digg.com is getting OWND by posts regarding the HD-DVD key lol

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: tangent1138

yes, you're right... government protection of a business model is stupid.
i think i'll go down to the BMW dealership and steal a car. The cops better not protect their business model by stopping me.

wake up. piracy is rampant and in case you haven't noticed, entertainment is one of the few things this country does well anymore.

cars? japan.
cell phones? korea.
computers? china.

the only thing we do really well is software, games, movies.

Copyright isn't like property ownership no matter how much the industry shills try to mix the two. My right to copy a work is protected by the constitution of the United States.

The idea behind copyright is that the public gives up their rights for a limited time which encourages the production of works. But media companies have changed that. The length of protection is such that I will never see my side of the trade, works enter the public domain, so why should I grant them their side of the trade a monopoly on copying the work?

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to copy a work?
that's a genuine question. i'm not being sarcastic.

and where do your rights as consumer end and my rights as a content producer begin?
don't i have a right to put whatever DRM i want on my content?

Article 1 section 8
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 after a limited time the writings are free to be copied.

And that is still the case today.

Tell that to somebody getting sued or shut down because they downloaded or hosted a video game rom made in 1980. "I want to dig it up and sell it again on the Wii" is not a valid reason to renew that limited time allowed for protection of exclusive rights. If that was the case, we should find out who we need to be paying royalties to on the wheel, every time a new device is made that uses wheels.

I can't go to work for 1 year then not go any more and still expect a paycheck for the rest of my life, it's the same for artists, developers, and musicians as well. Limited time means limited time. Need more money? Stop milking your 30 year old no longer protected work and produce more works that people will buy now and not wait for the copyright to expire.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: tangent1138
what i don't understand is the pirates' sense of entitlement. they seem to feel they have the right to steal material and throw around words like "censorship".

:roll:
As opposed to behemoth corporations who seem to feel entitled to government protection of their business model? Talk about sense of entitlement.

These companies have bribed their way to eternal copyright. They attack fair use. Screw them, I hope they wither and die. Time for the existing entertainment industry to crash and burn, let something new take their place.

yes, you're right... government protection of a business model is stupid.
i think i'll go down to the BMW dealership and steal a car. The cops better not protect their business model by stopping me.

Non sequitur. Read the whole damn post. Copyright was not originally set up in this country so that corporations could lock up every shred of human knowledge and creativity. It was intended to promote the sciences and useful arts, through a LIMITED TIME monopoly. Copyright is now essentially neverending. Every time the copyright on Steamboat Willy is about to expire, and thereby enter the public domain, Disney gets copyright extended even further. The contract that those copyright holders had with US citizens, the agreement that they would be given a LIMITED TIME monopoly on the duplication of their works, has been broken. Therefore I feel no need to hold up my end of the contract and will duplicate to my heart's desire. When copyright is returned to the 21 year limit (plus one possible 14 year extension) as it was originally, then I'll reconsider.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

It's funny that nobody seems to note that these codes might be leaked on purpose.

Let's examine this hypothesis:

You're one of the largest companies in the world, locked in a deadly battle with another behemoth... at stake is the revenue stemming form the next generation digital media format. These sums could be huge, and as long as you have a percent of the hardware rights / ancillary rights, your future is rosy, no matter what happens.

Yet, your opponent - whose product is not better than yours, in fact it can be argued that it sports an inferior design and has other shortcomings as well - is ahead of the curve, and its sales pitch and control of the software (i.e. available titles) are higher than yours.

However, you have an advantage... you've learned that proprietary hardware and software eventually reach a dead end in the current marketplace model. You've become one of the world's most important companies by learning the hard way that it's preferable to close your eyes to a certain percentage of piracy, as long as the spread of your product is what really matters, thereby ensuring you a virtual monopoly on the market. Your products might be the most pirated products in the world, but you're still making money by the truckloads. Your battle with piracy has also given you insight on the fact that, whether you like it or not, it will thrive... so why not use it - by learning how it can serve your interests?

Therefore... why not carefully and absolutely unofficially, drop some useful info to the pirates? If certain features which make your entire product line unpopular can be bypassed, this loophole would ensure its popularity. And you can always deny the leak came from you, even though it serves your interests in the long run.

This may very well be the lucky salvo in the new digital format war - you might have sunk your opponent's admiral ship. And you have plausible deniability. It's a win-win situation.

 

[Vegitto]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
It's funny that nobody seems to note that these codes might be leaked on purpose.

Let's examine this hypothesis:

You're one of the largest companies in the world, locked in a deadly battle with another behemoth... at stake is the revenue stemming form the next generation digital media format. These sums could be huge, and as long as you have a percent of the hardware rights / ancillary rights, your future is rosy, no matter what happens.

Yet, your opponent - whose product is not better than yours, in fact it can be argued that it sports an inferior design and has other shortcomings as well - is ahead of the curve, and its sales pitch and control of the software (i.e. available titles) are higher than yours.

However, you have an advantage... you've learned that proprietary hardware and software eventually reach a dead end in the current marketplace model. You've become one of the world's most important companies by learning the hard way that it's preferable to close your eyes to a certain percentage of piracy, as long as the spread of your product is what really matters, thereby ensuring you a virtual monopoly on the market. Your products might be the most pirated products in the world, but you're still making money by the truckloads. Your battle with piracy has also given you insight on the fact that, whether you like it or not, it will thrive... so why not use it - by learning how it can serve your interests?

Therefore... why not carefully and absolutely unofficially, drop some useful info to the pirates? If certain features which make your entire product line unpopular can be bypassed, this loophole would ensure its popularity. And you can always deny the leak came from you, even though it serves your interests in the long run.

This may very well be the lucky salvo in the new digital format war - you might have sunk your opponent's admiral ship. And you have plausible deniability. It's a win-win situation.

Too bad both camps share the same code, and because this code was found or leaked, both formats can be pirated. Neither camps gained anything from this.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: tangent1138

yes, you're right... government protection of a business model is stupid.
i think i'll go down to the BMW dealership and steal a car. The cops better not protect their business model by stopping me.

wake up. piracy is rampant and in case you haven't noticed, entertainment is one of the few things this country does well anymore.

cars? japan.
cell phones? korea.
computers? china.

the only thing we do really well is software, games, movies.

Copyright isn't like property ownership no matter how much the industry shills try to mix the two. My right to copy a work is protected by the constitution of the United States.

The idea behind copyright is that the public gives up their rights for a limited time which encourages the production of works. But media companies have changed that. The length of protection is such that I will never see my side of the trade, works enter the public domain, so why should I grant them their side of the trade a monopoly on copying the work?

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to copy a work?
that's a genuine question. i'm not being sarcastic.

and where do your rights as consumer end and my rights as a content producer begin?
don't i have a right to put whatever DRM i want on my content?

Article 1 section 8
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 after a limited time the writings are free to be copied.

And that is still the case today.

Tell that to somebody getting sued or shut down because they downloaded or hosted a video game rom made in 1980. "I want to dig it up and sell it again on the Wii" is not a valid reason to renew that limited time allowed for protection of exclusive rights. If that was the case, we should find out who we need to be paying royalties to on the wheel, every time a new device is made that uses wheels.

I can't go to work for 1 year then not go any more and still expect a paycheck for the rest of my life, it's the same for artists, developers, and musicians as well. Limited time means limited time. Need more money? Stop milking your 30 year old no longer protected work and produce more works that people will buy now and not wait for the copyright to expire.

Where do you get the idea that something produced 30 years ago is no longer protected by copyright? Copyrights don't expire nearly that quickly. Patents do, copyrights don't. I see no reason why a person should be forced to give up the right to profit off their creative works during their lifetime.

 

[Mucho]

Originally posted by: RedArmy
Pirate Bay has the number on their front page.

:thumbsup:

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: Vegitto

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
It's funny that nobody seems to note that these codes might be leaked on purpose.

Let's examine this hypothesis:

You're one of the largest companies in the world, locked in a deadly battle with another behemoth... at stake is the revenue stemming form the next generation digital media format. These sums could be huge, and as long as you have a percent of the hardware rights / ancillary rights, your future is rosy, no matter what happens.

Yet, your opponent - whose product is not better than yours, in fact it can be argued that it sports an inferior design and has other shortcomings as well - is ahead of the curve, and its sales pitch and control of the software (i.e. available titles) are higher than yours.

However, you have an advantage... you've learned that proprietary hardware and software eventually reach a dead end in the current marketplace model. You've become one of the world's most important companies by learning the hard way that it's preferable to close your eyes to a certain percentage of piracy, as long as the spread of your product is what really matters, thereby ensuring you a virtual monopoly on the market. Your products might be the most pirated products in the world, but you're still making money by the truckloads. Your battle with piracy has also given you insight on the fact that, whether you like it or not, it will thrive... so why not use it - by learning how it can serve your interests?

Therefore... why not carefully and absolutely unofficially, drop some useful info to the pirates? If certain features which make your entire product line unpopular can be bypassed, this loophole would ensure its popularity. And you can always deny the leak came from you, even though it serves your interests in the long run.

This may very well be the lucky salvo in the new digital format war - you might have sunk your opponent's admiral ship. And you have plausible deniability. It's a win-win situation.

Too bad both camps share the same code, and because this code was found or leaked, both formats can be pirated. Neither camps gained anything from this.

You're forgetting one crucial fact: the words Blu-Ray are rarely, if ever, mentioned in conjunction with these codes. Even if the codes also apply to both formats, it's a question of basic marketing and public relations.

Case in point: look at the thread title. What's the instantly recognizable format name you see? Exactly.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Vegitto

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
It's funny that nobody seems to note that these codes might be leaked on purpose.

Let's examine this hypothesis:

You're one of the largest companies in the world, locked in a deadly battle with another behemoth... at stake is the revenue stemming form the next generation digital media format. These sums could be huge, and as long as you have a percent of the hardware rights / ancillary rights, your future is rosy, no matter what happens.

Yet, your opponent - whose product is not better than yours, in fact it can be argued that it sports an inferior design and has other shortcomings as well - is ahead of the curve, and its sales pitch and control of the software (i.e. available titles) are higher than yours.

However, you have an advantage... you've learned that proprietary hardware and software eventually reach a dead end in the current marketplace model. You've become one of the world's most important companies by learning the hard way that it's preferable to close your eyes to a certain percentage of piracy, as long as the spread of your product is what really matters, thereby ensuring you a virtual monopoly on the market. Your products might be the most pirated products in the world, but you're still making money by the truckloads. Your battle with piracy has also given you insight on the fact that, whether you like it or not, it will thrive... so why not use it - by learning how it can serve your interests?

Therefore... why not carefully and absolutely unofficially, drop some useful info to the pirates? If certain features which make your entire product line unpopular can be bypassed, this loophole would ensure its popularity. And you can always deny the leak came from you, even though it serves your interests in the long run.

This may very well be the lucky salvo in the new digital format war - you might have sunk your opponent's admiral ship. And you have plausible deniability. It's a win-win situation.

Too bad both camps share the same code, and because this code was found or leaked, both formats can be pirated. Neither camps gained anything from this.

Consumers won.

If they industry could get away with it, they would rather you pay the 'pay per view' price of admission every time you watched a movie instead of having a piece of media that you only paid for once. I can't wait for media players to have a scanner that check how many people are watching with you and send you a bill accordingly. Paying for something once is bad bad bad to these people. One time product with perpetual profit seems the be what everyone wants these days; the good old something for nothing holy grail. :roll:

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: tangent1138

yes, you're right... government protection of a business model is stupid.
i think i'll go down to the BMW dealership and steal a car. The cops better not protect their business model by stopping me.

wake up. piracy is rampant and in case you haven't noticed, entertainment is one of the few things this country does well anymore.

cars? japan.
cell phones? korea.
computers? china.

the only thing we do really well is software, games, movies.

Copyright isn't like property ownership no matter how much the industry shills try to mix the two. My right to copy a work is protected by the constitution of the United States.

The idea behind copyright is that the public gives up their rights for a limited time which encourages the production of works. But media companies have changed that. The length of protection is such that I will never see my side of the trade, works enter the public domain, so why should I grant them their side of the trade a monopoly on copying the work?

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to copy a work?
that's a genuine question. i'm not being sarcastic.

and where do your rights as consumer end and my rights as a content producer begin?
don't i have a right to put whatever DRM i want on my content?

Article 1 section 8
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 after a limited time the writings are free to be copied.

And that is still the case today.

Tell that to somebody getting sued or shut down because they downloaded or hosted a video game rom made in 1980. "I want to dig it up and sell it again on the Wii" is not a valid reason to renew that limited time allowed for protection of exclusive rights. If that was the case, we should find out who we need to be paying royalties to on the wheel, every time a new device is made that uses wheels.

I can't go to work for 1 year then not go any more and still expect a paycheck for the rest of my life, it's the same for artists, developers, and musicians as well. Limited time means limited time. Need more money? Stop milking your 30 year old no longer protected work and produce more works that people will buy now and not wait for the copyright to expire.

Where do you get the idea that something produced 30 years ago is no longer protected by copyright? Copyrights don't expire nearly that quickly. Patents do, copyrights don't. I see no reason why a person should be forced to give up the right to profit off their creative works during their lifetime.

What is an appropriate length of time is debatable, but I won't have a problem with people making profits on their one work for their lifetime the day the rest of us can stop going to work and still collect a paycheck.

That clause in the constitution inspires growth because of three things:

1) profit motive to create new works in the first place
2) limited time to exclusive rights gives incentive to create more works, not sit back and milk off of one contribution for eternity
3) spreads beneficial knowledge and accessibility of technology to everyone to further growth of society after the author has had fair time to seek profit compensation (i.e.: the wheel, written language, etc)

Who do you pay royalties to every time you use the wheel or read written language?

Didn't think so.

 

[Vegitto]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: Vegitto

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
It's funny that nobody seems to note that these codes might be leaked on purpose.

Let's examine this hypothesis:

You're one of the largest companies in the world, locked in a deadly battle with another behemoth... at stake is the revenue stemming form the next generation digital media format. These sums could be huge, and as long as you have a percent of the hardware rights / ancillary rights, your future is rosy, no matter what happens.

Yet, your opponent - whose product is not better than yours, in fact it can be argued that it sports an inferior design and has other shortcomings as well - is ahead of the curve, and its sales pitch and control of the software (i.e. available titles) are higher than yours.

