Im not sure whether thats correct when usually to have a law, one has to stipulate when, where and how the conflicts with an original law are dealt with. I'd also suggest that a judge would give precedence to newer laws in any court of law.
We really need someone with a law degree (at the very least) to clear this one up, hopefuly the guy has resolved this dillema otherwise he could be walking into a massive fine.
If you think people are weak willed enough to believe that every new way to "cure male pattern baldness" is the scientific truth, then you have an extremely pessimistic view of human nature.
The reason that science is not popular is because of a mixture of Post-modernist ideals, relativism, and the Green movement which blatantly corrupts the evidence, whilst setting out to portray scientists as all being Dr Frankenstein.
it is extremely hard to see how this game could have been a serious depiction of war. Would it include horrible brutality by some of the soliders on your own side? Would it throw up the extreme moral quandraries surrounding civilian casualties and the invasion of Iraq itself? Would it even include civilians? Animals? Disease?
Oh come on, you could say the same of ANY war game, so why dont you take your high horse and trot off to Activision to complain and sensationalise
I do accept that there would be a small loss of production relating to Hollywood hit machines.
However, i believe that the models do exist to fund even large budget movies. For example,a director and set of cast make a very very low budget short film on a handycam. This is posted to the internet. If it is good, the likelihood is that it will receive attention (remember that the internet enables you to reach an audience of billions. A group of 'fans' will emerge perhaps. They would then fund better equipment and sets, maybe the latest version of a FX software. This would enable the team to make another, slightly better film. Continue this cycle 5-10 times and you have a massive group of fans, able between them to fund a large budget film.
Call me naive, but i think the reason that such models are dismissed out of hand is because we live in a society that is so socialised into a certain "business model" style thinking.
Even if we were to loose Hollywood, it would be a worthwhile price to pay for the explosion of ideas that would result. I'd take another Shakespeare over The Matrix anyday.
P.S. Thanks for taking the time to read what is (I admit) a massive post by/. standards.:)
Despite your completely wrong (though slightly amusing) comparison between those who believe in the inherent freedom of expression, and fundamentalists, I don't understand how this can be 'insightful'.
I certainly don't know anyone (out of my entire college) who honestly believes that pirating music is 'wrong'.
Mass anarchism is a market signal, and that signal is that wee need a change in the law.
Only some people are guilt-tripped into believing what they are doing is wrong as a result of the social pressures that media cartels create in order to preserve an immoral notion of "Intellectual Property".
I am hoping to collate, and sum up, a few weeks of casual research into the reasons why copyright does not benefit the Arts.
Some of what has been published here seems a little lacking in ethical and philosophical debate and hopefully this will maybe correct that.
Firstly, removing copyright would result in a free flow of ideas, which means we would have a far more creative society where everyone could draw on, and be truly inspired by, great works of Art. Great art was created before the instigation of copyright, drawing on work from before it in a way that copyright limits. For example, research Marlowes Dr. Faustus, and Shakespeares King Lear and you will find that Dr. Faustus has almost replicable scenes of 'The Damnable Life' (AKA The Faustbuch), and King Lear is almost a replica story of a Celtic mythological figure from 'The Chronicles of Englande, Irelande, Soctlande, and Wales' by Rapheal Holinshead. We consider King Lear and Dr. Faustus to be two of the greatest works of English Literature, yet they would certainly have not been allowed under todays copyright law.
Secondly, copyright is nothing less than a limit on our freedom of expression. It is unethical to suspend the publics freedom to enjoy or build upon human culture. Copyright is a dangerous path down the State, and Big Business, legislating the realm of thought.
Thirdly, I believe that artists create art for its own sake. I refuse to believe that our society is in such a sad state of affairs that artists are incentivised by material reward.
Fourthly, copyright is dangerous because it creates a state of self censorship. Copyright has become so all-pervasive that artists are sub-consciously limiting their creativeness out of fear of breaching copyright. This is illuminated by Christian Alhert who posted a section of J.S. Mills 'On Liberty' (the book is firmly out of copyright and in the public domain) and then made copyright claims against it to ISP's. The work was removed almost immediately.
Fifthly, the concept of Intellectual Property (IP) is deeply flawed and morally wrong. Copyright is based upon this principle. It is unreasonable to categorise the land of ideas as property, as these ideas can, and should, be shared with everyone. IP bases its assumptions on the idea that anything that has value can be owned. This would suggest that I can own a child, as children are extremely valuable.
A quote from Dave Rowntree (Drummer of Blur) "I have never heard of a single band deciding not to record a song because it would not be protected by copyright. The idea that it protects artists and hence allows them security is laughable - its about entrenching corporate profit" . . .
Another quote, this time from Ireland (and perhaps the Worlds) greatest living Poet: Seamus Heaney: "Copyright, as currently constituted is a barrier to the creative process. In essence it benefits money making and stifles the Arts". . .
Taken together, these quotes undermine the claim that creators welcome copyright as some sort of security: It is a myth.
Furthermore, we are not here to provide a blueprint as to how artists should be supported. There is an argument to suggest that, for the time being, they should be accepted as collateral damage in the explosion of ideas that would surely follow the removal of copyright. However, there are a number of ways in which they could be supported, although I dont claim to recommend any of them. Firstly we have the 1000 true fans hypothesis.. Secondly, we have the live arena, which is the largest growing sector in the music world. Thirdly we have, as proposed by people such as Gregg Dyke (in response to the success of the BBC) a sort of subscription system. Fourthly we have a wider implementation of massive tax breaks for artists (as seen in Ireland), and/or the use of Dole money to support artists. Simply, artists will not starve, and they will continue
Slashdot Mirror
We really need someone with a law degree (at the very least) to clear this one up, hopefuly the guy has resolved this dillema otherwise he could be walking into a massive fine.
We have documents to show they existed.
I think you'll find that is a lie.
If you think people are weak willed enough to believe that every new way to "cure male pattern baldness" is the scientific truth, then you have an extremely pessimistic view of human nature.
The reason that science is not popular is because of a mixture of Post-modernist ideals, relativism, and the Green movement which blatantly corrupts the evidence, whilst setting out to portray scientists as all being Dr Frankenstein.
You've just proved his point
Laws that are not followed by large sections of society are clearly not democratic, and thus have to change
it is extremely hard to see how this game could have been a serious depiction of war. Would it include horrible brutality by some of the soliders on your own side? Would it throw up the extreme moral quandraries surrounding civilian casualties and the invasion of Iraq itself? Would it even include civilians? Animals? Disease?
Oh come on, you could say the same of ANY war game, so why dont you take your high horse and trot off to Activision to complain and sensationalise
socialist utopias, such as Cuba or North Korea.
when was the last time you went to either of these nations, especially North Korea, because theycertainly arenany sort if "utopia". Wise up.
However, i believe that the models do exist to fund even large budget movies. For example,a director and set of cast make a very very low budget short film on a handycam. This is posted to the internet. If it is good, the likelihood is that it will receive attention (remember that the internet enables you to reach an audience of billions. A group of 'fans' will emerge perhaps. They would then fund better equipment and sets, maybe the latest version of a FX software. This would enable the team to make another, slightly better film. Continue this cycle 5-10 times and you have a massive group of fans, able between them to fund a large budget film.
Call me naive, but i think the reason that such models are dismissed out of hand is because we live in a society that is so socialised into a certain "business model" style thinking.
Even if we were to loose Hollywood, it would be a worthwhile price to pay for the explosion of ideas that would result. I'd take another Shakespeare over The Matrix anyday.
P.S. Thanks for taking the time to read what is (I admit) a massive post by /. standards. :)
I certainly don't know anyone (out of my entire college) who honestly believes that pirating music is 'wrong'.
Mass anarchism is a market signal, and that signal is that wee need a change in the law.
Only some people are guilt-tripped into believing what they are doing is wrong as a result of the social pressures that media cartels create in order to preserve an immoral notion of "Intellectual Property".
Just remember:
"Home taping is killing the music industry".
Firstly, removing copyright would result in a free flow of ideas, which means we would have a far more creative society where everyone could draw on, and be truly inspired by, great works of Art. Great art was created before the instigation of copyright, drawing on work from before it in a way that copyright limits. For example, research Marlowes Dr. Faustus, and Shakespeares King Lear and you will find that Dr. Faustus has almost replicable scenes of 'The Damnable Life' (AKA The Faustbuch), and King Lear is almost a replica story of a Celtic mythological figure from 'The Chronicles of Englande, Irelande, Soctlande, and Wales' by Rapheal Holinshead. We consider King Lear and Dr. Faustus to be two of the greatest works of English Literature, yet they would certainly have not been allowed under todays copyright law.
Secondly, copyright is nothing less than a limit on our freedom of expression. It is unethical to suspend the publics freedom to enjoy or build upon human culture. Copyright is a dangerous path down the State, and Big Business, legislating the realm of thought.
Thirdly, I believe that artists create art for its own sake. I refuse to believe that our society is in such a sad state of affairs that artists are incentivised by material reward.
Fourthly, copyright is dangerous because it creates a state of self censorship. Copyright has become so all-pervasive that artists are sub-consciously limiting their creativeness out of fear of breaching copyright. This is illuminated by Christian Alhert who posted a section of J.S. Mills 'On Liberty' (the book is firmly out of copyright and in the public domain) and then made copyright claims against it to ISP's. The work was removed almost immediately.
Fifthly, the concept of Intellectual Property (IP) is deeply flawed and morally wrong. Copyright is based upon this principle. It is unreasonable to categorise the land of ideas as property, as these ideas can, and should, be shared with everyone. IP bases its assumptions on the idea that anything that has value can be owned. This would suggest that I can own a child, as children are extremely valuable.
A quote from Dave Rowntree (Drummer of Blur) "I have never heard of a single band deciding not to record a song because it would not be protected by copyright. The idea that it protects artists and hence allows them security is laughable - its about entrenching corporate profit" . . . Another quote, this time from Ireland (and perhaps the Worlds) greatest living Poet: Seamus Heaney: "Copyright, as currently constituted is a barrier to the creative process. In essence it benefits money making and stifles the Arts". . . Taken together, these quotes undermine the claim that creators welcome copyright as some sort of security: It is a myth.
Furthermore, we are not here to provide a blueprint as to how artists should be supported. There is an argument to suggest that, for the time being, they should be accepted as collateral damage in the explosion of ideas that would surely follow the removal of copyright. However, there are a number of ways in which they could be supported, although I dont claim to recommend any of them. Firstly we have the 1000 true fans hypothesis.. Secondly, we have the live arena, which is the largest growing sector in the music world. Thirdly we have, as proposed by people such as Gregg Dyke (in response to the success of the BBC) a sort of subscription system. Fourthly we have a wider implementation of massive tax breaks for artists (as seen in Ireland), and/or the use of Dole money to support artists. Simply, artists will not starve, and they will continue