29 May 14
Originally posted by NoEarthlyReasonI am a complete and utter hypocrite, though, when it comes to "etiquette on copyright" for music, but I am a hypocrite who does not try to mount any intellectual defence of my actions.
Very succinctly put, and you're probably right. Especially with poetry perhaps, more than music or visual art.
I think I asked the question here on this forum a few years ago: What piece of technology has facilitated as many instances of law breaking ~ in such a widespread fashion, and embracing as many people ~ as the invention and use of the "mp3"?
29 May 14
Originally posted by NoEarthlyReasonA very thoughtful reply to my post.
I don't think you're comparing apples with apples. Mobile phones are very different to books, music and videos. The very nature of owning a piece of art or, beigely, 'content' involves sharing it with friends and family in a way that is simply not practical with gadgets and the like. The Internet age has changed what was once watching a VHS with your ...[text shortened]... brities will always be with us in one form or another, and many celebrities do great things too.
I must say I agree with your assessment of the problem (though not the extent) but cannot agree that flouting copyright law is the answer.
however you make many good points ... perhaps each is worthy of discussion?
if interested I suggest in "General" as "Debates" is full of rednecks!
Wolfie
29 May 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59Well, I'm certainly no supporter of Kim Dotcom and people like him, for example. They—him especially—bring out a visceral revulsion in me. I don't propose that people flout copyright law, but laws should be designed to fit or influence/change the world we live in now, not the world we lived in a couple of decades ago or more, so reform is probably overdue.
A very thoughtful reply to my post.
I must say I agree with your assessment of the problem (though not the extent) but cannot agree that flouting copyright law is the answer.
however you make many good points ... perhaps each is worthy of discussion?
if interested I suggest in "General" as "Debates" is full of rednecks!
Wolfie
I think a lot of good people have been trying to work out and propose solutions (whether in governments or in conjunction with them, or without government input I am not sure). I've been following the arguments in MacUser with quite a bit of difficulty at times, and I can't summarise them easily. Maybe I'll suggest they write a feature recapping and analysing their previous discussions with some new input from people like me. That kind of feature is not something they have done before (at least not to the extent I think is necessary) but they're smart people so I'm sure they'd at least give it careful consideration. I have passionate thoughts and feelings on the matter that I think they either ignore, or are not aware of, or had already dismissed before I started taking an interest, but I find it very difficult to shape them into words.
You are welcome to start a thread on anything I've put forward. I'm a bit thread-tired now, so I probably won't start anything for a while, but if you do I'll try and contribute.
29 May 14
Current copyright and patent law is far too protective of the rights holder. For example, in the US, it takes 95 years for some films to become public domain?!
There has to be a balance between rewarding people for useful inventions and ideas versus letting them make an ever-growing pile of money for decades on end. Give them a decent pile of cash, then share the thing with the rest of humanity, I say.
29 May 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWhy does the public have the right to something
Current copyright and patent law is far too protective of the rights holder. For example, in the US, it takes 95 years for some films to become public domain?!
There has to be a balance between rewarding people for useful inventions and ideas versus letting them make an ever-growing pile of money for decades on end. Give them a decent pile of cash, then share the thing with the rest of humanity, I say.
made by me? Now or after 95 years or 9500 years?
30 May 14
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59Heres Clive's short essay on the Daily Mirror journalist who caused the 'rumours of his demise' in June 2012 which were, naturally, greatly exaggerated...
Clive James : very intelligent, very funny - have not read
any of his poetry but his journalism and tv chat shows
showed the man to be witty, honest and forthright.
I'm a little surprised he is still alive because I thought it
over 2 years ago since he was "at the end". (?)
Regarding copyright: always respect it - I have no time
for idiots proclaiming "freedom" = sharing. It is THEFT.
http://www.clivejames.com/essays/current/stillhere
Here's the BBC radio programme (still available) which the journalist based his fake interview on:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k1ls1
30 May 14
Originally posted by NoEarthlyReasonThere are 27 ten minute editions of BBC Radio 4's "A Point Of View" featuring Clive James as the guest presenter/writer here, to download or stream:
Heres Clive's short essay on the Daily Mirror journalist who caused the 'rumours of his demise' in June 2012 which were, naturally, greatly exaggerated...
http://www.clivejames.com/essays/current/stillhere
Here's the BBC radio programme (still available) which the journalist based his fake interview on:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k1ls1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/povcj#7988123688837452
30 May 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59Because you did not make it in isolation. You made it in a society that set up laws to reward innovation and allow you to profit from it. In return, your innovation should be made useful to all of society at some point.
Why does the public have the right to something
made by me? Now or after 95 years or 9500 years?