doctorow — 2014-01-19T12:02:42-05:00 — #1
hypnosifl — 2014-01-19T21:12:51-05:00 — #2
Yes! For example, if the courts had their way in the 20s, every copy of the classic and influential silent horror movie Nosferatu would have been destroyed for copyright violation. If the government says a certain work can't exist because it violates copyright, what is this if not state-authorized censorship? We need to find a way to make copyright purely a matter of royalties--if you don't get clearance to use someone else's characters/story/music/etc., maybe you have to pay a huge chunk of the profits on your copyright-violating work (and maybe you have to charge people some minimum price to see your work, comparable to the price of the work you copied from, so you can't copy someone's work and then distribute it for free). But the government should not be in the business of making it illegal for your copyright-violating work to exist at all, such works may have genuine artistic value.
djhbaw1 — 2014-01-20T06:45:03-05:00 — #3
Typical Google-funded rant from the EFF. When Cindy Cohn says, "share", she means that the artists will share their hard work with Google. Will Google share their revenues with the artists? Silly artist. Cindy Cohn doesn't mean revenue sharing. How would Google keep its billions and how would Google fund the EFF if it gave money to everyone who helped build the content that they sell to advertisers? No. Sharing is a one-way street. The proles share their work with Google and Google doesn't share their corporate jets with the proles. Got it? Good.
makart — 2014-01-20T08:19:45-05:00 — #4
As the debate on copyright becomes ever more feverish, the time has come to advocate it's abolition.
The only way to restrict the abuse of this perverse and anachronistic legal precept is to get rid of it. At it's heart is a absurd and unnatural concept: that one can own ideas.
We cant have copyright and the internet coexist in their current forms, one has to change to accomodate the other. That has to be copryright and that change has to be it's death.
It sounds radical but on close examination it is perfectly reasonable.
Kill IP, kill copyright and allow the internet to flourish.
crenquis — 2014-01-20T11:29:57-05:00 — #5
Shia LaBeouf -- Freedom Fighter
djhbaw1 — 2014-01-20T12:58:13-05:00 — #6
How wrong can one poster be? Copyright explicitly says that you can't own ideas, merely the expression of them.
It's a way for artists to earn a living. Period. If you don't like their stuff, you can make your own or pay someone else. It's a union card for artists.
makart — 2014-01-20T14:51:38-05:00 — #7
That copyright law starts with the axiom that one can not own an idea and then proceeds to the undercut that very premise, illustrates its absurdity.
Pray tell, just what is an expression of an idea if not an idea itself? You cannot lay claim to such abstracts.
You cannot own a song anymore than you can own a single musical note.
You cannot own an image any more than you can own the sunset.
Just because an industry has grown up around copyright and some people make money off of it is no argument in favour of the concept: similarly, one could have argued abolitioning slavery would put farmers out of business.
Artists will continue to create regardless of the form of remuneration. In fact I would say that it is copyright itself that stifles the creative fields.
Copyright cannot be enforced without fundamentally changing the Internet. Rewiring and restricting the internet is what they seek to do and thats the price you will pay by accepting IP.
djhbaw1 — 2014-01-20T17:29:54-05:00 — #8
I'm not sure I understand your point. Perhaps it makes philosophical sense to say that an expression of an idea is an idea itself. But who cares? That's only good for philosophy class. In practice, I see copyright law making the distinction quite well. For instance, there are tens of thousands of books on the civil war. The ideas are not locked up in any of them and copyright doesn't prevent new people from coming along and expressing themselves in any way they want-- except plagiarizing someone else.
It's very easy to enforce copyright without changing the Internet. All we need to do is send people out into the torrent networks, collect a few IP addresses and haul people in. The pirate apologists always say that this information doesn't catagorically prove that the owner pirated but I guarantee you that the evidence found this way is better than the evidence routinely used to put people away for life. All you need to do is give me N lawyers and access to the ISP IP address tables and I would clean up the torrent networks in a few months.
jenr — 2014-01-21T17:02:24-05:00 — #9
Copyright is not about owning ideas. Copyright is about owning an expression of an idea. In fact, one basic principle of copyright law is that ideas are not protected. In order to be protected, the creator must create a unique expression of an idea. This takes time and resources. Without copyright, there would not be an incentive to create. Many of our greatest artists never would have had the chance to make their art had it not been for the value given by copyright. Further, copyright allows plenty of room for expression by others through fair use.
doctorow — 2014-01-24T12:02:46-05:00 — #10
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.