Copyright - your homework.

Source:
Copyright Series Part 1 – Early American Copyright History (1787 – 1905) | Sustainable Diversity

Genesis of Copyright Law: The 1790 Copyright Act
The year is 1787 and what is to become the world’s oldest functional Constitution was being written in the Philadelphia State House in Pennsylvania. The American Constitution, to become the bedrock of open and functional democracies, has guided not only the United States of America, but many countries around the world. While the American Constitution certainly isn’t divine, aspects of it were revolutionary, such as the Bill of Rights and the systems of checks and balances.
And found within this revolutionary document is Article I, Section VIII which focuses on the powers of Congress. Among the duties of the law-making branch of the United States between establishing Post Offices and theconstitution of Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court lies the right for Congress to establish copyright law. It sounds a little bit like this:

The Congress shall have Power… To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.​

In essence, the Constitution gives Congress the power to create copyright and patent laws in the United States. And the Constitution really only says 2 things about the framework of copyright law – so long as it promotes science and art and so long copyrights don’t last forever, Congress can do whatever they want with copyright (or patent) law.
And 3 years later, on May 31, 1790, George Washington signed the bill sent by Congress into the first federal copyright law, the 1790 Copyright Act. Created for the “encouragement of learning” authors of only maps, charts, and books (music, photographs, and movies were not even invented yet) were allowed to copyright their creations for a total of 14 years. The law squarely fit the Constitutional requirements. You only had to register the copyright with the government for a small fee. And if the author still remained alive after those 14 years and his creation was still profitable enough for the author to go through the effort of renewal, the author could then renew his work for an additional 14 years. If the author chose not to renew his work, then it was free for anybody to use after the initial copyright length.
So in short, there are 2 copyright lengths in the first American copyright law. The initial length (14 years) and the total length(28 years because you can extend your copyright for an additional 14 years by paying a renewal fee). It’s worthy to take note of the fact that the author still had to remain alive to receive benefits under the first copyright law. It’s also worthy to note that in the age where traveling took place by horses and death by bacterial infection was nothing short of common, that a man could only reap the benefits of his labor for a total of 28 years. Finally, the last interesting thing that we should remember about the Copyright Act of 1790 was that it was created to protect only maps, charts, and books. That was IT! When I first saw this, I thought copyright should be easy to understand! Only 3 initial things protected by copyright.
The Copyright Act of 1790 was amended in 1802 to include engravings, etchings, prints, or pictures for only a period of 14 years without extension. There was an apparent impression that these visual works did not deserve the extra length.

​

Noah Webster's commemorative statue​

​

The 1831 Act: Noah Webster’s Act
Then in February of 1831, the first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson, signed and put into law what would become historically known as theCopyright Act of 1831. The 1831 Act was the first serious revision of the 1790 Act to which America would never return to. What changed? The biggest change was that copyright on a given work was extended from an initial copyright protection of 14 years to 28 years. This meant that copyright was now valid for 28 years without renewal and an additional 14 years with renewal for a total of 42 years of protection. Compare this to the mere 28 years of protection under the 1790 Act. Also, interestingly enough, a copyright could be extended past the death of the author by the widow or children of the author. Understandably, this piece was put in there so that the family of the author in which the copyright supported, could still support the family even past the tragic death of the actual author. Isn’t the loss of a husband and father enough without having to deal with a complete loss of income to boot? On top of it all, now musical compositions had been added to the growing list of copyrightable material. After all, why should an author be held superior to a composer?
But the biggest question on the 1831 Act, whether you know it or not, is why did Copyright get extended from 28 years to 42 years? Various sourcesattribute the cause of this to one man, America’s favorite dictionary-writer,Noah Webster. Webster was an influential lexicographer in early America. Graduated from Yale, an active pedagogue, creator of some of America’s first dictionaries, firm believer in secular education, and abolitionist Noah Webster found himself as a model citizen in American life. Noah Webster’s portrait was actually painted by none other than Samuel Morse – inventor of Morse Code and apparently a well-respected artist. It is because of Noah Webster that one of the largest dictionaries in the world share his name – Merriam Webster. And it is because of Noah Webster that the Americanization of the English language began in earnest. We can thank Noah for the letter “s” being chosen over the letter “c” in words like “defense” and “-er” instead of “-re” in words like “center.” Today he’s commemorated with a statue in West Hartford, Connecticut in front of a public library.
But despite all the contributions and recognition of Noah Webster, he was not the most influential Webster of early America! No, that title goes to his cousin, Daniel Webster. Daniel Webster was a man who would rise from a mere House Representative all the way to the Secretary of State for 2 different presidents! He was the 12th president elect for New England. He even gets his own hall named after him at Dartmouth University where you can still find some of his personal belongings. Oh yea, and he also got a statue erected of him, but his is in Washington D.C. and it’s way bigger than Noah’s.
And it is because of this cousin in the government that so many sources are able to pinpoint Noah Webster as the cause for the extension behind the 1831 Act. It is a letter to this cousin Daniel from Noah in 1826 that shines light on Noah’s copyright beliefs. In short, Noah was an outspoken believer in perpetual property copyright (copyright that lasts forever and is treated like physical property) for an author, even after he is dead. Here it is in Noah’s own words:

I sincerely wish our legislature would come at once to the line of right & justice on this subject, & pass a new act, the preamble to which shall admit the principle that an author has, by common law, or natural justice, the sole & permanent right to make profits by his own labors, & that his heirs & assigns, shall enjoy the right, unclogged with conditions.​

Basically, to put Noah’s words into modern everyday language, he said this: “I want a new copyright law that says, for whatever reason, that an author has the permanent right to make money from his own work, and this right should be continued on to whoever the author wishes to pass it on to, without any conditions (such as 28 year limitations or renewals) by the government.” So if it were up to Noah, anything he copyrighted would still be good to this very day to anybody that legitimately owned the copyright. Indeed, Noah saw no problem with this whatsoever even though his cousin Daniel did, which is why he replied:

I confess frankly that I see, or I think I see, objections to make it perpetual.​

​

Daniel Webster's much bigger commemorative statue​

​

The result, as we now know was an extension of the original copyright by double. 14 years to 28 years, still with 14 years extension. A far cry from perpetual, but it certainly was a significant extension nonetheless. So significant, we should probably stop and take a moment to consider the life of a man in proportion to copyright. Let’s take Noah’s life, for example. He died at 84 years old. Had he lived his entire life underneath a law such as the 1790 Act, the law would’ve protected his work for a mere 33% of his life. Now, had he lived that same life underneath the 1831 Act he helped put into place, his work would’ve been protected for 50% of his life.

 

The Garden of your mind...

 

Lawrence Lessig: Re-examining the remix | Video on TED.com

 

RIP: A Remix Manifesto

 

Kellory - if you think you should have to pay Warner Brothers to sing Happy Birthday to your kids...duh....what can I possibly say that wouldn't be directly insulting?

Why don't we have a cure for cancer?
Patents. It's more profitable to treat it than cure it.

Why don't we have free energy?
Patents. It's more profitable to create artificial scarcity.

Wake up man.
The whole copyright system needs to be scrapped/ignored in a digital age.
1's and 0's aren't property...
Ideas cannot be owned.
It's against my religion.

Missionary Church of Kopimism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ctrl+C Ctrl+V is Holy.

Grinder

 

FOR A VERY LIMITED TIME.
Certainly NOT for the life of the "creator" + a generation.
Who is to say that someone else could not have had the same idea 1 day after the "creator". Will you rob them of their potential to "protect" the person who had it first?
Absurd.

 

The solution is much simpler.
5 year term and then it is public domain.
No restrictions.
This gives EVERYONE the opportunity to build on top of ANY good idea and make it better.
If you can't profit from your idea in 5 years....or continually innovate and improve upon it to promote a demand translating into a revenue stream - let someone else have a shot at it.
I see no reason that Brazil shouldn't be able to make their own AIDS medication because some American corporation owns the patent and makes it totally unrealistic to purchase the needed amount for a 3rd world country.
It's a recipe...not a trillion dollar industry.

G

 

The last time this was done....was insulin.
Insulin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The patent for insulin was sold to the University of Toronto for one half-dollar."

THAT's what it's all aboot.


G

 

This horse is well dead. I'm done here.

 

"The argument then becomes, "why should you have the right to forbid me to use your work?"" by this logic, i should be able to use your truck without your permission, It is property. period. I'm done here.

 

They are the same. both products of the mind, designed and made by men, for the benefit of it's creator. It has value that can be bought sold, traded. It is owned. Period. Now, I'm tired, and going to bed.

 

Wrong.
Much like your fight to retain the 2nd...it will never be done until I surrender to corporate tyranny.
I WILL NOT SURRENDER.
YOU WILL NOT TAKE MY 1's and 0's FREEDOM IN THE NAME OF CORPORATE PROFIT.
YOU WILL NOT LIMIT MY FREEDOM TO SHARE.
YOU WILL NOT PERSECUTE AN ENTIRE GENERATION OF CHILDREN WHO DOWNLOAD AS THIEVES TO PRESERVE YOUR PROFIT DRIVEN IDEA MONOPOLY.

I will resist....and frankly....I am the internet.
You are just a User.

Piracy....it's for the children.

HUZZAH!

Grinder

 

I'd download your book and prolly buy a printed copy if u made if flashy and 1000x moreso because I know you and have ACCESS to the author...
The significance is more than you might realize.
A band who has live-streaming shows and jam sessions on their website directly engages their fans. They can easily sell memberships to their site with exclusive content, chat sessions with the band...etc etc etc...
A milli vanilli band who rips a few tracks in a studio but can't perform live is lame, OTHER than by duplication.
This whole argument is absurd to anyone who understands the reality of the internet.
If you had a machine that made apples, oranges, beef and wheat out of 1's and 0's....
It's not moral for you to "own" the idea and profit from it for eternity at the expensive of all mankind.

Slap youself with a large trout.

G
The Internet Golden Ratio Age requires ENGAGEMENT by "creators" to profit.

 

And, as you often point out, capitalization, and exact wording make a difference in documents and laws, in-corporations, and in all legal descriptions. Words have exact meanings. Not to be bent to fit whatever you want them to mean. Words such as "Interchange" are not open to debate. It has specific meanings, and usages. You must use it as intended. You can not dismiss it, because it conflicts with your desires. Taking, without consent, is theft. And even if Government decides for the Greater Good, to put a freeway through your house, that taking must be compensated.