Talk:Copyright/Archive 2

message: In 1984, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that "When one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work ... and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact ... that the entire work is reproduced ... does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use."
 
Well, you can kiss it good-bye. Recently, the cable industry premium networks (HBO, SHOWTIME, STARZ, ect.) have begun transmitting a copyguard encription in their broadcats. Older VCR devices should still be able to record their programs under fair use. However, newer machines -- especially DVD recorders -- will abort recording off these networks.
They just had to cut us off from fair use. They just had to have their control. This is a step backwards. -- Jason Palpatine 08:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Development 

message: The last two lines of this are confusing (earrings?).  Can we get a native English speaker to clear up what they mean (e.g. "sweat of the brow")? Amber388 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German uberricht section 

message: The United States went through a weird copyright law change for the year 1976 despite 200 years of heritage.  All copyrights on the year 1976 and before the year 1976 is due to expire during the year 2006.  That is the nature of copyright, make your money and move on where after over twenty years of not making your money, then it is worthless.  Why 1976? because a new copyright law took place in the year 1978, so the year 1976 is a sure thing.
:The above "information" is bogus.  Nothing currently under copyright in the U.S. is due to fall out of copyright until 2019 at the earliest. Tverbeek 01:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Law Expires 

message: Now that we have categories, I don't think there's a need to have a laundry list of "see also"s at the bottom of the page.  I think it's pretty self-evident that :Category:Copyright law contains more articles on the subject.  Postdlf 22:35, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The best solution is to incorporate the most relevant links in the text. Paranoid 06:40, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: This is probably a question everybody but me knows the answer to:  How long after publication of a book in the UK are its photographs subject to copyright laws, specifically can photos from a book published in UK before 1920 be uploaded to Wikipedia. Giano 11:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographic Copyright 

message: :Copyrights do not protect ideas or facts, however, but only the particular expression of an idea. A copyright on the cartoon character Mickey Mouse, for example, would not prevent others from creating talking mice, but only from too closely copying the character and traits of that talking mouse in particular.
In my understanding, Mickey Mouse cannot be copyrighted. However, Mickey Mouse can appear in, say, a drawing, which might bear a copyright notice, but it is the drawing that is copyrighted, not the character. The reason you can't just put Mickey Mouse into your own cartoon is not that the mouse is copyrighted but that the mouse is trademarked. It is useless to talk about a "copyright on the cartoon character Mickey Mouse" because such a copyright cannot exist. I would have deleted this entire paragraph, however, I want to retain the opening sentence, which would then need to be worked in with the rest of the text. - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, your conclusion is not supported by U.S. law, which does recognize character copyright.  Think of it this way: The drawings of Mickey Mouse in "Steamboat Willie" are protected by copyright, so any subsequent illustration of him is a derivative work of those drawings.  You simply cannot draw Mickey without copying from the cartoon (or a subsequent derivative work). Likewise with characters from a novel; if you write a story about a guy named James Bond whose spy codename is "007" you're copying from Ian Fleming's Casino Royale. Tverbeek 01:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's still technically incorrect to say a character is copyrighted; it's the work that the character is from that is copyrighted. But I suppose in many cases this is a pedantic point, though the term "copyright" is often abused. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, characters can be copyrighted in the U.S., provided that they are sufficiently detailed.  For instance, the idea of a "benevolent superhero" is not copyrightable, but a superhero who wears blue tights, has a red "S" on his chest, has an alter-ego named Clark Kent, and also happens to be a benevolent superhero would be copyrightable.  Thus, we have Superman, the creators of which threatened to sue Sufjan Stevens for using his likeness on an album cover, for instance.  Of course, users of the character can always claim fair use to varying degrees of success . . . - Jersyko·talk 21:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighting Mickey Mouse? 

message: The article needs this section: Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or
contents, standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape
measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources.  OneGuy 06:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT 

message: Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:58, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
:Ironic that this article on copyright isn't citing its sources :) Valley2city 19:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The US ones are easy--they are all, case refs including in the  LC Copyright Bulletins. The others will take someone who knows
the relevant country's law.  DGG 08:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for references 

message: Quesion: are the logos for defunct companies still copyrighted? -Litefantastic 23:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Motors, Nynex, et al. 

