- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Suppressed Study: Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it
Posted on 12/19/12 at 8:10 pm
Posted on 12/19/12 at 8:10 pm
Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it (PDF) (only 8 pages - don't be lazy, go read it!)
According to this blog entry, the study was quickly removed from the original site, but thanks to the wonders of the internet, someone saved it and made it available elsewhere (probably in violation of a copyright law somewhere
).
The 3 myths:
1. The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content
2. Copyright is free market capitalism at work
3. The current copyright legal regime leads to the greatest innovation and productivity
Their suggestions for fixing copyright law:
1. Statutory Damages Reform
2. Expand Fair Use
3. Punish false copyright claims
4. Heavily limit the terms for copyright, and create disincentives for renewal
According to this blog entry, the study was quickly removed from the original site, but thanks to the wonders of the internet, someone saved it and made it available elsewhere (probably in violation of a copyright law somewhere
). The 3 myths:
1. The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content
2. Copyright is free market capitalism at work
3. The current copyright legal regime leads to the greatest innovation and productivity
Their suggestions for fixing copyright law:
1. Statutory Damages Reform
2. Expand Fair Use
3. Punish false copyright claims
4. Heavily limit the terms for copyright, and create disincentives for renewal
This post was edited on 12/19/12 at 8:13 pm
3
Posted on 12/19/12 at 8:13 pm to WikiTiger
is this the one authored by the aide in DC who got fired after the lobbyists found out about it?
Posted on 12/19/12 at 8:19 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
is this the one authored by the aide in DC who got fired after the lobbyists found out about it?
yes
Posted on 12/19/12 at 8:26 pm to WikiTiger
Copyright laws are being walked over every day by file sharing, streaming, etc.
Battle for creators of content (writers filmmakers musicians) to get paid for their work.
Watering down the laws further harms creatives.
Battle for creators of content (writers filmmakers musicians) to get paid for their work.
Watering down the laws further harms creatives.
Posted on 12/19/12 at 8:30 pm to Kubricked
quote:
Copyright laws are being walked over every day by file sharing, streaming, etc.
Good!
Copyright laws are ridiculous and need to be ignored. And if the industries refuse to adapt to a changing marketplace, well frick them.
quote:
Battle for creators of content (writers filmmakers musicians) to get paid for their work.
Boo hoo.
quote:
Watering down the laws further harms creatives.
I have absolutely ZERO fear that people will stop producing creative works if copyright laws were watered down, or even removed altogether.
Posted on 12/19/12 at 8:36 pm to WikiTiger
It really irritates me that people abuse the system and download music for free because they are too freaking cheap to pay a buck on itunes. If you owned a retail store, would you let people walk in and take stuff off the shelves without paying? Just another sad commentary on the downfall of society today.
Posted on 12/19/12 at 8:40 pm to WikiTiger
Then you're ignoring reality.
Mega-budget films that require a theater experience are replacing smaller budget films.
Many of the artists from the 60s saw a modest retirement disappear once people stopped paying for music.
Theft of intellectual property is stealing. The artists are the ones that suffer. WGA had to strike to get paid from net streaming.
Mega-budget films that require a theater experience are replacing smaller budget films.
Many of the artists from the 60s saw a modest retirement disappear once people stopped paying for music.
Theft of intellectual property is stealing. The artists are the ones that suffer. WGA had to strike to get paid from net streaming.
Posted on 12/19/12 at 8:47 pm to LsUCIFER
quote:
If you owned a retail store, would you let people walk in and take stuff off the shelves without paying?
Pirating a song is not the same as stealing. Why is this so hard for most people to understand?
Stealing deprives the original owner of the item. Piracy does no such thing.
Posted on 12/19/12 at 8:47 pm to Kubricked
quote:
Theft of intellectual property is stealing.
sigh
Posted on 12/19/12 at 8:56 pm to WikiTiger
i think it's theft, but i think our copyright laws need a major overhaul, namely with 2 things your OP noted (legal protections are too long and the penalties are draconian)
Posted on 12/19/12 at 8:57 pm to WikiTiger
i dont know man
intellectual property is a commodity
you wouldnt just people steal physical commodities from you
i think making it harder to receive protection and limiting the time periods would do some good to clean the system up
i have no problem rewarding people for their creativity
intellectual property is a commodity
you wouldnt just people steal physical commodities from you
i think making it harder to receive protection and limiting the time periods would do some good to clean the system up
i have no problem rewarding people for their creativity
Posted on 12/19/12 at 9:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i think it's theft
But it's not.
You can say it's wrong. You can say it's a crime. But you can't call it theft. That's just not accurate.
quote:
but i think our copyright laws need a major overhaul
We agree on something!
Posted on 12/19/12 at 9:07 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
intellectual property is a commodity
I disagree, but then that gets into AnCap philosophy and why I don't believe that intellectual property actually exists, and there's no need for that in this thread.
quote:
i think making it harder to receive protection and limiting the time periods would do some good to clean the system up
quote:
i have no problem rewarding people for their creativity
Neither do I. From a pragmatic standpoint, I would be just fine with copyright law as originally enacted in the USA (14 years initial, option for 14 year renewal).
But I also have no problem violating and advocating the violation of the asinine laws that are in place now, even to the point of extremism. Because that's the only way things will change.
But really, I think going forward in the future, we're going to see a world where the concept of intellectual property is just not realistic. Technology will simply make it infeasible. JMO.
Posted on 12/19/12 at 9:43 pm to WikiTiger
Theft is taking anything of value. The song, the movie, the book, or copyrighted material is the product of labor, skill, and investment of resources.
You're hurting the creators of the material by stealing the work.
You're hurting the creators of the material by stealing the work.
Posted on 12/19/12 at 9:49 pm to Kubricked
quote:
Theft is taking anything of value.
But you aren't taking it. You are copying it.
Posted on 12/19/12 at 9:50 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
Stealing deprives the original owner of the item. Piracy does no such thing.
So it isn't theft because the owner still has a copy?
Posted on 12/19/12 at 9:51 pm to WikiTiger
I don't like how the music industry assumes I would have bought everything I downloaded. I've discovered a lot more bands than I normally would have through illegal downloading.
Posted on 12/19/12 at 9:55 pm to WikiTiger
The U. S. Constitution allows for copyrights to exist to advance the arts. How so? Artists are compensated for their work.
Netflix spends hundreds of millions of dollars to secure the legal right to distribute content. TV networks do as well.
The legal owner of the song, film, book, etc is paid. Not much usually but something. That's why people put out effort and create and can afford to continue to create in the future.
The laws have extended. Sony Bono was in Congress and was a friend to the industry (and his heirs) and helped to extend it.
Walt Disney faces major issues. Pooh and Micky Mouse may both be public domain soon, costing that company hundreds of millions.
Peter Pan went public domain. The money from the copyright had been funding a children's hospital or orphanage. They lost the income when it hit public domain.
China is notorious for ignoring intellectual property law. There are even entire fake Apple stores there.
Software company spends a hundred million to develop Halo 5. Without piracy laws, why would they bother?
Musicians have been forced to change their models for Income. Most make money these days by touring or licensing music. Napster changed that business forever.
This is how I make my living through these property rights you say don't exist.
Think the problem is the ease of theft. If people could steal gas by surfing the net anonymously and stealing gas, they'd do it.
Netflix spends hundreds of millions of dollars to secure the legal right to distribute content. TV networks do as well.
The legal owner of the song, film, book, etc is paid. Not much usually but something. That's why people put out effort and create and can afford to continue to create in the future.
The laws have extended. Sony Bono was in Congress and was a friend to the industry (and his heirs) and helped to extend it.
Walt Disney faces major issues. Pooh and Micky Mouse may both be public domain soon, costing that company hundreds of millions.
Peter Pan went public domain. The money from the copyright had been funding a children's hospital or orphanage. They lost the income when it hit public domain.
China is notorious for ignoring intellectual property law. There are even entire fake Apple stores there.
Software company spends a hundred million to develop Halo 5. Without piracy laws, why would they bother?
Musicians have been forced to change their models for Income. Most make money these days by touring or licensing music. Napster changed that business forever.
This is how I make my living through these property rights you say don't exist.
Think the problem is the ease of theft. If people could steal gas by surfing the net anonymously and stealing gas, they'd do it.
Posted on 12/19/12 at 9:56 pm to ZTiger87
quote:
So it isn't theft because the owner still has a copy?
Correct.
Even the SCOTUS agrees with me:
Dowling v. United States
quote:
The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
emphasis added
Posted on 12/20/12 at 6:44 pm to Kubricked
theft: the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another
dictionary.com
dictionary.com
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News