Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Sep 2010 16:30 UTC
Legal We've all heard of patent trolls who buy up patents without using them to make any products. Their only goal is to seek out possible infringers and sue them, making money via the justice system. It was only a matter of time, but we've now got something new: copyright trolls.
Thread beginning with comment 439556
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The selling of copyright
by SReilly on Mon 6th Sep 2010 16:48 UTC
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

...is completely contrary to the original idea behind the scheme. If you think about why we have copyright, to provide a marked for artists and authors that will encourage the further development of writing and the arts, being allowed to sell on that copyright makes very little sense to me. In fact, I've found that in the music industry this leads to serious abuses of artists. If they are not careful at the time of signing a recording contract they may find that they have inadvertently "sold" away the rights to their own work.

If a copyright is granted, it should be granted to the applicant for life. I don't see how allowing the retailing of what is a limited monopoly in any way helps further the arts.

Reply Score: 7

RE: The selling of copyright
by umccullough on Mon 6th Sep 2010 17:12 in reply to "The selling of copyright"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

If a copyright is granted, it should be granted to the applicant for life. I don't see how allowing the retailing of what is a limited monopoly in any way helps further the arts.


The problem with the "for life" term is that corporations (which can also establish copyrights) don't die naturally.

Color me surprised - when you give copyright holders as much power as they have now - you're bound to find abuse.

If this keeps up, all the information in our world will eventually be "owned" and kept under lock and key.

Reply Parent Score: 7

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I had forgotten about corporations, thanks for pointing that out. As you so rightly put it, corporations don't have a natural life span so to grant copyright on that specific time limit would be absurd.

As for corporations buying up copyright and locking the affected works away, that's already in full swing. If Disney get their way, we may never see "Steamboat Willie" released into the public domain.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: The selling of copyright
by _xmv on Tue 7th Sep 2010 01:06 in reply to "RE: The selling of copyright"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

Knowlege is power, share the wealth... or keep it hidden locked and ask money for it.

You know, money is power, too.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: The selling of copyright
by Karitku on Mon 6th Sep 2010 18:18 in reply to "The selling of copyright"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

Your are so naive. Copyrights are sold daily to corporates. If you ever get to work and write thing like manual, you don't own the copyright, company owns it. Same goes on lot of other stuff. What this company does isn't wrong, but how they "protect" copyrights is. Keep mind there is quite strong code what and how much you can copy from other copyright. Unfortunatly in internet age lot of people who have no clue how this works are taking parts of others copyrighted materials causing them to broke copyright law by accident. Righthaven is using this weakness like bully and attacking those weak ones.

Reply Parent Score: 1

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Why would my statement make me naive? Where in my post does it say that I don't understand and know about corporations trading in copyrights? For that matters, where in your post does it explain why I'm being naive?

If you can't understand what I wrote then please refrain from commenting on my level of sophistication in these matters.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: The selling of copyright
by mr_pinsky on Mon 6th Sep 2010 18:21 in reply to "The selling of copyright"
mr_pinsky Member since:
2010-09-06

regarding the 'lifting' of a paragraph from their homepage: that's obviously covered by the 'fair use' doctrine. otherwise, even copying a page from some book at a library would be illegal (which it's not).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Edited 2010-09-06 18:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I'm not so sure this is covered by fair use. You see, Righthaven are alleging that Sharron Angle reprinted two whole articles on her website. Usually that kind of situation is not an issue if the person reprinting the articles mentions the source but in this case, Righthaven aren't even the source, they bought the copyright with the sole intentions of suing.

Reply Parent Score: 2