Greed and online piracy ...

[VirtualLarry]

I think you should test your theory about creators having no inherent rights over their intellectual property.

The Constitution recognizes the rights of intellectual property, inasmuch as they provided for it in the Constitution, FOR A LIMITED TIME. That WAS INTENTIONAL.

Just like, Corporations, used to be chartered FOR A LIMITED TIME, AND ONLY "FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD".

NO-WHERE does the Constitution suggest that creators should have an exclusive monopoly over their creations, FOR ALL TIME.

The thing about intellectual property, is that it is SHARED. And thus, it SPREADS. Stories. Music. Later on, Movies.

Once you share it, the receiver ALSO GETS A COPY. (Even if it's just the copy in their head.)

So, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that issue, and thus, provided for a monopoly over one's own creative works, FOR A LIMITED TIME. The idea being, that given when works were presented, they were shared, and the receivers also get a copy, that eventually, works would be shared ad infinitum among the population, so who would invest into the process of producing those creative works? So therefore, they created a framework, such that those creators gained EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS to their creative works, FOR A LIMITED TIME, and then, the works would fall into the PUBLIC DOMAIN. Because, ART BEGETS ART.

They couldn't really imagine that a CORPORATION, with a LIFESPAN MUCH GREATER THAN A MAN, could AMASS THE RIGHTS TO MANY CREATIVE WORKS, and attempt to CONTROL CULTURE, by limiting access to those works, in order to make an IMMENSE PROFIT, WITH NO PUBLIC GOOD COMING OF IT.

 

[EliteRetard]

How is a "work" different from any other property? Why is it greedy to want to retain ownership of what you have created? Why do we treat ownership of land or a home differently than ownership of the copyright to a book, film or work of art. Is it any less an act of creation to write a book, produce a movie or take a photograph than it is to build a house? We don't force heirs of any other kind of property to surrender it to the public domain once enough time has passed.

I think we need to reconsider copyright law in this age of digital media. It shouldn't mater if I build houses, cars, write books or make movies, why should some property rights automatically expire?

This thread is getting a bit spicy...perhaps it needs some mayo.

Anyway, the problem I have with copyrighting "imaginary" stuff like stories or art is that big corps like Disney can shut down anyone who imagines anything similar.

What if I wanted to write stories or make art depicting an animated/talking mouse?
What if I wanted to make something based on an old folk tale, where a lady loses her shoe?
What if I wanted to tell a more realistic story of Pocahontas?

You can be certain Disney would do whatever they could to strangle me and take every penny they could.

I have no problem with people being guaranteed some fair protection for these imaginary works.
50 years is plenty of time for somebody to have exclusive rights to an idea, and make whatever profit they can.
The copyright rules are now at something like 90 years, and a company like Disney basically has no limits.

I don't think any company should permanently own an imaginary thing, even if they made a physical work based on it.
Even the physical work should have some limitations, like any other invention. Those patents only last 14-20 years.

The ones who invented gas engines doesn't own all vehicles or get royalties from everything with an engine.
The ones who invented hook/loop fasteners doesn't own or share in the profits of everything with a similar fastener.
The first guy to splash paint on canvas doesn't own or have the rights to every picture made by splashing paint.

 

[Red Squirrel]

You can't really compare intellectual property to physical property. In the case of physical property, I buy a thing, and I have the thing. If someone builds a thing that is the same I don't care, but if someone takes it from me then I do, because I don't have it anymore. With IP, if I build a thing, then nobody else is allowed to build it (patents) or to look at it or to take a picture of it (copyright).

Copyright originally had very good intents. If you write a book or a research paper, or take a picture, it protects you from someone else taking the entirety of it and claiming it as their own creation and taking credit for it. This is good, and it's what copyright should be for. However now days it's gotten to the point where even using a tiny little blurb of copyrighted work (ex: a video that talks about a movie and you show a clip, or you actually make your own content but it's too close to something copyrighted) is considered infringement. Or a song that sounds too much like another song, that's infringement. To me this is going too far and goes away from the original intent, and instead weaponizes it as a way to own a monopoly in a certain genre. For example, fairy tales. Disney pretty much owns all rights to those. If someone tries to make a fairy tale of their own and publishes it, chances are it will resemble something Disney owns and they'll get sued.

Then there's the whole thing of simply censoring content. Not allowing content to even be consumed, such as this whole idea of a school wanting to show a movie or a bar wanting to have TV without some kind of special expensive license. Why is that even considered copyright infringement, the school is not trying to claim ownership of the movie. If copyright law applied to text the same way it applies to digital content, public libraries would actually be illegal.

They've basically taken something meant to protect authors and turned it into something to suck money out of people with.

 

[snoopy7548]

Piracy solves the problem of having to buy the same goddamn movie ten times. Movie studios know you're at their mercy, and milk the cow for all its worth and then some...

