thumbs down from:
dentman42 
| copyrights are important! I just came across this message board and I have to say I'm totally mystified by what I am seeing here.
Copyrights are VITAL to our national interest. The person who created a work of art or literature or prose, etc., etc., MUST have ownership over that work. It should be his/hers/theirs to do with as they will and that includes selling rights to all or part of it to entities that are proficient in marketing and selling the work to get the absolute best financial return from it.
I'm a libertarian myself, and completely all for a small government - but not smaller than it has to be. I wouldn't eliminate other laws against theft (make no mistake, copyright violation IS theft!) and eliminate our police forces in the name of smaller government, for instance. I despise both democrats and republicans for what they've done to this country. But protecting copyright is a vital government function, no different than protecting people from any other kind of thieves.
I can't really get my head around the things you guys are saying. It seems like it's more or less "I should get everything for free, and if I don't it's because 'big corporations' are 'ripping off the little guy'" ??? (also don't forget the always popular "it's Bush's fault") I mean, are you serious ? Am I or are my bandmates or fellow musicians "big corporations" ??? Am I supposed to take all my talent, training, and hard work and create something, then let others just take it from me and use it however they want without my permission?
I ... just don't get it... I don't get where you guys are coming from. You're talking about libertarian ideals and smaller government and whatnot - well one of the primary libertarian ideals and values is that you do not have the right to the labor and property of another private individual. What minimal government we should have MUST protect your right to your own property and labor. |
|
 mrchrisOut and aroundPremium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Copyrights should be brought back to the 14 year original and only maxing out at 20.
Crap like Mickey Mouse should have been in public domain by now. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to music guy
i agree 14 year limit i mean seriously after 14years you have been compensated. look at drug patents, the company gets a certain amount of years to profit and then its open to generics.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
 fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | said by Kearnstd:i agree 14 year limit i mean seriously after 14years you have been compensated. look at drug patents, the company gets a certain amount of years to profit and then its open to generics. Unless you're a pharmaceutical company who can purchase a Congressman in order to get a patent extension that only covers your cash-cow drug. |
|
 AtlGuy
join:2000-10-17
Marietta, GA | reply to music guy
There are laws already on the books. Prosecute using the laws that we have now. There's no reason whatsoever to create a copyright cop, when we're drowning in debt. |
|
 a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
| reply to music guy
sure, copyright's important... but is it REALLY that important as to justify creation of a whole new branch of government? Enough to equal importance of issues like war and murder?
We already have the DMCA to enforce, without need for a new gov't branch.
There's nothing mystifying about not wasting tax dollars on something we already have. Capitalism isn't convenient, but when it isn't guess what? You have to be a man, and SUCK IT UP!! |
|
| reply to music guy
Yo, Music Guy. I used to be a music guy too. 27 years in the business. Worked for some of the biggest acts in the world, too. Personally, I have no problem with reasonable copyright laws and the enforcement of same. Trouble is that when you drill down into what ails the music business, you discover that what ails it is not someone with a DSL modem and Limewire. It's the people who run the industry. It is the people that run it and the tactics they use against both artists and listeners.
They are idiots. They are incompetent. They cling to an outmoded business model. They screw, blue and tattoo artists. And that's just what they get up to before lunch.
They have already alienated at least two generations of people who could and would buy product if the circumstances were different, by using egregious and thug-like tactics, tactics not unlike the bully who steals lunch money from schoolchildren by grabbing them by the ankles, turning them upside-down and shaking them. They are losing in the courts. Now, they are after becoming part of the executive branch. Next will be their own police force. I expect them to start using the formula "piracy==terrorism" or the last refuge of the demagogue, "piracy==child porn" any time now.
No matter what they do or what they achieve, the fact remains they are, largely, idiot thugs who did not adapt to new realities, cannot adapt because they are to low on the evolutionary ladder and are already on the way to final extinction but are too dumb to grok the stark realities. |
|
 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | reply to music guy
said by music guy :
The person who created a work of art or literature or prose, etc., etc., MUST have ownership over that work. It should be his/hers/theirs to do with as they will and that includes selling rights to all or part of it to entities that are proficient in marketing and selling the work to get the absolute best financial return from it.
I'm a libertarian myself, and completely all for a small government - but not smaller than it has to be. I wouldn't eliminate other laws against theft ... protecting copyright is a vital government function, no different than protecting people from any other kind of thieves.
Well, make up your mind - are you in favor of copyright, or are you a libertarian/pro-capitalist? You can't have it both ways.
A purely libertarian society would soon revert to feudalism. Wealthier folks would just buy up everything, and after progressive consolidations we'd end up with a king owning everything, and everyone else being serfs. "Serfs" means "slaves", basically, to take the nicer spin off it. With the power to deny access to the necessities of life, and contract being sacred (as long as there's no threat of violence, per the classic libertarian formula), owners would impose increasingly onerous terms. "Want that loaf of bread? Sell yourself into slavery to me, otherwise starve."
Fortunately we have enabled higher civilization by placing limits on capitalism. The 13th amendment, for example, prohibits slavery, even if it's based on an uncoerced contract. Copyright - to take another example - is precisely a classic case of government intervention placing limits on the free market.
said by music guy :
Am I supposed to take all my talent, training, and hard work and create something, then let others just take it from me and use it however they want without my permission? ... one of the primary libertarian ideals and values is that you do not have the right to the labor and property of another private individual. What minimal government we should have MUST protect your right to your own property and labor.
Again, that intangible "property" is still yours after you sell the first copy only because of government interference in the free market (in our non-libertarian, "mixed" economy).
In a libertarian society, your right to your "labor and property" lasts only until you have to bargain it away for necessities of life. If there is no restraint on contracts and terms, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, until we arrive at a Hobbesian nightmare of ruthless exploitation, with a few rich owners and the majority being slaves.
But if we're going to have some restraints on capitalism, then why not place some limits on how far a company can exploit an oligopoly to the detriment of society in general? Throughout most of the 20th century, the only way a musician could get recordings published and promoted was to agree to an extremely one-sided contract and settle for a mere possibility of a fraction of one percent of the selling price of a recording - all because a few big companies dominated the distribution business and all of them offered essentially the same terms.
Capitalism is beneficial in the ways the classical economists described only when there are many buyers and many sellers, low transaction costs, full information for everyone, and roughly equal starting positions. In all other scenarios, including all real-world situations, the results are worse because those conditions are missing in greater or lesser degree. The only way the system can be kept beneficial to society overall is with government intervention to restrain the exploitation of power differences.
The reason copyright law today is extreme and opressive is the situation is going in the opposite direction: capitalists have taken over government and are writing laws aimed at restoring feudalism as fast as they can. |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
 ·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to music guy
Do you find yourself frequently mystified? I would think you are easily mystified.
If you are truly in support of IP holder rights, where is your outrage over the music industries who have defrauded their artists for over 5 decades?
Where is your outrage over the billions of dollars that the RIAA partner executives have stolen from their customer base through collusion, price fixing and other illegal schemes?
RIAA partner executives have stolen vastly more than every alleged act of P2P/IP infringement combined. But not a word from you on the vastly larger crime.
You appear to have drank the flavor-aide that the media has spoon fed you, also in collusion with the RIAA partners (their parent companies).
You are simply bothered
by what you have been told
should bother you.
That willed ignorance is everything worng with our country.
NV |
|
| reply to fuziwuzi
Re: copyrights are important! Patents are different from copyrights which, in turn, are different from trademarks. So far, patents haven't had the outrageous length extensions that copyrights have. Instead, they just have had insanely stupid patents getting awarded and then small (or big) companies being shook down for money.
I don't know of any drug patent that has had a special extension granted. If one did, I'm sure that other drug companies would be fighting to stop it because 1) their drugs didn't get extensions also and 2) they would want to make their own generic brand of the drug.
What drug companies do do is make another version of the same drug that is 99.9% the same as the previous version. It's ever so slightly altered so that they can get a new patent on it.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:5 | reply to music guy
said by music guy :
I...
Horse Shit. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine:What drug companies do do is make another version of the same drug that is 99.9% the same as the previous version. It's ever so slightly altered so that they can get a new patent on it. Also what you can do is, right before when your old drug expires, do the study and make it OTC, once it is OTC, no insurance will cover it, and all patients will ask for the new drug (which is 99.9% identical to the old) so they can get it on their insurance rather than pay OTC. Plus once its OTC, there will be much higher pressure to keep it cheap, so its basically a poisen pill for your old drug. |
|
| reply to music guy
Yes, they are vital, I agree with that 100%. The problem is that pretty soon you'll be more worried about being caught with an MP3 you can't prove you paid for than being found standing over a dead body, both covered in blood with a knife in your hand. The problem here is the lengths that are being considered (and passed) in order to protect copyright are beyond what is reasonable. |
|
