Haper's New Copyright Laws

[maple_leafs182]

...but you do want all their products and services for "free"....naturally.

Damn rights I do.

An economy based on money/debt is stupid, I don't know how many more depressions and recessions it will take for us to realize that, society learns too slowly.

[dre]

copyrights and patents are both stupid.

It should all be free.

I dont think it should be free, and I dont think patents and copyrights are necessarily stupid. The problem is that various industrial lobbies have been able to bastardize these protections into the grotesque laws we have today.

I would support laws that accomplish the origional goal of patents which was to provide temporary protection to ensure sure that the origional inventor has "first movers advantage", and can make decent money off his product before generics and knock-offs hit the market.

Anything beyond that stifles creativity and puts undue restriction on the flow of information and ideas. Patent protection was origional put in place to ENCOURAGE innovation but if its too strong it does the exact opposite.

[dre]

Then why are you complaining? Go with the Indy scene and ignore the dinosaurs' business model. Problem solved.

The fact that such artists enter into distribution and licensing agreements to start with. Enjoy your license for the original download according to the license requirements....which do not extend to copies for 10,000 years.

The fact that such artists enter into distribution and licensing agreements to start with. Enjoy your license for the original download according to the license requirements....which do not extend to copies for 10,000 years.

How would the Itunes agreement you posted stop a person from listening to a song for ten thousand years if he could live that long? Clearly all the artists with music on there are ok with their material being licensed on a perpetual basis to a single user as long as they follow the terms of the license.

And thats exactly why media manufacturers are in such big trouble. Like I said they are trying to use intellectual property law to protect their role as manufacturers but its not gonna work and soon theyre gonna gonna go bye bye.

[bush_cheney2004]

Damn rights I do.

An economy based on money/debt is stupid, I don't know how many more depressions and recessions it will take for us to realize that, society learns too slowly.

So what do you have to offer while taking all these "free" products and services? We have a word for people like you who always come to parties empty handed.

[maple_leafs182]

Patent protection was origional put in place to ENCOURAGE innovation but if its too strong it does the exact opposite.

I don't see how limiting knowledge to certain people could encourage innovation.

well I guess if money is the motivating factor but I still think having billions of minds able to share and build off others ideas freely, innovation would far exceed that what is possible by keeping that information locked up.

[bush_cheney2004]

How would the Itunes agreement you posted stop a person from listening to a song for ten thousand years if he could live that long? Clearly all the artists with music on there are ok with their material being licensed on a perpetual basis to a single user as long as they follow the terms of the license.

Correct....this only applies to the original download, not authorized or unauthorized copies.

And thats exactly why media manufacturers are in such big trouble. Like I said they are trying to use intellectual property law to protect their role as manufacturers but its not gonna work and soon theyre gonna gonna go bye bye.

Guess again...the "media manufacturers" are getting vertically integrated (e.g. Sony Entertainment). If it makes money, the battle will go on. As for the indy scene, it desn't make as much money, so who gives a rat's ass.

[maple_leafs182]

So what do you have to offer while taking all these "free" products and services? We have a word for people like you who always come to parties empty handed.

No, we have a 'world' of people that think it is better to receive then give, a world of people with money/greed on their mind.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, we have a 'world' of people that think it is better to receive then give, a world of people with money/greed on their mind.

Good luck with that....freeloaders like you are soon shown the door.

[dre]

I don't see how limiting knowledge to certain people could encourage innovation.

well I guess if money is the motivating factor but I still think having billions of minds able to share and build off others ideas freely, innovation would far exceed that what is possible by keeping that information locked up.

Because in some cases inventors would not put the same time and energy into creating new works if they thought they were going to get shut out of the market by someone that can steal their idea and commercialize it faster.

It cuts both ways. Too much protection hampers innovation and no protection could as well.

Its just gone way way way too far. I would propose a cap on how long protection lasts. Maybe 5 - 10 years tops. This enhance innovation and increase the speed at which new ideas and products are delivered. After that it would be fair game.

Edited June 7, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

If the law is stupid and unenforceable, the people will circumvent it and the government will sooner or later relent. See: prohibition.

I'm not too worried.

[BubberMiley]

So what do you have to offer to this "free for all"...or do you only take?

Uh...I guess you said yourself that "economics trumps virtue."

[DrGreenthumb]

If the law is stupid and unenforceable, the people will circumvent it and the government will sooner or later relent. See: prohibition.

I'm not too worried.

See Prohibition? Yes and I still see it, it has just switched from alcohol to less harmful substances.

[GostHacked]

I think one nice royalty cheque would change your position on this issue 180 degrees.

I am half and half on this legislation.

There is/was a tax/levy on blank media that would help compensate artists for lost income. I guess that did not pan out like they planned.

At bare minimum, we need an amendment to this bill that delineates between commercial piracy and home use in a serious way. Breaking DRM to facilitate a massive counterfeiting scheme? Great idea for extra teeth to combat this kind of thing. Not allowing me to import a CD or DVD into iTunes? Really bad idea, creates criminals out of paying customers.

I agree with this. But ...

Likewise with the one copy rule. It's almost impossible to only ever make one copy of a digital media file for personal use, even if you try. Everything I buy gets imported into my iTunes library, then I decide how and where I'll watch or listen to the content from there. It could be on any of the 4 iPods we have in our house, it could be on a SD card, or on one of the two laptops, or on the iPad my wife's been taking about buying. Add to that, when you back-up your hard drive on your computer, you're making yet another copy. It's not that I would ever be using all of those at once, but even by only using a CD on one iPod, I've made three copies (iTunes, computer back-up, iPod).

Now see, you've gone beyond the basic back up purpose to having it on all 4 iPods plus a couple computers. And you've made 5 copies.

Original media, backed up to computer through iTunes and 4 iPods. It does not take much for one of your kids (if you have any) to go over to a friends house and load all the tunes from the iPod to the friends computer. It's pretty damn easy.

Digital rights my ass....if you produced content instead of wanting to consume it for free, you would sing a very different tune.

A lot of the remixes I like for electronic music simply can't be bought anywhere. The availability to purchase said music is also a problem. If it's not readily available to buy in a store or online then I will be hunting for it illegally online. It's usually easier to find it through something like Limewire (watch out for viruses!) than in a real or online store.

My music is free, and I might end up charging down the road, but I am going to do it on my terms. This way whatever profits are to be had will come directly to me. There are places like Amazon.com who offer this kind of service to artists. I can have my CD available for real purchase (like buying a real CD) or you have the option of a digital download. Amazon.com will take a small cut for facilitating the transaction.

Many artists do offer their music for free. But it's nice to do the right thing and hit their 'donate' button and give them a few bucks if you really like them and their music. I know a few artists that survive this way. Some of them do alright.

The one problem I have is that music artists tend to release a CD then stand on those works. They expect to do the CD and that's it, money in the bank. Most artists make their money from touring. So even if you pirate the CD, do them a favour and go see them live in concert.

Its not about wanting to consume it for free. Its about your right to back up intellectual property you have already purchased a license for and to copy it from one device to another.

Actually in terms of the music CD you 'own', you can't even make a back up. The disclaimer is right on every CD out there. It's always been this way ever since recordable media was available to the general public.

copyrights and patents are both stupid.

It should all be free.

Not a very intelligent approach to the situation.

Damn rights I do.

An economy based on money/debt is stupid, I don't know how many more depressions and recessions it will take for us to realize that, society learns too slowly.

I doubt anyone with artistic merit have influence over the economy to bring on a depression or recession.

[maple_leafs182]

Not a very intelligent approach to the situation.

It isn't if we want to continue the lifestyle of consumerism but I don't want to.

I doubt anyone with artistic merit have influence over the economy to bring on a depression or recession.

I just meant the economy in general is stupid.

[bush_cheney2004]

It isn't if we want to continue the lifestyle of consumerism but I don't want to.

That's fine....you can do as you please, butb don't think you can decide for anybody else.

I just meant the economy in general is stupid.

Have you ever been to a place that didn't have one?

[GostHacked]

It isn't if we want to continue the lifestyle of consumerism but I don't want to.

Art is still a product/commodity people can buy. But I think the trend of moving away from traditional music record labels (like EMI, Sony, BMG, ect ect ect) will continue. The technology and internet these days allows independent artists to get an audience they never thought possible through traditional channels.

No longer as an artist, are you at the mercy of a record producer/company. They are looking for the next big hit. The record label does not like to give up much control over the product unless it is in their best interest.

Prince is a great example of this. He wanted 100% artistic control over his music right from the start. Warner Brothers was the only label willing to give him free reign on it.

We still have some way to go in terms of the law catching up with the technology. Record labels are going to have to adapt to the new market or die. Most of these laws are put in place to protect the traditional business practices that the record labels use. They don't want to change. I've been seeing this for almost 2 decades now.

But you 'vote' with your wallet. If you don't like the practice or the music, don't buy it, and don't even listen to it. I still buy as many CDs as I can. I like the way the collection looks on my shelf. All of it is ripped to my PC and I change out whatever is on my ipod every now and then.

And if you can't slap down 5 bucks to buy a CD through iTunes, then you are in a sad state of affairs. Some of the CDs I pay for are upwards of 30 dollars each, and yes they are imports.

20$ for one real CD bought in a store, or 20$ for 4 CDs bought through iTunes. I don't like being raped when I buy a CD, but at the same time, if the deal is good enough, even at 5 bucks if half the cd is shit, I still did ok.

There is a lot of work that goes into making music. I am learning this first hand by myself, which is making it a very long process. It's not just writing and playing the music, there is a lot more too it, even with the advance of technology making it easier for people. It would be nice as an artist to be able to afford a good producer to help master my tracks, but if you are pirating my CD and liking my music, and then saying, "hmmm what ever happened to that artist". The answer is, he did not get payed.

[dre]

Art is still a product/commodity people can buy. But I think the trend of moving away from traditional music record labels (like EMI, Sony, BMG, ect ect ect) will continue. The technology and internet these days allows independent artists to get an audience they never thought possible through traditional channels.

No longer as an artist, are you at the mercy of a record producer/company. They are looking for the next big hit. The record label does not like to give up much control over the product unless it is in their best interest.

Prince is a great example of this. He wanted 100% artistic control over his music right from the start. Warner Brothers was the only label willing to give him free reign on it.

We still have some way to go in terms of the law catching up with the technology. Record labels are going to have to adapt to the new market or die. Most of these laws are put in place to protect the traditional business practices that the record labels use. They don't want to change. I've been seeing this for almost 2 decades now.

But you 'vote' with your wallet. If you don't like the practice or the music, don't buy it, and don't even listen to it. I still buy as many CDs as I can. I like the way the collection looks on my shelf. All of it is ripped to my PC and I change out whatever is on my ipod every now and then.

And if you can't slap down 5 bucks to buy a CD through iTunes, then you are in a sad state of affairs. Some of the CDs I pay for are upwards of 30 dollars each, and yes they are imports.

20$ for one real CD bought in a store, or 20$ for 4 CDs bought through iTunes. I don't like being raped when I buy a CD, but at the same time, if the deal is good enough, even at 5 bucks if half the cd is shit, I still did ok.

There is a lot of work that goes into making music. I am learning this first hand by myself, which is making it a very long process. It's not just writing and playing the music, there is a lot more too it, even with the advance of technology making it easier for people. It would be nice as an artist to be able to afford a good producer to help master my tracks, but if you are pirating my CD and liking my music, and then saying, "hmmm what ever happened to that artist". The answer is, he did not get payed.

We still have some way to go in terms of the law catching up with the technology. Record labels are going to have to adapt to the new market or die. Most of these laws are put in place to protect the traditional business practices that the record labels use. They don't want to change. I've been seeing this for almost 2 decades now.

This is what I was talking about earlier when I touched on the fact the record labels are trying to use intellectual property law to protect their manufacturing business, which is gross scope creep because manufacturing and encoding cds and dvds has nothing to do with the intellectual property license being sold when the music is purchased.

ITunes on the other hand got it right... They recognize the essense of what they are - intellectual property license vendors - and built their business model around that.

[bjre]

This is what I was talking about earlier when I touched on the fact the record labels are trying to use intellectual property law to protect their manufacturing business, which is gross scope creep because manufacturing and encoding cds and dvds has nothing to do with the intellectual property license being sold when the music is purchased.

ITunes on the other hand got it right... They recognize the essense of what they are - intellectual property license vendors - and built their business model around that.

A limit for the "intellectual property" should be set. When a manufacturing product produced, it will have a cost, and the profit will have a limit. For a music, once the working hours and maybe plus some limited factor for the profit, after that amount of money reached, all the CD should be sold based on its copy cost. That should be the fair way for it. It is the same for the software and all other "intellectual properties", This can effectively prevent the profit goes only to some business people, make them the world's richest people just because they own those business. The current laws are formed just because those greedy people have lobbyists to many governments.

[GostHacked]

This is what I was talking about earlier when I touched on the fact the record labels are trying to use intellectual property law to protect their manufacturing business, which is gross scope creep because manufacturing and encoding cds and dvds has nothing to do with the intellectual property license being sold when the music is purchased.

ITunes on the other hand got it right... They recognize the essense of what they are - intellectual property license vendors - and built their business model around that.

Even though I have not purchased anything through iTunes, their business model works. And even if I wanted to distribute my music through iTunes, I'd be paying a a much smaller fee for hosting and digital distribution compared to the traditional methods.

I support artists taking control of their creations. Never license it to 'the man'.