Some of you may be aware of the "three strikes" plan recently approved in France, where suspected copyright infringers are liable to be banned from the internet for up to a year if they persist after two warnings, and failed efforts to push similar laws across the entire EU a few months back.
Not content to be rebuffed, proponents of the laws have put them back on the table in Brussels, where they were set to be voted on yesterday. No news seems to be available online yet about how it went (any Europeans visitors have details on that?).
Is banning pirates from the internet going too far, or is it justified? It seems that no amount of DRM ever deters them for long, so perhaps cutting them off from their sources entirely would be the solution to large-scale piracy. Or maybe it just might drive them underground, and result in innocent users being banned on suspicions only. What do you guys think? Could this possibly work, or will it only make matters worse?
Yeah I really enjoyed it, the guy has good reason to not like the law. I mean why does and why should copyright last the creators lifetime plus 70 years! That is just plain absurd and really only there for corporate intrest. Can you imagine not ever having Shakespear or countless other items from other greats in the public domain? Unacceptable!
I guess I don't agree or even see that as a valid reason. Somehow up until 1972 everyone was perfectly happy with I do believe 20 years total, I could be wrong will have to look it up when i have a chance. So are we saying somehow those individuals were screwed? I think not I would bet that the main reason that even changed was due to corporate intrest. Not only that but I also believe that music, movies, art, and so on are no different than any other product once you sell them you no longer own it. I mean would you be ok with the car dealership dictating to you after purchase how you can use or even if you can use your car, sell it, or trade it in? Or how would you like the builder to do the same with your house. Why don't we pay a continued royalty to Thomas Edisons family or Henery Ford's for the continued use of their inventions? I mean it hasn't been 70 years since Fords death and it has barely been 70 years since Edisons? That brings up another issue why are movies, art, music, and the light anymore important than a patent which only gets 20 years?
I wouldn't argue that the bulk of personal employment is not corporate, however there are very very few independent movie or music companies. In fact the MPAA and RIAA pretty much control it all and that the problem when I say corporate intrest that is what I am refering to. So my point still stands.
True and I am speaking from the US stand point not overly familiar with UKs copyright.
Ok regardless should I have to get permission from the cars designer? No, in fact is it just like myself in the IT business I create scripts, queries, and programs on a daily basis that will be used and are being used after I have left a company. Should the company pay me royalties on those or rewrite them? No way, as I said once you sell it or in my case agree to produce it for said company it is no longer mine.
As for the builder example yes you own the land but I also own the CD Player, Computer, or whatever else device is requried to use the work that I 'purchased' from said artist. I don't see how that is any different?
In regards to Edison that is exactly my point, patents which I see no differently than copyrights are only good for 20 years! So again I don't see why someone who rights a song should have more protection than someone that invented the lightbulb, and am arguing that they don't.
As for Ford I am sure he didn't have a copyright but he sure as heck had patents, and again I am using as an example of the disparity between patents and copyrights and why if it is good enough for patents and no one is up in arms why is it not good enough for copyrights?
Nice to actually have a civil conversation about this and not be called a name or labled as a pirate which I am not, just don't agree with the current laws.
Copyright and IP is perhaps the most convoluted piece of law today.
Thiose who say you should go to jail for Copyright Infringement and Piracy... Well go down to the police station and turn yourselves in because YOU ALL HAVE VIOLATED COPYRIGHT! If you've used the internet you've violated copyrights right left and center... Type in a google search for Mickey Mouse... hope you have 100 million dollars lying around because thats probably the amount you'll pay in fines if the laws were enforced... And YES IT IS JUST AS BAD AS STEALING A PIECE OF MUSIC OR A GAME! At least in the eyes of the law.
Ever copy/pasted a news article from CNN. Well get out your checkbook. That News article is just as protected as any piece of software/music/picture... Get out your checkbook and pay Reuters/AP $250G's because you sure as heck never got their permission!
Ever looked at an AMV on youtube... Well get out your checkbook and turn yourself in! You've just violated not one but at least two people's copyrights!
The law as it is is disgusting. It's designed for big corporate incidences of piracy like Warner Bros using Mickey Mouse w/o paying Disney and they've bolted that onto personal. And seriously WTF is with the whole IP owners getting all the cash. If this was REAL THEFT it would be the govn't prosecuting with all the rules aka BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT not the BS is is now where there are thousand dollar shakedowns. No instead of this crap you should have a company lodge a criminal complaint just as a 7/11 would if I lifted a bag of chips. All the fines should be to the govn't as well and then and only then do we have restitution....
If we are going to pretend IP is the same as tangible property and treat its 'theft' as the same well I want my day in court with my lawyer vs a govn't paid prosecutor (and not some corporate suit) who has to prove to a jury of my peers that I 'stole' beyond a reasonable doubt not the BS 'preponderance of the evidence 50.1%' civil trials it is now. And then I want all of the rest of you who have ever copy/pasted anything copyrighted or ever done anything illegal wrt copyright (look at the statues, I think you'll find them quite enlightening and those of you who protest that they never steal or infringe well... ignorance of the law is no defense) in jail next to me.
Er....what?
That's about as logical as saying 'if you have children you are a paedophile'.
Make up your mind...if you say it's 'illegal' then it is.
Why the convoluted argument to the contrary?
Before I continue on this I just want to clarify something as I don't think we are on the same page so to speak. I am not claiming that the current laws don't state something specific or have a 'rationale'. What I am saying is I don't agree 100% with the laws and think that they need to be changed not just for the consumer but also the artist/corporation.
Whoever designs a building owns its design. That can be the Architect and/or Builder...depending on with whom the 'designer' is employed.
When a client contracts an Architect [or Builder/designer/co] he as client 'owns' rights to that design....PROVIDED HE HAS PAID IN FULL AS CONTACTED ...those 'rights' are in its 'intended use', namely to take and use to construct the project.
Typically [unless contracted] he does NOT own the rights to subsequently use the design on a second project, and it's even not guaranteed he has the rights to sell the property/design to a third party for them to complete/own.
I personally have several thousand houses/factories/shops/motels/unit developments/etc that are ALL mine....all designed by me...all licenced to their respective client...all over the past 35 years.
If any one of them were to take that design and re-use it on a second project without my consent they are liable for loss of 'profit'...that's my usual fee minus material costs....and typically on a $5000 drawing the ink/paper/printing costs are abot $20
Fair enough but... and this is another topic all together... I hope you aren't saying just cause it is a law and supported by the government that it is fair and just? Need I mention a few things like racism (remember it was state sponserd for a while) and Prohibition that was a dosey! Anyway thanks for the chat!
He he he he:D Good stuff!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
