist and half of ren that realizes there's a real world out there with actual rules and conventions of behavior.

Why, cause of a discussion?

Why cant a discussion exist where you are not agreed with?

And, 6h does agree, he is just discussing, as he has said a couple of times...

Ever sped? Ever broke the law?

Youve made your case, and all you can do is hope folks understand an abide, such as I did...

Dont get wrapped up in it... If I get a DCMA for a picture, I cannot whine as you have fully infor4med me of the issues...

Just as you cannot cry about a speeding ticket, you know the law...

You cant make folks follow it, as my dad used to say, "let your conscious be your guide" -Jestor's Dad (trademarked/copyright, and whooped until dead...)

steamboat28 wrote:

Br. John wrote: There are attorneys with decades of practice who, by their own admission, know next to nothing about copyright and trademark law. Generally that's a specialty. Then there's artists, writers, publishers and producers who know far more about the subject than many attorneys. Having or not having a law degree does not mean someone knows something or not.

Knowledge and legal authority to interpret are two different things. I, for example, very clearly have knowledge on the topic, but I have no legal authority to interpret it, so bending copyright law to my whim is still illegal.

Then if you or I had a law degree we could legally bend the copyright law to our whims? It would then be legal but if we don't have law degrees it's not? Anyone (at least in The US) has the right to sue for violation of his or her copyright with or without an attorney (pro per). Anyone who is sued for violating a copyright has the right to defend themselves in court with or without an attorney. A person has the constitutional right to represent themselves in court and that includes interpreting the law. Is that interpretation correct? Nobody knows until the verdict. Anyone can file a formal copyright registration with the US Copyright Office and the Library of Congress - themselves - without an attorney.

Are you confusing the issue with the ability to practice law? If one is not a licensed attorney then (usually - not always) representing someone in court is illegal. Lying and claiming to be a licensed attorney is illegal.

As an officer and director of The Order I'm obligated to interpret all sorts of federal and state laws. It's my duty. Ignorance of the law is no excuse so I'm assumed to be able to interpret the law.

Jestor's Dad (trademarked/copyright, and whooped until dead...)

Actually, you cannot copyright or trademark ideas, you can patent them though....

Some days I feel like I'm the only person on this forum besides Gist and half of ren that realizes there's a real world out there with actual rules and conventions of behavior.

... But the other half is so much more interesting?!! :laugh:

Rules are suggestions for behavior with consequences attached to them. They are not absolutes. If you find that the consequences of breaking said rule/law are an adequate trade off, then they are transactional. They aren't morality. Obeying the law isn't morality. Morality is morality. The law can be wrong. Morality is subjective. So is the language used to describe both. "A finger pointing to the moon." All people think and understand differently based on individual life experiences. The only reason our democratic laws exist is that with this specific group of people, consensus perspective seems to dictate specific legal and moral sets. We are indoctrinated into the idea that our work has financial value based on how our cultural paradigm works. Somewhere else, it could have little to no value at all. Its all subjective. I absolutely question the legal and legislative system in the US based solely on the fact that the people who make, enforce and interpret the law here, are only subject to it sometimes. And others seem to not be subject to it at all (corporations who enjoy the rights of individuals but are not subject to the same laws as individuals). A lot of this appears to be linked to how much financial, social or political power you personally wield. So yes, politically, I'm an anarchist. Not the kind that believes in no laws at all. There are many forms. I believe in the least amount of law possible to govern a society. Not 1,000 page bills, filled to the brim with pork barrels and line items, when a very simple set of laws will suffice. And yes, I do feel that this worldview can coexist with my spiritual practice. I hold myself to a law that governs my actions through love/compassion. I don't need to know what the law of the land is, because I inadvertently adhere to it most of the time. And when I don't, I make the necessary transactions to balance my actions out.

I am curious since we are discussing copyright here what you guys think of the legal gray area surrounding transformative works such as fanfiction for which the authors of the fanfiction receive no money ?

Parodies are apparently legal. I read an interview with Weird Al Yankovic once where he said that he didn't need the permission of the artists to do parodies of their music but most of the time he gets it anyway, just to cover his own ass. If I wrote and illustrated a comic book that was popular enough to merit fan fiction, I'd be more than happy about it. No permission necessary. If they made money on it, I would expect 50% stake in it. They don't need my permission to make and or market it. Just make sure you compensate me for using my intellectual property for your material gain. Fan fiction for the most part is a honor to the person who created the idea. I think creators should be proud that they inspired someone. Great, free advertising. I'd be peeing myself if someone made a parody of one of my songs that went viral.