No, the copyright act exceeds what the constitution allows for copyright. That's what I'm talking about.
The constitution says "for limited times", yet the term of copyright is being constantly extended. It's supposed to promote the progress, but it doesn't. It's used specifically to stop the creation of works which would fulfill the goal of promoting the progress. With perpetual terms and censorship of works based on previous works, copyright exceeds what is allowed by the supreme law of the land (i.e. the constitution). It actually makes it so a copyright holder can hold a copyright like it's property.
That's nothing but a semantic game. Sure it has limits, until they get close to expiring. Then, the industry lobbies to extend the length and we're back to square one. They've done it several times already, there's no reason to think they won't try do it again. The purpose of this semantic game is to make copyright effectively a property right when it's supposed to be a temporary grant to encourage new works, not let people sit on them and milk them until they die. That's an incentive to not make more and exploit it. "Lifetime of the author plus X years" is not really "limited" honestly. By the time those works expire, they'll have little relevance to current culture. That's why they were supposed to be shorter, short enough that the artist would be compelled to keep creating to keep receiving copyrights and when they do expire, they would be useful to us for creating new works.
I didn't say I think it's an ideal concept. In fact, I don't agree with copyright in any form. I'm just pointing out how our laws are exceeding their constitutional restrictions.
I'm familiar with the stationers laws, but I'm talking about copyright as the founders of America intended it. That intent was to encourage authors to create works that would benefit the public and add to the supply of cultural context we use to create new works.
Basically, we allow authors to have a temporary ability to exclusively exploit a new work so that they can make money from its distribution and after such term expires, it would be made available to everyone else as a cultural resource for the creation of new works. But the law doesn't work that way as it exists. It is held in perpetual exclusivity in direct contradiction of the phrase "for limited times" and prevented from ever joining the public domain so that others may access and utilize it freely.
The entire copyright law should be repealed just on the fact that it's unconstitutional. Almost everything in the Copyright Act currently goes beyond what the powers granted to Congress are allowed to give. The treaty we are beholden to is also unconstitutional since it requires Congress to exceed their given powers.
Copyright itself doesn't even need to exist anymore. What's more is that it's also powerless to restrict copying and distribution of applicable works without violating more constitutionally reserved rights. The intended purpose of copyright, as it has been said over and over, is to increase the supply of works and access to them so that we can promote the progress of culture and knowledge by using existing works to innovate new works.
The public domain is the brick and mortar we use to build new works. If you take away the building materials by locking them away in pseudo property rights, that leaves us with nothing to build with. In fact, the only people who can create new works are the owners of the works who constantly recycle their own "IP" over and over with very little innovation, which stagnates our culture. Look at the movies the studios put on a regular basis. There's a few gems floating in a cesspool of crap that is basically the same as the stuff they made the previous year. No, eliminating copyright won't rid us of crappy movies, but it will allow for innovation and remixing of many of them, resulting in a more innovative climate for art.
If you don't ask TPB for infringing content, they'll never serve you links to it. TPB is a search engine, it provides what you ask from it. It's no different than Google. Furthermore, TPB doesn't know which links actually contain infringing content, they'd have to scan every link that gets posted to see if the link contains the material the description claims. So it's more like the store owner knows that someone has crack, but not which ones and the ones wearing signs that say they do have crack might be lying.
This bozo is aware that this sets a precedent which says that speech is property and we can face punishment far beyond what higher crimes are assigned.
The industry isn't innocent. They've done plenty to earn our ire and indignation. They neutered fair use and they harass children and senior citizens that don't even know how to infringe, much less how to use a computer. They ruin lives of fans and artists alike. They took away our right to return unsatisfactory products for a refund. They ensured we can't make legitimate backups so they can double dip and make us buy another copy when we should be able to make our own copies. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
They've earned this and they're getting what they deserve. If they want us to stop, they're going to have to start treating us like actual customers and not a revenue resource to exploit. Give us universal access to everything for a reasonable cost. No region locks, no windows, no device restrictions, no circle jerk piracy PSA that imply the paying customer is a criminal, and no more abusing copyright to censor expression. I demand that I be able to enjoy the content I pay for at my convenience and on my terms. The content industry only has the right to say who gets a copy and how, but they do not have the right to tell me how I can experience it.
