131–140 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm reminded of how trademarks work: If you don't bother to defend them, then you lose them. Maybe copyright should be the same way: If you're not distributing copies any longer, you lose the copyright protection.
Let’s say I make a painting and put it in the drawer, never to be seen again. Do I lose the copyright then and someone is permitted to come to my home and take it away? That’s just one example of possible implications. My point being, trademark is directly tied to the dynamics of the free market, while copyright only indirectly. And copyright is not forever.
Then you own that physical painting.
> Do I lose the copyright then
Yes
> and someone is permitted to come to my home and take it away?
No, but if you gave your friend Bob a copy of the painting, he's allowed to copy that copy as much as he wants once you lose the copyright.
The original copyright system-- you could only get the full term by extending 14 years in. That's maybe a little early. But making you pay a fee to keep the exclusivity and/or show recent use in trade makes sense.
What I find really interesting is that all these studios who ran TV channels for so many years fumbled the bag when it came to streaming.. It's like all these people who basically were in content distribution didn't really wise up to the next, new thing in their business even as it happened in front of their eyes. It's pretty wild that Paramount+/Disney+/Peacock or whatever really struggle to get going, especially gi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm reminded of how trademarks work: If you don't bother to defend them, then you lose them. Maybe copyright should be the same way: If you're not distributing copies any longer, you lose the copyright protection.
Let’s say I make a painting and put it in the drawer, never to be seen again. Do I lose the copyright then and someone is permitted to come to my home and take it away? That’s just one example of possible implications. My point being, trademark is directly tied to the dynamics of the free market, while copyright only indirectly. And copyright is not forever.
If you paint something, show to a few people, then decide to put it in the drawer, nobody cares. However, if you displayed that painting in galleries for the past 20 years, became semi-famous for it, and then decide to destroy your work, I'd say the public has a stake and a right to say "no", to at least make and preserve some copies. On top it being an asshole move to destroy well-known work, even if you have the right to do it.
> And copyright is not forever.
It effectively is if you destroy the work before your copyright on it expires.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not 'piracy', but it is theft of a different nature in that you're indirectly reducing the revenue that would have been received by the content creator.
It’s a theft because I don’t want to watch 40 seconds of unskippable ads every time I open same video in succession on YouTube or whenever I rewind? Seriously? Provide fair conditions and people won’t pirate.
Skip forward too far? More ads.
Pause too long and then resume? Even more ads.
Watch 30 seconds of ads, then a few minutes of video? Oh wow, more ads!
Accidentally leave the YouTube app then reload it? You guessed it, more ads!
Turn off your TV while a video is playing then you turn it back on the next day? New ads are instantly loaded up and are playing before the screen turns on all the way.
Block channels, creators, or content you dislike in an effort to tailor a video feed to your preferences? Too bad. You’ll still receive content the system knows you dislike because those creators manage to push ads onto their viewers more often.
Pay for a YouTube subscription to block ads? That service gets cancelled, and your only option is to sign up for a new service that costs more and includes features you don’t want and won’t use.
On top of all that, your viewing habits, likes, dislikes, and a mountain of other private information are collected and sold to random entities.
Use Adblock? You're a no-good, dirty, rotten pirate! How dare you steal the food from poor little Google’s mouth?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s say I make a painting and put it in the drawer, never to be seen again. Do I lose the copyright then and someone is permitted to come to my home and take it away? That’s just one example of possible implications. My point being, trademark is directly tied to the dynamics of the free market, while copyright only indirectly. And copyright is not forever.
No, because thats theft. Its more like if someone took a picture of it and reproduced it for sale. In that case you would likely lose a copyright claim in practice, even if you may have a valid claim in theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A hard drive sitting on a shelf is a big question mark. Will it spin-up? Who knows?! So you deal with this by having a backup. Now you have 2x the cost. But, unfortunately, you could have two hard drives not spin up. You consider an additional backup, but at this point you're at 3x the cost, so you start to reconsider letting hard drives sit on shelves. Now you're in RAID country. RAID is not a backup, but by shiftin…
Brings up an interesting topic: if I wanted to preserve a movie for 100,000 or even 1,000,000 years, how would I do it? What physical media would last that long, and could actually be played back correctly and accurately by some archaeologist in the year 1,002,025?
It's been studied in various ways for a while now.
What I find really interesting is that all these studios who ran TV channels for so many years fumbled the bag when it came to streaming.. It's like all these people who basically were in content distribution didn't really wise up to the next, new thing in their business even as it happened in front of their eyes. It's pretty wild that Paramount+/Disney+/Peacock or whatever really struggle to get going, especially gi…
Free content removed by previously benevolent publisher. It's too bad they weren't able to make their free content into a profit stream. The sad part here is that they were / are a steward to something beloved by many but through copyright they take it as hostage to the grave. If they no longer find value in distributing it shouldn't they be obligated to waive their ownership? Maybe copyright itself needs some reform…