Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   R4ltman, Sep 27th, 2010 @ 2:50am

   
   

   RCP

   I've been making collage since ten years before youtube came around, in fact, my local paper has a quote from me regarding what i thought of them then. It is the same as it ever was, ever since disney mashed up the grimmz, however i always knew that all the edits that made up the college, heretofore referred to as RCP (recontextualized content promotion) were/are in and of themselves a link potentially to the souce component. If content owners incentivized usage of otherwise dormant (more obscure, ie not current, ie six months old, stuff they are no longer actively promoting) we'd make a bundle off RCPs. Don't reproduce this, no one will agree for at least another ten years, patheticaly.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   R. Miles (profile), Sep 27th, 2010 @ 3:29am

   
   

   Well, I'll pass on reading it then.

   The only thing I want to see when it comes to patent and copyright laws is the word "repeal".
   
   Anything other than this makes it open to abuse, no matter how well it gets "reformed".

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Yeebok (profile), Sep 27th, 2010 @ 3:35am

   
   

   Hey Mike, quick typo fixfrom about sentence 3:
   "about copyright law and it*s* impact."
   Delete this :)

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Crosbie Fitch (profile), Sep 27th, 2010 @ 5:05am

   
   

   Re: Well, I'll pass on reading it then.

   Yes indeed.
   
   Copyright is, and has always been, a turd.
   
   So don't polish it, abolish it!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2010 @ 5:07am

   
   

   It's about time. But if the experts were waiting for the Entertainment industry to make total asses of themselves then they succeeded.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2010 @ 5:42am

   
   

   Re: Well, I'll pass on reading it then.

   I carry that motion. Any other business?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Crosbie Fitch (profile), Sep 27th, 2010 @ 5:53am

   
   

   Re:

   It seems we shall now have the spectacle of copyright reformists making total asses of themselves.
   
   I'd say it was the dimmest minds in copyright that were all starting to converge on the need to fix copyright law, not the 'brightest'.
   
   You don't fix an instrument of injustice. You abolish it.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Karl (profile), Sep 27th, 2010 @ 8:01am

   
   

   Good news

   It's good to see more copyright experts realize that the system is very broken. Too bad those experts don't have the deep pockets of the MPAA or RIAA.
   
   There is one simple reform that would solve about 90% of the copyright problems in our country today: get rid of statutory damages for non-commercial infringement.
   
   The moment that rights holders actually have to prove their financial losses, they are sunk. Things like the Righthaven or Hurt Locker lawsuits would be eliminated overnight.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Crosbie Fitch (profile), Sep 27th, 2010 @ 8:32am

   
   

   Re: Good news

   Sticking your fingers into the obvious leaks in the dam of corruption will only reveal the leaks that aren't yet obvious. You will run out of fingers.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Hephaestus (profile), Sep 27th, 2010 @ 9:32am

    
    

    Re: Good news

    "There is one simple reform that would solve about 90% of the copyright problems in our country today: get rid of statutory damages for non-commercial infringement."
    
    Here are some more ideas ...
    
    Remove the instant copyright and allow 1 year from publishing to actually have to register a copyright or else it goes into the public domain.
    
    Charge to copyright.
    
    Limit copyright to 30 years (15 year with a 15 year renewal) after which it goes into the public domain.
    
    Define fair use. Also allow the rights holder to expand the definition of fair use when copyrighting.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Steve R. (profile), Sep 27th, 2010 @ 11:28am

    
    

    Missing the Original Intent of Copyright

    While it is good to see some people questioning the current state of copyright, the article by Pamela Samuelson misses a very critical concept; that copyright was only meant for a limited time to further the progress of the arts and sciences. In reading Ms. Samuelson article, the casual reader may come to the realization that copyright is out-of-whack but they won't realize that it was never meant to be a toll-booth to collect revenue.
    
    By failing to get back to the basics of copyright in her article, Ms. Samuelson does not provide us with good entry point for arguing how copyright can be improved. For example she makes the statement that: "Moreover, virtually every firm today has some copyright asset it wants to protect, such as a logo, an advertising motif, software, databases or website content." The preceding statement is not a valid use of copyright; so if a pundit allows it to pass as an acceptable use; how do we refute it???????

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment