| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Intellectual property, Copyright and Piracy.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Intellectual property, Copyright and Piracy.

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Intellectual property, Copyright and Piracy.
    Posted: 11 Jun 2011 at 19:52
Hello to you all
 
I have been wanting to open a thread about this very important issue to me since the very early days I have joined the forum but each time I decide not to. Well here it is.
 
I am a staunch opponent to the current copyright regime that exist across the world. While I do recognise the right of the creator of the material to benifit from his/her creativity I think the laws that extend copyright to 70 years after the death of the author (95 in the case of the US due to the infamous Mickey mouse clause) absolutely absurd. I meant when a guy is dead a guy is dead. For his family to reap his fruit exclusively when they did absolutely nothing and are already reaping it because they just inherited the fortune is not right.
 
What makes me more angry is the situation with films and music. I mean 99.99% of the music and film that is produced goes to obscurity within a decade of the release. The beatles sang numerous songs but only a handful are repeated regularly in radios meanwhile entire music groups that rocked the world once upon a time no one knows about now and yet their relatives have a monopoly on their music because of these copyright laws.
 
But all this pales into comparison with what is going on behind closed doors at the WTO and other organisations. This copyright fever has gone beyond the sane realm into the surreal. Now even DNA can be patented and thus become subject to copyright laws. The danger is demonstrated Monsanto v. Schmeiser where the former sued the latter for piracy when his farm was polluted by Monsanto patented plants via gene flow. The court ruled in favour of Monsanto.
 
The real issue is if the gene flow happens in people (and it will), what will the courts say? That Monsanto and co. also "own" patents on people's lives?
 
So what is you opinion on intellectual property and copyright laws, have they gone too far? What is your ideal solution for such a problem so that no one loses?
 
Mine is films, TV series, documentaries etc. should have a copyright no more than 25 years. Music should be no more than 10 years and books and other patents end 10 years after the author's death.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2011 at 20:18
I have no real legal sophistication so I can't pretend to debate on that level. But it strikes me that copyright protection is necessary. Think of a pharmaceuticals company trying to develop a cure for cancer. They might run thousands of different programmes over 40 years and find only one adequate treatment from that process. If a rival pharmaceutical company could wait 10 or 15 years and reproduce the drug in its entirety, what incentive would there be for the company to commit to such a vast and extended research programme?


http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
whalebreath View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 244
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote whalebreath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2011 at 06:17
Points taken-I will ruminate.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2011 at 13:52
Copyright and patent protextion (which is what Parnell was talkinng about) are different things. Copyright is restricted (and should be) to works of artistic merit (even if the merit is pretty low).
 
I agree more or less with al Jassas except over patents but personally I would add a clause making it impossible for corporations to claim copyright in anything. Copyright should stay with the author/artist/composer....and should only be licensable, not sellable. Otherwise the 'after-death' provisions are nonsensical.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2011 at 15:11
Yes, I probably should have emphasised the differences, but in reality both are a means of protecting the revenue of the creator's work. A writer cannot live on positive reviews alone, he need to be paid for the task he performs.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2011 at 15:45
So the author needs to be sure that no-one duplicates his work without him licensiing them to do it. I also think that the kind of research effort you described originally needs protection for the corporation, but inherently the rules must be different since corporations don't die.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
KayKatz View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 08 Jan 2012
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 30
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KayKatz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 02:35
I had a similar debate with someone last summer. The context was academic work, so it differs slightly than what you are talking about, but I think it is relevant. I have written articles and presented at conferences, and I have conducted a great deal of research. I have been referenced in the work of others. I would be really angry if someone used my work or quotes without referencing me or without due recognition. It IS my work - I took my time, my effort and thoughts and created something I thought was meaningful, and I deserve recognition for that.
If you want to argue that larger corporations or companies possess too much power in deciding those legal aspects I would think that a valid criticism. I do also think, however, that I ought to be appropriately credited or remunerated should someone take a substantial portion of my ideas and use them for their own ends.
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 07:17
If copyright establishes ownership, then there should be no limitations on that ownership, like all other ownable entities, it should remain the property of the one who created it and the one who inherits it in perpetuity.

Otherwise, as I personally feel, copyright is a load of bollocks, an artificially enforced ownership which has no basis in reality, and should be abandoned as a model of extracting wealth from ideas, research and creativity.


Edited by Mukarrib - 11 Jan 2012 at 07:22
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.