dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
88

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

-1 recommendation

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

Another reason to move back to Iowa

Mediacom stands up for its subscribers except I don't have copyright issues since I PAY for my copyrighted content (in other words I obtain my copyrighted works such as music/movies/TV shows) legally by paying the required fee which obtains the necessary license to use the content. One of my classmates at CDL school was amazed I paid for my music and I told him at least I don't get slapped with copyright notices from Comcast or RIAA lawsuits (remember they sued the parents of a 12 year old girl back a few years ago).

Heaven forbid the copyright trolls go after the Aereo subscribers now that Aereo has been ruled a copyright violation. They'll probably get thrown under the bus by copyright trolls.

f_k_trolls
@176.10.100.x

f_k_trolls

Anon

My solution is even simpler. I do not consume bullshit mainstream content at all.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

1 recommendation

karlmarx to IowaCowboy

Member

to IowaCowboy
Yes, continue to act like the sheeple. A great man once said "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.".
Copyright law has been bastardized from as it was originally written in the constitution. The **AA's have already stated, they want copyright to exist for 'infinity minus one day'. What part of "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." does an eternal copyright provide? What part of that says a corporation can own a copyright? Does a corporation EVER 'Author" or "Invent" something? The answer is no. I don't care if they pay you, a corporation did NOT create anything. A corporation has ZERO rights to any copyright, if they paid money, then they threw away their money.
Again, as Jefferson clearly states "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.". Copyright law, as it's written today, meets ALL the criteria of an unjust law, and as such should be disobeyed as much as possible.

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

said by karlmarx:

Yes, continue to act like the sheeple. A great man once said "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.".
Copyright law has been bastardized from as it was originally written in the constitution. The **AA's have already stated, they want copyright to exist for 'infinity minus one day'. What part of "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." does an eternal copyright provide? What part of that says a corporation can own a copyright? Does a corporation EVER 'Author" or "Invent" something? The answer is no. I don't care if they pay you, a corporation did NOT create anything. A corporation has ZERO rights to any copyright, if they paid money, then they threw away their money.
Again, as Jefferson clearly states "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.". Copyright law, as it's written today, meets ALL the criteria of an unjust law, and as such should be disobeyed as much as possible.

It's not what the law says, it's what the contract between the artists and the publisher (record company) says. Usually young artists will take any recording contract they can get and then the contract they sign with the record company stipulates that they assign the rights to their work to the record company in exchange for having the work published and promoted. In exchange the artist gets a cut of the revenue. It's been that way ever since copyright law began. Even with books, the author will assign the rights to the publisher, the publisher will invest capital in printing the books and distributing them and the author gets a cut of the sales.

Sad but true. Your music/movies ain't free. They cost money to produce. Writers, recording studios, musicians all cost money. And the record company will invest the capital in exchange for holding the rights to the songs.

When artists become superstars (like Bruce Springsteen), then they get their own copyrights and record companies have to compete for their business.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx

Member

Huh? "It's not what the law says"?
The law says "to Authors and Inventors". How much clearer can that be?
From the Dictionary : Author - noun - "a person who writes a novel, poem, essay, etc.; the composer of a literary work, as distinguished from a compiler, translator, editor, or copyist."
Again, I say to you, how can a CORPORATION "write a novel, poem, essay, etc"? It CAN'T, and as such, a corporation CAN NEVER be granted a copyright, because copyrights are only granted to "Authors or Inventors". The fact that a corporation pays said author/inventor, still does not give a corporation a copyright, since a copyright can only be granted to an Author/Inventor. Just like the constitution guarantees me the right to vote (15th/19th/25th), the constitution ONLY grants copyrights to the CREATORS (unless you can show me anything a 'corporation', not a person, has created)

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

What I'm saying is the artist/inventor is assigning the copyright through a legally binding contract. The two parties are artist (performer) and the manager (agent on behalf of the corporation).

It seems more and more that corporations are getting human treatment. Just look at the people's united decision. Corporations have lawyers so they have all the stops pulled out.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx

Member

And as I originally stated, the "law" has become corrupted. Thus, it is not only our right, but our DUTY to not follow an unjust law. I don't care how far to the right your political views are, there is NO WAY you honestly believe that a copyright should last 190 years.
dra6o0n
join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON

dra6o0n to IowaCowboy

Member

to IowaCowboy
The whole Artist/Publisher thing is BS because they haven't found any big of a solution to the whole copyright issue other than blatantly penalizing or attacking other people on it, on the concept of ownership.

Artists don't need those 'record companies' but still decide to go with them.
They don't need to accept the abusive relationship that publishers are able to give.
They ARE able to create their own publishing, I mean we have a internet for that sake.

The only reason one would have to go to a publisher is out of fear that their works may get ripped off, but guess what? Most stuff nowadays are rip off of other people's ideas, that's how innovation works.

The moment you go to a publisher... Guess what? They RIP your work off for their own sakes.