Anarchy

[AFK]

For the record, I think it should be pointing out that supporting public domain, as long as a creator wants to put his or her work there, is not a bad thing, and isn't the same as wanting to get rid of copyright laws altogether.

Definitely agreed. 

[Freeky]

For the record, I think it should be pointing out that supporting public domain, as long as a creator wants to put his or her work there, is not a bad thing, and isn't the same as wanting to get rid of copyright laws altogether.

Obviously.

But the whole thing here is that doesn't allow you to rip music off without breaking the law, which seems to be the heart and soul of anarchism.

I'll have to go back through and read the thread again to agree or disagree with that.

[Doktor Howl]

For the record, I think it should be pointing out that supporting public domain, as long as a creator wants to put his or her work there, is not a bad thing, and isn't the same as wanting to get rid of copyright laws altogether.

Obviously.

But the whole thing here is that doesn't allow you to rip music off without breaking the law, which seems to be the heart and soul of anarchism.

I'll have to go back through and read the thread again to agree or disagree with that.

Go right ahead. 

They state a different premise, but every anarchist/libertarian thread always winds up with the anarchists/libertarians bitching about the fact that they can't steal music and movies without breaking the law.

Every single time.

We even had one spag claiming that artists really SHOULD do what they do just for "the joy of creating", and that it's a damn sin and a shame that anyone should have to pay $0.79 for a song.

$0.79.

Not only are anarchists opposed to anyone keeping what they make or earn, they're also cheapskates.  I'd hazard a guess that this is because they are poor, which may or may not be related to the fact that nobody in their right mind would hire a vocal anarchist, and there aren't any other kinds.

[Freeky]

For the record, I think it should be pointing out that supporting public domain, as long as a creator wants to put his or her work there, is not a bad thing, and isn't the same as wanting to get rid of copyright laws altogether.

Obviously.

But the whole thing here is that doesn't allow you to rip music off without breaking the law, which seems to be the heart and soul of anarchism.

I'll have to go back through and read the thread again to agree or disagree with that.

Go right ahead. 

They state a different premise, but every anarchist/libertarian thread always winds up with the anarchists/libertarians bitching about the fact that they can't steal music and movies without breaking the law.

Every single time.

We even had one spag claiming that artists really SHOULD do what they do just for "the joy of creating", and that it's a damn sin and a shame that anyone should have to pay $0.79 for a song.

$0.79.

Not only are anarchists opposed to anyone keeping what they make or earn, they're also cheapskates.  I'd hazard a guess that this is because they are poor, which may or may not be related to the fact that nobody in their right mind would hire a vocal anarchist, and there aren't any other kinds.

I remember that. I thought it was a lot of nonsense, too.

I'm gonna show my optimistic side again (I know, I'm being silly), and propose that it might be that the arguments tend toward that because more often than not they hold the two separate views at once? It seems to me like it's a pretty convoluted view to hold just for free music.

[BabylonHoruv]

Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, and our culture is richer for it.

Well, obviously, that's grounds for eliminating intellectual property.  Because what the world needs is yet another "translation/adaptation" of A Midsummer Night's Dream, instead of something original.

With any luck at all, they'll start doing a sitcom based on Romeo and Juliet.

Straw man.  Nobody is arguing to eliminate intellectual property.  We are arguing to redefine it.

[BabylonHoruv]

Why is it a bad thing that Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain?  Who does that hurt?  I mean, besides uncreative plagiarist copycats?  

Most creative ideas are the result, not of purely original thought, but of remixing ideas which are already a part of the collective consciousness.

I don't agree with that at all.  Speaking as a musician, I am certainly influenced by other musical artists I like, but my creations are from my head.  I'm not "remixing" anything.  

A much greater loss are all the other things which have been copywritten since Mickey was created, the vast majority of which is not in print and not available.  So long as copyright continues to be extended none of it is going to be made freely available by projects like the Internet Audio Archive.

So?  We don't have any inherent rights to hear or see those creations.  

No, but we would be better off if we were able to.  And the original creators of those works would not be harmed in any way (assuming we were to take on a "copyright expires upon death" approach

[Doktor Howl]

Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, and our culture is richer for it.

Well, obviously, that's grounds for eliminating intellectual property.  Because what the world needs is yet another "translation/adaptation" of A Midsummer Night's Dream, instead of something original.

With any luck at all, they'll start doing a sitcom based on Romeo and Juliet.

Straw man.  Nobody is arguing to eliminate intellectual property.  We are arguing to redefine it.

Yeah, and the neocons tell me they're just trying to "redefine" my other rights.

I fail to see any difference.

[Doktor Howl]

Why is it a bad thing that Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain?  Who does that hurt?  I mean, besides uncreative plagiarist copycats?  

Most creative ideas are the result, not of purely original thought, but of remixing ideas which are already a part of the collective consciousness.

I don't agree with that at all.  Speaking as a musician, I am certainly influenced by other musical artists I like, but my creations are from my head.  I'm not "remixing" anything.  

A much greater loss are all the other things which have been copywritten since Mickey was created, the vast majority of which is not in print and not available.  So long as copyright continues to be extended none of it is going to be made freely available by projects like the Internet Audio Archive.

So?  We don't have any inherent rights to hear or see those creations.  

No, but we would be better off if we were able to.  And the original creators of those works would not be harmed in any way (assuming we were to take on a "copyright expires upon death" approach

Unless we want to see anything, you know, original.

And I like the idea that my children can inherit from my work, or from the sale thereof.  I am sure artists feel the same way.

[BabylonHoruv]

A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who"  An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music.  Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this.  The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down.  These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.

[Don Coyote]

A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who"  An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music.  Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this.  The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down.  These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.

Then that person can right their own limited word rhymes to pop songs.

[Doktor Howl]

A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who"  An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music.  Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this.  The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down.  These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.

How is that "creative"?  It's plagiarism.

[BabylonHoruv]

A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who"  An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music.  Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this.  The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down.  These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.

How is that "creative"?  It's plagiarism.

You'd better stop citing copywritten characters in your work, Larry Curly and Moe, for example, are the intellectual property of C3 entertainment ltd.

[Doktor Howl]

A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who"  An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music.  Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this.  The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down.  These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.

How is that "creative"?  It's plagiarism.

You'd better stop citing copywritten characters in your work, Larry Curly and Moe, for example, are the intellectual property of C3 entertainment ltd.

Fair use is also part of the law.  You knew that, but you deliberately ignored that fact.

Why is that?

[BabylonHoruv]

A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who"  An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music.  Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this.  The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down.  These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.

How is that "creative"?  It's plagiarism.

You'd better stop citing copywritten characters in your work, Larry Curly and Moe, for example, are the intellectual property of C3 entertainment ltd.

Fair use is also part of the law.  You knew that, but you deliberately ignored that fact.

Why is that?

Probably the same reason you ignore that nobody has been arguing to remove copyright protections completely.  Exaggeration in order to make a point.

However if your works were to become popular C3 certainly could sue you over dilution of property.  The way you portray Curly is not the same as the way they portay him and it is quite possible they could make a real case that you are reducing the value of their property with your work.

[AFK]

A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who"  An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music.  Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this.  The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down.  These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.

Sorry but that just sounds selfish to me.  Yeah, it probably did sound neat to hear Seuss put to Dylan, but so what?  There are two artists in this scenario and ideally both should agree to the marrying of one creation to the other.  As it turns out, one of them is dead so whether or not that happens is decided by his heirs who get part of their living from the proceeds of his works.  If the Seuss gives up IP to all of the Seuss works, then it will be the wild west.  Nobody will need to buy the books anymore and their funds will dry up.

But, at least you get your novel MP3 of Dylan doing Green Eggs and Ham.