Dave:
Yes, I agree, your information seems very linear to my own understanding.
And, yes, I too am cynical of congress and its' motives here. I certainly
support an authors' sole ownership of his intellectual material, and I am
willing to acknowledge a right to his immediate/living family. When it gets
out to his grandkids, I believe there is a greater argument; that is the
publics right to amass knowledge is of a greater importance than giving the
grandkids a free ride and free money, not to mention the media organizations
who exploit these laws to the detriment of societies goals and needs...
A free ride by the grandkids is probably not to their benefit anyway--one
can only truly appreciate that which he/she has himself/herself earned....
But hey, that is only my personal opinion...

Regards,
John

--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Hal Rosser wrote:

So, you're saying that anyone could republish a book like "Moby Dick"
and sell it as their own since it was published before 1923 ?
I'm no lawyer, but I believe copyright live on. Patents expire.

Your belief is mistaken. Copyrights expire. They always have (under
U.S. law). The duration of copyright varies, reflecting changes in
the law.

Get the details (at least as far as U.S. law is concerned) at the
Federal Government's copyright-office web site:

http://www.copyright.gov/

If a work was originally created after 1/1/1978, its copyright applies
for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years.

Works created prior to 1/1/78 were originally granted a copyright of
28 years, which could be renewed for an additional 28 years. The 1976
Copyright Act extended the duration of the renewal period to 47 years.
There are further complexities (many of them) as Congress has seen fit
to (some would say "has been bribed with large campaign contributions
to") further extent and expand copyright protection over the past few
years.

Works which were originally created prior to 1922 - i.e. more than 56
years prior to 1/1/78 - have falled into the public domain, as both
their original 28-year copyright, and a subsequent 28-year renewal
would have run out prior to the date on which the laws changed.

Many works created in the 1940s and 1950s have also fallen out of
copyright protection, as their original 28-year copyright terms were
not renewed. Automatic renewal of copyright didn't kick in until the
1990s.

[Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer.]

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Dave:
Yes, I agree, your information seems very linear to my own understanding.
And, yes, I too am cynical of congress and its' motives here. I certainly
support an authors' sole ownership of his intellectual material, and I am
willing to acknowledge a right to his immediate/living family. When it gets
out to his grandkids, I believe there is a greater argument; that is the
publics right to amass knowledge is of a greater importance than giving the
grandkids a free ride and free money, not to mention the media organizations
who exploit these laws to the detriment of societies goals and needs...
A free ride by the grandkids is probably not to their benefit anyway--one
can only truly appreciate that which he/she has himself/herself earned....
But hey, that is only my personal opinion...

Well, that was pretty much the opinion of the Founders who set up the
legal structure for patent, copyright, and trade-secret protection.

The original motivation and justification for these sorts of law -
which have the effect of placing Government law-enforcement power in
the service of private individuals - was *not* to ensure the
enrichment of the inventors and authors. The original goal was to
increase the public good.

The reasoning is that by providing inventors and authors with a
*limited* protection of their creative works (i.e. exclusive rights,
for some period of time), it would motivate inventors to invent and
also to reveal their inventions to others in detail (the latter being
required for a patent) rather than keep their inventions secret.
Similarly, it would motivate people to write, create paintings, etc.

The legal protection was made limited in time... and I believe that
this was done specifically so that the inventions and creations
*would* continue to enter the public domain so that other people could
build upon them in the future, further enriching our cultural and
technical heritage.

A tradeoff was offered for those who wished to keep their inventions
secret, and maintain an indefinite "lock" on the exclusivity. The
alternate to a patent (which requires disclosure) is a trade secret.
The way that the law was originally structured, was that a trade
secret had to be kept *secret* in order to be protected... i.e. via
physical protection, legal nondisclosure agreements with the parties
to whom it was revealed, etc. A trade secret did not carry with it
any protection against independent re-invention or reverse
engineering. If you invent a better widget, keep its details secret,
make it for several years, and then somebody independently re-invents
the same device or process, you didn't have the legal right to
prosecute them or shut them down.

Unfortunately (in my opinion), both copyright and trade-secret
protection have been excessively widened over the past few decades.
Copyright has been repeatedly extended to the point that it's now
nearly unlimited in duration... literary inventions which have been
part of American culture for many decades are still "locked up" as the
commercial properties of the licensees of their authors. Similarly,
"trade secret" protection seems to have been widened, to the point
where companies feel free to ask the courts to shut down discussion
and distribution of information involving the independent re-invention
or reverse engineering of technologies that those companies feel is
proprietary, even if none of the people involved in the discussion or
reverse engineering are under any sort of trade-secret agreement.

Seems to me that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of
"protect the revenue of the inventors and authors" and too far away
from "promote the greater public good."

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Dave:
THAT post if proof, at least to me, that you ARE a Great American!
I will remember your words my friend!

Warmest regards,
John

--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Dave:
Yes, I agree, your information seems very linear to my own understanding.
And, yes, I too am cynical of congress and its' motives here. I certainly
support an authors' sole ownership of his intellectual material, and I am
willing to acknowledge a right to his immediate/living family. When it
gets
out to his grandkids, I believe there is a greater argument; that is the
publics right to amass knowledge is of a greater importance than giving
the
grandkids a free ride and free money, not to mention the media
organizations
who exploit these laws to the detriment of societies goals and needs...
A free ride by the grandkids is probably not to their benefit anyway--one
can only truly appreciate that which he/she has himself/herself earned....
But hey, that is only my personal opinion...

Well, that was pretty much the opinion of the Founders who set up the
legal structure for patent, copyright, and trade-secret protection.

The original motivation and justification for these sorts of law -
which have the effect of placing Government law-enforcement power in
the service of private individuals - was *not* to ensure the
enrichment of the inventors and authors. The original goal was to
increase the public good.

The reasoning is that by providing inventors and authors with a
*limited* protection of their creative works (i.e. exclusive rights,
for some period of time), it would motivate inventors to invent and
also to reveal their inventions to others in detail (the latter being
required for a patent) rather than keep their inventions secret.
Similarly, it would motivate people to write, create paintings, etc.

The legal protection was made limited in time... and I believe that
this was done specifically so that the inventions and creations
*would* continue to enter the public domain so that other people could
build upon them in the future, further enriching our cultural and
technical heritage.

A tradeoff was offered for those who wished to keep their inventions
secret, and maintain an indefinite "lock" on the exclusivity. The
alternate to a patent (which requires disclosure) is a trade secret.
The way that the law was originally structured, was that a trade
secret had to be kept *secret* in order to be protected... i.e. via
physical protection, legal nondisclosure agreements with the parties
to whom it was revealed, etc. A trade secret did not carry with it
any protection against independent re-invention or reverse
engineering. If you invent a better widget, keep its details secret,
make it for several years, and then somebody independently re-invents
the same device or process, you didn't have the legal right to
prosecute them or shut them down.

Unfortunately (in my opinion), both copyright and trade-secret
protection have been excessively widened over the past few decades.
Copyright has been repeatedly extended to the point that it's now
nearly unlimited in duration... literary inventions which have been
part of American culture for many decades are still "locked up" as the
commercial properties of the licensees of their authors. Similarly,
"trade secret" protection seems to have been widened, to the point
where companies feel free to ask the courts to shut down discussion
and distribution of information involving the independent re-invention
or reverse engineering of technologies that those companies feel is
proprietary, even if none of the people involved in the discussion or
reverse engineering are under any sort of trade-secret agreement.

Seems to me that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of
"protect the revenue of the inventors and authors" and too far away
from "promote the greater public good."

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:57:10 -0000, (Dave Platt)
wrote:


The reasoning is that by providing inventors and authors with a
*limited* protection of their creative works (i.e. exclusive rights,
for some period of time), it would motivate inventors to invent and
also to reveal their inventions to others in detail (the latter being
required for a patent) rather than keep their inventions secret.
Similarly, it would motivate people to write, create paintings, etc.

Unfortunately, we're stuck with a legislature composed of
lawyers who, when reminded that copyright was to be "for a limited
period" can, with a sraight face (and bulging pockets) say, "One
thousand years is a limit, is it not?"