Hollywood muscles Canada

[sideshow]

@Riverwind

Putting a disclaimer on a product is not the same as binding someone to a legal contract. Does the label say anything to the effect of "By purchasing this product you agree to....blah blah blah?" and is it enforceable? And why?

I could put a sign on my grass that says "by stepping on my lawn you agree to come back next saturday and cut it", but it doesnt make it so.

Also, my salad dressing says to "shake well before pouring". Is that a binding agreement that I agreed to before purchasing it? Im saying this tongue in cheek, but you get the idea here.

Also, your example says "lending". So do you agree that if you purchase (for the sake of argument) a dvd, that you should not be able to lend it someone-because now you have stolen the product and deprived the studios of their profit? I still don't get it.

[Hydraboss]

Actually, try watching a Hollywood release some time. Remember the whole FBI warning thing at the beginning? Copyright is all over these things from start to finish.

Blueblood, as for your Canola, I am interested in what you have to say about a welding shop. They buy raw steel (in one form or another) and then manipulate it into something else....a finished product. Are you saying that the steel foundry has a right to some of the profits of the welding shop that made....metal garden furniture? Then do you not owe some foundry some money because you took their steel and made a new corral?

What about the mining company that found the damn metal ore in the first place? Are you sending them a cheque?

Neither of these examples created "more" or "copied" the metal. They manipulated it, as that is their business. Does the company buying your canola use it to make "more" canola? No. They're just manipulating it into a different product. Same as your metal corral.

[Riverwind]

Putting a disclaimer on a product is not the same as binding someone to a legal contract. Does the label say anything to the effect of "By purchasing this product you agree to....blah blah blah?" and is it enforceable? And why?

Because the government chose to allow it in order to promote economic activity with copyrighted material. If the government changed the law to require a signed contract instead of a label then you would have to sign a contract at the checkout. It should not make a difference. You are fully aware of the nature of the contract and you are simply looking for excuses to avoid living up to it.

I could put a sign on my grass that says "by stepping on my lawn you agree to come back next saturday and cut it", but it doesnt make it so.

That is not a commerial transaction.

Also, my salad dressing says to "shake well before pouring". Is that a binding agreement that I agreed to before purchasing it? Im saying this tongue in cheek, but you get the idea here.

You being silly. When you purchase something there is always an implied contract. For example, if the product is defective then the implied contract requires the merchant to take the product back. A merchant can get out of this implied contract by posting an 'as is' label on the product in question. When you purchase copyrighted material you must accept the implied contract just like a merchant must accept returns of defective goods not sold 'as is'.

Also, your example says "lending". So do you agree that if you purchase (for the sake of argument) a dvd, that you should not be able to lend it someone-because now you have stolen the product and deprived the studios of their profit? I still don't get it.

The contract written on the label says 'lending' but the typical copyright contract only says 'rental'. When I looked in CD book for that CD it also said 'rental' which implies lending to the general public rather than to friends and families. This is not about whether the owner is deprived of sales - that is not the real issue. This is about the owner being able to enforce a contract of sale - whatever than contract may be.

[Wilber]

There is no value added. On the contrary, the quality usually sucks. It's theft pure and simple.

[blueblood]

Actually, try watching a Hollywood release some time. Remember the whole FBI warning thing at the beginning? Copyright is all over these things from start to finish.

Blueblood, as for your Canola, I am interested in what you have to say about a welding shop. They buy raw steel (in one form or another) and then manipulate it into something else....a finished product. Are you saying that the steel foundry has a right to some of the profits of the welding shop that made....metal garden furniture? Then do you not owe some foundry some money because you took their steel and made a new corral?

What about the mining company that found the damn metal ore in the first place? Are you sending them a cheque?

Neither of these examples created "more" or "copied" the metal. They manipulated it, as that is their business. Does the company buying your canola use it to make "more" canola? No. They're just manipulating it into a different product. Same as your metal corral.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. If Hollywood is allowed to be ridiculous why can't I, the welding shop, the mining co. etc. Why do we have copyright laws in the first place, its a subsidy of an inefficient industry. Throw them out. A recording artist gets signed for X amt. of dollars, then gets some royalties on record sales. I bet the guy at the steel foundry would like a deal like that.