message: If a photographer is paid by a person to take a picture of him or her, and the person in the picture did not sign over any intellectual property rights, who own the rights to edit and/or copy the picture?
:The photographer. The subject possesses no intellectual property rights where they happen to be the subject; any more than an otter snapped by a wildlife photographer.
:Nuttyskin 12:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Copyright Legal Question 

message: I see it all the time. Is it widely accepted as an ASCII substitute for ©?
: Most people probably don't know how to type one on their keyboards :). Husky 17:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind giving instruction as to how to do so? Trademark#Terminology_and_symbols includes it in it's article, so I figure it's appropriate. wbm 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (C) 

message: Why is there no section on Australian (or German) copyright law if there are sections on UK and US copyright law? The world is round and down under is on top and under the rule of law!
:If you miss something you can write it yourself or put up a request for it. That's the beauty of Wikipedia :) Husky 17:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Copyright Law 

message: Does this article try to include a description of the German "Urheberrecht" ? On one hand, many of the statements are just plain wrong for the Urheberrecht (Urheberrecht cannot be transfered, no need to mark a piece of work to get into the benefits of the Urheberrecht), on the other hand the article quotes German Copyright (which does not exist) in the section about Typefaces.
:Does Urheberrecht cover the same ground and guarantee analogous rights as copyright law? Then it is the German equivalent of copyright law.
:Urheber means "originator", and recht is a cognate of "right", so Urheberrecht means originator-right. I'd say that corresponded to the aims, if not the exact wording, of copyright. Wouldn't you?
:Nuttyskin 12:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urheberrecht ? 

message: My impression of this article is that it is meant to cover the issue of copyright generally, leaving pecularities in individual countries' laws to be discussed in the appropriate articles (like United States copyright law etc.), else the copyright article would be overrun with U.S. pecularities instead of general copyright information.  While some discussion of distinctions among different countries' laws has a place in this article, I think it is inappropriate for the article to become too U.S.-centric.  Does anyone disagree?  There is an anon that is adding a lot of U.S.-centric information to the article, and I simply want to clarify that my stance on the subject matter of this article isn't off. - Jersyko talk 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject matter of this article 

message: I'm questioning the etymology given for "copyright" in the opening paragraph.  It seems counterintuitive to me, applying a fairly modern sense of the word "copy" (a noun referring to text for a newspaper article or advertisement) rather than the more straightforward sense of the verb "to copy".  Obviously it didn't apply to movies, sound recordings, etc. at first, but that's only because they hadn't been invented yet, not because pictures and music weren't protected.  "The right to copy" seems a more plausible derivation. Tverbeek 01:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Film licences usually contain the phrase "The copyright proprietor has licensed this DVD (including its soundtrack) for private home use only." What exactly constitutes the soundtrack of the film? Does this mean that you can dowload the "Score/Soundtrack Album" of the film without breaking the law? I can't find the answer anywhere on wikipedia and I think it is worth a note somewhere...
*I think "soundtrack" in this context means simply the audio of the film (i.e. the score, but also any other sounds contained on the DVD, like the movie's dialogue). Also, a "license for home use" does not necessarily allow the home user to make a copy of the soundtrack (or pictures) on his/her computer.  Of course, fair use is permitted if you are in the United States. - Jersyko talk 19:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack copyright 

message: If I was to write a book, and use the HUMMER name (or other manufacturer names, for that matter) in my book, would that be copyright infringement or anything? Would I need to get permission to do so? - 70.31.89.46 17:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Late reply, as I just happened to see the question: No, it would not be a copyright infringement, as Hummer may be a trademark, but not something you can copyright. Thomas Blomberg 23:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Question 

message: The short answer to the Taekwondo question is "yes, it has been addressed" and "no, it's not clear what the status is exactly" for new creations, and the form could be concievably be considered "social dance steps and simple routines," and not within the ambit of current copyright law.  This area of copyright: non-performance choreography, I speculate, will be settled by a suit between an exercise studio and some individual who carries the ideas and forms they learn to their own business.  For moves and steps published before January 1, 1978, that kind of choreography (if choreography is the right categorization of Taekwondo) is arguably in the public domain.  See below.
In the US, by a Supreme Court decision in the mid 1800s (citation to come), all dance choreography (whether performance or social dance) was excluded from the ambit of copyright, since the law in effect then did not contemplate dance choreography, and the constitution merely states (in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8): 
:(The Congress shall have Power…) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
Since ballet (the choreography under question in the case before that Supreme Court) was determined by the court to be neither a "science" nor "useful art," all choreography failed to merit copyright in the US.  The settled law became that a dance might obtain copyright status as an integral and internal part of a "dramatic work" such as a play.  There are also instances where the US copyright office in the 20th century rejected attempts to register copyright in a balletic work.  Hence all dance choreography published before the changes in the US copyright law enacted in 1976, and coming into effect in January 1, 1978 are in the public domain.  The Copyright act of 1976 contemplated copyright for choreography for the first time in these sections:
:Title 17  Chapter 1  Sect. 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general
:(a) (4) pantomimes and choreographic works
But the report of the Judiciary committee that reported the bill out qualified the sort of choreography that is included. Here's an excerpt from the legislative history, specifically excluding "social dance steps" from coverage within the term "choreographic works":
:HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
:House Commission on the Judiciary
:HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476
:94th Congress, 2nd Session (1976)
: ... Of the seven items listed, four are defined in section 101. The three undefined categories - 'musical works,' 'dramatic works,' and 'pantomimes and choreographic works' - have fairly settled meanings. There is no need, for example, to specify the copyrightability of electronic or concrete music in the statute since the form of a work would no longer be of any importance, nor is it necessary to specify that 'choreographic works' do not include social dance steps and simple routines.
Further, also within the copyright law, from section 102 :
: (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Useful background on performance choreography, not the subject of the above commentary is Julie van Camp's article "Copyright of
Choreographic Works" appearing in "1994-95 Entertainment, Publishing and the Arts Handbook"
edited by Stephen F. Breimer, Robert Thorne, and John David Viera
New York: Clark, Boardman, and Callaghan, 1994 (pp. 59-92) 
I realize some more citations are in order on this topic.  Yellowdesk 05:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choreography and Copyright in the US 

message: "The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886 first established the recognition of copyrights between sovereign nations. Under the Berne convention, copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically assigned: an author does not have to "register" or "apply for" a copyright. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all exclusive rights to the work and any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires."
Since I'm no copyright expert myself, I'd appreciate it if someone cleared up whether Internet publication qualifies as "fixing" (I'm assuming it does), and when this "automatic" copyright expires. Also, does the contract an author makes with a publisher an "explicit disclaiming" of the copyright or not? Vespers 05:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative works copyright limitation 

message: This article is becoming one of the longest in Wikipedia. Although almost every section refers to another page for more in-depth reading, most of those sections are still a mile long, mainly repeating what can be found in the in-depth article. Also, the external links are growing by the day. In order to keep the size down, I suggest a thorough edit section by section, where any vital information not to be found in the corresponding in-depth article is moved over, and where sub-sections (which in many cases have their own in-depth articles) are completely moved over to the corresponding main in-depth article.
The end result should be a short and snappy digest about copyright, consisting of very brief texts and lots of links for further reading. It would also mean that the article can become truly international, as much of the current US and British oriented text would be found in the respective in-depth articles instead, thus giving more room for short presentations of other countries' copyright issues. Currently, there just isn't room for anything more. I have, for instance, found a source where most countries' copyright laws can be read in full in English, but just adding the links to each such law text is impossible right now - and most readers wouldn't even notice those links in this massive article. What do you think? Thomas Blomberg 15:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major re-write needed 

message: I'm usually a proponent of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, but I think that the header in this article "For copyright issues in relation to Wikipedia itself, see Wikipedia:Copyrights" is probably useful, despite its self-referential nature. Thoughts? Rhobite 18:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-reference in article 

message: This article did not become a good article for a number reasons. Some of the most pressing include:
# The article does not contain sufficient citations or references.
# The subsection titles under the "Europe" section are erratic and there is no summary for the "Netherlands".
# The Australian copyright section is incorrectly formatted and also has no summary.
# The article spends a disporportionately long time on "Copyrights and the United States Government" but not on copyrights and other governments.
# The "Other aspects" section heading shows lack of thought about the article's structure should probably be reconsidered.
# There is no problem with discussing copyrights on typefaces, but the discussion probably doesn't deserve its own subsection. 
# The "Registering copyright" section needs to discuss registering copyrights in countries other than the United States.
# The "External links" and "See also" sections are unwieldy and should probably be reorganized.
Truthfully the article appears a long way from good article status. And it really needs a thorough proof-reading and restructure before it can be considered further.
Cedars 04:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons article was not promoted 

message: I don't see any coherent discussion of when the concept of copyright extending far after the creator's death arose, and what was the reasoning (if any) behind it - as distinct from the motivation, which is easy to see on the part of corporations. It seems to me completely illogical as it generally ends up rewarding people (author's family or copyright holding corporations) who did not do any of the original work, and now have what amounts to an arbitrary monopoly. Why does anyone who didn't do the work deserve to have an exclusive right to reproduce it? For example James Joyce's descendant trying to prevent readings from Ulysses on the 100th anniversary of Bloomsday... 
In addition if copyright were to expire at the author's death the corporations would have a big incentive to keep their artists healthy and active!
Copyright on works produced by a big collaboration is trickier... the article seems to say it extends 95 years after the first publication - which seems absurd, unless life expectancy is going to get very much longer very soon!
--Tdent 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An eighty- or ninety-year-old would have little incentive to publish the epic novel he had been writing all his life if he and his family could only benefit from its sale until the day he dies.  (Even if you are young, who knows when you or your children will die?) His publisher would also be reluctant to risk investing the money required to print thousands of copies if other publishers could steal it away in just a few years. The goal of copyright is progress -- to reward authors for writing new, original ideas instead of just copying old works.  GUllman 17:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright after death of creator - when & why? 

message: The opening sentence states that copyrights are granted by governments.
This is not the international norm.
The U.S. no longer subscribes to the 'granted by government' belief.
In 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision (Wheaton v Peters 33 U.S. 591  1834) when
it held:
"Before the adoption (of the Constitution) the common law,..., in England and this country granted causes of action for copyright infringement" (Felton v Columbia 521 U.S. 340)
The granted v natural right is a distinction with a difference.
If the government does not grant copyright in exchange
for registration (which includes a fee and deposit) than registration become an illegal taking without
compensation. This issue will appear before the Courts
soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dkeogh (talk • contribs) .
:I'm not sure I follow.  So copyright protection was originally a common law creation.  Got it.  But why does it therefore follow that copyright protection is not currently granted by the government in the U.S.?  Regarding registration/fees, yes, the government does not require that you register and pay a fee to have a copyright.  But that doesn't require one to conclude that the government therefore does not "grant" copyright.  Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says "Congress shall have the power To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;."  Aside from this, there's the whole Copyright Act of 1976 thing.  Yeah, I really have no idea what you're trying to argue here.  Clearly, the government grants copyright protection via statutes through exercise of its constitutionally-granted power to do so. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a rather unusual theory to me.  Do you have citations to support this idea, even as an alternative theory, let alone as one which you think should be stated as simply correct? Rlitwin 02:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe this is true: Only foreign national have copyrights in the United States without registration  I have been told by copyright attorneys (and I'm not one ), that all works created by US nationals have a copyright even if you don't register them with the Library of Congress.  You can still enforce them with legal action.  What registration does for you is allows you to get punitive damages and legal fees.  Can any copyright attorneys comment on this (with citations)?--Nowa 10:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Copyright Act of 1976 is unequivocal in stating that "registration is not a condition of copyright protection."17 U.S.C. 408  Registration is not required for coypright protection to attach; it is only required if a copyright holder is seeking certain remedies ("statuory damages" or attorney fees) in an infringement action.17 U.S.C. 412  Copyright protection attaches automatically in certain "fixed" original works of authoriship per 17 U.S.C. 102.  So, you're basically correct, Nowa. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--Nowa 15:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  are copyrights granted by governments? 

message: "and, in some jurisdictions, industrial designs. Copyright is a type of intellectual property; designs or industrial designs may be a separate or overlapping form of intellectual property in some jurisdictions."
Please actually list them, perhaps as a ref. --Rtc 21:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I'll put it there. Thanks. DGG 02:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasels 

message: As the lead says, "fair use" is the US concept, and the entire article about it. 
But it's a long article; some of the sections reiterate that they;re talking about the US. 
but others don't, and the reader may get confused. They;d be easy to add, but I don;t want to come in from elsewhere and
tamper with a very carefully prepared page, unless asked.
Did you mean to make this statement at the Talk:Fair use page? --71.169.129.75 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I'll put it there. Thanks. DGG 02:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US specificity

message: The article says nothing about the fact that U.S. copyright law permits unlimited reproduction of a copyrighted work, without obtaining the permission of the author or owner, when the reproduction is in a "specialized format". An example is the publication of copyrighted articles and books in braille for use by blind and visually impaired people. Major braille publishing companies, such as the National Braille Press, make use of this exclusion all the time. Someone more knowledgeable than me should do some research on this and update the article, as this is an important omission. David 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked at it, but does United States copyright law address these issues? · j e r s y k o talk · 16:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No. That article doesn't mention anything about this exception for "specialized formats" such as braille. Neither do the Fair use or Braille book articles. David 13:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just put the appropriate  text and a link in this page, and external links in the other two. 
DGG 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduction In Specialized Formats Permitted 

message: This is from the copyrights official site.
'''
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci
What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:
Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lamrock (talk • contribs) .
:That's true in the U.S.  But is it true in other countries? · j e r s y k o talk · 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protects Ideas? 

message: May I suggest that the best way to deal with this page is a split: Copyright (US) and Copyright (elsewhere).  The US history and legisation and cases form a good sequences. But the others dont fit in. DGG 08:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  other countries: split? 

message: I am removing this link "(For discussion, see http://bfp.sp.unipi.it/~pievatolo/lm/kantbraz.html.)" from the "Limits and Exceptions to Copyright" section. Can you imagine picking up an encyclopedia in a library and reading, in the middle of an article, "If you want to debate this, please send a letter to this address.."? Exemplar sententia 13:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to see that. Coulda been a footnote. Might still become a footnote. ~ Otterpops 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-encyclopedic content 

message: I wrote this on slashdot.org in January 2002.  The bold text is what caused me pause.  I don't mind it being here, but someone might think it was not sanctioned.  Of course others may differ and feel it's only a coincidence.  Either way by posting it here I give permission for anything below to be used in Wikipedia. 
---------------
They may not have had legal copyrights, but they had methods to protect their music.
Before copyright there were other ways to protect work. Mozart had a patron, Baroness von Waldstätten, who underwrote his needs so that he could spend the day doing whatever he wanted. 
Because Mozart's patron allowed his music to be freely performed does not mean that it was always that way. Kings and princes always had court composers and they jealously guarded their music. 
Handel's patron (George I, the first of the Hanoverian kings) jealously guarded "water music."'
Please remember at the time you couldn't "copy" music unless you could sit in the audience with a quill pen and follow along! Actually Mozart could do this, but not many others. 
It was easy to protect music back then and hard to steal it. Don't think people wouldn't have if they could. The technology didn't exist. 
Jump ahead to the 1890's where the rampant bootleging of sheet music was a huge business (please refer to http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/mann.htm ) 
From the above article a reference to Sullivan of Gilbert and Sullivan fame: 
"The irate Sullivan filed lawsuit after lawsuit in U.S. courts, but only dented the trade. To prevent the pirating of The Pirates of Penzance, he long refused to publish the score; bouncers prowled every show to stop music thieves from writing down the melodies." 
Let's face it, in U.S. society you are not going to do much with out being paid for it. So change the law, but until then buy what you use, or move to Canada where it is apparently legal now. (Yes, I know the original author lives there, I'm speaking to everyone else.) 
Society values artistic works and society (Through the govenment) grants the creators a limited license to profit from their works in order to better society. That's the theory anyway. Maybe it's gotten out of hand, but the "music and information want to be free" approach doesn't really motivate humans to create great things. 
Even throughout history people like Mozart have been motivated by "compensation" to produce new creative works. 
...
While IP has always been created through time it has always been protected by rule, religion, or force. People didn't share fire - they stole it from each other. The Egyptians didn't give their knowledge of mummification away to anyone that asked. The Library of Alexandria (aka "The Kings Library") wasn't a place you or I could lend a book from. Knowledge really was power. Ptolemy III paid the sum of fifteen talents of silver (a vast amount) to be allowed to copy the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. 
So while the ancient scholars and composers may not have had our modern day protection of copyright, please don't confuse that with no protection at all.
------------------
The original page is not available, but I reposted it in June of 2002 and it is located on this page: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/05/2037201&mode=thread&tid=97  I don't believe this is any longer searchable in google unless you do a site specific search on slashdot.org AKAJack 19:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of "History" section looks familiar 

