texans20
Weapons of Masturbation
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Texas!
clubs:
| Goes to show
The Democrats are just as bad for the American people as the Republicans. As a college student, I'm offended at the fact my school will be forced to buy me a Napster subscription. This cost will no doubt be passed on to me, in yet another fee on my already expensive bill.
Consider the fact the RIAA/MPAA has the Democratic party in their back pocket next time you vote.
--
The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Well same with the Republicans bud. Look at the mess they've gotten us into. So more or less, when you vote pick lesser of the two evils. When it comes to rights, I still think Democrats got a bit better track record (though some supported the Republican Crap too). However, it was majority Republican who passed the NSA Wiretapping without Warrants, Patriot Act, Support Torture, and basically everything that has sent this country into the wrong direction. While some Democrats voted yes, the a majority did abstain from such a mistake when you look at the count. With that said, this law is a BIG MISTAKE on their part. I do not sugar coat that in the least. |
|
texans20
Weapons of Masturbation
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Texas!
clubs:
1 edit | reply to texans20
You need a history lesson.
Patriot Act:
Passed in US Senate 10/25/2001. Yes: 98, Nays: 1 Yes vote includes Clinton
Passed in US House 10/24/2001. Yes: 357 Nays: 66
USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005:
Passed in US Senate 3/2/2006. Yes: 89 Nays: 10. Yes votes include Clinton, Obama, and Kerry.
Passed in US House 12/14/2005. Yes: 251 No: 174
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
Passed in US Senate 77 yes 23 no. Clinton voted YES
Passed in the House too.
Break it down further you will find that in each case less than 50% of the Democrats voted NO. So, not sure where you get this majority of them voting against this stuff. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to texans20
said by texans20  :As a college student, I'm offended at the fact my school will be forced ... passed on to me Get used to it. Hopefully you have a long life ahead of you to see how a few people can ruin it for everyone else. Speed bumps in residential neighborhoods, photo radar, greater losses of privacy (Patriot Act).
If you have an opportunity to do a college paper, try studying the history of copyright. There you will find the answer to this problem. It's not a question of whether the government should enforce the law. It's that copyright was a special exception to the law in order to accomplish a specific goal.
Common law property rights require property owner's to enter into a license agreement to limit the transfer of property (which is an absolute transfer in the absence of a negotiated contract). Since this would interfere with some property transfers involving intellectual property, copyright was established as a social moderation (in the Constitution) to common law. Authors and inventors were encouraged to be creative by receiving a *limited* monopoly on their works. In return, society would become the real owner when that limited monopoly expired, sending the property to the Public Domain, where anyone could use it any way they wish.
It was a quid pro quo. In return for using society's umbrella moderation of property law, authors and inventors agreed to let their work eventually be owned by society. If an author or inventor disagreed with this relationship, they were free to sell their wares using standard licenses (negotiating a contract with *each* customer).
This nation's first copyright duration was 4 years. It was subsequently amended to increase the duration. In the early part of 1900s it was 28 years with an option to renew for another 28. Copyrights were often not renewed). But, in the last 20 years or so copyright has drastically changed, becoming "life of the author plus 70." (Or, a flat 120 years for corporate copyrights.).
The Constitutional goal has been entirely lost. Society is used to give authors and publishers an easy way to sell their wares (limiting property transfer in ways common law wouldn't allow without a contract for each sale). But, society is receiving almost *nothing* in return. Consider Windows 3.1. It will go into the Public Domain around 2110. But, it wouldn't be very useful to anyone today!
That's where the problem is. Copyright has changed from a limited monopoly (to benefit both the author and society) to a complete monopoly serving the author entirely. All this other stuff (piracy, absurd claims of "fair use") are just symptoms of the problem.
It would make a great college paper. You'd educate your colleagues.
Mark |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | reply to texans20
double post
DELETE ME! |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to texans20
Texans. My point stands. The LARGE MAJORITY of those 66 Nays were Democrats. I think 61 of them to be honest. Let's not forget the Republicans held a LARGE Majority. Still, I stand firm when I said a large portion of those voting no were democrats. Check the facts. I never specified which voted yay or nay only to say the MAJORITY of Nay were Democrats with only a few Republicans dissenting. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to amigo_boy
Interesting. As much as you and I disagree I did find that take on Copyright pretty informative. I can't say if all of it's accurate, but it was a good read. Either way, assuming your take is on par with facts, then definitely something to think about. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by jc100 :Interesting. ... I did find that take on Copyright pretty informative. Thanks. Spend some time studying it. It's very informative. It starts with Art. 1, Sect. 8 of the Constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; I may have misspoke when I said the first copyright duration was 4 years. It might have been 14 (with the right to renew for another 14). Durations were changed occasionally. In 1909 it was changed to 28 (and optional additional 28). This remained in effect until 1976 when it was increased to "life of the author + 50". Then, 1988 it was increased another 20 years.
I know for a fact that pre-1976 publications were often not renewed. (I worked on digitizing public domain documents a long time ago.). The law was also much stricter, with more responsibility on the creator or publisher. If they published something without a copyright notice, it immediately fell into the Public Domain. That's not the case now. Which means the public has no way of knowing if something is copyrighted. They have to assume everything is copyrighted.
The scales tilted decidedly toward creators and publishers over the past 30 years. A *huge* giveaway when you consider that it's a social moderation of an otherwise private transaction. Society has increasingly gotten less and less for its involvement.
Under normal property law, if you sell something the buyer has 100% ownership of the property. The seller can only modify this property transfer by licensing the product (selling with a contract[1]). Clearly this would impede the potential market, and discourage creative people from creating.
That's really the basis for society getting involved in moderating the common law of property transfer. If creative people create, we all benefit. Thus the balance between encouraging them with limited monopolies, but keeping it limited so they are incented to continue to create (not living off one winner, using society to alter property transfers for too much of their own benefit). Both parties were intended to benefit, with the treasure chest known as the Public Domain being the ultimate benefit to society.
Today it's so perverted that that artists argue that it's not fair that their children and grandchildren won't be able to live off their success. During debates over the 1988 legislation (to increase durations *another* 20 years after 1976's *huge* expansion of durations) Julian Lennon was used as an example of how unfair it is. He was portrayed as a victim of short durations, that he would suffer the injustic of watching his father's works go into the Public Domain.
This is such a perversion because copyright was meant to incent creative people to create. Not give their progeny a free ride.
This is the root cause of today's problem. Copyright has lost its balance. Society's moderation of property transfers is being used to enrich artists and publishing companies. The quid pro quo has been lost. I always go back to the example of how Bill Gates used copyright (instead of private, licensed transactions) to become the most successful person in history. But, the Public Domain won't be rewarded with Windows 3.1 for another 100 years. It will be absolutely worthless to anyone.
And, while Gates has benefited from society in ways he couldn't have if he conducted private property transfers, he's *still* not happy with owning 95% of the market. He's struggling to fight pirates, as if another 5% is what will validate his success (or like his success didn't come partly as a gift from society).
The same analogy can be made for the recording industry. They've been the beneficiary of a *huge* tilting of public law in their favor. And that wasn't good enough for them. Like Gates, they're preoccupied with with getting it *all*.
The balance that copyright originally had in mind was intended to prevent this behavior. Now that it's tilted so far towards creators and publishers, they've become corrupt.
[1] That's another big giveaway. To be valid contracts had to be clearly deliberated. Initial every paragraph, etc. So-called "shrink wrap" licenses don't live up to that historic standard. But, they're becoming valid.
Mark |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to texans20
Don't attempt to use facts with jc100. He refuses to look at the public record and see a MAJORITY of Democrats did vote for the Patriot Act. I pointed this out to him a few weeks ago. He will still blame the Republicans for all the world's ills.
Congress is so full of career politicians that nothing gets done for the people but for their own fulfillment. Nice to be able to vote yourself a pay raise when ever you want. |
|
