StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darth Wong wrote:Show how any of those distinctions invalidate the analogy for the purpose of refuting your logic, moron.

I hate the way imbeciles always respond to an analogy by pointing out that it is not 100% identical.

My whole fucking point is that songs and such works of art are not the same as manual labour or contracted design work. Although you could commission or hire them (and some people do, like film makers), I don't see why all musicians should be paid that way. Why should they? Would the engineer that built a bridge in his own backyard be wrong in charging people for walking across it? For his analogies to hold there must exist a premise that says that all types work should be paid for in the exact same manner, but this already not the case; the designer of the bridge could be paid in advance, while the construction workers have salaries. If they decide to build and finance their own bridge (own the land, etc.), as musicians do with their music, they could decide to let people pay a toll to drive across it. In fact, some recent tunnel projects are already financed like that, I think (though it's the state that's collecting the tolls, obviously).

General Zod wrote:Why the fuck not? What difference does it make if someone gives a copy to a few or a lot of people as long as they're not profiting from it? If someone really wanted to all they'd have to do is take the original song, remix enough of it and viola. Their remix is protected under copyright laws too, and the original artist couldn't do shit.

For one thing, I'd expect those that did pay for their copy wouldn't like it very much if they could have just gone to you to get a one for free. They'll be the ones that finance the music that all the others like to listen to, which isn't exactly fair, and ultimately unsustainable. If you give it to a few, the effect is insignificant.

Dooey Jo wrote: For one thing, I'd expect those that did pay for their copy wouldn't like it very much if they could have just gone to you to get a one for free. They'll be the ones that finance the music that all the others like to listen to, which isn't exactly fair, and ultimately unsustainable. If you give it to a few, the effect is insignificant.

Then I expect you actually have numbers to show at what point it starts becoming significant?

Sending the artist a couple of pence would net them more than buying the CD.

Honestly, all this bullshit about paying for the album/song is fucking nonsense, sure argue all you want about manual vs mental labour (a bullshit tangent itself) but at the end of the day they're really not getting fuck all for their mental labour. Once you give the shop, distributor, marketing, label and so on people their cut...all of which are out of a fucking job in a digital copying model...then you're down to almost fuck all...

Dooey Jo wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Show how any of those distinctions invalidate the analogy for the purpose of refuting your logic, moron.

I hate the way imbeciles always respond to an analogy by pointing out that it is not 100% identical.

My whole fucking point is that songs and such works of art are not the same as manual labour or contracted design work.

That's not a point, you gibbering idiot. That's simply one of the facts of this argument which does NOT logically lead to your conclusion, no matter how many times you restate it.

If someone states a premise and says "A therefore B" and someone else points out that A does not necessarily lead to B, you can't retort by simply repeating that A is true. What part of basic logic do you not understand, shit-eater?

Although you could commission or hire them (and some people do, like film makers), I don't see why all musicians should be paid that way. Why should they?

Because the current model is harming society and handicapping the entire computer industry. Either come up with a better model or scrap the current model entirely, because the current model is shit.

Would the engineer that built a bridge in his own backyard be wrong in charging people for walking across it?

That's a stupid analogy because they're trespassing on his physical property. He could charge them for being in his backyard at all, regardless of whether they're using this bridge of yours.

For his analogies to hold there must exist a premise that says that all types work should be paid for in the exact same manner, but this already not the case; the designer of the bridge could be paid in advance, while the construction workers have salaries.

Wrong, you raving imbecile. The analogy between engineering work and musical work is valid as long as you are operating under the premise that intellectual property rights are innate. In both cases, they can work independently or they can work for an employer. In both cases, there is an intellectual property component and a physical distribution or construction component. But only in one of those cases does the person assert an innate lifelong right to payment every time someone uses the intellectual property.

If they decide to build and finance their own bridge (own the land, etc.), as musicians do with their music, they could decide to let people pay a toll to drive across it. In fact, some recent tunnel projects are already financed like that, I think (though it's the state that's collecting the tolls, obviously).

That is the analogy of an idiot. A physical bridge endures wear and tear every time someone uses it. Same goes for roads. It cannot arbitrarily be duplicated. One of the reasons that toll roads exist is that their upkeep costs governments millions of dollars per year; are you honestly such a goddamned idiot that you don't understand this? There is no such corresponding cost for distributing or maintaining music. Music does not break down if you don't have construction crews and engineers constantly maintaining it. Music does not degrade every time people listen to a copy of it. Tolls for roads and bridges are forced by their constant upkeep requirements, and have absolutely nothing to do with intellectual property.