When I start censoring your speech and expression, I'll concede that I deserve a beating for it.
If Mike Masnick is my cult leader, he sure has done a poor job of indoctrinating me. I often consider his viewpoints on copyright to be very conservative, almost complacent. He's the diet cola of anti-copyright compared to me. However, that doesn't imply that my desire to see copyright abolished follows a desire to get everything for free, unless you mean that I want to see it free of censorship, free of abuse, and free of monopoly. Then I do want free content. Give me lots of free content in that case.
I think it's certainly feasible to crowd fund popular works such as this. Get some investment capital to start it off, let them merchandise the hell out of it and the next season rides its own popular to Kickstarter. Rabid fans would throw whatever they can afford at it to get new episodes.
There is such a thing as an unconscionable law and this is a perfect example. Copyright is completely wrong. It's nothing but a way to turn abundance into scarcity because capitalism can't function without scarcity. They don't need it and they sure as hell don't deserve it. It serves no benefit to the people and is regularly abused. I see no reason why it shouldn't be immediately revoked. And if you think that would "kill" the content industry, you're completely devoid of vision and imagination. The content industry can exist just fine without their precious copyright and still make tons of money. It's just going to require more thought and more effort to find a business model that works. Perish the thought, they might have to put some effort into it and take a risk on something new! And there are other perfectly valid business models that don't require the government to hold their hand, kiss their little butts, and tell them they're special little darlings. Poor babies! Boo hoo!
Oh wow! You just checkmated me! You cited the only two examples in the entire world where copyright enforcement actually won a battle. So what about millions of other people that get away with it every day? Two people out of fucking millions does not constitute a high success rate. That's probably about a .00001% success rate at best.
"What I'll never understand is why he's so opposed to anything being done to punish or dissuade infringers."
Perhaps because there's nothing you can do to stop it and there never will be? Seriously, fighting against online infringement is like tearing open a pillow and tossing it to the wind. How the hell do you put the feathers back? How do you control that? Face it, the internet has rendered copyright obsolete. The war was fought and won a long time ago and the winner was the citizens of the internet. As time goes on, it will become far more difficult to deter infringement. Copying only gets easier.
What's more, why should it be dissuaded? You assume that it's somehow wrong and therefor a mandate to punish the action is implied. The internet is pure communication (i.e. speech), end of story. By demanding punishment for copyright infringement, you're seeking to punish people for communicating information you don't want them to. Punishing people for communicating, regardless of whether a price tag attached to it, is the very definition of censorship. I'd say it's far more wrong to enforce copyright than it is to violate it. Illegal != wrong.
That's complete fallacy. You're totally clueless. That's not even close to what's being said here. You just made up your own delusion of what's going on and pretend that it's reality.
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
You're absolutely full of shit. TV shows can make money without advertising. There are many ways to do it without ad money. Subscriptions are for one, selling episodes for two, crowd funding for three, and merchandising for another, but clearly those are all inferior to advertising and will all utterly fail because ad money is cruise control for profit. NOT!
Why don't you take a loopy tour by shoving your head up your ass? See if talking out of your ass while talking into it has any interest effects. Nobody takes you seriously and nobody respects anything you say. You're a complete joke and you get yourself reported every time you open your obnoxious mouth. Take a hint, you're just an annoying little prick that nobody likes.
Look whose calling whom ignorant. silverscarcat didn't say "boy", it was quoted from an AC. You're calling this person a racist for something someone else said, idiot. Learn to read.
Still, people could flood EA forums demanding refunds. That would get their attention. If they put a block on that, well, there's always the class action suit.
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
The constitution says "for limited times", yet the term of copyright is being constantly extended. It's supposed to promote the progress, but it doesn't. It's used specifically to stop the creation of works which would fulfill the goal of promoting the progress. With perpetual terms and censorship of works based on previous works, copyright exceeds what is allowed by the supreme law of the land (i.e. the constitution). It actually makes it so a copyright holder can hold a copyright like it's property.
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unconstitutional
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Re: Unconstitutional
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Re: Unconstitutional
Basically, we allow authors to have a temporary ability to exclusively exploit a new work so that they can make money from its distribution and after such term expires, it would be made available to everyone else as a cultural resource for the creation of new works. But the law doesn't work that way as it exists. It is held in perpetual exclusivity in direct contradiction of the phrase "for limited times" and prevented from ever joining the public domain so that others may access and utilize it freely.
