| 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 | ||
| 1112886 | 2010-06-24 01:44:00 | Perhaps musicians and artists should explore options when copy writing when recording for a major label 99 percent of the time the artist has zero say in the contract, zero control, zero creative control,and no ownership in anyway of the output. They sing what are told, how they are told,dressed like they are told. And if their costs outweigh their sales they are billed for the balance. Which is why music today sucks so bad. They have to fit the established market, sell to the established market, and if they fail they are bankrupt. Huzzah. Lets hear it for Beaver and 50c. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 1112887 | 2010-06-24 08:41:00 | Copyright is a scapegoat for industry's to make large sums of money at the consumers expense. there is no way that by the time a CD gets to the retail outlet it would cost $30 to make (cue sony claiming 80% royalties) The artist deserves the money not the sad sack company that makes the the record | The Error Guy (14052) | ||
| 1112888 | 2010-06-24 10:16:00 | The copyright legislation is antiquated and no longer valid. It seems very easy to say that if you are not the creator of the material that is being obtained illegally! |
johnd (85) | ||
| 1112889 | 2010-06-24 10:25:00 | Against copyright. Not being able to back up dvd'd to a digital copy to be used devices such media centers. Its not just about illegally downloading stuff. Its also about using stuff you have got legally the way you want too. At the moment the movie industry would have buy a dvd for your dvd player. A downloaded digital copy from itunes or the zune store or what ever your preference is. Only now are we starting to see bluray with digital copies on them to be used on mobile devices. Copyright makes pirates out of lawbiding people that already own content. It was only a couple of years ago it was illegal to rip a cd to be used in a mp3 player. So yes copyright sucks. | plod (107) | ||
| 1112890 | 2010-06-24 10:35:00 | Nothing wrong with copyright, But I do strongly disagree with heavy handed legislative changes based on ridicules claims of huge losses. Whet they are doing is trying to protect an out dated model by hammering their customers. Real clever. I don't download music as the quality is crap, Nor do I buy new CD's, I stick to 2nd hand items. I agree with Metla and Terry. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1112891 | 2010-06-24 10:35:00 | Copyright is necessary to promote innovation, and to protect the freedom of information - but as content evolves, laws need to keep up as many arguments would have changed (e.g. the "Walt Disney" clause of most copyright laws is unreasonable given the pace at which various industries move). It's not a simple "for" or "against". At a basic level, for content creators, they need an incentive to invest their time (and money) to make something - e.g. write a song, develop a piece of software etc. - it needs to be worth their while, otherwise they won't do it. More fundamentally, people need to feed their families, put a roof over their head, and meet their needs. Without copyright protection, people could steal their work, pretend it is their own, and the original creator would have no legal recourse. Forget the buckets of money that movie studios etc. make for the time being, and think about fairness - the person who put in the work deserves a recognition for their efforts, and reasonable compensation for their time. Not everyone has the ability to do everything out of the goodness of their heart, for free. The same applies to patents - the idea is you give people a reasonable period of exclusivity (20 years in NZ if I recall correctly) over their application of an idea so they can recover their costs and make a bit of money, then it's free for all so people can build on top of that work, innovate further, etc. Copyright legislation is also essential for ensuring that things which are "free" remain free - in all senses of the word. It's copyright law that enables the Open Source community to ensure that the work they release under the GPL stays that way, as copyright gives the "owner" the legal power to specify what happens to their intellectual property. Same applies for other schemes like Creative Commons etc. This is a complex issue which you could spend days arguing about. I do have a couple of things to think about:the arbitrary number of years for exclusivity specified in copyright law, and the continuing extensions to the length of time is an interesting issue which needs to be addressed - is the period of exclusivity applicable in the digital era? Should Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Goofy be in the public domain? For those against "copyright", are you against it in principle, or are you opposed to the laws which content producers have managed to pass which restrict your fair use rights - i.e. your ability to do what you want with something you have paid for? |
somebody (208) | ||
