Except it's not morally equivalent to theft. Depriving me of real property I bought and own using made-up laws like copyright IS morally equivalent to theft.
That's a 170 year monopoly, when there is no evidence to suggest that any monopoly is required or deserved at all. Something's wrong with that picture.
Never happened? Oh, let me assure you that it has happened many times already. Unless you've been under a rock for all of last week, you must have heard the Bed Intruder song.
My first instinct is to question whether what was considered liberal in the early 18th century is no longer quite so liberal today. Compared to a feudal system, copyright and patents might have been a system that could scale up and was open to the general public, then.
Patents were mostly for mechanical inventions, which would be easy to evaluate by looking at schematics -- not so the case today.
Copyrights only applied to publishers and not individual copying, so controlling infringement was possible -- today, the creeping scope of copyright and new copying technology make copyright law pretty much unimplementable.
These laws are DATED, and I think they've become a burden to the people. They either have to be thrown out and rewritten from scratch, or just thrown out.
The question is, how can we prompt change? (and I don't mean Obama's fake, vote-for-me kind of change) How can the people wisen up and speak with a clear enough voice to be heard? Perhaps illegal filesharing is the best way to make ourselves heard, though that's quite sad if you think about it.
If you haven't noticed, the discussion around here mostly revolves around the moral and economic aspects of copyright, and basically the question of whether copyright law should exist in the first place. It doesn't matter in the slightest what is illegal and what isn't.
As for making mix tapes or ripping mp3s, it's totally illegal to make copies for your friends (incl. mixtapes), even under fair use, and you aren't allowed to break DRM. It's actually illegal to play your music loud enough that others can hear it, even if you are in the privacy of your own house.
"Some media companies got rich? Hang them, the bastards! [sarcasm] That doesn't even qualify as an argument!"
Bugger off. I clearly said that copyright law as it stands today was put in place by rich companies, and thus its utility and morality are questionable.
I'll bet you a million pounds that Stanley would have innovated, patents or no patents, to stay ahead of the competition and keep its brand strong.
Perhaps others will eventually copy Stanley's innovation if there is no patent, but will their products be of the same quality as Stanley's? If you need to buy a new hammer, won't you go for a Stanley just because you trust the brand, regardless of whether their patent has expired or not?
If Stanley's innovation can be copied overnight, then surely that innovation was not worth a patent. If it takes months or years for others to copy it, then Stanley will have received its monopoly rent by the time competing products are brought to market.
The law is completely irrelevant. You know as well as I do that it was bought and paid for by rich media companies, not borne out of intelligent debate. For that reason, stop referencing what the law says and use your head.
The fact is, the vast majority of people don't have any understanding of the insane limitations that copyright law imposes. When they buy a CD, they think they are buying music, not a "license". When people in the UK rip a CD to their mp3 player, they have no idea they are breaking the law.
And before the civil war, it was illegal to tech slaves to read. Good thing everyone respected that law, huh? After all, the right of the slave owner to legally control the use of his slaves was greater than the right of the slaves to have an education.
I'm personally not convinced that copyright is "the" way for artists to make money. I believe the dead weight cost it imposes on society is too great: the amount of effort expended policing the online and offline worlds for infringement far outweighs the benefit of more art being produced.
I know that it's silly to expect users to respect laws that stop them from copying files, and impractical to expect ISPs and other tech companies to magically know which files are legally copied and which aren't.
In my view, thanks to computers and the internet there is no scarcity in copying, so paying artists to make copies of their work is a pretty stupid system. It would be much better if we could have a system where we pay artists to create, as the creation of new works is naturally scarce.
"If Brown's copyrighted material continues to earn money after he dies,then his heirs deserve the money earned from them."
Why should anyone continue to get money from a dead person's work?? If he's dead, his copyrights should be voided and his work should enter the public domain.
Nonsense. Giving creators limited privileges on work which they made widely available was a *concession* on the part of the people.
It's a moral crime to remove my right to do whatever I like with real property I own, but how is it morally wrong not to grant creators any privileges? And don't get me started on how current copyright "law" came to be law.
This really shows the power of the internet: a talented couple of musicians with ZERO marketing or advertising made something that is worth listening to, released it online for anyone to listen to, and it spread on its own!
Actually, orphan works legislation is also something of a "meantime" solution. The real problem is the ridiculous length of copyright, and fixing that almost feels impossible at the moment.
So, copyright 1, public domain 0. A "treasure trove" of music is made inaccessible to everyone who can't travel half-way across the world to see it played on a jukebox, even when that music was recorded almost a century ago.
A better solution is to push for better orphan works legislation that protects the museum from lawsuits or demands for damages if any rights holders come knocking.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Your not paid for 'man hours'.
I don't see how that should entitle anyone to a monopoly on recordings of their work.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: hammer
Think about it. Why is theft immoral?
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Re: Re: songs
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: centuries
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: songs
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright.
My first instinct is to question whether what was considered liberal in the early 18th century is no longer quite so liberal today. Compared to a feudal system, copyright and patents might have been a system that could scale up and was open to the general public, then.
Patents were mostly for mechanical inventions, which would be easy to evaluate by looking at schematics -- not so the case today.
Copyrights only applied to publishers and not individual copying, so controlling infringement was possible -- today, the creeping scope of copyright and new copying technology make copyright law pretty much unimplementable.
These laws are DATED, and I think they've become a burden to the people. They either have to be thrown out and rewritten from scratch, or just thrown out.
The question is, how can we prompt change? (and I don't mean Obama's fake, vote-for-me kind of change) How can the people wisen up and speak with a clear enough voice to be heard? Perhaps illegal filesharing is the best way to make ourselves heard, though that's quite sad if you think about it.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Re: Re: minimal
As for making mix tapes or ripping mp3s, it's totally illegal to make copies for your friends (incl. mixtapes), even under fair use, and you aren't allowed to break DRM. It's actually illegal to play your music loud enough that others can hear it, even if you are in the privacy of your own house.
"Some media companies got rich? Hang them, the bastards! [sarcasm] That doesn't even qualify as an argument!"
Bugger off. I clearly said that copyright law as it stands today was put in place by rich companies, and thus its utility and morality are questionable.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: songs
If I copy your stupid little file, you'll sue me for all I've got. Not only is copyright a monopoly, it's a monopoly of the worst kind.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
It's hammer time
Perhaps others will eventually copy Stanley's innovation if there is no patent, but will their products be of the same quality as Stanley's? If you need to buy a new hammer, won't you go for a Stanley just because you trust the brand, regardless of whether their patent has expired or not?
If Stanley's innovation can be copied overnight, then surely that innovation was not worth a patent. If it takes months or years for others to copy it, then Stanley will have received its monopoly rent by the time competing products are brought to market.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: minimal
The fact is, the vast majority of people don't have any understanding of the insane limitations that copyright law imposes. When they buy a CD, they think they are buying music, not a "license". When people in the UK rip a CD to their mp3 player, they have no idea they are breaking the law.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Copyright
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Re: Re:
I know that it's silly to expect users to respect laws that stop them from copying files, and impractical to expect ISPs and other tech companies to magically know which files are legally copied and which aren't.
In my view, thanks to computers and the internet there is no scarcity in copying, so paying artists to make copies of their work is a pretty stupid system. It would be much better if we could have a system where we pay artists to create, as the creation of new works is naturally scarce.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re:
Why should anyone continue to get money from a dead person's work?? If he's dead, his copyrights should be voided and his work should enter the public domain.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Re: @19
It's a moral crime to remove my right to do whatever I like with real property I own, but how is it morally wrong not to grant creators any privileges? And don't get me started on how current copyright "law" came to be law.
On the post: Autotune The News Becomes A Billboard Hit
On the post: Treasure Trove Of Jazz To Be Blocked, Perhaps Forever, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Leverage the scarcity
Actually, orphan works legislation is also something of a "meantime" solution. The real problem is the ridiculous length of copyright, and fixing that almost feels impossible at the moment.
On the post: Treasure Trove Of Jazz To Be Blocked, Perhaps Forever, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Leverage the scarcity
A better solution is to push for better orphan works legislation that protects the museum from lawsuits or demands for damages if any rights holders come knocking.
On the post: Superman Lawyer Claims Warner Bros. Lawsuit Is A SLAPP
Re:
If I were one of those content creators I would feel seriously offended by Warner's behaviour.
On the post: Does Checking Your Email On Your BlackBerry Count As Overtime?
On the post: Superman Lawyer Claims Warner Bros. Lawsuit Is A SLAPP
Perhaps anti-SLAPP is the right way to go, seeing Warner appear to be doing this to shut him up.
Next >>