Copyright Reform: A Proposal

My proposal for copyright reform:  5 years, 5 million copies, or 30 years, which ever comes second.

You have rights to your work for at least 5 years, no matter how many of your work you sell. Suppose you sell 7 million, or 70 million, in 5 years. Then at 5 years, that's the end of it.  Your work enters the public domain.

Suppose you only sell 3 million by the end of 5 years.  Your rights are extended until you sell another 2 million.  Unless that takes more than 30 years.

Suppose your work is something off beat, or scholarly, and is never going to sell 5 million copies.  Then you have the rights for 30 years.

Good for books. For movies?  If a movie hasn't made its money back in 5 years, it isn't going to. 

-- https://anamecon.blogspot.com/2012/12/copyright-reform-proposal.html

O impacto progressivamente desastroso das patentes

"The way the US patent system is currently set up, it’s difficult if not impossible to write a sizable body of code without unknowingly infringing on somebody’s patent. Your best hope seems to be to waste a lot of time filing as many patents as you can of your own, and hoping that anybody who sues you is unknowingly infringing on one of yours. That gives you a bargaining chip so you can do some kind of cross licensing deal. It’s a stupid, wasteful, unproductive government-created system that achieves the exact opposite of what was intended when it was first started. But, what can you do." - Ed Burnette

Encontrei este parágrafo enquanto procurava descobrir porque o sistema Android (implementado, em parte, em Java) não executa aplicações Java. A Oracle comprou a Sun (que desenvolveu o Java para ser uma linguagem de programação livre) e quer espremer todos os lucros que conseguir. Ainda no mês passado, a Google viu-se obrigada a gastar 12G$ na compra da Motorola Mobile para ter acesso às respectivas patentes e assim evitar ataques da Microsoft e companhia. Doze mil milhões de dólares que poderiam ter sido gastos em investigação e actividades economicamente produtivas. Até quando vamos ter de aguentar esta palhaçada?

Hipocrisia Aplicada

Isto pode-se fazer:Já isto é proibido:

On October 21, 1971, [...] Disney accused the Pirates of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, intentional interference with business, and trade disparagement through the wrongful use of its characters. It stated that Disney, through "great effort and...large sums of money," had created characters whose "image of innocent delightfulness...are known and loved by people all over the world, particularly children" and that the defendants' efforts to "disparage and ridicule" these characters threatened to destroy Disney's business. The complaint requested that Disney be awarded all of the Pirates' profits, $5,000 for each copyright infringement, treble damages for the trademark infringement, punitive damages of $100,000 from each defendant, surrender of the offending books, and reimbursement of its attorneys' fees. [ref]

Disney filed a million dollar lawsuit against a family-owned clown company for trademark infringement. Marisol Perez-Chaveco and her husband run Kool Klown Party People in Claremont. The couple bought Winnie-the-Pooh, Eyeore and Tigger costumes on eBay for $700 and advertised the caracters on their company website, MySpace and Craig's List. Disney sent them three letters demanding them to remove the pictures and turn the costumes over to Disney so they can be destroyed. If not they would be sued. [ref]