Posted on 10/13/2008 6:37:54 PM PDT by Santa Fe_Conservative
Ummmmmm! Koolaid GOOD! :-)
I'm always amazed at how quickly conservative principles leave the room when these RIAA threads appear.
I have not doubt that he did. After all, he signed CFR knowing it was unconstitutional. He just doesn't care.
This won’t affect anyone who already pirates music. All the laws in the world won’t stop technology. I haven’t paid for music or porn in 10 years and don’t expect to any time soon.
Life + almost a hundred years copyright is consistent with the definition of "limited" as much as banning all handguns is consistent with the definition of "the right to keep and bear arms." The Founders considered a reasonable limited copyright to be a good chunk of a person's working life, no more.
Not only unconstitutional, but immoral as well. I simply do not respect copyright on anything more than 30 years old. Everything published before 1970 should be in the public domain, and would be if we didn't have the best government money can buy.
I wont miss him at All bush has set the conservative movement back nearly 30 years with his insane attempts to (1) please everyone, (2) Be everything to everyone, (3) create a legacy.
I don’t think Bush is evil (or stupid) but he has been a terrible leader (for the party).
FReepers generally hold constitutional principles above commercial interests.
What annoys me is how some get all high and mighty when what they REALLY are saying is 'I don't want my ability to get music for free interfered with.'
I am a copyright holder. But this law wasn't meant for me, it was meant to protect big donor businesses, constitution be damned. I doubt the new copyright czar will be rushing to my aid.
Even *if* the laws penalties were not steep enough (which they are) those can be changed without adding a cabinet position which is basically a lapdog for the RIAA in the white house..
Why is it really such a big deal whether you can copy something someone else created without paying? I can understand the argument for limiting copyrights, but it's nothing to get all fired up about.
Sure he knew!
He signed the "signature" line.
I disagree. Copyright gets extended whenever Disney's Steamboat Willie comes close to the public domain, and Willie's copyright is set to expire in 2023 after the last extension. Expect another retroactive copyright extension within 15 years.
And this is just disgusting. Some of Disney's greatest works are built on public domain works, but Disney doesn't want to give anything back, doesn't want its works in the public domain so others can build on them.
“And this is a bad thing because...?”
Because the definition of intellectual property has been broadened, and its lifespan lengthened, to a point that is far distant from these laws original intent. The day is coming when you won’t be able to do practically anything without the boot of some IP owner on your neck.
Biden is an IP big-wig. I don’t think you’ll have to wait 4 months for a jail cell.
“Why? The Copyright Clause grants Congress the discretion to set the length of copyrights. In a society such as ours where the creation of intellectual property is an important part of the economy, it is economically adventageous to provide longer and stronger protections.”
It gives the congress allot of other powers as well, I dont want to see you pissing and moaning when they abuse those..
The artist who create ‘happy birthday’ is dead, their kids are dead... why on earth is that song still copywritten?
This isn't about just not paying. First, it's a constitutional issue, which is always a big deal. Second, the only reason copyright exists is for the advancement of our arts and sciences, not for profit which is only grudging allowed as a vehicle for the advancement. As soon as copyright law puts profitability above cultural advancement it becomes unconstitutional. Our current copyright and patent laws stifle innovation and advancement, and are therefore unconstitutional.
Note, this doesn't cover trademarks and trade secrets. Those are business and consumer protection law with no direct constitutional basis.
I want to know why it was necessary to create a Cabinet-level position for this. Shouldn’t this all be an issue for the Department of Justice??????? Or are we preparing to have an Internet Enforcer to deal with all things Internet????? A Special Office for the Executive branch that watches all things Internet????? (not that I’m paranoid or anything)
It should be an issue for the copyright holder. One thing that luckily got left out of the bill was a provision that would turn the FBI into the copyright cartel's own personal cops. No more expense of suing infringers, let the taxpayers foot the bill for pursuing them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.