← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Quantrill
Thread ID: 16179 | Posts: 21 | Started: 2005-01-04
2005-01-04 14:42 | User Profile
In this case, a German court has ruled that it is legal for the government to impose a levy on all PCs sold in Germany, because this legal hardware *could Interestingly enough, this levy is not meant to compensate for illegal copying, but for Fair Use copying! This means people are being made to pay for Fair Use, which means it is no longer really Fair Use. be used for copying copyrighted materials. Germany already places a levy on the sale of blank media (CDs, cassettes, etc0 for the same reason. Copyright laws are increasingly being used as a means of control -- they control the flow of information, and they ensure a flow of profits to the giant media concerns. *
Fujitsu Siemens Loses German PC Levy Case A German court has ordered PC maker Fujitsu Siemens to pay a royalty of ââ¬12 for every PC it sells in Germany. A Munich district court believes that as with blank media such as audio and video cassettes, the levy should compensate rights holders for lost royalties.
The suit was first brought in 2001 by VG Wort rights society, a copyright management organisation. It argued that Fujitsu Siemens hardware can be used for copying - and therefore infringes the rights of its members. Fujitsu Siemens is the first company targeted by the society. More PC vendors may follow later this year.
<script type="text/javascript">Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_opt=0;Ads_wrd='';Ads_prf='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_sec=0;</script> <script type=\"\"text/javascript\"\" src="http://a.as-eu.falkag.net/dat/cjf/00/23/07/26.js"></script><script type=\"\"text/javascript\"\" language=\"\"JavaScript\"\" src="http://f.as-eu.falkag.net/dat/bjf/00/11/27/40.js"></script>[url="http://red.as-eu.falkag.net/dat/bgf/trpix.gif?&rdm=01605830&dlv=704,20373,230726,112740,458233&kid=112740&chw=9112740-&tcs=&bls3=000000B&bls4=000001230728&uid=1&dmn=.bus.utk.edu&scx=1152&scy=864&scc=32&jav=1&sta=,,,1,,,,,,,0,9,0,21764,21644,14659,4594,557&iid=230726&bid=458233"]http://red.as-eu.falkag.net/dat/bgf/trpix.gif?&rdm=01605830&dlv=704,20373,230726,112740,458233&kid=112740&chw=9112740-&tcs=&bls3=000000B&bls4=000001230728&uid=1&dmn=.bus.utk.edu&scx=1152&scy=864&scc=32&jav=1&sta=,,,1,,,,,,,0,9,0,21764,21644,14659,4594,557&iid=230726&bid=458233[/url]
<noscript>[url="http://red01.as-eu.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&dat=230726&opt=0&rdm=20040922"][url="http://red01.as-eu.falkag.net/sel?cmd=ban&dat=230726&opt=0&rdm=20040922"]http://red01.as-eu.falkag.net/sel?cmd=ban&dat=230726&opt=0&rdm=20040922[/url][/url]</noscript>
Although a landmark decision, the ruling isn't a full victory for VG Wort, which originally sought a levy of â⬠30 for each new PC sold.
More importantly, the judgment is highly controversial, as VG Wort represents creators of written content and not the recording industry, which loses millions of dollars a year to piracy.
The levy formally doesn't even compensate right holders for illegal copying, but for the amount of Fair Use copying that is already legal under German law. Some argue that if charges are levied on computers, there should be a similar fee on all printers, copiers and scanners, since using one of those may also be practicing fair use.
Fujitsu Siemens is considering appealing. It believes the tax will have a negative impact on sales to consumers.
[url="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/03/fujitsu_siemens_loses_pc_copyright_levy_ruling/"]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/03/fujitsu_siemens_loses_pc_copyright_levy_ruling/[/url]
2005-01-04 16:39 | User Profile
Increasingly, all information and content is owned, and will be owned long after the creator is dead. Some universities already force students to pay for music they probably don't want (e.g. where the Napster service is provided "free" to all the students). Even in America, there is a 2% tax on blank CDs (this was created when a blank CDs were expensive). Outside of the US, there are much stronger taxes on blank media, and increasingly on hardware. Taxes that go to big business and their lobbying groups, where a cut eventually ends up in lawmaker's pockets.
When I say "owned", I mean you won't get to own it. Eventually, if industry has their way, you won't even own copies. You'll have licenses which will increasingly be pay-per-view. And, froget trying to copy the digitally encrypted HD television content with your video recorder for later viewing.
All this progress is being done by your congressman, especially that Mormon Conservative with a Hollywood fedish, Orrin Hatch.
2005-01-04 17:40 | User Profile
I believe that they have a tax in the UK for owning a tv? or is it for a satellite dish?........something like that.
Am I wrong?
2005-01-04 18:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Increasingly, all information and content is owned, and will be owned long after the creator is dead...
When I say "owned", I mean you won't get to own it. Eventually, if industry has their way, you won't even own copies. You'll have licenses which will increasingly be pay-per-view....
All this progress is being done by your congressman, especially that Mormon Conservative with a Hollywood fedish, Orrin Hatch.[/QUOTE] Spot on, HH. As an old school computer geek, I remember the days when almost everything was freely distributable. When you bought a new computer, you actually got a physical copy of operating system with it, which you owned. Now, the most you get is a crappy 'restore disc', if that, and a license to use the operating system, which is virtually always Windows. The powers-that-be are using ownership of entertainment content as the wedge to implement the eventual ownership of ALL information. Already, corporations 'own' a certain breed of pig or a certain strain of soybean. Corporations have filed patents for absolutely ridiculous things, with Microsoft trying to patent the 'double-click' on a mouse, for example. This is totally insane. It completely misses the point that these things, whether art or music or machines, were not invented in a vaccuum. Their creators drew upon the all that has come before -- the thoughts, the dreams, the feelings, the discoveries of their ancestors -- (so-called social capital) to create these things, yet the society at large doesn't benefit. Instead, the patent or copyright holder receives a monopoly. Even more troubling is the very idea that knowledge or information is 'ownable.' Could the ADL, for example, copyright information about the AIPAC espionage scandal, and then sue anyone who reports on it for infringement? It may sound far-fetched, but the truth is that the legal framework for just such tyranny is being laid right now.
2005-01-04 20:45 | User Profile
There was a big political fight in the States about the Millenia Copyright Act. This was a total Congressional brown nose to the big media. It turned over a large number of cultural icons - including most famously Mickey Mouse - that were sent to enter the public doman back to their owners for another 20 years (if memory serves). A lawsuit made it to SCOTUS. The argument was that since the only Constitutionally acceptable reason for granting a copyright monopoly was to encourage new creations, and since extending already existing copyrights could in no wise further that goal, that this part of the Act violated the Constitution. No dice.
In addition, the plaintiffs argued that the Framers enacted laws that limited copyright terms to (I think) 20 years of the death of the author, which should serve as an historical benchmark, with the current life-plus-80 years being so far beyond that benchmark that Congress overstepped its Constitutional mandate in framing copyright laws. Again, no dice. As I recall, SCOTUS referred to international norms in allowing the 80 year term, which is an ominous sign in and of itself.
Bad, bad law.
Disnew owns the bloody culture.
2005-01-05 03:28 | User Profile
Walter Yannis,
[QUOTE]In addition, the plaintiffs argued that the Framers enacted laws that limited copyright terms to (I think) 20 years of the death of the author,[/QUOTE]
No I think copyright terms started out as 20 years from the time of publication. Then it was life of the author. Now life of the author and 20 years. And they still want more!
The charges that are being made to these laws are one of the worst damgers to freedom.
2005-01-05 03:34 | User Profile
Fair Use of Copyrighted Works A Crucial Element in Educating America [url]http://www.cetus.org/fairindex.html[/url]
The Erosion Of Public Protection: Attacks on the concept of Fair Use [url]http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/~howard/Papers/caa-fairuse/[/url]
Opposing Copyright Extension: protecting and promoting the public domain [url]http://homepages.law.asu.edu/%7Edkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/[/url]
Pat Schroder makes war on American's libraries [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A36584-2001Feb7¬Found=true[/url]
Related thead: Pat Schroder makes war on American's libraries [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?p=96615#post96615[/url]
2005-01-05 04:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Walter Yannis,
No I think copyright terms started out as 20 from the time of publication.
