Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is
Why your own quote you explain why I am not wrong.
"The DMCA is somewhat abmiguous" because the DMCA was drafted by the Music Industry in efforts to label anyone involving the Internet a provider. Just because Congress doesn't understand the terms doesn't make them so.
This is the typical conflation of terms that causes all the problems. Your law is wrong, using the wrong terminology. Dumb tubes provide no content.
ISP's are no more content providers than USB or SATA cables.
They do NOT host content, but merely provide a conduit to connect to devices that CAN hold content (USB Keys, HDD's, DVD's, or someone's web server or cluster of web servers which technically connect to HDD's via mass storage bays - also clustered).
Do you think Congress could understand that nuance? No. They fucked that up and any idiot judge who can think logically would dismiss that, assuming they can wrap their head around the obvious intentional misuse of terms.
You are uninformed about the real words and their true meanings, not legal implications.
By your legal implication pushed by the DMCA, fucking SATA cables are liable!
Youtube is an OCP, not an ISP! Youtube requires TWO ISP's to operate, one to provide the connection of Youtube's serves to the web, the other for individual users to access the web. Again, the ISP is the same as a SATA cable, with the exception the SATA cable doesn't listen when RIAA says "You allow piracy by not blocking content that flows through your tubes and therefor are liable."
Totally different!
ISP's do not kill businesses. If you think so then you might as well give up. They are no more responsible than SATA cables, Web Browsers (after all without them no YouTube), Operating Systems, or hardware used by end-users or gateway routers.
ISP's are argued this, but they don't have the same cash to defend it and unfortunately the law is controlled by who has the cash, not what is accurate.
Thanks to your laws, a corporation is a legal entity even though it is technically a puppet controlled by real human beings who know this and do anything without much fear of recourse. So don't hand me "the law of liability" says YouTube is a fucking ISP when the first thing you failed to understand is YouTube is an OCP, not an ISP. Following the wikipedia links should have solved that for you.
Re: Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is
By your logic because the labels ripped off artists for years, they are thieves!
Hmm non-exclusive definition is quite nice isn't it?
Funny how you like to a liability article when you claim Internet Service Provider is the same as youtube. By it's very definition, an ISP provides Internet Service, more correctly access to the internet.
Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is
I must disagree, you've missed the author's point.
1) The medium for distribution of music has changed. It has become more flexible and consumers have voiced what they want. They want singles. Singles cost less than albums. Albums are still bought if they are any good. Thus revenue is down so artists shares are down because instead of selling 12 songs you're selling 1 or 2 or 3.
2) Brick and mortar stores that sold music exclusively have been killed by the discounted label pricing offered to department stores, like BestBuy, WalMart, etc.. and chain music stores who can purchase in bulk. Even chain music stores who were not big enough to battle label price demands had to augment sales with other items to get people in the door - that is, movies and posters.
3) Videogames are no longer just for nerds or restricted to complicated computers which require more hardware than the average consumer can afford or think to buy. Videogames have taken off and consumed huge amounts of entertainment dollars.
4) Home theatre systems take the old VCR/TV (maybe your stereo) option and blow it out of the water - people choose this because a) kids disrupt theatre goers, b) theatre costs are quite high, c) more selection at your rental store (online or brick and mortar), d) DVD prices have dropped so people replace old worn out VHS with DVD or blue-ray and enjoy at home, e) you can't stop the movie for a bathroom break, etc...
5) What are these "older" artists doing to attract people's attention beyond ranting? What have they written lately that people will want to buy? Bob Dylan did very well, but he also has nice packages for people to buy, increasing his revenue beyond just the content copy.
6) The Internet leveled the playing field, no more are people stuck begging a record producer/A&R person to listen to them and if they like them, being told to sound like someone else. There is competition and THAT is what upsets older artists like East Bay Ray/Lowery and the labels more than anything. How dare someone else who's not a "professional" write music? How dare someone do this as a hobby? How dare someone not go through "proper channels" to get heard like it used to be? How will we filter all of this, oh the horror, the horror?
7) And most of all, some artists refuse to understand what has happened and what it really means. They want to focus on art, not how one generates revenue online or how the Internet actually works or how things used to be before copyrights were abused. That's SUPPOSED to be their management and labels' area of expertise. Clearly it is not!
Fucking Todd Rundgren was far more intelligent and had greater forethought for the Internet than anyone else and he's a musician from the 70's. 3 fucking years before Napster he pitched the idea to the labels. Don't believe me? Watch this:
T he only person being an ignoramus is East Bay Ray, monopolizing the entire panel and acting like Lowery. Rather than looking at the past and complaining, they should have been looking forward like Todd is!
Not if you're supported financially by the security firms who are waiting for laptop/HDD/mobile device file scanners to become mandatory after they "find" "terrorists" transporting harddrives containing information pertinent to "national security."
Everyone else, congress/senate/ordinary citizen/visitors are fair game.
If I download a copy of a freely distributed movie (read: a movie someone created and wanted it distributed for frea - their choice - not some Hollywood remake of a remake that they want to window lock for a month), and because I happen to be torrenting and because a large number of people happen to torrent movies copyright owners don't want torrented... Yes I do want a back massage!
Especially when I legally buy movies and have to sit through unskippable ads and warnings! Especially when those in France torrenting a file, that they are legally able to, and are accused of copyright infringement/stealing and fined 140Euros without any proof whatsoever.
Yes, they too deserve a back massage after all that stress because of being falsely accused.
The good part about murder trials or parking fines, they require proof. You can't randomly assign a fine to someone, you need to have proof. You can't randomly accuse someone of murder either, you need proof.
So yes, accusing without proof, like DMCA's, are abuse and yes, back massages are required!
Another argument is that when intellectual property is taken, it's actually merely copied, not stolen (unlike physical property). But that doesn't prove much. As noted before, different kinds of property can have different rights in them. Why can't intellectual property rights include a prohibition against copying, if society determines said copying harms the property owner? In other words, doesn't the fact ideas are different than physical things mean they just deserve different property rights?
If I may disagree with you on this, your argument might seem to make sense, however we argue over the use of the term "stolen."
No one is deprived of the idea simply because someone copied it. If you have a great idea and you tell someone, you've just copied it. It's now your idea and the person you told. That's the limit of the natural right with respect to ideas.
What matters is the implementation of said idea. What matters more is the concept of "stealing" an idea. You were not deprived of that idea. If you told no one, it doesn't have any rights at all.
It only has rights once you register your implementation of your idea, that's how people hear about it, that's how it earns rights. The physical side is easy to understand, as when someone steals, you are deprived of it.
But you're trying to argue that the rights are violated when something is copied. In the physical world, your rights are not violated by a copy. You still have it! You can still use it, your rights are still applied.
How is that any different from ideas? You still have your idea, just like the guy who copied your lawnmower, you have yours and he has his, none of your rights have been violated.
If you want to try to extend the concept to exclusivity, then that's a different page. Exclusivity is meant for implementation of said idea and is not very beneficial to society. If two people think of the same idea, which has happened many times, the "law" grants the rights to however gets there first.
Telsa was the first to transmit signals through the air, not Marconi. Who gets the rights to the idea? Why should their even be rights applied to such ideas?
Ideas is the wrong word, it is implementation of said idea. Ideas are imaginary and can only be copied when openly shared. However, unless the idea is released from the brain, in the form of an implementation, it's useless to the world and to the creator.
And while you argue that society determines that copying harms the owner, that is highly subjective by the way, it doesn't cover how society is benefited by the copying.
That's the whole point we're arguing. People are overly concerned about the owner and not the progression of society which is the whole freaking point of said IP laws, both copyrights and patents.
How do you further innovation if no one can build upon it?
The idea was originally meant to give exclusive rights (once it was copied from the head to the real world - shared - and registered - assuming they got there first) so the person could decide what to do with it before releasing it for others to build upon.
Generally, people chose to make a living during that exclusivity period, and during which time they would create something new to be registered and released in hopes of earning a living. It doesn't have to be that way, it could have been given away. Living is not a requirement. Temporary exclusivity is.
The problem that is real and that a majority here have is the extension beyond reason of said rights, combined with the convolution spread about by those choosing to interpret laws beyond original intent.
Back to your physical vs idea, if your idea was something only you could use, it wouldn't really matter much about the level of rights you had, as the implementation would really only be applicable to you. Same goes with your car or lawnmower, they are applicable to you.
If your implementation of the idea could benefit society as a whole, it should be given to society to build upon at a reasonable point in the future. That's gone, 70 years after death is NOT reasonable! Patents of 25yrs are dumb, seriously, our progress today does not match exclusivity time periods.
So you can argue all you want about physical rights being artificial, but that does not mean the general feeling here is wrong.
Laws are meant to benefit society, by protection. When laws are contorted by people conflating concepts, intentionally trying to distort reality and enable rights that cannot be naturally applied, the system fails to protect society.
Remember, once you share it, without the laws, it is everyone's natural right who hears the idea to implement it. That is how society benefits from ideas and progresses. To be fair to creators who bust their butts for said ideas, they are granted temporary rights that are beyond natural rights of society, to provide a benefit, while they create something else!
And by natural right, it's simply that, something that feels natural to do, like sharing! Some restrictions are implied, but it is only when you are being deprived of something. Because your idea was copied is not much of a deprivation compared to someone stealing your house or car, leaving you without.
No one has the right to a living! No one owes you that.
So ideas do not have the same physical needs and thus if lost or copied (as memory erasure isn't possible yet they cannot be stolen) you are not in any deprivation of need.
So, why are restrictions on such properties, as you refer to them, so damn high and so detrimental to society?
Technically, the buffers in your CD player (or RAM in your PC) constitute a copy. It's not like there were buffers in your phonograph or cassette deck.
The concept of copy-restriction in the digital world needs a better understanding by all players. I recall there was a push by some in the entertainment industry/politicians based on the fact that the CD players actually copy the digital content in order to transfer it to the listener (viewer if DVD).
And Ford does not come after you for driving your car across your neighbour's lawn and claim it was a violation of their rights in how you used the vehicle.
That's not what it WAS! Again, original intent of the patent was for a temporary monopoly on who could use your IMPLEMENTATION of said idea.
After a reasonable expiry date, anyone could build upon said work WITHOUT OWING YOU EVEN A DIME!
And that molestation is only recent, thanks to the concept of Intellectual Property having the same rights as physical property - only people completely ignorant to thinking with logic and seeing the slippery slope such concepts would bring us (aka politicians) would accept such nonsense.
So the land titles transfer, when I bought my house, was not transferring the physical property, the house, from the previous owner, but the rights to access/build/destroy/pay taxes/live-in/enjoy the house?
Are you sure you are not confusing what they are referring to as "property" ? Property is not a right. The right governs what can be done to such property.
Thoughts, as anyone can have them and multiple sources can arrive at the same thoughts, or ideas, should not be subject to copyright. That's a slippery slope and damages cultural development.
IP should go back to just trade secrets. It does NOT promote societal development like first intended.
It's been exploited because the original laws assumed some sort of common sense and fairness to all, not monetize and lock it up perpetually because of the quest for maximum profits.
Car to explain how raping a car is analogous to copyrights?
Copyrights have nothing to do with the credit for your work. It's purely the right to create copies and came during the time of the printing press, where people could cheaply produce copies of sheet music or books and sell them.
The idea was that the creator should get a cut for every copy sold. Then, after a reasonable time frame, that CONTENT would be in the public domain and people could BUILD upon the works and society could progress.
A REASONABLE copyright, as you requested, depends on the industry, but should block against a) commercial copying (ie: make copy and charge people to buy it) without paying copyright owner while still under copyright and not in the public domain. B) Copyright should expire, the exclusive right to create copies is now over, anyone can do it and monetize OR NOT and not pay the owner. C) The copyright owner still gets credit for their work, however they can no longer enforce who creates copies but other CAN BUILD UPON their work. D) If the copyright owner wants to leave money for his/her estate, create more material (under the same temporary monopolistic control over the right to copy - but not necessarily monetize - no such requirement) as that is what they were intended to do!