Monsanto get this, makes me sign an agreement that I have to buy their seed, buy a technology agreement (tech agreement runs me 50 large a year). I cannot save left over seed to plant next spring, that's bloody ridiculous. Due to a law they make a killing, this needs to be opened up to the free market pronto. Take those copyright laws and torch them. It makes for more competition and cheaper products for consumers.

I'm upset at the utter hypocricy of thse copyright laws and their cherrypicking. Timmy the videotaper can give cheaper products than Hollywood. Either everybody gets royalties, or nobody, the ridiculousness must stop.

[sideshow]

It sure is a commercial transaction when someone steps on my lawn-they have now vandalized my grass. Neighbourhood kids kill my grass by continually walking on it. So as my property, these kids using my property as a walkway, why can I not have a contract with anyone that walks upon my private property to use it to their advantage. Every time they walk on it and kill my grass, I am losing a profit because now its money out of my pocket to buy more grass seed. Ludicrious? Of course. Just like the record industry.

1984 is coming quick.

[Hydraboss]

I'm upset at the utter hypocricy of thse copyright laws and their cherrypicking. Timmy the videotaper can give cheaper products than Hollywood. Either everybody gets royalties, or nobody, the ridiculousness must stop.

Okay, but did Timmy create anything, or just reproduce it. Maybe the definition has to be defined. Create vs reproduce. If you create it you get royalties, if you reproduce it you pay royalties. Hmmm...

Personally, I would like to see the copyright laws repealed for everything. If I come up with a new product that no one can live without, I should hire armed guards to protect it (like the Caramilk Secret) and charge an astronomical amount for the product before some Chinese company reproduces it for 1/7 the cost. If they do, I should probably come up with a new idea.

[blueblood]

I'm upset at the utter hypocricy of thse copyright laws and their cherrypicking. Timmy the videotaper can give cheaper products than Hollywood. Either everybody gets royalties, or nobody, the ridiculousness must stop.

Okay, but did Timmy create anything, or just reproduce it. Maybe the definition has to be defined. Create vs reproduce. If you create it you get royalties, if you reproduce it you pay royalties. Hmmm...

Personally, I would like to see the copyright laws repealed for everything. If I come up with a new product that no one can live without, I should hire armed guards to protect it (like the Caramilk Secret) and charge an astronomical amount for the product before some Chinese company reproduces it for 1/7 the cost. If they do, I should probably come up with a new idea.

The DVD factory makes piles of reproductions, Timmy just gets it out cheaper. The record/film companies pay artists/actors to reproduce their "work". Timmy paid to go see it. Don't blame Timmy because he is a much better marketer than record/entertainment companies. If I can make it without royalties, those boys from hollywood can.

[Riverwind]

The DVD factory makes piles of reproductions, Timmy just gets it out cheaper. The record/film companies pay artists/actors to reproduce their "work". Timmy paid to go see it. Don't blame Timmy because he is a much better marketer than record/entertainment companies. If I can make it without royalties, those boys from hollywood can.

There would be no DVDs if there were no copyright laws. Nobody would invest $100 millions into making movies if they could not make a profit. The only place you would be able to see a movie would be in a theater and they would likely inspect all bags taken into the theater.

[blueblood]

The DVD factory makes piles of reproductions, Timmy just gets it out cheaper. The record/film companies pay artists/actors to reproduce their "work". Timmy paid to go see it. Don't blame Timmy because he is a much better marketer than record/entertainment companies. If I can make it without royalties, those boys from hollywood can.

There would be no DVDs if there were no copyright laws. Nobody would invest $100 millions into making movies if they could not make a profit. The only place you would be able to see a movie would be in a theater and they would likely inspect all bags taken into the theater.

So? A worker could also tape the movie and make himself a nice profit too. People buy blank DVDs and tapes for recording personal stuff like a highschool b-ball game and stuff like that. If the only place to see a movie is in a theatre I have no problem with that.

[Riverwind]

So? A worker could also tape the movie and make himself a nice profit too. People buy blank DVDs and tapes for recording personal stuff like a highschool b-ball game and stuff like that. If the only place to see a movie is in a theatre I have no problem with that.

