Search options (Page 1 of 6)

Thanks for that erudite contribution. My understanding of a discussion is that one person makes a point, or a claim, and offers evidence to support it, and another agrees, or offers a counter argument. But perhaps you're right, and the correct protocol is to tell each other to fuck off.

I recognize your right to disagree with the law, but just to be clear, you're not disagreeing that that is what the law says, are you? I mean, to check that, all you have to do it look it up.

One can only speculate, but were there a general right to own ideas you thought up the clause would not be necessary.

The claim was made that creators 'own' ideas they think up. Copyright law is crucial to pointing out that this claim is false.

It's not a new battlefield, but it is a new change in the weaponry, for sure.

Patent law is related, for sure, but doesn't really inform the debate on films substantially.

Again, we can all agree that there is a general right to disagree with the law, and lobby to change it, but that is quite different from claiming that the law is not what it is.

I'm glad that we can agree at least that, under current US law, creators do not own their ideas.

This is absolutely not true. The purpose of US Copyright Law is spelled out in the constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution says: "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." The purpose is NOT to protect creators, but to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.

Outwith this intervention from the US legal system, there is no exclusive right to their writings and discoveries. Additionally after this limited period their temporary right expires, and the public has a general right to the material.

Right, and yet it's not just MY opinion, it is the opinion of the US legal system, from the Constitution and the Supreme Court. I guess it's your right to disagree with the law, and lobby to change it, but you have to recognize that it is the law.

I'd also refer you to the thought experiment about Frankenstein above if you're having trouble getting your head around why intangible goods can't be owned.

No, I'm sorry, but you cannot own an intangible good like the execution of an idea, at least not under US law. That's simply not 'how it works'.

No, no they don't. That's not my opinion, that is the opinion of the US Constitution, and the US Supreme Court. It's you who are laboring under the misapprehension that content creators own content - this idea is simply wrong. The content is publicly owned, content creators are granted a time-limited monopoly on the legal creation of copies under US law.

If this isn't clear to you, then think about this. Who 'owns' the information in the book Mary Shelley's Frankenstein?  Shelley wrote the book in 1816, and had a government issued monopoly for a limited period to make copies. The copyright lapsed, and now the public can utilize the idea that they own. In fact, they have always owned it, although there was a period during which they did not have the right to make copies of it.
If you believe that the idea in MSF was 'owned' in the same sense that a physical object is owned, why did the 'ownership' not pass to her heirs with the rest of her estate? Of course the answer is that her estate does not own it, because the concept of ownership of an intangible good like a story does not exist in the the UK or US legal systems.

You may feel that way, and you're entitled to that opinion. I take the view that something that someone does that does me no harm is not being an asshole. In fact, I feel that your view marks you as an asshole.

If by 'tangible execution of ideas, you mean a physical DVD, then yes. If by tangible execution of ideas you mean the series of 1s and 0s encoded on it, then no. I'm afraid you're wrong, at least according to US law.

Then I sincerely beg your pardon for misinterpreting your intent.

Clearly you can't, and likewise I cannot fathom how you could make the converse sincerely. If I, and hundreds of my friends, make something in the real world, what about that makes me deserve to make money? The act of making something does not, contrary to popular belief, entitle you to a living.

I totally understand and empathize that you want a job that you enjoy, and a secure living, but nothing about the modern economy entitles you to that simply by the wanting of it.

Of course I want you to earn money for the work you do. And of course you can't own an idea, and of course nothing is stolen when someone torrents a movie. Why do you think those things are conflicting?
You clearly think that you are entitled to a living simply by virtue of working on a movie. I wish that were so, but it isn't.

I find your comments a little childish. It's ok for you to accuse me of trolling, but you don't think the converse is legitimate?
Frankly, I don't know why you think the onus is on me to figure out a way for you to make a living. I've said that time and again, and no one has explained to me why they think it is my problem, instead simply repeating the question. Of course my answer is the same each time. That's not trolling - that's my answer to the question, that I keep repeating because the question keeps getting repeated.
How many times did I say 'government', and what's your point?

Which comments do you feel are ridiculous, or not supportable? Please try to be specific. Thanks!

Most countries subsidize their film and music industries to some extent. The copyright system itself is a massive government subsidy to content creators.

I stand by the case I was making, that print newspaper ads have fallen by two-thirds from $60 billion in the late-1990s to $20 billion in 2011. The ability to make money from ads may still be twitching on the table, but it's far from healthy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc … ph/253736/

They are granted, by the government, a temporary monopoly on the right to make copies. The public owns the idea. On their behalf, in order to encourage the useful arts, the government grants the author this temporary right.

Plagiarism is fraud. It's got nothing to do with copying, most academia is built on the copying (with attribution) of other's work. The problem with plagiarism is that it is deception.

"Trey wrote:
As I mentioned previously, Roddenberry's utopia was made possible by the existence of replicator technology, which made energy and resources limitless.  In a world where you can get a chicken sandwich by walking up to a machine and saying "chicken sandwich, please" and it simply appears without any effort on anyone's part - that's a world where you can do away with capitalism.  And then all humanity can be free to explore the galaxy - or do whatever else they desire - because everyone's basic necessities are covered without any effort."

You don't seem to see that Roddenberry's replicator exists for digital items right now. In Star Trek, Pickard can walk up to the replicator and order 'Earl Grey Tea'. Now, is he stealing the intellectual property of Earl Grey, the author of the recipe for Earl Grey tea? Potentially, in our world, at least. Is he stealing from the tea-pickers who would otherwise be making a living by picking real tea that he is just copying from the internet, or wherever it comes from? Yes, it seems that way. Is it a bad thing to have eliminated scarcity? I think so.

The same technology exists today. I can go to my replicator (bitttorent) and say "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein", and moments later the digital file is on my e-reader. It's the same, it's just that we only have the replicator for digital goods. Understand that Pickard cannot ask the replicator to come up with an original work, a new cocktail for example, there is still some author somewhere programming the machine with recipes. It just makes copies.