|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/05/06 17:46
"Bill" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
news:vIednbdySa1gPOjYnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@golden.net...
> Very stern, Steve. Okay. Let's say we start looking at where Disney
> stole "Lion King" from-- and shall we punish Disney "vigorously"? How
> about all those movies and tv shows that recycle the same plot endlessly:
> Lucy/Gilligan/Archie/Monica thinks everyone has forgotten her birthday...
> How about I, IV, V in jazz or rock'n'roll? Compression in recording? The
> steadicam shot? The idea of a talking animal?
You're unclear on the scope of protection available under copyright. Ideas
are not protectable by copyright, only the expression of ideas. Everything
in your list is an idea, and not protectable expression.
>
> The most ridiculous idea to come out of the digital age is that copyright
> is "absolute". It is not, never has been, and never was intended to be.
Who thinks that copyright is absolute?
> For one thing, there has always been and always should be "fair use" even
> if all the Republicans in Washington are doing everything they can to
> eliminate it.
To be accurate, it's the lobbyists who have paid the Repbulicans in
Washington to enact as law the bills the lobbyists have drafted.
> Nobody creates in a vacuum, and nobody invents a new technology (musical
> instrument, paint, or language) everytime they create an "original" work
> of art. There is always some degree of borrowing, and that is the reason
> by no copyright is "absolute".
No, it's not. Again, you're confusing ideas with the expression of ideas.
Copyright isn't absolute because, in the U.S., it is tempered by the First
Amendment which would otherwise conflict with Article I, Section 8.
> You benefit from the work of others that came before you and the ones who
> follow benefit from your work.
>
> Those aren't "psychopaths"-- they are mostly kids who want to share the
> touchstones of modern culture with each other. They could be forgiven for
> thinking that that is exactly the aim of the music/television/film
> industry.
There's no First Amendment interest in a kid downloading music from the
internet so that he doesn't have to buy the CD.
>
> People of good sense want to find a balance that allows creative people to
> profit properly from their work while preserving open cultural dialogue
> and keeping history in the public domain. It is absolutely wrong, for
> example, that "Eye on the Prize" is going to become unavailable to an
> entire generation of students because of the greed of copyright owners and
> their congressional toadies.
>
> Steve King wrote:
>
>>
>> This is the "little bit pregnant" argument. One has either infringed on
>> a copyright or not. As far as benefits to the copyright holder, that is
>> for the copyright holder to decide, not the full range of individuals
>> from children to psychopaths that post to You Tube. The quality of the
>> copy has nothing to do with it. Nothing. Usurping the copyright holder's
>> decision where and when to publish under what terms is a crime, which
>> should be punished vigorously.
>>
>> Steve King
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|