SOPA

Page 7 of 7 [ 111 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Previous topic | Next topic

aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

25 Jan 2012, 6:49 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

aspi-rant wrote:

so…

according to the logic of many, i should not complain that every house i draw and design, should be in the public domain… as long as anyone who makes a copy of it, tells everybody else that i designed it, and are allowed to pas on my drawings to whomever wants them?

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.

i am not sure if we are on the same chapter… but let me try:

[img][800:512]http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/634/28954524033232600586210.jpg[/img]

this is house i designed.

this house is only build once.

i have the copyright as an architect on this house.

my copyright is automatically granted to me, due to the nature of my work.

my copyright does NOT last eternally.. as stated earlier it lasts until 70 years after my death… just as the copyright on a cartoon mouse or sheakspears work etc...

i can not drive around the world for the rest of my life to look for illegal copies of this house in every street… so i have to be a "freeloader" as you call it and have support from authorities to find these illegal copies… just as customs will halt an illegal import…

the "cute" house drawing i make are not illustrations… they are drawings of real houses to be build and lived in by real humans and pets… they cost a rather large sum to build for those who are going to buy a house… and should last more than a lifetime… so it takes more than cuteness… so off course i expect that my expertise is paid for, and not just copied.

i could come up with a long list of other statements regarding your post… but i think you get my point. :wink:

Nexus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 833
Location: On I2

25 Jan 2012, 7:26 pm

lol, what are they going to do if someone did build a replica of that house? Demolish it? Srsly, lol

Besides if I was wanting a house design like that, I would make a few modifications to the design so it won't be a copyright issue anyway. Now if they tried to enforce copyrights on things like that (even though legally it's not the exact same design), kiss innovation goodbye and watch civilization stagnate as a result of such copyright trolling by corporates.

_________________
"Have a nice apocalypse" - Southland Tales

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

25 Jan 2012, 7:31 pm

yes but again you might have done the service of that exact drawing but does that make the thought entirely your own??

no, you should be fairly compensated for that service, but in truth style wise it is nothing unique(not that it needs to be, far from it, what pleases pleases.)
it is of course inspired by the whole of society and all of those contributions, houses you walked past and found interesting.

that is why i say the idea of "thought ownership" is a fallacy, you cant control what flares up in peoples brain anymore than you can the spin of our galaxy,
you can look at services and how those that do it receive their compensation, or you can enforce the idea of thought ownership through means of intimidation.
all that will do is spark a just as vicious blowback, search for the #J18 effect, something that will have a very real impact on the bottom line of many companies, not just the ones involved in that fight.

i would rather see a workable alternative,

as mentioned in another thread itunes did this in a very smart manner (still too hard to get out of but thats another matter)
it lowered the end consumer costs by a factor of 5 and in some cases doubled the actual in hand payout to starting artists, dante bucci springs to mind.
this pushes the purchase below the nitpicking limit of most human beings and thus makes sales extremely easy compared to a full record.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

25 Jan 2012, 8:02 pm

Nexus wrote:

no they won't demolish it. (explicitly mentioned in the law!)… but you will be fined and made to pay a fair compensation for copying it.

it is not that simple as you would like it to be… the modifications have to be rather large before it doesn't infringe..

innovation has never been stagnated by copyright… nor by patents.

it only stagnates non-innovative people and companies who wants a free ride, by stealing others intellectual properties.

only they oppose to these laws that are designed to protect people that drive innovation and R&D… and those who move forward.

aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

25 Jan 2012, 8:15 pm

Oodain wrote:

no, you should be fairly compensated for that service, but in truth style wise it is nothing unique(not that it needs to be, far from it, what pleases pleases.)
it is of course inspired by the whole of society and all of those contributions, houses you walked past and found interesting.

in danish the law defines the uniqueness of a design by "værk" and has to have "værkshøjde"

very fuzzy terms…

in case of a house there are several things to consider, what is copyrighted and what is not:

- all blueprints are always copyrighted and can NEVER be copied without permission of the copyright holder. period.
- the design of the house (its looks) can be copyrighter IF it has "værkshøjde"… som kind of uniqueness… even it can be inspired by other design, but has a significant difference, so it does not infringe
- its layout plan can also be copyrighted, no matter how the house looks in detail, again if it has a "værkshøjde"…

germany is one of the most restrictive in this area… and fines are huge!

denmark like to think of itself as being known for good design… but in reality we are very bad a protecting design… hence we have tons of copy products on the marked.

just look around how many PH-lookalike lamps, arne jakobsen chairs and table lookalikes every where…. and nobody gets tried or convicted.

still the law says it's illegal… but nobody seems to bother.

piracy is broadly accepted…. maybe because of the "jante-lov"?? ;-)

Nexus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 833
Location: On I2

25 Jan 2012, 8:18 pm

aspi-rant wrote:

Nexus wrote:

But then, how do we know your idea were not a derivative of other people's previous works? Because most if not all works are inspired by the person's surroundings and experiences in life. It may be possible you subconsciously copied an idea from something else you saw and passed it off as your own. What stops them from potentially suing you for infringement over something you were unaware of? How does that help innovation then? In fact how does that benefit you, should that situation happen to you?

_________________
"Have a nice apocalypse" - Southland Tales

aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

25 Jan 2012, 8:28 pm

Nexus wrote:

aspi-rant wrote:

Nexus wrote:

accidents like that can happen, and if they do and you get informed of your infringement, you settle for a fee or whatever, acknowledging the others IP (intellectual property)

if you have a serious education, you also have learned a lot about what already has been done (case studies etc)… and that's what separates the innovative from the freeloader who only goes after the money he thinks he can earn by copying others ideas.

so education warrants (often) a compensation for the work you do…

amateurs have no clue, and do as they please… and mostly do not care whose IP they violate.

it is not illegal to get inspired by something… but there is a significant difference between a copy and a derivative that was inspired by something.

Nexus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 833
Location: On I2

25 Jan 2012, 8:52 pm

But there's now one problem with that:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/

If that starts happening, it screws over a lot of people who legally used public domain work to earn money from or alternatively modified slightly to generate improvements on the work. All it takes is one corporation to buy out a series of heavily used pieces of work to single-handedly make it all illegal.

The issue is even more complicated than what we both think it is.

_________________
"Have a nice apocalypse" - Southland Tales

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

25 Jan 2012, 9:03 pm

and all of this arguing is irrelevant if we stop looking at thoughts as if they can become property,

pay for the service, fairly instead, for 99% of working people and artists that would only give a positive outcome, the serious fat cats and investors not so much.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

25 Jan 2012, 9:06 pm

Nexus wrote:

i think you haven't understpood the article.

the berne convention IS the law on copyright… the US has just a hard time adopting and accepting it…

the rest of the civilized world has adopted it… including denmark.

copyright = lifetime + 70 years (as i have stated many times)

the US has a problem, because they had

copyright = lifetime + 50 years

meaning that many copyrighted items are put in public domain 20 years to early…. and they have to correct that… meaning that the have to reinitiate the copyright again… meaning that many of these works have been infringed upon in the mean time..

not malicious… but because the US hasn't found a way to correct their problem.

they should have done this many years ago, so no more people were "illegal" copying… they let it run wild.

Nexus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 833
Location: On I2

25 Jan 2012, 9:15 pm

Oodain wrote:

Agreed. I'm not for piracy if it means never buying the product (everything I've ever pirated, I've always purchased by the way), but giving up our civil rights in order to enforce copyrights is the worst way to go about combating it.

The only solution is to create a competing system where cheap, reliable downloads are offer through a "all-in-one" repository and distributor (where artists, writers, etc can directly contribute to it). It won't eliminate all piracy, but it will attract the grey pirate market who would prefer a virus-free, no hassles, easy to download service with everything available on it. Steam is a great example of such a product, but imagine an "all-in-one" version of that.

EDIT: I meant civil rights as in Fair Use, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression, etc.

_________________
"Have a nice apocalypse" - Southland Tales

Last edited by Nexus on 25 Jan 2012, 11:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Nexus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 833
Location: On I2

25 Jan 2012, 9:29 pm

Another thing that would help is to make release dates on content global instead of national. If the content is made available everywhere at once, then it reduces foreign piracy of the product due to people not wanting to wait for it.

_________________
"Have a nice apocalypse" - Southland Tales

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

25 Jan 2012, 10:20 pm

aspi-rant wrote:

Nexus wrote:

you must admit its an ancient (in modern terms) convention,

it was made for a purpose that has long past, it still serves a purpose today, i simply think there is a way of enriching the proper parties in the proer way.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

26 Jan 2012, 3:11 am

Oodain wrote:

aspi-rant wrote:

Nexus wrote:

i agree, but is still the best we have… it is the only option we (the copyright holders) have.

and it is still the law….

so as long as no other law or agreement is in place… somebody HAS to enforce it. by all means.

as soon as anybody comes up with a better option it could change.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

26 Jan 2012, 12:36 pm

Nexus wrote:

Oodain wrote:

Let's be clear--owned speech is a legitimate exception to free speech. Since the invention of movable type, government has consistently made it clear that authors and creators are the owners of the products of their imagination and freedom of speech has never encompassed the privilege to reproduce someone else's words.

"Fair use," is also much misunderstood. It is defined in US copyright legislation,

17 U.S.C. § 107 wrote:

...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Home use is not within the rubric of non-infringing fair use. Use that does not generate revenue is not, ipso facto fair use. Provided that we are all talking about fair use as it is legally defined, I am content to agree with you.

But I very much agree that alternative modes of delivery are, necessarily, the way of the future. The only way for Hollywood to undercut the freeloaders is to make legitimate downloading inexpensive, reliable, high quality and virus free. I happily pay my $8 per month for Netflix, and receive outstanding value for money. An extension of that model seems to me to be the most sensible reconciliation of the interests of all. (Except, perhaps, the shareholders of Sony. But I'm not going to weep for them any more than I will weep for the freeloaders.)

_________________
--James

Page 7 of 7 [ 111 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Jump to:

SOPA Post Reply New Topic

SOPA