What Are You Doing Right Now? (205 Viewers)
- Thread starter ßöмßäяðîëя
- Start date
- Tags gay space iliveforfinasteride iliveforjuve is not white loldevil size queens sweet matt is sweet errwhere virgin devil
I have nothing against Piratpartiet. It's important to shed a light on all arguments in this particular debate. Piratpartiets views are well-founded, so I have no beef with them. I may not agree with everything they propose, but they have done their research. What annoys me is the kind of consumer who - with no regards to what this discussion is entirely about - and without knowledge and insight into the opposing interests on both sides - just expects and demands to get the fruits of other people's labor for free. A meaningful discussion on copyright will never be about ending all copyright or banishing it, but rather how to treat both sets of interests in a fair and reasonable way: the interests of the consumers and the Society's need for access to culture on the one hand, and the creator's need for economic compensation on the other hand.
Piratpartiet, as far as I know, does not wish to ban copyright altogether, but for example, they wish to reduce the time of copyright to 14 years rather than 70 years after the creator's death etc.
I don't share that view, but I acknowledge it as part of a meaningful discussion about copyright.
Piratpartiet, as far as I know, does not wish to ban copyright altogether, but for example, they wish to reduce the time of copyright to 14 years rather than 70 years after the creator's death etc.
I don't share that view, but I acknowledge it as part of a meaningful discussion about copyright.
It's good or bad depending on where you stand. First of all I very much acknowledge the emotional attachment an artist gets to something he or she creates on her own. I haven't published anything of what I'm doing, but I'm constantly making music and writing, so at least I know the attachment one can get to own works. Second of all: there's a lot more money to be earned from such works than what one is able to do in the space of 14 years. Third: I believe "intellectual" products deserve acknowledgement on the same level as a physical product. You just don't walk into a store and steal now, do you?
- - - Updated - - -
I'll say one thing, though. 70 years after the creator's death is too long. I've read about the reasoning for those rules, and it is to ensure the economical interests of the creator's children and grandchildren.
I don't consider them to have a particular well-reasoned interest here.
- - - Updated - - -
I'll say one thing, though. 70 years after the creator's death is too long. I've read about the reasoning for those rules, and it is to ensure the economical interests of the creator's children and grandchildren.
I don't consider them to have a particular well-reasoned interest here.
If you care about creators so much then make this a privilege that pertains to the creator, a person, noone else. Non-transferable. No more record companies that own a bazillion copyrights. Authorship is not transferable. We don't say "now that Michael Jackson purchased the copyright to all the Beatles songs you have to update the author on all your mp3s to say Michael Jackson". So why should copyright be?
Secondly, if you want this to be about whether creators can live off their work then you should make this income based. So an artist that rakes in 5 euro/year can have a term that expires when he dies, whereas Madonna can recoup her costs + make a massive profit in 5 years.
Thirdly, there's nothing about making something that makes it "intellectual" in and of itself. Producing a shovel requires intellect too, yet noone is calling that an intellectual product. It's an empty term.
Finally, what does stealing have to do with anything?
Secondly, if you want this to be about whether creators can live off their work then you should make this income based. So an artist that rakes in 5 euro/year can have a term that expires when he dies, whereas Madonna can recoup her costs + make a massive profit in 5 years.
Thirdly, there's nothing about making something that makes it "intellectual" in and of itself. Producing a shovel requires intellect too, yet noone is calling that an intellectual product. It's an empty term.
Finally, what does stealing have to do with anything?
I don't think we could (nor should) proceed down this path of discussion if you equate using a shovel with writing a novel or producing an album, my friend.
Intellectual property is just a term, and mostly a legal one at that. You could train a monkey to use a shovel, but the monkey could not have written an album like Pink Floyd's - The Wall for instance.
As for your final question: Such a question would only be posed by someone who believes that Society deserves an absolute free access to culture. And once again: that is so diametrically opposed to my views that we shouldn't continue discussing. It's also not a very useful angle to approach the problem from, because Society-interests will never, ever receive such absolute privileges. As for now, copyright interests remain ahead in this world, and that's not gonna change anytime soon.
Intellectual property is just a term, and mostly a legal one at that. You could train a monkey to use a shovel, but the monkey could not have written an album like Pink Floyd's - The Wall for instance.
As for your final question: Such a question would only be posed by someone who believes that Society deserves an absolute free access to culture. And once again: that is so diametrically opposed to my views that we shouldn't continue discussing. It's also not a very useful angle to approach the problem from, because Society-interests will never, ever receive such absolute privileges. As for now, copyright interests remain ahead in this world, and that's not gonna change anytime soon.
And don't manufacturers of such products get paid? Yes, they do. I believe an artist should have the rights to make money from his or her novels, music, paintings, sculptures, whatever it may be. Original works. Fruits of labor, intellectual and physical, just as the products you mentioned.
Call it an educated guess, because I've discussed this topic a lot, and it's very typical of someone who says that to have no concern for the interest of the creator whatsoever. But I agree, one shouldn't make assumptions like that without certain proof, as it's rude. But in this case, I was certain, because you already told me about your views in PM
You are an anti-copyright ghoul, Martin, and you know it!
Call it an educated guess, because I've discussed this topic a lot, and it's very typical of someone who says that to have no concern for the interest of the creator whatsoever. But I agree, one shouldn't make assumptions like that without certain proof, as it's rude. But in this case, I was certain, because you already told me about your views in PM
You are an anti-copyright ghoul, Martin, and you know it!
It's weird that you're so offended by this all of a sudden, we discussed this before without any problems.
My point was that you seem to be using the term intellectual in a pretentious way as if to suggest that because these people are such intellectuals they deserve special treatment. The artist thinks himself so much more important to society than a mere worker, doesn't he?
And you sound a lot like people in America who picture themselves millionaires one day and therefore they think they have to defend the interests of the rich. What I hear from you is that the artist must get the maximum benefit and who cares about anyone else.
My point was that you seem to be using the term intellectual in a pretentious way as if to suggest that because these people are such intellectuals they deserve special treatment. The artist thinks himself so much more important to society than a mere worker, doesn't he?
Call it an educated guess, because I've discussed this topic a lot, and it's very typical of someone who says that to have no concern for the interest of the creator whatsoever. But I agree, one shouldn't make assumptions like that without certain proof, as it's rude. But in this case, I was certain, because you already told me about your views in PM
You are an anti-copyright ghoul, Martin, and you know it!
You are an anti-copyright ghoul, Martin, and you know it!
I'm not offended at all. I've had this discussion 1000 times, and I haven't gotten emotional about anything. I promise you that. All I did was respond to Maddy's post after he mentioned me, and then I responded to yours. My impression is that you're the one who got agitated, calling me a drama queen and all
Rest assured that I am in no way offended.
Maddy and I have discussed politics before, in the Scandinavian-thread, so I wanted to give him a solid opinion about where I stand in regards to Piratpartiet.
No, and who's pulling premises out of the air now, Martin?
I just want fair and equal treatment. Respect for the creator's rights to the fruits of his or her artistic labor and their rights to receive economic compensation for such work.
Well that's not what I said. Not once have I put words in your mouth during this discussion, but now you've done so twice, with me. I also very early on said that I find the 70 year after the creator's death-rule too long. I also said that I value Piratpartiet's role in this entire debate, despite them being pretty anti-copyright.
What do you want me to do here, change my views entirely and denounce copyright altogether?
Rest assured that I am in no way offended.
Maddy and I have discussed politics before, in the Scandinavian-thread, so I wanted to give him a solid opinion about where I stand in regards to Piratpartiet.
No, and who's pulling premises out of the air now, Martin?
I just want fair and equal treatment. Respect for the creator's rights to the fruits of his or her artistic labor and their rights to receive economic compensation for such work.
Well that's not what I said. Not once have I put words in your mouth during this discussion, but now you've done so twice, with me. I also very early on said that I find the 70 year after the creator's death-rule too long. I also said that I value Piratpartiet's role in this entire debate, despite them being pretty anti-copyright.
What do you want me to do here, change my views entirely and denounce copyright altogether?
