Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Your inability to simply run around and not present any real arguments is all I need. You and other attackers of copyright laws are nothing more than defenders of what in any other context would be considered thievery. Nothing more than little whiny simpletons who don't produce anything but want to get the work of others for free.
If IP were a physical product you'd be right but I really really don't feel like getting into semantics at the moment.
The facts are that IP length of ownership has been increasing to perposturous levels in the last 100 years.
Dead people shouldn't be able to own stuff and neither should corporations be able to retain monopolies for 90 years or more, by legal fiat no less.
It doesn't have to be this way.
So your sweeping generalizations and making stuff up that people didn't say, qualifies as a successful argument?
Travelsonic said:Ah, but copyright is not a "right to profit" - it is about control. You get control over a work for a limited time to do with it as you please, then it goes to the public. In of itself, being able to profit is not what copyright is about, nor was it meant to have the amount of control over other people's technologies, and works that it does now.
Of course the fact that literal stealing doesn't factor into it is besides the point.
The problem is not the song writer, the movie maker or software maker. They should get compensated and their wares should be able to be distributed world wide.
The problem is, that the present laws are counter productive to you as a copyright "maker". Now with the Internet, you as a song writer can publish your songs online for free download or minimal payment. However if you went through one of the big music companies, chances are they not only will hike the price, but also limit access to certain markets and especially limit access online.
It gets even worse for movies and tv shows. Tv production companies could earn a nice fee for selling or renting out their tv shows on the net to people outside the US.. but they dont.. copy write laws forbid it. So people are forced to steal the content because the copy write laws prevent timely distribution.
My point is.. we live in a very connected world where the old time borders and language barriers have all but disappeared, but big business still live in the past and have for the last 20+ years refused to change and only done it kicking and screaming.
Too true. Around here there are even a lot of so-called libertarians who support IP with the same enthusiasm.
It is so refreshing to hear somebody else acknowledge copyrights and patents are a form of corporate welfare.
Your inability to simply run around and not present any real arguments is all I need.
You and other attackers of copyright laws are nothing more than defenders of what in any other context would be considered thievery.
Like I said earlier, there's really no way to stop bit torrents. But you can impede and discourage.
Laws catching up with technology. IP is the work product of creative professionals. It is a product with value. Like a car or a television. It can be stolen.
Be more specific. What changes do you have a problem with and why?
Why not?
I don't like that Yoko controls the rights to Beatles music, but that was the creator's wish.
The written law enables law enforcement to act. And the law needs to consider changes in technology.
Like I said earlier, there's really no way to stop bit torrents. But you can impede and discourage.
C'mon Harry. We've had this conversation before. You're in clear support of being able to take **** from people simply because you don't feel like paying for it. To deceive yourself with semantics is an exercise in redundancy.
Ironic, since you're the one creating things that weren't said, attacking people on arguments, points of view never presented.
Ah, but copyright is not a "right to profit" - it is about control. You get control over a work for a limited time to do with it as you please, then it goes to the public. In of itself, being able to profit is not what copyright is about, nor was it meant to have the amount of control over other people's technologies, and works that it does now.
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
[oh, and reported your posts for your blatant baiting and flaming, arrogant twit.]
Me taking stuff without paying for it is a merely a punishment, the abusive relationship of IP holders and government.
But I do pay for things related to IP.
I like a TV show, that I pay for through my subscription to cable but because of my work hours, can not watch it when aired.
It's not on hulu, nor is it available on demand.
They left me no choice but to "infringe" on their copyright, to watch it.
The most closely related legal equivalent is infringement.
Technology is changing faster, yet we keep extending length of ownership of copyright.
Doesn't make any sense.
Why not?
Be more specific. Give me examples of specific copyrights being wrongfully extended.
To me, it's a form of corporate welfare.
I'll need specifics to agree or disagree if corps are getting something for free.
In every other aspect people will decry monopolies but suddenly with IP, it's acceptable.
Why?
Which single company owns the monopoly on IP (intellectual property)?
That's what a monopoly is, right?
Because it's not for the benefit of the creator, the explicit reason why extensions have been made.
Then all inheritance should be taxed at 100%. Once your husband dies, you lose your house, your bank accounts and anything of value that he provided.
A lot like the war on drugs, counter productive.
Sometimes. I would say not properly executed.
Oh I get it. If it's not on when you want it to be on you couldn't wait for a rerun. You also haven't heard of DVRs. You just provided the perfect excuse for robbing liquor stores when they're not open. "Sorry officer, it wasn't open and I really wanted to get drunk. The store left me no choice but to break in and take it."
I don't have a DVR and I do have an internet connection and a web site to get the program, I already paid for.
Be more specific. Give me examples of specific copyrights being wrongfully extended.
I'll need specifics to agree or disagree if corps are getting something for free.
Which single company owns the monopoly on IP (intellectual property)?
That's what a monopoly is, right?
Then all inheritance should be taxed at 100%. Once your husband dies, you lose your house, your bank accounts and anything of value that he provided.
Copyrights can be held for the life of the author + 70 years, isn't that a bit much?
You don't pay for programs. You pay to get the channels the program is on. It's the difference between paying for internet and paying to get the services that NYT provides to its readers with subscriptions. Paying for internet doesn't mean you get the rights to access to everything on the internet. It just means you get access to it. Paying directly for programming is what PPV is where you're actually paying for the programming.
You're not paying for a program, you're paying for having access to the channel the program is on. Please learn the difference. It's quite significant.
Be more specific. What changes do you have a problem with and why?
No.Copyrights can be held for the life of the author + 70 years, isn't that a bit much?
3456789
No.
3456789
I don't have a DVR and I do have an internet connection and a web site to get the program, I already paid for.
See I already paid for it through my subscription service, so I'll watch it however I please.
Not even comparable to robbing a liquor store.
No I do pay for the programs,
else the revenue that the channels receive would not go to the creators of the programs. To use your liquor store comparison, it's like me going to a liquor store buy a bottle of gin, but can't drink anywhere else besides the liquor store, else the maker will sue me. It's nonsense.
No, you really don't. You pay for access to programing. Networks pay for the programs and the rights to broadcast them. You pay for access to those networks. Seriously, take a course in media studies. You'll sound like you have a clue as to what it is you're talking about.
No. The only nonsense here is your ridiculous assertion that you're paying for something other than access to the programming. If network companies actually made you pay per 'program' even basic cable would cost far more than $40-$50 a month.
I thought Conservatives didn't think he kissed business' asses enough. I'm getting confused by the logical circles being run here.
Perhaps if you had intellectual property, you'd feel differently. As the holder of a few copyrights for songs I've written, I rather like the idea that I should be paid for it, rather than just allowing anybody to steal it. Of course, it would be nice if somebody thought my songs worthy of stealing, but that's beside the point.
Businesses want to think that their property is being protected. If they come up with a great computer program (say a way to search the internet, or have online auctions...), they would like to think they might get financially compensated for it. It's only the whole idea of business in the first place.
Copyrights can be held for the life of the author + 70 years, isn't that a bit much?
They don't have to compete with anyone over improvements of the base IP item.
MS owns all windows OS programs, no one else change use the source code to it for anything without their permission.
Even if someone has a vast improvement for it, they can not use the Windows source code.
Windows has an effective monopoly over it.
That's not the same thing, the community does not use your house, bank accounts or anything else of value in commons, technology is developed and used in commons.
The same goes for entertainment.
Let's be real. This is about the White House.
The Obama White House doing something. Doing anything.
They far-rights will just find fault in anything he does.
Look at the first posts in the thread -- they didn't even understand that this is about copyright law be enforced with changes in communications and information technology.
Why? People live longer.
Why? People live longer.
Yes they do. New music, movies, and software come out all the time.
No one is downloading bad music, crappy movies, or outdated software.
Why does that not make sense to you? MS invented it. They invested in years of R&D, product testing, and eventually distribution.
Build a better mousetrap--if you want to compete. Apple did.
That's not a monopoly. That's called owning the rights to your own product.
Does Honda have a monopoly on Honda engines?
I don't understand what you mean by commons.
The creative work product is something that you can own and benefit from. That becomes part of person's estate, like car or a house. Or a BUSINESS.
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?