A worker who did that would be sued into bankruptcy.

Our economy depends on intellectual property. Without it we would be a much poorer and much less technologically advanced society. I realize that you are so focused on the production of tangible goods so it is hard for you to understand the significance of intellectual property.

Without IP there would no internet, no computers, no cellular phones or no airplanes.

In each of those examples I can point to key innovations that would likely have never been discovered if the inventor did not believe they could get paid for their efforts. The same is true of music and movies. Without income the artists would have to find other employment and our society would be much less interesting as a result.

It is not possible to 'compete' without someone that can reproduce your creations for free. So it is simply unrealistic to assume that anyone would ever bother to try.

[blueblood]

So? A worker could also tape the movie and make himself a nice profit too. People buy blank DVDs and tapes for recording personal stuff like a highschool b-ball game and stuff like that. If the only place to see a movie is in a theatre I have no problem with that.

A worker who did that would be sued into bankruptcy.

Our economy depends on intellectual property. Without it we would be a much poorer and much less technologically advanced society. I realize that you are so focused on the production of tangible goods so it is hard for you to understand the significance of intellectual property.

Without IP there would no internet, no computers, no cellular phones or no airplanes.

In each of those examples I can point to key innovations that would likely have never been discovered if the inventor did not believe they could get paid for their efforts. The same is true of music and movies. Without income the artists would have to find other employment and our society would be much less interesting as a result.

The guy does get paid for intellectual property off the bat, how much should depend on his ability to market his IP, not some law. He should also be responsible for marketing it, if he sucks at marketing then T.S., Bill Gates is an extremely good marketer. Should all the phone companies on Earth pay royalties to Alexander G. Bell's descendants?. I don't buy that at all if that were the case then there would be only one company for everything marketed.

Artists have been around before copyright laws, they don't need income to be artists. Was the wheel invented so the inventor could get rich?

[Riverwind]

The guy does get paid for intellectual property off the bat, how much should depend on his ability to market his IP, not some law.

No content creator can compete with someone that can reproduce the content for free. Being the best marketer in the world is not going to change that.

Bill Gates is an extremely good marketer.

Bill G. would have nothing today without copyright. Why would anyone pay for windows if they could get it for free?

Should all the phone companies on Earth pay royalties to Alexander G. Bell's descendants?.

They don't patents expire after 17 years.

Artists have been around before copyright laws, they don't need income to be artists. Was the wheel invented so the inventor could get rich?

Here is an example: the Wright Brothers worked for years perfecting the control system for an aircraft. That is what they patented and that is what they expected to make money on. Why would the Wright Brothers have invested the time and money if they had no way to stop people from using their design without paying them?

[jdobbin]

Here is an example: the Wright Brothers worked for years perfecting the control system for an aircraft. That is what they patented and that is what they expected to make money on. Why would the Wright Brothers have invested the time and money if they had no way to stop people from using their design without paying them?

Other people supported by nations like Germany gave the Wright Brothers the runaround and let the patents expire. The Wrights fought for years eventually to the point of letting the company fall in the technology battle. When World War I hit, the U.S. was left with no acceptable aircraft for the war. The Wrights had pretty much been defeated by licensing violations.

[Charles Anthony]

Why would anyone pay for windows if they could get it for free?

-- because they need tech support. Why else would somebody use Windows?

Various agents (directly from Windows or from third-parties or mom-and-pop local computer shops) throughout the computer industry charge for that too but such a service does NOT require copyright protection in a free market.

BlueBlood, very early on in this thread you said something very significant. You condemned the copyright laws as being a distortion of the free market. You are still absolutely 100% correct and nobody in this thread has been able to dispute this. All they have been doing is providing excuses and apologies for the benefactors of copyright/patent/intellectual (whatever, they are all the same principle) government special privilege and protection -- funded by your taxes, I might add.

[jdobbin]

BlueBlood, very early on in this thread you said something very significant. You condemned the copyright laws as being a distortion of the free market. You are still absolutely 100% correct and nobody in this thread has been able to dispute this.

So you disagree with property rights?

[Charles Anthony]

So you disagree with property rights?

The state makes you believe that "intellectual" whatever is property but it is not.

Property rights are only morally attributable when dealing with physical substances.

[jdobbin]

The state makes you believe that "intellectual" whatever is property but it is not.

Property rights are only morally attributable when dealing with physical substances.

Morals are not physically substantial. They are an idea. It is an intellectual idea use you use to discredit another idea.

In any event, most of the U.S. concern on copyright is people reproducing physical copies of someone else's work in film, TV and song.

[sideshow]

I disagree with "intellectual property rights". Why does Disney care if I make a copy of mickey mouse like 60 years after the fact? How much money do they need to make?

[sideshow]

I disagree with "intellectual property rights". Why does Disney care if I make a copy of mickey mouse like 60 years after the fact? How much money do they need to make?

[Riverwind]

Property rights are only morally attributable when dealing with physical substances.

Property rights are just as arbitrary as intellectual property rights. If someone is not using a piece of a land there is no justification for preventing someone else from using it. The same can be said for any other piece of tangible property. In fact, some aboriginal cultures have that belief system even today.

You condemned the copyright laws as being a distortion of the free market. You are still absolutely 100% correct and nobody in this thread has been able to dispute this.

Wrong. In a free market a seller should be able enforce a contract of sale. When someone buys copyrighted works they must agree to a contract of sale which prohibits copying.

It is true that the state assists copyright owners in enforcing this contract, however, the state also assists people who wish to enforce their rights of tangible property as well (i.e. trespassing laws). So no reasonable person can argue that there is a double standard when it comes to property rights.

Various agents (directly from Windows or from third-parties or mom-and-pop local computer shops) throughout the computer industry charge for that too but such a service does NOT require copyright protection in a free market.

Service based organizations almost never develop new technologies - they simply help people use existing technologies. Almost all advances in technology that we take for granted today were developed by people or companies that believed they would be able to protect the intellectual property once it was created. Without that protection those ideas would have never been developed in the first place.

I can't think of one product innovation developed by the open source community. Everything that exists is simply a copy (often pretty shoddy) of ideas developed by private enterprise expecting protection or by universities operating with government funding.

[Wilber]

QUOTE(Riverwind @ Mar 9 2007, 01:02 AM)

Why would anyone pay for windows if they could get it for free?

-- because they need tech support. Why else would somebody use Windows?

Various agents (directly from Windows or from third-parties or mom-and-pop local computer shops) throughout the computer industry charge for that too but such a service does NOT require copyright protection in a free market.

Why would anyone produce Windows or anything else if they had to give it away for free. At least there would be no support problems.

I'm amazed there are people who feel it is somehow ethical to profit from the labour and investment of others without compensating them for it. That's what common thieves do.

[jdobbin]

I disagree with "intellectual property rights". Why does Disney care if I make a copy of mickey mouse like 60 years after the fact? How much money do they need to make?

The U.S. founding fathers agreed with you and said there should be limits to do copyright. The last extension of copyright was indeed done to protect Disney.

Originally, copyright was set up to run as long as the creators life and then for a little after that for their heirs and no more.

[blueblood]

I have been peppered for my defense of supply management (IMV producers should be able to restrict supply in order to get a profit, but with no gov't interference) as market distortion, but copyright laws which are even a bigger market distortion, I get peppered again. Why the defense of this double standard?

People invent many things to make their lives easier, often without monetary gain. I'm pretty sure the guy who invented the wheel wanted to move stuff easier, not get rich off of what was of value back in those days. Walking around some farmyards is a testament to that. If something could wind up costing no money in the free market, it's time for that outfit to fold up, why are we subsidizing this flogging of a dead horse?

Should I be upset that some guys buys a bushel of wheat from me, plants it, ends up getting 5 and sells it? No, I sold it to him, it's his and he can do what he wants with it. That's how ridiculous Hollywood is being. I'm told to buck up, they can surely buck up too.

[Wilber]

Should I be upset that some guys buys a bushel of wheat from me, plants it, ends up getting 5 and sells it? No, I sold it to him, it's his and he can do what he wants with it. That's how ridiculous Hollywood is being. I'm told to buck up, they can surely buck up too.

So at least buy the DVD before you copy it.