We have one. Unfortunately it's an age to get in, not to get out.
Spoken like a true bureaucrat.
(please be joking... please be joking... please be joking...)
Copyright isn't property or a right. It is a privileged granted by the government. Copying is a right - something people do naturally and have done since the dawn of time - and copyright law is an infringement of that right.
And there's plenty of people out there that think the same thing about the government.
national security risk = job security risk
They actually did make self-destructing DVDs at one time. It wasn't a hit.
But the whole idea behind streaming is getting streaming companies to pay annual licensing fees - which is the same as getting people to buy the same content over and over.
I love the idea of banning the offended rather than the offender.
And for what it's worth, Gollum isn't a bad character. He's a great character. And any evil he does is because he's been corrupted by the ring. The ring is bad. Gollum is not.
The lion's share goes to the copyright holder, which might be a label, or might be an artist.
This doesn't benefit collection societies either. It doesn't benefit anyone.
He prefers life in Russia? You say that like he had a choice.
All of those things are illegal, so if anything legalizing prostitution (where the government can actually regulate it rather than prosecute it) might do a lot more to reduce kidnapping, trafficking, blackmail, and illegal immigration.
Another one of those "The law can do no wrong!" kind of people.
Sure that's a problem, but it doesn't mean law enforcement should become criminals in order to catch criminals. Then we have an even bigger problem.
You have to throw in a few seconds near the beginning of some half dressed person just to keep them on their toes - something that would get missed if you fast forward, which is exactly what they'll do. Audio's a good idea too, since they have to listen for something objectionable.
We know what you do isn't pretty, but we want to make sure what you do is legal.
Almost all modern entertainment media is locked down by copyright, so there's no way to gauge what culture might be like if a significant portion of it were public domain. Books are an exception because there's a significant number of public domain works that are still widely popular - so it makes sense to study copyright's effects on culture through books. I suppose you could also look at the still thriving market for classical music, where the vast majority of work they perform is pre-copyright.
If copyright terms had not been retroactively extended, there would be a significant body of 20th century films and sound recordings in the public domain to make a comparative study. Unfortunately, we may see the 20th century fall into the public domain until the 22nd century.
You praise all the progress of the 20th century but who's to say that progress wouldn't have been improved if things were different? For one thing, maybe a handful of multi-national corporations wouldn't own the vast majority of our culture, and maybe more than just the most economically viable material would still be available to us.
Since the internet became mainstream we've learned that there's a vast amount of culture that was being filtered out of the corporate system that existed before. The 20th century method of big companies controlling popular culture probably wasn't the best system - it was just the most efficient at the time. It hinged on controlling access to mass production and distribution.
The internet gives creators access to these things that before they could only get by giving up their copyright and control to a handful of major players if they wanted to participate in mass culture.
Even before that it was their channel logo overlayed over the whole show. If only people had complained then.
Re: Re: Re:
TIL Einstein's middle name.