Not being funny, but I don't care what the supreme court said. An appeal to their authority doesn't change the fact that nothing is currently entering the public domain because copyright terms are expanding faster than the time passing.
"There is no plan to expand it again." Really? You can guarantee that? So I can either take your word on this, or I can look at the behaviours of the content industry over the last 30 years. Hmmm.
You claim this is just to bring the US into line with the rest of the world, so if, in a couple of years time, the EU extends copyright to Life + 95 years, what then? More international obligations to be met at the expense of the public domain?
Surely you can see why people don't believe that this is the desired end-state for the content industries?
The argument that you're failing to challenge is the one that states that if the copyright term is lenghtening faster than the items that it covers age then the "limited" part of this is effectively redundant.
You ask why we would expect this to continue and we point you to every change in copyright law in the last 30 years.
Not once has that time-frame gone backwards.
It's a needful thing, having put up with all his (hers?) posts I think what we're dealing with is a classic cry for attention.
Besides which, they've probably been banned from a load of other sites...
There is really no need to spy on IP addresses in your case; you're such a sack of bile that your comments are immediately identifiable simply by their content (or lack thereof).
It was just this week that someone made a comment on another thread to the effect that the web has been around long enough now for legacy-industry-behaviours (or Innovator's Dilemma) to start appearing.
This might well be considered to be a manifestation of that effect.
On a related note, where's Paywall Bob and his Big Search commentary? This should be his time to shine!
In the UK life expectancy is shifting to such an extent that, according to actuarial models*, a 3-year-old has a greater chance of reaching 100 than a 97-year-old.
According to those same models someone has already been born who will reach 125.
This is why the balance is unsustainable.
The challenge comes in that although we're living longer we're not ageing that much slower. I.e. we're prolonging the period of, for want of a better word, decreptitude where our care costs become very high.
* and this is what your pension is based on remember
Care to comment on the point (made several times already, including by Mike) that it's expanding before it reaches its limits? Hence at it's current rate things will never reach the public domain (oh look, that's starting to happen now).
Please do.
Oh yes, and whilst you're adding this to your list, add it to the list of threads where you threw around a load of insults, spouted a load of bilge* and then didn't actually address any of the arguments raised against you but just repeated the same point again and again and again.
* can't get away from those pirate references hey?
"Copyright is supposed to give people the right to exclude" with the end goal of creating more works.
Which this isn't doing.
This isn't a post about scrapping copyright (no matter how you like to keep reading these articles and leaping to that conclusion), it's about how copyright is working against the idea of creating new content. Primarily because some people can't see the difference between price and value.
Arr, ye have the right of it there matey. We all be pirates here and our timbers are truly shivered.
Twat.
Maybe this is a pirate-friendly place, but maybe that's because the people like you are in the minority and most people are happy to have a sensible debate without a load of pointless abuse?
""culture" is in fact what Hollywood makes"
I'd disagree, culture is created by society, Hollywood provides an input to this but what is accepted and embraced is a subset of that.
Frequently Hollywood's content is just a re-working of the current culture (see super-hero movies and re-makes ad nauseam).
You're right on one point though, people do want what hollywood is creating, but they don't want the baggage and bullshit that goes with it. Make a good movie and people are happy to pay to go see it or buy the DVD or rent it from their service of choice.
What people are becoming increasingly intolerant of is the unnecessary restrictions that get in the way of them consuming the content. DRM, windowed releases and stupid anti-piracy adverts being some that spring immediately to mind.
Now all these things are being provided by alternative sources, maybe embracing what technology offers will help Hollywood handle the current reality.
At the moment copyright is a niche issue, but it's becoming increasingly mainstream, companies that treat their customers well will have an advantage as this trend continues.
Same point as above. Copyright extension is expanding faster than the limits. Hence nothing has entered the public domain recently. Which kind of eliminates the argument about "limited".
But there's a cultural point here as well in that culture shifts over time. There are things that could be done to something that's moved into the public domain that would have relevance 14 years after their original creation that will have no relevance at life +75 years.
Oh yes, and that nicely brings us back to that old sucker: how much content do dead people create?
No. People create stuff. Copyright restricts access and use of said stuff.
Interestingly people created a whole wealth of stuff before copyright came along and would continue to do so if it stopped tomorrow.
Being as you're on a bit of a constitutional rant this evening, would you agree or disagree that the current length of copyright (and the fact that it continues post death) still meets the desires of the Framers?
Hmmm. That wasn't the conclusion I'd reached but you go right ahead.
Whilst you're at it you could find the bits where Mike says that copyright is evil and that he's a pirate. That would save us all a load of time next time.
Oh yes, and was the documentary any good? I'm assuming you've seen it since you know there wasn't a fair use argument?
Not having seen the movie I can't say but there would be a clear difference in requirement depending on how the music was used. If it was an excerpt to illustrate the central point of the movie, a couple of examples of what people were responding to for example, there would be a strong fair use argument.
If it's just to add background and atmosphere then yes, licensing as normal.
Mind you, some folks might think that a free license might be appropriate in a work such as this, but that's a personal decision.
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There is no plan to expand it again." Really? You can guarantee that? So I can either take your word on this, or I can look at the behaviours of the content industry over the last 30 years. Hmmm.
You claim this is just to bring the US into line with the rest of the world, so if, in a couple of years time, the EU extends copyright to Life + 95 years, what then? More international obligations to be met at the expense of the public domain?
Surely you can see why people don't believe that this is the desired end-state for the content industries?
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You ask why we would expect this to continue and we point you to every change in copyright law in the last 30 years.
Not once has that time-frame gone backwards.
On the post: Congress Has Lost All Perspective When It Considers Prosecuting Journalists As Spies
Re: Re: Re:
Besides which, they've probably been banned from a load of other sites...
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: YouTube Wants You To Comment Under Your Real Name
Re:
On the post: SOPA/PIPA Wakes Up Internet Giants To Realize They Need To Be More Engaged In DC
Interesting timing
This might well be considered to be a manifestation of that effect.
On a related note, where's Paywall Bob and his Big Search commentary? This should be his time to shine!
On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok - I'm confused.
On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm
According to those same models someone has already been born who will reach 125.
This is why the balance is unsustainable.
The challenge comes in that although we're living longer we're not ageing that much slower. I.e. we're prolonging the period of, for want of a better word, decreptitude where our care costs become very high.
* and this is what your pension is based on remember
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please do.
Oh yes, and whilst you're adding this to your list, add it to the list of threads where you threw around a load of insults, spouted a load of bilge* and then didn't actually address any of the arguments raised against you but just repeated the same point again and again and again.
* can't get away from those pirate references hey?
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which this isn't doing.
This isn't a post about scrapping copyright (no matter how you like to keep reading these articles and leaping to that conclusion), it's about how copyright is working against the idea of creating new content. Primarily because some people can't see the difference between price and value.
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Twat.
Maybe this is a pirate-friendly place, but maybe that's because the people like you are in the minority and most people are happy to have a sensible debate without a load of pointless abuse?
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Music Licensing for ALIVE INSIDE
On the post: More And More People Sign On To The Declaration Of Internet Freedom
Re: Re:
I'd disagree, culture is created by society, Hollywood provides an input to this but what is accepted and embraced is a subset of that.
Frequently Hollywood's content is just a re-working of the current culture (see super-hero movies and re-makes ad nauseam).
You're right on one point though, people do want what hollywood is creating, but they don't want the baggage and bullshit that goes with it. Make a good movie and people are happy to pay to go see it or buy the DVD or rent it from their service of choice.
What people are becoming increasingly intolerant of is the unnecessary restrictions that get in the way of them consuming the content. DRM, windowed releases and stupid anti-piracy adverts being some that spring immediately to mind.
Now all these things are being provided by alternative sources, maybe embracing what technology offers will help Hollywood handle the current reality.
At the moment copyright is a niche issue, but it's becoming increasingly mainstream, companies that treat their customers well will have an advantage as this trend continues.
On the post: More And More People Sign On To The Declaration Of Internet Freedom
Re:
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But there's a cultural point here as well in that culture shifts over time. There are things that could be done to something that's moved into the public domain that would have relevance 14 years after their original creation that will have no relevance at life +75 years.
Oh yes, and that nicely brings us back to that old sucker: how much content do dead people create?
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interestingly people created a whole wealth of stuff before copyright came along and would continue to do so if it stopped tomorrow.
Being as you're on a bit of a constitutional rant this evening, would you agree or disagree that the current length of copyright (and the fact that it continues post death) still meets the desires of the Framers?
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re:
Whilst you're at it you could find the bits where Mike says that copyright is evil and that he's a pirate. That would save us all a load of time next time.
Oh yes, and was the documentary any good? I'm assuming you've seen it since you know there wasn't a fair use argument?
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re:
If it's just to add background and atmosphere then yes, licensing as normal.
Mind you, some folks might think that a free license might be appropriate in a work such as this, but that's a personal decision.
Next >>