|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: SOPA/PIPA and 'Intellectual Property' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
Copyright was never meant to create an IP that would produce royalties forever, even when you passed the IP along to your children or grandchildren. At some point we're supposed to regain unfettered access to our own culture, because now that he's dead, I should be as much the owner of The Hobbit - a work that was incredibly influential to my development as a young person - as JRR Tolkien ever was. I'm as much the creator of that work's cultural significance as he is. Not to mention that artists and inventors are products of their culture and the public. They vastly benefit from the public market for their goods.
I think the problem, here, is that we've allowed the fictious construct of "intellectual property" to override our rights with respect to our own real property to the detriment of everyone except a small group of powerful, well-monied rightsholders. ... And "allowing" is exactly wrong. MGM is free to put whatever DRM they want on their movies, to punish the people who decide to pay for it. I propose no law against restrictive DRM technologies that result only in an inconvenience for the customer. They have no right to demand that the government enforce that, or make it illegal for someone to circumvent rights technologies on content they've legally purchased. It's a far cry from "requiring someone to allow people to distribute movies for free." I cannot agree with you here. The companies do not inform the consumers of the limitations DRM places on their use of the media they purchase. And retailers rarely allow returns on such products. I had to spend extra money purchasing an RF modulator, even though I have a VCR that will easily modulate the RCA signal coming from my DVD player to a coaxial output I can plug into my television. I had to do this because the DRM on many DVDs and built into my DVD player causes the picture's brightness and contrast to fluctuate while watching a movie if the DVD player is running through a VCReven if the VCR is not recording or even has a tape in it. The current laws allow companies to manufacture and sell intentionally defective products to consumers that actually prevent their fair and legal use of physical property that they have legally purchased. And I am sure many other people have stories of workarounds they've had to employ just to use media they've legally purchased. In fact, my girlfriend's father is out a video game after buying a new computer and learning that he cannot register it on more than one computer; the old computer being shot, he's found himself the proud owner of nothing but a coaster. Go figure! JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Once again. You can talk about the Hobbit, that's free speech.
You can't perform it. That's because it doesn't belong to you' it belongs to someone else. It's reaaly not that hard to grasp. You can talk about my car, but unless I give you permission you can't drive it. That's because it's my car and not yours. And yet again. If Tolkein wanted everyone in the world to do what the hell they liked with his work, he needn't have copyrighted it. But he did. Maybe the next Tolkein won't. I'm not holding my breath on that, are you?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Bullshit. Are you, or are you not, defending a system under which choreography can be copyrighted? 1. I cited the provision. I did not comment on it.2. The provision does not allow liability simply from moving your body in a certain way. The law suit you linked to is not supported. What is protected is copying a substantially portion of someone else's choreography from a tangible medium such as a video without permission. Independently inventing similar moves is not protected. Watching someone do a move live and then repeating it is not protected. 3. I am not the defender of all things status quo. 4. I note that you have not commented on my presentation on the limits of modern day copyright law. But let's say that I did approve of law suits like the one against Beyonce, the one in particular that I've indicated is not supported under the law. My position on choreography is immaterial. None of it has the least bit of relevance to your position on whether MGM should be able to apply copyright to movies or whether you should be able to upload them to the internet. You can tar me as any kind of statist that you'd like. But the result does not provide any support for your position. Copyright law 200 years ago, and I think you talked about the validity historical provisions, would give decade long protection to movies. Such protection is not a new and modern position. Nobody here is defending anything new and modern, so it is inappropriate to defend your position by complainining about SOPA and PIPA.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The current laws allow companies to manufacture and sell intentionally defective products to consumers that actually prevent their fair and legal use of physical property that they have legally purchased. I believe the DMCA is unfair for at least these reasons. You'll get no argument from me about any of that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It's not whether I believe it, it's whether the courts do. And the blame lies with a system that treats a copyright holder's absurd assertions as reasonable on their face. A reasonable position. I suppose that you are going to point me to a court case now.
I shouldn't have to avoid anything You don't have the right to do a public performance, copy or distribute a substantial part of Tolkien's book. If you don't do that, most likely you will be just fine. If some court case says something different then I don't agree with that.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
NoNukes writes: Further, copyright law does not prevent you from describing movie scenes orally. crashfrog writes: To the contrary - people can be (and have been) sued for their performances of a movie scene or song when those were not authorized by the original rights holders. Would that be something identical to or different from describing a movie scene orally. Because it sure sounds different. With respect to performing a movie, I've acknowledged that a public performance is one of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. None of which has anything to do with your copying of videos and uploading them to the internet, which is actually what we are talking about. I've noticed that you are not spending any amount of time debating about the points I've actually addressed. Instead your argument seems to be that if you can discredit any provision of copyright, then you can assign to me the task of defending that provision and then avoid providing your own justification. I'm not particularly interested in a discussion where you get to make up my side of the debate. You could have that discussion by yourself. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
The current laws allow companies to manufacture and sell intentionally defective products to consumers that actually prevent their fair and legal use of physical property that they have legally purchased. Well, that's true. But more importantly, the law prevents those defective products from facing competition from non-defective ones. I'm no free-marketeer, but this is a case where what the law is doing is distorting the free market. We don't face a market where all vacuum cleaners are subtly kinked in such a way that they only work in a limited series of circumstances, because such a vacuum rapidly erodes market share compared to its fully-functioning competitors. I think we can get by with competition, because consumers will gravitate to the products that don't restrict their interoperability. The better-informed consumers already are.
I had to do this because the DRM on many DVDs and built into my DVD player causes the picture's brightness and contrast to fluctuate while watching a movie if the DVD player is running through a VCReven if the VCR is not recording or even has a tape in it. The DMCA mandated that all VCR's sold include "Macrovision", a form of analog DRM. It's an enormous government-granted monopoly to the Macrovision Corp, another way in which the law is distorting the marketplace here.
In fact, my girlfriend's father is out a video game after buying a new computer and learning that he cannot register it on more than one computer; the old computer being shot, he's found himself the proud owner of nothing but a coaster. Yes, exactly. (Have him call the game's tech support hotline, if he hasn't already; frequently they can transfer the license or reset the registration.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You can talk about my car, but unless I give you permission you can't drive it. That's because it's my car and not yours. No, it's because while I'm driving it, you can't. (Its really not that hard to grasp.) When I take your property, I deprive you of it. But when I copy the idea of "Hobbits" and make a tabletop roleplaying game out of it, what are you deprived of? My interpretation or re-interpretation of the notion of "Hobbits" doesn't subtract that notion out of anyone else's mind. It only adds to it. The notion that someone can control an idea is the legal absurdity at the heart of copyright, and it's wrong. It deprives us of access to our own culture.
You can talk about my car, but unless I give you permission you can't drive it. Not only can I not legally talk about your car, you can't legally talk about your car. It's shape, it's design, the function of its parts - that's all copyrighted material that belongs not to you, but to the car company. If you were to sit down and explain to me the function of its engine, how the parts fit together and how they most frequently malfunction, you would be violating the copyright held by the car company and licensed to the publishers of the repair manuals. That's why you can't get the manuals while the car is still being sold as "new", the publishers have an agreement that keeps that knowledge out of the hands of consumers to support the mechanic's monopoly. Maybe that's not how it works in the UK but that's how it works here. Everywhere you turn, you're just giving me examples of how our speech, how our exchange of ideas and information, is circumscribed by the assertion of "copyright". Can't you see how eroding this all is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The law suit you linked to is not supported. In your opinion. So, this is the fourth, fifth, or maybe sixth time you've waved away restrictive outcomes as being just the result of the bad application of a "good" law. What can't you justify by such means? And doesn't the system that seems to foster such "non supported" lawsuits deserve any scrutiny? And it's great that you're so boldly championing the cause of Beyonce, but I'm sure her multi-millions of dollars will allow her to hire all the lawyers she needs to repel this nuisance suit. What about everybody else? What is a regular person without those deep pockets supposed to do when the RIAA lawyers come a-knockin', except give in to their automated extortion? The problem, here, is that nobody gives a shit whether NoNukes thinks a lawsuit is valid. Even an invalid lawsuit represents a substantial commitment of time and expenditure of money to repel, and for most people, it's simply easier to surrender to the invalid suit. All the RIAA has to do is threaten a suit, regardless of validity, to compel enormous settlements in their favor. I'd like to hear you say something about that system - you know, the one you keep defending.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You don't have the right to do a public performance, copy or distribute a substantial part of Tolkien's book. In fact, I don't have the right to publically perform, copy, or distribute an entirely original work set in Tolkien's Middle Earth, or including mentions of Hobbits. And that very much is a restriction on my free speech that none of you have yet addressed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Would that be something identical to or different from describing a movie scene orally. It depends on the fidelity of the description, now doesn't it? And whether or not it's a "performance in public" depends on how many people choose to listen to me. The idea that I have all the free speech I want just as long as nobody else is listening isn't very compelling.
I've noticed that you are not spending any amount of time debating about the points I've actually addressed. And I've noticed that you've been completely unresponsive to my points. Maybe you'd like to go back and actually grapple with the arguments put before you before you accuse me of ignoring yours. trust me, just as soon as you have something relevant to say, I'll address it. Currently we're in the part of the debate where I'm showing abundant evidence in order to get you to admit that there's even a problem, here. So far you've ignored all of it, or simply dismissed it by saying you "don't approve" of a particular assertion of copyright. Who gives a shit what you approve of, Nukes? You're not the arbiter of where copyright law is "rightfully" applied. Some blame has to be laid at the feet of the system that makes these abuses possible; all the more so when the system, apparently, views these abuses as "working as intended."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The DMCA mandated that all VCR's sold include "Macrovision", a form of analog DRM. It's an enormous government-granted monopoly to the Macrovision Corp, another way in which the law is distorting the marketplace here. And, as we all know, any laws that require particular technologies in manufactured goods are innovation killers.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
You're crazily wrong about who can talk about Hobbits and my car but I guess you prefer your paranoia to the reality of it.
(People here think that you can't brush the snow off their bit of the sidewalk without risking being sued by anybody that gets injured slipping on it - despite it never, ever happening. People often seem to prefer their version of what the law says.) In the end, what you're actually complaining about is not copyright, it's the tortured lengths some copyright owners try to go to to defend it, particularly in the US - and you're not going to get any disagreement from me on that. But I'm not going to agree that copyright can be done away with. It obviously can't be without damage to the products that we all enjoy. Additionally, copyright law doesn't in anyway prevent those who think that there is a no-copyright business model to be found - it's theirs, they can do what they like with it; including giving it away.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
No, it's because while I'm driving it, you can't. (Its really not that hard to grasp.) When I take your property, I deprive you of it. But when I copy the idea of "Hobbits" and make a tabletop roleplaying game out of it, what are you deprived of? My interpretation or re-interpretation of the notion of "Hobbits" doesn't subtract that notion out of anyone else's mind. It only adds to it.
Just call them halflings instead.. Oh wait, that IS what happened..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
You're crazily wrong about who can talk about Hobbits and my car but I guess you prefer your paranoia to the reality of it. You don't seem to understand the difference between something you can get away with and something that is legal. The only difference between infringement that brings the wrath of the RIAA down on you and infringement that doesn't is whether you draw so much attention that they have no choice but to go after you. But I guess you're comfortable with the idea of your freedoms being completely circumscribed by whether or not a corporation determines that it's worth the lawsuit to make you stop. I'm not.
People here think that you can't brush the snow off their bit of the sidewalk without risking being sued by anybody that gets injured slipping on it - despite it never, ever happening. But it did happen:
quote: http://www.clelaw.lib.oh.us/.../misc/FAQs/Budish_Shovel.html In the end, what you're actually complaining about is not copyright, it's the tortured lengths some copyright owners try to go to to defend it, particularly in the US - and you're not going to get any disagreement from me on that. And, what? The system that allows rightsholders to make these absurd claims, treated as reasonable on their face by courts of law, deserves no blame? The system that allows rightsholders to make spurious lawsuits, knowing that the act of merely filing the suit forces their targets to settle?
It obviously can't be without damage to the products that we all enjoy. To the contrary, I've demonstrated that a world without copyright has little, if any, additional piracy to the one we have now. But what it does have is greater freedom and a much less inconvenient experience for consumers.
Additionally, copyright law doesn't in anyway prevent those who think that there is a no-copyright business model to be found - it's theirs, they can do what they like with it; including giving it away. Right up to the point where someone else asserts copyright on your work simply because you did not; now someone else controls the distribution of your work. Open-source software uses a legally-complicated series of licenses called "copyleft" to avoid this problem, but those have not yet been tested in the court. It may not actually be possible to release something into the public domain any more.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024