Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

#76
#76
volinbham said:
Louis CK has every right to do this.

Wonder why he didn't do this with his first album?

Your last comment is weak - it is certainly protection for more than the middleman.
Click to expand...

How come the artists aren't the ones that have lobbied historically? It's been the publishers and the production companies.
 
#77
#77
volinbham said:
I'm not an advocate of the "incentive" argument. I'm sticking with private property/property ownership as the basis. As noted above, any artist/author can choose to protect or not and if protected to enforce or not.

One final point, these laws require the owner of the copyright to police it's use and take action if they feel there is a violation.
Click to expand...

I understand and see validity in the arguments you put forth; I am also lumping copyright, trademark, and patent law under one umbrella because they are fundamentally the same thing.

As for the publishing house/tough cookies argument. As an aspiring author, I have already given away plenty of my work. In order to be a successful author, one must have a name. In order to have a name, one must submit more than a few manuscripts to all sorts of writing competitions. All of those writing competitions come with the disclaimer that the intellectual property I submit is no longer mine. It is what it is.

I do see e-books as a threat to the mass-marketed, serial novelist; I do not see it as a threat to great literature and the ability to make a decent living (note, not make millions like King, Grisham, Clancy, Rowling, Martin, etc.). I know that I, as a reader, have no interest in e-books. I despise reading on screens (even though I spend a good deal of time reading and typing in these forums). I still read old fashion newspapers, I print out journal articles I find interesting, and I buy books. I also despise crappy copies of books. There are a handful of publishers that I will purchase books from; outside of that, it had better be a great read that is only available through a certain source or I will most likely not buy it (font style, font size, margins, all matter a great deal to me).

I do not think I am the only reader who is this picky; I have met many others. I also do not find that my creativity nor creativity in general will be upset by the lack of copyright protections. I think that many authors who have made enough money that all they do is sit at home and write, with little to no anxiety and stress, produce texts that are much less creative and much more shallow than what they produced when they were struggling.

I do not think copyrights are going away; however, I would like to see the protections scaled back. Maybe give the author/musician/producer/artist five to ten years of complete ownership of their product then open it up to all the forces of the market.
 
#78
#78
Anyone of us can easily download Adele's 21 album from 2011 for free, and she sold 5.8 million units.
 
#79
#79
nbakerld said:
I know, but why? If it's their "private property" as you say it is, shouldn't it be protected until they decide to give it away? If you say no, then it isn't private property.
Click to expand...

I can't speak to the origins but would say that the finite lifespans have a route in a balancing of private/public goods/benefits.

Here's a question for you. Say your band creates a great song and like so many bands you are a one hit wonder. Does everyone have a right to have a copy of your song without compensating you in anyway?

What is the basis for your right to freely obtain a copy of someone else's work?
 
#81
#81
Just letting y'all know that I claim part ownership of all your homes. I will be staying with each of you at some point this year. I will drop in unannounced as well, so be prepared at all times.
 
#82
#82
volinbham said:
I can't speak to the origins but would say that the finite lifespans have a route in a balancing of private/public goods/benefits.

Here's a question for you. Say your band creates a great song and like so many bands you are a one hit wonder. Does everyone have a right to have a copy of your song without compensating you in anyway?

What is the basis for your right to freely obtain a copy of someone else's work?
Click to expand...

You don't have a "right" to freely obtain it, but if it's available why is it wrong to copy? If you are good, you don't need copyright protection. If you are a one-hit wonder it means you are crappy. Even still you probably make the majority of your money from touring.
 
#85
#85
nbakerld said:
You don't have a "right" to freely obtain it, but if it's available why is it wrong to copy? If you are good, you don't need copyright protection. If you are a one-hit wonder it means you are crappy. Even still you probably make the majority of your money from touring.
Click to expand...

1) if it's "available" for copy implies it is your right to copy without consequence. What is the basis of this claim.

2) I love the "well you'll probably make money other ways" argument. Sure we pirated your songs but you're rich enough. I don't want to pay for it so I can have it free.
 
#86
#86
nbakerld said:
No, and they don't have an inherent right to prevent me from copying their work.
Click to expand...

seems like it needs to be one way or the other - if they have no right to prevent copying then by definition you have a right copy if you so choose.
 
#88
#88
volinbham said:
1) if it's "available" for copy implies it is your right to copy without consequence. What is the basis of this claim.

2) I love the "well you'll probably make money other ways" argument. Sure we pirated your songs but you're rich enough. I don't want to pay for it so I can have it free.
Click to expand...

I don't think it implies that at all. An inherent right is a right that exists by reason of an individual’s status as an individual and is not derived from any other source. Since I depend on others making it available, by definition it's not an inherent right.

I don't care if they make money at all. I care if they make art. Artists have always made art, and they always will. My wife will never even try to make money off of her poetry, but she'll keep on writing it.

It just seems arbitrary and impractical to me that you can say, "this creation is your 'private property' for a few years, then it's not....and oh, by the way, it's going to be nearly impossible to protect your copyright."
 
#89
#89
volinbham said:
Artists haven't lobbied for copyright protection?

You sure about that?
Click to expand...

Not with the power and zeal that the middle man has. I'm certain some artists have (Metallica comes to mind), but with the inception of Napster, musicians quickly saw that they were still selling albums. In fact, piracy is a good way for them to get exposure, thus increasing their concert attendance (where they really make their money, anyways).
 
#90
#90
nbakerld said:
I don't think it implies that at all. An inherent right is a right that exists by reason of an individual’s status as an individual and is not derived from any other source. Since I depend on others making it available, by definition it's not an inherent right.

Yes but you are saying you can copy it if you like and they have no right to stop it.

I don't care if they make money at all. I care if they make art. Artists have always made art, and they always will. My wife will never even try to make money off of her poetry, but she'll keep on writing it.

Nice of you to decide whether they should do it for money, passion or some combination. Why should it be your choice if they can protect their work?

It just seems arbitrary and impractical to me that you can say, "this creation is your 'private property' for a few years, then it's not....and oh, by the way, it's going to be nearly impossible to protect your copyright."
Click to expand...

Well it's more than a few years and I see it as no more arbitrary than saying anyone can copy, distribute and profit from your work as they see please and you have no right to do anything legally about it.
 
#91
#91
utvolpj said:
are some really advocating communal property rights (I mean, besides Volatile)?
Click to expand...

I'm advocating communal property rights? I support copyright protection, just not in this form. Or are you refering to the Exxon/Venezuela thing?
 
#93
#93
nbakerld said:
Not with the power and zeal that the middle man has. I'm certain some artists have (Metallica comes to mind), but with the inception of Napster, musicians quickly saw that they were still selling albums. In fact, piracy is a good way for them to get exposure, thus increasing their concert attendance (where they really make their money, anyways).
Click to expand...

I love how you've decided what's in their best interests.

You do realize that maybe a little privacy is good for them because copyright still protects them for the legit sales of their products.

Without copyright, I can sell Louis CK's album for $4 and undercut him. Better yet, I'll pirate it and sell for $2 bucks - sorry Louis, better do some more concerts.
 
#94
#94
volinbham said:
Nice of you to decide whether they should do it for money, passion or some combination. Why should it be your choice if they can protect their work?

Well it's more than a few years and I see it as no more arbitrary than saying anyone can copy, distribute and profit from your work as they see please and you have no right to do anything legally about it.
Click to expand...

Why should they be able to protect their work in the first place? That's the real question. Say you and I live on an island, and I invent a way to make shelter. Should the island have laws protecting my shelter design from copy?

I don't understand what the justification is for copyrights and patents. Why are some ideas protected and some not?
 
#96
#96
volinbham said:
Without copyright, I can sell Louis CK's album for $4 and undercut him. Better yet, I'll pirate it and sell for $2 bucks - sorry Louis, better do some more concerts.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. If people are going to pay for it, they are going to buy it from him. Otherwise they'll get it for free.
 
#97
#97
nbakerld said:
Good luck with that. If people are going to pay for it, they are going to buy it from him. Otherwise they'll get it for free.
Click to expand...

But it's cool if I do that right? I should be able to build a website, pirate people's work and sell it for $.25 per song and not compensate the artists? They can go on tour if they want (which will help me make even more money).
 
#98
#98
Everything any artist will ever do for the rest of mankind's existence will be heavily influenced by the IP of others. This guy is an author and he makes his books available for free download. He basically says 21st century art will be copied. There's no way around it. Embrace it. It will do a lot of good.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLf3nldagXc[/youtube]
 
#99
#99
I'll get a domain name very similar to his. Use pictures of him, claim to be him, sell his material. Tough titties Louis - get your butt on tour.
 
#100
#100
nbakerld said:
Everything any artist will ever do for the rest of mankind's existence will be heavily influenced by the IP of others. This guy is an author and he makes his books available for free download. He basically says 21st century art will be copied. There's no way around it. Embrace it. It will do a lot of good.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLf3nldagXc[/youtube]
Click to expand...

Oh he says it - well then that seals it. People shouldn't be able to protect their work.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top