• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House wants new copyright law crackdown

Your inability to simply run around and not present any real arguments is all I need. You and other attackers of copyright laws are nothing more than defenders of what in any other context would be considered thievery. Nothing more than little whiny simpletons who don't produce anything but want to get the work of others for free.

So your sweeping generalizations and making stuff up that people didn't say, qualifies as a successful argument?
 
If IP were a physical product you'd be right but I really really don't feel like getting into semantics at the moment.

Laws catching up with technology. IP is the work product of creative professionals. It is a product with value. Like a car or a television. It can be stolen.

The facts are that IP length of ownership has been increasing to perposturous levels in the last 100 years.

Be more specific. What changes do you have a problem with and why?

Dead people shouldn't be able to own stuff and neither should corporations be able to retain monopolies for 90 years or more, by legal fiat no less.

Why not?

I don't like that Yoko controls the rights to Beatles music, but that was the creator's wish.

It doesn't have to be this way.

The written law enables law enforcement to act. And the law needs to consider changes in technology.

Like I said earlier, there's really no way to stop bit torrents. But you can impede and discourage.
 
So your sweeping generalizations and making stuff up that people didn't say, qualifies as a successful argument?

Travelsonic said:
Ah, but copyright is not a "right to profit" - it is about control. You get control over a work for a limited time to do with it as you please, then it goes to the public. In of itself, being able to profit is not what copyright is about, nor was it meant to have the amount of control over other people's technologies, and works that it does now.
Of course the fact that literal stealing doesn't factor into it is besides the point.

The problem is not the song writer, the movie maker or software maker. They should get compensated and their wares should be able to be distributed world wide.

The problem is, that the present laws are counter productive to you as a copyright "maker". Now with the Internet, you as a song writer can publish your songs online for free download or minimal payment. However if you went through one of the big music companies, chances are they not only will hike the price, but also limit access to certain markets and especially limit access online.

It gets even worse for movies and tv shows. Tv production companies could earn a nice fee for selling or renting out their tv shows on the net to people outside the US.. but they dont.. copy write laws forbid it. So people are forced to steal the content because the copy write laws prevent timely distribution.

My point is.. we live in a very connected world where the old time borders and language barriers have all but disappeared, but big business still live in the past and have for the last 20+ years refused to change and only done it kicking and screaming.

Too true. Around here there are even a lot of so-called libertarians who support IP with the same enthusiasm.

It is so refreshing to hear somebody else acknowledge copyrights and patents are a form of corporate welfare.

C'mon Harry. We've had this conversation before. You're in clear support of being able to take **** from people simply because you don't feel like paying for it. To deceive yourself with semantics is an exercise in redundancy.
 
Your inability to simply run around and not present any real arguments is all I need.

Ironic, since you're the one creating things that weren't said, attacking people on arguments, points of view never presented.

You and other attackers of copyright laws are nothing more than defenders of what in any other context would be considered thievery.

[citation needed]

Like I said earlier, there's really no way to stop bit torrents. But you can impede and discourage.

Technically speaking, it would be better to impede certain uses of a technology than the technology all together - torrenting is just a medium for distributing data - like P2P, FTP, and HTTP.
 
Last edited:
Laws catching up with technology. IP is the work product of creative professionals. It is a product with value. Like a car or a television. It can be stolen.

The most closely related legal equivalent is infringement.

Be more specific. What changes do you have a problem with and why?

Technology is changing faster, yet we keep extending length of ownership of copyright.
Doesn't make any sense.
To me, it's a form of corporate welfare.

In every other aspect people will decry monopolies but suddenly with IP, it's acceptable.
Why?

Why not?

I don't like that Yoko controls the rights to Beatles music, but that was the creator's wish.

Because it's not for the benefit of the creator, the explicit reason why extensions have been made.

The written law enables law enforcement to act. And the law needs to consider changes in technology.

Like I said earlier, there's really no way to stop bit torrents. But you can impede and discourage.

A lot like the war on drugs, counter productive.
 
C'mon Harry. We've had this conversation before. You're in clear support of being able to take **** from people simply because you don't feel like paying for it. To deceive yourself with semantics is an exercise in redundancy.

Me taking stuff without paying for it is a merely a punishment, the abusive relationship of IP holders and government.
But I do pay for things related to IP.

I like a TV show, that I pay for through my subscription to cable but because of my work hours, can not watch it when aired.
It's not on hulu, nor is it available on demand.

They left me no choice but to "infringe" on their copyright, to watch it.
 
Ironic, since you're the one creating things that weren't said, attacking people on arguments, points of view never presented.

Ah, but copyright is not a "right to profit" - it is about control. You get control over a work for a limited time to do with it as you please, then it goes to the public. In of itself, being able to profit is not what copyright is about, nor was it meant to have the amount of control over other people's technologies, and works that it does now.

[citation needed]

[citation needed]

[oh, and reported your posts for your blatant baiting and flaming, arrogant twit.]

Yawn, here, I'll ask you a simple question since you're obviously unable to defend yourself for being called out for what you are (that being a simpleton who doesn't produce anything) how many successful artists out there exist without the help of major record industries?
 
Last edited:
The very basis of this issue comes from technology making the previous notions of copyright obsolete. The theory was always about selling unofficial versions, like mass producing a book to sell it without compensating the author. Internet piracy does not do this. In filesharing, no money changes hands. It's not that there should not be rules to govern filesharing, but to force it into an economic model based on selling goods... it is inappropriate. Filesharing should be treated the same as physically handing a book to a friend.

Copyright, as a concept, is becoming obsolete and only works if we impose an artificial scarcity on things that are not actually scarce. There is no physical scarcity to these items. Information wants to be free. Ideas function like a virus. It is futile and vain to try and stop this. Especially since it is only for the benefit of a few fatcats who takes all of the profits from these industries. Actual artists, musicians, actors, writers, and other creative people don't benefit from this scarcity. As always, businessmen whose only talent is shuffling money around reap all the rewards, and we bear the burden.
 
Me taking stuff without paying for it is a merely a punishment, the abusive relationship of IP holders and government.
But I do pay for things related to IP.

I like a TV show, that I pay for through my subscription to cable but because of my work hours, can not watch it when aired.
It's not on hulu, nor is it available on demand.

They left me no choice but to "infringe" on their copyright, to watch it.

Oh I get it. If it's not on when you want it to be on you couldn't wait for a rerun. You also haven't heard of DVRs. You just provided the perfect excuse for robbing liquor stores when they're not open. "Sorry officer, it wasn't open and I really wanted to get drunk. The store left me no choice but to break in and take it."
 
The most closely related legal equivalent is infringement.



Technology is changing faster, yet we keep extending length of ownership of copyright.
Doesn't make any sense.

Why not?

Be more specific. Give me examples of specific copyrights being wrongfully extended.

To me, it's a form of corporate welfare.

I'll need specifics to agree or disagree if corps are getting something for free.

In every other aspect people will decry monopolies but suddenly with IP, it's acceptable.
Why?

Which single company owns the monopoly on IP (intellectual property)?

That's what a monopoly is, right?



Because it's not for the benefit of the creator, the explicit reason why extensions have been made.

Then all inheritance should be taxed at 100%. Once your husband dies, you lose your house, your bank accounts and anything of value that he provided.



A lot like the war on drugs, counter productive.

Sometimes. I would say not properly executed.
 
Oh I get it. If it's not on when you want it to be on you couldn't wait for a rerun. You also haven't heard of DVRs. You just provided the perfect excuse for robbing liquor stores when they're not open. "Sorry officer, it wasn't open and I really wanted to get drunk. The store left me no choice but to break in and take it."

I don't have a DVR and I do have an internet connection and a web site to get the program, I already paid for.

See I already paid for it through my subscription service, so I'll watch it however I please.
Not even comparable to robbing a liquor store.
 
I don't have a DVR and I do have an internet connection and a web site to get the program, I already paid for.

You don't pay for programs. You pay to get the channels the program is on. It's the difference between paying for internet and paying to get the services that NYT provides to its readers with subscriptions. Paying for internet doesn't mean you get the rights to access to everything on the internet. It just means you get access to it. Paying directly for programming is what PPV is where you're actually paying for the programming.

You're not paying for a program, you're paying for having access to the channel the program is on. Please learn the difference. It's quite significant.
 
Last edited:
Be more specific. Give me examples of specific copyrights being wrongfully extended.

Copyrights can be held for the life of the author + 70 years, isn't that a bit much?

I'll need specifics to agree or disagree if corps are getting something for free.

They don't have to compete with anyone over improvements of the base IP item.

Which single company owns the monopoly on IP (intellectual property)?

That's what a monopoly is, right?

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.
Windows has an effective monopoly over it.


Then all inheritance should be taxed at 100%. Once your husband dies, you lose your house, your bank accounts and anything of value that he provided.

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.
 
You don't pay for programs. You pay to get the channels the program is on. It's the difference between paying for internet and paying to get the services that NYT provides to its readers with subscriptions. Paying for internet doesn't mean you get the rights to access to everything on the internet. It just means you get access to it. Paying directly for programming is what PPV is where you're actually paying for the programming.

You're not paying for a program, you're paying for having access to the channel the program is on. Please learn the difference. It's quite significant.

No I do pay for the programs, else the revenue that the channels receive would not go to the creators of the programs.

To use your liquor store comparison, it's like me going to a liquor store buy a bottle of gin, but can't drink anywhere else besides the liquor store, else the maker will sue me.
It's nonsense.
 
Be more specific. What changes do you have a problem with and why?

Well, the lengthening is driven by corporations in a way where it applies not just to the works they control, but to everything, IIRC some of it retroactively too meaning things that should have gone into public domain by now won't, can't.


Copyrights can be held for the life of the author + 70 years, isn't that a bit much?
No.

3456789

Why not? Copyright on a work was meant to be for a limited time, not for 70 - 150+ years.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a DVR and I do have an internet connection and a web site to get the program, I already paid for.

See I already paid for it through my subscription service, so I'll watch it however I please.
Not even comparable to robbing a liquor store.

False analogy.

A more correct analogy would be making a digital copy of a program you recorded. They allowing 1000 people to have that copy for free.

Or putting that digital copy on a DVD and selling 100 copies at a flee market.

No, you didn't use a gun. But you did commit a crime that involved stealing.
 
No I do pay for the programs,

No, you really don't. You pay for access to programing. Networks pay for the programs and the rights to broadcast them. You pay for access to those networks.

else the revenue that the channels receive would not go to the creators of the programs. To use your liquor store comparison, it's like me going to a liquor store buy a bottle of gin, but can't drink anywhere else besides the liquor store, else the maker will sue me. It's nonsense.

No. The only nonsense here is your ridiculous assertion that you're paying for something other than access to the programming. If network companies actually made you pay per 'program' even basic cable would cost far more than $40-$50 a month. Seriously, take a course in media studies.

You'll sound like you have a clue as to what it is you're talking about. You think that because you pay for X you get to do Y when X and Y are completely unrelated. You don't pay for a program. If you did, then there wouldn't be much of a point to actually having scheduled programing.
 
Last edited:
No, you really don't. You pay for access to programing. Networks pay for the programs and the rights to broadcast them. You pay for access to those networks. Seriously, take a course in media studies. You'll sound like you have a clue as to what it is you're talking about.

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.

No. The only nonsense here is your ridiculous assertion that you're paying for something other than access to the programming. If network companies actually made you pay per 'program' even basic cable would cost far more than $40-$50 a month.

No it wouldn't because no one would buy it.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.


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.



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?

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

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.

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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom