1. Free Legal Help, Legal Forms and Lawyers. TheLaw.com has been providing free legal assistance online since 1995. Our most popular destinations for legal help are below. It only takes a minute to join our legal community!

    Dismiss Notice

Has anyone ever tried simplifying copyright law?

Discussion in 'Copyright, Trademark, Patent Law' started by jv1597, Aug 17, 2017.

  1. jv1597

    jv1597 Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Jurisdiction:
    Texas
    Copyright Infringement:
    The conscious premeditated copying, reproduction, duplication, or distribution of any officially copyrighted audio, audio-visual, literary, or articulate work, copyrighted in-part, or in its entirety.

    sited from wikipedia.com:
    Subject matter of copyright
    Under section 102 of the Act, copyright protection extends to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." The Act defines "works of authorship" as any of the following:

    literary works,
    musical works, including any accompanying words,
    dramatic works, including any accompanying music,
    pantomimes and choreographic works,
    pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,
    motion pictures and other audiovisual works, and
    sound recordings.[3]
    An eighth category, architectural works, was added in 1990.


    Clarification of "Works of Authorship" and Copyright Protection:
    Musical Works - Audio
    Motion Picure Works - Audiovisual
    Dramatic/Pantomimes/Choreographic Works - Literary
    Pictorial/Graphic/Sculptural Works - Articulate
    Architectural Works - Intellectual Property for Application for Design Patent

    Original works of authorship should require official copyright registration through the US Copyright Office for copyright protection of any audio, audio-visual, literary, or articulate work, be it in-part, or in its entirety, and should not constitute validity for granting of copyright protection by the US Copyright Office as of the date for which the original works of authorship are fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time on a date before official applicable inspection is carried out for copyright validation by the US Copyright Office.

    Copyright protection should not apply to audio, audio-visual, literary, or articulate works in-part, unless the audio, audio-visual, literary, or articulate work 'in-part' specified in its entirety is officially registered for copyright protection through the US Copyright Office, for copyright protection for commercial use of the specific audio, audio-visual, literary, or articulate work in-part.


    sited from wikipedia.com:
    Fair use
    Additionally, the fair use defense to copyright infringement was codified for the first time in section 107 of the 1976 Act. Fair use was not a novel proposition in 1976, however, as federal courts had been using a common law form of the doctrine since the 1840s (an English version of fair use appeared much earlier). The Act codified this common law doctrine with little modification. Under section 107, the fair use of a copyrighted work is not copyright infringement, even if such use technically violates section 106. While fair use explicitly applies to use of copyrighted work for criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, the defense is not limited to these areas. The Act gives four factors to be considered to determine whether a particular use is a fair use:

    the purpose and character of the use (commercial or educational, transformative or reproductive);
    the nature of the copyrighted work (fictional or factual, the degree of creativity);
    the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used; and
    the effect of the use upon the market (or potential market) for the original work.[5]
    The Act was later amended to extend the fair use defense to unpublished works. [6]


    Clarification of Fair Use:
    Fair Use should not grant the copyright owner the right to tariff access to copyrighted works. Fair Use should not limit the rights of the consumer for non-profit, non-commercial use of copyrighted material in-part, not covered specifically in its entirety by the official copyright specification for the copyrighted work of authorship registered in its entirety 'in-part', nor should it limit the non-profit, non-commercial consumer use of personally purchased licensed copyrighted works of authorship for one display, or showing, to one spectator at any point in time, whether it be displayed, or shown locally, or remotely, be it by means of an electronically networked wired, or wireless transport mechanism.

    Fair Use may limit the contextual reproduction of copyrighted material, such that proprietary reproduction, revision, or modification of the contextual quality of the content of the copyrighted work is not permitted.


    Clarification of the Berne Convention:
    The Berne Convention should not limit the rights of the nationals, or residents of a country of origin for non-profit, non-commercial use of officially copyrighted works of authorship of domestic nationality, which are copyrighted 'in-whole', or 'in-part', or published domestically within the country of origin, nor should the Berne Convention hold subject the nationals, or residents of domestic nationality to foriegn copyright laws, which should only apply within foriegn countries of origin which are deemed parties to the convention.

    The Fair Use of officially copyrighted works of authorship should be determined domestically, and should exempt nationals, or residents of the domestic country of origin.
     
  2. hrforme

    hrforme Active Member

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Why don't you do that and then get back to us?
     
  3. zddoodah

    zddoodah Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,403
    Likes Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    113

    This is not a legally correct definition of copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is defined -- in Section 501(a) of the Copyright Act -- as follows: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be." Notably, there is no intent element (i.e., the act need not be "conscious" or "premeditated").

    I'm not going to go through the rest of your post to see which parts are and aren't correct.

    Yes. The 94th Congress, in particular, greatly simplified copyright law when it enacted the Copyright Act of 1976.

    Other than asking this question, I'm not really sure what the point of your post is. If there's something you don't understand, feel free to ask, and I and others will try and help you understand.
     
    hrforme likes this.
  4. jv1597

    jv1597 Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I ran into a dead end with a media streaming application I was inquiring about for copyright licensing. After inquiring further about the Copyright Act of 1976, I found out that copy, reproduction, duplication, and distribution, weren't the main concern when it comes to copyright protection. Then I found that the rights of the copyright owner grant him/her with the right to limit access to copyrighted works, as with digital transmission of audio-visual works. I also found out that neither registration, or publication is required for copyright protection from the date a work is fixed. Another ambiguous counterpart is the Fair Use Doctrine, conveniently taken from common law doctrine, which provides consumers with factors to take into consideration, which just complicate the matter further.

    And I was wondering why anyone in this country should be held subject to laws brought about by the Berne Convention. I really doubt there are any cases where two individuals in separate countries produce the same work of authorship at or around the same period of time. This is what led me to inquire about the copyright procedure, which then led me to the Copyright Act, which stated that neither registration, or publication of a work is necessary for copyright protection, which led me to inquire about limits (rights of the copyright owner), and lastly the fair use doctrine. All of which I found to be excessively lengthy, remedial, and needlessly complicated the scope and subject matter of copyright.

    So the conclusion was that non-profit, non-commercial streaming of media content, without distribution, reproduction, duplication, or copying, was out of the question.

    So there's alot about this that needs to be addressed. It looks to me like an international laundering scheme of some sort. It's extortion to say the least.
     
  5. jv1597

    jv1597 Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Wouldn't that be nice? :)
     
  6. jv1597

    jv1597 Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    zddoodah,
    Doesn't that definition of copyright infringement only apply to importing of copies, and phonorecords from foreign countries?
     
  7. jv1597

    jv1597 Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    As far as I can tell the rights granted to the copyright owner, noted in section 106 of Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright, which pertain to display, and performance of copyrighted work, infringe on the consumer's rights to display, or perform copyrighted work non-profitably, and non-commercially, as this would entail unlawful hindrance of access to copyrighted works.

    So this is why I couldn't get my streaming app idea going, as the idea is based on non-profit, non-commercial, non-distributive streaming of personal media content between members.
     
  8. zddoodah

    zddoodah Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,403
    Likes Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Aren't whose main concern? Those things certainly are "the main concern" for a great many copyright owners.

    That's true. However, registration provides a number of significant benefits, including the ability to seek statutory damages and recover attorneys' fees in an infringement action.

    I don't really understand what you're saying. Folks in the U.S. are "held subject to [a] law[]" if Congress enacts the law and the law is not unconstitutional. That the impetus for a particular law is an international treaty or convention doesn't make any difference, and a great many laws in a great many areas result from such treaties and conventions.

    Ok.... I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but you're free to lobby your elected representatives. The current Texas senators are Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, and you can look up your representative in the House of Representatives here.

    No.

    What makes you think there are "rights to display or perform copyrighted [works] non-profitably and non-commercially"? Keep in mind that there are a number of limitations on exclusive rights found in sections 107-122 of the Copyright Act.

    What do you mean by "unlawful hindrance"? What law do you think requires "access to copyrighted works"?
     
  9. jv1597

    jv1597 Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    zddoodah,

    I finally narrowed it down, and concluded the following from the Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright:
    Although not specifically addressed, I found that the real concerns happen to be alteration, distribution, and contextual application.