The charges that are being made to these laws are one of the worst damgers to freedom.[/QUOTE]
I lost my copyright to my product after six years because my attorney forgot to renew it, when I tried to redo it they told me NO because it was to common, makes no sense. Lucky for me I already had sold the company and it was no longer my problem.
The copyright laws were changed because Disneyland forgot to renew the name for Micky Mouse and someone else applied for the name.
2005-01-05 05:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]I lost my copyright to my product after six years because my attorney forgot to renew it, when I tried to redo it they told me NO because it was to common, makes no sense. Lucky for me I already had sold the company and it was no longer my problem.
The copyright laws were changed because Disneyland forgot to renew the name for Micky Mouse and someone else applied for the name.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't aware that copyrights could be renewed, or that they could expire before you've been long dead. The guy who took the extended copyright bill to court intended to include Mickey Mouse in his online public domain collection.
I see the court's difficulty here. The Constitution is vague on details, like how long a copyright should be. The Constitution does say for only a limited time to encourage new works. But, what is a limited time? In theory, Congress's mockery of the phrase "limited time" is what is reasonable to them. Who is a handful of unelected men to impose their idea of reasonable over Congress? And, then the court would get itself stuck in micro-managing laws (as it already tends to do). If they said life+80 years is too long, then they'd almost have to tell you us to the year what the maximum life is. And, if they were going to tell us to the year, the Constitution might as well have done so.
I wish the court went the other way, but the real villain here is Congress. They disregarded the word and intent of the Constitution.
2005-01-05 14:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]I wasn't aware that copyrights could be renewed, or that they could expire before you've been long dead. The guy who took the extended copyright bill to court intended to include Mickey Mouse in his online public domain collection.
I see the court's difficulty here. The Constitution is vague on details, like how long a copyright should be. The Constitution does say for only a limited time to encourage new works. But, what is a limited time? In theory, Congress's mockery of the phrase "limited time" is what is reasonable to them. Who is a handful of unelected men to impose their idea of reasonable over Congress? And, then the court would get itself stuck in micro-managing laws (as it already tends to do). If they said life+80 years is too long, then they'd almost have to tell you us to the year what the maximum life is. And, if they were going to tell us to the year, the Constitution might as well have done so.
I wish the court went the other way, but the real villain here is Congress. They disregarded the word and intent of the Constitution.[/QUOTE]
The renewal requirement ended long ago.
I totally agree that we need to protect the public domain. Jefferson was foursquare against monopolies of any kind, and even wanted an anti-monopoly provision in the Constitution.
Jeffersion also concluded that there is no natural property right in ideas of any kind. The Constitutionally-mandated monopoly is in terms of our jurisprudence purely a creature of the state, begrudingly granted as the price of facilitating investment in literary and technical works and - most importantly - THIER SPEEDY AND ORDERLY PASSING TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Patents and copyright monopolies should be granted only to the extent that public policy is served, and there should be a very strong public policy for public use of ideas, including a generous fair use provision and strictly observed expiration dats.
But inasmuch as we have the best Congress money can buy, and since Disney can marshall more money than the inchoate public to protect its domain rights, Disney wone. And SCOTUS fell in line and saluted. The Millenium Copyright Act was one of the biggest thefts of public property in our history, and nobody talks about it.
Walter
2005-01-05 17:08 | User Profile
I was told that the reason why they wanted the name to be renew in six years after you copyrighted the name the first time was that they wanted to be sure that the name was being used, this happen six years ago.
2005-01-05 18:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]I was told that the reason why they wanted the name to be renew in six years after you copyrighted the name the first time was that they wanted to be sure that the name was being used, this happen six years ago.[/QUOTE]
Ponce, it sounds like you're talking about a trademark. You don't have to register or renew copyrights.
2005-01-05 19:35 | User Profile
Happy? copyright is for the name and trademark is for my logo, no ?
I still do have my logo but lost the name of my product.
2005-01-05 21:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Happy? copyright is for the name and trademark is for my logo, no ?
I still do have my logo but lost the name of my product.[/QUOTE]
Trademark is for both the name and the logo.
2005-01-05 22:54 | User Profile
Ok Happy, you made go into my garage and search a ton of boxes and I found the following.....
I did apply for a copyright for the name of the product as XXXXXXX and it has a "TX 3 858 XXX" as a registration number, I also have a document with the tittle of "The United States of America" right below it has an eagle and below "Certificate of Registration" with the Patent and Trademark office and it is for my logo, it also says that it is good for ten years unless "sooner terminated by law".
So, it did take both the Copyright for the name and the Trademark for the logo.
The Copyright was a "literature work" even thu it consisted of only two words.
2005-01-06 13:00 | User Profile
A colleague and email correspondent sent me this extract from his law school Intellectual Property outline, you may find it of interest.
Walter
COPYRIGHT OUTLINE:
THREE STATUTORY SCHEMES TO KNOW:
The ACT of PUBLICATION along with NOTICE trigger Federal Copyright Protection.
Under the 1909 Act the TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS WERE IMPORTANT. For example, if a work was published without NOTICE, COPYRIGHTS WERE LOST AND THE WORK WAS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. KEY TO 1909 ACT: PUBLICATION WITH NOTICE.
TERM UNDER THE 1909 ACT WAS 28 YEARS WITH A 28 YEAR RENEWAL PERIOD. RENEWAL WAS NOT AUTOMATIC. IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR RENEWAL, OWNER HAD TO FILE FOR RENEWAL TERM. IF NOT, WORK WENT INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. B. UNDER THE 1909 ACT, THERE WAS A DUAL SYSTEM: FEDERAL AND STATE. STATE COMMON LAW APPLIED TO UNPUBLISHED WORKS. STATE LAW AMOUNTED TO A RIGHT OF FIRST PUBLICATION. AN AUTHOR ONLY LOST STATE COMMON LAW RIGHTS ONCE THE WORK WAS PUBLISHED. THIS COMMON LAW RIGHT WAS NOT TIME LIMITED.
TIGGER OF 76 ACT WAS FIXATION IN WORK IN TANGIBLE MEDIUM OF EXPRESSION (I.E., AT THE MOMENT OF CREATION OR AT TIME PENICL IS LIFTED FROM PAPER).
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: CURATIVE PROVISION LESSENED THE HARSHNESS OF THE OLD 1909 RULE THAT PUBLICATION WITHOUT NOTICE PUT WORK IN PUBLIC DOMAIN. BUT IF YOU MISSED THE CURATIVE PROVISION TIME LIMITS (E.G., 5 YEARS) THEN THE WORK WOULD STILL GO INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. THE NOTICE RULE WAS LATER CHANGED BY THE BERN ACT AMENDMENTS BELOW.
DURATION: A SINGLE TERM BASED ON THE LIFE OF THE AUTHOR PLUS A NUMBER OF YEARS (ORIGINALLY 50 YEARS THEN IN 1998 70 YEARS). ORIGINALLY, WORKS PUBLISHED UNDER THE 1909 ACT STILL HAD TO GO THRU A RENEWAL PERIOD. THIS RENEWAL WAS MADE AUTOMATIC IN 1992 (BERN?).
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS WERE DELETED. PUBLISHING WITHOUT NOTICE NO LONGER PUTS WORKS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. THE CURATIVE PROVISIONS OF THE 1976 ACT WERE NO LONGER NEEDED.
REGISTRATION BEFORE SUIT: THIS REMAINS BUT ONLY AS TO WORKS OF US ORIGIN. FOREIGN WORKS DO NOT HAVE TO BE REGISTERED BEFORE FILING ENFORCEMENT SUIT. THE BERNE CONVENTION PERMITS MORE RESTRICTIVE RULES ON DOMESTIC WORKS VERSUS FOREIGN ONES
2005-01-06 17:38 | User Profile
Yeap, my attorney missed the 5 year window to renew the copyright for the name of my product.
