| 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 | ||
| 1112896 | 2010-06-25 21:55:00 | 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. You can't copyright ideas - you can copyright a piece of work which is an expression of an idea though. For example, you can't copyright the idea of a sci-fi novel, but you can copyright a particular book you write. Likewise, Disney can't copyright the idea of using a mouse in a cartoon, but they can copyright Mickey Mouse. Same with patents - you can't patent an idea of using fire to heat a pot of water, but you can patent a design which implements that idea, i.e. a portable camping stove. What you're describing is patent trolls in the US who acquire patents previously owned by (usually small) companies, and wait until a larger company (like Microsoft, Apple, or whoever) implements something that is very very similar or identical to the patent they hold before suing them. Again, it's not an idea that's patented, but a particular implementation/design that is. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 1112897 | 2010-06-25 22:11:00 | 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 Remember that the retail outlet share and GST is about half the total price. |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 1112898 | 2010-06-25 22:35:00 | Remember that the retail outlet share and GST is about half the total price. Cost of manufacturing a CD, including booklet and case is less then a dollar, and less then 50 cents in some cases. Customers, retailers, and the "talent" are all getting rorted by the record companies, and now that system is failing they are looking to hit those vile customers as hard as they can with every tool they have. Still, paying more then 50 cents for a compressed digital track is a massive rort as well. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 1112899 | 2010-06-25 23:12:00 | I'm for Copyright although the way the music and film industry try to use it is wrong. They try to use Copyright to prop up an old business model that doesn't work and make outrageous claims about how much money they lose. Creative Commons is on the right track. |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 1112900 | 2010-06-26 00:13:00 | What you're describing is patent trolls in the US who acquire patents previously owned by (usually small) companies, and wait until a larger company (like Microsoft, Apple, or whoever) implements something that is very very similar or identical to the patent they hold before suing them. Again, it's not an idea that's patented, but a particular implementation/design that is. Some of them have never actually created a working model so it boils down to patenting an idea. The whole software patent thing in the USA is pathetic. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1112901 | 2010-06-26 00:38:00 | beacause of music clearances and copyrights. we may never see complete series releases of "The Kenny Everett Video Show". all that is availible of that is a compilation dvd and tv rips on torrents from years ago which have been heavily cut | goodiesguy (15316) | ||
| 1112902 | 2010-06-26 00:58:00 | Some of them have never actually created a working model so it boils down to patenting an idea. The whole software patent thing in the USA is pathetic. It's not an idea, it's a design - an idea is too vague. Whether they managed to get a working model of that design is another story. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 1112903 | 2010-06-26 01:09:00 | 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. Music from 20s and 30s lol I dont think that effects many people. I am for copyright but the sentences should reflect the value of the song etc like the same fine if you thieved it from a cd store. Some of the sentences are worse than you get for rape, pillage and rape. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 1112904 | 2010-06-26 02:01:00 | Music from 20s and 30s lol I dont think that effects many people. It would concern you if you were one of the ones affected. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1112905 | 2010-06-26 03:16:00 | copyright is just a bad idea all round. it needs to be re written. if we own a dvd. we should be able to do what we want with it e.g: make a backup etc.. | goodiesguy (15316) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||