from the preparing-for-talk-like-a-pirate-day? dept.
In The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind Professor of Law James Boyle writes about the history of copyright, patent and trademark laws, and their application. What is the public domain? What are orphan works? Why should somebody own an idea? Boyle makes the case for result-based evaluation of how well the current laws serve us and (re)introduces his idea of information environmentalism.
I think the book makes fascinating reading and since all our contemporary culture and technology is governed by these rules, we should know them and understand how they came to be.
The book is available for download under the CC BY-NC-SA license.
“In this beautifully written and subtly argued book, Boyle has succeeded in resetting that framework, and beginning the work in the next stage of this field. The Public Domain is absolutely crucial to understanding where the debate has been, and where it will go. And Boyle’s work continues to be at the center of that debate.” — Lawrence Lessig.
What say you Soylents? Do you think copyright protection lasts too long? Do you have a problem with patents? Download this book and weigh in for an informed discussion.
(Score: 2, Informative) by WillAdams on Tuesday September 16 2014, @12:09PM
I put a lot of effort into documenting the Shapeoko, a hobby-level CNC machine (please, I know it's not a Bridgeport --- I bought the Shapeoko 'cause I couldn't figure out how to get a Bridgeport into my basement, and if I had, how to justify to my wife jackhammering out the slab and pouring a footer for the machine) because I find it the best way to crystalize learning how to use it.
Thus far we have:
- http://docs.shapeoko.com/ [shapeoko.com] --- assembly instructions w/ interactive diagrams (hosted on Github in Markdown format)
- http://www.shapeoko.com/wiki [shapeoko.com] --- wiki w/ everything we could find on-line about CNC, or which we could elicit from the forums: http://www.shapeoko.com/forum [shapeoko.com] (let me know if I missed anything)
Expanding into specialties such as 3D printing: http://www.shapeoko.com/wiki/index.php/3D_Printing [shapeoko.com]
For a quick overview, here's a flier which we're putting together for the NYC 2014 Maker Faire:
Here's the front showing the overlap from the fold: http://www.shapeoko.com/wiki/index.php/File:Shapeoko_Flier_outlines_folded.png [shapeoko.com]
Overview of front and back together: http://www.shapeoko.com/wiki/index.php/File:Shapeoko_Flier.png [shapeoko.com]
Front opens up to: http://www.shapeoko.com/wiki/index.php/File:Shapeoko_Flier_outlines_1.pdf [shapeoko.com]
Back is: http://www.shapeoko.com/wiki/index.php/File:Shapeoko_Flier_outlines_2.pdf [shapeoko.com]
Copy which should be ready to print duplex: http://www.shapeoko.com/wiki/index.php/File:Shapeoko_Flier_outlines.pdf [shapeoko.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 16 2014, @12:31PM
"couldn't figure out how to get a Bridgeport into my basement"
That might be slightly more rigid than the shapeoko making it a slightly unfair comparison... a Sherline is three times the cost and maybe a little smaller, and a Tormach is about 20 times the cost and a bit bigger. Either can machine steel whereas the shapeoko is more of a CNC router than a CNC milling machine. There are Chinese "kit" products aka wanna be mills that need a lot of TLC to work that are about twice the cost and slightly larger.
(Score: 1) by WillAdams on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:19PM
Yeah, but there was a Bridgeport which came up as an incredible bargain locally on Craigslist --- trying to puzzle out how to get it was what started me down this rabbit hole --- and set an upper limit on what I was willing to spend --- I haven't put enough into my Shapeoko to buy a ``real'' mill, let alone the motors such a setup would require. Moreover, since my focus is:
- woodworking
- some small-scale brass hardware (to support the woodworking)
the Shapeoko is a good fit.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:44PM
"and set an upper limit on what I was willing to spend"
Machinist rule of thumb estimate is you're gonna spend 3x the cost of the mill on mill tooling and 2x the cost of a lathe on lathe tooling, eventually not all at once, just saying. It always seems to work out that way.
"Shapeoko is a good fit"
Yes for woodworking, but it can't be compared to a metal working machine because they're designed to do totally different things.
I would imagine it would make a pretty good printed circuit board router/driller. Whenever I've tried making pcbs on the mill I get lots of burrs, and the response is always something like "set yer RPM above 15K and your feed rate to like 300 inches per second then they go away" but I have a mill not a router so I top out at like 1800 rpm and the steppers sound "weird" above 10 IPS or so.
The above paragraph is why I don't think you'd like having a mill for wood working. Running a router bit at 1200 or whatever a giant bridgeport tops out at is a recipe for frustration. I even have problems drilling small holes in plastic with my mill, just doesn't have the RPMs.
Another headache with wood on metal tools is the metalworking tools were designed for steel / aluminum chips that brush away, not wood dust that clogs up in everything and sucks up way oil. In a pinch I've stuck wood in the metal lathe but the cleanup is horrendous like 1.5 hrs of cleaning for 15 minutes of work.
(Score: 1) by WillAdams on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:59PM
Yeah, when I was thinking about the Bridgeport I was thinking about doing steel, but it's a pretty small set of things which I need that for --- easily handled w/ a hacksaw, a small hand drill press, a set of good quality files and some pleasant hours on my back porch in the sun (latest was a shoe assembly for a Winchester Model 37), hence the switch to the smaller, lighter machine.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:24PM
cause I couldn't figure out how to get a Bridgeport into my basement
They are heavy. I moved mine, granted on the same floor though. I started by removing the table so it fit through a door. Table is very heavy so have a strong friend or a hoist to remove it. It's not hard, a few screws hold the lead screw and once they are off the table can slide right out of the dovetail. To slide it sideways I jacked it up and rested it on two 4x4's. I then laid down two pieces of 0.75" bar stock under it parallel to the direction I was sliding it and lowered the machine onto the bars. Then with a pry bar you get under the edge and little by little push the machine across the bars. Metal-on-metal with a small surface area slides like butter. To move it strait you simply get a length of 1/2" or 3/4" iron pipe and cut it into 24" lengths. Then you get the machine onto three pipes and place a fourth in front. You now roll it taking the pipes that popped out and placing them in front again. I moved it about 50 feet that way, 25 sideways and 25 forward.
"Ah yes but I said Basement" you say? Get a friend and build an A-frame out of 6x6 wood, get a sturdy block and tackle system and buy 4x4's to make a bed down the steps. Break down the machine as much as you can to lighten it up a bit. Remove the table and of possible, the head. You get the machine up in the air and lay the 4x4's down the steps. You then lower the machine onto the 4x4's and tilt it backward and then gently slide it down, SLOWLY until you get to the bottom. Then stand it up and roll it using pipes like I described above. My co-worker rigged his own shop into his basement that way. But that was through a cellar door that went from the outside. My home as a side door and steps go down at a right angle from inside which won't fit a machine. If you can go strait in from outside then you are set. Just be careful, you don't want to be crushed to death by that monster.
I have used many simple machines and methods to move all sorts of heavy machinery. My best was removing a 2500 pound Mack 673 diesel engine with the tranny still bolted to it from a van using nothing but a 6 ton bottle jack, pry bar, pipes 6x6's and 4x4's.
(Score: 1) by WillAdams on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:01PM
The problem was the mudded in finished stairwell --- couldn't justify knocking a hole in the ceiling and cutting out the finished wall to turn the corner at the bottom.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday September 16 2014, @04:53PM
Ah. No strait shot in. Same boat as me. I am going to build a garage next year and move my machines in storage from a building we own to my home. Been mothballed for close to 5 years now.
(Score: 2, Informative) by lentilsoup on Tuesday September 16 2014, @12:09PM
naked and petrifying.
There are no legumes but lentils, and soy is their condiment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @07:01PM
cud b gud
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Tuesday September 16 2014, @12:16PM
I've been getting my son (autistic and almost non-verbal: a few words and a smile and laugh that can make a dead man smile) ready for talk like a pirate day. Have a feeling he's going to walk around all day going 'Arrrrrh!' and I wonder how many people there will have any clue what so ever why.
Remember, only 251 days to towel day!
http://www.towelday.org/ [towelday.org]
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Tuesday September 16 2014, @12:34PM
The original copyright was a social contract. As a society, we agree to give up certain rights so that it's possible for content creators to make a little money off of their works, and in return they should give the works back to the public domain to enrich society. This social contract has broken down completely. Nothing much since the 1930s has entered the public domain. Copyright is so long that abandoned works are abandoned for a lifetime with no way to get them into the public domain. Copyright has become a way for corporations to control information indefinitely, and that makes the orignal social contact null and void. Now it's still the law, of course, and corproations will never allow the law to change because they use the law to make money. I would like to think the widespread groundswell of copyright violations en masse is actually civil disobedience, but I am not that stupid - people just want something for nothing.
I discovered how bad this was when I wanted to do some research into historically important software of the 1980s - most of the commercial software of the 1980s is still under copyright, but the entities which produced it are either kaput or in an entirely different line of business. There's literally no one left at the companies who even knows about the 1980s MS-DOS software any longer. Doing historical research is actually illegal, since historians must violate copyright to get copies of the software! That's how broken things are. Most of this software won't be eligible for the public domain until I'm dead or too old to care.
Copyright also allows corporations to withhold works. If a corporation has a copyright on a work, they can simply not sell it, and bury it so that no one can get access to it without finding an original copy, which can be difficult and expensive.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by quixote on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:47PM
I've bumped into a similar problem trying to learn a bit about the history of privacy rights. Most articulation of the right is fairly recent (since earlier there wasn't the tech to be really obnoxious). It's buried in scholarly journals from the 1950s, 1930s. Nobody's ever going to make any money off that, and yet the publishers have it so locked down the only way to see it is to travel to a university library that holds the physical journal. Or pay the GOOG if they grabbed it and scanned it, although why their "contribution" should count more than that of everyone else involved, I'm not at all sure.
An even bigger problem is that the concept of intellectual "property" is fundamentally broken.
Property is a social designation for limited resources that can be used up. Food, for instance, or a car, or a farm. Creative works are not like that. No matter how many people listen to music or use a computer program, it's not diminished in any way. There is zero need for a distribution system like property to limit usage.
There is some need for creators to make a living. But that doesn't mean you have to call something property when it isn't. We could track usage -- I'm under the impression we've gotten fairly good at tracking these days -- and pay the people involved in making whatever-it-is proportionally based on how much use it gets. (Yes, I realize there are a million technical issues with preventing cheating and doing that fairly.) In my world, the money would come from fees on the hardware, paper, flash cards, headphones, whatever, needed to use the stuff. But maybe there are better ideas for the money end.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:49PM
Copyright needs some kind of "use it or lose it" concept so that abandoned works can be challenged and put in the public domain. If I can't get whoever owns WordPerfect today to respond to a request to buy WP 5.1 for MS-DOS, I should be able to get the software put into the public domain. If there's a comic book from the 1970s I had as a child that has never been reprinted, and the publisher is still around, and will not release a digital version, they should be forced to put the work into the public domain. If a book or journal is not available to the general public in some way, it should be in the public domain. Even if the same publisher exists in some form today, they don't care about old stuff, and usually there has been a generational change and the people working there now don't even know the old stuff once existed.
The problem is that this is really, really hard to do. Proving a copyright holder is dead and no living relatives could make money off of the work is hard, and companies rarely go kaput without someone buying the assets. Try to prove Turbo C 1.0 should be in the public domain today. Something called Embercanto or something (I can't even remember the name) owns the remnant of Borland's development tools. For that matter, at one point someone who owned WordPerfect sub-licensed the WP 5.1 for DOS product to someone else, as I understand it, to sell copies to people who already owned licenses but who needed the software for some reason. This stuff is insanely complex, which is why copyright needs to be shorter. Give people a decade to exploit their works for money, and after that make them prove there is some viable reason to extend copyright. Probably 99% of creative works would be orphaned after a decade. Make extending copyright the exception, rather than granting it for longer than a person's lifetime.
I'd even be willing to create a special provision in copyright law for corporations like Disney to keep their "intellectual property" so that the rest of the public domain can be saved. Some kind of spercial category for Disney to own Mickey Mouse in perpetuity, outside of copyright.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 2) by khakipuce on Wednesday September 17 2014, @07:47AM
"There is some need for creators to make a living"
But what as gone wrong is that there is no need for a bunch of middle men to make vast wealth at our expense. I think most people are prepared to pay a price that means the "creator" makes a reasonable living but that needs to be proportionate to its value to society. Is an artist worth more than a doctor or a nurse? I know we don't necessarily value all things on a relative basis but there should be some sense of proportion. I think the industry really lost the plot with CDs and DVDs - cheaper to produce than vinyl and VHS but they put up the price and threw in some worthless add-ons to justify it. Then they got burned by the downloading rebellion.
The real problem is free market excess and the stupidity of the creative industries that constantly try to abuse the customer. I once heard Pete Waterman complaining that he wasn't getting any money from RickRolling, but as far as I can see he has plenty of money already and did very nicely from the original release, some people just can't let go.
(Score: 1) by Pino P on Tuesday September 16 2014, @09:56PM
Perhaps what is needed is not an expansion of the public domain but instead an expansion of the eminent domain. If a published copyrighted work has gone out of print in the United States, the government ought to let anyone buy a non-exclusive license pursuant to the takings clause of the Constitution, with some means of determining "just compensation". The opinion of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London [wikipedia.org], 545 U.S. 469 (2005), would appear to support this.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 16 2014, @12:35PM
I thought information environmentalism was a David Levy thing from 2005 vaguely neo-luddite neo-amish.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rts008 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:30PM
I would propose reducing copyright to ten years, with one costly extension available to the creator.(software would be here, not patented)
As for patents, you would need to apply with a working prototype and 'white paper'; no more software patents, no more business idea patents, no more 'style' patents(rounded corners, etc.).
And reduce the patent coverage to ten years also.
Trademarks I would currently leave alone, until abuse and misuse started widespread.
The goal is to make the 'scene' more competitive and innovative, not stagnant, toxic cesspools of walled dumps like we currently have.
(Score: 1) by jbWolf on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:03PM
Trying to steal my idea [jb-wolf.com], huh? ;) I have to admit, I think one extension may be too much, but I'm open to a good argument for it. As for trademarks, I think it would be good to incorporate that into the copyright and patent system more tightly. The idea being that there are things trademarked that I think should be in the public domain. Star Wars is an example; why can't we write our own epic sagas using lightsabers? (Lightsabers are trademarked.) I go over some of that in my link I provide.
It's not the first time I've peddled my idea and some people here on Slashdot have said they'd rather a patronage [wikipedia.org] kind of system. I've given that some thought. While I'm not opposed to the idea, I think it would be better if we let a decently balanced capitalistic idea that drives the general system (like in when writing video game code). Letting capitalism run the show does not necessarily exclude the idea of patronage.
The book mentioned in the article clocks in at 788 pages. It will take me a while to go through it, but I look forward to some of the things it has to say and altering my point of view.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 16 2014, @11:10PM
Patronage is a funding source.
Its orthogonal to a copyright. Patronage is simply another word for "work for hire", and historically the Patron Owned the product. It is only because everyone involved is deceased that people look upon patronage with such rosy glasses.
(Of course people try to claim that crowd funding is patronage, but it isn't even remotely the same thing. Kickstarter is no different than selling stock to start your company. Some kickstarters promise to be opensource and patent free, but that has nothing to do with the fact that crowd funding is, at the end of the day, just an alternative funding mechanism.
So we are back to the original problem, that is that copyrights are simply TOO LONG. They got too long by trying to protect franchises like Disney who want to own Mickey Mouse forever.
To a lesser extent protecting the rights t music and writing was involved, but lets face it, it really comes down to Media conglomerates trying to hold on to their creations essentially forever.
There is almost nothing else under copyright that is like Disney, Starwars, Startrek. Not music, not literature, not paintings or sculptures. Most creative works are produced, marketed, then DONE. Usually never revisited, except for the occasional sequel.
There probably should be a special class of protection for those things where complete companies have formed around preserving and ACTIVELY marketing a creation, and let the rest terminate after some short number of years, 10, 17, what ever.
But trying to fight Disney is not going to be productive. Better to give them their own little island, at great annual expense (tax it), and stiff entrance criteria. Create new category of property just for them, make it expensive enough to encourage them to give it up when they aren't using it any more.
Then, and only then can we let society benefit from all the books, songs, and artwork, software, architectural designs, etc. that would flow into the public domain in less than a lifetime.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by jbWolf on Wednesday September 17 2014, @04:42AM
I almost agree with you. You certainly have a very strong argument when you say that fighting Disney is not going to be productive. The problem is that all the big companies are doing it (like Marvel, DC, and even the BBC). The little guys then all point to them and say "But they're doing it!" It keeps it ugly at all levels.
I want to define an end game that people -- including the big boys -- can rally around. I mean, let's face it, you're right on some level. It won't magically change overnight and in the beginning, we'll have to chip away at it slowly. An intermediate point may look a lot like your idea. As we chip, though, bigger chunks will begin to come off and then (probably unexpectedly), a huge ice berg breaks. We will need to be ready with a real plan that is fair to all parties -- both big and small when that happens. Being fair to the big boys is why I want to tackle trademarks at the same time as copyrights and patents. With my idea, the big boys can still out market anyone else and they can still produce "the official" Star Wars, Star Trek, Iron Man, Superman, Doctor Who, etc. through their trademarks. They just wouldn't be able to prevent anyone else from making their own version of it.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday September 16 2014, @06:19PM
How about a copyright costs $10 and is good for 5 years. It can be renewed (for another 5 years) indefinitely, but the cost of each renewal is the cube of the previous price.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:46PM
This is the only way sanity[1] could be restored to a terminally broken system.
Unfortunately, the Bern Convention grants immediate automatic copyright to EVERYTHING, making registration fees obsolete.
The day the USA signed onto that agreement, "intellectual property" law was permanently and irretrievably broken.
[1] As Chico said, "You can'ta foola me. There ain't no sanity clause."
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by Pino P on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:13PM
The Berne Convention's prohibition of formalities can be worked around. If copyright in a work is property, it can be taxed like property. Starting 28 years after first publication, a lien would attach to the copyright. Then the IRS would be responsible for tracking down copyright owners who refuse to pay up and, in long-term cases, seizing the copyright under the takings clause. Or is income tax likewise considered a "formality" under Berne?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 17 2014, @03:13AM
Having suggested it several times before myself, I agree with your position.
Before I saw the comment by HiThere, I was also thinking about short terms and escalating values.
My suggestion would be 4 years--less than the original 14 years in the USA, as it's much easier nowadays to produce and distribute works than in 1790--and a tenfold ratcheting each time.
Let's see just how valuable your "intellectual property" actually is to you.
If enacted by a nation, you can bet this sort of thing would immediately go to the top of the list of things to be banned by the international trade agreement pukes.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @07:56PM
My idea was less drastic:
First, 20 years automatic copyright assignment (like we have now), after that, the work must be registered with the PT(C)O (Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Office). This registration includes an estimated worth (given by the owner). The Intellectual Property tax on that work would be 1%*(y-20)*e where y is the number of years since creation and e is the estimated worth. (120 years on the tax would be 100% of the worth of the material.) The key is, this list is made freely available by the PTCO, and any offer to purchase the works from the owner for more than the estimated worth MUST be accepted (as in the purchaser can sue the owner and the court will re-asign the copyright for the estimated cost).
The companies still get their long copyrights (if they want to pay for it), orphaned works (over 20 years old) are a thing of the past, and all copyrighted works (older than 20 years) are recorded so that you can know if a work is in or out of copyright easily.
Those unable to pay, (upstart writers, Linux repos, etc.) can still make due with the 20 years.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:04PM
And I say this as somebody who's family benefits from said ridiculous copyrights. In the 1950's, my grandfather collected a nice little folk ditty in the Catskills called "Puttin' on the Style" while he was working at a summer camp in the region. A lot of the people at that summer camp were from New York City, so the song started getting sung there. From New York, it spread to the UK, where it was picked up by skiffle groups like Lonnie Donegan and the Quarrymen (led by a couple of unknowns named John Lennon and Paul McCartney).
And because of that - a song my grandfather didn't even write, about 60 years ago - our family still gets royalties. It's not a lot of royalties, and last I checked we were donating the money to a charity in the area where he got the song, but still it seems rather silly that we get anything at all for work that we didn't do.
Eventually, I hope that my grandfather's work becomes public domain, but I doubt it, because the current goal of copyright policy is to ensure that Steamboat Willie and all other "intellectual property" owned by the approximately 4 big media conglomerates will never ever become public domain. That definitely has nothing to do with "encouraging artists to create more works": For example, A Night at the Opera is under copyright and that copyright is enforced, but somehow I don't think the Marx Brothers or Freddie Mercury will be creating any more works.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.