2005-01-06 17:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]I did apply for a copyright for the name of the product as XXXXXXX and it has a "TX 3 858 XXX" as a registration number, I also have a document with the tittle of "The United States of America" right below it has an eagle and below "Certificate of Registration" with the Patent and Trademark office and it is for my logo, it also says that it is good for ten years unless "sooner terminated by law".
So, it did take both the Copyright for the name and the Trademark for the logo.
The Copyright was a "literature work" even thu it consisted of only two words.[/QUOTE]
Ponce, man, you're busting my chops (I have no idea of what that means).
I don't know how meaningful a copyright on two words could be. But, in any case, whether you've registered a copyright or not, they don't expire in ten years. It would only be the trademark protection that expires in a few years, unless it's renewed. Whatever you're looking at, it is only refering to the trademark if it is talking about an expiration before your grandkids have died of old age (not including probable extensions from congress in that time. What do you think will happen when Mickey Mouse is about to head to the public domain again).
This thread is really about Congress killing the Public Domain (information that you don't have to pay for) and Fair Use (many of the things you do with informnation without paying for it again) for corporate interests.
2005-01-07 02:53 | User Profile
Happy Hacker and Walter Yannis,
Did you all read this article? I never did like the woman because she was a marxist, but I never thought she would attacking libraries!
[QUOTE]At a small reception for publishers... Patricia Schroeder waves her... "They're terrified," she says.
She ought to know. Schroeder is president of the Washington- and New York-based Association of American Publishers, sponsor of the event. Like a nurturing shepherd, she moves gently among her flock. But when she talks about threats to the group, she stiffens her back.
**And who, you might be wondering, is giving Schroeder and her publishers such afright?
Librarians, of course.**
No joke. Of all the dangerous and dot-complex problems that American publishers face in the near future -- economic downturns, competition for leisure time, piracy -- perhaps the most explosive one could be libraries. Publishers and librarians are squaring off for a battle royal over the way electronic books and journals are lent out from libraries and over what constitutes fair use of written material.
Grossly oversimplified: Publishers want to charge people to read material; librarians want to give it away.
"We," says Schroeder, "have a very serious issue with librarians."
With her squinting, smiling, you've-just-got-to-understand expression and her crinkly-caring voice, Schroeder is the publishing world's latest best hope. Her hair is silver. Her eyes are sparkly. The strap on her purse is short; she clutches it like an AK-47. She is a woman on a mission.
... **The AAP is looking for ways to charge library patrons for information. "Politically," Schroeder says, "it's the toughest issue. Libraries have a wonderful image."
No one, she says, wants to go up against libraries.
"That," Schroeder says, "is why we are here." ** [/QUOTE]
Pat Schroder makes war on American's libraries [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16188[/url]
2005-01-07 15:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Happy Hacker and Walter Yannis,
Did you all read this article? I never did like the woman because she was a marxist, but I never thought she would attacking libraries!
Pat Schroder makes war on American's libraries [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16188[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I knew that she was working for big media on this.
We need to ban corporations now. They're about to privatize huge swaths of the public domain and thereby control the public discourse.
2005-01-07 16:22 | User Profile
Libraries (public or privately operated) could never be created in today's climate.
John Smith has been arrested for operating a piracy ring. He collected copyrighted works, put them on shelves, and allowed people to "check them out" at his "library" (the pirate term for places that illegally share materials). Police estimated that the value of material in his possession to exceed 500,000 dollars. Much of it donated by members of his piracy ring. The scheme allowed the same materials to be used by numerous people, without those people purchasing the items. Police have confiscated a list of people issued 'library cards' which they will use to track down other members of the pirate ring.
Jud Goldberg of People for Media and Consumer Protection said, "Libraries will kill the book, movie, and music industires. Why would anyone invest their time to create anything that can be taken freely at a library?"
Hmmm, do you guys think there's a creative person in America who hasn't used libraries many times, from grade school and into their professional careers?
The VCR might have won in the courts, but if the VCR were introduced in today's climate, Congress would be trying to pass laws making it worthless if not outright banning it. The irony is, Hollywood tried to kill the VCR, but the VCR created the market for home movie sales which has made Hollywood many billions of dollars.