You are granted a temporary monopolistic control over the right to copy and build upon the works you created, once that expires, it's open to anyone in the public to do that - you should not sell it and have such copyright transfer restart the counter! That hinders progress.
Again, temporary, so you have some income while you create NEW works and CONTRIBUTE to society not just lock the shit up so no one else can benefit and build upon it!
If you can't create anything or monetize enough during your time-allotted, that is NOT the fault of the government. Nor is it the right of the government to step in to protect you because you failed to monetize sufficiently.
If someone else, AFTER EXPIRATION OF YOUR RIGHT TO CONTROL COPYING, takes your work in the public domain, does NOT remove it from the public domain, doesn't even modify or build upon your work, but IS able to sell it and profit, that's too fucking bad! You should hire that person to help you with your next release.
Copyright is a law, not a property. Copyright law governs the rights to copy, but it in of itself is not a property nor a right. It enforces the right, provided it benefits people as it was intended, ie: the public domain.
That was LONG shot down with the extensions, such as the Sonny Bono Act in 1978, LONG before the Internet existed!
Clearly Forbes is sitting on the fence and is avoiding giving a definitive, subjective opinion without all the details so we can all move forward regarding protecting artist rights.
Why won't Forbes simply provide their opinion? Why sit on the fence? We can't move forward if people are fence-sitting, how will there be any room for people to cross over the fence with all those bodies in the way?
On the post: Dead Kennedys Guitarist Joins Crusade Against Ad Networks & YouTube Despite Understanding Neither
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is
"The DMCA is somewhat abmiguous" because the DMCA was drafted by the Music Industry in efforts to label anyone involving the Internet a provider. Just because Congress doesn't understand the terms doesn't make them so.
This is the typical conflation of terms that causes all the problems. Your law is wrong, using the wrong terminology. Dumb tubes provide no content.
ISP's are no more content providers than USB or SATA cables.
They do NOT host content, but merely provide a conduit to connect to devices that CAN hold content (USB Keys, HDD's, DVD's, or someone's web server or cluster of web servers which technically connect to HDD's via mass storage bays - also clustered).
Do you think Congress could understand that nuance? No. They fucked that up and any idiot judge who can think logically would dismiss that, assuming they can wrap their head around the obvious intentional misuse of terms.
You are uninformed about the real words and their true meanings, not legal implications.
By your legal implication pushed by the DMCA, fucking SATA cables are liable!
Youtube is an OCP, not an ISP! Youtube requires TWO ISP's to operate, one to provide the connection of Youtube's serves to the web, the other for individual users to access the web. Again, the ISP is the same as a SATA cable, with the exception the SATA cable doesn't listen when RIAA says "You allow piracy by not blocking content that flows through your tubes and therefor are liable."
Totally different!
ISP's do not kill businesses. If you think so then you might as well give up. They are no more responsible than SATA cables, Web Browsers (after all without them no YouTube), Operating Systems, or hardware used by end-users or gateway routers.
ISP's are argued this, but they don't have the same cash to defend it and unfortunately the law is controlled by who has the cash, not what is accurate.
Thanks to your laws, a corporation is a legal entity even though it is technically a puppet controlled by real human beings who know this and do anything without much fear of recourse. So don't hand me "the law of liability" says YouTube is a fucking ISP when the first thing you failed to understand is YouTube is an OCP, not an ISP. Following the wikipedia links should have solved that for you.
On the post: Dead Kennedys Guitarist Joins Crusade Against Ad Networks & YouTube Despite Understanding Neither
Re: Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is
Hmm non-exclusive definition is quite nice isn't it?
Funny how you like to a liability article when you claim Internet Service Provider is the same as youtube. By it's very definition, an ISP provides Internet Service, more correctly access to the internet.
By your implication, any website is an ISP.
On the post: Dead Kennedys Guitarist Joins Crusade Against Ad Networks & YouTube Despite Understanding Neither
Re: Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is
It's like TheatreAtHome and no windowed releases, but you pay per use + service fee (REASONABLE - charge $50 + $20/movie and you won't sell shit!).
I have a kid, I'd like to be able to watch movies without his crying disturbing others. I also want closed captioning so I can read through his cries.
On the post: Dead Kennedys Guitarist Joins Crusade Against Ad Networks & YouTube Despite Understanding Neither
Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is
1) The medium for distribution of music has changed. It has become more flexible and consumers have voiced what they want. They want singles. Singles cost less than albums. Albums are still bought if they are any good. Thus revenue is down so artists shares are down because instead of selling 12 songs you're selling 1 or 2 or 3.
2) Brick and mortar stores that sold music exclusively have been killed by the discounted label pricing offered to department stores, like BestBuy, WalMart, etc.. and chain music stores who can purchase in bulk. Even chain music stores who were not big enough to battle label price demands had to augment sales with other items to get people in the door - that is, movies and posters.
3) Videogames are no longer just for nerds or restricted to complicated computers which require more hardware than the average consumer can afford or think to buy. Videogames have taken off and consumed huge amounts of entertainment dollars.
4) Home theatre systems take the old VCR/TV (maybe your stereo) option and blow it out of the water - people choose this because a) kids disrupt theatre goers, b) theatre costs are quite high, c) more selection at your rental store (online or brick and mortar), d) DVD prices have dropped so people replace old worn out VHS with DVD or blue-ray and enjoy at home, e) you can't stop the movie for a bathroom break, etc...
5) What are these "older" artists doing to attract people's attention beyond ranting? What have they written lately that people will want to buy? Bob Dylan did very well, but he also has nice packages for people to buy, increasing his revenue beyond just the content copy.
6) The Internet leveled the playing field, no more are people stuck begging a record producer/A&R person to listen to them and if they like them, being told to sound like someone else. There is competition and THAT is what upsets older artists like East Bay Ray/Lowery and the labels more than anything. How dare someone else who's not a "professional" write music? How dare someone do this as a hobby? How dare someone not go through "proper channels" to get heard like it used to be? How will we filter all of this, oh the horror, the horror?
7) And most of all, some artists refuse to understand what has happened and what it really means. They want to focus on art, not how one generates revenue online or how the Internet actually works or how things used to be before copyrights were abused. That's SUPPOSED to be their management and labels' area of expertise. Clearly it is not!
Fucking Todd Rundgren was far more intelligent and had greater forethought for the Internet than anyone else and he's a musician from the 70's. 3 fucking years before Napster he pitched the idea to the labels. Don't believe me? Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqXbkKwCHj8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-a6ogGFV-8
T he only person being an ignoramus is East Bay Ray, monopolizing the entire panel and acting like Lowery. Rather than looking at the past and complaining, they should have been looking forward like Todd is!
On the post: Do You Live In The Constitution-Free Zone Of The US?
Re:
Everyone else, congress/senate/ordinary citizen/visitors are fair game.
Check out the ACLU's Stop and Frisk App and the story that goes alone with it.
http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2013-02/can-app-stop-new-yorks-stop-and-frisk
On the post: Jealous Of Copyright Trolls, Entertainment Industry Looks To Move Three Strikes From 'Disconnect' To 'Fines'
Re: Uh.... isn't this what you wanted?
Especially when I legally buy movies and have to sit through unskippable ads and warnings! Especially when those in France torrenting a file, that they are legally able to, and are accused of copyright infringement/stealing and fined 140Euros without any proof whatsoever.
Yes, they too deserve a back massage after all that stress because of being falsely accused.
The good part about murder trials or parking fines, they require proof. You can't randomly assign a fine to someone, you need to have proof. You can't randomly accuse someone of murder either, you need proof.
So yes, accusing without proof, like DMCA's, are abuse and yes, back massages are required!
On the post: No, Copyright Is Not Like A Contract
Re: A general copyright response
If I may disagree with you on this, your argument might seem to make sense, however we argue over the use of the term "stolen."
No one is deprived of the idea simply because someone copied it. If you have a great idea and you tell someone, you've just copied it. It's now your idea and the person you told. That's the limit of the natural right with respect to ideas.
What matters is the implementation of said idea. What matters more is the concept of "stealing" an idea. You were not deprived of that idea. If you told no one, it doesn't have any rights at all.
It only has rights once you register your implementation of your idea, that's how people hear about it, that's how it earns rights. The physical side is easy to understand, as when someone steals, you are deprived of it.
But you're trying to argue that the rights are violated when something is copied. In the physical world, your rights are not violated by a copy. You still have it! You can still use it, your rights are still applied.
How is that any different from ideas? You still have your idea, just like the guy who copied your lawnmower, you have yours and he has his, none of your rights have been violated.
If you want to try to extend the concept to exclusivity, then that's a different page. Exclusivity is meant for implementation of said idea and is not very beneficial to society. If two people think of the same idea, which has happened many times, the "law" grants the rights to however gets there first.
Telsa was the first to transmit signals through the air, not Marconi. Who gets the rights to the idea? Why should their even be rights applied to such ideas?
Ideas is the wrong word, it is implementation of said idea. Ideas are imaginary and can only be copied when openly shared. However, unless the idea is released from the brain, in the form of an implementation, it's useless to the world and to the creator.
And while you argue that society determines that copying harms the owner, that is highly subjective by the way, it doesn't cover how society is benefited by the copying.
That's the whole point we're arguing. People are overly concerned about the owner and not the progression of society which is the whole freaking point of said IP laws, both copyrights and patents.
How do you further innovation if no one can build upon it?
The idea was originally meant to give exclusive rights (once it was copied from the head to the real world - shared - and registered - assuming they got there first) so the person could decide what to do with it before releasing it for others to build upon.
Generally, people chose to make a living during that exclusivity period, and during which time they would create something new to be registered and released in hopes of earning a living. It doesn't have to be that way, it could have been given away. Living is not a requirement. Temporary exclusivity is.
The problem that is real and that a majority here have is the extension beyond reason of said rights, combined with the convolution spread about by those choosing to interpret laws beyond original intent.
Back to your physical vs idea, if your idea was something only you could use, it wouldn't really matter much about the level of rights you had, as the implementation would really only be applicable to you. Same goes with your car or lawnmower, they are applicable to you.
If your implementation of the idea could benefit society as a whole, it should be given to society to build upon at a reasonable point in the future. That's gone, 70 years after death is NOT reasonable! Patents of 25yrs are dumb, seriously, our progress today does not match exclusivity time periods.
So you can argue all you want about physical rights being artificial, but that does not mean the general feeling here is wrong.
Laws are meant to benefit society, by protection. When laws are contorted by people conflating concepts, intentionally trying to distort reality and enable rights that cannot be naturally applied, the system fails to protect society.
Remember, once you share it, without the laws, it is everyone's natural right who hears the idea to implement it. That is how society benefits from ideas and progresses. To be fair to creators who bust their butts for said ideas, they are granted temporary rights that are beyond natural rights of society, to provide a benefit, while they create something else!
And by natural right, it's simply that, something that feels natural to do, like sharing! Some restrictions are implied, but it is only when you are being deprived of something. Because your idea was copied is not much of a deprivation compared to someone stealing your house or car, leaving you without.
No one has the right to a living! No one owes you that.
So ideas do not have the same physical needs and thus if lost or copied (as memory erasure isn't possible yet they cannot be stolen) you are not in any deprivation of need.
So, why are restrictions on such properties, as you refer to them, so damn high and so detrimental to society?
On the post: No, Copyright Is Not Like A Contract
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The 'reporting' is a bit disturbing because there's no need to report, nothing was inflammatory.
On the post: No, Copyright Is Not Like A Contract
Re:
On the post: No, Copyright Is Not Like A Contract
Re: Re: Re: Bogus artistic megalomania
The concept of copy-restriction in the digital world needs a better understanding by all players. I recall there was a push by some in the entertainment industry/politicians based on the fact that the CD players actually copy the digital content in order to transfer it to the listener (viewer if DVD).
And Ford does not come after you for driving your car across your neighbour's lawn and claim it was a violation of their rights in how you used the vehicle.
On the post: No, Copyright Is Not Like A Contract
Good Discussion So Far - overall
On the post: No, Copyright Is Not Like A Contract
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not what it WAS! Again, original intent of the patent was for a temporary monopoly on who could use your IMPLEMENTATION of said idea.
After a reasonable expiry date, anyone could build upon said work WITHOUT OWING YOU EVEN A DIME!
And that molestation is only recent, thanks to the concept of Intellectual Property having the same rights as physical property - only people completely ignorant to thinking with logic and seeing the slippery slope such concepts would bring us (aka politicians) would accept such nonsense.
On the post: No, Copyright Is Not Like A Contract
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that what you are saying?
On the post: No, Copyright Is Not Like A Contract
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thoughts, as anyone can have them and multiple sources can arrive at the same thoughts, or ideas, should not be subject to copyright. That's a slippery slope and damages cultural development.
IP should go back to just trade secrets. It does NOT promote societal development like first intended.
It's been exploited because the original laws assumed some sort of common sense and fairness to all, not monetize and lock it up perpetually because of the quest for maximum profits.
On the post: No, Copyright Is Not Like A Contract
Re: Re:
Copyrights have nothing to do with the credit for your work. It's purely the right to create copies and came during the time of the printing press, where people could cheaply produce copies of sheet music or books and sell them.
The idea was that the creator should get a cut for every copy sold. Then, after a reasonable time frame, that CONTENT would be in the public domain and people could BUILD upon the works and society could progress.
A REASONABLE copyright, as you requested, depends on the industry, but should block against a) commercial copying (ie: make copy and charge people to buy it) without paying copyright owner while still under copyright and not in the public domain. B) Copyright should expire, the exclusive right to create copies is now over, anyone can do it and monetize OR NOT and not pay the owner. C) The copyright owner still gets credit for their work, however they can no longer enforce who creates copies but other CAN BUILD UPON their work. D) If the copyright owner wants to leave money for his/her estate, create more material (under the same temporary monopolistic control over the right to copy - but not necessarily monetize - no such requirement) as that is what they were intended to do!
You are granted a temporary monopolistic control over the right to copy and build upon the works you created, once that expires, it's open to anyone in the public to do that - you should not sell it and have such copyright transfer restart the counter! That hinders progress.
Again, temporary, so you have some income while you create NEW works and CONTRIBUTE to society not just lock the shit up so no one else can benefit and build upon it!
If you can't create anything or monetize enough during your time-allotted, that is NOT the fault of the government. Nor is it the right of the government to step in to protect you because you failed to monetize sufficiently.
If someone else, AFTER EXPIRATION OF YOUR RIGHT TO CONTROL COPYING, takes your work in the public domain, does NOT remove it from the public domain, doesn't even modify or build upon your work, but IS able to sell it and profit, that's too fucking bad! You should hire that person to help you with your next release.
Life is not fair and no one owes you a living!
On the post: No, Copyright Is Not Like A Contract
Re: Re: Re:
That was LONG shot down with the extensions, such as the Sonny Bono Act in 1978, LONG before the Internet existed!
On the post: No, Copyright Is Not Like A Contract
Forbes sitting on the fence
Why won't Forbes simply provide their opinion? Why sit on the fence? We can't move forward if people are fence-sitting, how will there be any room for people to cross over the fence with all those bodies in the way?
On the post: The Many Motivations Of Movie Piracy (Notably Absent: 'I Want Everything For Free')
Re: Ads - like cable was not supposed to contain?
http://bumrejects.myfreeforum.org/archive/wasn-t-cable-supposed-to-be-commercial-free__o _t__t_433.html
On the post: The Many Motivations Of Movie Piracy (Notably Absent: 'I Want Everything For Free')
Ads - like cable was not supposed to contain?
That sure as hell changed pretty damn fast.
Not to mention TLC/DISC/HIST/A&E used to be great for docs, now you get reality shows.
So even when you pay to avoid ads, let's remember cable and what happened!
Once you pay for a service, you have to accept that ads will come, or you have to pay more to keep maximizing those profits!
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your right to create exists regardless. Your right to release and copy and release those copies exists regardless.
They are not respecting your exclusivity for a number of reasons, already listed, not wasting time repeating.
Next >>