However, you have an advantage... you've learned that proprietary hardware and software eventually reach a dead end in the current marketplace model. You've become one of the world's most important companies by learning the hard way that it's preferable to close your eyes to a certain percentage of piracy, as long as the spread of your product is what really matters, thereby ensuring you a virtual monopoly on the market. Your products might be the most pirated products in the world, but you're still making money by the truckloads. Your battle with piracy has also given you insight on the fact that, whether you like it or not, it will thrive... so why not use it - by learning how it can serve your interests?

Therefore... why not carefully and absolutely unofficially, drop some useful info to the pirates? If certain features which make your entire product line unpopular can be bypassed, this loophole would ensure its popularity. And you can always deny the leak came from you, even though it serves your interests in the long run.

This may very well be the lucky salvo in the new digital format war - you might have sunk your opponent's admiral ship. And you have plausible deniability. It's a win-win situation.

Too bad both camps share the same code, and because this code was found or leaked, both formats can be pirated. Neither camps gained anything from this.

You're forgetting one crucial fact: the words Blu-Ray are rarely, if ever, mentioned in conjunction with these codes. Even if the codes also apply to both formats, it's a question of basic marketing and public relations.

Case in point: look at the thread title. What's the instantly recognizable format name you see? Exactly.

Those who want to pirate will find out eventually, and rather sooner than later, I guess.. It's only a matter of time before Joe Sixpack, who's now starting to realize he can download an entire album with BitTorrent, can download HD movies as well. It'll take some time, but in the end, both formats can be pirated.

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Vegitto

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
It's funny that nobody seems to note that these codes might be leaked on purpose.

Let's examine this hypothesis:

You're one of the largest companies in the world, locked in a deadly battle with another behemoth... at stake is the revenue stemming form the next generation digital media format. These sums could be huge, and as long as you have a percent of the hardware rights / ancillary rights, your future is rosy, no matter what happens.

Yet, your opponent - whose product is not better than yours, in fact it can be argued that it sports an inferior design and has other shortcomings as well - is ahead of the curve, and its sales pitch and control of the software (i.e. available titles) are higher than yours.

However, you have an advantage... you've learned that proprietary hardware and software eventually reach a dead end in the current marketplace model. You've become one of the world's most important companies by learning the hard way that it's preferable to close your eyes to a certain percentage of piracy, as long as the spread of your product is what really matters, thereby ensuring you a virtual monopoly on the market. Your products might be the most pirated products in the world, but you're still making money by the truckloads. Your battle with piracy has also given you insight on the fact that, whether you like it or not, it will thrive... so why not use it - by learning how it can serve your interests?

Therefore... why not carefully and absolutely unofficially, drop some useful info to the pirates? If certain features which make your entire product line unpopular can be bypassed, this loophole would ensure its popularity. And you can always deny the leak came from you, even though it serves your interests in the long run.

This may very well be the lucky salvo in the new digital format war - you might have sunk your opponent's admiral ship. And you have plausible deniability. It's a win-win situation.

Too bad both camps share the same code, and because this code was found or leaked, both formats can be pirated. Neither camps gained anything from this.

Consumers won.

If they industry could get away with it, they would rather you pay the 'pay per view' price of admission every time you watched a movie instead of having a piece of media that you only paid for once. I can't wait for media players to have a scanner that check how many people are watching with you and send you a bill accordingly. Paying for something once is bad bad bad to these people. One time product with perpetual profit seems the be what everyone wants these days; the good old something for nothing holy grail. :roll:

Well, yeah, but if you could, wouldn't YOU want to get money for doing absolutely nothing? Wouldn't YOU do everything in your power to keep making that money? That's what the industries are doing now, although they're just a dying giant now. It'll take some time, but eventually they'll realize that costumers just want to buy the rights to watch a movie, no matter where they watch it, how they watch it, when they watch it or who they're watching it with.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Czar This is not the product the people want, this is the product that is forced upon us.

if we didn't want it why are we buying it?

Eternal copyright. The behemoths in the entertainment industry understands a key fact: any entertainment in the public domain is a danger to their near monopoly.*

If copyright length was the same as it was originally in this country, the early works of The Beatles would be public domain right now. Imagine what that would mean to the entertainment industry. Their new products would have to compete with their old ones. New music would actually have to be new and better than old music which is now free. That's the whole idea behind copyright as envisioned by the framers of this country: to promote the sciences and useful arts. Instead, these companies just lock their "intellectual property" up eternally and then repackage it and resell it to us in new formats every few years. If people want entertainment - and they do - they have little choice but to buy what these companies are selling. I've purchased some of the same music from The Beatles on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, and CD. How many times does the estate of John Lennon need to be paid for the same work? How is his new album coming, by the way? Surely copyright has been helpful in spurring him to write new music!

DRM and the DMCA are wrong because it actually puts locks on information. Even if DRMed data eventually enters the public domain, it would be unusable without being cracked.


* I say near monopoly, because while there are independent artists they can't get exposure through traditional means. For example, the fact that companies like Clear Channel owns huge portions of the radio industry in this country and payola is still standard practice means that the radio plays only what the RIAA members want them to play.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Vegitto

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: Vegitto

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
It's funny that nobody seems to note that these codes might be leaked on purpose.

Let's examine this hypothesis:

You're one of the largest companies in the world, locked in a deadly battle with another behemoth... at stake is the revenue stemming form the next generation digital media format. These sums could be huge, and as long as you have a percent of the hardware rights / ancillary rights, your future is rosy, no matter what happens.

Yet, your opponent - whose product is not better than yours, in fact it can be argued that it sports an inferior design and has other shortcomings as well - is ahead of the curve, and its sales pitch and control of the software (i.e. available titles) are higher than yours.

However, you have an advantage... you've learned that proprietary hardware and software eventually reach a dead end in the current marketplace model. You've become one of the world's most important companies by learning the hard way that it's preferable to close your eyes to a certain percentage of piracy, as long as the spread of your product is what really matters, thereby ensuring you a virtual monopoly on the market. Your products might be the most pirated products in the world, but you're still making money by the truckloads. Your battle with piracy has also given you insight on the fact that, whether you like it or not, it will thrive... so why not use it - by learning how it can serve your interests?

Therefore... why not carefully and absolutely unofficially, drop some useful info to the pirates? If certain features which make your entire product line unpopular can be bypassed, this loophole would ensure its popularity. And you can always deny the leak came from you, even though it serves your interests in the long run.

This may very well be the lucky salvo in the new digital format war - you might have sunk your opponent's admiral ship. And you have plausible deniability. It's a win-win situation.

Too bad both camps share the same code, and because this code was found or leaked, both formats can be pirated. Neither camps gained anything from this.

You're forgetting one crucial fact: the words Blu-Ray are rarely, if ever, mentioned in conjunction with these codes. Even if the codes also apply to both formats, it's a question of basic marketing and public relations.

Case in point: look at the thread title. What's the instantly recognizable format name you see? Exactly.

Those who want to pirate will find out eventually, and rather sooner than later, I guess.. It's only a matter of time before Joe Sixpack, who's now starting to realize he can download an entire album with BitTorrent, can download HD movies as well. It'll take some time, but in the end, both formats can be pirated.

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Vegitto

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
It's funny that nobody seems to note that these codes might be leaked on purpose.

Let's examine this hypothesis:

You're one of the largest companies in the world, locked in a deadly battle with another behemoth... at stake is the revenue stemming form the next generation digital media format. These sums could be huge, and as long as you have a percent of the hardware rights / ancillary rights, your future is rosy, no matter what happens.

Yet, your opponent - whose product is not better than yours, in fact it can be argued that it sports an inferior design and has other shortcomings as well - is ahead of the curve, and its sales pitch and control of the software (i.e. available titles) are higher than yours.

However, you have an advantage... you've learned that proprietary hardware and software eventually reach a dead end in the current marketplace model. You've become one of the world's most important companies by learning the hard way that it's preferable to close your eyes to a certain percentage of piracy, as long as the spread of your product is what really matters, thereby ensuring you a virtual monopoly on the market. Your products might be the most pirated products in the world, but you're still making money by the truckloads. Your battle with piracy has also given you insight on the fact that, whether you like it or not, it will thrive... so why not use it - by learning how it can serve your interests?

Therefore... why not carefully and absolutely unofficially, drop some useful info to the pirates? If certain features which make your entire product line unpopular can be bypassed, this loophole would ensure its popularity. And you can always deny the leak came from you, even though it serves your interests in the long run.

This may very well be the lucky salvo in the new digital format war - you might have sunk your opponent's admiral ship. And you have plausible deniability. It's a win-win situation.

Too bad both camps share the same code, and because this code was found or leaked, both formats can be pirated. Neither camps gained anything from this.

Consumers won.

If they industry could get away with it, they would rather you pay the 'pay per view' price of admission every time you watched a movie instead of having a piece of media that you only paid for once. I can't wait for media players to have a scanner that check how many people are watching with you and send you a bill accordingly. Paying for something once is bad bad bad to these people. One time product with perpetual profit seems the be what everyone wants these days; the good old something for nothing holy grail. :roll:

Well, yeah, but if you could, wouldn't YOU want to get money for doing absolutely nothing? Wouldn't YOU do everything in your power to keep making that money? That's what the industries are doing now, although they're just a dying giant now. It'll take some time, but eventually they'll realize that costumers just want to buy the rights to watch a movie, no matter where they watch it, how they watch it, when they watch it or who they're watching it with.

Yes of course I would, who wouldn't. But thats not how it works.

Sony wants to get rid of media entirely and make PS4 completely subscription service based (following the cell phone industry model of nickel and diming). They want this only to kill the used and rental market and stop you from loaning you games.

Hollywood would be foaming at the mouth if it could eliminate any kind of home media formats and go entirely to a subscription pay per view system, and they would even charge a rental fee for the black box and make it illegal to buy your own for a one time cost.

If we are going to accept these kinds of trends, we should make it illegal to buy and sell used cars, much less allow people to make a profitable business of it. You don't have the rights to the design of that car, so you can't sell it. It's the same exact thing.

I wish people would wake up and see it this way. The cell phone industry is the worst possible infringer. The want to charge you for storing YOUR image on YOUR phone?

Everybody wants something for nothing, but we all know it doesn't work that way. It doesn't work for consumers, why should businesses and giant industries get away with it?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: exdeath

What is an appropriate length of time is debatable, but I won't have a problem with people making profits on their one work for their lifetime the day the rest of us can stop going to work and still collect a paycheck.

If someone produces something that people continue to want to buy for years after they produce it, why should they give up the right to make money off it. Socialist. :thumbsdown::roll: Your compensation is between you and your employer. Take it up with them. The work I do does generate revenues for my employer for years after I complete it. I am not entitled to a portion of those revenues, because it is a work for hire. They pay me to come and work for them, so they own what I produce in my capacity as their employee.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: tangent1138
where in the constitution does it say you have a right to copy a work?

The constitution doesn't give anybody the right to copy a work. Don't get too excited though, it doesn't deny me from copying a work either. The Constitution itself makes no law regarding copyright. What it does do is give congress the authority to secure "for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

and where do your rights as consumer end and my rights as a content producer begin?

Your rights as originally laid out in the Copyright act of 1790 specified a 21 year copyright period, with an option of a 14 year extension if the creator was still alive. After enough bribes to our representatives, the term is now automatically 70 years after the death of the creator, or in the case of corporate owned works 95 years from publication.

don't i have a right to put whatever DRM i want on my content?

In many minds, mine included, DRM violates the spirit of copyright. Creators are given a limited time in which to sell their work. After such time, that work falls into the public domain. Unfortunately if all publicly available copies of any given work are locked under DRM (assuming said DRM has done it's job, and has not been broken) then the only copy which can be freely duplicated by the public, which it now can because the public owns it, is in the hands of the original copyright holder. Unless that copyright holder decides to release copies of that public domain material, it is for all intents and purposes still owned by the copyright holder even though it's supposed to be public domain.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: mugs
Where do you get the idea that something produced 30 years ago is no longer protected by copyright? Copyrights don't expire nearly that quickly. Patents do, copyrights don't. I see no reason why a person should be forced to give up the right to profit off their creative works during their lifetime.

Only because the entertainment industry bribed their way to longer copyright.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: exdeath

What is an appropriate length of time is debatable, but I won't have a problem with people making profits on their one work for their lifetime the day the rest of us can stop going to work and still collect a paycheck.

If someone produces something that people continue to want to buy for years after they produce it, why should they give up the right to make money off it. Socialist. :thumbsdown::roll: Your compensation is between you and your employer. Take it up with them. The work I do does generate revenues for my employer for years after I complete it. I am not entitled to a portion of those revenues, because it is a work for hire. They pay me to come and work for them, so they own what I produce in my capacity as their employee.

Socialist my ass, that's the funniest thing anyone has ever called me. I'm probably the most capitalist and right wing person on this forum.

I never said there is anything wrong with someone having exclusive rights to their works and to be entitled to profits from those works. But for how long? Where would our society be if everyone produced one work their entire life and miked it for all eternity instead of producing more works? The person who invented the wheel died, so now we can no longer make wheels because he has exclusive rights?

Tell me then, who do you pay royalties to for using the wheel? Who invented the keyboard you are using, and do you pay royalties to them every time you press a key? Do you have to spend money on a second license to the right to use your keyboard when you use it on another computer? Who discovered the electron or invented the transistor? Do you pay royalties to that person and their descendants every time you use a device that runs on electricity?

Should AMD not be allowed to make x86 compatible CPUs? While they do pay royalties for newly introduced and very specific technologies like SSE, they don't have to pay royalties for the x86 instruction set, or if they ever did, not anymore. It was made in the 70s/80s, surely it's still protected right? It would grant Intel a monopoly on our every day lives. The people who designed x86 are still living.

Who invented the first automobile? Four wheels, an engine, and a means for passengers to ride and control it. Who do I have to pay for the right to build a go kart in my back yard?

Nobody has a copyright that explains how the diaphragm pulls air into the lungs, maybe I will to apply for that right now, then charge you for every breath for implementing my 'idea' without paying me royalties (hello Rambus)

If you can't answer these questions then you agree that there is clearly some point where it's reasonable to expect that there is some time that elapses in which that once original work becomes so ingrained into society as public knowledge that it is no longer an original protected work. Sorry you couldn't cash cow your little discovery forever. Time to innovate and discover new things so you can have exclusive rights again.

