openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to karlmarx
Re: Haha, pirate bay will never die Wow! I didn't say it was theft. I said both theft and infringement (which you say this is) are illegal. Yes, infringement is illegal.
To answer your other repeated argument, I will say that content owners should be compensated for their works (in whatever manner they deem appropriate). You can attempt to make the argument that those who infringe wouldn't pay for the content regardless and therefore are not causing lost revenue, but the root of the matter is that these people obtain copyrighted works without licenses and/or monetary compensation, which may be required by the licensors. These are the copyright owners' works and they should be compensated appropriately. Otherwise, the concept of copyright becomes worthless.
And you're right, technology allows us to do wonderful things today that we couldn't do a decade ago, let alone a century ago. With technology comes new business practices and laws. You may very well see the definitions of infringement and theft merge/blur to account for advancements in technology. |
|
|
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by openbox9:Otherwise, the concept of copyright becomes worthless. You've got that right, copyright is a legal concept and doesn't equate with private property. There are no natural copyrights or copyrights endowed by the creator. The usefulness of such a concept should be determined by the people (not corporate benefactors) in a democracy. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | If I create something and copyright it, I don't won't the "people" to determine the usefulness of the copyright...I want the legal backing that goes with it. I'm free to maintain, transfer, or dissolve the copyright as I see fit. |
|
| reply to openbox9
But I agree with you. The CONCEPT of copyright HAS become worthless. Let's see what 'that god damn piece of paper' has to say about copyright..
"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"
Let's see, the OBJECTIVE of a copyright is to PROMOTE PROGRESS. The TIME of a copyright is a LIMITED TIME, and the OWNER of copyright is the AUTHOR or INVENTOR.
What do we have today? Copyrights used to SUPRESS innovation. Copyrights that last HUNDREDS of years. Copyright OWNED by MEGACORPS, not people.
You can't tell me that the concept of copyright as envisioned by the founding fathers is ANYTHING like it looks today. Why in the hell should DISNEY still have copyright on something that's almost 100 years old? How is THAT possibly 'promoting progress'? 14 Years was enough for the founders, but the MEGACORPS have corrupted that concept to be a NON-STOP revenue stream for THEM, not the authors or inventors.
The solution is VERY SIMPLE. Roll back copyrights to 14 years, and then enforce them. Easy enough to do, but congress is run and owned by those who have a vested interest to keep copyright for (in the words of the MPAA), 'infinity - 1 day'.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Then you aren't agreeing with me. Copyrights are not worthless, nor should they be allowed to become worthless. Time is still limited (granted the length shouldn't be allowed to increase any further...and I think 75 years is more than reasonable). Corporations are essentially individuals, so I'm not sure why they should be excluded from owning copyrights. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Copyrights longer than fifty years for various reasons mean that a lot of what should go into the public domain never will. Most copyrighted material stops earning anything long before fifty years but it still costs real money to properly store them after that. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Why won't they be able to enter the public domain? Does Disney know about the problem of earning money past fifty years? Have you noticed the digital environment that we're in now? "Stuff" is capable of lasting significantly longer than copyrighted work on a crappy old piece of paper. |
|
| reply to karlmarx
Thats ridiculous, if copyright is not there there is no point to make anything. Why would I as a creator make something that will just be infringed upon??? I think that the media companies need to stop fighting the torrents and make money from them. Start selling licenses to bittorrents and have them be copyright police. STOP FIGHTING TORRENTS but join the team and make money. |
|
1 edit | reply to karlmarx
"The solution is VERY SIMPLE. Roll back copyrights to 14 years, and then enforce them. Easy enough to do, but congress is run and owned by those who have a vested interest to keep copyright for (in the words of the MPAA), 'infinity - 1 day'."
Solution to what? Preventing copyright infringement? If copyrights lasted only 14 years people would no longer share copyrighted material over P2P? Enforcing P2P copyright infringment would become easy? |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by Millenniumle:"The solution is VERY SIMPLE. Roll back copyrights to 14 years, and then enforce them. Easy enough to do, but congress is run and owned by those who have a vested interest to keep copyright for (in the words of the MPAA), 'infinity - 1 day'."Solution to what? Preventing copyright infringement? If copyrights lasted only 14 years people would no longer share copyrighted material over P2P? Enforcing P2P copyright infringment would become easy? Right, because people are only interested in downloading music made before 1994. His argument makes perfect sense! 
--
с новым годом |
|
| reply to openbox9
I like you man. You always give me a chuckle whenever one of these stories pop up. You're the only shill in a sea of pirates. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | I'm not a shill, just merely a realist that values capitalism. |
|
