|
|
Posted by Steve King on 12/14/06 15:34
"J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:elrg510i8i@news2.newsguy.com...
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:18:42 +0000, PTravel wrote:
>
>> "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:elqi8m0opk@news4.newsguy.com...
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:52:07 -0800, PTravel wrote:
>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:elorp00tnq@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:45:00 +1300, Colin B wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We may be at the beginning of a sea-change in perceptions of
>>>>> intellectual
>>>>> property with regard to video. If enough of the public decides that
>>>>> they
>>>>> want video to be freely copiable then the legislators won't have any
>>>>> choice but to tell the MPAA to go pound sand and remove copyright
>>>>> protection from such material.
>>>>
>>>> Complete nonsense.
>>>
>>> In what way?
>>
>> "The public" doesn't want video to be "freely copiable" to the extent
>> that anyone can upload anything they want to Youtube.
>
> You have a poll to present? No? Then on what basis do you make this
> claim?
>
>> Elimination of a
>> property interest in intellectual property would have a devasting effect
>
> What would this effect be?
>
>> -- it would eliminate any incentive to creation and the stream of
>> professionally-produced content would evaporate.
>
> You've never spent much time with artists, have you? They don't need no
> steenkeeng _incentive_. As for the "stream of professionally produced
> content" "evaporating", and I should care about this because?
>
>> More than that, the
>> United States economy has, increasingly, become a system whose only
>> value is its intellectual property.
>
> Uh, don't look now, but the Japanese own major chunks of that particular
> American "intellectual property".
>
>> The only ones who want video to be "freely copiable" in the sense the
>> way that you're describing are a bunch of children and young adults who
>> have no conception of the relationship between intellectual property and
>> property interests.
>
> Again, you have a poll to present?
>
>>>> First of all, the Constitution reserves exclusive rights to copyright
>>>> owners in Article I, Section 8.
>>>
>>> At one time the Constitution prohibited the sale and consumption of
>>> alcohol. If there is a consensus then the Constitution can be changed.
>>
>> There isn't a consensus. Banning alcohol was a disastrous decision that
>> was rapidly undone.
>
> So you're saying that there _was_ a "consensus" that alcohol should be
> banned and then that "consensus" changed? Do tell.
>
>>>> Second of all, copyright
>>>> owners are businesses that pay taxes and, more importantly, pay
>>>> lobbyists.
>>>
>>> The same was true of brewers, vintners, and distillers and they got
>>> shut down anyway.
>>
>> It's a very different America now then it was in the 20s. Lobbyists
>> didn't exist then.
>
> Then why were newspapers writing diatribes against the practice of
> lobbying in 1869?
>
>>>> Youtube copyright infringers are children and very young adults who
>>>> don't work, don't create content and, most likely, don't vote.
>>>
>>> You've determined this how? And what happens when those "children and
>>> very young adults" get older?
>>
>> I've determined this by looking at what's on Youtube,
>
> Which tells you nothing about the beliefs of the public.
>
>> who is making the
>> arguments for "free downloading,"
>
> And who is making these arguments and how did you determine their age and
> occupation?
>
>> and looking at who is getting sued.
>
> In other words you're assuming that the only people who have an opinion in
> the matter of the MPAA are those who post on youtube.
>
>> As
>> to what happens to the children, presumably they'll get some education
>> as well as some real world experience and understand that perpetual
>> motion machines don't exist, and if the incentive for creation is
>> eliminated from copyright there simply won't be anymore "tunes" to
>> listen to.
>
> There won't? Now, to your knowledge has _anybody_ ever listened to _all_
> the "tunes" that are out there and watched _all_ the TV and movies that
> are out there? Why is there this crying need for more "tunes"? And how,
> before there was such a thing as a "recording", did musicians and actors
> and the like make a living, anyway?
>
>
>>>> Just because that group might like to legalize intellectual property
>>>> theft doesn't mean that (1) the majority of Americans would approve,
>>>> and (2) Congress would be inclined to amend the Constitution and pass
>>>> legislation that would enable IP theft.
>>>
>>> And it doesn't mean that they wouldn't, either.
>>
>> See above.
>
> I've seen above and it appears that you are a typical MPAA/RIAA shill who
> sees the end of the revenue stream from recordings as being the end of the
> universe. If the recording industry goes bankrupt, it won't be the end of
> music, but it will be the end of the boy-band du jour becoming filthy rich
> on the basis of marketing rather than talent, and no doubt you would have
> to go out and get a real job.
>
> Should have plonked you at "nonsense". Oh, well.
>
> --
> --John
PLONK!
Steve King
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|