Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Copyright Law


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!


  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:20 PM

Posted 26 March 2008 - 06:43 PM

Ok this topic is about the legality of copyright laws, licensing of music, movies, videos, games; books, information in general.

This topic is not specifically designed for the discussion of the legality of file sharing or such, but more about what should be copyrighted, how it should be enforced and what should the limitations of copyright laws be. Feel free to discuss piracy (legalities only please no specifics on how to do so) like; how it effects the economy, good/bad, legal/illegal etc...

Personally I have believed up until recently that copyright law protected too much and it didn't allow for innovation as it did back during late 1800's. Patents were being submitted left and right by ordinary inventors (average people like you and me), now-a-days patents are coming in left and right from multi-billion dollar companies for general and often vague patents* (to prevent there competitor from building it before they have the money to do it). I hated copyright law, but then I started thinking, well if I were a music artists I would want to be paid for some of my work, but I would still want people to share it freely and manipulated as they choose (as long as they asked me, they wouldn't have to compensate me). Then I discovered Linux and loved the idea about FREE distribution and manipulation without permission and how the Open-Source community flourished. But it wasn't exactly the type of business to get into to make money. It was the business to get into if you enjoyed programming and you did it for the better of the community than just to make money. (Like being a musician just to make money instead of loving the music).

Then I discovered Lawrence Lessig, This Film Is Not Yet Rated (warning in America this is a very mature--sexual--film), Steal This Film, Steal This Film 2, and Good Copy Bad Copy.

I have also bought almost every single book Lessig has written and I'm currently in the process of reading them. (Heck I should change my major to Copyright Law). Anyways, though, I would highly recommend everyone to watch all those documentaries and read at least one of Lessig's books.


THE COPYRIGHT SYSTEM DOES NEED REVISED

I do believe everyone in the world has the right to modify EVERYTHING with permission from the creator (not author nor composer, if and only if the creator wants to be asked for permission first). If permission is granted to makes changes without money, then so be it. However, if the creator wants money there should be an easy and affordable way to pay, so the creator gets compensated. Like this, if you want a picture of Goofy and Mickey Mouse on a DQ cake now-a-days you're not allowed to do so. But DQ should legally be able to charge a $1.00 or $3.00 more for a copyright image and then send the money to Disney. That way you can use the image and Disney gets compensated for the use of it. Now do you think $3.00 is worth the price for the image, maybe not. Disney though (including Sony, EMI, Universal Media, Warner Brothers, etc..) probably would want you to give up your annual income plus your first born for the use of the image, but that's not fair if only two dozen people may see the image (or eat it, lol). Now if 1,000+ were going to see the image I could see Disney (or any company) wanting to charge a lot more money. But there should be an affordable and easy way to compensate a creator (not author nor composer) for the work.

Another thing about music, if I were to upload a video to YouTube of my cats playing around with "Ice Ice Baby" (Vanilla Ice) in the background, there should be a website I can go to (SBK Records--owner of the copyright, unfortunately) owned by the studio where I can submit the URL, money, and my information so I can legally pay them for it and still use it.

Another things that really ticks me off about music is this: Most of your artists (especially singers) do NOT really own the LEGAL copyright to there own music. When most (not all) bands or singers sign with a studio you hand over your rights to YOUR property. Studios should NOT be the ones getting the compensation for my use of Vanilla Ice's--Ice, Ice, Baby. Vanilla Ice should be at least 95% of the money I pay toward him, the studio should get the small 5%. You could argue all day about "well Vanilla Ice wouldn't be popular if it weren't for SBK records" and such, but the studio is just providing the equipment to digitally store the music of the group. It would be like having a baby in a hospital and the hospital would own the rights to the baby because it provided the services for you to safely have the baby. It's not right. Look at the break down of prices for CDs.

* http://www.p2pnet.net/story/15385
* http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/07/1213210

One thing I think would be a slow way for the media giants to gain respect in the piracy community would be to stop suing random "John Does" and start letting people pay money for what they have already downloaded. Basically if I downloaded "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," from the Internet, I should be able to go to the copyright owners' website and pay them anywhere from $0.01 up to (whatever amount they would like--as long as it is reasonable) $9.99 (for movies). This way they get money for what I am watching and I don't have to be worried about them sueing me or having done something illegal.


I would highly recommend watching Good Copy Bad Copy.


But back to the reason I opened this topic...

