Captain Copyright is ready to turn you into a criminal!

[Paul_S]

What I am saying as that the laws on copyright make as much sense as arresting a person for say...smoking cannabis. Neither person has committed a "crime against humanity", but both will be classed as criminals due to silly laws written in ignorance.

I really doubt these copyright laws are signed in ignorance.
I'll bet there are all sorts of under the table agreements between the governments that sign the legislation and the multi billion dollar music cartels that propose these new laws.
Money is flowing somewhere even if it's not on top of the table where everyone can see it.

 

[w1z4rd]

Thanks Wiz - now i understand what you are saying, and just to set the record straight - the law at first glance seems insane

Its mad. Its like that law that those conservative republican judges passed that say that if a software developer creates software and it is used for P2P, that software developer is liable for what his software does.

Now you wont find Microsoft liable for its Flight Simulator game, and its association with 9/11. Why?

Because those conservatives ONLY care about their money. 9/11 only increased their oil and weapons stocks, so no need to complain there. However, Tom Joe trying to find the best way to effectively share large amounts of data is liable, because it cuts into their bottom line.

 

[xtermin8or]

Money - the root of all evil

 

[w1z4rd]

Money - the root of all evil

Yup, the wonders of Capitalism at work. Its all about the greed incentive. People have been trained to be selfish, and think selfish. You don't want to loose that incentive you worked so hard for. For yourself.

I prefer Ubuntu. People for people, not person for self.

 

[Debbie]

What bothers me most about ridiculous copyright laws is that they never seem to work both ways.

Take, for example, the multinational (Disney?) who refuses to pay the South Africa dude (his family, rather) for "The Lion Sleeps Tonight".

Multinationals impose copyright when it suits them and when they are going to gain from it. Yet when they have to pay out for copyright, suddenly it's a different situation.

Maybe more of us would respect copyright were Captain Copyright and his buddies to uniformly apply their own laws.

 

[Fudzy]

I agree, artists should be compensated. To a degree. However, do you think Soloman Linda will appreciate it when in 15 years time, people get arrested for humming his tune as they walk to work? Do you think when his song starts destroying lives he will be as happy as he is now in the money he is making?

Do you really think thats going to happen? I mean, outside of some conspiracy entwined manifesto written by some shoeless hippie in some anti-technology compound out in the woods?

 

[jontyB]

Have you guys ever seen a recording contract?

 

[chiskop]

Okay, so who here feels that Soloman Linda, or should I say his family have been rewarded some money for the song "The Lion Sleeps Tonight"? The laws of copyright cut both ways.

Yeah, the laws of copyright cut both ways, but in the case of Soloman Linda it was only reluctantly and after a long court battle with Disney that he received anything at all.

Soloman Linda doesn't care what you hum on the way to work - he was dead for more than forty years before Disney got round to paying him.

linky

 

[w1z4rd]

Do you really think thats going to happen? I mean, outside of some conspiracy entwined manifesto written by some shoeless hippie in some anti-technology compound out in the woods?

They made the GPL (your hippy friends that is), and the Creative Commons licence is also pretty good. If we think about alternative solutions, we can come up with alternative answers.

Apparently those corporate brown-nosers were only able to produce heavy handed, unfair, down right wrong legislation.

I suppose it sometimes takes a hippy to whats right, while the corporate brown-noser chases the money.

 

[PeterCH]

So are they gona fine all the schools as well where the little kidies sing birthday songs and whatever other song is copyrighted

Well the RIAA has sued 8 year olds in the US for downloading
music with Kazaa and grandmothers who never owned
computers, so I think, YEAH, they will.

 

[Reason]

Copyright was originally introduced as a method to ensure artistic creators could be paid for their work. It has gotten a bit out of hand. Especially with regards to the corporates.

I would fix it by reducing the terms for which it is valid (say 15 years after death of the author) and prohibit the vesting of copyright in organizations. E.g. the corporate could sign an exclusivity agreement with the creator, but the corporate would not own it.

At least their is currently only the own international law on copyright, the Berne Convention (there used to be two different ones)

 

[Nick333]

Copyright was originally introduced as a method to ensure artistic creators could be paid for their work. It has gotten a bit out of hand. Especially with regards to the corporates.

I would fix it by reducing the terms for which it is valid (say 15 years after death of the author) and prohibit the vesting of copyright in organizations. E.g. the corporate could sign an exclusivity agreement with the creator, but the corporate would not own it.

At least their is currently only the own international law on copyright, the Berne Convention (there used to be two different ones)

And perhaps go back to the good old days when only people who were guilty of profiting off others copyrighted work was a crime.