AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Not sure what I make of that site - and that article is less to do with copyright law itself and more to do with one particular side law/action based off of it. I can see the problems with the specific law pertaining to the abuse of hard drives etc. - and I agree that it's unreasonable.

However - on that same site - I read another article about copyright law - and the problems with it - but I don't see anybody coming up with any solutions.

I'll give you that copyright law is a tired old dog, but talk of doing away with it completely is misguided. Artists/creators need some kind of assurances that they can make cheddar out of their work - otherwise it becomes unprofitable to be creative at all.

I see a lot of angry people (some in the comments on that site) talk about how copyright law 'stifles creativity' - but the absence of copyright law would do the same. If it becomes unprofitable to invest your heart and soul into a story or piece of art because every Tom, Dick and Harry can lay claim to it and make a buck off it when it's in the public domain - then why would an artist or writer even bother?

I'm not sure I buy into the 'fact' that copyright law only works in the interest of large corporations - and that copyright law should be done away with on those grounds. Copyright law is sometimes abused by big corporations but a company protecting its IP/invoking copyright is not automatically an evil corporation out to do harm.

Creatives - both individuals and corporations - need some assurances that they can make a living out of being creative - that's the reason copyright law was formed in the first place. If it becomes unprofitable to be creative then a lot people won't bother to be creative - or share their creations.

But what realistic protection can any material that's submitted to the internet be given? Arguing that people should do away with copyright law altogether because it can't be enforced by anyone other than corporations that can afford the top-dollar lawyers isn't a healthy argument - and it's one made by people not interested in protecting the rights of creators.

Alright, copyright law needs to adapt/change in some way to be inclusive of the internet and its issues in regard to protecting people's creativity - but it needs some goodwill from the people who use the internet too - and their support for a form of copyright law that protects creators in that way.

Honestly I don't get that feeling from a lot of people who gripe and moan about copyright law. They seem to want it all their own way and they want all their entertainment to be free - they're not at all interested in giving the creative elements or originators their due.

I agree that that site seems biased, I was more bringing it up as yet another example of copyright law being abused. I don't believe there's a simple answer to these problems either, but I do think it's evident that copyright in it's current state is quite shitty.

Strangely enough, I don't think that's done in the US.

Of course now they're probably scrambling to do it.

Sort of related, a case recently went to (I think) the Supreme Court where some companies had copyrighted some human genes; it has to do with who gets to research them and create medications for certain diseases.

The court basically said, "Yeah, you can't fucking do that" and suddenly several patents that people had taken out on certain human genes are null and void.

Yep, that came out one day ago and it's about time too.

I think any copyright that limits who can do research is downright contra-productive. The whole point of copyright law is to stimulate research, not limit it.

Copyright law in the US is intended to get more cheddar and exclusive rights for corporations.

Syobon wrote:I think any copyright that limits who can do research is downright contra-productive. The whole point of copyright law is to stimulate research, not limit it.

It's so the inventor/artist can actually make a living off their creation(s) and not starve. Of course it's been abused by corporations, but that is what it was intended to do.

Lambeth wrote:

Syobon wrote:I think any copyright that limits who can do research is downright contra-productive. The whole point of copyright law is to stimulate research, not limit it.

It's so the inventor/artist can actually make a living off their creation(s) and not starve.

That's how it stimulates research/creativity yes.

Ive yet to hear a single anti copyright argument that didnt essentially boil down to either "I wants it and I dont wants to pay for it" or "I want to claim someone elses hard work as my own"

Mine boils down to giving access to defending copyright to individuals, since currenctly you need to pay for a lawyer to go to bat for you and that gets expensive when a corporation can bodaciously drag it out until you can't fight anymore.

It involves destroying the entire system and rebuilding it from scratch to do what it was meant to do. Give greater power to the individual creator, give nothing extra to corporate creations.

Just to clarify, are we talking about copyrights or patents? They're interrelated but not exactly the same. Patents are for inventors, copyrights are for artists. Patents can fuck up legitimate scientific research and inventions whereas copyrights can be sort of arbitrary but harmless, relatively.

It's not harmless when you're trying to run a business and your data storage costs shoot up because some dingo decided to levy a tax on blank media because everyone who uses those is a pirate right?

That's why I said relatively. Patents can obstruct research that can save lives.