>in this discussion, i will take the side against present copyright law. >it's like following the laws of the Old testament. >they were written for a different time in human consciousness. >brothers and sisters. I bring you the New testament. >these are just laws. they can be rewritten as we change. >(look at how we're having this conversation--we're changing)
True. Laws do change, but copyright laws seem to be changing in favor of the copyright holders, due most likely to powerful media lobbies that are recognizing how technology is making pirating simple. Look at what's going on with DRM. There's a lot of money at stake. > > As for violations, they cannot sue every violator, which is why at some > > point they are going to have to start making examples of people like the > > RIAA has/is. They may not sue everyone, but who wants to be one of the >ones > > sued? > >huh, weird way to go about it. >so much fear. Not really, we can look at everything from traffic tickets to spankings to public executions to honor killings and many other horrible activities meant to serve as a deterrent to crime. Similar concept. Really, what other choice do they have to protect their rights? > > Because someone spent blood, tears, and money to create it. If it >belongs to > > them, why should you be alowed to take it without permission? > >because its part of the culture. TV/music/movies is all around us. >its in our memory and in our language. >I speak about the things i see and hear around the water cooler... >how can you say i cannot use it in my voice which is also audio and >video on a blog? You can use your voice and image in a vlog because you have permission. It is like taking a camcorder into a movie theatre -- just because you see it doesn't mean you can record it and it certainly doesn't mean you can distribute it. But you are welcome to talk about it all you want. But just because something is in your memory doesn't mean you own it, you only own the memory of it. Should I be able to kick the people out of my childhood home? > > Creative Commons is a licensing agreement determined by the creator not >by > > the user. What you are describing seems to take control away from the >person > > who invented/created something. > >youve misunderstood me. >and the point is that creators(big and small) need to move from >traditional, ineffective copyright law to a more flexible and sane >system. >as the creator, you can own the work...but you let people use it under >certain conditions. > >for example, youll let me play with your work for fun...but if i want >to make money...you get a piece of the action. > >why is this important? >you ever try contacting a major media company to use a video/audio clip? >its a no go. >bascially any commercial content will always be off-limits to regular >people. >is this sane? >like andrew said, dont drive 56 mph. No, I think I understood you. You are talking about a requirement to allow people to use your creation against your will in a way which could impact your profits. I would suggest that the current system is sane to the copyright holder, but restrictive to the end user. I personally think the creator deserves more protection than the user. You mention using copyrighted material for fun, but giving a cut of profit if money is involved. If I stream a movie/show/song for free I make no profit, but the users don't have to go buy the material. So, even though I made no money the copyright holder lost money. That's the beauty of the Creative Commons license, if someone wants to give away more rights they can, if they don't they don't have to. > > Ah, but money is the driving force behind many creations. Not everyone > > creates to get more "play." If someone quits their job and slaves for >three > > months to write a great novel and then I come along and print the text >out > > and give it to every person in the country is that fair? Hey, just >because > > the author isn't making money and isn't on the bestseller list I am >helping > > him out because now more people can read his book? That doesn't sound >like a > > great deal to me. > >lets think this through. >what i would most likely be playing with is pop-culture...becasue its >part of our language. >so its already popular and getting lots of money. >Coke wants me to wear their t-shirts all the time..."coke, never forget". > >if i play with a work of an obscure artist...then im giving him/her >exposure. >and by giving exposure...commercial attention will follow. Coke want you to wear their shirts, but they -- like most companies -- are very protective of their brand and may not appreciate the t-shirt you make. Maybe the font is off or the color isn't right or the context isn't how they would present their image. Also the t-shirt maker would lose a lot of business if everyone could make their own shirts -- shirts he paid Coca-Cola for the exclusive rights to make. So now, because we've loosened rights: coke loses money they could have made selling rights to print their t-shirts, t-shirt maker/seller loses business because there is no need to buy the product, and coke loses control over how their product is presented. Maybe someone who had coke growing up might make and sell a soda that tastes just like it and call it Coca-Cola. If everything can be made into a knockoff, aside from the econmic impact, how do you know what you are getting? As for the obscure artist, perhaps he prefers obscurity. If his paintings show up on t-shirts and bedsheets and shower curtains people may think he sold out and his paintings won't sell as well. Also, what if he worked for months at great expense on a piece and then someone modifies it and he doesn't like it. Too bad for him? Then the newer version gets modified and that gets modified, etc. What if somebody modifies the work to sell a product or promote an ideology he doesn't believe in? > > Again, that isn't to say there aren't good examples, but those seem to >be > > examples where the creator is fine with taking a certain loss by > > distributing content for free. I can't think of a good example where the > > creator was against unauthorized use and illegal distribution turned out > > good for him. > >the argument of pirate vs pay is essentially false. >people "pirate" Brittany Spears. >Brittany Spears still makes a pile of money. Let's examine this statement: it is okay to steal from people who we think make enough money? So what is the threshold yearly income for that, cause I'd like a Jaguar. "Sure, I am taking your car,but it is okay, you still make a lot of money"? Maybe someone who makes less than you would like your videocamera. >Traditional media believes that its all or nothing. >so afraid to let go of their content and let it flow...and probably >make more money. >people pay for whats good...and they also try things out for free online. > >I "pirate" a copy of Final Cut Pro. >but i consistently buy macs and all of its products. >symbiotic relationship. Sure, but there is an impact: Final Cut Pro doesn't sell as well as anticipated, gotta lay people off, next version of Final Cut Pro stinks. Why should someone give up their rights? It's kind of like money. Let's say someone makes $50,000 a year. But there are a lot of people who make less, so he is compelled to give his money to whomever wants it. He worked all year to make that amount. He went to college to make that amount. He has bills to pay with that amount. Is it fair that he should be required to give up his money? (this is not an analogy about taxes, I swear!) > > Creativity is rewarded when the creator gets paid. In the example of the > > novelist -- what would the incentive be for quitting one's job and >slaving > > for three months on a really great novel if there was no payoff other >than > > the satisfaction of a job well done? That isn't going to pay the bills. >So > > now our writer has positively contributed to the arts and society but >winds > > up homeless because of it. > >youre telling me that if i write the bestest book in the world...that, >except for current copyright law, everyone will "steal" it...and I >wont make a dime? >there's no other way? I was giving an extreme analogy to prove a point. However, current copyright law is set up to prevent such theft, while the loosening of restrictions could make it permissible. > > Creativity is helped when there is a return on investment. Also, if you > > can't steal other people's stuff you'll have to create your own -- which > > spurs creativity. I would suggest that reusing content chills creativity > > more. > >Mr Walt Disney made his empire on stolen content. >Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White, Pinnochio..... >its in our genes to reuse whats around us. >so funny that Disney is the biggest defender of copyright law now. Disney used stories in the public domain -- which we are all free to do -- , but he paid for the painstakingly hand-drawn cells, the songs, the actors, the film, the studio, the distribution, the support and administrative staff, the scripts, etc. and he took the risk. >jay -David ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life. http://us.click.yahoo.com/A77XvD/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