    I also concluded the following definitions for 'infringement':
    General Infringement – Imposed alteration of credibility
    Product Infringement – The alteration of contextual quality of a work of authorship, or the commercial duplication, and distribution of a work of authorship published, or copyrighted in its entirety, be it ‘in-part’, or ‘in-whole’.

    This led me to clarify what granting of rights to authors does to complicate the subject matter, and scope, by hindering the consumer’s right to access, by commercial intermediary means, copyrighted works, for non-commercial use, without distribution, or alteration of works of authorship.

    I've also concluded that copyrighted works ‘in-part’ should be registered for copyright ‘in-part’ in their entirety for valid copyright protection. 'Fair Use' should not limit the rights of the consumer for non-commercial use of copyrighted works ‘in-whole’, or ‘in-part’, not covered specifically, in their entirety, by the official copyright specification, nor should it limit the non-commercial use of personally purchased licensed copyrighted works of authorship for one display, or showing, to one spectator at any point in time, whether it be displayed, or shown locally, or remotely, be it by means of an electrically wired, or wireless transport mechanism.

    'Fair Use' may limit the contextual application of a copyrighted work, such that the copyright owner may be granted the right to alter, and to authorize others to alter the contextual quality of the content of a copyrighted work.

    I think this would simplify the whole thing, and allow for non-commercial streaming of personal unlicensed iptv media content, and other licensed media content between consumers, such as with the streaming app I have yet to accomplish.
     
  10. zddoodah

    zddoodah Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,403
    Likes Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Whose concern?

    These are not definitions.

    Huh?

    . . .

    Cool. Feel free to make these suggestions to your elected federal representatives.
     
    hrforme likes this.
  11. jv1597

    jv1597 Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    The US Copyright Office's concern... the copyright owner's concern... general industry concern...

    dictionary.com:
    infringement - a breach or infraction, as of a law, right, or obligation; violation; transgression.
    merriam-webster.com:
    infringement - an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege.
    wikipedia.com:
    Infringement refers to the violation of a law or a right.

    I realize my take on infringement isn't the widely accepted definition, they aren't as far off-base as you implied. The general one was with respect to rights, or privileges, and the second was with respect to product ideas.
    As far as I can tell they clarify all the confusion. Most might support copyright law the way it is, and say there's nothing wrong with it the way it is. But realistically, there's alot incorrect about the whole thing. Most might overlook the fact that "The Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright" code is very remedially tedious code for that purpose. It's not that complicated, so I narrowed it down, and concluded that something must be going on. It's as if it were targeted at non-commercial media streaming in particular.
     
  12. cbg

    cbg Super Moderator

    Messages:
    8,052
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Incorrect according to who?
     
  13. jv1597

    jv1597 Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Example:
    Works of Authorship:
    (1) literary works;
    (2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
    (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
    (4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
    (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
    (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
    (7) sound recordings; and
    (8) architectural works.

    Clarification:
    Audio Works
    Audio-Visual Works
    Literary Works (pantomimes, and choreographic included)
    Articulate Works
    (architectural works are patentable as designs)

    Example:
    Rights:
    (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
    (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
    (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
    the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or
    lending;
    (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
    pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform
    the copyrighted work publicly;
    (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes,
    and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual
    images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted
    work publicly; and
    (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly
    by means of a digital audio transmission.

    Clarification:
    Post #9, paragraph 4...

    Example:
    Attribution and Integrity:
    (a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.—Subject to section 107 and
    independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work
    of visual art—
    (1) shall have the right—
    (A) to claim authorship of that work, and
    (B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of
    visual art which he or she did not create;
    (2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author
    of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other
    modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or
    reputation; etc...

    Clarification:
    Post #9, paragraph 5... (in light of infringement upon rights granted)
     
  14. cbg

    cbg Super Moderator

    Messages:
    8,052
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I do believe that my point flew right over your head.
     
    hrforme likes this.
  15. jv1597

    jv1597 Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    What point?
     
  16. cbg

    cbg Super Moderator

    Messages:
    8,052
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The point is that you are not the one who gets to decide that the laws, or the definitions contained therein, are incorrect.
     
    hrforme likes this.
  17. jv1597

    jv1597 Law Topic Starter New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1

Share This Page