Mike Jr. wins!

(don't hate - friendship is magic)

Last edited by Dave (2012-11-30 23:52:50)

Its not that I can't get my head around it-I just don't agree with it, nor do I have to.
And, I am curious as to why the Constitution limits, even for a time, the Right to their respective writings and discoveries if the only purpose to promote science and knowledge? I mean, if we are just trying to promote the arts and sciences, then there should be no right at all to the knowledge of the creators. Just a thought.

In addition, I was not aware that we were suddenly splitting hairs about copyright law. I thought we were discussing the creator's relationship to their creation, and whether or not they own it. But, I guess that falls in to the scope of the law so I guess this is now the topic of the debate.

The fact that the digital age is forcing this debate illustrates this point, but I am not the only one who thinks this is a new battlefield:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/techn … wanted=all

Of other note, copyright law is not the only law applicable. Patent law does allow the protection of scientific discoveries and ideas, so patent law must also be considered.

It is interesting to me that the idea of ideas is simply regarded as a public good when they are distributed. The value of those ideas are never discussed, and copyright law only allows those ideas to be protected to encourage publishers to publish for the sake of public work. Well, the fact that the law agrees with you, does not mean that the law is correct.

I should say this: my dad actually supports copyright reform and thinks we ought to have a more robust public domain, and that draconian anti-piracy measures are beyond foolish when the industries could embrace the digital revolution as a path to profit rather than a danger to it. But his view (and one I share) of what the situation ought to be doesn't change what the situation is.

You're all arguing about money. That's the issue here. Remove it from the equation and suddenly none of you will care who copies/downloads what. Everyone will be happy that someone gave a crap about that thing you've made long enough to share it with someone else.

Saniss! How dare you bring this thread back on topic?

If you have a way to remove money from the equation, I'm listening. But ultimately it's a big part of the equation because it determines access to basic resources like food and shelter, never mind cars and internets.

Obviously, as fan filmmakers (hey the topic kind of), we have lived in the world of not worrying about money or who views or downloads our stuff. But that's a choice we made on particular projects -- that we cared more about getting it made having it seen than recouping our time/energy/monetary investment. Until we don't have to earn money to eat or live, in the long term earning money is an issue, yes.

Why don't you let others worry about how others feel? If you're happy to take me at my word, I'm happy to let you and move on.

Greg. I said it once before, then removed it because it's rude. But it needs to be said.

Fuck off.

You're just picking fights, you don't understand how a discussion works, fuck off.

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 see what you did there.

Dorkman edit: No more.

I haven't listened to the episode yet as I feel as though I have to see the documentary first. Is this correct or can I listen to it first? I know it's not a film-film and don't really need to worry about spoilers but I was just wondering

It might even make you more excited to see it. It's basically like when they bring in Tom Hanks to talk about a movie that's not out yet to stir up interest.