There is also the issue of competition, which is essential for a free market system to flourish. When a new product or work is introduced, the originating producer retains exclusive rights to that product or work to allow ample time to earn their just due profits. But if patents and copyrights lasted lifetimes, we would have monopolies on every single product or idea ever put out there, and the free market would fail. Hows that for 'socialist' ?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: exdeath

What is an appropriate length of time is debatable, but I won't have a problem with people making profits on their one work for their lifetime the day the rest of us can stop going to work and still collect a paycheck.

If someone produces something that people continue to want to buy for years after they produce it, why should they give up the right to make money off it.

What right to make money off of it? Please point out where that right is guaranteed.

Socialist. :thumbsdown::roll:

Moron. :thumbsdown::roll:

Now I can't speak for exdeath, but I'm a free market loving libertarian, so don't even try to paint me as a socialist. It does seem strange though that you're calling other people socialists, when in fact you are the one supporting a government enforced monopoly. Maybe you should think about that for a while.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Heh... This is the best kept "secret" since the FCKGW... Windows XP volume licensing key 🙂

The vista ones are on the loose too...

Microsoft somehow thought that making hundreds of keys (one for each OEM) would make it less likely to leak...

Theres at least 25 of them out there now.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: exdeath

What is an appropriate length of time is debatable, but I won't have a problem with people making profits on their one work for their lifetime the day the rest of us can stop going to work and still collect a paycheck.

If someone produces something that people continue to want to buy for years after they produce it, why should they give up the right to make money off it.

What right to make money off of it? Please point out where that right is guaranteed.

Socialist. :thumbsdown::roll:

Moron. :thumbsdown::roll:

Now I can't speak for exdeath, but I'm a free market loving libertarian, so don't even try to paint me as a socialist. It does seem strange though that you're calling other people socialists, when in fact you are the one supporting a government enforced monopoly. Maybe you should think about that for a while.

In the constitution, we've been over that already. A producer of an original work is indeed entitled to profit compensation for their work, research, time, etc. It's the capitalist way.

But how long is long enough? What is up for debate is how long exclusive rights should be awarded for a work. 95 years is ridiculous, or I'd have to be paying Henry Ford and his descendants to get a license grant to assemble a go-kart in my back yard, just to point out one example of how absurd unreasonably long term copyrights and patents are.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: exdeath

What is an appropriate length of time is debatable, but I won't have a problem with people making profits on their one work for their lifetime the day the rest of us can stop going to work and still collect a paycheck.

If someone produces something that people continue to want to buy for years after they produce it, why should they give up the right to make money off it.

What right to make money off of it? Please point out where that right is guaranteed.

Let me rephrase that - why should they give up the right that enables them to make money off their creative works? That is, the exclusive right to copy their creative works?

Socialist. :thumbsdown::roll:

Moron. :thumbsdown::roll:

Now I can't speak for exdeath, but I'm a free market loving libertarian, so don't even try to paint me as a socialist. It does seem strange though that you're calling other people socialists, when in fact you are the one supporting a government enforced monopoly. Maybe you should think about that for a while.

You want a person who works to produce something to give up their ability to make money off their work so that everyone else can have it for free. You can't see how that is socialism? 😕

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: exdeath
In the constitution, we've been over that already. A producer of an original work is indeed entitled to profit compensation for their work, research, time, etc. It's the capitalist way.

But how long is long enough? What is up for debate is how long exclusive rights should be awarded for a work. 95 years is ridiculous, or I'd have to be paying Henry Ford and his descendants to get a license grant to assemble a go-kart in my back yard, just to point out one example of how absurd unreasonably long term copyrights and patents are.

Patents expire after a much shorter period of time than copyrights. You can't compare patents to Elvis's greatest hits.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Non sequitur. Read the whole damn post. Copyright was not originally set up in this country so that corporations could lock up every shred of human knowledge and creativity. It was intended to promote the sciences and useful arts, through a LIMITED TIME monopoly. Copyright is now essentially neverending. Every time the copyright on Steamboat Willy is about to expire, and thereby enter the public domain, Disney gets copyright extended even further. The contract that those copyright holders had with US citizens, the agreement that they would be given a LIMITED TIME monopoly on the duplication of their works, has been broken. Therefore I feel no need to hold up my end of the contract and will duplicate to my heart's desire. When copyright is returned to the 21 year limit (plus one possible 14 year extension) as it was originally, then I'll reconsider.

i must've missed the place in the constitution where it says BoberFett gets to decide the definition of Limited Time.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: exdeath
In the constitution, we've been over that already. A producer of an original work is indeed entitled to profit compensation for their work, research, time, etc. It's the capitalist way.

But how long is long enough? What is up for debate is how long exclusive rights should be awarded for a work. 95 years is ridiculous, or I'd have to be paying Henry Ford and his descendants to get a license grant to assemble a go-kart in my back yard, just to point out one example of how absurd unreasonably long term copyrights and patents are.

Patents expire after a much shorter period of time than copyrights. You can't compare patents to Elvis's greatest hits.

Only because of lobbying by media producers to increase copyright times to something unreasonable to secure their dreams of 'something for nothing' so they can continue repackaging the same movie for $20 even years after the original actors are dead and gone. It would be the same thing if Henry Ford successfully lobbied to have patent times extended to 150 years so he and his family would retain a monopoly on the assembly line production of automobiles. But he didn't have to do that because he didn't plan on selling the Model T for $25,000 in 2007. He was busy coming up with new things and designing new cars that people would buy, by innovating and competing. Not figuring out ways to guarantee himself a monopoly so he do something once and milk it forever without innovating anymore. People want to buy new movies all the time as well, so why is Hollywood so concerned about retaining exclusive rights to stuff that was made over 50 years ago when people are willing to pay and lining up to see new stuff?

A work is a work. Why is it that it's ok for someone who records a record 50 years ago to retain a monopoly on that work, but the person who discovers the cure for cancer has to give up his monopoly after only 20 years?

What is the difference?

"Article 1 section 8
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"

There is no separate distinction or priority given to either, it is merely a declaration that individuals have a right to profit for a reasonable amount of time with nothing more than intangible ideas and works. Something that I agree with, being a programmer and aspiring game designer myself. But again, what is reasonable?

I'm waiting for you to say that the cure for cancer is more beneficial to society so we should take away exclusive rights sooner to benefit all; that would make you the socialist.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: exdeath

What is an appropriate length of time is debatable, but I won't have a problem with people making profits on their one work for their lifetime the day the rest of us can stop going to work and still collect a paycheck.

If someone produces something that people continue to want to buy for years after they produce it, why should they give up the right to make money off it.

What right to make money off of it? Please point out where that right is guaranteed.

Let me rephrase that - why should they give up the right that enables them to make money off their creative works? That is, the exclusive right to copy their creative works?

Oh, I don't know, because they have to? As I said before, copyright was originally 21 years. In a truly free market, devoid of government intervention, there would be no exclusive right to copy. Our founding fathers recognized this and created a government enforced monopoly for a limited time after which it became public domain. That limit has been essentially stripped. As I also said earlier, every time copyright on Steamboat Willy is about to expire Disney successfully lobbies to extend copyright further. There is no apparent limit on copyright now, and given that utter disrespect for the concept of limited time by copyright holders, I choose to disrespect the concept of exclusive right. Tit for tat.

Socialist. :thumbsdown::roll:

Moron. :thumbsdown::roll:

Now I can't speak for exdeath, but I'm a free market loving libertarian, so don't even try to paint me as a socialist. It does seem strange though that you're calling other people socialists, when in fact you are the one supporting a government enforced monopoly. Maybe you should think about that for a while.

You want a person who works to produce something to give up their ability to make money off their work so that everyone else can have it for free. You can't see how that is socialism? 😕

You want the government to guarantee the income of people who produce entertainment. You can't see how that is socialism?

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: exdeath
In the constitution, we've been over that already. A producer of an original work is indeed entitled to profit compensation for their work, research, time, etc. It's the capitalist way.

But how long is long enough? What is up for debate is how long exclusive rights should be awarded for a work. 95 years is ridiculous, or I'd have to be paying Henry Ford and his descendants to get a license grant to assemble a go-kart in my back yard, just to point out one example of how absurd unreasonably long term copyrights and patents are.

Patents expire after a much shorter period of time than copyrights. You can't compare patents to Elvis's greatest hits.

Only because of lobbying by media producers to increase copyright times to something unreasonable to secure their dreams of 'something for nothing' so they can continue repackaging the same movie for $20 even years after the original actors are dead and gone. It would be the same thing if Henry Ford successfully lobbied to have patent times extended to 150 years so he and his family would retain a monopoly on the assembly line production of automobiles. But he didn't have to do that because he didn't plan on selling the Model T for $25,000 in 2007. He was busy coming up with new things and designing new cars that people would buy, not figuring out ways to protect his monopoly so he could sell the same thing forever without innovating anymore. And people want to buy new movies all the time as well, so why is Hollywood so concerned about retaining exclusive rights to stuff that was made over 50 years ago when people are lining up to see new stuff?

A work is a work. Why is it that it's ok for someone who records a record 50 years ago to retain a monopoly on that work, but the person who discovers the cure for cancer has to give up his monopoly after only 20 years?

What is the difference?

"Article 1 section 8
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"

There is no separate distinction or priority given to either.

I'm waiting for you to say that the cure for cancer is more beneficial to society so we should take away exclusive rights sooner to benefit all; that would make you the socialist.

you're right. we should extend the patent to 50 years. you should write your elected officials about that.

all i know is that, as a content producer, if i work really hard and create something good, it seems right that i should be able to sell it throughout my lifetime and reap the benefits of my hard work. if people don't see value in my work, then they don't have to buy it.