Copyright vs Copywrong

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

Moderator: Moderator

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Moderator » Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:16 am

diane bartels wrote:Steve B, I do have a birthday present for you. I think you will like it. PM me if you can guess what it is. (P.S., Lori I bet you can guess.) PPS, it is somewhat on the intangible side, but Steve will like it, I'm sure.


Thank you Diane! I did, indeed, like the birthday present!!



(The rest of you, get your minds out of the gutter. It was a very sweet and amusing note, designed to give me a laugh, nothing more.)
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:33 pm

It doesn't make me stupid. Low blow, Lori, low blow.

-----------

Barber or Doug have to find a quote from one of the founders that implies copyright laws mean you can have a monopoly on culture for hundreds of years? You will not find it.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:38 pm

Conservatives make the point that taxation is stealing and giving money to the lazy. At least taxation does actually take something from someone else. Downloading some song or movie doesn't actually take an actual thing or product, since art is not a product. Art is spiritual fire.

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 » Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:10 pm

FrankChurch wrote:It doesn't make me stupid. Low blow, Lori, low blow.

-----------

Barber or Doug have to find a quote from one of the founders that implies copyright laws mean you can have a monopoly on culture for hundreds of years? You will not find it.



Frank

Stupid was the NICEST thing I could think of. And while we are at it, can you find anything the Founding Fathers had to say that would condone the theft of another persons art?

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Moderator » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:24 pm

FrankChurch wrote:It doesn't make me stupid. Low blow, Lori, low blow.

-----------

Barber or Doug have to find a quote from one of the founders that implies copyright laws mean you can have a monopoly on culture for hundreds of years? You will not find it.


(Okay, I really HAD withdrawn from this, but are you serious? The old "doesn't state it explicitly" Shell game?)

(Like Jeffty, are we all now permanently FIVE years old???!!)

Direct or indirect, explicit or auxiliary, Frank, stealing property is stealing property.

Period.

It's REALLY not that difficult or extreme.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FinderDoug » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:30 pm

Frank, given your historic inability to produce sources for your claims, I owe you nothing.

You say copyright limits free speech. Prove it with something non-anecdotal and non-opinion, if you can.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:33 pm

I already mentioned that Chomsky interview on CNBC. If I want to see part two of the conversation, I never will, because NBC news owns the rights to it, no matter what moral force or human power that interview and others may have or how it serves the function of democracy.

They can't make any money from controlling an old interview but they can. I'm actually more concerned with patents. When corporations try to own the human genome that's a bridge too far.

Leaves of Grass means more to me than the substance of someone's property, like it was some pen or pad. What it says about democracy is more important than the fact that Whitman thinks it belongs to him. No Sir, it belongs to the wind.

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 » Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:17 pm

Frank

Let me put it to you this way. The only difference between the stuff in your home and my art is that you bought yours and I made mine.

They both belong to us. And if it is wrong to steal yours, why should it be all right to steal mine? After all you can replace yours much more easily than I'll ever be able to replace anything damaged by the theft of mine.

And BTW dude, Leaves of Grass is in the public domain. If I remember my copyright law correctly that means that it can be distributed in any manner a person sees fit to use. That's not stealing. Well, unless the Estate of Mr. Whitman still exists and feels the need to be pricks about it...

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FinderDoug » Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:36 pm

I already mentioned that Chomsky interview on CNBC. If I want to see part two of the conversation, I never will, because NBC news owns the rights to it, no matter what moral force or human power that interview and others may have or how it serves the function of democracy.


Then there is stuff where access is impossible without youtube streaming, like Chomsky interviews. According to you guys CNBC can prevent me from seeing the Donahue, Chomsky interview because they own the copyright to the show?


You could have a system where if I wanted to stream that Chomsky, CNBC video I could challenge NBC to offer it themselves within a certain period. If they don't then I can legally stream it as long as I don't make money from it.


This goes back to my mention of Chomsky's interview on CNBC--the guy who posted that on youtube could be sued by NBC news.


So in summation:
1) You don't cite an actual event that has occurred where free speech has been beaten down because someone chose to pursue enforcement of their copyright. You're instead citing a personal concern based on a hypothetical situation.

2) You can't cite an event because you don't have an event to cite.

3) I suspect you've never investigated whether CNBC would license the video, would allow someone to host it, would make a transcript available, or allow the interview to be collected. Have you? Did you ever try to contact CNBC about getting a copy for your library? About posting the interview as something you find pertinent and critical to share? Do you know what CNBC would ask for such a thing?

