TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ | reply to agentx123
Re: replying
said by agentx123 :
listen they cant stop over seas so who really cares..
The treaty is WITH countries overseas. The whole point of the treaty is to stop it overseas. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by TKJunkMail  :The treaty is WITH countries overseas. The whole point of the treaty is to stop it overseas. The problem though is that while many non-Western countries subscribe to these treaties, the people there simply do not care about respecting of copyright.
--
"At the moment of conception." |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| And pray tell me, why exactly SHOULD they respect copyright? Remember, the US is the #1 Copyright 'holder' in the world. Please tell me the social/economic benefit any other country would have by respecting our copyrights. Sure, the'll 'say' they protect it, but the reality is, us corporations will sell their 'product' to anyone who can buy it.
Bottom line is this. The genie is out of the bottle. If it's DIGITAL, a perfect copy can be made. There is NO GAME out there that has not been cracked. There is NO MOVIE that has not been copied. As soon as 1 copy is made, it WILL be distributed. What this 'law' is trying to do is make it 'harder' for the average customer to get information. Remember, information WANTS to be free, and the shackles of copyright and DRM are not natural. Damn, until mickey came along, NO-ONE in the history of the world had 'copyrights'. Ideas were shared with whomever wanted to share them, and the WORLD advanced because of it. It's only since the greed of capitalism have we tried to put an artificial scarcity on the products have we seen this become a problem.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
1 edit | Studies show that most of these entertainment releases lose all of their steam in 5 years.
My "'druthers" -- exclusive rights should be initially 10 years and any individual exclusive right may be extended for two additional 5 year terms if the rightsholder can demonstrate that he continued to successfully exercise that right throughout the previous term. (Possible exception - the right to create primarily derivative works, such as sequels.)
The original copyright was 14 years + an additional 14 year term possible. That was before there were highways, let alone an Internet. It doesn't take as much time to market something today, so the terms should be shorter, not longer.
What [copyright] 'law' is trying to do is make it 'harder' for the average customer to get information. What copyright and patent law try to do is make it financially easier for the artists and inventors to release information. I agree that the field of "intellectual property" has been co-opted to such an excess that most people just don't care about it anymore. People DO see it as fat-cats vs. the rest-of-us. Both extremes hurt the artists and inventors that the law hoped to support.
But as I talk to people, most people will agree that it's probably OK to hold-off on sharing their favorite artist's brand-new song until they've had a chance to sell it. So the concept lives -- it's just over-extended.
Damn, until mickey came along, NO-ONE in the history of the world had 'copyrights'. Ideas were shared with whomever wanted to share them, and the WORLD advanced because of it. It's only since the greed of capitalism have we tried to put an artificial scarcity on the products have we seen this become a problem. This clearly isn't true, since the concept is mentioned in the Constitution and Congress established copyright law more than a century before Mickey came along.
The last time I looked at Wikipedia's entry on copyright (both the general one and the one specific to the USA), it was fairly well done. Your facts are wrong, but most of your positions are reasonable. The correct historical perspective would make you a good arguer.
And pray tell me, why exactly SHOULD [other countries] respect copyright? Because we are a global community, and most of the globe has recognized copyright as a way to create and support the industry of creating entertainment and dispensing information.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by funchords :said by karlmarx :And pray tell me, why exactly SHOULD [other countries] respect copyright? Because we are a global community, and most of the globe has recognized copyright as a way to create and support the industry of creating entertainment and dispensing information. But KarlMarx's communist philosophy is that "the people" own everything and individuals own nothing.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
4 edits | said by TKJunkMail :But KarlMarx's communist philosophy is that "the people" own everything and individuals own nothing. Right, and this is basically true of "Intellectual Property." It is not like physical property that one can possess and sell. "Intellectual Property" consists of unique ideas and expressions that defy containment.
Physical property has a natural friction. If I sell you mine, I have one less, so we're apt to find a price that will cause the exchange. "Intellectual Property" has no such friction. You have no incentive to buy since inspecting the goods for sale essentially takes its value.
In a capitalist society, those of us who sing, think, and paint would likely starve because anyone could sing someone else's song, copy someone's idea, or fake someone's painting. Only the exceptional would survive.
In Communism, those of us who toil, hunt, and gather share with those who sing, think, and paint.
Copyright is a special recognition that "intellectual property" is different than physical property, and won't make money in a free market that depends on competition. We free-marketers have embraced Communism in this special case.
Congress creates exclusive (no-competition) rights in order to temporarily create a rewarding market (as long as people are willing to obey this law). Through decree, we give qualities that thoughts and expressions do not normally have but that physical property has naturally.
I'm not sure it's working as it should -- there sure are a lot of immensely talented people making no money and large amounts of money seem to be going to very few in the (sometimes questionably so-called) talent pool.
The terms are ridiculously long, that much I'm convinced about. I think the lyrics to "Happy Birthday" are finally getting close to expiring copyright.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
TheMG
join:2007-09-04
Edmonton, AB
·TELUS
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :The original copyright was 14 years + an additional 14 year term possible. That was before there were highways, let alone an Internet. It doesn't take as much time to market something today, so the terms should be shorter, not longer. Totally agree. What copyrights have turned into is corporations holding onto works and trying to milk every penny they can out of it long after it's initial success has passed.
It's just like record companies holding onto and selling works of deceased artists. That is one thing I will NEVER support, as obviously none of the money is going to the artist it's just going to the cash grabbing corporations. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by TheMG :It's just like record companies holding onto and selling works of deceased artists. That is one thing I will NEVER support, as obviously none of the money is going to the artist it's just going to the cash grabbing corporations. But it is often still going to the artist's family if they or the artist hasn't sold the rights.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
disconnected
@snet.net
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Marxism
said by TKJunkMail :said by funchords :said by karlmarx :And pray tell me, why exactly SHOULD [other countries] respect copyright? Because we are a global community, and most of the globe has recognized copyright as a way to create and support the industry of creating entertainment and dispensing information. But KarlMarx's communist philosophy is that "the people" own everything and individuals own nothing. Well isn't that the implicit philosophy of Republicans and Democrats who support taxation of income and property? All property and labor belongs to the collective sum of the people, so these laws bear out when tested. It is only the rich and powerful who attempt to place themselves above that law. |
|
arenine
join:2006-02-10
San Francisco, CA
| reply to funchords
Re: replying
said by funchords :The terms are ridiculously long, that much I'm convinced about. I think the lyrics to "Happy Birthday" are finally getting close to expiring copyright. Not for at least another 20 years. And that's if they haven't passed another extension within that time. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :What [copyright] 'law' is trying to do is make it 'harder' for the average customer to get information. What copyright and patent law try to do is make it financially easier for the artists and inventors to release information. Wrong on both counts. What copyright and patent law were originally set up to do -as promulgated in the Constitution itself was to ensure the balance between individual profit vs the ability to copy and otherwise influence culture. That's why the original copyright wasn't set for the life of the creator.
Damn, until mickey came along, NO-ONE in the history of the world had 'copyrights'. Ideas were shared with whomever wanted to share them, and the WORLD advanced because of it. It's only since the greed of capitalism have we tried to put an artificial scarcity on the products have we seen this become a problem. said by funchords :This clearly isn't true, since the concept is mentioned in the Constitution and Congress established copyright law more than a century before Mickey came along. Copyright is in fact mentioned in the Constitution, however, the Disney Corporation brought the issue of copyright front & center when it copyrighted the famous mouse and prevented others from copying it. Historically, it was behemoth movie corporations (like Disney) that expanded westward to California before it became a State to avoid copyright laws. (Read your history on this count - "Free Culture" (incidentally, a FREE download) by Lessig details this mindblowing hypocrisy exhibited by the movie studios back to the early 1900s.)
said by funchords :The last time I looked at Wikipedia's entry on copyright (both the general one and the one specific to the USA), it was fairly well done. LMAO - You're relying on Wiki. Really? LMAO. The last time I checked, any entry on Wiki was to be taken with an entire salt shaker and then the facts checked from real sources who have confirmed the information.
said by funchords :Because we are a global community, and most of the globe has recognized copyright as a way to create and support the industry of creating entertainment and dispensing information. The "global community" also recognizes the vast discrepancy between locking down rights for the life of the creator plus 70 yrs and its detrimental effects on culture. That's why the U.S. is the only country in the world with draconian copyright laws/DRM and other nasties meant to lock down technology. These other countries negotiating secret treaties undeer cover of night behind locked doors represent a tiny minority in all likelihood bought off by the *AAs. Just because a country's government espouses XYZ policy, does not mean the culture as a whole embraces it. Case in point: TPB.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
|
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| "Historically, it was behemoth movie corporations (like Disney) that expanded westward to California before it became a State to avoid copyright laws."
Um, California became a state in 1850, a good 50+ years before the film industry even existed. Copyright law was of virtually no consequence or interest to filmmakers in the early years of the industry (if it could even be called that at the time). The majority of subjects filmed and displayed were of simple gimmicky pieces like moving trains and people sneezing, not exactly the kind of content for a filmmaker to get sued over producing.
Rather, the industry moved to California for two primary reasons: the consistency and quality of the weather allowed greater flexibility for filmmakers and most importantly, they were far away from the arms of the Edison Trust (who ironically was acting much like the **AA's are today). |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by agentx123 :
listen they cant stop over seas so who really cares..
The treaty is WITH countries overseas. The whole point of the treaty is to stop it overseas. Where the US has no fuckin right to do anything anyway, other than trying to pressure other countries to adapt our fucked-up, corrupt, industry-written laws and regulations, right.
With the current state of the Union it's wet daydreaming from the Hollywood-mob - thanks God it actually passed: this law will be another evidence for the upcoming RICO-case against the Hollywood-mob.
--
said by bicker :Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: replying
said by TKJunkMail :said by TheMG :It's just like record companies holding onto and selling works of deceased artists. That is one thing I will NEVER support, as obviously none of the money is going to the artist it's just going to the cash grabbing corporations. But it is often still going to the artist's family if they or the artist hasn't sold the rights. What a BS. It is rarely going to anyone, over 90% of the cases it remains in the companies pocket - and even when it does go it's a very little percentage of the money, backed by predatory contracts and other illegal exploitation tactics of the RIAA-mob.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to major marco
said by major marco :said by funchords :What [copyright] 'law' is trying to do is make it 'harder' for the average customer to get information. What copyright and patent law try to do is make it financially easier for the artists and inventors to release information. Wrong on both counts. What copyright and patent law were originally set up to do -as promulgated in the Constitution itself was to ensure the balance between individual profit vs the ability to copy and otherwise influence culture. That's why the original copyright wasn't set for the life of the creator. Damn, until mickey came along, NO-ONE in the history of the world had 'copyrights'. Ideas were shared with whomever wanted to share them, and the WORLD advanced because of it. It's only since the greed of capitalism have we tried to put an artificial scarcity on the products have we seen this become a problem. said by funchords :This clearly isn't true, since the concept is mentioned in the Constitution and Congress established copyright law more than a century before Mickey came along. Copyright is in fact mentioned in the Constitution, however, the Disney Corporation brought the issue of copyright front & center when it copyrighted the famous mouse and prevented others from copying it. Historically, it was behemoth movie corporations (like Disney) that expanded westward to California before it became a State to avoid copyright laws. (Read your history on this count - "Free Culture" (incidentally, a FREE download) by Lessig details this mindblowing hypocrisy exhibited by the movie studios back to the early 1900s.) said by funchords :The last time I looked at Wikipedia's entry on copyright (both the general one and the one specific to the USA), it was fairly well done. LMAO - You're relying on Wiki. Really? LMAO. The last time I checked, any entry on Wiki was to be taken with an entire salt shaker and then the facts checked from real sources who have confirmed the information. said by funchords :Because we are a global community, and most of the globe has recognized copyright as a way to create and support the industry of creating entertainment and dispensing information. The "global community" also recognizes the vast discrepancy between locking down rights for the life of the creator plus 70 yrs and its detrimental effects on culture. That's why the U.S. is the only country in the world with draconian copyright laws/DRM and other nasties meant to lock down technology. These other countries negotiating secret treaties undeer cover of night behind locked doors represent a tiny minority in all likelihood bought off by the *AAs. Just because a country's government espouses XYZ policy, does not mean the culture as a whole embraces it. Case in point: TPB. EXCELLENT POST. 
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to major marco
Re: replying
Thanks for the "Free Culture" tip. I'll check it out.
If Wikipedia is incorrect, then change it. Don't just sit there and throw stones at it. It's funny that you embrace products of freedom in one paragraph and ridicule something that you are empowered to affect in another.
Just because a country's government espouses XYZ policy, does not mean the culture as a whole embraces it. Case in point: TPB. The "culture as a whole" doesn't do anything as a whole except disagree with itself. As you hopefully could tell, I'm very much for changing our copyright laws and ending the current hypocrisy.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by funchords :said by karlmarx :And pray tell me, why exactly SHOULD [other countries] respect copyright? Because we are a global community, and most of the globe has recognized copyright as a way to create and support the industry of creating entertainment and dispensing information. But KarlMarx's communist philosophy is that "the people" own everything and individuals own nothing. This is utter BS, simply dead FALSE.
BTW this common false-iditic belief about Marxism is very virulent here, in the USA, where people are gravely ill-educated about these things, thanks to the craptastic quality of firs- and second-level US education, especially compared to their Asian or European countrerparts.
--
said by bicker :Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them. |
|
