Opinon Article on Copyright Laws
- Thread starter Queasy
- Start date
The basic problem is this:
1. Constitution provides protection over the creations of Authors for a limited time.
2. Corporate America has effectively subverted the constitution by repeatedly extended the duration. Technically it is limited, but if it is repeatedly extended come time for a mass shift of works into the public domain, it is in effect perpetual.
1. Constitution provides protection over the creations of Authors for a limited time.
2. Corporate America has effectively subverted the constitution by repeatedly extended the duration. Technically it is limited, but if it is repeatedly extended come time for a mass shift of works into the public domain, it is in effect perpetual.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,563
- 9
- 81
Some parts of the article were quite uninformed, but the fact is true that corporations have subverted the copyright system to make copyrights virtually perpetual. Every time the copyright comes around on Mickey Mouse, congress just happens to extend copyright a bit longer. Coincidence?
And even if they didn't push copyright further and further out, things like the DMCA have made decoding encrypted digital material illegal so that once everything is digital and analog is thing of the past, it will be impossible to get at even public domain material because the act of getting to something free is a crime.
And even if they didn't push copyright further and further out, things like the DMCA have made decoding encrypted digital material illegal so that once everything is digital and analog is thing of the past, it will be impossible to get at even public domain material because the act of getting to something free is a crime.
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: Corn
Wow, insulted on a messageboard by a child engaged in a jihad against evil corporate america.
My god, I just can't go on any longer...........
[MoronBoy? imitation mode]Did it take you the entire 39 minutes to think up that witless one-liner?[/]
Way to ignore discussion and debate and go straight for the personal insults. Have a nice life.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,414
- 8,356
- 126
this thread went downhill in a hurry.
copyright laws in this country give far more power to the copyright holder than pretty much any other country, IIRC. also, i don't think software should be patentable. copyrighted, yes, but when was the last time you saw a patented instruction book?
copyright laws in this country give far more power to the copyright holder than pretty much any other country, IIRC. also, i don't think software should be patentable. copyrighted, yes, but when was the last time you saw a patented instruction book?
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Well, only because a witless individual didn't appreciate a dissenting opinion with regard to the quality of the editorial piece that is the basis of this thread.
IMHO "software" is no different than any other patentable "idea". Do you view software as it was written, or do you execute it and it performs a task of some sort?
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
It wasn't with the dissenting opinion that I disagreed with, only the "witless" response. You ignored the substance of the article and focused on two words.
But, I do agree that software should be patentable. If someone takes the time to create a new task that performs a previously unused or never though of function then that is worthy of a patent.
Should that stop someone else from reverse engineering that piece of software/task so that they can create a new product that works with the software/task? In my opinion no. And that is pretty much the basis of the situation where the MPAA was trying to squash the individual who created DeCSS.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
Corn, you didn't give a "dissenting opinion," you thread crapped. You also began the insults. If you really have something actually pertinent and important to say on this topic, by all means join the discussion. If not, go 'way, troll.
Now, can someone tell me why it won't let me read the article? I go straight to a page that says "Want to take action about what you have just read?" sigh...
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Erm, no. I gave my opinion with regard to the quality of the editorial, and opened it up with a very concise summary of why I lent no credence to the author of said article. The brevity of my initial reply was also explained in my usual concise manner: I had wasted enough of my time simply reading that trash, why should I bother wasting any more of my life debating minor points it made.
Really? I would like to see whom I insulted personally prior to being on the receiving end of the following insult:
You be sure to get back to me now, kay.....
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
Let me get this straight... you didn't think you had enough time to read the article (after only reading the title), yet you took the time to post?
As for this "insult" you received... you yourself said you only read 2 words and you said it took 2 minutes. I thought that Queasy's comeback was rather witty and that you deserved it for your thread-crap. You, however, went off the deep-end in unjustified indignation and insisted on destroying the whole thread. I've seen you play this game in many similar copyright or RIAA/MPAA related threads before, both here and on different forums. It seems you never post except to prevent people from having a discussion on this subject which they think to be very important.
Now go the fsck away troll. :|
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
My god, this is just too easy.
I absolutely positively never said I didn't have "enough time to read the article", I said that after reading that article, I considered it a waste of my time.
Unlike reading that so-called "article", replying to your pathetic insults entertains me. Alas, one man's garbage is another man's good time.
Wow, I'm almost speechless......either you are one of the most incredibly stupid people on this earth, are merely a dishonest troll, or have some perverted form of dyslexia that caused words to appear on your monitor that I did not say.
Read the following slowly.....very slowly:
I never said I only read 2 words. I merely used 2 words in my example of why I did not give credence to the author of the so-called article which is the basis for this thread.
Of course you did....but then again, coming from someone who reads words that never existed, I'm not really all that concerned with what you think I may, or may not, deserve. LOL
Awww, isn't that cute.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
Out-of-context, incomplete, and difficult-to-follow quotes won't help you, Corn. Nor am I going to "feed" you. You're the only one who doesn't see how you crapped and trolled off-topic this otherwise worthwhile thread. 
Back on topic, can someone please PM me the text of the article or post it here? For some reason it won't come up for me. TIA.
Back on topic, can someone please PM me the text of the article or post it here? For some reason it won't come up for me. TIA.
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
Copyright extremists shouldn't control information
Copyright extremists are working to control as much information as possible. Almost every week we see a new example of how they are thwarting the free flow of information.
The leaders of the copyright lobby are the Hollywood movie distributors and the major music corporations known as music labels. The latter don?t create any music; they just market and distribute CDs with music after they acquire control of the copyrights.
The major music labels operate through a lobbying organization called the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) to maintain their monopolistic interests and stifle the online distribution of music. Its five largest members, which sell 85 percent of all CDs, were found by the Federal Trade Commission in 2000 to have unlawfully kept the retail prices of CDs high.
The RIAA has pressured colleges into policing the computer networks used by their students. It has subpoenaed computer network providers in order to track people listening to music. The U.S. Naval Academy seized 100 student computers suspected of containing unauthorized music and threatened the Annapolis midshipmen with court-martial and expulsion. These fine students are training to fight a war in behalf of our country, and they should be allowed to listen to a little music in their spare time.
The copyright extremists argue that essentially all downloaded music is illegal. They successfully lobbied Congress into extending copyright terms to life of the composer plus 70 years, and now they claim that copyright owners can dictate how, where and when people listen to music.
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a challenge to the constitutionality of the latest copyright extension. Congress has extended the time period 11 times in the past 40 years.
All authority for copyright law comes from the U.S. Constitution, which states that the purpose of copyright protection is ?to promote the progress of science and useful arts? and that copyright protection is granted only ?for limited times.?
The RIAA tried to put small radio station Webcasters out of business while secretly giving National Public Radio affiliates a sweetheart deal not available to other radio stations. Only last-minute intervention by outgoing Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., gave small radio stations the legislative right to play music while paying reasonable royalties.
A teenager is on trial in Norway for figuring out a novel way to play DVD movie discs on his personal computer. He should be commended for his ingenuity, not punished.
Adobe (a U.S. computer software company) persuaded U.S. law enforcement to throw a visiting Russian scholar in jail after he revealed some shortcomings in an Adobe e-book product at a public conference in this country. He was eventually released on condition that he testify against his own company.
The company has just been acquitted in a jury trial. Adobe could not find any example of anyone using the Russian software improperly. Major retailers are now using copyright law to try to stop Web sites from posting advance information about sales. It?s understandable that retailers want to keep it secret that they might be cutting prices after a holiday, but that is not the purpose of copyright law.
Microsoft now uses its Windows license agreement to try to limit criticism by its customers. It says, ?You may not disclose the results of any bench-mark test of the .NET framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft?s prior written approval. ... All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Microsoft.?
The CEO of Turner Broadcasting says that television viewers are guilty of stealing if they skip the commercials. She said, ?Your contract with the network when you get the show is you?re going to watch the spots.?
Eight Hollywood studios have filed suit against local retailers who buy their videos and DVDs and then delete the nudity, violence and foul language for the benefit and at the expense of their customers. Hollywood doesn?t lose any sales from this practice; Hollywood is just determined to force viewers to watch the lurid sex and violence.
Copyright extremists are committing all this mischief under current law. Yet, the music labels and Hollywood argue that current laws are not strong enough, and they are lobbying for an assortment of new anti-consumer legislation.
One proposal would allow them to vandalize computer networks that they believe might be transmitting unauthorized content. Another proposed bill would force computer equipment makers to rig their computers so buyers can only see and hear what is authorized, and another proposal would give copyrights to privacy-invading databases.
The purpose of copyright law is to provide incentives and protection to authors to create and publish original works, not give corporations the power to control the flow of information. We should not permit copyright extremists to exploit current laws for that goal, and we should reject their demands that Congress give them even broader power to control and license information.
©2002 Copley News Service
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Stung by your own drivel and unable to counter one stupid thing you've said.
I did not "thread crap", I was not the first to sling insults, and the deflected potshots from idiotic peanut gallery go unchallenged (for obvious reasons).
All in a days work.
Oh yeah Vic, YGPM.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
Seems like an accurate and informative enough article to me. If it was any waste of time reading it, it would have been because I was already aware of all the information it contained. Very good article for someone who may not yet be aware of these issues.
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
I agree that it did not contain any new information but the good thing, in my opinion, was that it was a non-techie covering it. Most of the articles you see about this issue come from technical or IT oriented magazines, websites, etc. The lady who wrote this is just a regular opinion piece writer whose articles go to a few newspapers around the nation. It was nice to see it covered in a forum where the average person who is not heavily into the technical world can see what powerful lobbie the RIAA and MPAA are and how they are affecting the flow of information and innovation.
I also agree. Good article, though a little redundant to me since I already read most of the information elsewhere. Sums it up well.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter