are they selectively enforcing copy write law
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2012, 05:49 PM
are they selectively enforcing copy write law
basically my dad has a show on blog talk radio and he used a song from some where. they got him to take it down and this event started a chain reaction to the fact that I see that{in my opinion] companies are selectively enforcing the copy write laws. a couple good examples.

1. dragon ball z abridged.= show hat literally rewrites an anime to be funny.
2.death battle= show that makes money of battle characters together that they don't own the write st.
3. red vs. blues= show that literally rewrite's the halo universe and makes money of videos of game play.
4. other blog talk radio host that use copy writen material without being flagged.

so is it just me or are they selectively using the law in order to ????. maybe you guys can help me.

1. Striding and swaggering rootlessness without end. The precious flow of life.
2. one should fear sweet a blood stained flower.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 06:07 PM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(10-12-2012 05:49 PM)kunoxian drive Wrote:  basically my dad has a show on blog talk radio and he used a song from some where. they got him to take it down and this event started a chain reaction to the fact that I see that{in my opinion] companies are selectively enforcing the copy write laws. a couple good examples.

1. dragon ball z abridged.= show hat literally rewrites an anime to be funny.
2.death battle= show that makes money of battle characters together that they don't own the write st.
3. red vs. blues= show that literally rewrite's the halo universe and makes money of videos of game play.
4. other blog talk radio host that use copy writen material without being flagged.

so is it just me or are they selectively using the law in order to ????. maybe you guys can help me.
I think copy write is unfairly all over the place, especially in the hands of the vested interests corporate wealthy. © Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 08:16 PM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
...it ...it's "copyright" yes? Or is this a play on words I'm missing?




PUSH IT REAL GOOD!

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Buddy Christ's post
10-12-2012, 09:52 PM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
It depends on the company as to whether they want to press the copy right laws or not.

Some are fucking Hitler about it, where as some view it as free marketing and don't care.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 10:30 PM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
I think copyright is one of the most rotten parts of our current system, the idea that immaterial things can be appropriated in the same way material things are is just absurd.
I understand the economic reasons behind it, but they fail to convince me. And they push it more and more because lately this goods are gaining a lot of value (with the internetz and stuff).

In any case I think intellectual property must be revised, preferably sooner than later.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
10-12-2012, 10:40 PM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
The productions, artists and songwriter own the copyright. Some people choose to retain and inforce the ownership. Some give it up to be used as stock. Seth's music is all (or some privately) from a stock source.

It's the producer/creator (in this case your dad's) responsibility to know who owns copyright in any material he uses.

Another example of a lot of copyright material use is South Park. They get sued a lot, ha ha.

I think the examples you gave come down to copyright and patents, no? Could be wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LadyJane's post
10-12-2012, 10:45 PM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(10-12-2012 10:30 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I think copyright is one of the most rotten parts of our current system, the idea that immaterial things can be appropriated in the same way material things are is just absurd.
I understand the economic reasons behind it, but they fail to convince me. And they push it more and more because lately this goods are gaining a lot of value (with the internetz and stuff).

In any case I think intellectual property must be revised, preferably sooner than later.


Copyright protects the ownership of something created by a person's labor. What is your problem with that?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
10-12-2012, 10:54 PM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(10-12-2012 10:30 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I think copyright is one of the most rotten parts of our current system, the idea that immaterial things can be appropriated in the same way material things are is just absurd.
There is SOOO much that goes into creating stuff. Shit doesn't just happen. Big Grin Making one song, one movie, one photo, one painting takes a lot of behind the scenes skill, talent, knowledge, application, etc. And all that beautiful stuff wouldn't be around if people couldn't build it. That wouldn't pay the bills which are necessary.

The system isn't perfect- yes there are people who are *too* rich off of it, but there are A LOT of good artists scraping by to make secret amazing things and they need those copyrights. Ownership is important.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 11:08 PM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(10-12-2012 10:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 10:30 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I think copyright is one of the most rotten parts of our current system, the idea that immaterial things can be appropriated in the same way material things are is just absurd.
I understand the economic reasons behind it, but they fail to convince me. And they push it more and more because lately this goods are gaining a lot of value (with the internetz and stuff).

In any case I think intellectual property must be revised, preferably sooner than later.


Copyright protects the ownership of something created by a person's labor. What is your problem with that?
Several things:
The duration of the right: Here in Argentina the duration is for the life of the creator and 70 years after, that means that the protection on the work is for around 150 years (based on the life expectation here). And that's not an exception, the duration worldwide ranges between 50 and 75 years.

The right can be inherited: This is the only case in which people inherit their parents work, not the wealth produced by the work, but the work itself. That is like I get a pay check every month because my dad used to worked when he was alive, it's absurd.
Of course they should inherit anything that was bought with the money the song, book or whatever produced, but not the idea itself.

The extent of protection: As I said before, copyrighted goods are immaterial, and that makes a huge difference in the way it should be protected, but the protection is based on the idea of material property, and it doesn't translate quite well. Thus making the right holders push more restrictive laws so they can pursue any violation no matter how small it is. Here you can get up to 6 years of prison for downloading one song, and that's absurd.

It doesn't really promotes creation: Unlike patents, copyright protects works of art and alike, those things are not industrially exploitable and thus the regular economic laws don't apply.
Artistic creation usually is based on a remix of previous ideas and preventing new creators from taking other people's work and making something new is counterproductive, specially if you take into account that the time for things to become publicly available is a century and a half.


Those are my main complaints against current copyright law, there're some other small stuff but they are mainly corollaries of what I said.

I'm NOT saying that people shouldn't be rewarded for their work, I'm just saying that the current system for doing so is ineffective and costly for society. We should come up with something new.
I like the idea of creative commons and initiatives like that, they aren't perfect though and I think that's the main reason why they aren't as popular, but is a start.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
11-12-2012, 09:12 AM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(10-12-2012 11:08 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 10:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  Copyright protects the ownership of something created by a person's labor. What is your problem with that?
Several things:
The duration of the right: Here in Argentina the duration is for the life of the creator and 70 years after, that means that the protection on the work is for around 150 years (based on the life expectation here). And that's not an exception, the duration worldwide ranges between 50 and 75 years.

The right can be inherited: This is the only case in which people inherit their parents work, not the wealth produced by the work, but the work itself. That is like I get a pay check every month because my dad used to worked when he was alive, it's absurd.
Of course they should inherit anything that was bought with the money the song, book or whatever produced, but not the idea itself.

The extent of protection: As I said before, copyrighted goods are immaterial, and that makes a huge difference in the way it should be protected, but the protection is based on the idea of material property, and it doesn't translate quite well. Thus making the right holders push more restrictive laws so they can pursue any violation no matter how small it is. Here you can get up to 6 years of prison for downloading one song, and that's absurd.

It doesn't really promotes creation: Unlike patents, copyright protects works of art and alike, those things are not industrially exploitable and thus the regular economic laws don't apply.
Artistic creation usually is based on a remix of previous ideas and preventing new creators from taking other people's work and making something new is counterproductive, specially if you take into account that the time for things to become publicly available is a century and a half.


Those are my main complaints against current copyright law, there're some other small stuff but they are mainly corollaries of what I said.

I'm NOT saying that people shouldn't be rewarded for their work, I'm just saying that the current system for doing so is ineffective and costly for society. We should come up with something new.
I like the idea of creative commons and initiatives like that, they aren't perfect though and I think that's the main reason why they aren't as popular, but is a start.
That is a jumble of things at different levels. Forget the bad laws, durations, and so on, and start simple.

I create something, maybe a book, a photograph, some software. I have a right to sell that and you don't.
Agreed?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: