42 replies to this topic

[yogiholzer]

What's the reason to start the discussion once again?

[StevOz]

Err....does discussion need a reason?

Onto the history lesson.

The First U.S. Copyright Law

Signed in Script Type by George Washington
Appearing in The Columbian Centinel
of July 17, 1790

Abstract


An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.
This was the first Copyright Act to protect books, maps and other original materials. Rights were granted only to citizens of the United States, a policy which continued until 1891. Passage was due mainly to Noah Webster who worked unceasingly on its behalf.
The Act appearing on page 1 of The Columbian Centinel provides that "the author and authors of any map, chart, book or books already printed within these United States, being a citizen or citizens thereof....shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending such map, chart, book or books...."
The law also applies to maps, books or charts already completed but not yet published.
The Copyright Act gave protection for a period of 14 years, with the right of renewal for another 14 years.
According to the Act violators of the new law "shall forfeit all and every copy....and all and every sheet....to the author or proprietor....who shall forthwith destroy the same."
In addition "offenders shall also forfeit and pay the sum of fifty cents for every sheet which shall be found in his or her possession...." And owners whose rights have been violated can file suit "....in any court of record in the United States....within one year after the cause of action...."
The Act was signed by the Speaker and the President of the Senate on May 25, 1790. It was signed by George Washington on May 31, 1790, shown in this issue of The Centinel with his signature printed in script type.

Source:


http://www.earlyamer...t/centinel.html

So 14 years + a possible 14 year extension was considered reasonable, so why has that changed, might I suggest greed and corruption. It's high time that 336 page copyright law had a few 100 pages removed.

[destruk]

Maceman, I understand now what you were saying. You can get Google to remove the books you have rights to and it's wrong that they have them without your permission.
You can press charges against anyone selling or copying your songs if you like - it is after all, your right to do so.

If something is truly in the Public Domain, then the rights of the copyright owner have been forfeited or expired. So anyone could sell and profit from public domain stuff, just why would you do that when it is available elsewhere for free?
Lots of public domain stuff is sold all over - from shareware cds in the store which have been mass produced, to collections of christmas folk songs - it's not illegal to do that.

@Destruk,

I don't disagree with anything you've said in that last post, except a couple things which i will comment on so you better understand, only because it is unnecessarily defaming:

1. "Obviously, your 'partner in crime' has been skirting by just as you think you can too - immune from prosecution, or just lucky."

If you reread the post, you will see you got this backwards. WE are the ones holding copyright. WE are the authors.... Google is the one stealing from us, if it is indeed stealing...which runs into the second point:

2. You quoted me as saying ""Did you know that books cannot be copyrighted?"

What i said was this "You cannot copyright a book, only the layout and text"...... whether public domain or not, Google is indeed selling books in which the copyright holders are still alive. Additionally, people are and have sold my music without my permission, and i am alive, i think So, like i said, i was just giving you real life examples....

I spoke with Noah on this pinball rom issue and he agrees with me. He has been given permission to run this site and people in the industry do in fact know what is going on here.... As long as the machine and roms are not sold together, there is no issue....

So in reality, the rest is moot don't you think?

Cheers,
Maceman

ps. i liked your licensing link, very good info,so thank-you..... but i believe it only has relevance if a problem arises, which i don't think it will


pss. @ Darkfall- i agree 100%, you are bang-on.