RIAA is after Kazaa users big time now

Who decides that they're "profiteering"? You!!

There's nothing wrong with profiting from creating something new. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But arguing that it's OK to steal it because YOU think the creator (or the current copyright owner) is making too much money is ludicrous.

BTW, design patents last up to 14 years and utility and plant patents up to 20 years. But unlike copyrighted material, there is a common good issue involving patents where law makers wanted to eventually allow potentially fundamental concepts to make its way into the public domain to facilitate ongoing innovation. No such argument for copyrights.
 
Quote from ArchAngel:

Copyright owners are permitted to license the use of their products and works in pretty much any manner they want.

Expired copyrights are an unlikely scenario - copyrights on works after 1978 last for the life of the artist PLUS 70 years. For works prior to 1978 they last 95 years - and could be extended further if the copyright owner reissues the work in a new format.

exactly - that's one of the points of contention - is it a sale of a copy of a work, or is it a license? sure the media companies lobby for the latter, but it's not as obvious to the consumer - what if barnes & noble tried to regulate where and when you could read a book you bought? that's exactly what they are doing with geographically-restricted media.

as for expired copyrights - not that unlikely - think along the lines of the early disney movies and characters, some of which, iirc, would have already expired if not for the bono term extension act.
 
Quote from ArchAngel:

But unlike copyrighted material, there is a common good issue involving patents where law makers wanted to eventually allow potentially fundamental concepts to make its way into the public domain to facilitate ongoing innovation. No such argument for copyrights.

that is not the case - the Constitution is the basis for both copyrights and patents - the goal was to reward innovation by granting monopolies, but limited in duration due to their potential for harm and abuse. both are restricted by the "limited times" clause, for what little that seems to be worth to the modern Congress.

From Article I, Sec. 8: To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
 
Quote from ArchAngel:

Who decides that they're "profiteering"? You!!

There's nothing wrong with profiting from creating something new. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But arguing that it's OK to steal it because YOU think the creator (or the current copyright owner) is making too much money is ludicrous.

BTW, design patents last up to 14 years and utility and plant patents up to 20 years. But unlike copyrighted material, there is a common good issue involving patents where law makers wanted to eventually allow potentially fundamental concepts to make its way into the public domain to facilitate ongoing innovation. No such argument for copyrights.


SOMEONE decided forver is fair.
Well then lets just make it an eternity and be done with it! Copyrites are FOREVER. Why not? Essentailly thats what we have here now.
 
Quote from FasterPussycat:



LIFE + 70!! This seems a bit excessive to me, doesnt it? LIFE + 70,, give me abreak! They get to stick it to you forever essentially, total BS. that Stinks. I say FREAK EM, Rip them off B4 they rip YOU off! stick it to em first! :mad:

Why are there lwas for five,six, seven, etc. - life sentences in the U.S.A. ?


ttrader
 
Has the RIAA overstepped? Will their scorched earth policy end up creating a viable alternative distribution channel for independent music? Can groups become viable without the support of a record label?
 
Quote from FasterPussycat:




WHAAAAAA???????

You ARE drunk! :p

Hey, bring me another Bud will ya?

... boy, please shut this silly smiley icon off, will ya, ... please !



ttrader
 
Back
Top