38 thoughts on “Copyright

  1. Thought we were overdue for a copyright argument 🙂

    I actually see a need for it – but think the pendulum is to far to one side.

    I also don’t fully accept copyright infringement as theft… copying a movie is not the same as stealing a handbag.

  2. Even though it is a government-created system, I quite like patents. I have a few quibbles about details, but overall I approve of limiting the right to commercially exploit inventions to the inventor for a defined period on condition that the patent is published in complete detail. This ensures others have an opportunity to study the underlying technology and then, when the patent expires, to directly copy it. The incentive for innovation is undeniable while society also benefits.

    Copyright lacks the same underlying purpose and its incentive effect is thoroughly distorted. Everything is subject to copyright, not just innovative works or those from which authors are seeking to profit. Patents require a novel, innovative step and must be applied for, but copyright applies automatically to the most trivial or plagiarised piffle. A patent lasts 20 years (arguably too long except for pharmaceuticals) after which there is an expectation that others should copy it. Copyright lasts 50 years after the death of the author in the apparent expectation that his or her heirs and successors might enjoy the royalties.

    Many people, myself included, would find arguments about copyright violations of music, movies, software etc a lot less objectionable if the system was more like patents. As it is, copyright is often disregarded even in circumstances where it has some validity.

  3. I’m not sure if anyone’s ever read ‘Against Intellectual Property’ by Stephan Kinsella but I highly recommend it. I’ve always been against all forms of IP but Kinsella’s book provides the correct libertarian case against it (IMO anyway)… here’s an online version; it’s not too long a read either.

  4. DavidL – your refusal to be fenced in by an ideology is the correct libertarian response. 😉

  5. I think copyright lasts too long. One of the negatives of the FTA that the Howard government signed with the USA was the extension of copyright duration. I don’t think it should extend more than the life of the creator or 25 years from the date of publication for works created by corporate entities. It seems reasonable to me that MS-DOS ought to be a part of the public domain by now.

    I think patents on things such as DNA sequences or on broad general concepts like “nuclear power flight” are just silly. The focus needs to shift towards techniques that are quite specific.

    I don’t see how currency (private or fiat)could work without some form of law providing copy control.

  6. DavidL – the link is here: http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

    I didn’t just say ‘correct libertarian position’, I said ‘correct libertarian position, IMO’. By that, I meant that it provides the highest amount of integration with the fairest allocation of property rights *as I understand them*, which is via homesteading or voluntary trade of previously homesteaded goods. If your property rights basis comes from utilitarianism or pragmatism the book won’t mean much to you.

  7. “I don’t see how currency (private or fiat)could work without some form of law providing copy control.”

    Fraud laws would cover that case, you don’t need IP for it.

  8. I broadly agree with Terje that copyright and patents last too long, and that broad patents are something of a joke.

    I’m not sure I agree with the “first in, first served” concept of patents either – as it’s certainly possible to come to the same result independently.

    Copyright is quite different – and different forms of copyright (books, music, movies) can’t necessarily be treated the same.

    With movies, it’s only a matter of time before tools are available to use virtual actors, etc – and then anyone will be able to create a movie as easily as they now make blog posts (well, ok – maybe not that easily). Then you’ll get the argument that virtual characters resemble real-life people. Do we each have copyright on our own face?

  9. Shem, Tucker’s on an anti-IP crusade at the moment after reading a different book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, which is aimed more at the consequences of IP law (whereas Against Intellectual Property is more legal/theoretical in basis.) I haven’t read the Monolopy one yet but will do soon. To be honest the other one is so thorough I don’t need any more convincing.

  10. >>It seems reasonable to me that MS-DOS ought to be a part of the public domain by now.

    MS-DOS isn’t, but some people have put together FreeDOS if you really want to use a DOS system: http://www.freedos.org/

    >>I don’t see how currency (private or fiat)could work without some form of law providing copy control.

    Indeed, never thought of that before ^_^’

  11. Most of the internet (except for public domain and open source software and HTML) is private property.

    Servers, telephone lines, infrastructure and intellectual property.

    It is important to protect private property rights in order to have the best possible internet. This means ISPs should have right to organise the data that goes on their servers as they see fit. eg/ If “net neutrality” advocates had their way, the internet would suffer.

    I realise my above point is a broader point than just copyright but I think it’s still relevant.

    So more specifically regarding copyright and patents. All property worth having involves an intellectual component. Why does property exist? Because people have to or want to create it. How do you plan, create, maintain etc? With your mind.
    You cannot separate the intellectual aspect from physical products produced in the real world. So because of this reality I think it’s proper to have copyright and patent laws – justified by the needs for human life.

    Sure IP law is messy but that’s not surprising in this day and age, and technical border line cases in law are specialist messy affairs sometimes.

    Of course, if you don’t want IP protection, you don’t have to have it. eg/ Open source

    Greego if you read this comment, I would be interested in your response to http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/05/dont-steal-this-article.html This article quotes Kinsella and I will read the Kinsella link you provided.

  12. We all have our own ideas of a better society, so here is my version.
    Every owner of private land should be free to have absolute autonomy on one’s own land. This principle of equal autonomy I call ‘Co-Autonomy’, and I have come up with a motto- ‘Owners Rule!’
    Public lands, like roads, parks, town halls, and any unowned property, would be democratically ruled by all adults who chose to be citizens, but the laws would only apply to public dominions.
    Copyright and patents would be licences to advertise on or through public lands, and public entities would only buy licenced products or services. You could still, on your domain, make copies of anything, but you wouldn’t be allowed to advertise outside your estate unless you had a valid licence.
    This would resolve a lot of issues, by letting the owners of land make the rules for their land.
    From the first Co-Autonomist-

  13. Tim R:

    She appears to be saying that the basis of property rights isn’t scarcity but production. But I think that it’s her confusing cause and effect and not Kinsella – in order for man to produce (or act in any way) he must use goods, both tangible (such as a hammer, a nail, or his hands) and intangible/ideal (such as information stored in his mind regarding how the three items work together.) The second category of good can only exist immersed within examples of the first category (an idea in a brain, a pattern of symbols in a book.) When a man wants to use a tangible good, his usage could potentially conflict with another man’s usage as such items are unique or in limited supply – in other words, they are scarce. In regard to ideal goods, such conflict cannot arise, as any pattern can be copied infinitely, assuming access to a copy immersed in someone’s property is granted. For example, the information required to understand how to hold a hammer and use it to push a nail into wood can be copied as many times as there are room in scarce items in which to immerse it.

    To prevent conflict in tangible goods, a simple rule can be used to decide who gets to use what: first to use grants the right to use (ie homesteading.) Two derivatives of that right are the right to exclude others from using it, and the right to transfer this exclusive usage to others. As a combined result of the inherent desire of man to act, and increase the supply of useful items in order to reduce restrictions on his ability to act in the way he wants, the exclusive right to use, “property”, results in the market that exists in a (highly interfered with) form today.

    IP is unnecessary, as the class of goods it regulates don’t require conflict resolution – they can be copied without limiting the options of others to act: “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”

  14. More controversy to discuss:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Maskin#Software_patents

    “Maskin suggested that software patents inhibit innovation rather than stimulate progress. Software, semiconductor, and computer industries have been innovative despite historically weak patent protection, he argued. Innovation in those industries has been sequential and complementary, so competition can increase firms’ future profits. In such a dynamic industry, “patent protection may reduce overall innovation and social welfare.” A natural experiment occurred in the 1980s when patent protection was extended to software,” wrote Maskin. “Standard arguments would predict that R&D intensity and productivity should have increased among patenting firms. Consistent with our model, however, these increases did not occur.” Other evidence supporting this model includes a distinctive pattern of cross-licensing and a positive relationship between rates of innovation and firm entry.[5]”

  15. I do agree that physical goods can be considered scarce, but I disagree that scarcity is the fundamental concept of interest. – although I’d admit, it is a reletively broad concept and is useful in discussions on economics for example.
    My thinking is that both the mind and the physical world are inseprable for human survival and prosperity (production included). But I don’t prioritise the physical world to the realm of legal protections just because it is alleged to differ from the mental world, based on scarcity.
    And I think that mental creativity and inventiveness are incredibly scarce anyway!

    Examples of the importance of the mental aspect to human survival can be found in every socialist country eg/ When an oil well in Venezuala is nationalised – all the equipment is there all operating fine and all the man power labour is provided. But the oil well will never run as efficiently without the expertise and mental effort of the previous operators.

    I understand that the justification for legal property rights (promoted by Kinsella and others) based on the observation of scarcity of physical goods, is considered the way to avoid conflict in society. ie: the purpose of this theory of property rights is to avoid conflict between people. But Objectivist theory would argue that there is something more fundamental for a legal system to achieve – human survival and prosperity. (conflict avoidance is a subset of this broader aim).
    This is what Greg (not Ayn Rand) meant when he said cause and effect were reversed. Because the Objectivist view point is that conflict avoidance is the effect, not the primary purpose. ie: Human life can still suffer even if there are no conflicts going on. It could suffer from stupidity, ignorance, laziness, mysticism etc.

    As an aside, Objectivists do draw a distinction between a discovery and an invention. ie: Discoveries should not have patent/copyright protection and patenting discoveries is considered to have negative effects on humanity. eg/ patenting the theory of gravity would be damaging to human life.

  16. I think I have on previous discussions, but I don’t have time to waste researching and dealing with context dropping statistics.

    Also, the above quote doesn’t appear to actually argue against patents per se, more the strength and duration of patents. “weak” protection is still protection. And the USA is known for the strongest protection in the world anyway (and greatest innovation). US patent applications are quite onerous in my experience. The system could I’m sure be improved.
    One example off the top of my head, we would not have had PCs as quickly if it weren’t for Bill Gates and strong patent protection.

    And how weak was weak anyway?

  17. Interestly from my point of view, if you take Maskin’s argument at face value. (He is alleging that stronger patent protections resulted in less innovation in the US).
    Then if I ask, why does China have less innovation than the US, you cannot say that my point is consequentialist (a Humphries argument).

    But I am not familiar with the legislative details in the early 80s of patent law regarding software in the US. There could be a million things going on here.

  18. we would not have had PCs as quickly if it weren’t for Bill Gates and strong patent protection

    Hard to know how to respond to this statement… IBM was responsible for the PC, Gates for the OS that went on it (though even that wasn’t an original work). The only proprietary component of the PC was the BIOS – and that was (legally) reverse engineered rather early for IBM compatibles.

    I wouldn’t be using the rise of PC’s as an argument for the merits of strong patent protection.

  19. >>But I am not familiar with the legislative details in the early 80s of patent law regarding software in the US. There could be a million things going on here.

    It has inhibited innovation, especially recently. MS has been throwing FUD up the walls about Linux containing their patents without so much as a hint to what ones. It’s being used a fear tactic rather than something to make money off. MS isn’t interested in developing their goods, just stopping anyone else from competing

    >>One example off the top of my head, we would not have had PCs as quickly if it weren’t for Bill Gates and strong patent protection.

    Wrong. Apple was still there, but they had no idea why people were buying their computers like hotcakes. Bill Gates looked at the situation, and realised it was because developers could build upon their system, patents had little to do with it, as DOS already existed in various forms anyway. Also, if I recall correctly, Torvalds was well on the way to producing a usable version of Linux by the time DOS became mainstream in the late 80s-early 90s, so meh, I’m rather uninspired by that argument

    >>I wouldn’t be using the rise of PC’s as an argument for the merits of strong patent protection.

    Indeed, there were other computers before the PC, IBM was just on of the first to try and aim it at the consumer market rather than us geeks

  20. Interesting post on Slashdot:

    “The president of the Authors Guild has launched a rant in the NY Times about how the Kindle 2 provides Text-to-Speech capabilities that, oh the horror, allow the user to have any text on the Kindle read to her. Roy Blunt, Jr. moans that this is copyright infringement of audio books, and that Kindle users should be forced to pay royalties on audio even though they’ve already paid for the text version of a book! Amazingly he harps on about how TTS technology has become so good that it may replace humans — and then uses this to argue that it’s unfair for Kindle to provide TTS!…”

    Just one example of copyright silliness, I’m afraid. As someone who believes in (limited) copyright, this poses an interesting problem… Obviously there’s money in copyright (duh), and people with a financial interest will therefore lobby government for stronger copyright. As a result, the natural tendency will be toward stronger copyright laws – unless there is something else preventing government from doing so.

    For those of us who support some level of copyright, how do we stop this seemingly inevitable spiral?

  21. As a point of interest, weren’t microcomputers around in the 70es? IBM got into the act late, and called it a PC, and that name stuck, but IBM were latecomers. Bill Gates used to work for IBM, and offered them the first go at his programs, but IBM were then thinking in terms of arge computers, their speciality, and turned him down. Lucky for him.

  22. “As someone who believes in (limited) copyright”

    Why, exactly? Libertarians generally don’t go for government privileges or subsidies, which copyright is an example of (not only that, the existence of IP law weakens preexisting property rights). Or is this one of those ‘moderate’ libertarian things? 😉

  23. Greego, intellectual property protection is a valid right, not a subsidy.

    Mark as you should know, I am much more interested in arguing and thinking about political and legal principles, not being bogged down in Trinifar-style time wasting.
    You are accusing me of being dishonest (even though I did take the time to respond to you anyway) and that’s your problem.

    Fleeced, very long ranging copyright would be damaging. So I would hope there would be reasonable opposition to ridiculous increases in protection ie: I think unlimited time frames would be impractical and wrong.

  24. I was thinking this over last night. Maybe some short term copyright is ok, but I would think it would have to be VERY short term. I still don’t like patents though, they are open to abuse. Haliburton also filed a patent on patent trolling recently, which just goes to show that it does need to be completely rethought

  25. Actually Tim you are accusing me of being dishonest and as stupid and trollish as Trinifar. I only said you wrote something you couldn’t back up (and implied perhaps you should rethink your assertions about copyright).

    Please just back up your claim or withdraw it. Comparing me to Trinifar is far worse!

    The ability of a market to operate does not rely on someone who is nominally for patent protection being able or unable to predict how a market will reorganise itself without patent protection. The market Maskin discussed is an example of such a market pro patent people have a lack of imagination to realise can exist.

    For mine, I am for common law IP. Not legislated IP however.

  26. This is from Ip Australia:

    http://www.iptoolbox.gov.au/default.asp?action=article&ID=211

    Myth:
    It is necessary to register all IP rights before there is any entitlement to any IP protection.

    Fact:
    Some IP rights arise (copyright, goodwill) as a matter of course – others (patents, trade marks, designs) require application to IP Australia.

    Explanation:
    No registration is required for copyright or circuit layout rights (See What IP means to you ). Common law provides automatic protection for unregistered trade marks and trade names, which have been used and have developed associated goodwill. Information, which is truly confidential (See Protecting confidential information ), is also protected without the need for registration. Patents, trade marks and designs all require registration with IP Australia Plant breeder’s rights and domain names also have to be registered. (See What IP means to you ).

    Those legislated rights should be a matter of proprietary information which innovators can auction off under a secrecy arrangement. I don’t see how this carries more of a transactions cost burden.

  27. My own belief is that we should restructure our society until local councils are the strongest element of any public set-up, and then change IP into a licensing system, meaning you could not advertise your copy of another person’s work in public spaces, if they had a prior licence.
    This would resolve the tussle in favour of property rights- on your own land, do as thou wilt, but roads and other public spaces would be subject to the collective owners laws.

  28. COMMUNISM & THE DEVIL WORSHIPPING COPYRIGHT LAWS or THE GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT VS THE PUBLIC BRAIN EXPERIENCE
    6/02/09
    COPYRIGHT LAWS CAUSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY!

    Yep!! You heard me right! Copyright laws are straight from the communist party and second cousin to the devil. “How’s that work?” you say? Well when article 1, sec 8 of the constitution was written it started the largest “bailout” in American history. The founding fathers just wanted to protect artists and inventors from the pirates, and that was very noble of them. Now I have nothing against protecting inventors and other nonfiction works, after all they do a very large service to all humankind. Therefore, this complaint is against the arts only! After all, singers and actors swiped all the accolades when the radio, TV, and motion picture, etc was invented. The public was “blindsided” into believing the artists were the genius behind our new technology.
    After a couple hundred years and billions of dollars later, we are still protecting the artists from what? The answer is, protecting them from competing in the business world. Plain and simple they have a free ride with the aid of the communications and entertainment industries unions, guilds, associations, and their contractors. Unions and that’s what I’m talking about! The largest collection of unions in America bonded together by one kind of glue, “copyright protection”! It’s nothing new, “Ayn Rand”, “Red Star over Hollywood”, “Roy Brewer”, “and Communists in America”, “How Communists Seduced the American Film Industry”, and the list of evidence goes on. The proof is there to be had for anybody that wants to view it.
    The roots of anticopyright run deep, past the fringe fanatic liberal left, and straight into our ultraconservative moral Christian soul. Let us change the perception that the anti-copyright crowd is always a left wing action. A strong Christian moral right that supports less government and more self-sufficiency can replace copyright laws. Government intervention into the business world has always had some kind of repercussion. With the copyright business being bigger than the auto industry (GDP estimates at 5%) its time we look at the real bailout in America. In this case, the artists have found a way to live like kings off the royalties from some simple country song or just a cartoon drawing of an animal. In some cases the “one hit wonders” can support an entire family for several generations from their simple production.
    So, what’s wrong with somebody making big bucks from a one hit wonder? First of all it’s “golden calving”. When Moses came down from the mountain and saw that some people had made a golden calf and were worshipping it, he was angered. As should any man of God, be! It is a shame when you see young girls swooning and even fainting in idol worship of a musician or entertainer. That is what happened when the artists were making the golden calf. The women and children stood around them remarking on the quality of art, and what great and talented artists they were. In these day’s they would have even gotten a copyright on that calf. Copyright laws suborn IDOL WORSHIP OF GRAVEN IMAGES! Is copyright law part of the Mark of the Beast? Do we treat this kind of idolatry indirectly, going roundabout and with a backhanded ambiguity ignoring, it’s true nature? Is it arrogance and folly to claim copyright over God? (Mark 7: 21-22) Idolatry is the Devils Backbone, it is the foundation for all other sin, and the backbone of the backbone in today’s modern world is copyright law. Idolatry is so many things, it is worshipping a God, or an object, it is devotion and attachment, to admiration and love. It breeds jealousy, envy, covetness, greed, lust, etc., and births murder, rape, robbery and pure evil. Copyright is a government’s indocile to Gods common sense laws. They sanction sin, obtusely, perversely without penchant to reason.
    GOD DESTROYED THE PEOPLE OF ALABAMA FOR THEIR IDOL WORSHIP. In the mid 1800’s, Alabama was a prosperous thriving state. Mineral explorations found large deposits of iron ore. The state grew wealthy and Birmingham was once named the “magic city” because of its incredible growth and prosperity. In 1903, the people of Alabama built a 52-foot tall iron statue of the underworld God Vulcan. It was made completely of iron ore from Alabama, and is the largest statue of its kind in the world. In 1903 it must have been one of the most grandiose sights to behold on the face of the earth. The abomination was created to celebrate Alabama’s great iron industry wealth. People didn’t fall to their knees and pray to this god, but the Lord God of us all was still jealous and offended. In just a mere decade, after this Vulcan (largest iron statue in the world) was built the enormous prosperity of Alabama disappeared completely. To this day as the statue sits on a mountaintop perch overlooking Birmingham the people of Alabama remain one the poorest of all the states. A testimony that idol worship goes beyond praying and serving a false god. “Thou shall have no other Gods before me.” Exodus 20:3, Jeremiah 25:6, Deut 6:14 Is the Vulcan the largest demigod graven image in the world? If so what a shame it is here in America! People of Alabama, God is not slack! If you do not remove this demon god from your midst, our father may bring it down by shaking the ground it stands on! As someone that believes in the resurrection of Christ I am inclined to suspect that God punished all of America by sending us the great stock market crash of 1929, which led to the great dust bowl. Remember this isn’t some 2 foot tall statue, or even a 10 foot statue, it was the largest Demigod in the world at the time it was built. It is a monument! “One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel” Chaucer
    THE PARABLE OF THE SIRENS OF ULYSSES. We all know Homers story, and how Ulysses tied himself to the mast of his ship, even as some men jumped to their deaths for want of the sirens song. Those of us who took heed from such tale know there is a real life to it. Men and women drunk and drugged take their lives by the thousands every year. Many are encouraged and hypnotized to end their life with the assistance of seductive music and art. Come on now, its time to “cheapen “the stranglehold hold art has on us. Remember it could be your children next to commit suicide while listening to some Sicko horrible rock song! HOLLYWOOD GLITZ, GLITTER, AND GLAMOUR IS THE REAL LIFE SIRENS OF ULYSSES! IDOLATRY TRANSENDS RELIGION! Even if you don’t believe in God, the premise of idolatry is to train ones mind to avoid the pitfalls of becoming a victim of the diabolic Sirens. “Art in it’s final degeneration exists only to shock” George Orwell Shock and Awe is defined in Wikipeda as a military term “rapid dominance”, overwhelming power, spectacular displays used to paralyze perception. Exactly what Hollywood is doing to YOU the American public right now! The Sirens of Hollywood have shown their true colors with the creation of the SOPRANOS, a television program that glorifies organized crime. They have convinced the public that terrorists, murders, rapists , diabolic and insane people are to be applauded, enjoyed, appreciated, and served up as role models. The sopranos is an utterly despicable vile protagonist of evil, and doesn’t belong in America, and on TV. The Sopranos is proof of the power of the real life sirens of Ulysses, created by the direct authority of copyright law. The harm may stay invisible until someday when some serial killer emerges and talks, saying “I was just trying to be like Tony Soprano”. Even then the communications industry will find a way to sweep it under the rug. Are you one of the fans of the Sopranos? If so, then you have been brainwashed by the drain waters from the sewers from Hades, and you are nothing more than a minion of The Sirens of Hollywood. God Save You!

    AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF COPYRIGHTABLE EXPRESSIONS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A REDUCTIO AB ABSURDUM FIGURE OF SPEECH! Copyright advocates have had a thousand years to develop the perspective that there are an infinite number of copyrightable expressions. Using the word “infinite” almost hypnotizes people. They have cloned in the idea that we must have government protection of the arts. That art as a business could not survive without the assistance of the government. Complicated math combined with the abuse of the infinite and eternal identification leaves today’s copyright lawyers unchallenged. You see THERE REALLY ISN’T 6 BILLION NAMES FOR GOD. That’s just another example of word magic. Oh, if you want to start calling God names like Fred, Bill, Susie, or horse and dog then you will find 6 billion names. Call him rumplstilskin for all I care, but it’s not a true name for God. If it is true then we would see some new kinds of art, we very seldom do! Now we have talking French Fries and Milkshakes because artists can’t find uncontested designs. They are scrapping the bottom of the barrel of creativity. And the only thing under the bottom of the barrel is nothing. HOW MANY MELODIES ARE THERE IN THE UNIVERSE? Go to “everything2.com” and see one guy’s answer. According to the author it almost rivals the infinite. Unfortunately he should have made it “how many copyrightable and tuneful, and useful melodies are still uncopyrighted”? Don’t forget to factor in the annual 25 million + hits on the copyright office website (an indication of increased copyright literacy). Multiply exponentially the human population growth rate (approximately 75-80 million per year). Add any increase in Berne convention countries, etc., plus any new systems on recognizing unregistered copyrighted works, any new tech to speed up the copyright application process, all treaties and agreements, and I’m sure many other variables. When it’s all said and done you may not like what you see.(one melody will cause an exponential decay of useless songs). IT MAY BE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CREATE NEW MELODIES WITHOUT INFRINGING ON EXISTING COPYRIGHTS! The problem is mathematics, which can be applied to all things, must be demonstrable and logical to be useful. Any formula would be rife with rifts for debate. I guess that’s why the U.S. Copyright Office has not responded to my request for “how many copyrightable and tuneful, and useful melodies are left in the universe”. Keep in mind a perfect world scenario would be global and not the existing real world of domestic squabbles. BOTTOM LINE is, one million copyrighted melodies could displace a billion plus expressions, and even if it isn’t true exponential decay the sheer magnitude of numbers is destroying the creativity field. SO WHY IS CONGRESS PASSING LAWS WITHOUT THE STATISTCS? The Sony Bono copyright extension and all the other new laws are in contempt of science if they didn’t at least try to create a mathematical summary of the number of available uncopyrighted expressions. Just how much does it cost to pay for an inquiry by a team of professionals? The answer will most assuredly be in the reductio ab absurdum, as there isn’t an infinite number of expressions that can be copyrighted. I like using rap music this time as an example. It all has pretty much the same beep bop and lyrics. I have not heard anything different and new from the rap music industry since its inception. The lyrics may vary a little and the names of the artists are different, but rap is still just rap. You may say the same of country music or heavy metal, etc. and contrary to what the industry experts say “You Are Right”! We may never in this lifetime prove or disprove how many expressions of any one category can be used for copyright, but at least we can try. Why should FEAR rule the day as it has done so often before? The ancient Catholics banned translating Latin bibles into native languages because they feared losing power.

    “A musician must make music, and artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately at peace with himself” Abraham Maslow. What will tomorrow’s musicians and artist do when copyright has settled in permanently as a stumbling block against creativity?
    One sin begets another! You have let in the golden calf in America. Then the communists took the next sin by unionizing the artists and controlling free enterprise! How many times can they remake King Kong before people stop paying to see it? The answer is forever, as long as the unions make sure it’s the only new release at the cinema. The consequences are we are still living in the dark ages of art. The day the government gets out of the copyright protection business is the day we will see A NEW RENAISSANCE OF ART IN AMERICA. Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, thousands of new arts will arise, along with millions of new jobs and businesses. A thousand years of government control in this business has left us weak and dependant. We can prosper and probably make even more money without the government’s protection. YOU SEE PEOPLE WILL PROSPER WITHOUT COPYRIGHT LAW. In fact the artists will probably make more money. They will find ways to distribute their product more effectively. Simultaneous distribution will allow them to maximize their profits. Oh. Sure a small handful of artists might get lost in the shuffle. The true artists will manage by being qualified to create new art on a continuous basis. Manufacturing and distribution will replace the government’s copyright protection. They will control in such a manner as to maximize distribution that will eliminate infringement. No longer will the artists of the gray zone be left out in the cold, having to resort to under the table shenanigans. LAISSEZ-FAIRE- It’s only art. For once let the people run the business without the government!
    Millions of pieces of art that manufactures and distributors will not touch because it might be infringing will immediately be available. They do not want to risk the lawsuits! These gray area arts can have a high probability that is not infringing. Unleash this art into the new renaissance of a copyright free world. Open the market and utilize the manufactures, so they no longer serve the pirate industry.
    WE ARE LIVING IN THE DARK AGES OF ART. My favorite example is the theatre industry. The theatre industry services have not changed much in the last 100 years. We have the same old dusty dark box seating. Soft drinks that have that chemically treated taste, and popcorn with the “other” butter. They don’t have to compete because copyright laws protect them. The new movies are sent to the theatre for a month or two, then on to the cable, and finally on DVD. If we took away copyright protection for the arts the producers and corporate bosses would panic. We’d have them in the sweatbox! It’s fairly obvious they would opt to release all new movies on the same day to the theatre, cable, and DVD. Let them compete for customers! Free enterprise would prevail! We are in the dark ages of movie theatres because futuristic theatres don’t exist. The theatres would have to offer new amenities to attract customers. FUTURISTIC THEATRES COULD INCLUDE: dining options, theme park simulation, cubicles for those that want to talk while viewing (like an old fashioned drive in theatre, but indoors), download availability, and who know what else?
    It’s time for the government to get out of the copyright bailout of artists. Say no to the AM/FM royalties!!!
    COPYRIGHT PROTECTION MADE SENSE HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO. Today we have millions of people per year accessing the copyright offices website. This mushroom cloud of copyright savvy is accelerating into a real monster. Our courts can’t even handle deciphering what is and isn’t infringement. The judges create an enigma of myriading formulas to work with. They have the abstraction test, the subtraction test, the patterns test, and the totality test. Is it extrinsic or intrinsic, is it contributory, and is it similar? The real question is do the judges even have a remote idea of what they are doing? Can we tolerate infringement suits because 4 notes in a melody are similar? Is the copyright mongering corporations creating derivative/permutation works solely to expand their percentage of infringement protection? Example: If your percentage of similarity is 20% then create a derivative work that is 20% different and you have a protection from infringers that is 40%. Do the judges know the difference between the eastern scale and western? It is time to take the founding fathers advice and call “Time Out” to copyright protection for the arts! So many people would like to see an end to copyright law. The ease of copy machines, cd, and downloads render copyright obsolete. Those that defend copyright ignore one very important factor. A world without copyright law doesn’t mean artists will be without protection. People are adaptable, and in this high tech generation it’s probable that we can do it better without the government. Even the judge that presided over the NAPSTER TRIAL proposed a plan to reform copyright laws. A plan that would employee manufactures and developers with public and private administrators to oversee rules and regulations, etc. Patel said, “Our copyright laws have become a patchwork of amendments that are adopted as emergencies arise”. I wonder if Patel was thinking of LUKE 5:36 “NO ONE TEARS A PIECE OF CLOTH FROM A NEW GARMENT AND SEWS IT TO AN OLD ONE. IF HE DOES, THE NEW CLOTH WILL TEAR, AND THE TWO PIECES WILLNOT MATCH”. Honest people waste hundreds of hours searching for copyright permission only to reach a dead-end. They are more than willing to pay the royalty fee but some times can’t even find out who owns the copyright. What a bunch of crock the government has given us! Then they offer to let us pay an orphan fee, money that goes to the government not the author. It’s like a deadbeat dad paying off the gov instead of the kids. Look how heinous our courts have become that you can’t even place a Christmas bow around a statue. In Prise de Parole vs. Guerin edituer Ltee (a Canadian case) the courts ruled that it’s a MORAL violation to alter art with something as simple as a piece of ribbon.
    REVERSE ENGINEERING LAWS VIOLATE THE AXIOMATIC AGE OLD AND ACCEPTED CONCEPT “SCIENTIFIC INVENTION, DISCOVERY, AND INNOVATION.” Innovation ceases to exist, because we cannot study what has already been created. We become like the Eloi of the H.G. Wells movie, “The Time Machine.” Obey and never ask the How or Why of things. If invention and discovery are the fruits of civilization then innovation is the stem and stalk that makes the flower grow. If our copyright laws existed 10 thousand years ago we would still be talking the wheel. Our modern airplanes are not solely the product of the Wright brother’s invention.

    COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE DEAD
    Like a dinosaur on the verge of extinction it is dead. The belief that there is an unlimited, infinite, bountiful supply of untapped art is now over. It has been replaced by the computer that can create an endless supply of art overnight using computer programs and robotics. Mass production and distribution can delivery billions of pieces of art globally in just a few hours to your doorstep. Only a handful of “uncle toms” still believe that copyright protection serves any useful purpose. As more and more art is created the number of infringement related altercations ties up our courts, creating an enormous backlog. How many times can you copyright a picture of a circle and it still have the identifiable appearance of being a circle? Maybe it is 10 billion or 50 billion to the 10th power, so what, they outlived any usefulness way back under a million. Every example is unique. Creating billions of names for God is impossible without offending his personality. Creating billions of circles only offends the nature of its serviceability. So a small group of people gets copyright and the rest of the world can’t make a living drawing pictures of circles without making it a square and calling it a circle? How is that right for us all? The world is a lot more complicated than it was in the 6th century when King Diarmed copyrighted baby calves. In today’s world clever, cunning predators have learned to manipulate a complex system of laws, to no godly purpose, instead they serve greed, hate, contempt, and corruption, like unto serving a false god.

    “IF CREATIVITY IS A FIELD, COPYRIGHT IS THE FENCE”-John Oswald
    If it is a fact that our emotions, reflexes, react to music and other forms of art before we think and form an opinion on said music, then true art appreciation demands and chooses freedom from the constraint copyright laws dictate.
    COPYRIGHT SEQUESTERS CREATIVITY!

    IS CREATIVITY A LEARNED BERHAVIOUR? There sure seems to be some experts that say it is developed. Another thing, is a personal one for me, I call it Universal Thought. Whether or not it’s some kind of mental telepathy or communication from God it does exist. Which means many artists have been given their inspiration, sometimes subconsciously and sometimes directly from the hand of the Father? So it really isn’t your art, its Gods.” For the earth is the lords, and the fullness thereof” 1 Corintians10: 26 Don’t believe in God? There is a unity of thought and perception that is dependant upon the wholeness of life’s experiences. “No man is an island”! (John Donne)
    Please don’t let a few desperate sour pusses destroy our heritage by making free music on radio disappear. That’s what will happen if the stations have to pay to play. Many will switch to talk radio or use more talk to serve as filler between songs. Those artists knew what they were getting into when they began a career in music. The free music on radio has been around for almost 100 years; let’s keep it going awhile longer, for the sake of our American culture and heritage. God said, “Give and it shall be given unto you” Luke 6:38 Oh!, and don’t forget PATTERN THINKING. Pattern thinking is defined as one who organizes ideas and things together in a way that allows them to become useful and fitting to the product or endeavor. Our minds form patterns beginning on the day we are born, and we cannot have them without other forces allowing them to interact with us. Many tattoo artist’s trace from a pattern. It may look complicated but they trace it just like a paint by numbers coloring book. Many other artists are using patterns memorized from some earlier study. If you really think about it most artists with the help of pattern thinking are almost all infringing to some degree. THE GOOD, BAD, AND UGLY OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. In some cases the pattern is set in gold. Did you see the movie “Pale Rider” 1985? It was marvelous, everybody loved it!! Yada,yada,yada. Go see it, but before you do check out Alan Ladd’s movie “Shane” 1953, when you are finished watching both movies I think you’ll understand why copyright laws need to change. Makes me wonder if some of the professional writers are using some kind of copyright loophole software to recreate old flicks and alter them just enough to circumvent the infringement bounty hunters. Copyright infringement bounty hunters! Hmmm mmm will we see the reality show someday? Now if the copyright laws were really “tight” we would never have had the opportunity to see Pale Rider. Can you imagine how many other artists less financially backed that can’t risk productions, and have really good art they would like to distribute? How many scenes can you find in Pale Rider that are identical to Shane? ANTICOPYRIGHT IS NOT THE ENEMY OF CREATIVITY! It’s more likely that copyright forces us to conformity and conventionalism. Pale Rider is the living proof (in the court of public opinion) that the “other” art can be better than the original thing. Some say true creativity comes from the beginning of understanding and is therefore pure from contamination, but don’t expect to see that in the real world. (This article in no way suggests that Pale Rider was and/or is infringing in any way). In Walker v Time Life Films Inc. 1986 that ended in a ruling “scenes a faire” is not infringement the subject of the dispute seems to be related, but who am I to say it is?
    THE PUBLIC BRAIN EXPERIENCE DOES EXIST! We have already created computers that link directly to the human brain that can operate complex machinery. As seen on TV, scientists have proven beyond any doubt that we can link the human brain with the help of the modern computer. It’s only a matter of time before we have the use of downloadable memories that will enhance intelligence. Stage 1: The invention of the computer and internet.(some would say stage 1 is the public brain experience). Stage 2: Scientists linked the brain directly to the computer bypassing voice and keyboard (it’s already here). Stage 3: The ability to insert other peoples memories and ideas by downloading them directly into the brain (you go to bed at night and wake up speaking a dozen new languages). Stage 4: The whole shebang goes wifi. Overnight we could turn into Star Treks “Borg” , only we will still be able to laugh and smile and move about without the robotic movements. Now you “Doubting Thomas” types are already saying “where is this stage 3”? It’s people like you that disbelieve in Jesus, and you were the ones that said “man will never fly” But we did fly and we are sailing ships under the sea, we also went to the moon, and we will soon start filling our brains by downloading knowledge from the computer. Will the dark force/power of the GDP quash and destroy our final approach to evolutionary intellectual freedom, and the second coming of Christ? For surely as we reach stage 3 God the Father will say to himself “Now they are ready to be approached as a civilized people”! Mathew 24:34, “And Knowledge Shall Increase” Daniel 12-4 PBE = End of Idolatry! Intelligent people will recognize reality. They will someday know that art is the personification of idolatry!
    EXPERTS LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT COPYRIGHT LAWS SECURES FIANANCIAL REWARDS FOR AUTHORS. I challenge these experts to prove it. Validate that protections would not happen without the governments hand. These experts would also have us believe that copyright policy serves as a stimulus for creativity. Again I say, “Where is the proof”? It is just as plausible to say “copyright laws stems and stymies like a brick wall against the road of imagination, blocking many artists and inventors from every finding the final destination”. The lack of clarity that infringement brings has the potential for millions of authors to be left out of the design frame. The gray area of legitimacy sparks fear and resentment against the establishment that is manipulated by the upper class of authors and artists. The privileges wealthy copyright holders have garnered afford them monopoly powers capable of batting lesser artistic creations out of the ballpark. Ruthless tactics designed to preserve old stale art and keep competition down adorn our halls of entertainment. Pray that their time is done. The end result is the established dominant authors are not really the genius they have been likened to. Perhaps they are just old tired worn out has beens, unable to compete with new art and clinging to the government protections like a dog that covets his bone collection. And the copyright office may very well cater to these wolves. I’ve heard that it can take up to a year to get some works copyrighted. This can be construed as a tactic to leave new artists standing in the soup line.
    I reiterate that you cannot scientifically prove the necessity of copyright law on our modern society. In all likelihood authors may find greater rewards by learning to protect their works without the government. Quality industrial services in a globalize system of accessibility will prove to be the ultimate protection, and provide greater rewards to the artists. It’s like someone offering to buy 1 million dollars of your product for 5 years of use. Then he offers you an extra 125 thousand if you are willing to take 5 annual payments instead of the lump sum. Anybody that’s owned a small business knows to take the 1 million, because the customer might not come back next year. You’ll have a larger lump sum payout vs. the trickle down royalties that the copyright laws give you.
    Remember copyright protection is ONLY A RIGHT FOR A LIMITED TIME. The founding fathers didn’t authorize eternal services.
    IN THE END BY BREAKING FREE OF THE HOLLYWOODLAND UNION CONTROLS AND GOVERNMENT INDULGENCES WE WILL UNLEASH A TORRENT OF ART, A RENNAISSANCE LIKE NEVER SEEN BEFORE ON THIS PLANET EARTH, AND THE PROFITS WILL SOAR BEYOND IMAGINATION!
    When the transition happens some people will lose out, but new jobs and businesses will be created to replace government control. We will survive and prosper like business as
    Usual. The fluency of the art will resonate without copyright, producing enormous profits for authors, yet keeping a natural check and balance by filtering out the old stale art that has outlived its usefulness.
    THE COURT JESTER IS NOW THE KING. Well it worked out for the better with Reagan, but that doesn’t mean every singer, dancer, actor that has a hair to become a politician will be as good as him. We’ve given to much power and wealth to the artist community. Reduce their stranglehold on our country and let the real politicians get the votes. Hey! Hey! Vote for me I’ve got Big Muscles. Check out my biceps, just the right size for president eh! “Oh what a wicked web we weave when a first we do deceive”. You sowed us copyright law and now the vines of government abuse will suffocate the lifeblood from our souls. Radio paying royalties will equal “HARDCORE” paid advertising and that will be the end of free radio. It was the free music that allowed radio to survive the television. Now we will see an era of RUSH LIMBAUG and Howard Stern SPAWNS spewing up across the country like little demons returning to their haunt 10 fold. It won’t matter what side of the fence they represent just as long as it doesn’t exceed the company budget. Let us keep the court jesters in their field of entertainment by eliminating copyright laws. Do you want some Bozo as your President or would you have Judge Harvard Yale, a man learned in the science of law and politics? Copyright laws have turned the Bozos into the crème de la crème and they have developed the knack to jump careers into politics at a whim (thanks to the success of Reagan). Don’t expect every song and dance act to be as good as he was! The point is artists were to be an accompaniment to our daily life. The Kings Court, his armies, scientists, workers, etc. were to have a little art in the background, instead of leading us!
    AS THE RECESSION ROLLS ON CONGRESS PLOTS TO DESTROY MORE JOBS AND FAMILIES. Millions of unemployed and more businesses on the chopping block of Bill # H.R. 4789. If hundreds or even thousands of radio stations cannot afford to pay the royalties, the next step will be to the poor house. Why take a chance with this bill during the great recession? Just to satisfy a small handful of old washed out artists that cannot compete any longer. They cannot cut new music so they have found the proverbial buried bone in the back yard to dig up. I say, “Bury the old bone”, they are still young enough to learn a new trick or song. Say NO to BILL H.R. 4789

    ARE THE ATROCITES OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC EYE BY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND SLAP SUIT TACTICS? Before congress acts they must get the whole story. Look at the case of Beatty Chadwick a lawyer imprisoned 11 years for not paying child support. Just one example of the dark side, and a government in need of more safeguards. Has anybody in congress seen a categorical survey of the arts potential? If drawing a picture of a cartoon animal is a category then how many times can you draw a cat without becoming an infringer? It must have some resemblance of a cat, some identification pattern to fit the category. Change your medium to jeweled bumbleebee brooches and the numbers get smaller and smaller. THE CASE OF DMITRY SKLYAROV, he was arrested for creating tools to read encrypted books. In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church persecuted scholars who tried to translate Latin bibles into the common languages. In some MUSLIM countries today they still permit Arabic wording only when copying the Koran. Does history repeat itself or not brothers and sisters?? Is there any difference between Islamic fascists that will put a man to death for translating the Koran in another language other than Arabic, and the government copyright laws that arrested Dmitry for translating encrypted books? “Necessity hath no law. Feigned necessities, imaginary necessities are the greatest cozenage that men can put upon the Providence of God, and make pretenses to break known rules by”. Oliver Cromwell What copyright boils down to be simply a monopoly approved by the government. We are fighting a war in Afghanistan because some people have decided they are the property owners (copyright holders) of the KORAN and its translations, interpretations, and enforcements.
    IS INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY A CONSECRETED RIGHT SOLELY FOR WEALTY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS? Doesn’t our conscience owe us an equal opportunity for all? Many of today’s copyright holders avail themselves to mass production strategies in lieu of simpler age-old systems. Crafters in flea markets, craft and art fairs, basements, and in the garage create art that is outside the realm of big business, and is frequently found to be infringing. It’s not fair to the street corner musician and all the others that work out of a car, bus and boat to make an honest buck. Simple remakes of ancient art altered and online by clever vendors out for a quick buck, along with a plethora of other types are forcing the issue of right and wrong. Yet the only way people can have this art is through the underground and on the Internet. There is obviously a lacking of brotherly love and charity from the copyright holder. The Grand Architect bids us to the common mans struggle like a crusade and an obligation against ignorance, fanaticism, and error. Because in the end we are responsible for our own actions, which means there is a system beyond government copyright law.
    IT DOESN’T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE TO KNOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO GET OUT OF THE COPYRIGHT BUSINESS. The constitution has already promised that the government will limit its time of involvement into to this private sector business. Obviously, the Founding Fathers knew that there are not an infinite number of copyrightable expressions. The universe is infinite, but I haven’t seen anybody with the ability to make our life on earth anything more than the finite experiences we have. Such a task is only in the hands of God, and he hasn’t yet given it.

    “If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively posses as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
    Its peculiar character, too, is that none possess the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He, who receives an idea from me, receives instruction without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instructions of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, Like fire expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
    Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.” -THOMAS JEFFERSON

    IF THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GET OUT OF THE COPYRIGHT BUSINESS WHAT WILL HAPPEN? One possible action is people could step in and replace the copyright office anyway. Create a system to help poor people get their art copyright protected by registering it online so the time stamps of the Internet could be a partial protection. Such an action would help put the courts in a backlog and tie up litigations for the next hundred years. Free enterprise copyright assistance already exists thru the attorney, but the mantra of service is lacking and they are only out for the quick buck. A discount copyright clearinghouse for the unregistered could take us to a new playing field. With the help from the FOIA freedom of information act one could copy the entire copyright offices business and figure out how to operate it better than the government does. Thank God for the “Creative Commons” people, they are trying to do the right thing by encouraging authors to share their works. Maybe they should be allowed to take over management of the copyright office? “The freshness of transformation is the freshness of the world. It is our own, it is ourselves”. Wallace Stevens
    “WHATS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS ALSO GOOD FOR THE GANDER” or another way to say it is communists’ work from within the capitalist system by embracing copyright laws as a source of money and influence. Maybe they did outgrow true communism after the fall of the Soviets, but the system is still in place for their eventual take over of the U.S.
    COPYRIGHT LAWS INSTIGATE AN ABOMINATION AGAINST GOD! They allow a conglomeration of the arts to gain momentum and unity for no divine purpose. Where as individuals they may be harmless ungodly works, combined they are a monstrosity of evil that feeds solely on the human palate for passion and greed. Look at how black and white television was replaced with color, and radio with TV. We will dispose of cartoons and sitcoms, dramas and anything else as soon as we are bored and ready for something new. History repeats itself! Do not embrace copyright laws out of fear. Seek the truth in mathematics. “The great architect of the universe now begins to appear as a pure mathematician” Sir James Jeans Every time you pass a new copyright protection law you are elevating art to a new platform. What started out as a simple courtesy that allowed free speech and art is growing into a giant tree of idol worship. The effects of new copyright laws may be subtle and/or invisible to the eye, but they are there nonetheless. The more obvious are criminals, murders, rapists, street and biker gangs, and organized mobsters using copyright laws to strengthen their evil armies. They work within the laws as a way to further mock our society, reaping profits and admiration alike, all the while serving idolatry, and satanic reason. Why the RICO ACT doesn’t have a blanket clause prohibiting known gangs from owning copyrights is beyond me?

    “GIVE AND IT WILL BE GIVEN UNTO YOU” Luke 6:38 What you put into the public domain may come back as new works in some way or fashion.

    Now wouldn’t it be something if thousands of radio stations refused to play any more music rather than pay royalties? We could have an enormous boycott of the new law (if it gets passed). How about if everybody in the world stopped buying music completely? More likely that the stations will start using extortion contracts to promote new music. Locals bands will sign on to get their sound out and never get paid a cent in royalties until they make it to the top, then the will hire a high priced lawyer to find a sympathetic judge.
    What a shame if this bill gets passed! Free radio and TV is a large part of what we have identified with as a major force of the basic freedoms enjoyed by Americans. You can’t run a train without first laying tracks. This bill is a forerunner to destroying what has been a standard for freedom in America. IS THE AM/FM ROYALTIES BILL DEMONSTRATING AN ACT OF LAZINESS? “There is no expedient to which a man will not go to avoid the real labor of thinking” Thomas Edison

    Who are the Crowned Martyrs of Copyright? I would start out with Eric Eldred; can you fill in the list for me? We will probably never learn of the people that couldn’t afford an attorney and opted to submit to the demands of the copyright holder’s attorney.

    DON’T FORGET THE COLLEGE TEXBOOK RIP OFF SCANDEL! Who doesn’t know that story? Thank copyright laws for that one too.

    Copyright law multiplied by exponential growth/decay factors (EGF/EDF) = AAD art at death. Exponential growth factor is a variable in exponential decay of copyright.
    EGF/EDF could include: 1. Human population growth 2. Copyright literacy 3. Mass production 4. Copyright laws. 5. Accelerated copyright evolution 6. Convergence factors 7. New technology
    Copyright laws can be demonstrated to be EXPONENTIALLY DECAYING.
    A simple example using the Solfege scale, do,ra,me,fa,so,la,ti,do: If it was copyrighted, then any other combinations are infringing, ra,me,fa,so,la,ti,do ra. And the next five permutating notes means all copyrighted melodies create a exponential decay of the number of melodies available. Do,ra,me,fa, plus any combination/permutation of so,la,ti, subtract one note and add all the combinations, like trying to figure all the possibilities of a combination lock, and this is just using seven notes without any pitch, tone, etc. that would create even more combinations. It may even be possible for one melody to wipe out thousands of melodolic combinations. A million copyrighted melodies can dispose billions of potential art. VALIDATING EXPONENTIAL DECAY OF COPYRIGHT COULD BE THE ULTIMATE COURTROOM BATTLE! The amount of ED that is obviously useless by infringement will most certainly be less than that which could be produced and served to the people as enjoyable and unique artistic expressions. Clusters of redundant expressions surround the immediate vicinity of the original work, followed by an enormous amount of useful art, which is followed by more redundancy. Adding parodies to the formula can create a Mega Exponential Decay especially if the original work has manifested it’s own parodies.
    1 copyrighted melody does not equal 1. Instead 1 =s hundreds and even thousands of useful melodies that cannot be used for copyright and enjoyment.
     = 5%of GDP(gross domestic product) by PBE(public brain experience) = the end of copyright. Copyright business is bigger than the auto bailout, the recession, and the war on terrorism. Why? BECAUSE COPYRIGHT IS THE WAR ON TERRORISM. Muslim fanatics have laid claim on the interpretations of the KORAN. This claim is what we know as intellectual property rights or copyright.
    IF THE AM/FM ROYALTIES BILL IS PASSED THEN THE COPYRIGHT BUSINESS WILL INCREASE ITS PERCENTAGE IN THE GDP. Do you want that? The Public Brain Experience may have rendered copyright as fragile as a butterfly in a child’s hand.

    “Loyalty to a petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul” MARK TWAIN
    You don’t need a religion to be anti-idolatry!

    Joshua fought the battle of copyright, copyright, copyright,
    Joshua fought the battle of copyright,
    And the laws came tumbling down.

    You may talk about your kings of creation,
    You may talk about your men of song,
    There’s none like good old Joshua,
    At the battle of copyright falls.

    Now that I’m almost finished with this rant I am just beginning to realize the one kind of people that I like, that would lose out if the Royalties bill is passed will be the small AM stations that play old Rat Pack FRANK SINATRA era music. They don’t have much advertising as most of the listeners are old timers. I believe those little stations just play music for some old friends, not to get rich. To Bad!, it’s always the little “mom & pop” businesses that take the fall.

    COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE TURNING ARTISTS INTO GODS!!!!!!! Should today’s singers and actors even be considered as artists? Unlike the actors of old that had to rely on memory, modern entertainers rely on the “take 5”, a repeat of the act until it’s been captured in its perfected state. The current direction of copyright laws obstructs the popular movement in America. Civil disobedience is charged by social interactions as a antithesis to the governments slavist articles. Corporate types sit in deaf deliberation of its anticipated reward. “A corporation has no conscience” Thoreau Government worker drones at the copyright office must surely wash their hands quite often. Will our congress do likewise? Remember copyright protection is a privilege, not much different than your drivers license. That’s because it is a law unlike other laws that is supposed to end soon. Congress and/or the courts can at any time stop protecting copyrights, and they can do it by any means they choose. The courts could even decide to stop hearing infringement suits, any and all or picked by category.
    April 29, 09
    I thought I was through with this story until last night. In a dream some movie producer or mobster (I couldn’t tell the difference, nor was I awake to enough to ask) advised me that I had left out the most important part of the story. It was:
    PUBLIC DOMAIN REMAKES ARE NOT TRUE ART!
    We see the numbers of PD art being revitalized , copyrighted, and rising by the thousands, freshly dredged from the public domain. If this were some old PAINT BY NUMBERS” the creativity of it all and copyrighting would garner quite a few laughs. This is more evidence of the ineptness of our government, that karaoke paint by number music is allowed a copyright. Give them a subcategory of copyright, call it a “royalties rights certificate”, call it something that keeps it out of copyright. WHATS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN SHOULD STAY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN! This PD copying is not art and it’s certainly isn’t an invention. The authors can still sell it without a copyright. You know the old saying “ people will buy anything”! Using some lesser designation for this kind of ART will still afford them some legal protection. PAINT BY NUMBER MUSIC IS NOT REAL ART!!! Music taken from the public domain and altered replayed and copyrighted is still just a copy, nothing more. It would be like me taking the Mona Lisa and painting a mustache on her and asking for a copyright(they would probably give you one).

    DID HE REALLY WRITE THAT SONG OR BUY IT FROM SOME POOR CAT IN THE GHETTO? You probably heard that story before now, famous artists from the pre-civil rights era, rumored to have gotten their music from some down-and-out that had to sell it for the price of a meal. “Aspiring songwriters came to demonstrate tunes they hoped to sell. When tunes were purchased from unknowns, with no previous hits, the name of someone with the firm was often added as co-composer (in order to keep a higher percentage of royalties within the firm) or all rights to the song were purchased outright for a flat fee (including rights to put someone else’s name on the sheet music as the composer). Article, “Tin Pan Alley”, Wikipedia
    WE ARE A PLANET OF COPYCATS. Everything we do from wearing shoes and hats to walking the dog and stirring your cream and sugar is copied from other people. It’s sometimes called keeping up with the Joneses. The government is trying to punish people for what comes natural. The laws of INEVITABLE DISCOVERY say we will create whatever it is anyway. Even art follows enough common threads to theorize we will create a similar pattern sooner or later. Inevitable discovery makes sense when you are mapping out the genetics of the human body, but music might seem a little far fetched. However we all have similar pleasure zones and the artists are supposed to be working at reaching your zone. The lyrics and notes might be different but the satisfaction will be the same, and you’ll never know what you missed. You can’t fill the void if you didn’t know it was empty! You will never know what you missed unless you have read this rant and understand that copyright laws destroy creativity. You my friend are half way to the ball game, now all you have to do is write your congressman and demand we put an end to copyright (fake) protection for the arts.

    In defense of copyright: You can’t copyright everything at once, and even if you could you couldn’t afford it!

    Tessellation makes me think of honeycombs, fine floor tiles, and Persian rugs. It’s pleasing to use tessellating thoughts. Our copyright laws make me think of saws with broken teeth trying to cut a knotty hardwood, or running a hand planer against the grain of a nice Maplewood. We need to put the tessellation in copyright laws and soon!
    Fin
    Exponential Decay by Copyright

    Let’s say that all art can be reduced to pixels, like the pixels or bits used to define computer images. Every piece of art and music is reduced to its simplest numerical understanding, a pixel, which we will call Unit of Expression UE.
    Let’s go on and say we have created a melody and it is copyright protected. This melody consists of 100 UE’s, 50 are lyrics and 50 are notes, ½ notes, ¼ notes, sharps, flats, etc. Each note and word equals one unit of expression (obviously musical notes are much bigger than a pixel)
    ∞ equals infinite
    ∞ – 100 EU ≠ ∞
    How many UE’s are displaced from use for copyright by 100 UE ?
    Original work= 100
    Use a substitution system of permutations and combinations- replace one unit, then two, three and until all numerical combinations are filled.
    Replacing one unit equals 9,900
    Replacing two units = 970,200
    Three 970,200
    Four 9.41094e+7

    After the complete sequence is run the repeat using doubles, triples, etc.
    11,22,33,
    111,222,333
    Using the solfa scale as an example do,ra,mi.fa,so.la,ti,do
    Do,do,, ray,ray, mi,mi many combinations and permutations would infringe if solfa was a copyrighted work.
    With lyrics we would have to attempt word substitutions that could mean combinations with separate permutations.

    It is easy to demonstrate that one melody can produce a million + permutations and combinations. Will a melody that has combinations produce separate permutations from the combinations? What is the average percentage of infringement found in permutations? When you have found a place in the formula that isn’t infringing has it crossed over to someone else’s copyright?
    As it is self evident that because of permutations copyright laws cause exponential decay should they be allowed to continue? Perhaps we should go with the flow and wait for the screws to tighten again. New laws that allow copyright holders to inexpensively protect the permutations would most certainly put an end to art. As human population grows exponentially waste and decay closely follows behind. Copyright laws are creativity overload excretment.

    Good article to read: Learning from the Animal Toy Patent, by Gene Quinn, http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent/animal-toy/
    I was searching the internet for copyright info and found Rebecca Tushnet.com, a Georgetown Univ law professor. She must have umteengazillon pages written on copyright. A lot of interesting stuff, now if she can only change the world with it.

    May 22, 09
    A post on Sirius Buzz.
    A Deeper Look at The Royalty Bill

    How sad that this is being pushed by the black community, by a small handful of uncle toms that can’t create new music and want a free ride. In the process they destroy a part of what is America, the freedom, the culture, the history, and it’s what helped blacks find the place in life they own now. The proposed bill is only the first step of many steps that will be walked, the suggestion that small stations will pay as little as $500, when placed in the hands of government worker drones will escalate with late fees, taxes, annual increases, and amendments, etc., that will compound with a rise in infringement and usage suits that will bankrupt the small stations. Like I said before “the small mom and pop stations are dead with this bill”. Many of those that will die will be black owned stations, Conyers succeeded in killing his own people. Forgive them Lord for they no not what they have done!

    We had a little dinner party with the usual collection of acquaintances. Before eating we enjoyed a little music, some people danced and others sipped drinks while checking out the art on the walls of our state room. The call for dinner came and we abandoned our ourderves, and sent the musicians home, leaving the art on the walls, and our hearts went to what really mattered, a good meal with family and friends. The frivolous talk earlier was replaced by the words of the day, War, Work, God and Home. We became one people united over tea and cake. I hope the musicians were paid well, have some cake in the kitchen before you go!

    If there are more copyrights(and there are) then extra manpower is needed to process them, and there will be more problems, disputes, and lawsuits. Creativity is becoming blemished and strained so that something must be done about it. Science, law, and math is much like magic, as the experts like to covet their knowledge. Question them on every aspect, force all issues, knowledge in the courtroom or in congress can prevail for the good people.

    Possible free learning tool invention: Based on Edgar Cayce, the sleeping prophet. Under the pillow sleeping books. Cayce was allegedly capable of reading a book while asleep, by placing it under his pillow. I tried it and it was like sleeping on a rock. I don’t really know if anybody else has tried it but printing a book on cloth and then placing it under the pillow would work much better. Whether you are psychic enough to absorb the book is another problem, but at least you can try it with a cloth book that a little more gentle on the head. Could be used along with sleep learning cds, and cassettes. This is the other PBE!

    Next Week:
    1. Should churches be allowed to own copyright? Or is the correct question; should church congregation using church assets to develop music and then claiming copyright get it? After all they are not paying taxes! Are churches using copyright laws to trounce on First amendment freedom of speech? Cite The Freedom of Imagination: Copyrights Constitutionality, by Jed Rubenfeld(copied from nonpaginated online version) A story about an ex-scientology person that had posted on the internet portions of the churches healing technology, with the intent of exposing scientology as a fraud. The police raided his home and seized his books and files, and deleting text, for seven hours they searched his home. WOW! Someone tried to expose Scientology but couldn’t because of copyright laws. Don’t worry, I already believed scientology is a fake religion. The real issue is how to take their copyright protection away. If someone or something can be proven to be a fraud or committing a crime they shouldn’t be protected by copyright.

    2. Negative role modeling caused by gladiator sports(today’s sports equivalent). Children grow up believing they don’t need to get an education because they will make more money as pro ball players or musicians. So we get adults with a 3rd grade education biting off someone’s ear because they don’t know simple right from wrong. Thank copyright laws for that one. Licensed pro sports memorabilia is the money that makes it all go. Some gladiators in ancient Rome were volunteers, the lure of fame and fortune was a lure greater than the risk of death.
    3. Censorship and copyright- if we can’t change the copyright laws maybe we can reinvent censorship, to get the evil art off the channels.

    John Browns body lies a smoldering in his grave,
    But his truth goes marching on.

    Tehnoslavery is their new way to control,
    Laws that take your money and tell you where to go,
    Copyright is the devils way to sow,
    Our freedom is coming soon,
    Glory, glory, hallelujah,- – –
    I believe there isn’t one lawyer or politician that knows exactly how many laws exist in the United States. If I’m wrong someone let me know. It appears, using heuristic speculation, that better than 90% of all the laws passed in America since our beginning have in some way taken our freedom away. New laws outright ban something, or they make access difficult through certification, licensing, and user fees. It is a steady and continuous system that may end up as a new type of slavery. Our politicians and lawyers use laws as a tool of their trade, and it is only natural that they take the tools and make something. Pray to God that they use some common sense and stop this direction of slavery that we are heading. It’s bad enough they pass laws telling us to wear belts while driving and not to swim out past the deep water and other things of a personal nature, and that they use false science in making some of these laws. Seatbelt laws are based on the fact there have been less traffic fatalities in the last 20 years, one could, using the same facts, conclude that because more accidents have happened in the last 20 seatbelts are causing more accidents. This is entirely possible because it could be scientifically demonstrated that the seatbelt puts pressure, strain, blocks, prohibits the upper torso to reach it’s fullest potential necessary to achieve optimal body-mind coordination used to turn and eye the blind spots your mirror doesn’t see. Of course seatbelts for passengers make sense.
    So what does this got to do with copyright laws? Remember this is my rant and I just wanted to point out that we are going in the wrong direction with this am/fm royalties bill. It’s just one more law aimed at destroying something that is free in our country.

    This article is copyright free. Use any part or all of it or lose it any way you want.
    Social evolution of scenes a faire?

    DARN DOG CAN’T FIND ANY REAL FOOD, SO HE DUG UP THIS OLD BONE FROM OUR BACK YARD! Picture of dog with bone in his mouth and inscription on bone reads; “am/fm royalty bill” is missing. Sorry!

Comments are closed.