| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 110583 | 2010-06-23 10:11:00 | For and Against for Copyright? | PC builder (15482) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1112876 | 2010-06-23 21:33:00 | Also, I have little sympathy for anyone caught pirating anything, We all know the rules, Everyone knows they are breaking them, and they choose to do so. Granted I think it should be put into perspective, Yep, I agree with Metla. Again. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1112877 | 2010-06-23 22:09:00 | I'm for copyright. It's the best society can come up with to protect original works (of anything), but as long as there are people with a free for all mentality, it's difficult to police. Illegal copies of anything are nothing but theft. Theft of someone's ideas, someone's talent, someone's gift to the world. Not to mention the theft of someone's reward for sharing those things in good faith, trusting someone else is not going to take a copy and either profit by on-selling that copy, or keeping it free for themselves. :annoyed: |
WalOne (4202) | ||
| 1112878 | 2010-06-23 22:19:00 | I'm for copyright. It's the best society can come up with to protect original works (of anything), but as long as there are people with a free for all mentality, it's difficult to police. Illegal copies of anything are nothing but theft. Theft of someone's ideas, someone's talent, someone's gift to the world. Not to mention the theft of someone's reward for sharing those things in good faith, trusting someone else is not going to take a copy and either profit by on-selling that copy, or keeping it free for themselves. :annoyed: +1 |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 1112879 | 2010-06-23 22:50:00 | copyright on what ?? Music, pictures, movies, books, Names, the list goes on. everything! |
PC builder (15482) | ||
| 1112880 | 2010-06-23 23:03:00 | ........................................ Illegal copies of anything are nothing but theft. Theft of someone's ideas, someone's talent, someone's gift to the world. Not to mention the theft of someone's reward for sharing those things in good faith, trusting someone else is not going to take a copy and either profit by on-selling that copy, or keeping it free for themselves. :annoyed: That sounds OK, but however, there is always a but however.....when the US music industry gets a bill passed through the US Senate retrospectively extending copyright by another 25 years on music that was composed and recorded in the 20s/30s, when all the composers and musicians are long since dead, then that is theft in my book....ie putting back into copyright work that had been in the public domain. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 1112881 | 2010-06-23 23:35:00 | Perhaps musicians and artists should explore options when copy writing when recording for a major label - to allow some tracks free to the public. For example, I have old John Rowles/Jim Reeves records with some tracks (mainly B grade tracks) which could appeal to fans - but some of those tracks I'm sure have never been re-released or remastered. How else could others get music (or old movies) that they knew off, but don't get re-released years later in the commercial market? Perhaps they search online for pirated/copied samples... |
kahawai chaser (3545) | ||
| 1112882 | 2010-06-24 00:00:00 | For some classic typical Warner nonsense read how they claim copyright to the tune "Happy Birthday to You" en.wikipedia.org |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 1112883 | 2010-06-24 00:02:00 | If i created software or a movie or whatever, i would copyright it and would be pissed off if someone pirated it +1 metlas comments |
Gobe1 (6290) | ||
| 1112884 | 2010-06-24 00:02:00 | I'm for copyright. It's the best society can come up with to protect original works (of anything), but as long as there are people with a free for all mentality, it's difficult to police. Illegal copies of anything are nothing but theft. Theft of someone's ideas, someone's talent, someone's gift to the world. Not to mention the theft of someone's reward for sharing those things in good faith, trusting someone else is not going to take a copy and either profit by on-selling that copy, or keeping it free for themselves. :annoyed: You're mixing up the reward of the publisher and the artist. The artist is often shafted regardless. I'm for copyright but against regional restrictions. |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 1112885 | 2010-06-24 00:22:00 | In my view the author, artist or creator of a work should be entitled to be rewarded for their efforts but it's not always so. If you are employed by a company and are writing software normally you don't hold the copyright but the company does. Then take a startup songwriter and band. Very often they might put out music and upload to the internet and free for download in the hope that someone may notice. Just because it's put out free in the first place does not mean they don't own copyright. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||