(01-26-2012, 09:49 AM)abu nuwas Wrote: We live in an age where information is all. The Law relating to Intellectual Property is there to protect that information. If an American scientist works out how to make a plane, or ship, invisible, that information has value, and belongs to him, or his employers. It does not belong to, say, the Chinese, who have been practising wholesale industrial espionage on your country for such commercial secrets. The fact that the US can still build stealth aircaft, does not mean that they have not lost something, and that something has been stolen. I see no difference.not really, secrecy is there to protect such stuff, countries do not put such items on the internet, they are kept in closed filing systems and not shown to the whole of the internet, yes of course stealing this stuff is espionage and theft. if i go into your email and take a file, i would be stealing it. if on the other hand you'd made a record 5 years ago and it was on the net. i'd copy it. money for artists is often derived from concerts and royalties paid by radio stations. the main money, almost all of it, from cd goes to the record companies, it's why they have so much power politically.
if i by a pack of sweets, i don't pay royalty i don't break copyright law when i share or give one away even though they're copyrighted (the recipe) if however i buy a children's book i am under current copyright laws breaking the law if i allow my child to read it. the think with copyright law as it stands is the fact it's so long and can be renewed. in all things except music book and film and art, if i buy something and sell it i'm not breaking copyright law. even if i sell it at a profit. it belongs to me. if i buy a book in theory i can't allow anyone to read it. if i take a picture of a degas in a museum i'm breaking the law because they now the painting. why should a person be continually paid cash for something? if a copyright runs out i am allowed to print said book and sell it, my version has a 70 year copyright...is that right? Disney uses mainly classical music in it's films, changes a few notes and then claims copyright on the music. ther are limits and there are limits. basically copyright law states this, if you write a page of your poetry and place it on a bill board, no one can look at it because under copyright law i can't read it unless the copyright holder says i can.
there was a court case where people were taken to court for listening to a record being played by someone else. the same with a video. i'm quite happy that people earn money on there creative creations, but lets have some sensible laws. rowlings and her family will within 70 years have earned billions from her 6 or so books. so will the movie makers so will the dvd sales. the theme parks. you only have to go back a few centuries to see that copyright is a fairly modern invention. everything yo use today around your home in your car everything has been derived from another persons creations, yet do we offer royalties to everyone involved. no the only one to get royalties are the ones who own the current copyright. do we think nissan created the car, or gmc or ford? no they all stole ideas, in truth they something and thought hey i can improve on that, they reinvented it but wait, if you only a small percent of someones idea or picture or text you're still breaking copyright laws. the process which gives you paper on which you read, stolen or copied. the pc, stolen or copied. ink, stolen of copied. pen, stolen or copied. it's all by your standard (and i mean no disrespect) been stolen but never mind, let's make text, pictures, music inviolate.
the only reason we have such a copyright law is not for us the man in the street. it for the media mogals, so they can take a person to court and get 25 000 dollars from some poor mum who downloaded a song. one final point, all and i mean all government documents belong to the people and as such cannot be copyrighted. good isn't it. it's why they have the official secrets act, and why they only show things after a thirty year wait in the uk. the usa have a secrecy act as well, signed by millions of employees. but gob docs do not fall under copyright, how can they they belong to us
Quote:"File-sharing" seems to cover the legitimate, where you might share something you had created, or to which you had a right, and the illegitimate, where I perhaps, obtain a song by buying it, and then, with no right to the copyright, share with limitless numbers of people. I do not see why an artist should be forced to traipse around, just because others are too mean to buy what he has created. Then again, it's mighty handy....if you share wit you brother it's illegal
to share something you have a copyright too, you should use a creative commons licence, if you don't and you fall out with a friend you can sue them for copyright theft. it should be used on the net but we don't use it, wiki does. but most don't.
mainly copyright theft affects the media because they have out of date business models.
lets look at itunes, a pound a tune and you don't even get a hard copy hehe. buying books from amazon dot com that you can't hold. and the list is pretty big.
if we're stealing so much profit from these people why are their profits soaring.
the film industry has priced vid shops out of the market. they now sell the film on the net for 5 dollars etc. you get to keep it for viewing for a month.
they need to a better business model.
seldom do poets or even authors lose money from the net copies, most wouldn't buy the stuff anyway. but think of this. it gets them noticed, it's why a lot of indy music is put on file sharing sites for free, people who like their music visit their sites and then but a t shirt (it makes em more cash)
i remember a science fiction book by an Australian author offering a free download., he had 6 more books that people then bought, i bought two of them and lost the buggers. people who put their names to the work of others, now that i think is out and out theft jmo