01-29-2012, 12:53 AM
is it that we put a price on culture?
as for changing a public domain work (book) just adding the publisher to it is enough. if you copy it and they sue, you will lose and the courts will see it as copyright theft. the same as the mona lisa with a moustache becomes a copyright work. this is fact. if you take a picture of the iffel tower at night you break copy right laws, they have sued and they have won court cases.
they won because they said the light lay out on the tower is a creative endeavour. the trouble i have with copyright laws on ideas is that you probably just got the idea from someone elses work. the poem, the book, the song, mostly variations on a theme. i find it hard to understand how language or words are not copyrightable yet a line of words are. as far books are concerned or art, most people who download them would never buy the e book or the paper book. i can put some gibberish music up thats total shite, give a decent title, like "bang yer puss" and id prob get a million download, i'd prob also get a million people thing "what utter shite" the music industry would sue those people if they could for $25000 a pop.
i was at a party last night with a manger of a pop group called "the twelve bullets" after a discussion he said, "we're putting up a website to sell merchendise, cd's, tshirt, mugs etc after seeing what kind of contracts they were offered we're thinking of going the pirate route, put an odd single up to draw them to the site and use a donate button for downloads, it's a meme that's being used more and more" (all his words)
i have no objection to an author/poet making a living from writing by selling his/her works but for seventy years? oh look i have a creation and for 70 years after i die people have to pay whoever owns the rights. people don't or shouldn't have the right to own culture for 70 years after the creator dies. and even be able to renew it after that period. personally that what i see as being the crime. one more serious than someone downloading a sylivia plath poem. or a beatles record.
it isn't done for personal gain in the strictest sense, it's done on the conglomerate name so big business can own the culture of the world. just look who ons the Beatles song books, the stones song book, jacksons song book. they get traded like commodities sold for 100's of millions. i listened to most of them as a child growing through adolescence into adult hood, payed to see many at concerts and i'm then told i can't download a beatles song? sorry but i find it morally reprehensible.
on tv now i see ads for loans with apr of 1760% when i was 20 the gov said only a certain amount of interest could be charged, credit cards are capped but now it seem you can charge astronomical rate on a loan. the same is said of media, they want to charge us an astronomic amount, or should i say they want to make an astronomic amount. it's no better than legal thievary. the copyright laws need changing. to break an unjust law is not a crime. piracy (not the high sea sort) will make the laws be altered in line with a reasonable copyright meme. it is in my opinion those who steadfastly seek to hold the reigns of culture for a life time and 70 years that act criminally. jmo
as for changing a public domain work (book) just adding the publisher to it is enough. if you copy it and they sue, you will lose and the courts will see it as copyright theft. the same as the mona lisa with a moustache becomes a copyright work. this is fact. if you take a picture of the iffel tower at night you break copy right laws, they have sued and they have won court cases.
they won because they said the light lay out on the tower is a creative endeavour. the trouble i have with copyright laws on ideas is that you probably just got the idea from someone elses work. the poem, the book, the song, mostly variations on a theme. i find it hard to understand how language or words are not copyrightable yet a line of words are. as far books are concerned or art, most people who download them would never buy the e book or the paper book. i can put some gibberish music up thats total shite, give a decent title, like "bang yer puss" and id prob get a million download, i'd prob also get a million people thing "what utter shite" the music industry would sue those people if they could for $25000 a pop.
i was at a party last night with a manger of a pop group called "the twelve bullets" after a discussion he said, "we're putting up a website to sell merchendise, cd's, tshirt, mugs etc after seeing what kind of contracts they were offered we're thinking of going the pirate route, put an odd single up to draw them to the site and use a donate button for downloads, it's a meme that's being used more and more" (all his words)
i have no objection to an author/poet making a living from writing by selling his/her works but for seventy years? oh look i have a creation and for 70 years after i die people have to pay whoever owns the rights. people don't or shouldn't have the right to own culture for 70 years after the creator dies. and even be able to renew it after that period. personally that what i see as being the crime. one more serious than someone downloading a sylivia plath poem. or a beatles record.
it isn't done for personal gain in the strictest sense, it's done on the conglomerate name so big business can own the culture of the world. just look who ons the Beatles song books, the stones song book, jacksons song book. they get traded like commodities sold for 100's of millions. i listened to most of them as a child growing through adolescence into adult hood, payed to see many at concerts and i'm then told i can't download a beatles song? sorry but i find it morally reprehensible.
on tv now i see ads for loans with apr of 1760% when i was 20 the gov said only a certain amount of interest could be charged, credit cards are capped but now it seem you can charge astronomical rate on a loan. the same is said of media, they want to charge us an astronomic amount, or should i say they want to make an astronomic amount. it's no better than legal thievary. the copyright laws need changing. to break an unjust law is not a crime. piracy (not the high sea sort) will make the laws be altered in line with a reasonable copyright meme. it is in my opinion those who steadfastly seek to hold the reigns of culture for a life time and 70 years that act criminally. jmo