Hey Joe,
On 9/23/06, Joe FitzGerald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Same goes for laws. What I'd like to reflect on, is the
> >fact that we can help steer the direction these laws go,
> >and in fact, probably should.
> >
> >I think it's pretty shameful how much power "corporations"
> >have, I mean, it's pretty blatant that big $$ is doing what
> >it can to protect it's interests, in general. And it's doing
> >pretty well so far, judging by the state of some things.
I disagree with this sentiment completely. Copyright laws are not being
pushed or protected by/because of "corporations" -- they're protecting the
individual!! And these laws are pushed and protected by those
individuals. Photographers, journalists, novelists...the only way they can
protect their intellectual property is through our copyright laws. Do they
benefit corporations too? Of course. They benefit whomever is creating the
intellectual property -- the person/people that actually did the work of
creating the information in the first place.
I don't disagree that copyright is designed to protect the author. And I'm
not
advocating an abolishment of it, or some such. But look at the public
domain-
Now you can have perpetual copyright, pretty much.
My comment about "we all gotta eat", or whatever, was an allusion to the
fact that people still need to be able to make money off of their ideas and
work.
But I'm surprised you don't see a gravitation of power to money. Things
like (sigh) the DCMA make me wonder. It also bothers me that my
technology here in the states is /hobbled!/ because some record company
exec wants to "saturate the market". That ain't right. Not really a direct
correlation to copyright law, but it's definitely part of what I'm talking
about.
These laws are critical to the survival and progress of our economic system
and our culture. They are an essential part of both and if we're going to
take a stance on the issues (which is a fine point) it should be in support
of the copyright laws not against it.
I support the need for people to "get what's coming to them", but I don't
think that the laws, as they stand now, are at an optimum. Law is fluid
though, and it's interesting to watch precedents get set, and whatnot.
That said, there are most certainly times when people -- or more often --
corporations try to take copyright protections too far. For instance,
suggesting that game results for broadcast sporting events -- or even the
statistics themselves -- are copyright of the owners of the league is
ridiculous (anyone watching the game could compile those statistics). We
recently had a ruling related to this in the US that declared the pro sports
leagues don't have ownership rights to player and game statistics -- but
they do have rights to THEIR version of those statistics.
Well, technically, as you stated before, just because you can watch
or see something doesn't make it yours. With some stuff, you can't
even tell someone you saw something... that knowledge, even while
in your head, belongs to someone else. (Have I mentioned that I
loved the book "Snow Crash"? ;). How about recording something
off TV, say a football game... if it were up to Big Money, you'd have
to pay to watch it again, even for "personal use". Just look at what
they already have in place.
And then you've got stuff like, if you read Alice in Wonderland
aloud, you are breaking the law. Is that really the intended spirit?
Is that what all those soldiers died for?
Add to this whole deal, the fact that the more money you have,
the better you'll do in court. Generally. It's sad, but true. I don't
have a staff of high $$ lawyers on hand to aggressively do stuff
for me. Most o "us" don't.
Suggesting that anyone should be able to freely take someone else's hard
work is ludicrous -- in this example, someone spent the time to
collect/compile the information or they purchased it from someone who did,
so they should have protection from other people stealing that information
from them.
I never suggested such a thing. And using this example, do
you really think the people who paid someone to do it for them,
would take kindly to those who "did it thyself"? I'd put my
money on the poor lone tally-er getting his ass sued anyway.
Who do you think will have more lawyers? What constitutes
"stealing"?
> Copyright laws -- as they exist today -- are good for all of us.
Heh. This is a blanket statement that I wouldn't touch with a 40
meter stick.
Like I said, it's a mixed bag/balancing act. A lot depends on
context, and how the stuff is being applied. Part of the problem
is that some stuff looks good on paper, but is pretty hard to
get going in "real life". Pointing at the paper, and wanting it to
work... well, that's great sentiment.
We're in a new age, like it or not. It's a global economy, and
a global world. We need to rethink a lot of what is established,
if we want to keep up in this fast paced game we play together.
Don't get me wrong, this is a game that's been played for
hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of years.
Yeah, I remember in Oog vs. Mog, in the "quest for fire" case.
That one got ugly. =]
-denny
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four
times a year.
http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253980
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
