Pluto's OK

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in
message .com...
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:58:54 -0500, Ami Silberman wrote
(in article ):

Only within the "fair use" doctrine, which specifically states that you
can't

use the whole thing, or even large chunks.

Um, that's not quite what the Copyright Act itself says unless it's
been amended recently. Here's what the Copyright Office says about
fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
You are, of course correct. "Specifically states" is too strong. However, in
general, in academia, you can't get away with handing out entire chapters of
in-print books (especially textbooks) to your class without first getting
permission from the copyright holder -- complete books are pretty much right
out (although my wife was able to get permission to distribute photocopies
of an out-of-print book to one of her classes.)

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
(although my wife was able to get permission to distribute photocopies of
an out-of-print book to one of her classes.)

I believe that is one of the two fundamental problems with the current
system. If a book is out of print and there is no likelihood of it being
reprinted anytime soon (not because the person wanting a copy guesses that
to be so, but because the party with the rights says so), it should be legal
to copy it, provided some regulated payment is made to a copyright clearance
organization.

The second problem lies with orphan copyrights- if the current copyright
owner cannot be determined with a duly diligent search, then it should be
legal to make a copy, provided that some regulated payment is made to a
copyright clearance organization.

The burden to keep track of the copyright owner should be on the owner- if a
copyright changes ownership, that change should be registered within a very
limited period of time, or it legally becomes orphan until registered.

This would allow essentially dead works (i.e., in copyright but not
accessible) to become accessible and possibly even generate revenue. A
proviso could be added to registration to allow the copyright holder to
block copying for out-of-print works, but why would you want to?

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:04:47 -0500, Scott Hedrick wrote
(in article ):

The burden to keep track of the copyright owner should be on the owner- if a
copyright changes ownership, that change should be registered within a very
limited period of time, or it legally becomes orphan until registered.

And such a safe-harbor/re-registration system should be a VERY limited
time. I'd vote for 90 days myself, which is longer than most time
limits in many legal procedures, but I'd be okay with 180 days.

--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
www.angryherb.net

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in
message .com...
And such a safe-harbor/re-registration system should be a VERY limited
time. I'd vote for 90 days myself, which is longer than most time
limits in many legal procedures, but I'd be okay with 180 days.

I was thinking in terms of a couple of years, but there's no good reason why
it shouldn't be within 180 days- it's not as if it's real hard to register.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 29 Aug 2006 10:33:42 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 08:47:57 -0500, in a place far, far away, OM
made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:17:55 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Can I republish this on my blog, with attribution?

...Depends. Do you *really* think you can condense that into two
sentences and keep the same message?

Why would I have to do that?

You tend not to be able to help it...

No, but you don't seem to be able to help posting idiocy.

Only to idiots...

Rand Simberg wrote:

"Eric Chumpko" wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
OM wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:

Can I republish this on my blog, with attribution?

...Depends. Do you *really* think you can condense that into two
sentences and keep the same message?

Why would I have to do that?

You tend not to be able to help it...

No, but you don't seem to be able to help posting idiocy.

He can't help it, because he is a Chump.

Scott M. Kozel wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:

"Eric Chumpko" wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
OM wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:

Can I republish this on my blog, with attribution?

...Depends. Do you *really* think you can condense that into two
sentences and keep the same message?

Why would I have to do that?

You tend not to be able to help it...

No, but you don't seem to be able to help posting idiocy.

He can't help it, because he is a Chump.

Is name calling all you have? Contribute if you have something even a
good flame with some wit behind it, but adolescent name calling? C'mon,
you can do better than that.
Can't you? Perhaps not...

Eric

In message , Scott Hedrick
writes

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in
message .com...
And such a safe-harbor/re-registration system should be a VERY limited
time. I'd vote for 90 days myself, which is longer than most time
limits in many legal procedures, but I'd be okay with 180 days.

I was thinking in terms of a couple of years, but there's no good reason why
it shouldn't be within 180 days- it's not as if it's real hard to register.

That would violate the Berne convention, as the treaty prohibits
requiring any kind of formality to establish or retain copyright on the
general principal that copyright should not be lost accidentally or due
to ignorance of a specific legal system. There are considerable
practical advantages in having a consistent international legal
framework that protects your copyright in foreign states and after a
century this has largely been achieved.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Paul Dunbar
To email me, use reply-to address

"Brett Paul Dunbar" wrote in message
news
That would violate the Berne convention, as the treaty prohibits requiring
any kind of formality to establish or retain copyright on the general
principal that copyright should not be lost accidentally or due to
ignorance of a specific legal system.

You misunderstand- we weren't saying that copyright would be lost without
registration. The registration was to give notice of the most current
copyright holder, to avoid a copyrighted item from becoming an orphan, thus
making it impossible to legally get permission to copy. There's currently no
process to get permission to copy or reprint something in copyright where
the current holder cannot be found, essentially making such an item useless.
There are thousands of items currently in copyright, but for which the
current owner is unknown. The registration process we were describing
involved items which have transferred ownership- if someone buys or
otherwise knowingly obtains the copyright to an item, then they should be
required to register that change of ownership, so as to allow the public to
contact them if it is desired to duplicate an out-of-print item. One way to
ensure this is done is to require registration within a limited period of
time of the change of ownership. The penalties for not properly registering
could be as drastic as losing the copyright, or it could be that the item is
treated as an orphan if a duly diligent search cannot uncover the proper
owner, and thus the item could be legally reprinted at the standard
government-issue rate, with the royalties thus held in trust until the true
owner comes forward. Thus, orphans can be legally reproduced even without
the permission of the copyright holder, *unless* the current holder declares
at the time of registration that the item is not to be reprinted without
permission.

Suitable rules would allow registration after the deadline, but would not
allow such registration to cancel projects involving the no longer orphan
item that were started during the time of orphanhood, nor would it allow a
change in royalties for anything done before proper registration. If the
copyright is considered valuable to the owner, then the owner should take a
minimum step to protect it.

It's not an attempt to get something for nothing, rather, it's an attempt to
prevent something from becoming nothing simply because the owner cannot be
found.

In message , Scott Hedrick
writes

"Brett Paul Dunbar" wrote in message
news
That would violate the Berne convention, as the treaty prohibits requiring
any kind of formality to establish or retain copyright on the general
principal that copyright should not be lost accidentally or due to
ignorance of a specific legal system.

You misunderstand- we weren't saying that copyright would be lost without
registration. The registration was to give notice of the most current
copyright holder, to avoid a copyrighted item from becoming an orphan, thus
making it impossible to legally get permission to copy. There's currently no
process to get permission to copy or reprint something in copyright where
the current holder cannot be found, essentially making such an item useless.
There are thousands of items currently in copyright, but for which the
current owner is unknown. The registration process we were describing
involved items which have transferred ownership- if someone buys or
otherwise knowingly obtains the copyright to an item, then they should be
required to register that change of ownership, so as to allow the public to
contact them if it is desired to duplicate an out-of-print item. One way to
ensure this is done is to require registration within a limited period of
time of the change of ownership. The penalties for not properly registering
could be as drastic as losing the copyright, or it could be that the item is
treated as an orphan if a duly diligent search cannot uncover the proper
owner, and thus the item could be legally reprinted at the standard
government-issue rate, with the royalties thus held in trust until the true
owner comes forward. Thus, orphans can be legally reproduced even without
the permission of the copyright holder, *unless* the current holder declares
at the time of registration that the item is not to be reprinted without
permission.

Actually I didn't misunderstand. Virtually any penalties for failing to
register would violate Berne, loss of copyright certainly would it is
absolutely forbidden to impose any formalities for the retention of
copyright. In practice if a publisher has made a good-faith effort to
find the copyright holder and places a reasonable royalty in an escrow
account they should be OK, as they have clearly demonstrated an intent
to pay.


Suitable rules would allow registration after the deadline, but would not
allow such registration to cancel projects involving the no longer orphan
item that were started during the time of orphanhood, nor would it allow a
change in royalties for anything done before proper registration. If the
copyright is considered valuable to the owner, then the owner should take a
minimum step to protect it.

It's not an attempt to get something for nothing, rather, it's an attempt to
prevent something from becoming nothing simply because the owner cannot be
found.

It would breach the Berne convention. A simpler approach would be
allowing an explicit good-faith defence, i.e. that a good faith attempt
to locate the copyright holder has been made and reasonable royalties
placed in escrow, that would be permissible.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Paul Dunbar
To email me, use reply-to address