What are your opinions on copyright law? Piracy?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


m

#2 ryan_w_quick

ryan_w_quick

  • Members
  • 488 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:20 PM

Posted 16 April 2008 - 04:20 PM

So you know, the most common path for patent lawyers is get a bachelor degree in engineering, and then go to law school. so, probably one of the toughest 8 year educations attainable in usa

and with regard to the music and movie companies suing regular average joes, I'm pretty sure they don't usually go looking for people who download, which is the scenario you provided a possible solution for, rather, they choose to go after those that are actually SHARING the files, hence making them available to anyone else with a p2p connection. thats the thing a lot of people dont realize, the companies are going after sharers, not the free loaders.

personally, i have no problem with internet pirates. i think the digital media we buy on cd/dvd/blue ray, whatever, is way overpriced and still going up, while all the companies outsource everything to other countries where it is extremely cheap to produce. so maybe internet pirates just are recouping the lost wages that american workers SHOULD be getting. I want to clarify, I am in no way ethnocentric or nationalistic. I simply believe that companies that are american based (at least in name, i'm looking at you car companies) should be made to pay more taxes when they choose to outsource. It is not fair to the american consumer, that these huge corporations can take advantage of VERY weak economies accross the world (not to mention these countries sub par labor and child labor laws), and turn around and sell their products to americans for exorbitant prices.

So, my conclusion is that the usa needs to first correct the mistakes it has made in relation to international trade laws and outsourcing, then an effective method of dealing with internet pirates can be formulated.

but, please realize, none of this will ever happen. The lobbyists have more control of congress than ever, and their strangle hold will only grow stronger in the future. So, the only way to fix the problem is to get rid of this corrupt government. Everyone would need to stand up and start a revolution against the federal government. I'm tired of people who think they make a difference by voting. haha, that is laughable, ignorant drones and fools
"To do less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." Steve Prefontaine

"The things you own end up owning you." Tyler Durden

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo

#3 makepinknotwar

makepinknotwar

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:20 PM

Posted 20 April 2008 - 06:51 PM

As a professional photographer, I'm growing increasingly concerned about copyright law and how it is slowly being dismantled. I love my craft, but I also work extremely hard at it and deserve to be compensated, so I sell a variety of licenses that people can purchase to use my work.

Royalty free licensing provides a license for a single use of my image. If a user wants to use it twice, another license must be purchased. Royalty free also allows multiple buyers to purchase the image without exclusivity.

Rights managed licensing has the same requirements, except the buyer gets to use the image exclusively for a specific period of time, specific medium (magazine, billboard, website, etc.), and specific location.

New licensing methods are being devised all the time, some with teeth and some that should be thrown out immediately.

Edited by makepinknotwar, 20 April 2008 - 06:51 PM.


#4 ryan_w_quick

ryan_w_quick

  • Members
  • 488 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:20 PM

Posted 21 April 2008 - 08:53 AM

I really just wish they would come up with some copyright laws that they would actually enforce.
"To do less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." Steve Prefontaine

"The things you own end up owning you." Tyler Durden

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo

#5 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!

  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:20 PM

Posted 21 April 2008 - 09:26 AM

Yes I agree. Also they need to fix copyright laws so things are not copyrighted forever. IF so, then what's the point of "public domain." It use to be that once something was copyrighted it had 14 years until the copyright died, then it increased to 30 years, then 50, and now 100 + after the author/creator dies! And now this corporations that don't really die, when will our 1960's (and before) movies become public domain? Copyright laws (at least in America today) are bent so much for the corporations it is not funny. And what makes it worse is, they don't allow any reasonable means to use there work while getting permission. You can't just send them a check for a few hundred bucks and use a song, you have to buy a massive license for atleast $3,000. Or how about this? Why can't Disney let me pay like $2.00 to put a picture of Mickey Mouse on my frickin' birthday cake? It's not like the cake is going to last forever, and continually impose upon their copyright. It will be eaten in a timely manner! Geez... sorry about the sincere comments, I am really passionate about this.

#6 ryan_w_quick

ryan_w_quick

  • Members
  • 488 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:20 PM

Posted 21 April 2008 - 02:22 PM

Yes I agree. Also they need to fix copyright laws so things are not copyrighted forever. IF so, then what's the point of "public domain." It use to be that once something was copyrighted it had 14 years until the copyright died, then it increased to 30 years, then 50, and now 100 + after the author/creator dies! And now this corporations that don't really die, when will our 1960's (and before) movies become public domain? Copyright laws (at least in America today) are bent so much for the corporations it is not funny. And what makes it worse is, they don't allow any reasonable means to use there work while getting permission. You can't just send them a check for a few hundred bucks and use a song, you have to buy a massive license for atleast $3,000. Or how about this? Why can't Disney let me pay like $2.00 to put a picture of Mickey Mouse on my frickin' birthday cake? It's not like the cake is going to last forever, and continually impose upon their copyright. It will be eaten in a timely manner! Geez... sorry about the sincere comments, I am really passionate about this.


o well, what can you do? i'll tell you, nothing.
"To do less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." Steve Prefontaine

"The things you own end up owning you." Tyler Durden

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo

#7 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!

  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:20 PM

Posted 21 April 2008 - 06:06 PM

Yes and no. You can (in America) contact your representatives when there are copyright bills on the floor of congress.

#8 ryan_w_quick

ryan_w_quick

  • Members
  • 488 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:20 PM

Posted 21 April 2008 - 07:05 PM

Yes and no. You can (in America) contact your representatives when there are copyright bills on the floor of congress.


contact your representative, that kinda makes me laugh
"To do less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." Steve Prefontaine

"The things you own end up owning you." Tyler Durden

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo

#9 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!

  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:20 PM

Posted 21 April 2008 - 07:19 PM

It's better than sitting on my @ss and doing nothing.

#10 ryan_w_quick

ryan_w_quick

  • Members
  • 488 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:20 PM

Posted 21 April 2008 - 07:20 PM

It's better than sitting on my @ss and doing nothing.


i respectfully disagree
"To do less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." Steve Prefontaine

"The things you own end up owning you." Tyler Durden

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo

#11 Billy O'Neal

Billy O'Neal

    Visual C++ STL Maintainer


  • Malware Response Team
  • 12,301 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redmond, Washington
  • Local time:04:20 PM

Posted 27 May 2008 - 11:25 PM

For me, the only problem I see with copyright is what companies like Fraunhofer IIS is doing with MP3.

They have a patent on MP3's format. But they waited until it was an industry standard, and then started suing EVERYBODY. If a corporation doesn't make any attempt to enforce a patent and it becomes industry standard, they shouldn't be able to change thier mind on a whim and decide to start forcing everyone to pay millions of dollars.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues

Just my 2 cents.

Billy3
Twitter - My statements do not establish the official position of Microsoft Corporation, and are my own personal opinion. (But you already knew that, right?)
Posted Image

#12 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!

  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:20 PM

Posted 03 June 2008 - 09:28 PM

I agree as well.

One main problem I have with Copyright is this: What is the point of a public domain if anything copyrighted now will practically cease to exist by the time it is in the public domain? Or will never enter the public domain. (Like Mickey Mouse) I guarantee you, that 500 year from now the very first Mickey Mouse design will still be copyrighted.

#13 EightPence

EightPence

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:20 PM

Posted 15 June 2008 - 08:26 PM

I agree as well.

One main problem I have with Copyright is this: What is the point of a public domain if anything copyrighted now will practically cease to exist by the time it is in the public domain? Or will never enter the public domain. (Like Mickey Mouse) I guarantee you, that 500 year from now the very first Mickey Mouse design will still be copyrighted.


This is the problem that arises when Multinationals run countries instead of people. They get to rewrite laws the suit themselves at our expense. Copyright law should be simple.
#1 I hire you to make something for me, that something is mine, I have paid you to make it for me. This includes pictures or books or whatever.
#2 You make something and I want it, I can either buy one copy (and I can have one and make personal copies) or the rights (and I can have as many as I want and sell them).
#3 You make something and need help distributing it, you buy copies and Ill ship them out (basically I take 15% of sales or whatever,) you keep the rights.
#4 We collaborate together on a project, we split the rights, rest of rules apply the same. (But you have to actually have a legitimate creative part in the project and not just be hired for your talents, see number one.)

No loopholes, creative talent wins, people win, multinationals can suck eggs (family friendly right :thumbsup: ) Why should we sell out everything to them anyway. People have literally patented genetic code found NATURALLY in your body. Someone can own the rights to brown hair, and then sue you for having it, need a good legal team to win but thats bunk. That is not something patentable imo. Otherwise I will patent winter and own Canada for their(our) continued use of it without my permission.

#14 thelittleduck

thelittleduck

  • Members
  • 902 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pond
  • Local time:11:20 PM

Posted 20 June 2008 - 08:17 AM

A lot of people download videos from sites like YouTube.

I was just wondering how legal this is in some cases, because you can download a video of a song, then strip the audio out of it. Is this not practically the same as downloading the mp3 illegally in the first place?

#15 kiirastacia

kiirastacia

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:20 PM

Posted 05 August 2008 - 01:48 PM

In a world where computer programs that are required for a general college course cost over 500 dollars, of course there are going to be software pirates.

Copyrights should be for the creator alone. Non-transferable. (The copyright should die with the creator)

Of course, then people would be murdered simply to end the copyright.

I think we should also differentiate copyright as for-profit and not-for-profit. I am a writer, everything I write is mine and I don't really care how much time passes, be it 15 years or 200 (I am optimistic, I could live that long :thumbsup:). It is going to be mine, until I die. If someone wants to use something of mine to make money in some way, they should pay me. If someone wants to quote me for entertainment, hey, free advertising.

If I download an mp3 for personal entertainment, that should be my right. If I use it in any way to make a profit, I should be required to pay the creator a reasonable percentage.






kiirastacia









0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users