Until you've investigated the potential, who are you to bemoan the system? Because you can't have something with ZERO effort? Because someone else hasn't done the work for you? Because it's simply easier to Chicken Little around the yard and scream about what COULD happen under the law, instead of seeing if you can work within the law to make something happen?

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:12 pm

Here is my copyright law, very basic: Copyrights can only run 50 years. Corporate copyrights 25 years. Patents should be really restructured. The FBI should not be used as a hit force against people downloading movies or music. Save them for real crimes. Best to go after hardcore piracy. After those restrictions all art would be in the public domain, not to be used for financial gain, obviously.

I could legally stream that Chomsky interview. If CNBC sued me they would have to prove that they were going to sell that video at a later date, within one year, if they don't I can continue to stream it.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Moderator » Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:12 pm

Frank, I'm not rejoining this topic from a debate standpoint, but have to note that in your post are clear indications that you really don't understand the core artists' issues, or what legally constitutes breach and/or stolen property, or how copyright can and should be enforced.

Just sayin', this is what I said had to be corrected before I could re-engage in a mutual discussion. It's a start, but you're still well off the mark with several understandings.

(Before you ask where you're missing something, it has been posted to you repeatedly. Go back and reread what Lori and Doug have posted recently, they've explained things clearly and concisely.)
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:27 am

I said five million times I support copyright protection for small artists. Why won't this simple fact sink in? The founders wanted limits on copyrights to that corporations and people could not have monopoly power on speech. Lawrence Lessig has mentioned this. I doubt Finderdoug is in his league.

Dean Baker, one of the top economists in the world has said that copyrights don't really protect smaller artists, since culture is controlled by big media. That's the fight, not some downloader. There will always be some way to download some illegal content--another peer-to peer network will jump from the shadows. Hackers have proven that they can almost get away with anything.

Copyrights are used by companies like Disney so that they can have monopoly power over the mouse image. I should be able to stream Steam Boat Willie for free, but cannot.

This has nothing to do with effort. As you can tell downloading something is hard, especially since lots of those sites have spy or mal-ware.

Access to speech should be easy, because some people live in the sticks. Without knowing comrades you can't have a workable democracy.

The way you stop individuals from stealing your work? Change their hearts. It worked for Louis CK.

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 12:24 pm

"Copyrights are used by companies like Disney so that they can have monopoly power over the mouse image. I should be able to stream Steam Boat Willie for free, but cannot."

Why should you be able to see Steamboat Willie for free Frank. You've never been able to explain to anyone's satisfaction why you should get any of the things you want without paying for it. Lets take Steamboat Willie for example. Someone is working to keep it in decent shape. Don't they deserve to get PAID for that work? If everyone were like you, then people, small artist and large coporations alike would be working for free. You don't do that, why should they?

"This has nothing to do with effort. As you can tell downloading something is hard, especially since lots of those sites have spy or mal-ware."

Actually it's not that hard to find software that is free, and will check your downloads for that shit. And downloading is a hell of a lot easier than actually creating something whole cloth. Even if you take an image and tweak it, it's still harder than downloading it.

So, as you're so fond of saying; those dogs won't hunt

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 1:21 pm

As noted, Frank, this most recent post reinforces that you're missing major points of the issue and as a result arguing energetically in contradiction to yourself.

If you're too enthused to bother looking into ths, let me provide a starting place: streaming is legal. An online radio station which pays music rights can freely stream the music. You can offer up a credit card and download a movie from Hulu. In many cases, if you miss an episode of your favorite Food Network show you can find it on their site for free.

So, that noted, define, for me, the operational difference between, on one side, Hulu, iTunes, Pandora and Foodnetwork.com; and on the other file sharing groups like MegaUpload, The Pirate Bay and OiNK.

Then, for extra points, explain the logic that copyright laws are okay to defend the little guy, but not the big corporation.

Finally, for extra, extr credit, explain the difference between defending copyright protection (for any length of time you chose) for the little guy and the argument that consumers should have the right to download any works they like for free at any time, from anyone on the Internet. These are mutually exclusive positions, and yet you argue for both simultaneously.

Hence my comment that you're not understanding the basic issue.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:41 pm

Aha, I've seen Barber is not understanding me at all. Look at this:

"Finally, for extra, extr credit, explain the difference between defending copyright protection (for any length of time you chose) for the little guy and the argument that consumers should have the right to download any works they like for free at any time, from anyone on the Internet. These are mutually exclusive positions, and yet you argue for both simultaneously."

I want to see my exact quote that I said you should be able to download anything at any time? If I defend copyright protection that automatically shows that I do not think that. I am looking at reality where there is no legal way to stop downloading, piracy, yes.

------------

Don't forget corporations are contractual fictions, individual artists are people. Boom.


Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests