|
|
Posted by PTravel on 02/06/07 19:55
"Bill" <trash@chromehorse.net> wrote in message
news:2eOdnd_zuczND1XYnZ2dnUVZ_tGsnZ2d@golden.net...
> The "principle" of copyright is indeed in trouble. The trouble is that
> people don't really understand the original purpose of copyright. The
> trouble is also that people have this illusion that Walt Disney's "The
> Little Mermaid", for example, is "original" (Disney stole it, along with
> "The Lion King" and most of everything else they produce). Most
> rock'n'roll is derived from long established models of chord progressions
> and riffs. Art steals from landscapes or objects (Warhol's Campbell Soup
> cans). Ever see a TV episode in which one major character seems to have
> forgotten another major character's birthday? Lucy? Mr. Ed? Gilligan?
> Edith? Maude? Homer?
Unfortunately, I think it is you who does not understand the principles of
copyright protection. What you've described as "stealing" is merely using
material that is unprotected and in the public domain. Public domain is
public domain -- anyone may use it, and no one can claim copyright
protection in it. Do a google search on "scenes a faire" if you want to
learn about the particular that doctrine that applies.
>
> The sad truth is that most of the current big corporations fighting for
> stricter copyright enforcement could not themselves have been profitable
> without outright theft.
That's ridiculous. Apparently, you have little contact with "big
corporations" who are content producers.
>
> We have simply entered an era in which definitions of "original" and
> "copy" and "collage" and "edited" and "found" are rapidly changing.
"Collage," "edited" and "found" are not terms of art and irrelevant to the
rights protected by copyright. What has happened is we have entered an era
in which a lot of people have tried to justify intellectual property theft
by inventing their definitiions.
> We'll survive. We've never had as much money to spend on diversions as we
> do now, and the money is madly flowing in all directions. The groaning
> and creaking we are hearing is the sound of decrepid old business models
> struggling to re-orient themselves to the new realities. The nimbler minds
> at Google, and Apple, and Youtube, and Myspace, etc. have already found
> their way. The older models are not only inefficient -- they're boring.
Maybe to you.
>
> It would be very, very bad policy for the government to try to artifically
> prop up those old monsters, the way some governments and unions used to
> try to require stokers on diesel trains. The DMCA was a clumsy attempt to
> do just that and I hope it dies slowly, the death of a thousand Youtubes.
On this we agree -- the government should not prop up obsolete business
models by enacting laws that are contrary to the underlying rationales for
intellectual property protection and use. The DMCA is, unfortunately, not
clumsy -- it's surigically precise, but drafted by lobbyists who were solely
interested in ensuring that no one could watch DirecTV without paying for
it, or make a copy of a DVD for any purpose, including those allowed under
fair use. I agree, though, that the DMCA is very bad law.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|