Comments on: Copyright Absurdity

By: CJS

CJS — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:44:35 +0000

I’m not so sure that this is that absurd. I have problems with the way patent laws are applied, particularly regarding software. I also have a problem with the DMCA suppressing certain types of software because they might be used to break copy protection schemes which are worthless to begin with. I think that we may have lost track of what a “limited time” means, especially when applied to a corporation. But in this case I don’t see a problem with the way copyright and trademarks are being used. If we are to regard copyrights, trademarks and patents as intellectual property, then such property can be sold just like any other property. It wouldn’t be valid if Madonna claimed ownership of a house she sold years ago, would it?

Now a case could be made that they cannot be viewed as property, but that is a much larger discussion.

By: marcyrw

marcyrw — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:41:51 +0000

Hi, Michael:
In the case of Prince, if “Prince” wasn’t his real name, and he used it in commerce, then abandoning the use of his name in commerce would be a trademark issue. In other words, if a company or a person uses a name in commerce (i.e., a trademark) and then decides not to use it anymore over a certain period of time, it’s considered “abandoned”. That means that anyone else can then use it in commerce. Again, it makes sense, because we don’t want everyone just tying up names or trademarks if they’re not using them. So, “use it or lose it”, basically. In the case of Alan Moore, note that you used the word “creations”. A “creation” is copyrightable. So, with Alan Moore, it’s a copyright issue. However, Alan Moore probably signed away his copyrights in his creations to his publishers, who own the characters and the stories. It’s a complicated issue, but this is the very basic version. To get back to Madonna and Prince: if someone used the lyrics of “Material Girl” in a song or if someone used a Prince-owned song without permission, that’s a copyright issue.

By: Michael O. Powell

Michael O. Powell — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 01:56:16 +0000

That does make sense, Marcy. I’m willing to say I’m wrong on this stuff if I am. Was it the same problem with Prince or Alan Moore?

By: marcyrw

marcyrw — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:23:30 +0000

Michael:
The Madonna case is really about trademark law. Once someone has used a trademark, such as “Material Girl”, in commerce in connection with a certain good or service, that person’s trademark is protectable under U.S. trademark law. If someone else uses that same name in commerce for a same or substantially similar good or services, that second person is violating the first user’s trademark. The reason is that the multiple uses of the same trademark for the same or very much similar goods or services confuses the public. It’s really not that absurd, if you think about it.

By: Michael O. Powell

Michael O. Powell — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:46:20 +0000

Those are certainly good points, Clan. This seems at its core to be a phenomenon that needs to work itself out. Comic book creators now have iPhone apps to their benefit, which some do charge for. FIlm producers can deliver their goods to literally anyone on the planet with minimal cost.

Then again, the bootlegging is at a scale that no previous generation had to deal with. Like our Thomas Sowell quote here says, “There are no solutions. Only tradeoffs.”

By: Cian Kinsella

Cian Kinsella — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 09:25:01 +0000

Yes, But…

The internet is still the Wild West as far as copyright law goes for small creators. On the one hand as you say they are trampled on by big business, on the other their stuff is being stolen on the internet. The internet should be a boon to individual creators it certainly is not that yet.

By: Copyright Absurdity – Liberty Papers at Satellite Broadband Internet

[...] Copyright AbsurdityLiberty PapersThe freedom of information that the internet provides works for small time artists, but artists who sign with larger labels in hopes of obtaining wider … [...]