our actual enemy (Osama bin Laden) continues to elude us.
If "our" refers to the United States government, then the actualy enemy would be the terrorist groups that are trying to take it down. Osama is a figurehead who was focused on by the government as a scapegoat for the people to blame. It's the same thing with Saddam.
The internal (domestic) enemy of the people of the United States is currently the legislation that the government is passing because of the lobbying of big business groups (RIAA, M$, etc). The external (foreign) enemy is anyone who wants to inflict death or suffering on us. Blaming figureheads is useless. (e.g. Saddam is veritably gone, but we're still losing hold in Iraq.)
Everything the US government has been doing lately is to instill patriotic feelings in the masses while they get away with whatever conspiracy they're up to today. Keep that tin-foil hat on tight.
Couldn't you also argue that since only people who are downloading the files for backup are allowed to download the files, you should be able to expect that sharing the files is no more than a public service to the people who need backups?
I like the way you think. Except even the original copyright lasted longer than that, so maybe 10 yrs is to short a time. (Also novels take longer to create, and thus deserve a longer period of copyright protection, or something of that sort.) This also doesn't take into account collaberation efforts. Otherwise, I like. It will force artists to continue to create quality art, if they want to remain part of the market.
We'd have to ask the artists to see if they agree, however. I don't want to be supporting anything that would be hurting them. (Which is why I don't support the RIAA.)
<3 Orson Scott Card. He is my HERO! (And one of the best authors, and my favorite author of all time.) Everything that his pen writes is so true. Even now there is nothing that I've read by him that I've disagreed with.
It'd be nice if he'd stand up before some appelate courts to argue the case of the filesharing and p2p if ever someone stands up to the RIAA. His rhetoric is all we need to get the government to open their ears and realize that we've got it right. Maybe he'd be able to get the copyright laws changed.
Why is this stupid piece of lethal metal so fucking important to you people?
Because when the government goes 1984 on our asses and the RIAA is watching us through telescreens based on the very P2P software that they're protesting against, those pieces of lethal metal may just be our only hope for liberty.
Go ahead and get rid of the copywrite law. The only part of it that will concern many of the people who enjoy protection by the law is the assurance that (by law) their name will go on the work copyrighted.
Music should not be a commodity, it should be just like poetry and visual art: considered a high art. Making money from the creation of high art is just a bonus. I (attempt to) write poetry myself, with hopes of being able to make a living off of my writing someday. However, my primary concern (perhaps only concern) is that my name will remain attached to the works I produce. That part of the copyright law I support, and that part of the law can be reasonably followed. Having commercial control over the copyright is of no concern to me. (If I'm a starving artist, so be it. I write to write.)
If you really want to keep the copyright law as close as to how it is and still fix the situation with commercial abuse of the copyright, make it so the copyright cannot be sold. The artist can sell the work to individuals, but cannot sell the copyright of the work. This ensures that the artist will make money off of the work while limiting the ability to abuse it.
If you really want to change something, make the copyright last a short period of time (as has been mentioned). This forces the artist to compete with him/herself and create more works and better works.
There are plenty of ways to change the copyright law to make it work in today's society. The point right now is that it needs to be changed. People have to do what they have to do to get change to happen.
Let the RIAA exist. Any (beneficial) change to the copyright laws will render them harmless, and we can enjoy our music in peace.
Slashdot Mirror
one word: palladium
and in joining with the government of oceania, they will soon be calling for royalties for thoughts in english . . .
our actual enemy (Osama bin Laden) continues to elude us.
If "our" refers to the United States government, then the actualy enemy would be the terrorist groups that are trying to take it down. Osama is a figurehead who was focused on by the government as a scapegoat for the people to blame. It's the same thing with Saddam.
The internal (domestic) enemy of the people of the United States is currently the legislation that the government is passing because of the lobbying of big business groups (RIAA, M$, etc). The external (foreign) enemy is anyone who wants to inflict death or suffering on us. Blaming figureheads is useless. (e.g. Saddam is veritably gone, but we're still losing hold in Iraq.)
Everything the US government has been doing lately is to instill patriotic feelings in the masses while they get away with whatever conspiracy they're up to today. Keep that tin-foil hat on tight.
Couldn't you also argue that since only people who are downloading the files for backup are allowed to download the files, you should be able to expect that sharing the files is no more than a public service to the people who need backups?
It's unjust because it's unconstitutional and immoral, not because many people are breaking it.
Copyright Infringment is a CRIME
errr......copyright infringment is a civil offense.
You make it sound like the only way to increase the artists rights is to take them away.
I like the way you think. Except even the original copyright lasted longer than that, so maybe 10 yrs is to short a time. (Also novels take longer to create, and thus deserve a longer period of copyright protection, or something of that sort.) This also doesn't take into account collaberation efforts. Otherwise, I like. It will force artists to continue to create quality art, if they want to remain part of the market.
We'd have to ask the artists to see if they agree, however. I don't want to be supporting anything that would be hurting them. (Which is why I don't support the RIAA.)
<3 Orson Scott Card. He is my HERO! (And one of the best authors, and my favorite author of all time.) Everything that his pen writes is so true. Even now there is nothing that I've read by him that I've disagreed with.
It'd be nice if he'd stand up before some appelate courts to argue the case of the filesharing and p2p if ever someone stands up to the RIAA. His rhetoric is all we need to get the government to open their ears and realize that we've got it right. Maybe he'd be able to get the copyright laws changed.
err.... evidently some people don't get dry humor.
kthxbi.
Now when do we get a RIAA-Antitrust.gov (and any other *-Antitrust.gov's) in addition to this?
There's more to complain about than just M$.
p2p programs don't infringe copyright. people infringe copyright.
Yeah, right. And now you're going to tell me that guns don't shoot people, people do.
...of your favorite senator.
err..... Orrin Hatch?
Why is this stupid piece of lethal metal so fucking important to you people?
Because when the government goes 1984 on our asses and the RIAA is watching us through telescreens based on the very P2P software that they're protesting against, those pieces of lethal metal may just be our only hope for liberty.
- the role-playing game (which is generally not really roleplaying, but whatever)
There are two kinds of RPGs: non-linear and linear. One's open ended and the other is a interactive movie.
Or even, for example, Morrowind, which was made to run on systems that STILL aren't available, no matter what the minimum requirements may say.
"What? You don't have a video card with a gig of memory? Oh, sorry about that. We misprinted on the box."
Go ahead and get rid of the copywrite law. The only part of it that will concern many of the people who enjoy protection by the law is the assurance that (by law) their name will go on the work copyrighted.
Music should not be a commodity, it should be just like poetry and visual art: considered a high art. Making money from the creation of high art is just a bonus. I (attempt to) write poetry myself, with hopes of being able to make a living off of my writing someday. However, my primary concern (perhaps only concern) is that my name will remain attached to the works I produce. That part of the copyright law I support, and that part of the law can be reasonably followed. Having commercial control over the copyright is of no concern to me. (If I'm a starving artist, so be it. I write to write.)
If you really want to keep the copyright law as close as to how it is and still fix the situation with commercial abuse of the copyright, make it so the copyright cannot be sold. The artist can sell the work to individuals, but cannot sell the copyright of the work. This ensures that the artist will make money off of the work while limiting the ability to abuse it.
If you really want to change something, make the copyright last a short period of time (as has been mentioned). This forces the artist to compete with him/herself and create more works and better works.
There are plenty of ways to change the copyright law to make it work in today's society. The point right now is that it needs to be changed. People have to do what they have to do to get change to happen.
Let the RIAA exist. Any (beneficial) change to the copyright laws will render them harmless, and we can enjoy our music in peace.