Posted by J. Clarke on 12/14/06 12:30

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
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

[Back to original message]