| 1112892 | 2010-06-24 11:17:00 | I am for copyright in terms of it supporting peoples works and protecting them from copying and such . I also support copyright for preventing piracy . I hate a particular few of my friends purely because they pirate all their software, games, and the like . I will openly support buying software at a premium, BUT i only want to have to buy it once . If I am buying a piece of software to use, I'd like to be able to use it on multiple pc's of MY OWN, or take a backup copy if my disc gets scratched . Admittedly I have taken no cd cracks to my games for the sake of preserving their discs, and have burnt copies too, but I DID pay for them in the first place . (well, minus one game anyway) I recently bought Stalker Clear Sky but heard I can only install it 5 times on my pc, and have to reinstall whenever my hardware profile changes in any serious way . Bummer . But then it's people like my friends that cause such counter measures to exist . Super Street fighter 4, for example, doesn't get released on pc now because SFIV was the most pirated game of 2008 (i think) on PC . Bloody ridiculous . In terms of musicians and artists, I am against sharing entire albums . If you want to download a single or two, or share a couple of singles with a friend to get them into an album, then sure . But downloading or sharing a full album isn't cool, because while artists get shafted by record companies, if you don't support them at all, then what happens? Shafted even harder . And decent record companies will often pay out more to support their better artists . The ones that share out $1 a cd get the boot pretty early on . So yeah TL DR, I support copyright in most cases for backups of data or sharing snippets of music, but I don't support piracy in ANY form beyond that, nor do I support draconian copyright protections because the pirates will always find a way around them anyway, and they'll only end up hurting those who are trying to normally use or backup their software . |
8ftmetalhaed (14526) | ||
| 1112893 | 2010-06-25 08:55:00 | Copyright is necessary to promote innovation, ... Except where countries like the US (as I understand it) allow people to copyright ideas and do nothing with the idea except wait until somebody tries to implement it then sue. This must stifle innovation big time. |
johnd (85) | ||
| 1112894 | 2010-06-25 11:15:00 | Except where countries like the US (as I understand it) allow people to copyright ideas and do nothing with the idea except wait until somebody tries to implement it then sue. This must stifle innovation big time. There is a difference between copyright and patent though. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 1112895 | 2010-06-25 21:24:00 | Not many years ago the USA had the length of copyright protection significantly extended - and I am certainly opposed to this very lengthy term. You can bet the USA did this because they have the greatest to gain (or lose) with changes to copyright. Their huge repository of media is earning them millions of million. If other contries held the bulk of the media (ie the money was flowing the other way) you can bet the USA would have completely blocked extending copyright duration. I think the copyright on books, movies and music is absurdly long. These 'artisits' do their job once, yet they (or their agents) get paid over and over and over for decades for doing nothing more with their 'work'. I only get paid once, regardless of how many times someone makes use of my work. Should you pay Mazda a royalty each time you sit in your car? How many times should you pay to hear or view the same old media? How many times should the creators get paid for use of their media? How much is enough? An example of the greed and difficulties created by copyright is the debacle over the DVD release of the comedy Married With Children. The theme tune on the opening credits was 'Love and Marriage" sung by Frank Sinatra. Frank sung this an eon ago. And he's been dead for ages as well. But whoever owns the rights to his ancient singing was trying to wrestle a large sum of money for the rights to use his singing on the DVDs (respite the series being broadcast at least 4 times in NZ prior to all this, and the series being a decade out of production, and the oldest episodes being 20 years old! The end result was sony gave the finger to Franks greedy mates and has finally released the DVD set with an entirely new theme song in the credits... but only for the later half of the series. THe first 3 or 4 years of the series are still licenced and using Sinatra. The same bollox happens when using recognisable segments of music within the show. A brief segment from Queens We are The Champions could not be licensed for DVD release, so they had to substitute some other generic music. These licencing agreements also vary from country to country, so some areas get DVDs with original content, other areas get the series all chopped up due to the greed of 'creative' industry people. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||