s0
|
|
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2011, 10:36:57 AM » |
|
That, and proposing laws that look good on the surface like this one (Protecting the copyrights of corporations!)
Fixed. If you're a musician signed to a major record label, you usually own nothing. Your cut from sales is miniscule too (something in the vicinity of 10-12%). Mainstream musicians earn the majority of their via concert tickets and merchandise, which is why most of them don't have much of a problem with piracy.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nix
Guest
|
|
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2011, 02:46:56 PM » |
|
I like the concept of copyright as a way to protect innovators as they are just starting out. My problem with copyright law, and generally the reason that I disregard it in certain cases, is that it can be exploited as a money making scheme. When someone buys copyrights from the originator, the laws are no longer protection for the "little-guy", but merely become a source of income. Copyright should end with the person who created the work in the first place. The major issue here isn't that laws need to be protested or not, it is that we have a congress so far removed from its constituency that it passes laws that mandate the behavior of many based on the desires of a few, and the intelligent inputs of even fewer.
The real problem is that so many constituents don't make themselves involved in the political sphere and just watch on in dismay or support regardless of what happens. Ultimately, your Representatives' careers rest in your hands, so you certainly have a say if you actually try to exercise that power. Subscribing to the Demand Progress mailing list and sending out the form emails they give you is a good first step.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2011, 03:19:32 PM » |
|
I like the concept of copyright as a way to protect innovators as they are just starting out. My problem with copyright law, and generally the reason that I disregard it in certain cases, is that it can be exploited as a money making scheme. When someone buys copyrights from the originator, the laws are no longer protection for the "little-guy", but merely become a source of income. Copyright should end with the person who created the work in the first place.
but then copyright would be valueless to sell (since it'd be worth nothing once sold), which would end how a lot of people make money (for instance, selling the right to a 3d asset for use in someone's game, or selling an article to a magazine or newspaper)
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
eld
|
|
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2011, 03:28:55 PM » |
|
I like the concept of copyright as a way to protect innovators as they are just starting out. My problem with copyright law, and generally the reason that I disregard it in certain cases, is that it can be exploited as a money making scheme. When someone buys copyrights from the originator, the laws are no longer protection for the "little-guy", but merely become a source of income. Copyright should end with the person who created the work in the first place.
But who would be the owner of the copyright, it can't be a person since several persons may always be involved with creating a product, so it is the company, but what if a bunch of people split off from that company, but really wants to create a sequel, now they couldn't retain the rights to that game, since it is stuck with the original company. What if a small company creates a product (with love) and decides they can sell that IP to another company, and from that money create a new (with much love) creative game that wouldn't otherwise come into fruition And then there's the assumption that the little-guy is the hero in the scenario, there are plenty of tiny companies that makes a great living from sequels after sequels with no innovation, not that innovation is a must, there's nothing wrong with games being a source of income. The laws can't be different for different persons, and people can't be judged after what they intend to do with something If we tried to stop everything that had the potential to become a money making scheme/potential source of revenue, then we wouldn't have much freedom left in the industry. Heck the freelancing job would disappear, since it involves creating something outside of a company and then selling the rights to that product to that company.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
im9today
Guest
|
|
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2011, 03:29:13 PM » |
|
good. copyrights suck. you can't own ideas. buzz, you better come out and pound me, i'm thinking shit you thought!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
eld
|
|
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2011, 03:32:51 PM » |
|
good. copyrights suck. you can't own ideas. buzz, you better come out and pound me, i'm thinking shit you thought!
No, you can't actually own or copyright ideas.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
im9today
Guest
|
|
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2011, 03:50:27 PM » |
|
oh i'm sorry i am expressing your ideas buzz you better come out and pound me thats so different
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gimymblert
|
|
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2011, 04:31:35 PM » |
|
guys we invented open source and copyleft for a reason, who care if they lock themselves in a hole when true innovator surf on everything reasonable
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2011, 05:52:51 PM » |
|
ya; if it really is true that most content creators are against copyright and only corporations are for it, they could do something about it by making all their works public domain or creative commons or whatever. but most of them don't do that
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Theophilus
Guest
|
|
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2011, 06:02:05 PM » |
|
I'm definitely doing it if this gets passed.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
baconman
|
|
« Reply #30 on: July 03, 2011, 09:43:49 AM » |
|
good. copyrights suck. you can't own ideas. buzz, you better come out and pound me, i'm thinking shit you thought!
No, you can't actually own or copyright ideas. You actually copyright completed products, brands, or minutae details thereof, like your characters or monster variations. Then, it's not like it can't be featured in other stuff, but the other party would need a written agreement allowing for the usage of it. But when push comes to shove, I think Congress is just trying to fix the "job" issue with it completely backwards - take away anything there is to do, and we'll all have to find work, whether the jobs in question exist or not.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #31 on: July 03, 2011, 10:39:20 AM » |
|
even if people can't pirate there's a lot to do on the internet; tons of free stuff and social media (facebook takes up a lot more of people's time than consuming pirated media does)
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Pineapple
|
|
« Reply #32 on: July 03, 2011, 10:43:29 AM » |
|
As stupid as this idea is and as much as I'm definitely not behind it, the issue is being exaggerated - you won't be penalized for streaming copyrighted stuff, you'll be penalized for profiting more than $2,000 from streaming copyrighted stuff.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nix
Guest
|
|
« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2011, 10:51:40 AM » |
|
As stupid as this idea is and as much as I'm definitely not behind it, the issue is being exaggerated - you won't be penalized for streaming copyrighted stuff, you'll be penalized for profiting more than $2,000 from streaming copyrighted stuff.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would interpret the lines: ‘(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if--
‘(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and
‘(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or
‘(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;’; and as meaning that even if the pirate is not profiting, the money "lost" can lead to imprisonment.
|
|
« Last Edit: July 03, 2011, 11:05:33 AM by Nix »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Pineapple
|
|
« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2011, 10:54:12 AM » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Hangedman
|
|
« Reply #35 on: July 03, 2011, 10:58:03 AM » |
|
The very fact that we can debate this means the law is not transparent enough to prevent possible abuse by corporations or etc
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
s0
|
|
« Reply #36 on: July 03, 2011, 11:05:37 AM » |
|
just as an aside: doesn't the US have "fair use" laws that would conflict with this?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nix
Guest
|
|
« Reply #37 on: July 03, 2011, 11:06:47 AM » |
|
just as an aside: doesn't the us have "fair use" laws?
mostly for satire and stuff like that. Streaming a music video or putting copyrighted music in your let's play or whatever isn't included.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
s0
|
|
« Reply #38 on: July 03, 2011, 11:09:45 AM » |
|
Ah OK thanks for your clarification. I take it using footage from a game in your LP would fall under fair use though (because it's "commentary")?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
|
|
« Reply #39 on: July 03, 2011, 11:35:08 AM » |
|
fair use is up to the juries to decide, so it'd depend on whether or not they thought the usage was fair or not; it's a case by case basis thing
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|