Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aklyon]

Oh hey, More news.

Within hours of making comments to UK media during a press conference, major US rightsholders attempted to brand Google as an arrogant, out-of-control company bent on ruining American creativity and thinking itself above US law.

The pot is calling the kettle black, it seems.

[Fayrik]

Of course Google would fight against a law like this.
It would virtually degrade Youtube into a site fit only for uploading home videos of the grandkids. Oh. And you can kiss goodbye to that parody idea you had going there too. Because that'll be covered, no doubt.

Intellectual property is a scam.

As a dabbling musician and possibly even writer, I have to say the current laws to protect IP are terrible. And as thus, I'm inclined to agree.

Lets put it like this. If I published a song online, (which now is pretty easy to do) and someone comes along and start pirating it. I could lose anything from 1% of sales right up to 100% of sales. It wouldn't matter; these laws would do nothing to stop my work from being passed around unsold. And I would be powerless to take action.
Someone buys a SonyBGM CD, and so much as copies a song onto their hard-drive and Sony already have the grounds means and funding to sue for damages.
Why? Because SonyBGM has money. Because SonyBGM is a large corporation who can pay to enforce this law.
Now, perhaps I'm missing the point of capitalism, and feel free to correct me if I am. I thought laws where there to protect everyone equally. Not just the rich few.
</rant over>

[Phmcw]

Intellectual property is a scam.

Why?

A lot of reason. It has been created recently in response of file sharing.( We are speaking here about ownership of an idea or a set of data, not about copyright.) The very idea of intellectual property is unacceptable, and actually have no roots in legal right.

You have to understand that an idea have no similarities with an object. In term of reproduction, diffusion, ... and never had the same legal status. The use of the term "intellectual property" is used to confuse you, to trick you into thinking that the same laws apply, which has never be the case, and it never SHOULD be the case. Now as a fellow citizen of a democratic country, let me try to convince you of the danger of the movement promoting "intellectual ownership".

First let's think a bit about the necessities of ownership in the material world. The first property of an object that come to mind, is that when someone take it, you don't have it anymore. The second one is that when it is used, it usually degrade in quality. And the last one, is that it have a physical existence.

An idea, or a set of data, is nothing like that. It is only logical that the laws must be adapted. Speaking of ownership of a set of data is therefore a bad idea.

Now what should be the laws? Well let's speak about music. A tune is worth... nothing. It's just a tune. By itself it give you no reason to pay for it. Now a cd, THAT is definitely worth something. And it's only justice that if you sell a cd, the artist get someting, right? Well most of the time it's not a lot. Something between 1% and 5%, but that's something. Now there has been a numerical revolution, the cost of data diminished dramatically. What should we do? NOTHING
Did we forbid printing machine when Gutenberg improved it because it destroyed the price of books? Did we stop the industrial revolution because artisans lost their jobs? No.
The CD technology is obsolete, and the artist no longer needs records company to distribute their work. Will they loose money? Probably not (and the figure shows that no, they don't loose money to file sharing). But even if they do, that's progress. And no, I won't allow that we have to pay the police to enforce a meaningless and useless control over the Internet. Tax the connection or the storage if you must JUST LIKE YOU ALREADY DO, but cut the crap, there is no way to control Internet without destroying it and no reason to do it. If something cost nothing, it worth nothing.Subsidize it if it's important.

[Bauglir]

You will understand why IP laws are a valid concept when you understand why sales clerks ought to get paychecks, even though they aren't providing you with goods (since it's the store that is doing that).

EDIT: This particular implementation of the concept is ridiculously bad, though. Don't get me wrong on that.

[Phmcw]

You will understand why IP laws are a valid concept when you understand why sales clerks ought to get paychecks, even though they aren't providing you with goods (since it's the store that is doing that).

EDIT: This particular implementation of the concept is ridiculously bad, though. Don't get me wrong on that.

Not exactly, my rejection of the aggregation of the laws on rights over intangible items under the name of "intellectual ownership" is that it aim at giving the rights holders the same right than the owner of physical items, which is an incredibly bad thing.

I'm not against the idea of giving some rights to poeples who develop intangibles items, such has the right to get a share if the object is sold on a support.

[Criptfeind]

Riiiiiight I find your views naive and filled with entitlement.

The biggest thing about owning something is that you get use from it.

When you invent a car you get use from it. This use come in the form of money when you sell the cars that you make to others.

How is taking the music people make any different from stealing cars off of the assembly line? The company does not want the cars. They want the money. And now they do not have it. Same for the music industry.

[Phmcw]

Riiiiiight I find your views naive and filled with entitlement.

The biggest thing about owning something is that you get use from it.

When you invent a car you get use from it. This use come in the form of money when you sell the cars that you make to others.

How is taking the music people make any different from stealing cars off of the assembly line? The company does not want the cars. They want the money. And now they do not have it. Same for the music industry.

Why the hell should I care, I didn't steal their cd on the assembly line. What you are saying is that you want so spy on everyone in order to make sure they doesn't walk to work because that would impact the sale of cars.
Or to make sure I don't lend my car to someone. Or something.

Your views are naives, a car is not a song. They deserves different laws.

[Criptfeind]

Hah hah no. I would spy on everyone to make sure they do not walk away with a car under their coat.

[Phmcw]

Hah hah no. I would spy on everyone to make sure they do not walk away with a car under their coat.

We don't take the cd, we just duplicate it. You can't duplicate a car, therefore your comparison have no value.

[Bauglir]

Spoiler: Actually a Pretty Dumb Post (click to show/hide)

Riiiiiight I find your views naive and filled with entitlement.

The biggest thing about owning something is that you get use from it.

When you invent a car you get use from it. This use come in the form of money when you sell the cars that you make to others.

How is taking the music people make any different from stealing cars off of the assembly line? The company does not want the cars. They want the money. And now they do not have it. Same for the music industry.

Why the hell should I care, I didn't steal their cd on the assembly line. What you are saying is that you want so spy on everyone in order to make sure they doesn't walk to work because that would impact the sale of cars.
Or to make sure I don't lend my car to someone. Or something.

Your views are naives, a car is not a song. They deserves different laws.

They do have different laws. You can legally sell somebody your car. You cannot sell somebody the music CD you bought. (I think this is pretty silly, and would be just fine with the laws on intellectual property being similar to those on physical property: pay money, get a thing, do whatever you want with said thing, subject to unrelated laws about not killing people and stuff)

[Phmcw]

They do have different laws. You can legally sell somebody your car. You cannot sell somebody the music CD you bought. (I think this is pretty silly, and would be just fine with the laws on intellectual property being similar to those on physical property: pay money, get a thing, do whatever you want with said thing, subject to unrelated laws about not killing people and stuff)

Nope, you don't understand : you cannot sell it because the property of what is on the CD still isn't yours. If you buy the rights on the album, you can sell them, just like an object.

[Starver]

Full Title: ‘Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011′, also known as S.968.

Thoughts?

I would use the "Contrived Rubrics Involving Magniloquently Inscribed Nonsensical Acronymic Labels" Act to prevent it going through, on the grounds that someone spent time in working out what name it should be called, probably at the expense of working out whether it should even be put forward in the first place.

But it's in a different country from me, so I have no say in the legal system involved.  (Even though I could quite probably be affected by its laws!)

[Bauglir]

They do have different laws. You can legally sell somebody your car. You cannot sell somebody the music CD you bought. (I think this is pretty silly, and would be just fine with the laws on intellectual property being similar to those on physical property: pay money, get a thing, do whatever you want with said thing, subject to unrelated laws about not killing people and stuff)

Nope, you don't understand : you cannot sell it because the property of what is on the CD still isn't yours. If you buy the rights on the album, you can sell them, just like an object.

You're right, I was oversimplifying. Consider the post withdrawn!

[inteuniso]

The PROTECT IP Act is expected to be officially introduced in the coming weeks, and more details will be released at the time. Sources close to the U.S Government say the bill has already gathered a lot of support among legislators, which is a worrying message for the relatively free-Internet as its known today.

Shit....

Well, as soon as I can vote, I will make sure I will do as much as I can to make sure those legislators are voted out of office.

[Criptfeind]

Hah hah no. I would spy on everyone to make sure they do not walk away with a car under their coat.

We don't take the cd, we just duplicate it. You can't duplicate a car, therefore your comparison have no value.

The point is not the car. It is the money. You are not giving them the money, thus it has the same impact to them as stealing a car.