Skip to main content

View Diary: SOPA Washout: Republican Study Committee Says Copyright Is Broken (19 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  While I agree that copyright laws need some (0+ / 0-)

    serious revising.

    The three myths it claims that exist are simply straw man arguments made up by anti copyright culture that the lure of free content on the internet has given birth too.

    In other words bullshit.

    There is no govt subsidized content monopoly in copyright.  What a load of horse manure.  How does Warner Chappell holding the copyright on say a Prince song constitute a monopoly on anything.  There are literally thousands of other writers and songs that consumers have access to.  Wharner Chappel can't then manipulate the market of music because they co own the copyright to a Prince song.

    Right man, right job and right time

    by Ianb007 on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:22:01 AM PST

    •  It's not just about content (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sagesource

      When you consider the extra-long times copyrights last (which could be years - even AFTER the original creators are dead, and then some company renews the rights ala Mickey Mouse).   In my view, the copyright should only last as long as the original creator is alive, and then it should become public domain soon after the creator's death, unless otherwise specified by the creator's will and even then it should be limited.

      Then you have the companies that are somehow able to get away with patenting seed (like Monsanto), and human genomes (see breast cancer genes).  Living things are not meant to be patented or copyrighted.  You know, because, as in the case of seed,  humans have no control where the wind blows.

      There are also companies that sell their goods at expensive prices.  I'm an artist who is looking to freelance, and if I'm to get the best there is, I have to fork $1700 for Adobe CS.  And the problem with that is, Adobe is pretty much the only game in town that's considered industry standard by many web designers and graphic artists.  I can see paying that kind of money for a full-running business, but as someone looking to be self-employed, it's huge expense.  

      So no, it's not really as "bullshit", as you might think, and I have creations of my own that are copyrighted.

      •  SO because Adobe sells Adobe CS (0+ / 0-)

        for $1700, a fee you find too much for a self employed freelancer that means what exactly?  You should be able to download for free?

        So if I am a car enthusiast and Ferrari is selling their cars for too much money for my pockets, then what?

        Patenting something that already exists in nature is different to copyrighting.

        The point I was making is that the 3 myths that they are trying to debunk are not really myths at all but strawman arguments by the anti copyright crowd.

        Right man, right job and right time

        by Ianb007 on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:08:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site