Copyright vs Copywrong

For the discussion of Movies, Television, Comics, and other existential distractions.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Lori Koonce » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:08 pm

FrankChurch wrote: I want to see my exact quote that I said you should be able to download anything at any time? .


While you've never explicitly said it, your assertions imply this is what you believe.

"I should be able to see Steamboat Willie for free..." Is the most recent one.

Once again I ask you WHY should you be able to do so?


And by the bye, there is a way to stop piracy. Make sure that you procscute those to the fullest extent of the law. Make sure that it gets publicity. If I know I'm gonna get a fine and jail time for it, I will most likely not do it. And without copyright laws, this isn't possible.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:22 pm

Free to stream, not to sell. Selling is piracy, not streaming. I'm not handy on the law.

I don't defend Pirate Bay, never have. We shouldn't jail downloaders, like we shouldn't jail drug takers. Drugs being a harder sin.

Those artist vouchers would help loads.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:24 pm

One more thing to remember: before the internet obscure music still didn't sell. At least the internet levels that playing field, since people can get access to obscurity, which must help newer are more subversive artists.

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Lori Koonce » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:52 pm

[quote="FrankChurch"]Free to stream, not to sell. Selling is piracy, not streaming. I'm not handy on the law. [/auote}

You aren't to handy on using an dictionary either. Once again I quote from MW's online dictionary:

3a : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
b : the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

User avatar
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FinderDoug » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:26 pm

Lawrence Lessig has mentioned this. I doubt Finderdoug is in his league.


Reduced to insults? Really? is that all you have left?

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Moderator » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:51 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Free to stream, not to sell. Selling is piracy, not streaming. I'm not handy on the law.

I don't defend Pirate Bay, never have. We shouldn't jail downloaders, like we shouldn't jail drug takers. Drugs being a harder sin.

Those artist vouchers would help loads.


Let's be clear: free for the Authorized Parties to stream -- not you, not me. Not your buddy Buck who has "extra copies" or decided he wants to load his favorite episode of Star Trek onto Youtube "just for my friends".

That's illegal. That's theft. You're violating copyright by streaming something that you don't have permission to stream.

Right?

(And, as far as your thoughts regarding "big victim" versus "small victim", that dog won't hunt either. Where do you draw the line, and how do you prevent anyone on the wrong side of that line from being screwed?)
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby cynic » Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:21 pm

i'm considering a post;
"in limited defense of corporate personhood"

does the notion interest anyone ?
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Ezra Lb. » Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:35 pm

cynic wrote:i'm considering a post;
"in limited defense of corporate personhood"

does the notion interest anyone ?


It will depend on the quality of your argument. :wink:
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby cynic » Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:10 pm

Ezra Lb. wrote:It will depend on the quality of your argument. :wink:

well Ezra;
if you actualy expect my (paraphrase) "destruction of things with logic" is likely to be fallacious or unsupportable, i'll count that as a "no".
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Moderator » Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:43 pm

Actually, Mike. I'd be interested.

I believe corporations...or any communal entity (which includes non-profits, collectives, committees)...do have the inherent right to an opinion, based upon the business interests of the entity. Examples would be oil companies expressing support for drilling rights, or a women's shelter voicing their concerns over domestic abuse.

But they are not people and should not enjoy a commensurate protection of their opinion. I believe the communal group ought to be held to a higher, and therefore more restricted standard, which includes provisions against anonymity as an example. It ought to be acceptable for a person to send a letter to an editor anonymously, for instance, but it should not be for a communal organization to do the same. (The Church of Latter Day Saints' anonymous campaign against Prop 8 should not enjoy the same protections as would one single person's posting on Facebook opposing it.)

The rational being that if Sheldon Adelson wishes to spend $10M of his own money to advocate for Gingrich he ought to be able to do so. But giving money to an entity anonymously -- except when someone in that organization has a big mouth :P -- should not enjoy the same protections if your money is to be lumped with a bunch of other people's. There is a fundamental reason campaign contributions are limited, and that is essential to avoid the domination of "big money" in politics.

We have precisely the situation which our predecessors sought to avoid in the creation of those laws, and are seeing precisely the result they had most feared. The laws were set in place after previous generations fought against political corruption, and now we've done little more than loose that genie from the bottle one more time.

IMHO.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby cynic » Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:10 pm

that's one yes, thanks steve."
mine was to be more concerned with copyright and patent law, with the wicked disney corporation as a model.
i think we may differ on the practicality and even the wisdom of the campaign funding issue, annonomous or not. disclosure would be best, but...good luck with that.
although the control and accumulation of wealth is difficult to attribute primarily to a natural impulse to "progressive" policy, it seems undeniable that money flows to markets that supply what people desire.
those desires not in their best interest (i find "disposable income" a fascinating subject) is fodder for examination elsewhere, i suppose, as would be campain funding.
but just for me to close here on that; "money makes the world go round".
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:40 pm

Most basic progressives believe we should have a constitutional amendment banning corporate personhood. Mike is admitting he is to the right of the enlightenment. At least he admits it.

Jefferson warned against the power of "monied Incorporations." "Joint Stock Jobbers" was another one.

-----------

I finally got Barber to admit that he supports the copyright laws because it may, by accident help smaller artists. I hate to break this to my good friend but corporations do not lobby Washington for the sake of small time artists. American Idol is a warning, not just a talent show.

While big companies have teams of lawyers ready to pounce when copyrights are infringed, the small timers are usually without much help. This ideal of Barber's is similar to small business owners who go along with the Chamber of Commerce on protecting big companies, tax wise. Top down tyranny is what we should all fear.

-----------

Finderdougles, I am not in Lessig's league either, or Chomsky's. You forget, this is an elitist supported forum.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby cynic » Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:14 pm

sing frank, sing;
i am not as concerned about the problems posed by corp personhood as i am with the level of government controled corporate subsidy and favoritism.
too much centralized power and planning can slow or stifle innovation, and allow corruption through the manipulation of the economy.
corporations can only break the spirit of law with the support of those who write the laws.
that's Fascism; an anarchist understands this.

again; the founders admited to , and attempted to arrive at a balance between potentials for both the tyrany of the masses, and the depotism of the monied elite.
between the needs and aspirations of the common man, and to protect the property and common rights of both.

the church and the "enlightenment" set the lofty goal of a utopian cooperative, where through much self sacrifice all will be equals, if not kings. or like gods; living forever in heaven ...

some aspects of corporate personhood are as an admission to the realities of instinctual competition and the imperative to profit and grow. That's what families do. That's what life is.
Corporate law at it's best is the same as laws governing the ethical behavior between individuals.

sometimes when the government intervenes, with stated and assumed good intent, murphy's law is the only law served. But i've said most, if not all this before, many times.

so, frank;
i guess you'll just keep on preaching what you think chumpsky sez, corporations are pathologicaly evil, to focus on growth through profit are evil. Eat the rich.
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FinderDoug » Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:16 pm

Whatever, Francis.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby cynic » Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:27 pm

Mr. FinderDoug;
Belated congratulations and best wishes to Ms.Peggy and you.
follow your bliss,mike


Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest