Copyright Holders Claim That They Should Get To Decide Any Copyright Exceptions

from the are-they-serious? dept

It's really getting ridiculous that copyright holders continue to insist that copyright is designed solely to benefit them. That's been the standard line for ages, but it's simply not true. Copyright law is supposed to be about benefiting the public. Yes, a part of that is that it's supposed to benefit copyright holders also, but the defining factor is benefiting content creators such that the public is most likely to benefit. That's why it's simply not accurate to claim that copyright holders are stakeholders in the debate. Unfortunately, however, many people seem to think that they're the only stakeholders, and the public isn't even involved in the discussion. In fact, a recent discussion put together by WIPO of copyright holders had them claiming that not only were they the sole stakeholders, but that they, alone, should be the ones to determine copyright exceptions:
Copyright is necessary to allow authors to live from their trade and to guarantee their independence, and exceptions should be decided by authors and publishers, according to panellists on a copyright dialogue held at the World Intellectual Property Organization this week.
That's simply crazy. That's like saying we should let alcoholics determine driving-while-drinking laws. It puts those who would abuse the laws the most in charge of laws that are designed to protect others and to limit the damage they can do. It doesn't make any sense. If anything, it seems to show the massive arrogance of some copyright holders:
The very idea that "exceptions should be decided by authors and publishers" betrays the deep-seated arrogance and contempt that both of these now have for their readers. And that's all part and parcel of the publishing industry's problems: it sees readers as the enemy, something that must be fought and vanquished in order for it to be forced to buy books on the terms of authors and publishers - forced, if necessary, by ever-more Draconian laws that criminalise willy-nilly.
Certainly not all copyright holders feel this way, but can you imagine what copyright would look like if the "exceptions" like fair use and safe harbors were designed solely by the copyright holders? I don't think many people would be happy under such a regime... including the copyright holders themselves, once they realized what parts of culture they had locked up.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 9:42am

    Excuse me Sir, Have you purchased your government mandated book, magazine, newspaper, cd, and licenses for thinking those thoughts you had earlier, for today?

     

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

  2.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 9:58am

    What you're forgetting Mike is that the copyright industry has to be able to recoup their massive investments.

    If Rebecca Black has taught us anything, it's that to get a hit song you need to spend millions of dollars in production costs, in hiring the very best musicians, plus promotion and advertising, etc. It's not like just anyone can write and perform a song and have it become an overnight hit. It costs money and the labels are performing a valuable public service in fronting those costs.

     

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

  3.  
    icon
    sehlat (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 10:06am

    Let the copyright goliaths write the copyright laws? That's as idiotic as letting bankers run your economic system.

    Oh, wait.........

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 10:15am

    Let's be real it's pretty much already like this. When a small industry such as the music industry can dictate what the tech sector does (who is much, much larger) then they've basically already won.

    They have VPs and Presidents of nations speaking out for them. Pretty amazing considering what's going on in the world today that such high ranking officials would spend 2 seconds thinking about copyright, let alone lobbying for the music industry.

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 10:18am

    Everyone will get into the copyright business if only "stakeholders" can make the rules about copyright.

    "Yes, I'm here to pick up a prescription."
    "What's the name?"
    "Smith. Joe Smith."
    "Okay. Here you go Mr. Smith. That'll be $5 for the medication and $75 for the license to read the copyrighted safety warnings on the bottle. For another $75, you can get a personalized set of instructions from the pharmacist/author for how to take the medication properly."
    "No, that's okay. I can probably find instructions online."
    "You mean from 'rogue websites' that are 'dedicated to infringement?' I'm reporting you to the copyright bureau for violating the Don't Talk About Rogue Websites Act of 2015. I'm also asserting my private right to act and will be fining you personally for violating the act in my presence and thereby attempting to corrupt me with your copyright terrorism. Shall I just charge it to your Starbucks-Apple-Nike-AT&T Visa Debt Card?"

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Rabbit80, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 10:20am

    Re:

    What Rebecca Black has taught us is that to have an overnight hit you need to give millions to the lawyers..

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 10:24am

    Beyond any other reason, it simply doesn't make sense to allow copyright holders to make the rules because that would violate the basis for our (illusion of) self-government.

    Letting copyright holders be the sole decision-makers about copyright is like reverting to land ownership as a requirement for suffrage.

    Or like the direction we're heading in (or are already at?) in which corporations become the oligarchs who run the country.

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Bengie, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 10:32am

    Re:

    Kind of like Video games where they pay themselves off in 2 months and the rest is pure profit? We need to protect the ability to effectively "print" money?

    What's the last time you've seen a poor big name actor?

    I would like to refer you to the South Park episode where we were shown how pirating movies have caused these people to have to wait a year or two before they could afford their private islands and personal learjets.

    QQ some more.

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 10:36am

    Abolish Copyright!!!

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    adrian, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 10:51am

    "That's simply crazy. That's like saying we should let alcoholics determine driving-while-drinking laws."

    This is a very poorly thought out statement from a reasonably bright guy.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 10:59am

    Re:

    This is not a comment

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:00am

    Re:

    Actually I thought it was pretty apt. Copyright holders are drunk on their own self importance provided by the copyrights they hold. Alcoholics are drunk on alcohol.

    Pretty much the same thing. The thing that is inebriating them is what they want more control over.

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:00am

    Re:

    How so?

    Here's an alternative: ...like saying we should let landlords determine eviction laws.

    Or: ...like saying we should let polluting industries determine pollution laws.

    Or: ...like saying we should let [vested interest] determine [vested interest benefitting] laws.

     

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

  14.  
    icon
    xs (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:00am

    Re:

    Let polluters decide environmental laws

    This is probably a better analogy. But sadly, in this area, Polluters are increasingly in the position to write the environmental laws too.

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:02am

    Re: Re:

    Ha! Jinx! ;)

    As I was thinking of examples I came to a similar conclusion - vested interests are already writing the laws (cable/telecom, banking, housing, etc.).

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    anonymous, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:10am

    'can you imagine what copyright would look like if the "exceptions" like fair use and safe harbors were designed solely by the copyright holders?'
    i thought it looked like that now! the industries want everything (and have almost got it!) whilst giving their own artists as little as possible and their customers even less! i still dont understand how this can become such a massive, world wide issue and really important things, like rape, murder, terrorism, corrupt bankers and governments are way down the list. boy, there must have been some serious payments made to influence things so much!

     

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

  17.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:10am

    Re:

    They have VPs and Presidents of nations speaking out for them. Pretty amazing considering what's going on in the world today that such high ranking officials would spend 2 seconds thinking about copyright, let alone lobbying for the music industry.

    I keep saying, it's like the Catholic church in the middle ages. Just replace "heresy" with "infringement".

     

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

  18.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:19am

    Re: Re:

    I agree with your position, but your argument is lacking. You're using abstract examples instead of hard facts.

    Fact: All content (a.k.a. cultural symbols) are produced through labor. Art can't just happen on its own. Either humans or nature(all life included) make effort to produce new things.

    Fact: All labor can be easily quantified and paid for.

    Fact: Labor cannot be copied.

    Fact: Labor must be performed each and every time something new is created.

    Fact: Copyright ignores the labor part of the issue and focuses on a concept that cultural symbols are "products" when they are, in fact, services.

    Fact: Copyright supporters attempt to ignore the reality that all new art appropriates property of the public domain and, in doing so, cannot claim ownership to works that incorporate components of the collective human experience.

    By merit of these facts, we can conclude that copyright is unnecessary for the progress of the arts. Furthermore, it is actually harmful because it restricts the progress of the arts by placing unnatural limitations upon it that attempt to defy natural human behavior and social conditioning that teach us it is the proper course of action to share ideas and their expressions because they beget more ideas and expressions through the touching of other minds. Ideas need to reach others to live. They don't exist if they don't propagate.

    Art is like a building. Without the foundation, the collective knowledge and experience of the public domain, you can't build the remainder. It's like trying to build the second floor in its expected location without building the first floor below it first. To claim ownership of art that was built on public domain is to attempt to claim ownership of the public domain itself.

     

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

  19.  
    icon
    Rich Fiscus (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:23am

    This makes perfect sense in our current legislative and regulatory environment where the rules are all written by people being regulated.

    In the same spirit I'd like to suggest similar reforms of consumer protection laws. If I buy a product and am not 100% satisfied with it, the manufacturer should be liable for damages up to the purchase price of the item, with a statutory minimum of $50,000.

     

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

  20.  
    icon
    LegitTroll (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:33am

    From their position if they were given the unilateral ability to rewrite the rules as they saw fit.......(redacted do to copyright). Sorry, about that apparently that was quoted from something I have never (redacted do to copyright). Its getting harder and harder to (redacted do to copyright). #$%^*&# Bull#$%^! I give (redacted do to copyright).

     

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

  21.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:35am

    Re:

    Somebody had to write that complicated safety information insert. Without copyright, how would they get paid?

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    LegitTroll (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:37am

    Re:

    Just because you think that turn around is fair play doesn't mean that you are going to get it.

    Unless of course you have several million dollars, a bunch of lawyers, and an elected official to stupid to care that is.

     

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

  23.  
    icon
    Ikarushka (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:40am

    Re: Re:

    What is it? A new meme? If [fill-in] has taught us anything, its that [fill-in].

    For this particular fill-in(s) - the only thing R. Black taught us is that Internets are cruelly unpredictable when it comes to memezation.

     

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

  24.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:55am

    Re: Re:

    or: ... like saying we should let commenters determine the content of an article.

    j/k... had to drop that somewhere. I think your points are actually better analogies than the drunk driver one.

     

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

  25.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:58am

    Re:

    I clicked the funny button on that one... but it's "due to..." I'd let it slide, but you did it 4 times. :)

     

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

  26.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 11:59am

    Re:

    > abolish copyright

    Nooooo! You're talking craziness!

    Let me propose to propose a modest proposal that is more balanced.

    If we abolish copyright, how will people make an infinite stream of money, even 90 years after they die, for work that they created once?

    This creation of infinite wealth for work done once is the reason we need fashion copyright, for instance; so a fashion designer can design something once and get paid forever.

    We need architecture copyright; so an architect can design a building once and get paid forever.

    As proof that this is clearly a good idea, look no further than the fact everyone is wanting to jump on the intellectual property bandwagon! It's the way to circumvent "the curse" from the garden of Eden. You don't have to continue to work to eat, just sit back and stamp out copies. Or in this age, let Amazon sell digital copies that require zero effort to make. Let people in other countries (China, India, etc) do actual work to earn their living, while they purchase intellectual property from us.

    Patents are similarly needed to protect the underlying ideas expressed in a creative work. Therefore, music, art, fashion, architecture, etc should be patentable to protect the ideas in the work. Eventually, just as with our blessed software patents (example: patenting a spinning hourglass) the barrier of what constitutes a patentable "idea" should continually be lowered until ideas are patentable such as a D minor chord followed by G; or a picture of a face with a smile, or a building with a staircase, or sleeveless shirts. Thank goodness we already have patents on Software (1-click patent) and Business Methods (buy low, sell high, manipulate markets).

    This exposes a horrible imbalance that must be corrected. When someone creates, they are only doing it because they know that copyright lasts for 90 years after they die, and they are assured that sometime later, the 90 years will be extended. Without those assurances, they wouldn't bother to create. The problem is, patents don't last that long! This seems grossly unfair. If we're going to allow patenting anything that is eligible for copyright, in order to protect the underlying ideas and not just the expression, then doesn't it make sense to extend the length of patent protection to match that of copyright?

    This all seems like a reasonable compromise between what we have now, and what you are suggesting.

     

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

  27.  
    icon
    DandonTRJ (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 12:02pm

    I like to keep this quote handy.

    "[C]opyright protection is designed 'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,' and the financial reward guaranteed to the copyright holder is but an incident of this general objective, rather than an end in itself."

    ~ Accord Rosement v. Random House, 366 F.2d 303 (2d Cir. 1966)

     

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

  28.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 12:04pm

    Re:

    Why is it poorly thought out?

    Alcoholics are the stakeholders for drunk driving law, just as copyright owners are the stakeholders for copyright law.

    Why are you against the stakeholders in drunk driving law having the biggest voice in creating the law?

     

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

  29.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re:

    Polluters are the stakeholders and should have the biggest influence in crafting environmental protection law.

     

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

  30.  
    identicon
    DogBreath, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re:

    I keep saying, it's like the Catholic church in the middle ages. Just replace "heresy" with "infringement".


    And Monty Python saying today: "No one expects the Copyright Inquisition!"

    "Our chief weapon is surprise! Surprise and fear...fear and surprise - our TWO weapons are fear and surprise and ruthless efficiency.....Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to lawsuits. --- Our FOUR...no...Amongst our weapons...Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise...."

     

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

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 12:08pm

    Re:

    Actually it totally missed the mark. But not as bad as the unbelievable assertion that copyright holders are not stakeholders in the copyright policy debate. That one is truly laughable.

     

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

  32.  
    icon
    LegitTroll (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 12:10pm

    Re: Re:

    Grammar has never been something that I am good at. If I had to pay a dollar for everyone of my grammatical indiscretions I would be about as solvent as the United States Government.

     

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

  33.  
    identicon
    Ken, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 12:22pm

    COPYRIGHTS ON OBITUARIES

    This is bringing copyrights to its most absurd level. This was a tag line on an obituary.

    Copyright 2011 ******. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    It's a obituary for crying out loud!!!

     

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

  34.  
    identicon
    Ken, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 12:32pm

    Copyright = Dictatorial Powers

    So many copyright holders seem to have some delusion of grandeur where they all see themselves as totalitarian dictators where all must bow before them.

    Kneel before !

     

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

  35.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 12:46pm

    So here we have proof that WIPO members are anti-democracy, in that one group and only one group should have a say in drafting legislation.

     

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

  36.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Re:

    It is also truly laughable to suggest:

    Alcoholics are not stakeholders in drunk driving law.

    Polluters are not stakeholders in environmental law.

    They ARE stakeholders. Maybe not the only ones. Maybe not the ones that should have the most influence.

     

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

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    perhaps beneficial stakeholders is a more appropriate term. Once again your master shows his utter disregard for reality by claiming that rightsholders aren't stakeholders in the copyright debate. Nice job shuffling up to the plate as an apologist, but note you couldn't manage to come up with anything to defend his stupid assertion.

     

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

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 1:33pm

    Copyright for Everyone

    Let's expand it. Garbage collectors now get paid over and over for the same work, because, after all, you're still enjoying that the garbage they took away, is not stinking up your yard day after day.

     

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

  39.  
    identicon
    DogBreath, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Copyright = Dictatorial Powers

    We are fast approaching the time when the phrase "Nothing is certain but Death and Taxes", will be changed to "Nothing is certain but Death, Taxes and Copyright", and "Kneel before [insert copyright/patent/trademark]! will be the law of the land.

    One can only hope to have shuffled off this mortal coil before that day ever arrives.

     

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

  40.  
    identicon
    JMT, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 2:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Note you couldn't manage to come up with anything to refute his assertion.

     

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

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 2:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's the audience/public that's the ultimate stakeholder which is why they probably get ignored so much, or mistakenly called "consumers".

     

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

  42.  
    identicon
    txpatriot, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 2:31pm

    There's no First Amendment right to piracy. Just thought I'd toss that in while we're at it . . .

     

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

  43.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 2:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm not saying that rightsholders aren't stakeholders. They're just not the ONLY ones. Probably not even the most important ones. The long term public interest is much more important.

    It's a good thing Beethoven and Shakespeare aren't under US copyright.

     

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

  44.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 2:39pm

    Re:

    There is a First Amendment right to freely engage in communication with others on the Internet.

    There is a Fourth Amendment right to not be spied upon with no good cause.

    The laws copyright maximalists want will infringe those and other rights. The DMCA has already been abused far more than it has been legitimately used. But obviously it was not draconian enough, so we need a new streaming law to make it illegal to embed a video you did not upload and possibly thought was legal. And a PROTECT-IP law to make linking to something illegal today when the link was legal yesterday.

     

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

  45.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jun 21st, 2011 @ 2:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So, Nick Clegg deciding the Tory manifesto, or Glenn Beck running on the Democratic Presidential nomination.

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    DogBreath, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 3:16pm

    Re:

    There's no First Amendment right to piracy

    That's right. Only a government can authorize piracy on it's own countrymen without hoisting the Jolly Roger, with no ship in sight, and legally get away with it in this day and age.

    In Trade Ruling, Antigua Wins a Right to Piracy

     

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

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 3:20pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    ;) Ta, good sir.

     

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

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 3:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They are beneficiaries, full stop. They benefit from the system that the public permits to exist.

     

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

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 4:15pm

    Re: Copyright = Dictatorial Powers

    well, that's what's called a "copyrightard", someone who thinks that copyrights are some un-removable law of the universe that proves they are someone more special than everybody else for having copyrights on something (doesn't matter if they even actually MADE said copyrighted material, just the fact that they HAVE a copyright automatically makes them smarter, more original/creative and worthy than you, knave)

    a god that can determine if a work lives or dies, a king that serfs are required to kneel to for permission to even glance upon their works, a -GENIUS- that -needs- to be compensated for even getting out of bed in the morning, i mean, gee, how you can even THINK that PEOPLE get out of BED without proper COMPENSATION? i don't BREATHE without compensation, goddammit! you worthless peasants owe me for every breath i take!

    also,

    if you don't like this you are an unoriginal, brainless criminal who can't do anything of their own who deserves to be sued for everything they have, jailed for life and beaten mercilessly, knave!



    (as ridiculous as it sounds, i've met several copyrightards who think pretty much like this)

     

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

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 6:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I'm not saying that rightsholders aren't stakeholders. They're just not the ONLY ones. Probably not even the most important ones. The long term public interest is much more important."

    No you're not. But Masnick is.

     

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

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 6:16pm

    Re: Re:

    @DannyB

    "But obviously it was not draconian enough, so we need a new streaming law to make it illegal to embed a video you did not upload and possibly thought was legal."

    For the sake of accuracy, I'd like to remind you that what was illegal conduct after the streaming bill passes was illegal before it passed. It's the penalties that have changed. There are no "new" crimes, only new penalties.

     

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

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 6:38pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    And none of them will do anything but waste taxpayer time, money, and manpower.

     

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

  53.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 6:51pm

    Re: Without copyright, how would they get paid?

    Which makes me wonder: what about the people who make the designs for money? How do they get paid?

     

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

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 6:52pm

    Re: Re: Copyright = Dictatorial Powers

    Rights holders are only entitled to compensation for their work. Don't listen to their music or watch their movies if you don't want to pay. Your problem is that you are a cheap fuck looking to freeload. Perhaps you're even a bitter, failed creator like many of the self-styled poets, writers, singers, musicians and wannabes that hang out here moaning about "the system". I guarantee that if a publisher, record company or studio came dangling a contract each one of them would sell their soul for a shot to become part of "the system".

     

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

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 8:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    From the article:

    "Yes, a part of that is that it's supposed to benefit copyright holders also"

    Lie more.

     

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

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2011 @ 8:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Copyright = Dictatorial Powers

    Wrong. Rights holders are NOT entitled to compensation for their work. Otherwise, you would be paying taxes out of your ass to pay for every hack wanting to be a musician, or director, or artist. Or as you call them, "bitter, failed creators". They're rights holders too, if you didn't know.

    Please stop making things up.

     

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

  57.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jun 22nd, 2011 @ 1:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Copyright = Dictatorial Powers

    No one deserves to get paid for anything. It's that simple.

     

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

  58.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jun 22nd, 2011 @ 1:08am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So, magically turning a civil offense into a criminal offense is just a 'new penalty'.

    Sure. You believe in the Tooth Fairy too?

     

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

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 22nd, 2011 @ 2:42am

    Re:

    That's what I call creativity!

     

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

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 22nd, 2011 @ 6:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No idiot, not civil to criminal. Misdemeanor to felony. Didn't you recently claim that all infringing was civil and not criminal? And didn't you end up with shit on your face with that assertion?

     

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

  61.  
    identicon
    JEDIDIAH, Jun 22nd, 2011 @ 7:13am

    Radioactive coal dust

    Yeah. Never mind us peons that have to breathe in the crap that you spew into the air [cough] [cough].

     

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

  62.  
    identicon
    JEDIDIAH, Jun 22nd, 2011 @ 7:19am

    What's really important here.

    > There's no First Amendment right to piracy. Just thought I'd toss that in while we're at it . . .

    Sure there is. Or more precisely, the First Amendment trumps copyright.

    Concerns that "copyright" might interfere with Freedom of Speech is what it was originally conceived as limited and temporary.

    Piracy is just a distraction. The problem with "ownership of culture" is that it interferes with future creativity by turning intellectual capital of the society from the old public domain into a never ending series of toll roads.

    The inability of artists to "pirate" is the real problem here. The fact that consumers might "pirate" is just a side show.

     

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

  63.  
    identicon
    dwg, Jun 22nd, 2011 @ 9:22am

    slight correction

    Copyright holders are members of the public. I'm pretty much a freetard, myself, but that non-distinction needs to be made clear, here.

     

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This