101–109 of 109 posts
There are two competing interests here. First, Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they should. Second, the rest of the stuff that is of little commercial value but of potential cultural value should be freed from uncertain or uninterested ownership. The answer feels trivial to me, which means I'm probably missing something. Fixed term for a few decades…
To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…
why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? Because they have nothing to lose. I only ever hear this argument from people who have no IP of their own in the market. I think shortened copyright terms would be good public policy, but the fact is that as a consumer you don't have any kind of moral claim on others' work.
The social contract is "we will protect your works, but in exchange everyone gets them after a time." This is true for patents and copyright.
We did our part, we protected their works for the period agreed, but instead of them doing their part (releasing them freely) they changed the rules at the last minute.
You make it sound like this is some small business or individual we're dealing with, which is simply a mis-characterisation. The people who made these works are dead, these are corporations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you say "own," do you mean "legitimately posess" or "hold copyright on"? I think GP is talking about the former.
" When you say "own," do you mean "legitimately posess" or "hold copyright on"? I think GP is talking about the former." Let's leave theories aside. I own a book when I decide when /how /where /if to print. If you can legally get it, modify and distribute it for free, I lose sales. That's almost certain. So if the government doesn't protect my book /song /movie the same way it protects your iPhone or vacation home, h…
I buy a book in the store, I own the book. You create a story, you have the right to limit copies of that story. You can sell it, or you can let it sit unpublished in your desk.
Once you sell a copy of your book, you no longer "own" that book, you sold it. If your story was an iPhone or vacation home, that would be the end of it.
Most governments have decided to give you a copy right, where you limit the right to copy your work for a limited time. It's not the same as ownership. If I buy a book from you, you can't come back into my house with the police and take it back. But copyright gives you the right to come into my house with the police if I'm making unauthorized copies of your book.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gangnam Style is available on Youtube for free. You don't know what you are talking about. You just don't, having missed all this internet stuff. According to Last.Fm statistics it does not seem that any musical band is listened to more than The Beatles. And virtually everything by The Beatles in the circulation is "pirated". And this stuff should be damn near public domain if you ask me.
>You don't know what you are talking about. You just don't Totally. I don't. I just don't. >Gangnam Style is available on Youtube for free. Oh shit. I didn't know that [OK, I did. And it's not free, but you seem not to have read the last billion "you're the product" posts.]. Oh wait, 10 seconds of research on TPB says: Gangnam Style [one song] - 8k Seeds Beatles [lots of stuff] - 3-4k seeds And that's just one modern…
Gangnam Style [one song] - 8k Seeds*
I couldn't find the details about the licensing of Gangnam Style, but your argument seems to be that it's not "free" (an almost uselessly vague term in this context) because it's on TPB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And trite sayings don't mean they are correct, either. The social contract in the constitution was to grant people with limited exclusivity for works they created. Patents have roughly stayed within that parameter (with exception to patent abuses on design and software). For copyright, it was originally 17 years, extendable another 17 years. Works released in 1981 (my date of birth) will expire in 120 years. I will b…
There's been plenty of input from the people. The people vote every 2 years for representatives and every 6 years for senators. By and large, the people's input has been to keep the congresspeople who voted for these extensions. The reality is that most of "the people" just don't care about this issue. But they've had their input.
I'll never understand why people think this is a valid argument. We're being asked to conflate topics that are not closely related and, by voting, make unnecessary compromises. An overhaul of democracy is pretty much overdue.
To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…
>To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument >for justification of piracy. There's very little pirating of content that is over 20 years old, so I'm not sure how the copyright extension thing would justify piracy...
As someone else pointed out there's a lot of decent old music, as well as older films (Star Wars or Snow White anyone?). One thing people forget is that there's a lot of Software that's getting older. There's plenty of older games that are being pirated but there'll come a point when OSes we use now reach that age.
To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…
>To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument >for justification of piracy. There's very little pirating of content that is over 20 years old, so I'm not sure how the copyright extension thing would justify piracy...
But earnings themselves aren't a justification, it's the public good that comes from the further works you create while striving for more royalties that are the justification for this expensive and wasteful bureaucracy.
And there's no reasonable argument for 150y copyright, but the very stories copyrighted (Snow White, etc) are a powerful argument against copyright at all. With modern copyright on the works they borrowed, Disney never would have existed - unable to pay for access to cultural heritage.
To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…
why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? Because they have nothing to lose. I only ever hear this argument from people who have no IP of their own in the market. I think shortened copyright terms would be good public policy, but the fact is that as a consumer you don't have any kind of moral claim on others' work.
A prominent example is Notch, the creator of Minecraft, which is also a member of the Pirate Party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it's not that different at all. Rationalizations happen on all sides. We're all guilty of them. I just think we should try to be honest with ourselves and each other.
"Let's be honest" is just code for "you should feel guilty."