|
uniqs
18 |
|
 |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI |
to elefante72
Re: I'm in the 87%said by elefante72:Define "right" . Nobody was copyrighting campfire stories 200 years ago. If they did, you would need to have a lawyer next to every campfire. Oh I forgot, that's what we have today.
While I believe in capitalism and protecting IP, this has gone WAY overboard. I spend 30% of my time with legal these days over contracts that should be cookie cutter because of all of the new liability and indemnity bs... Total waste of time and productivity.
I always enjoy the tiffs that happen when some creator dies, and then the "family trust" goes around suing everyone for infringement. You die, the copyright dies. Enough w/ this eternal bs. Agreed! Copyright rights have gotten way out of hand. My intellectual property rights that I have accumulated through the course of my writing and photography should lapse in 7 years or so. ESPN holds the rights to my work for a long long long time. I find that just insane. At the same time though, current shows that are on TV and the piracy around them is wrong. That is what I am referring to. | |
2 recommendations |
So you agree that copyrights are insane. I agree copyrights are insane. Ergo, I chose to IGNORE copyrights. Just because it's 'the law', does not make it right. If it was 5000 years ago, and we were in Egypt, we would be worshiping the sun god Ra, to make sure the sun came up every day. Today, we know that's stupid, the sun 'rises' because the earth is rotating. Yet, 5000 years ago, the LAW was that you have to worship Ra, but today we know they were just WRONG. 500 years ago, the Aztecs used human sacrifice to ensue the rains. Damn, if they were RIGHT, we'd have altars in every state. But again, like ALL religions, it's WRONG. Just because almost everyone does it, does NOT make it right. I have ZERO problem with the CREATOR of a work being compensated for said work. I DO have a problem with a CORPORATION (which by definition, cannot CREATE a work) having the right to be compensated. | | NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI |
said by karlmarx:I have ZERO problem with the CREATOR of a work being compensated for said work. I DO have a problem with a CORPORATION (which by definition, cannot CREATE a work) having the right to be compensated. That is a pretty draconian stance to take. ESPN hired me to do a job, and I did it. ESPN owns the rights to my work that I did while I was employed by them. I have no hatred towards them, and even though it was my talents that did the work, they deserve the compensation. So I don't understand the anger you are displaying. To be honest, the "Robin Hood" attitude that many pirates are showing are really doing nothing constructive. Glad to hear your perspective on things, but IMHO, pirates who flaunt they are infringing on copyright are really sticking their necks out. We already have heard horror stories of consumers being forced into settlements and spending time and money retaining lawyers and defending themselves. TBH, pirates would be much better off just keeping quiet about it.  | | | |
Did ESPN CREATE the work (NO). Does ESPN holding a copyright help us "Advance the Science and Arts' (NO). Pray tell me, exactly WHAT does ESPN holding a copyright do the "Advance the Science and Arts"? Does giving money to fat cat coke-snorting executive "Advance the Science and Arts"? (NO). Copyright exist to compensate the CREATOR of said "Science or Art", so the CREATOR will continue to CREATE new things. Since we've already agreed that a CORPORATION does NOT have the ability to CREATE new things, WHY should ANY corporation have any RIGHT to a copyright? Again, my point is, copyrights EXIST to compensate the CREATOR of the arts, which does NOT occur when a fake person (who can NEVER create something) has rights to it? | | NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI |
said by karlmarx:Did ESPN CREATE the work (NO). Does ESPN holding a copyright help us "Advance the Science and Arts' (NO). Pray tell me, exactly WHAT does ESPN holding a copyright do the "Advance the Science and Arts"? Does giving money to fat cat coke-snorting executive "Advance the Science and Arts"? (NO). Copyright exist to compensate the CREATOR of said "Science or Art", so the CREATOR will continue to CREATE new things. Since we've already agreed that a CORPORATION does NOT have the ability to CREATE new things, WHY should ANY corporation have any RIGHT to a copyright? Again, my point is, copyrights EXIST to compensate the CREATOR of the arts, which does NOT occur when a fake person (who can NEVER create something) has rights to it? ESPN paid me for my time while creating the work. So, in essence, the work I did while I was under their employ is their property. You are correct that they didn't create it, but they did pay me (quite well actually) in money, mileage, hardware, and an expense account. Corporations who are paying money to someone for their intellectual property rights should own those rights, not the person making them. Now, if your point is to argue the rights should be revisited or rewritten, I would be all for that. At the same time though, I would still back companies who are shelling out money and resources for intellectual property. I wasn't forced to sell my time to ESPN. I chose to. | | | |
Read the Constitution.. and I quote "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..". It CLEARLY STATES ONLY the Author in Inventor has the exclusive right. If they pay money, good for them, BUT, they are NOT BUYING A COPYRIGHT. The RIGHT to a copyright exist SOLELY with the INVENTOR or AUTHOR. You can't sign away your right to free speech, you can't sign away your right to gather peacefully, you can't sign away your rights to a work of art or invention you created. | | NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI |
said by karlmarx:Read the Constitution.. and I quote "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..". It CLEARLY STATES ONLY the Author in Inventor has the exclusive right. If they pay money, good for them, BUT, they are NOT BUYING A COPYRIGHT. The RIGHT to a copyright exist SOLELY with the INVENTOR or AUTHOR. You can't sign away your right to free speech, you can't sign away your right to gather peacefully, you can't sign away your rights to a work of art or invention you created. Very interesting argument, but I don't agree with it. Neither does the court system either. Guess we will have to agree to disagree. I firmly believe that a document that was written over 200 years ago should be evaluated and changed to suit the times we live in. There have been a fair amount of constitutional amendments and there could stand to be a few more. Things have changed so much due to technology and capitalism. But I digress...... | |
|
