"Am I missing the deep relevance here? Is there some evidence of the EPA monkeying around with the figures to get a lower value, so they can justify turning down some new regulation?"
Given their latest punt on the Clear Air Act as it relates to global warming, I'd say they don't feel like they need anything at all to justify their decisions.
"The change you deserve" made me laugh out loud. You should never invoke that if you're running for reelection!
John Bunnell, your point about shared vs. individual creations I think is well taken. The difficulty, from a legal standpoint, for fanfiction, is that copyright/trademark applies equally to both kinds of creations. And when we talk about "droit d'auteur", the conversation makes sense regarding an individual work, but becomes bizarre regarding a shared work. The moral compunction to comply with what the author wants is more difficult if more than one creator is involved.
This illustrates for me one of the things I find so frustrating about discussions about copyright. We treat it as a monolithic right*, and yet it's supposed to apply to novels, source code, lyrics, music, film, plays, paintings, illustrations, essays, sculptures, etc., as if these were interchangeable. Now I know this is a simplistic view, since there are provisions and case law specific to different media (e.g. the use songs)--but the general provisions are the same. Requirements that may make sense regarding print, make less sense when talking about computer programs that become obsolete within a decade, and even less sense in media where it evolves by constantly incorporating other people's work (I'm thinking music). I don't have a nice solution to this, and I'm enough of a pragmatist to realize that laws have to be written with general provisions, because there will be media ten years from now that none of us have even thought of, and that we will need to figure out how to fit into IP laws without having to go back to Congress (or the EU, or whomever) to figure out what to do. But dang, I wish we did better.
* or wrong, depending upon one's point of view
Greg, I'm sorry you'd dismiss so easily an eminent scholar in the field who is considered a must-read, and who is known to provide an articulate and thorough analysis of the topics he writes about, because he tends to be "copyright" vs. "copyleft" when discussing current laws. His historical scholarship about copyright is highly regarded, and I have not heard that his factual research is in any way biased. I recommended COPYRIGHT'S HIGHWAY because it is intended for the layperson--i.e. he manages to leave out the jargon while going into detail.
But now I've gotten entirely off-topic. My apologies to the rest of the commentators (is that the word?). I think I'm overdue for some sleep.
Greg, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
The economic reasons for the adoption of the Berne Convention had to do with a lot more than Disney's STEAMBOAT WILLIE. There had been, mounting over the course of a century, as the U.S. became more and more of a copyright exporter (think movies, magazines, music), and less of a copyright importer, some real concern in all entertainment industries that unless the US signed onto what was now an almost universal treaty that other countries would decline to enforce US copyrights. There were various interim treaties, short of the Berne Convention, that tried to cover US copyright holders, but they were becoming less and less tenable in a global economy. I heartily recommend Paul Goldstein's COPYRIGHT'S HIGHWAY: FROM GUTENBERG TO THE CELESTIAL JUKEBOX for a readable account of the history.
The US Constitution is a great place to start about a discussion of the purposes of copyright law, but I'm going to have to disagree that it is also the end of that discussion. In part because copyright is not limited to US laws. In part because although we may articulate that laws should be passed for one purpose, that is rarely the only purpose for which a law is passed. And in an intellectual discussion, I'm interested in all the reasons beyond what the US Constitution (a very terse document on the subject) has to say.
You may not believe that an author's emotional interests should be relevant in any discussion about copyright. The fact is, a huge portion of the world does. In the context of a discussion about fanfiction, I definitely wouldn't call it irrelevant.
I'm not opposed to fanfiction if an author is okay with it. My gripe was something narrower: dismissing the author's "not okay about it" as being irrelevant.
Greg, the US adopted the Berne Convention in 1989, regardless of who lobbied for it in the 19th century. (And, I add, the Convention has been amended quite a bit since 1886.) You may not like the fact that the US adopted it, but it did, for a pretty important reason: it was one of the last countries to do so, and was becoming a copyright outcast. For sound economic reasons, it had to.
I don't advocate that authors' emotions (or anyone's emotions) should trump a discussion about how we can improve copyright laws. More narrowly, they have to be considered among lots and lots of other things because, like it or not, they are relevant.
Debra 166"Which set of feelings, then, is to be privileged, when the time comes to make the law?"
At the moment, because the law is also based on economic factors granting a monopoly for copyright holders, it slants in favor of the copyright holder. (Although, reading C.E. Petit, above, who would win in a copyright or trademark infringement case would depend heavily on the circumstances.)
My point about emotion is that dismissing an author's emotion completely from the discussion because "laws should not be based on emotions," is silly. The author's emotions are part of "moral rights", and although the UK/North America IP laws have not endorsed "moral rights" in their statutes, arguments along those lines crop up, and judges, as humans, listen to them.
I want to add that I agree that it would be just as silly to dismiss a fanficcer's emotion from this discussion. But that doesn't change that currently, the law, in its gross application, sides more with the author. You may not like this result, but to paraphrase C.E. Petit: the laws aren't great, but they do function somewhat. We cannot rework them as if we were starting from zero, or as if the Berne Convention never existed. And therefore, that makes authors' feelings relevant.
Laws are frequently based upon emotions. It's entirely human to say: "This action makes me mad. We should pass a law preventing this action." And many perfectly good laws (and not a few bad ones) are created that way.
In copyright, it's interesting to note that French/European copyright laws were based upon "moral rights", which incorporated authors' emotions about their works. UK/North American copyright laws were based on the Statute of Anne which came from a business perspective of publishing. From the point of view of an author, the implementation of both these kinds of copyright laws was about the same. The Berne Convention, which the US adopted, was a compromise (as all treaties tend to be) and incorporated notions that come out of "moral rights".
So leaving authors' emotions out of a discussion about copyright laws would mean cutting out part of what copyright encompasses. That's not to say the debate need be emotional*. Rather, the emotions that are there need to be considered, as part of the law.
*I use "emotional" here in its pejorative sense. I would argue that good debates always include some emotion, and cutting them entirely out of a discussion would be boring.
Oh dear. Thread's moving to fast. Last comment referred to Rutabaganians, not the more serious discussion. I hope I didn't insult anyone...
Ah... Those poor turnip heads.
Very late reply to Dave Bell's 10:45 a.m. posting: those pasties look perfect. (Gave me a good laugh too.) But tell me, what does Cornwall have against Sweden?
The solution, of course, is pasties...
[Which would truly make the pictures obscene, while satisfying LJ's ridiculous rule.]
"that Wikipedia entry kind of makes me cringe.
The way I figure it, any publicity for BB right now is bad publicity for her. "
I agree, except Wikipedia isn't meant to be a forum for publicity--good or bad. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia.
You know, I have zero sympathy for Barbara Bauer, but that Wikipedia entry kind of makes me cringe.
Can a host really drop someone that fast? I don't mean technically, I mean doesn't it violate some contract? Once the dust settles, the data is saved, and AW is back on-line, could AW turn around and nail J.C. Hosting for breach of contract?
bryan, Fragano and Michael, thank you! The HTML information webpage is now on my favorites list, and I'm off to explore my Accessories folder.
OK, really stupid question here. How do you get the accents on when posting? (I have a U.S. keyboard without any.)
bryan, well I admit I'm surprised, although I shouldn't be, given the large variations in the human species (although less, I'd think, than in dogs or horses).
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 4 |
| 2007 | 6 |
| 2006 | 52 |
Total: 62 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by AliceB:
Show all comments by AliceB.