SOPA

Post Reply New Topic

do you pay due dividents to those that inspired or invented what you use when drawing buildings?

now some will be dead but i doubt all of them will be, the real issue being its impossible to make the real distinction between what is truly "your" idea.

It does when Fair Use no longer applies, which SOPA/PIPA basically eliminate. That's the reason for the anger, these bills are dangerously flawed and poorly written enough to allow things beyond anti-piracy measures.

i have paid for my education to acquire the knowledge that was agreed upon being "sold" to me, for me, and only me, to use…. (i can not easily copy it and transfer to any other person…)

i have paid for the licenses (some are a one time amount, some are licenses to be paid periodically) of all the software i need to make my ideas and designs

intellectual property inspired by or based upon prior inventions and ideas are perfectly legal, as long as the resulting products are unique and do not copy said inventions or ideas, but separate from them by a fair amount.

that's what most patent trial are about… is it copied and should a license fee be paid.. or is it something new…

copyrights and patents always expire.

copyrights expire 70 years after the copyright holders death.

patents typically expire after 25 years.


meaning:

i should be able to use whatever invention made more than 25 years ago… this includes most knowledge need for becoming an architect… since most of this knowledge was invented decades, or even centuries ago.

all math neede etc is even older…

i can not copy arne jacobsen… since he has not been dead for more than 70 years… and even if he was, there could be some other rules that prevent me form copying him directly.

but i can record a song myself written by hans christian andersen… but i cannot copy the same song recorded by an orchestra, without infringing on their copyright… because that recording is their work… their intellectual property!!

there is no fair use in copying a complete work. never. ever.

(on a side note: yes SOPA is flawed… but thats another story)

education can be done without paying for it,
it is largely freely distributed, not as a service but the knowledge itself.

and while i agree people should receive compensation it should be the people that actually do the work, such as your structures or the artist themselves,
i dont agree its the right of individuals outside that scope to trade in something they have no share in, we should pay the people responsible for that service but not for the knowledge itself.

Really? Are you sure?

Because I just did.

So much for your nonsense

There is no such thing as 'intellectual property'. It's only exists via government force. It doesn't encourage innovation; it's purpose is the opposite, to stifle competition.

so…

according to your logic, e.g. Warner Bros (USA) shouldn't need to pay a dime to J.K. Rowling (UK) for any rights for her efforts and creative mind that can write awesome stories people like (she should just be glad that anyone wants to read her nonsense stories… or what?), because paying her for her intellectual properties would stifle the competition, and it is only forced upon them by a government - what government?

the US government thinks it's a really bright idea to force an US company to pay a huge license to a UK person, because that benefits the US?

or is it the UK government that can force an US company to pay a huge license to a UK person, because they can impose suchs laws in the US?

would you be so kind to explain this?

Can you not read?!?

I have said time and again that SOPA and PIPA are wrong. My argument has never been that these are appropriate legislative tools.

My argument has always been that the freedom of the internet must not come at the price of artists' fair compensation for their work--and just as important--the artist's control over the distribution of the artists own work. It is lovely that you went out an bought an album because of a "free" song that you got sent. And if the artist put that song out for all to hear and share, then that promotion worked, at least once. But in that case--it wouldn't have been piracy, would it?

Try reading some legislation sometime. You might learn something about the meaning of words like, "theft." I'm sorry to sound patronizing, but you are holding forth on a subject on which you are clearly ignorant. Now, I can't speak to the state of the law in your jurisdiction, but in mine, the legislation is unequivocal:






When have I suggested the "copyright mafia" need more power? I have said that artists deserve to be paid for their art, and control its distribution. I have never suggested that the status quo ante is a viable system and I have been clear and unequivocal that SOPA and PIPA are bad legislation. How many times do I have to say it before it sinks into your conciousness?

I want to see a balance between free expression on the internet and the protection of artists' interests. I will not countenance sacrificing one in order to preserve the other, and I think that any person who is content to do so is the one who should be ashamed.

So why is it that you have utterly failed to understand that this is precisely the sort of thing that I have been crying out for?

You uncritically jump on the bandwagon. you claim that my employment as a public servant calls into question this government's ability to understand the balance of interests in intellectual property law. And then you propound exactly what I have been calling for without any retraction of your earlier sentiments.

Cheap shot, pedant, cheap shot.

I stand corrected wrt. your feelings on the current bills. Wrt. the song - it wasn't the artist who I got it from.

Yes, but if the artist put it on the net and said (or implied), "please share this with people." Then that is license to share the song, and you would have come by it legtimately, and that would, in turn, have prompted your purchase.

An artist can authorize indirect distribution of works just as much as the artist can distribute them directly.

I don't know if the song in question came with that proviso or not, but I've been sharing songs with the person who sent it to me since we were young enough to sit by the radio with our fingers on the cassette 'record' button, waiting for a song that we liked to start playing.

again should it be illegal to lend books to people that do not hold "license" to read it?

STRRRRRAAAAWMAAAAN

No. What we would like is you to :
1. Admit that if you copyright a house drawing. Your copyright protection is subject to fair use. Which means that we should be able to satirize your drawing of a house. We should be able to show your drawing of a house to others for education purposes, etc.

2. Your copyright shouldn't last eternally. If you die and 20 years pass it is public domain. Your work deserves no more protection than Shakespeare or Aristotle, so please, if you invented a mouse cartoon and died, get over it, don't expect the company you founded to bribe congress to keep prolonging the copyright expiration date everytime your mouse is about to get into public domain.

3. Since you are a copyright holder and there are MILLIONS of you (heck, I am one). Please, don't be a freeloader. Don't expect the rest of the world to do work for you. And by this I mean that it is your responsibility and only YOUR responsibility to police and examine house drawings of other people to verify that they are not a infringement of your drawing. No, you can't expect all sites in the world to close up access and police all content only so that your house drawing can be ensured to never appear ever again in any website. What you CAN do is, when you find an infrigingement of your house drawing, report it to the site's owner (Please include evidence that you actually own the work, don't expect people to delete resources at your will just because you drew a house). If the website doesn't delete it, report the website to the authorities. Because there are already ways to deal with this, no new laws are needed.

4. Just because you own a house drawing, it doesn't mean you are supposed to profit from it. Other people can and will make house drawings too. And they are as entitled as you are to do so. More so, just because you made a cute house drawing, it doesn't mean you should control the whole market of house drawings. If other people want to release their own house drawings for free and thus make your business model a joke, you are doomed and you should be looking for a new job. This also applies if you think point 3 is more work than your profit is worth.