- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 30,793
- Reaction score
- 15,091
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Except these laws do not serve as a glue that binds people together.
They exist to allow monetary gain far outside reasonable bounds, unless you believe that dead people should be legally allowed to own things or allow corporations to own ideas for 90 years.
Ideas, once released, can not be controlled it's insanity to believe otherwise.
You cannot steal something that is not physical and can be replicated infinitely, at almost 0 cost.
Depends, you do subsidize the cable companies by helping provide the infrastructure that they transmit their product through.
I think it would be fair that they are require to offer everyone a basic set of channels.
I don't see it as wrong, as long as the law stays unreasonable, as it is now.
If the laws change, I may change my mind but until then I have no sympathy towards IP owners.
Is not the tangible product the song itself. Which is generally copywrited
It is the song itself that the artist created, and uses to make money
GM produces a car and makes multiple copies of it to make money, it is illegal for Ford to copy the design of a GM car and produce it. GM lost no tangible object but what Ford did is illegal and it would be punished for it
As such making copies of a song, and giving it out to other people is infringing on the artists rights to that song.
In my opinion
Making copies for personal use is fine, making copies to distribute to potentially thousands of other people is in effect theft
I agree that copywrites extend far too long I would suggest that the lifetime of the creator/s or 25 years which ever is longest would be fair
Personally, 5-15 years should be the maximum.
It allows the owner to profit and allows other people to improve upon it.
Life time seems way to much as we don't do the same thing with patents.
Patents can prevent the making of similar products, when the TV was patented without lisencing no other manufactures could legally make a TV. Copywrite prevents the duplication or copying of aa song or its component parts. It does not prevent the creation of similar songs. If you like Rap, but dont want to support a specific artist you can buy a different artists music, you cant to the same with patented products. Also in some cases it might take more then 5 years for something created to go "commercial". A screenplay might languish in the depths of MGM for 5 years, then get produced, the writer ends up getting nothing as the copywrite has expired
Funny you should mention Trent Reznor, "So I'd be surprised if he could legally authorize fans to "steal it," as he instructed attendees at a recent concert in Sydney, Australia."
"Reznor's eagerness to share the record with fans hasn't been confined to Australia, however. To promote the album, he leaked three tracks as MP3s, fully intending them to be passed around online. At the time he said the freebies were an attempt to boost sales, not crater them. Although his comments in Australia go further, they are in line with his previous remarks about the labels' greed and separation from music fans."
Trent Reznor on CD prices | Bit Player | Los Angeles Times
I am perfectly comfortable taking what I want because, the industry is using government to prop itself and it's prices up, they have to go outside of normal market conditions to earn a buck.
No thanks, enticing government to use force for your benefit is not cool at any level.
Not only that but it is said that many of the movie makers intentionally release early copies to judge movie sale projections, if they are doing that they have gave up control of ownership.
The civil settlements used against uploaders have been ridiculous.
Charging people thousands of dollars for uploading a handful of songs, that aren't worth it on a per song level.
Lastly, trying to get government to require even more DRM in our consumer electronics, I don't want to lose control over things I pay money for, they are supposed to be mine.
It's retaliation against their moronic and abusive behavior.
I mentioned all 4 of those people/groups (Rasputina's a group) - because they have outwardly expressed views against the profoundly fat and corrupt industry. . .yet I still won't rob those individuals of my pennies even if it doesn't really bother them when people do it.
That's unfortunate, I guess in order to make it more perfect I'm willing to take some short term losses.
Writers should wait till someone wants to buy it before they decide to hand it over.
Just my opinion though.
I was thinking more in line with books, there are some decent books written that could be improved upon and sold but because of IP laws, you'd have to cut a check to the original author or get permission to use more than a little of his/her work.
I think once you add significant value to something, the new something should be yours to sell.
The same goes for software, which was incorrectly categorized in the first place.
Books are the most often copied thing out there in some form. How many fantasy books have been "inspired" by the LOTR. With much of the plot, character development pretty much a duplicate of the LOTR. Make enough changes to the story, the names and you have improved the book enough for it to be called yours
I understand but I have no moral qualms about it being robbery...
I do, since labeling it robberyy does nothing but confuse the issues going on. AS judge Noonan in the Grokster trial stated, we are dealing with something very new, not just in the eyes of the law, but how we as society handle it, something where one can gain with the other not losing that which they already had, which creates conundrums thatr can't be solved by slapping a lable on it carelessly without examining WHAT is going on.
I certainly understand that but for the people who believe it as a moral wrong, I try to explain myself as best as possible.
You're right though, it isn't robbery.
What I want to know is if it's illegal to copy music, why is it legal for another artist to record someone else's song? This has happened lots of times before. I was told (whether it's true or not I don't know) that you can't copyright words and notes. Anyone can sing or produce anything at any time.
I find it interesting to watch how people justify taking what they have no right to take. "I don't want to pay for music, so...the laws are stupid."
Well - then make it right. Calculate what you feel the artist truly deserves . . . and cut them a check to cover your theft.
Surely you don't feel that artists and actors are purely there to entertain and embrace the whole starving artist personae?
:shrug:
I find it interesting to watch how people justify taking what they have no right to take. "I don't want to pay for music, so...the laws are stupid."
Yeah - it's the same thought process behind people stealing gas, food, clothing, cars.
"I can't afford it . . . I don't like the laws . . . so I'll just take it . . . because I *want* it"
Yet people don't consider it theft when it's entertainment.
But it is defined as theft when it comes to any othe product.
Wool for your eyes, anyone?
Yeah - it's the same thought process behind people stealing gas, food, clothing, cars.
"I can't afford it . . . I don't like the laws . . . so I'll just take it . . . because I *want* it"
Yet people don't consider it theft when it's entertainment.
But it is defined as theft when it comes to any othe product.
Wool for your eyes, anyone?
Well - then make it right. Calculate what you feel the artist truly deserves .
. . and cut them a check to cover your theft.
Surely you don't feel that artists and actors are purely there to entertain and embrace the whole starving artist personae?
:shrug:
Your also missing another point, you don't own what you can't control.
Ideas, images, sounds, anything intangible is impossible to control, once released to the public.
I guess you guys haven't been paying attention.
For me, I won't buy the DVD of movies I watch unless I like the movie.
I can't justify spending money on something that I have no clue as to, whether or not, I will like it.
If I like the movie I'll buy it, if not, they didn't earn my money.
I have never burned a DVD in my life.
Your also missing another point, you don't own what you can't control.
Ideas, images, sounds, anything intangible is impossible to control, once released to the public.
Not the same thing, it requires a person to work to create every car, food, clothing item, etc.
While on the other hand, creating the music, movie, book etc, requires one occurrence that can be reproduced at practically zero cost infinitely.
I've been paying attention to you.
Please note that I'm constantly discussing the general masses of people who engage in piracy - not just you.
I don't buy what I don't like before I view it, either - most people don't. I have no problem renting, borrowing from a friend or watching on TV something to see if you're interested in adding it to your collection.
Just like trinket jewelry, yeah?
Someone designs it - once - makes a few prototypes. Then someone programs a machine . . . and off it goes - mass production.
:shrug:
Is it ok to steal jewelry off of a rack because it took relatively little labor on someone's part?
What about a book?
Author writes it, a company refines it - into a machine it's put and then off it goes - multiple copies, instantly.
Does that mean it's ok to steal it off the shelf?
But you can check it out at the library and read the entire thing for free if it swings you.
My point is that if someone wants to *own* it forever - they need to *buy* it - regardless of their opinion of the *laws, rules, regulations and corporate crap* behind it.
Well, they don't give up their ownership of the IP simply by making it available for sale.
That's the thing, you don't own it.
IP law only allows you to rent it indefinitely or until the device it is stored on is destroyed.
Then you have to buy another copy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?