Terminator 2:
-The 137-minute theatrical cut of the movie was first released on VHS in November 1991
-In November 24, 1993, the Terminator 2: Judgment Day – Special Edition cut of the film was released to Laserdisc and VHS, containing 15 minutes of previously unseen footage ... Some scenes, however, were still not included in the two-cassette VHS cut.
-In October 1997, the film received its first DVD release which featured the original theatrical cut.
-The "Extreme Edition" DVD has several DVD-ROM features ... also contains a WMV-HD theatrical edition of T2, where the film could be watched, for the first time, in Full HD 1080p format.
-In 2006, Lionsgate released a Blu-ray of the film that is presented in a slightly washed-out 1080p transfer and included no special features and a DTS 5.1 audio track from the DVDs instead of a lossless audio track.
-On May 19, 2009, Lionsgate re-released the film on Blu-ray in the form of a "Skynet Edition"
-On July 2017, two new Blu-ray releases of the film were announced. First, a 4K remaster, and later a Blu-ray 3D release of the 3D conversion due out in August 2017.
-In 2015, Sony released the extended version of the film as part of the Terminator Quadrilogy box set
-The subsequent "Ultimate Edition" and "Extreme Edition" DVD releases also included the extended version of the film.

I count twelve releases on just four formats - VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, and Blu-Ray. That's not counting streaming. Even if you upgraded after each format change, you would still be buying the same movie at least three times.

Who wants to bet there will be multiple 8k editions?

It's even more of a kick in the pants when this happens:
"The new 4K transfer is notoriously one of the worst 4K discs out there, mainly due to the excessive use of DNR."

 

[Red Squirrel]

Wait until Star Wars comes out in 8k 3D! Definitely need a VR version in there somewhere. Actually VR movies would be kinda interesting... you could essentially be part of the scene, like you're always watching from the vantage point of a character and you can turn your head to view the whole scene. Ok we need 3 new Star Wars!

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Piracy solves the problem of having to buy the same goddamn movie ten times. Movie studios know you're at their mercy, and milk the cow for all its worth and then some...

But isn't that why they got the cow in the first place? Who wants a dairy cow that is stubborn and only puts out milk to those that didn't buy the cow in the first place? Dairy farmers would be out of business if they could only milk a cow once.

 

[Red Squirrel]

So I ran into a pretty serious issue today. I don't even know if it's bad enough to qualify as a 1st world problem because this should never happen in the first world. So sometimes you run out of beer, or wine, it happens right? Well I got one that's worse. I ran out of maple syrup. That's a horrible thing to allow to happen as a Canadian. I feel like I could be deported to America for that even though I was born here.

 

[Amol S.]

You do realize it is both the film industry, music industry, music CD distribution industry, and the movie theater industry, (more so the latter two), that are the ones who really support copyright and DMCA. The issue with the latter two is that they are the industries that are loosing money in the modern world, and they want to save as much money as they can. The first two can still make money without the last two. But piracy still does affect the first two overall as well.

The software industry is a different story when it comes to pirated software. Take Windows for example. An unactivated Windows can still be used, however you will not be able to get any Windows updates after time-frame.

Pirated IPTV channels is stupidity being displayed by those who buy the pirating service and the pirate service providers. There is no such thing as I only have one choice for TV provider, there always is Wireless TV.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Here's an idea. Make Copyrights, requiring renewal, like patents, say every 10 years. Only, each 10 years, the cost to renew the copyright goes up, until it reaches fairly exorbitant amounts, even for a corporation. The idea behind it being, that as long as the property/work has commercial value/potential value, the owner can afford to keep renewing the copyright. But eventually, it gets so expensive, that the copyright isn't worth being renewed, and then, AT THAT TIME, the "work" falls off of Copyright, and into the PUBLIC DOMAIN.

That would end the spat about "Author's lifetime", "Plus so many years", or against "eternal copyright" (against what the founders intended).

It would also foster the development of "new material", because, like getting rid of older workers that make too much in salary, and hiring fresh new college grads, creating new works would result in lower copyright renewal fees, compared to maintaining copyright on existing works (unless said existing works were still making enough money to offset the ratcheted-up copyright renewal fees).

Edit: It would also make "Abandonware" software web sites explicitly legal, essentially, as software that was no longer having it's copyright renewed (Because the rights-owner no longer existed), thus those bits of software would fall into public-domain.

Call it "Progressive Copyright". Maybe the Democrats can make it part of their plank, being that it has "Progressive" in the name, and "free stuff for the public" as one of the features.

Edit: Or you could even call it "Market-Based Copyright", since it would be dependent on "the market" whether or not it was worth it to renew the copyright for that work again for the next 10 years. Republicans could get behind it too.

 

[nakedfrog]

The Constitution recognizes the rights of intellectual property, inasmuch as they provided for it in the Constitution, FOR A LIMITED TIME. That WAS INTENTIONAL.

Just like, Corporations, used to be chartered FOR A LIMITED TIME, AND ONLY "FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD".

NO-WHERE does the Constitution suggest that creators should have an exclusive monopoly over their creations, FOR ALL TIME.

The thing about intellectual property, is that it is SHARED. And thus, it SPREADS. Stories. Music. Later on, Movies.

Once you share it, the receiver ALSO GETS A COPY. (Even if it's just the copy in their head.)

So, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that issue, and thus, provided for a monopoly over one's own creative works, FOR A LIMITED TIME. The idea being, that given when works were presented, they were shared, and the receivers also get a copy, that eventually, works would be shared ad infinitum among the population, so who would invest into the process of producing those creative works? So therefore, they created a framework, such that those creators gained EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS to their creative works, FOR A LIMITED TIME, and then, the works would fall into the PUBLIC DOMAIN. Because, ART BEGETS ART.

They couldn't really imagine that a CORPORATION, with a LIFESPAN MUCH GREATER THAN A MAN, could AMASS THE RIGHTS TO MANY CREATIVE WORKS, and attempt to CONTROL CULTURE, by limiting access to those works, in order to make an IMMENSE PROFIT, WITH NO PUBLIC GOOD COMING OF IT.

Even our national anthem uses the music from a pre-existing song

 

[Red Squirrel]

I like the idea of copyright requiring renewal. Or at the very least, make it go public domain when the original owner dies.

 

[RPD]

Piracy solves the problem of having to buy the same goddamn movie ten times. Movie studios know you're at their mercy, and milk the cow for all its worth and then some...

Terminator 2:
-The 137-minute theatrical cut of the movie was first released on VHS in November 1991
-In November 24, 1993, the Terminator 2: Judgment Day – Special Edition cut of the film was released to Laserdisc and VHS, containing 15 minutes of previously unseen footage ... Some scenes, however, were still not included in the two-cassette VHS cut.
-In October 1997, the film received its first DVD release which featured the original theatrical cut.
-The "Extreme Edition" DVD has several DVD-ROM features ... also contains a WMV-HD theatrical edition of T2, where the film could be watched, for the first time, in Full HD 1080p format.
-In 2006, Lionsgate released a Blu-ray of the film that is presented in a slightly washed-out 1080p transfer and included no special features and a DTS 5.1 audio track from the DVDs instead of a lossless audio track.
-On May 19, 2009, Lionsgate re-released the film on Blu-ray in the form of a "Skynet Edition"
-On July 2017, two new Blu-ray releases of the film were announced. First, a 4K remaster, and later a Blu-ray 3D release of the 3D conversion due out in August 2017.
-In 2015, Sony released the extended version of the film as part of the Terminator Quadrilogy box set
-The subsequent "Ultimate Edition" and "Extreme Edition" DVD releases also included the extended version of the film.

I count twelve releases on just four formats - VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, and Blu-Ray. That's not counting streaming. Even if you upgraded after each format change, you would still be buying the same movie at least three times.

Who wants to bet there will be multiple 8k editions?

It's even more of a kick in the pants when this happens:
"The new 4K transfer is notoriously one of the worst 4K discs out there, mainly due to the excessive use of DNR."

Who's buying the same movie more than twice? Pretty much anyone I know has DVD's and then replaced HIGHLY LOVED or masterpieces with BluRay. No one is forced to buy each edition of a movie, relax.

 

[sdifox]

Who's buying the same movie more than twice? Pretty much anyone I know has DVD's and then replaced HIGHLY LOVED or masterpieces with BluRay. No one is forced to buy each edition of a movie, relax.

Pretty sure I bought many movies many times. They want to have the cake and eat it too.

 

[RPD]

Pretty sure I bought many movies many times. They want to have the cake and eat it too.

That's kinda on you, not the studios.

 

[sdifox]

That's kinda on you, not the studios.

Why? If I am paying for home viewing right, why do I have to pay multiple times?

 

[RPD]

Why? If I am paying for home viewing right, why do I have to pay multiple times?

That is the question, why ARE you paying multiple times, yet say, I and lots of people don't (and don't pirate)?

 

[sdifox]

That is the question, why ARE you paying multiple times, yet say, I and lots of people don't (and don't pirate)?

Cuz tapes wear out. Cuz DVD has better resolution than VHS. Cyz BluRay has better resolution than DVD. Cuz 4K BluRay has better resolution than BluRay.

I don't have an issue with paying for the media again, but I shouldn't be paying for the licence everytime.

 

[RPD]

Cuz tapes wear out. Cuz DVD has better resolution than VHS. Cyz BluRay has better resolution than DVD. Cuz 4K BluRay has better resolution than BluRay.

I don't have an issue with paying for the media again, but I shouldn't be paying for the licence everytime.

You aren't.

 

[sdifox]

You aren't.

Oh what am I paying for then?

 

[RPD]

Oh what am I paying for then?

Different versions of the movie.

 

[sdifox]

Different versions of the movie.

Lol, same fucking movie, on different medium.

 

[RPD]

Lol, same fucking movie, on different medium.

If they are exactly the same (words matter), why don't you just stick to the DVD?

 

[sdifox]

If they are exactly the same (words matter), why don't you just stick to the DVD?

It's like talking to the wall...

 

[RPD]

It's like talking to the wall...

I'm not the one spending money on the exact same movie multiple times, but yet somehow they aren't exactly the same because you keep buying them? I'm confused.

 

[sdifox]

I'm not the one spending money on the exact same movie multiple times, but yet somehow they aren't exactly the same because you keep buying them? I'm confused.

Resolution matters. I didn't think I have to explain this in a tech forum.