Don't fight for copyright

[Verbal Mike]

Right, because open source code is such an utter failure and no respectable company would ever design an astoundingly good OS around code that you don't have to buy.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Right, because open source code is such an utter failure and no respectable company would ever design an astoundingly good OS around code that you don't have to buy.

That had WHAT to do with what I was saying, exactly?   

Please show me where I said people should be FORCED to copyright their work.  Thanks.

[Verbal Mike]

Okay, fair enough.

(Deja vu? )

[LMNO]

Article I, sec 8, clause 8 of the US constitution:

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;

If it was good enough for Madison and Jefferson, it's good enough for me.

This is good.

This is in no way reflective of the current state of things, however.

For the most part, the Authors and Inventors have very little to do with their work, due to the institutionalized way publishing companies and the recording industry are set up.

I'm starting to turn the corner on this issue.  I agree that an artist should be able to control theft of their work, and be given the opportunity to make a living from it.

I just don't think our current model provides for either.


LMNO
-looking for a new model.

[That One Guy]

Article I, sec 8, clause 8 of the US constitution:

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;

If it was good enough for Madison and Jefferson, it's good enough for me.

This is good.

This is in no way reflective of the current state of things, however.

For the most part, the Authors and Inventors have very little to do with their work, due to the institutionalized way publishing companies and the recording industry are set up.

I'm starting to turn the corner on this issue.  I agree that an artist should be able to control theft of their work, and be given the opportunity to make a living from it.

I just don't think our current model provides for either.


LMNO
-looking for a new model.

Seconded. I've detested the RIAA and the corporate bias towards current copyright laws - the owner of the copyright has ALL power, and most of the time that's NOT the person that created the item being copyrighted. It's the record company, the publishing company, the movie studio. The current system favors hording copyrights as an investment totally separate from any artistic or intellectual statement/intent, and most likely will not benefit the artist/creator in any way unless they were smart enough to secure all that crap long before its creation/dissemination.

The internet is a double-edged sword for artists/inventors/creators. On the one hand, the power is shifting noticeably back towards the artist at the expense of the publishing/recording industries. Since it's so much easier to distribute a work via the internet, the need for the record/publishing companies is reduced significantly. On the other hand, the ease of distribution via the internet is eroding the legal weight of the copyright itself, for whoever owns it, due to the fact that copyrights focus as much on controlling distribution as they do controlling use.

Where will a balance point emerge? It's incredibly difficult to tell, in no small part since we're still at the dawn 0f the computer age. The technology is STILL advancing faster than society can keep up and shows no signs of slowing any time soon. Quantum computers, holographic storage, and a ton of other things that aren't even on the horizon today but will easily be around in 30 years will drastically change the rules every time the technology makes another leap.

We can try to adapt to the current state of things, only to have to abandon those adaptations in the near future at the next leap, or we can try to anticipate those advances and plan accordingly. However, with the history of government regulation what it is, we'll be stuck continually trying to administrate the state of the prior jump rather than the current one. Technology in general is advancing faster than the pace of government's ability to regulate those advances and that shows no signs of changing.

What's the solution? I have no idea - but neither does anyone else, really. All we can do is try to keep up, both with the law and with the technology.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

It seems to me that much of what this debate hinges on is corporate involvement:

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;

But, that's not really how it works these days. RIAA, Big Music Production Company X and Disney own the Writings and Discoveries, and they maintain control over them long after the author has moved into a 3'x6' apartment. To me, the argument that personal rights as defined in the Constitution should be applied to corporations seems asinine. This goes for 'Freedom of Speech' which corporations have used as a 'Right' to be less than honest with consumers ("We do not use sweat shops"... "But you do, you lied"... "NO IT WAS FREE SPEECH!!!"), it also goes for political contributions and definately, in my mind, to copyright. Allowing a corporation to hold patents, copyright etc. seems to completely change the intent of the original aspects of Copyright law. At this point, Corporations copyright ANYTHING that they can to create a portfolio of patents/copyrighted material. They do this primarily, to defend themselves if they're sued for Copyright or patent infringement. If someone sues us for copyright infringement, our first move is to go through our portfolio and see if they might be infringing on something we have, or barring that, if they might be interested in getting access to something we have. Copyright and Patents weren't implemented to be trading cards among the Big Boys and brickbats to be used on the little guys.

Since corporations were created to protect individuals from most responsibility involving the corporation... I see no reason why the corporation should have ANY rights of the individual. IF the individual wants full rights, they should also take full responsibility. If they don't want the risk associated with being personally liable, then they should understand that such a position limits their personal freedom/expression/rights regarding the corporation.

IMO..

Also, tar and feathering... I'm with TGRR.

[Triple Zero]

For the most part, the Authors and Inventors have very little to do with their work, due to the institutionalized way publishing companies and the recording industry are set up.

I'm starting to turn the corner on this issue.  I agree that an artist should be able to control theft of their work, and be given the opportunity to make a living from it.

I just don't think our current model provides for either.


LMNO
-looking for a new model.

we might meet on that corner some day, LMNO. if the copyright model would actually, you know, work to protect the rights of the artist, i might actually be able to start respecting copyright.

but in order for it to work, apart from tarring and feathering some people, it also needs to take into account the modern ease of copying information, otherwise it'll never work because the economy of freely copying information can only grow one way: stronger. for the new model to work it needs to work with that, if it goes against it it will fail, sooner or later.

please to note i'm saying it will fail, not that it could fail. there's simply no stopping this force. fight the windmills if you wish, but you will lose. better play along and make sure the playing field is fair to the artists, given these new rules.

[Jesrad]

Since corporations were created to protect individuals from most responsibility involving the corporation... I see no reason why the corporation should have ANY rights of the individual. IF the individual wants full rights, they should also take full responsibility. If they don't want the risk associated with being personally liable, then they should understand that such a position limits their personal freedom/expression/rights regarding the corporation.

:mittens:Thank you.

I'm especially vindicated these days by people who go around calling big corporations "capitalist". What the eff does private ownership of production means (the ownership of the tools, ideas, recipes and land by actual people like you and me) have to do with those big hulking bureaucracies of elected representatives of shareholders (and elected representatives of employees, as is legally mandatory in my own country) sitting around in councils, comittees and other forms of Soviets, coopting their relatives and club friends into layers of collectively irresponsible slices of limited dictatorship to lord over employees who don't own and don't even lease themselves the tools they're supposed to run to do their work, down to the point where they will tell them how to dress and what they can or cannot have in their pockets ?

(coopting the enemy's symbology can work in more than one way)

[Adios]

No matter how it's justified stealing is just stealing at the end of the day.

As far as the punishment fitting the crime argument; Rob a bank and get 50 years, kill a person and get 20 years. It's ALWAYS been about the money.

[Cain]

No matter how it's justified stealing is just stealing at the end of the day.

Well except for the fact we are trying to figure out a model which allows the artist to get paid, GREAT POINT!

Try reading the thread before you come in with a fit of righteous indignation.

[Adios]

No matter how it's justified stealing is just stealing at the end of the day.

Well except for the fact we are trying to figure out a model which allows the artist to get paid, GREAT POINT!

Try reading the thread before you come in with a fit of righteous indignation.

See your thread in TFYS for further insight please.