Darth Wong wrote:Copyright was invented to provide a social benefit: encouraging more aggressive creation of artistic works.

I always thought of it as an industrial benefit; e.g it kept others from ripping off your hard work and labor in inventing something like vulanized rubber; or the process to make something.

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Copyright was invented to provide a social benefit: encouraging more aggressive creation of artistic works.

I always thought of it as an industrial benefit; e.g it kept others from ripping off your hard work and labor in inventing something like vulanized rubber; or the process to make something.

Then you're an idiot, that would be patent law and those expire inside a few years...while copyright goes on and on and on.

For the record the exact constitutional text regarding the matter (since its an enumerated power of Congress) is

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;

So the stated purpose and intent of both copyright and patent law is to further the general advance of science and the arts. This eans that as intellectual prperty once created is easy to duplicate there should be some method for ensuring those who create it are able to recoup their costs before the property is available to the general public to recreate (not imitate but rather recreate). So the current system does not do that as it does not promote furtherance of the arts but rather furtherance of the coporate pocket book. The artist receivesa minimal share and in fact is essentially required to turn the management of their rights over to athird party in order to receive any compensation at all. The system is horrendously broken so we would be better off tearing it down.

Keevan_Colton wrote:Then you're an idiot, that would be patent law and those expire inside a few years...while copyright goes on and on and on.

Maybe you should do less raving.

Link

A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees.

20 years isn't "inside a few years" genius.

MKSheppard wrote:

Keevan_Colton wrote:Then you're an idiot, that would be patent law and those expire inside a few years...while copyright goes on and on and on.

Maybe you should do less raving.

Link

A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees.

20 years isn't "inside a few years" genius.

In relative terms, it's a few years, considering that copyrights last for life + 50 years.

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Copyright was invented to provide a social benefit: encouraging more aggressive creation of artistic works.

I always thought of it as an industrial benefit; e.g it kept others from ripping off your hard work and labor in inventing something like vulanized rubber; or the process to make something.

Technological patents exist for the same reason as artistic copyright: to create an incentive to create things, in this case inventions. The end goal is social benefit, since society benefits from new inventions. The fact that corporations can profit from this process is a side-effect, not the end goal. The idea of patent applies fully to individual basement inventors, not just corporations.

Considering that modern research is done by advanced labs employing armies of scientists does the basement inventor have a place anymore ? Many of the recent inventions we use like dvds, WiFi internet were created by corporate consortiums. No poor inventor in a basement benifitted from the billions these products must have made. The benefits from patent laws went into corporate bank accounts. I am not argueing against patent laws for they have been an important part of industrialisation of the world over last 200 years. But considering the current situation of corporate dominated research is not patent laws in need of reform ?

SCRawl wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:

Keevan_Colton wrote:Then you're an idiot, that would be patent law and those expire inside a few years...while copyright goes on and on and on.

Maybe you should do less raving.

Link

A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees.

20 years isn't "inside a few years" genius.

In relative terms, it's a few years, considering that copyrights last for life + 50 years.

Indeed, there are some things that are going to be almost 200 years old before the copyright on them expires. I'd say an order of magnitude is distinction enough.

Sarevok wrote:Considering that modern research is done by advanced labs employing armies of scientists does the basement inventor have a place anymore? Many of the recent inventions we use like dvds, WiFi internet were created by corporate consortiums. No poor inventor in a basement benifitted from the billions these products must have made. The benefits from patent laws went into corporate bank accounts. I am not argueing against patent laws for they have been an important part of industrialisation of the world over last 200 years. But considering the current situation of corporate dominated research is not patent laws in need of reform ?

There are plenty of patents still being awarded to basement inventors. Certain kinds of patent, however, obviously require expensive equipment and teams of researchers.

Keevan_Colton wrote:Indeed, there are some things that are going to be almost 200 years old before the copyright on them expires. I'd say an order of magnitude is distinction enough.

It's worth noting that the ultra-long duration of copyright is not the traditional definition; it's actually fairly new. Remember how every time the copyright on Mickey Mouse comes due, Disney starts lobbying to extend it?

(edit)That applies only to United States copyright law, I think.(/edit)

Molyneux wrote:

Keevan_Colton wrote:Indeed, there are some things that are going to be almost 200 years old before the copyright on them expires. I'd say an order of magnitude is distinction enough.

It's worth noting that the ultra-long duration of copyright is not the traditional definition; it's actually fairly new. Remember how every time the copyright on Mickey Mouse comes due, Disney starts lobbying to extend it?

(edit)That applies only to United States copyright law, I think.(/edit)

Thanks to global treaties, you basically end up with most of the western world getting dragged along by the US in the same line. It is however how the law is and a large part of the problem. Come up with a cure for cancer and you get 20 years to profit from it, write a song about how miserable it is to have cancer and you and your children and your grandchildren get to profit ever after...

I mean seriously, everyone that ever met the author of happy birthday is dead. It was composed in the 1800's...but it wont come out of copyright for another couple of decades, barring any further bullshit extensions. How exactly is the artist being compensated for their work again?

One of the very annoying side effects of restrictive music copyright is paying for the music content on television shows for their intial broadcast, but then the studios have to pay the record labels again for music content being in the DVD release, and this obviously fucks up the DVD publishing in Region 1 (but not so much Region 2, where the terms of music content for media use are perhaps less extortionate and more logical).

In Britain the government wisely turned down the music industry's demands to extend the copyright coverage past 50 years, when 50 years is clearly more than enough, but with this victory over copyright abuse comes another pack of nonsense in the form of the Performance Rights Society (the PRS), a UK equivalent of the RIAA which goes about restricting the listening of music in work places like Kwik-Fit and even going as far as charging a charity shop for singing Christmas carols!

I understand the dishonesty in pirating a existing product and the inherent wrongness of claiming somebody else' creation as your own, but the music industry is trying to chain down water with their moaning about supposed copyright infringements and unworkable attempts at enforcing the protection of intellectual property, when they had distributed music on a universal scale; the music is essentially embedded into the public domain, especially with the recent help of the Internet, despite the copyright laws.

And that celebratory jingle "Happy Birthday" is not legally public domain either in America?

Darth Wong wrote:Because the current model is harming society and handicapping the entire computer industry. Either come up with a better model or scrap the current model entirely, because the current model is shit.

Did you miss the three times I agreed with that statement? I propose that the artists should sell their work directly over the internet, bypassing the record labels, unless they want to sell physical copies, in which case the record labels should function something like a book publisher.

That's a stupid analogy because they're trespassing on his physical property. He could charge them for being in his backyard at all, regardless of whether they're using this bridge of yours.

Yeah, whatever, go with my newspaper or museum analogy then. I'm asking why you seem to suggest that covering one's expenses by charging a smaller sum from a larger number of people is an unfair business model compared to for instance a contract. If you don't think it is, then there is no real argument here, because I do not think IP rights should last a lifetime.

Wrong, you raving imbecile. The analogy between engineering work and musical work is valid as long as you are operating under the premise that intellectual property rights are innate. In both cases, they can work independently or they can work for an employer. In both cases, there is an intellectual property component and a physical distribution or construction component. But only in one of those cases does the person assert an innate lifelong right to payment every time someone uses the intellectual property

I've stated several times in this thread that I disagree with current copyright laws, especially in that they hold too long. An engineer expect to be paid when someone wants to use a patent of his, for as long as the patent hold. Couldn't artists be expected to be paid every time someone, for example, downloads their song (after which the buyer can do whatever he likes with the song, except things that hurt the artist's sales too much; you're not allowed to give away a patent you've bought the right to use either, as far as I know), for as long as the copyright holds (which currently is way too long, in case I have to state this again)?

That is the analogy of an idiot. A physical bridge endures wear and tear every time someone uses it. Same goes for roads. It cannot arbitrarily be duplicated. One of the reasons that toll roads exist is that their upkeep costs governments millions of dollars per year; are you honestly such a goddamned idiot that you don't understand this?

That's not the kinds of tolls I meant, I meant those that are to cover the construction costs only, after which the toll is removed (in the case of a state-owned bridge, but not necessarily the hypothetical privately owned).

General Zod wrote:Then I expect you actually have numbers to show at what point it starts becoming significant?

No I don't have those exact figures, I don't know if there are any, and if there isn't, that's presumably for courts to decide. But who the fuck cares? Are you actually suggesting that it will never become significant? Are you similarly saying that doing one dollar's worth of tax evasion is the same as doing an infinity of dollars, since the effect it has on society at large is gradual rather than discrete and one dollar is negligible?

Whilst over here...

Copying CDs could be made legal
Copying music from a CD to a home computer could be made legal under new proposals from the UK government.

Millions of people already "rip" discs to their computers and transfer the files to MP3 players, unaware that the process is against copyright law.

Intellectual property minister Lord Triesman said the law should be changed so it "keeps up with the times".

Music industry bodies gave a cautious welcome to the proposals, which are up for public consultation until 7 March.

The changes would apply only to people copying music for personal use - meaning multiple copying and internet file-sharing would still be banned.

Owners would not be allowed to sell or give away their original discs once they had made a copy.

Sales concerns

"To allow consumers to copy works and then pass on the original could result in a loss of sales," the proposals warn.

UK music industry body the BPI said it supported the move to clarify the law for consumers, but warned that any changes should not damage the rights of record companies.

Lord Triesman said the proposed changes would explore "where the boundaries lie between strong protection for right holders and appropriate levels of access for users".

The proposals also suggest schools and libraries should be given greater flexibility in how they use copyrighted material like CDs and DVDs, and suggests parodies of songs and films could be made exempt from copyright law.

The consultation follows the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, which recommended that aspects of the intellectual property system should be reformed.
Story from BBC NEWS:

Don't worry. the Gov always takes a few years to find out about such things.

Holy shit, so I've been breaking the law all this time?

And not giving a damn to boot? I'm so bad. I'm a bad boy.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Holy shit, so I've been breaking the law all this time?

And not giving a damn to boot? I'm so bad. I'm a bad boy.

I somehow doubt the Fuzz were particularly bothered to be honest I can only assume they used the better part of discretion ....

Dooey Jo wrote: No I don't have those exact figures, I don't know if there are any, and if there isn't, that's presumably for courts to decide. But who the fuck cares? Are you actually suggesting that it will never become significant?

If you don't have figures then shut the fuck up on how giving to a few people isn't significant. Otherwise you're talking out your ass when you're claiming that giving to thousands or millions of people is significantly damaging. Every single time I've challenged someone to show some numbers on how much file-sharing it takes to actually be harmful nobody can actually show anything and they try weak ass appeals to incredulity. So stop trying to shift the fucking burden of proof.

Are you similarly saying that doing one dollar's worth of tax evasion is the same as doing an infinity of dollars, since the effect it has on society at large is gradual rather than discrete and one dollar is negligible?

How the fuck is tax evasion even remotely comparable?

General Zod wrote:If you don't have figures then shut the fuck up on how giving to a few people isn't significant. Otherwise you're talking out your ass when you're claiming that giving to thousands or millions of people is significantly damaging. Every single time I've challenged someone to show some numbers on how much file-sharing it takes to actually be harmful nobody can actually show anything and they try weak ass appeals to incredulity. So stop trying to shift the fucking burden of proof.

Industry Canada already proved file sharing promotes sales. Report

Darth Wong wrote:Your logic appears to be that if someone put time and effort into a piece of IP, then he has an inherent privilege to charge people for any use of that IP that he does not approve. Using that logic, a kid should not even be able to play his favourite rock song on his own guitar, because he's using someone else's IP without permission.

It seems that posting guitar tablature on the internet is illegal. So (according to copyright) the kid really shouldn't be playing the song without first purchasing a licensed tablature book unless he figures out how to play it strictly by ear (which is rather difficult when you're just starting out). Of course, if he does work out how to play it by himself, he's not allowed to share this information with friends.

The Jester wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Your logic appears to be that if someone put time and effort into a piece of IP, then he has an inherent privilege to charge people for any use of that IP that he does not approve. Using that logic, a kid should not even be able to play his favourite rock song on his own guitar, because he's using someone else's IP without permission.

It seems that posting guitar tablature on the internet is illegal. So (according to copyright) the kid really shouldn't be playing the song without first purchasing a licensed tablature book unless he figures out how to play it strictly by ear (which is rather difficult when you're just starting out). Of course, if he does work out how to play it by himself, he's not allowed to share this information with friends.

That's funny. Music copyright restricts what people can do with their hands and speak also ?