Bang Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 If its such a big !@#$in deal to the RIAA and government then why do computers make CD BURNERS. This argument is so stupid. So I can hand my clients a hard copy of all the work I'm charging them for. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 So I can hand my clients a hard copy of all the work I'm charging them for.~Bang I just copied a bunch of your cartoons. I'm going to start a site called "BLAM!" in 7 years. Hope you don't mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 So I can hand my clients a hard copy of all the work I'm charging them for.~Bang You charge and expect to get paid for your intellectual property? What a naive dumb ass you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 If its such a big !@#$in deal to the RIAA and government then why do computers make CD BURNERS. This argument is so stupid. Computers don't make CD burners. SONY on the other hand....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Computers don't make CD burners. SONY on the other hand....... Doesn't sony even make blank cds, dvds, and blu-rays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 You artists have an entitlement mentality. 7-14 years is enough time to profit off of "intellectual property". The copyrights are granted by "the People". Explain how it benefits society that you have 50+ years to profit from your work? Does that really enter into the equation? Again; copyright is for the benefit of society. I can't believe someone said, "In 7-14 years I'll take all of your possessions...". What I really envision is the artist/corporation he sold rights to maintains the right to sell the works; however others can make copy and share. Additionally, commercial use is prohibit. Non-commercial use is allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I can't judge whether the fines in this case are excessive or not because as far as I can tell, noone can judge how many times each song that SHE made available was illegally downloaded. Unfortunately for the artists (you know, the folks who actually MADE the music), there is no way for them to recover any of that lost revenue. The fact that she is a single mom is completely irrevelant (what, they can steal as long as they don't have as much money as others - that is garbage). I have yet so see anyone post a reasonable, logical reason as to why this woman should not be punished. The 'reasoning' that some of you posters are using, things like "The record industry makes too much money", "They have the government in their pockets", "Copyright laws are too extensive", "Hey, we used to copy tapes/make a mix tape", "Everyone else is doing it, so why should't I", etc, are all irrevelant as well. You don't get to judge how much the companies should or should not make. They are not forcing you to buy their products. If you think that CDs are too expensive, don't buy them. If you don't like the laws, then work to change them (hey, I'd love to be able to walk into the local beer store, grab a cold case, and walk out; until the laws allow stealing of alcohol, I'm going to get arrested if I try something like that). Yes, copying a tape or record was illegal way back then as well, the difference is that the RIAA wasn't losing millions of dollars, so they didn't push for enforcement and track down your copy of Michael Jackson's Thriller. While I personally think that steve's ideas are a little over the top, it is his household and his kids. Noone else should be telling him how to raise them. IMHO, if more parents raised their kids to be law abiding, we'd have a much better society. And yes, I speed on the beltway - but I don't cry that the fine is too high if I get pulled over! To all of you who illegally download/upload copyrighted materials (and speed), I refer you to an old and true statement: Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 It's not about charging and getting paid for intellectual property. It's realizing that the value of "intellectual property" is time dependent when weight against the value of society and the public enjoying that work for free. I'm not against copyright, just extended lifetime + 50 years copyright. Explain to me why 14 years isn't long enough to profit from your work and create another work, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I'll bet most of the people wasn't sued for downloading Steamboat Willie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 While I agree it's wrong. The technology is out there. The music industry cannot stop it and can only go after a select few, while the rest get away with it. I personally think it stupid to punish a handful while millions are still gettin away with it. It serves no purpose what so ever to come down hard on a few. It certianly isn't going to stop the others who haven't been caught. the music industry needs to figure a way around this problem or a solution, cause what their doing now isn't working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Lets take this example further than just music...lets say i just spent 14 years writing th most amazing play the world has ever seen. So you are saying that my copyright should last 1/2 as long as it took to create it? I agree that eventually the copyright needs to to run out otherwise there would be logistical nightmares in tracking ownership of rights through the centuries. At some point things do become history and belong to the world. However, in no way should that happen in the lifetime of the creator. If i create it, i should have private ownership over it for my entire life. I can see both sides of the argument as to how long afer the creators death until it becomes public domain, but come on 7-10 years for a copyright is totally crazy. Think about cases where for whatever reason a song, movie or play is out for years before it has any comercial sucess, do you really believe that if i create something that doesnt make any money for 7 years and then blows up that i shouldnt get any of those proceeds. I think your perception is off a bit here I should be more clear. How about non-commercial, ie. private use? I believe the law should be that its okay to non-commercially copy after 7-14 years. If someone creates a derivative work; or someone repackages or tries to profit from your work that should be illegal. You should receive compensation rights and maintain some limited distribution rights ie. people who want to pay can; but I don't see why we need to set up a draconian copyright regime to extend copyright well beyond the intention of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I just copied a bunch of your cartoons. I'm going to start a site called "BLAM!" in 7 years. Hope you don't mind. Well, I take care of that the old fashioned way.. I copyright them. Every year I send a DVD of the latest cartoons and podcasts off to the Library of Congress and I get my nice certificate that says it's mine. Besides, my stuff is out there to be enjoyed for free anyway. A tip, though. Better work on your Spitball voice,, he's by far the fans favorite character. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 It's not about charging and getting paid for intellectual property. It's realizing that the value of "intellectual property" is time dependent when weight against the value of society and the public enjoying that work for free. I'm not against copyright, just extended lifetime + 50 years copyright. Explain to me why 14 years isn't long enough to profit from your work and create another work, right? Because I'm not doing it for you. I'm doing it to make money. And if I happen to create something that is popular after I've gone, then my family should reap the benefit, because that is why I'm working. Why should you ever get it for free? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Dictator, The point of the 7-14 years is that there's no way a site called "BLAM!" which took Bang's cartoons and copied them would make any money; in fact there's likely to be a large backlash against you. Furthermore, that clearly isn't "personal, non-commercial use". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Bang, Because that's not why the government grants copyrights in the first place. Copyrights are granted for the benefit of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 It's realizing that the value of "intellectual property" is time dependent when weight against the value of society and the public enjoying that work for free. Why should the output of intellectual property have a time limit? If I spend my time making an object out of no-cost materials (say a sculpture), how long before that object is not mine to sell? Why do producers of intellectual property have any obligation after a certain time to society to hand over their work with no compensation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Do I have to keep repeating myself regarding copyright? Why are patents limited? Copyright is granted by the government as an extension of "the People". If Star Wars was limited copyright would Lucas have not made any money? The reason to limit copyright is to encourage artists to continue to make works. As it is, the reason folks like me are against draconian copyright enforcement (which this case clearly is; she was merely sharing music... not a largescale piracy operation) is because copyright law is so skewed to the artists vs. the public. Copyright is a government protection for 14 years. Your going to tell me you won't get a return of investment into your work in 14 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 You artists have an entitlement mentality. 7-14 years is enough time to profit off of "intellectual property". The copyrights are granted by "the People". Explain how it benefits society that you have 50+ years to profit from your work? Does that really enter into the equation? Again; copyright is for the benefit of society. I can't believe someone said, "In 7-14 years I'll take all of your possessions...". What I really envision is the artist/corporation he sold rights to maintains the right to sell the works; however others can make copy and share. Additionally, commercial use is prohibit. Non-commercial use is allowed. Let me get this straight. *I* have an entitlement mentality were my own work is concerned but you don't, even though you want to use MY work without paying me. Dude. You have lost your freaking mind. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo2365 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 So what's the difference between taping a song off the radio or downloading it? Just the quality really right? I know that no one probably doesn't do this anymore but isn't it the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Copyrights are granted for the benefit of society. I know what the Constitution says. Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power: "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." The point is that there's a difference between an author forbidding future derivative works which adapt and enhance of their work, and downloading music which is theft. Copyright limits were introduced to prevent unreasonable restrictions on development of knowledge in the science and arts, not to prevent some fat ass at home stealing music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Do I have to keep repeating myself regarding copyright? Why are patents limited? Copyright is granted by the government as an extension of "the People". If Star Wars was limited copyright would Lucas have not made any money? The reason to limit copyright is to encourage artists to continue to make works. As it is, the reason folks like me are against draconian copyright enforcement (which this case clearly is; she was merely sharing music... not a largescale piracy operation) is because copyright law is so skewed to the artists vs. the public. Copyright is a government protection for 14 years. Your going to tell me you won't get a return of investment into your work in 14 years? Really how many of the 1,700 songs she downloaded was older than 14 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Why should the output of intellectual property have a time limit?If I spend my time making an object out of no-cost materials (say a sculpture), how long before that object is not mine to sell? Why do producers of intellectual property have any obligation after a certain time to society to hand over their work with no compensation? Because it is not real property. It is "an exclusive right" created and enforced by the government. The Constitution recognizes this form of property "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" Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Mad Mike, True. Who *grants* copyrights? Our government could offer no copyright protection. I'm challenging the general law and idea that "copyrights should go on forever". Is copyright also the "right to profit"? Clearly we are talking past each other. You are saying if copyright was limited to 14 years you would stop creating what you are creating? What if the right to profit was extended; but copyright was allowed for non-commercial use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Do I have to keep repeating myself regarding copyright? Actually, you should stop because you are clearly WRONG!! Copyright is granted by the government as an extension of "the People". .... Copyright is a government protection for 14 years. Your going to tell me you won't get a return of investment into your work in 14 years? No it is not. Per the US Copyright Office: "Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works." (source: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf) Just to make sure you got it, it is protection provided to "the Authors" of the works as defined above. I know you think the laws are 'draconian', but you haven't shown one time why they are, either legally or logically. By the way, Bang, I just sold your last cartoon to a Chineese firm for $20 and a large order of Kung-Pao Chicken. Didn't think you would mind. :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Because it is not real property. It is "an exclusive right" created and enforced by the government. The Constitution recognizes this form of property "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" Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. I know ... I just quoted it. Maybe copyright law shouldn't apply to music, but claiming that someone stealing electronic media has any interest "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.