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Unconstitutional
Copyright itself doesn't even need to exist anymore. What's more is that it's also powerless to restrict copying and distribution of applicable works without violating more constitutionally reserved rights. The intended purpose of copyright, as it has been said over and over, is to increase the supply of works and access to them so that we can promote the progress of culture and knowledge by using existing works to innovate new works.
The public domain is the brick and mortar we use to build new works. If you take away the building materials by locking them away in pseudo property rights, that leaves us with nothing to build with. In fact, the only people who can create new works are the owners of the works who constantly recycle their own "IP" over and over with very little innovation, which stagnates our culture. Look at the movies the studios put on a regular basis. There's a few gems floating in a cesspool of crap that is basically the same as the stuff they made the previous year. No, eliminating copyright won't rid us of crappy movies, but it will allow for innovation and remixing of many of them, resulting in a more innovative climate for art.
On the post: Rejection Of The Pirate Bay Founders' Appeal Sets Dangerous Precedent On Liability & Free Expression
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Rejection Of The Pirate Bay Founders' Appeal Sets Dangerous Precedent On Liability & Free Expression
Re: Re:
On the post: HBO: The Key To Combating Piracy Is To Make Game Of Thrones More Available... Except Here
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They've earned this and they're getting what they deserve. If they want us to stop, they're going to have to start treating us like actual customers and not a revenue resource to exploit. Give us universal access to everything for a reasonable cost. No region locks, no windows, no device restrictions, no circle jerk piracy PSA that imply the paying customer is a criminal, and no more abusing copyright to censor expression. I demand that I be able to enjoy the content I pay for at my convenience and on my terms. The content industry only has the right to say who gets a copy and how, but they do not have the right to tell me how I can experience it.
When I start censoring your speech and expression, I'll concede that I deserve a beating for it.
On the post: HBO: The Key To Combating Piracy Is To Make Game Of Thrones More Available... Except Here
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 7-Year-Old Student Suspended For Waving Around A 'Gun' Made From A Pastry
Re:
On the post: HBO: The Key To Combating Piracy Is To Make Game Of Thrones More Available... Except Here
Re: A new business model
On the post: HBO: The Key To Combating Piracy Is To Make Game Of Thrones More Available... Except Here
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: HBO: The Key To Combating Piracy Is To Make Game Of Thrones More Available... Except Here
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're the idiot.
On the post: HBO: The Key To Combating Piracy Is To Make Game Of Thrones More Available... Except Here
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: HBO: The Key To Combating Piracy Is To Make Game Of Thrones More Available... Except Here
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps because there's nothing you can do to stop it and there never will be? Seriously, fighting against online infringement is like tearing open a pillow and tossing it to the wind. How the hell do you put the feathers back? How do you control that? Face it, the internet has rendered copyright obsolete. The war was fought and won a long time ago and the winner was the citizens of the internet. As time goes on, it will become far more difficult to deter infringement. Copying only gets easier.
What's more, why should it be dissuaded? You assume that it's somehow wrong and therefor a mandate to punish the action is implied. The internet is pure communication (i.e. speech), end of story. By demanding punishment for copyright infringement, you're seeking to punish people for communicating information you don't want them to. Punishing people for communicating, regardless of whether a price tag attached to it, is the very definition of censorship. I'd say it's far more wrong to enforce copyright than it is to violate it. Illegal != wrong.
On the post: HBO: The Key To Combating Piracy Is To Make Game Of Thrones More Available... Except Here
Re: great post
On the post: HBO: The Key To Combating Piracy Is To Make Game Of Thrones More Available... Except Here
Re: Ever gone into differences between TV and movies for income streams?
Why don't you take a loopy tour by shoving your head up your ass? See if talking out of your ass while talking into it has any interest effects. Nobody takes you seriously and nobody respects anything you say. You're a complete joke and you get yourself reported every time you open your obnoxious mouth. Take a hint, you're just an annoying little prick that nobody likes.
On the post: HBO: The Key To Combating Piracy Is To Make Game Of Thrones More Available... Except Here
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honestly...
On the post: Launch Day Punishment: SimCity's Online-Only DRM Locking Purchasers Out Of Servers, Purchases
Re: Re: Refunds
Next >>