message: I came here hoping to find something to link to for my article Marcantonio Raimondi, b1480, who provoked one of the earliest cases on copyright in Venice. There is nothing about this here, nor about the rather latwer case involving Titian. I'm no expert, but printmaking, because making plates was expensive, but not so much so that they could not profitably be copied, was a notable area for early copyright law, & not just in Rome & Venice. "priviledge" systems, which combined censorship & copyright in shifting combinations, came in earlier for prints than most other types of material in most parts of Europe, or so I understand.
someone who knows more than i do should get this into the section.
btw, I thought curses & imprecations,rabbinical & other, were common in manuscript books against those who MIScopied. i mean this doesn't reduce the point, but reinforces it.
Get to it, lawyers!
Johnbod 03:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History - nothing about Durer and Titian cases to protect their prints 

message: Would it be possible to copyright an unique name and if so, how much cost/effort would it take? --Eiyuu Kou 18:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about copywrite 

message: I was looking up something else and came across the following on Benedict and copyright: 
[]
- and can someone archive part of this talk page please - it is long (and the remaining library session is short) Jackiespeel 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal Copyright 

message: *** can someone remove the disgusting picture in under the "copyright symbol". Please!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.46.203.100 (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2006
:I first thought this unsigned message (tag added) was about the ugliness of the thick ultra-black copyright symbol that was there, but no such luck – there was vandalism around that date. I still went ahead and replaced :Image:Copyright.svg with :Image:Copyright-serif.svg which I just made and uploaded. I hope that's allright with everyone. – McDutchie 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright symbol 

message: This article seems focused on US copyright. It mentions other copyright legislations but the main part seems top be talking about US specific laws.64.149.244.94! Hicham Vanborm
We are interested in changing this so that it is more international.  What parts still need cleanup? --71.161.219.152 22:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was guilty of one of the reversions, but I self-reverted once I was notified that the edits were helpful and I reviewed them more thoroughly.  I agree that your edits are improving the article, and will try to watch for anyone that might revert you.  Editors might be less likely to revert if you edited under a registered username, though nothing forces you to log in, of course. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It almost looks like this article is almost entirely about Anglo-American copyright. Maybe it should be renamed as such?
If not, significant changes will be needed to actually reflect copyright in the rest of the world.
--Ernstk (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very US centric 

message: This article talks about why copyright and patent laws are obsolete and should be abolished for the sake of modern day information society.
It is writen by Prof. Blondheim ( who resides as an Associate Professor in Communication and American Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem).
The article is published at omedia, which is a non commercial articles site.
THE ARTICLE
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuval a (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting to edd a link 

message: I copy edited this article (if that's the right verb, I'm new). The spelling and grammar of the article should be okay now.
Stevob2007 18:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-edit complete 

message: I've archived this page properly. Hooray! --Goyston (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived nicely 

message: Someone, please explain this: "In most of the world the default length of copyright for many works is either life of the author plus 50 or 70 years." --83.109.63.6 07:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global average for default copyright length? 

message: What is the copyright status of works posted anonymously?
In particular, of Wikipedia articles written anonymously?
When do those works go into the public domain (the "life of the author + 70 years" doesn't work, since I don't know who the author is, much less what year she died).
--68.0.120.35 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer to the part of 68.0.120.35's question regarding Wikipedia in particular is that Wikipedia contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which, as its article explains, is a form of copyleft. In fact, when you make an edit, the frame outside the editing area, between that and the "Save page" button, expressly says "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.". — Lumbercutter 14:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  anonymous authors 

message: It seems absurd to me that no summary of the history of copyright article is given on this page.  It doesn't need to be a long essay, but we should have at least a couple of paragraphs.  Otherwise, it's impossible to put copyright in context, and understand its implications.  --jacobolus (t) 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The summary was deleted by vandalism here (2006-11-04). It's back now. Rl 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section gone from this article 

message: Sometimes I have seen, in books that have been reprinted decades after their original publication (by a different publisher), that the copyright page makes a claim such as, for example, "Original copyright 1942 John Doe. Copyright renewed 1971 by Mary Doe." How does anyone have a legal right to extend the time period of a copyright by "renewing" it? If the copyright on Mary's great-grandpappy's memoir is about to expire, can she really "renew" it for another 70 years? I hope that a lawyer or paralegal who has real knowledge of such things may contribute to this article a section on "copyright renewal". — Lumbercutter 14:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably a US specific thing that you are refering too. See the page on United States copyright law. Under previous law, copyright in the US lapsed 28 years after publication, but could be renewed for a further 28 years. Current US law and the laws of most (all?) other nations don't have such a provision. Numerous minor works are now in the public domain because their copyright was not renewed after 28 years, but proving non-renewal requires a lot of research. Zeimusu | Talk page 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah! Bingo! Thanks so much.  — Lumbercutter 16:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the legal basis of claiming "Copyright renewed"? 

message: Hello,
    The www.jewishencyclopedi.org" has placed the Jewish Encyclopedia which 
they acknowledge to be in the pubic domain (USA) online. One section contains a 
transcription of each article. The other section contains photographs of each 
page from each article - like an unaltered digitized photocopy. They have 
placed copyright notices on the bottom of the these photocopies. Since the text 
is in the public domain and since no new work was done to create a digitalized 
photocopy, how can they claim copyright on it.
Patrick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.72.130 (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claiming Copyright in a Facsimile 

message: I think I made an error and deleted a chunk of the page somehow. Would somebody please fix that? :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.96.223.162 (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops 

message: The red copyright and no copyright symbols are allowed to be on the page. Stop deleting them. Replay7 18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are redundant to images already in the article and the red one is much less commonly used than the black (not to mention that it's visually abrasive).  Please adhere to the three revert rule.  Thank you. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: The page currently contains this link:
*A flowchart which helps to determine the copyright status of a particular work in the US.
This page misleads visitors in that it indicates that for works "Published before January 1, 1964", the question as to whether the copyright was timely renewed is answered with the question, "Was copyright registration renewed between December 31 of the year of the 27th anniversary of publication and December 31 of the year of the 28th anniversary of publication?"  This is incorrect for works originally published and copyrighted prior to 1949.  (The calendar-year rule implicit in the question is correct for works of 1951-1964.  It also applies to 1950, but not exclusively so.)  For works prior 1949 and earlier, the renewal window ran from the 27th anniversary of publication to the 28th anniversary of publication.  (Exceptions apply when the copyright notice has an earlier date.)  The linked page incorrectly suggests that a renewal is not valid if the renewal window is not adjusted to start and end with the December 31st following the 27th and 28th anniversaries.  Such calendar-year renewal-windows did not become operable in U.S. copyright until 1978 (at which time 1950 works were eligible for renewal), with the coming into effect of the 1976 Copyright Act, wherein Section 305 revised the copyright term so that all copyright terms now ended on the December 31 of the year within which the copyright would otherwise expire on any date. BBCD 23:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to inaccurate information 

message: From the third paragraph:
:In some jurisdictions, copyright law provides scope for satirical or interpretive works which themselves may be copyrighted.
I think this needs a footnote specifying which jurisdictions, or the mention of satire should be removed.  This is because of the easy confusion between satire and parody (specifically in reference to US law).  Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody
AThomas203 18:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parody vs Satire 

message: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted."
Given that the warning quoted above is not followed by something like "current copyright laws are insane", many people will have the right to assume the Wikipedia managers enjoy and/or approve the general insaneness of the whole copyright thing. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt you will find much agreement on that point; it's most a matter of not getting in trouble for violating copyright law, which could endanger the whole project.  Wikipedia generally tries to remain neutral on controversial issues, so I don't think it would be appropriate to criticize copyright law of any particular country in the input form. -- Beland 04:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just another comment 

message: While I don't suggest copying from http://www.answers.com/topic/licensing-of-the-press-act-1662 it does have more historical background.  Someone with more drive should look for a more credible source.  On that note, this article does not cite its sources WELL.  It has number citation, but in the works cited section, it doesn't show the numbers! --24.2.108.32 05:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't suggest copying from there either, as it's another wikipedia article (Licensing of the Press Act 1662) - Answers.com mirrors wikipedia.  --Harris 07:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More historical background 

message: A lot of entertainment and software material is of limited availability around the world. For an example, Japanese anime is barely available at all in europe/america. If i should want to obtain an anime serie that is not released outside japan with apropriate subtitles or dub, do copyright laws still make it illegal to download the serie with apropriate subtitles or dub (by apropriate i mean a dub or subtitle i can understand)? Wether they are fanmade or professionally made subtitles/dubs? --195.134.57.233 13:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "do copyright laws still make it illegal..?" Yes, of course.--Svetovid 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unavailable Material? 

message: The "further reading" and see also section is a mess and is very long. I'm going to set a goal of going through it all with the goal of removing 3/4 of the links and such so we have a core of very usefully and highly on topic issues. Discussion of the public domain should, for example, be on the public domain article and relevant links should be within the text of the article.
Just a heads up. I'll get to it eventually but feel free to take a stab at it yourself if you agree and feel the desire. mako (talk•contribs) 13:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  further reading and see also 

message: I think I see a pattern here -- the expiration of a copyright is just like a person's death due to a long lifespan. 68.227.221.61 22:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright and Life 

message: According to the article: "In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain."
Does that mean that I can make copies of a recently printed book where the text was originally written before 1923?
Algotr 10:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I make a photocopy of a recently printed book with Shakespears work? 

message: my friends and i wanted to make a vid to put on youtube and we wanted to call it teenage wasteland, but there's a documentary called teenage wasteland, this vid is gonna be a series n i just wasnt sure if we could get in trouble for usin their name, the vid isnt goin to b nething like the documentary if you know nething please tell me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoinNsane (talk • contribs).
:so, you're putting a video series on youtube and you want to know if you can use the name of another video that is copyrighted? i heard somewhere that the title of books cannot be copyrighted, i am not sure if this is the same with movies though...  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.23.148.191 (talk) 09:32:54, August 19, 2007 (UTC) 
In New Zealand at least there is no copyright in a title because it is 'too insubstantial'. Green v Broadcasting Corp of New Zealand  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.146.141 (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  using names 

message: I feel that the name of this article is POV. The term "copyright" is inherently POV as it implies that "copyright" is a right; there are no rights involved in the matter discussed in this article, except the human rights infringed by the abusers of so-called "copyright", like the Racketeering Industry Association of America RIAA.
So-called "copyright" is functionally a legal monopoly created by action of positive law, granted at the pleasure of the sovereign people, and continued under their sufferance, insofar as they feel that said monopoly benefits the public interest. There are no rights involved in it; it is a privilege, not a right, and to refer to legal privileges as rights diminishes the respect that is accorded to real rights like freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc.
I think a term that reflects the functional aspects of "copyright" should be used to name this article, such as "intellectual monopoly", "government-granted monopoly", or "legal monopoly" would be good names. Or we could just merge this article with "monopoly" and set up a redirect from "copyright" to "monopoly".
Any thoughts?
Katana0182 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly a framing issue with these terms. The term copyright, however, is much older and much better established than intellectual property. Also, copyright has a specific meaning or at least is not nearly as ambiguous as IP. – I assume the last suggestion is a joke. Merging copyright into monopoly would be inane. Rl 10:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The legal subject covered by this article is called a "Copyright."  It would be absurd, highly-POV, and less useful for the article to use some other name to cater to the anti-copyright crowd.Terry Carroll 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: Copyright symbol redirects to this article, but there's no information about the symbol here.  It would be great to know its history, how to generate it from a keyboard, etc. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The copyright symbol is a typographical symbol. I don't have the knowledge to write the article, though. --lquilter 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do, so I did. --TJRC 02:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information about copyright symbol