Here's my two cents-  and thats about all I got.

"Rhoine" <rhoine@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:axH9b.85392$mp.38663@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> I want to know if anyone agrees with this and what is your ideas and
> feedback. Please post and send me email at rhoine@comcast.net.
>
>
>
> Copyright law needs to be changed to make it a charged service. If a
company
> wants to sue for copyright infringement they should have to pay through
the
> nose for the copyright to exist. It should be set in different priorities.
> A copyright committee should be set up and that this committee should have
> little to no law enforcement unless it proteins to copy written material.
> It should be written that if copyright infringement does occur that they
> should have options and base those options to charges. I have outlined my
> idea below and will be posting it to the Internet.

I don't think that copyright laws should be nearly as long as they have
become with the Sonny Bono Act.  Basically this was because Disney was going
to lose some characters to the public domain.  Mainly Mickey and Donald
Duck.  Wouldn't the act better be called the Mickey Mouse Act?.


>   1.. (Free or Small Fee) Government only prosecutions, and the copyright
> provider have to pay for all cost related to indictments, court cost, etc.
> and bare no financial (such is law suits, etc.) responsibility to the
person
> that is indighted.  A copyright committee should also be paid a fee to
> enforce this upon attempt to prosecute.  Neither the complaint, nor the
> convicted should profit from this.

I think you have to remember that copyright law doesn't just protect the big
corporations, it protects the little guy too.  I don't think I should have
to pay a large fee to protect my rights, if I write or sing something.  I
think before the Mickey Mouse Act, that things were really pretty ok.
Saying that you can't prevail in any attempt to protect or sue people for
infringing on your copyrights is interesting?.

>   2.. (Should be a limited charge of $1000 to $5000.00 per year, every
five
> years for every published
> article, song, movie, music note, picture, whatever etc. that is previsly
> copy written (grand fathered) of this charge and future documents software
> etc. and should be related to keystrokes or by the word or byte.) This is
> not to be a conviction, this is only to pay monetary damages to the person
> or company that have suffered monetary losses that is to be only be
settled
> by a copyright committee to decide these damages suffered on a case by
case
> basis, this is to ensure that the correct entity is being prosecuted, as
> well is that companies will not be monopolizing the market contrary to
> greater benefit of all. After a determined length of time that royalties
and
> further protection would have to be paid to the copyright committee as
well,
> as determined on a case by case basis.

Again, maybe you've copyrighted something that only makes $500, that's still
the creators property, not anyone elses.  A Tax on creativity?.  Some works
aren't valuable until years after they are published, some are never
valuable.  I'm not sure when I create works what will be valuable and what
won't.  My creations still should have protections, without me having to
pay.

>   3.. To put the two together for indictment and monetary damage there
> should be a charge plus a royalty to be paid to a copyright committee.
This
> would be an initial charge of $100,000 or better per each copyright
granted.
> And not enforceable until after the 1st year (this is to include all above
> articles) after the copyright has been obtained.  It is the responsibility
> for the song, book, movie, software companies to pay the royalties for
such
> and it should be the right of the person being prosecuted to ensure that
> every penny has been paid, before any prosecution can precede.  This will
> keep major corporations safe from other major corporations from extended
> lawsuits etc.also this will ensure that taxes are being paid, the artist
and
> all involved in the production.  This will also insure that their or no
> fribulous law suits.
>
Stopping frivolous lawsuits is never going to happen and criminal
prosecutions for copyright infringement is relatively rare until recently.
>
> I am not a lawyer and don't play one on television, however is electronic
> commerce proceeds the lawsuits for copyrights will be only grow and sooner
> or later the copyright law will be overturned on a loop-hole.  This will
> also put the money in the correct pockets of the people that actually
> provide the material provided and stop some of the ridiculous lawsuits and
> indictments in the world.  This would also make the companies involved
more
> money because they can offer copyright protection. this would also benefit
> the insurance industry so that policies can be written to pay for
copyright
> infringement.  The above would hold the real people that suffer the
damages
> rather than teenagers playing on a computer. We have to make electronic
> commerce safer, more secure, and more available to all. By prosecuting
> teenagers is not the way to do this, it will detour parents providing
> computers to children.  You have to think that a child would not be
breaking
> the law unless he was given the tools to do it.
>
I don't think copyright law will be turned over on a loop-hole, the Mickey
Mouse Act may be.  That won't matter to the teenager that had 1000 songs on
their hard-drive for open distribution through file sharing systems like
Kazaa. In these cases the Digital Millenium Act (Mickey Mouse) had no impact
at all.  These teenagers were STEALING.  100 albums online, to give away,
when people should have been down at the record shops.  My DSL will put out
about a song every couple of minutes, if I were using file sharing
technology. Multiply, it's 10 or 12 albums an hour.  That's $50 or $100 that
didn't get spent by "Hippie John", down at the record shop and the musicians
didn't get paid either.  If you multiply that by the thousands of
teeny-boppers that replicated and re-distributed those thousand files, you
can see that the actual damages were probably actually more than what the
teenagers ended up with in judgements and fines.

What the impact of this has in my daily life, is that my use of music which
I have legitimately purchased may be curtailed.  We are all lucky that CD's
aren't encoded like most DVD's, cracking the encryption on electronic media
is a serious federal crime.  I like being able to rip my CD's on to my
hard-disk and play them.  It would be nice to do the same with DVD's.
Before Mickey, to make a copy of stuff for your own use was legal.

A prime example is I have a portable Video CD player.  It's battery operated
and plays MP3's and VCD's (not DVD's).  I like to take it camping.
Technically, if I take an encrypted DVD I own and rip it and make a VCD out
of it so that I can keep the kids entertained in the back seat, I am
committing a serious federal crime.

What we are going to see, is the sweet teeny-boppers, by all the theft are
messing up my legitimate use.  Will my little MP3 player work with all the
security you'll see added because intellectual properties do need to be
protected?.

Who do we blame in our litigous society for this?.  The file sharing
services?.  The kids?.  The cops?.  The record companies?.  Who knows?.

As this all goes along, I think you we'll see that the big entertainment
companies will eventually lose their grip.  As internet speeds increase, so
will "No label" entertainment.  It's too bad mostly now that's pornography,
but it will be a mainstream distribution for movies and music under private
labels.

Have a nice day.

Kevin VandeWettering

http://retroradio.dynu.com  For Public domain nostalgia entertainment

Listen to a public domain classical song by me.

http://retroradio.dynu.com/malaguena.mp3