Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 98

Thread: White House wants new copyright law crackdown

  1. #71
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,078

    Re: White House wants new copyright law crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    I thought Conservatives didn't think he kissed business' asses enough. I'm getting confused by the logical circles being run here.
    The only asses politcians should be kissing is the American citizen's ass.

    Perhaps if you had intellectual property, you'd feel differently. As the holder of a few copyrights for songs I've written, I rather like the idea that I should be paid for it, rather than just allowing anybody to steal it. Of course, it would be nice if somebody thought my songs worthy of stealing, but that's beside the point.
    Steal? Stealing implies that someone took your property and deprived you of it without compensating you for it or without your permission. Someone copying your song is not theft seeing how you still have your song. Its no more theft than me seeing a chair at a store and making an exact copying of it at home.

    Businesses want to think that their property is being protected. If they come up with a great computer program (say a way to search the internet, or have online auctions...), they would like to think they might get financially compensated for it. It's only the whole idea of business in the first place.
    I never said they should not be compensated for it. Is said it shouldn't be a felony or misdemeanor.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: White House wants new copyright law crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Copyrights can be held for the life of the author + 70 years, isn't that a bit much?
    Why? People live longer.



    They don't have to compete with anyone over improvements of the base IP item.
    Yes they do. New music, movies, and software come out all the time.

    No one is downloading bad music, crappy movies, or outdated software.



    MS owns all windows OS programs, no one else change use the source code to it for anything without their permission.
    Even if someone has a vast improvement for it, they can not use the Windows source code.
    Why does that not make sense to you? MS invented it. They invested in years of R&D, product testing, and eventually distribution.

    Build a better mousetrap--if you want to compete. Apple did.

    Windows has an effective monopoly over it.
    That's not a monopoly. That's called owning the rights to your own product.

    Does Honda have a monopoly on Honda engines?




    That's not the same thing, the community does not use your house, bank accounts or anything else of value in commons, technology is developed and used in commons.
    The same goes for entertainment.
    I don't understand what you mean by commons.

    The creative work product is something that you can own and benefit from. That becomes part of person's estate, like car or a house. Or a BUSINESS.

  3. #73
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,078

    Re: White House wants new copyright law crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Let's be real. This is about the White House.

    The Obama White House doing something. Doing anything.

    They far-rights will just find fault in anything he does.

    Look at the first posts in the thread -- they didn't even understand that this is about copyright law be enforced with changes in communications and information technology.
    Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Did Bush do the same thing and ever conservative run to support him while only liberals complained about this?
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #74
    Professor
    Travelsonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 02:40 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,376

    Re: White House wants new copyright law crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Why? People live longer.
    Well, the copyright on one work can, in theory, be in effect for over 120 - 150 years without renewals.

    But even so, copyrights were not supposed to last even half of that length of time.
    Nationalism in high dosages may be hazardous to your health. Please consult a psychiatrist before beginning a regular regimen, and if feelings of elitism and douchbaggery continue, discontinue immediately before you become unable to do so on your own.

  5. #75
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: White House wants new copyright law crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Why? People live longer.
    Because past the life of the author, does not benefit the author, at all.
    He/she is dead, they can no longer benefit from controlling it.


    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Yes they do. New music, movies, and software come out all the time.

    No one is downloading bad music, crappy movies, or outdated software.
    Yes but if you have an improvement on the item, you can't change it without permission.
    That's how technology is advanced, new idea's fixing/improving old ideas.



    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Why does that not make sense to you? MS invented it. They invested in years of R&D, product testing, and eventually distribution.

    Build a better mousetrap--if you want to compete. Apple did.
    Yes but what if someone else can make it even better?

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    That's not a monopoly. That's called owning the rights to your own product.
    It is a monopoly.

    "In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."

    Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Does Honda have a monopoly on Honda engines?
    Yes, they are issued patents, which give them a very limited monopoly over new Honda engines.
    Compared to copyright, patents give incredibly short monopoly rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    I don't understand what you mean by commons.
    Commons, owned in commons is something like a public park or idea's like democracy, which can benefit the public.

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    The creative work product is something that you can own and benefit from. That becomes part of person's estate, like car or a house. Or a BUSINESS.
    I completely disagree, giving control over significant ideas to one person can be incredibly detrimental to the advancement of society and the human race.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #76
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,090

    Re: White House wants new copyright law crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Perception trumps that, people perceive that they are paying for something that they don't get free use for. They will get it one way or another.
    People? What people? Have you ever seen an ad for a cable provider? They start with "Using X you'll get ACCESS to more programming". Here is one:

    Comcast to Offer Fans More Access to NHL Network Programming

    Comcast to Offer Fans More Access to NHL Network Programming

    New Digital Agreement Will Make NHL Network Available to Millions More Comcast Customers

    On Demand Programming to Include Condensed Games, Player Profiles, Historic Games and More
    As I have said many times, the overwhelming majority of people who are against copyright laws are incredibly ignorant of media itself. They don't produce anything of real value so it's no skin off their backs if artists go unpaid.

    No it wouldn't because no one would buy it.
    Gotcha. That's why people pay FOR the network and NOT the actual programs on it. Who wants to pay $5 to watch an episode of Grey's Anatomy or the latest Star Trek episode? Think about it this way, advertisement on mediocre shows usually costs somewhere on the upper end of $100K. The fact that networks charge advertisers so much allows them to offset the costs that they'd have to charge you if they actually made you pay for programs.

    Made a correction, it's not $30K but $100K.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 03-20-11 at 05:18 PM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #77
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: White House wants new copyright law crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    People? What people? Have you ever seen an ad for a cable provider? They start with "Using X you'll get ACCESS to more programming". Here is one:

    Comcast to Offer Fans More Access to NHL Network Programming
    Doesn't make any difference, perception of reality trumps what you want it to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    As I have said many times, the overwhelming majority of people who are against copyright laws are incredibly ignorant of media itself. They don't produce anything of real value so it's no skin off their backs if artists go unpaid.
    That's not true, again with your sweeping generalizations and veiled personal attacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Gotcha. That's why people pay FOR the network and NOT the actual programs on it. Who wants to pay $5 to watch an episode of Grey's Anatomy or the latest Star Trek episode? Think about it this way, advertisement on mediocre shows usually costs somewhere on the upper end of $30K. The fact that networks charge advertisers so much allows them to offset the costs that they'd have to charge you if they actually made you pay for programs.
    Few would pay that much per show, which is telling about the real value of these shows.
    Your IP isn't worth as much as you think it is.

    You're only using government to prop up your monopoly, which is faltering as technology undoes your attempt to control economics.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: White House wants new copyright law crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Did Bush do the same thing and ever conservative run to support him while only liberals complained about this?
    I was referring specifically to your OP. And the first posts from other fringe-right folks.

    You were trying to spin it into a free speech, anti-obama issue.

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: White House wants new copyright law crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Because past the life of the author, does not benefit the author, at all.
    He/she is dead, they can no longer benefit from controlling it.
    But the profits of his business (his art) go to his estate. Why do you keep trying to separate art and business?




    Yes but if you have an improvement on the item, you can't change it without permission.
    That's how technology is advanced, new idea's fixing/improving old ideas.
    You can certainly invent your own operating system. Nobody owns the rights to 0s and 1s.

    But you can't take something someone else invented and change a few things then sell it as your own.





    Yes but what if someone else can make it even better?
    You can modify your car engine. But you can't duplicate that engine and sell it as your own without permission of the original inventor.



    It is a monopoly.

    "In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."

    Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Really, so there is only one creator of movies in the world.

    One single creator of music and software.

    Yes, MS owns and controls the rights to Windows.

    But you can still write your own operation system and sell it.



    Yes, they are issued patents, which give them a very limited monopoly over new Honda engines.
    Compared to copyright, patents give incredibly short monopoly rights.
    You continue to misuse the term 'monopoly'.

    Patents and copyrights are not monopolies. I own copyrighted material. My brother-in-law owes over 20 software patents. We hardly control a monopoly.



    Commons, owned in commons is something like a public park or idea's like democracy, which can benefit the public.
    A movie is not a public park.

    Software created for profit is a business commodity.

    If Metallica wants to perform a free concert, that's their choice. But they have the right to charge for people to record that concert and use the recording for profit.





    I completely disagree, giving control over significant ideas to one person can be incredibly detrimental to the advancement of society and the human race.
    Really, so taking away the profit motive will help?
    Last edited by hazlnut; 03-20-11 at 05:34 PM.

  10. #80
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: White House wants new copyright law crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by Travelsonic View Post
    Incorrect - streaming copyright ed content without PERMISSION TO DO SO [outside of using bits and pieces in accordance to fair use] is infringement
    Fair use is more broad than that.

    For example, if I streamed music to a small group of friends that would probably be considered protected by fair use. However, If i streamed music that anyone could get to then it wouldn't be.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •