Skip to main content

View Diary: Copyright (314 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well the big media and entertainment cartel.... (9+ / 0-)

    ...have their solutions for fair use.. take it ALL away... have absolutely NO fair use!

    Intellectual property laws raeally rankle my gut...  they are so arbitrary and capricious, they often completely violate human nature and decency.  Instead of fostering growth, they usually stifle creativity, expression, and economic opportunity.  The whole reason that the Internet is successful is that it flies completely in the face of IP law which successfully try to keep the little guy down.  

    What makes it worse is that both political parties are slaves to the big media giants that make a fortune off we consumers while granting us few if any rights to the content that we purchase from them.  Just today, there was a story in which the government is considering granting ownership rights to television stations for public domain content.  Sadly, the democrats are almost worse than the republicans when it comes to sticking it to the consumer, because they so desperately want to protect "starving artists", when, in actuality, they only protect big media business and further the exploitation of said artists.

    I love when I see ads about a new DVD coming out, and the commercial says, "Own it today!"  Of course, when you buy a DVD, you don't OWN anything, but the  piece of plastic it came in.  The movie itslef is someone else's--they GRACIOUSLY give you the right to watch said movie under very LIMITED cirucumstances.  But, for Disney, et al. to claim that you own the movie on the DVD when you buy it is outright lying by the big media conglomerate.

    OK, end ranting...

    Thanks,

    Mike

    •  I sympathize, but (6+ / 0-)

      this is the legal regime under which we live, like it or not, and I don't think it's fair for me to gamble using Markos's money.

      My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

      by Major Danby on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 12:43:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They don't rankle writers (5+ / 0-)

      Not much, anyway, unless they're plagiarists. If you write for a living, then your creative output is how you earn money. We're lucky that most newspapers are publishing online, and we ought to use the power of "cut and paste" responsibly.

      The Tragedy of the Commons has profound implications for what we're discussing here. I grasp the spirit of your comment, and I think you have a strong argument with respect to things like music CDs and DVDs, where you want to copy the material you've purchased to other devices you have. Fair enough.

      But let's say you buy a newspaper. The 50-cent cover price doesn't entitle you to freely reproduce its content in the public domain. It only allows you to carry the paper around and read it, then line the birdcage with it. Here on the net, you don't even have to buy the paper.

      If anything, what's being asked for here is more creativity on the part of our writers, some of whom apparently have grown too lazy to invest themselves sufficiently into their work.

      Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

      by The Raven on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 12:46:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        Without copyright, an independent writer couldn't legally enter contracts with publishers because he wouldn't have any consideration (something of value belonging to him) to provide in exchange for payment.  A contract requires an exchange of consideration.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site