Posted on 01/06/2009 7:17:53 PM PST by Notary Sojac
There was a controversy, but there is a place for copyrights and there are reasons for setting the period of protection to a long period of time, but it should be limited and less than the lifetime of a human.
Ding!
I’ll be rubbing this in the nose of an Obama supporter who hates the RIAA later. He’s more sophisticated than slashdot, he’s a kuro5hin.org type.
This ought to be fun.
Question:
What about that website Obama's been running? Does it have a way to mod this guy down?
Answer:
It is very much different than here on Slashdot.
You get moderator points only once every 4 years.
Everyone gets moderator points at the same time.
You only get 1 moderator point.
It lasts only 1 day (half actually).
You get to moderate posts of only 2 posters.
Rest of those 4 years all your posts are automatically moderated as -1 Overrated+Troll, and nobody reads them.
But if you happen to have a s**tload of money - you can buy yourself golden undemoteable +5 Insightful+Informative posts.
Clearly posted by one of the few undaunted conservatives (in whose company I count myself) on Slashdot.
The US Constitution says for limited times. When copyrights were first enacted in America they were for 14 years and another 14 years if you renewed. Then public domain forever. The way today’s laws have been going copyrights can last for 150 years or more. Several generations. That’s completely unConstitutional.
I know we've joked about the Cult of Obama, but this is classic cult psychology. A disappointment with the predictions of the cult (that Obama will bring "change") does not come with disillusionment, but with rationalization and even an increased adherence to the cult.
I might agree with your sentiment if music were actually property.
Right there was one of Jefferson's practical objections to copyright. He knew that the power of monopoly is dangerous and would in time be abused, but Madison thought the will of the people would prevent that abuse. Guess who was right.
I think this guy thoroughly understands our system.
The guy is a pitbull, but he is paid to be that. My neighbor works at a law firm that is hired by eco-wacko-nutcases for logging restrictions. He is paid to do it, it doesn't mean that when he isn't paid for it he agrees with their causes.
Same thing with this guy, now that he isn't being paid he might not give a care about RIAA's views at all.
and digg. lulz.
The best government the RIAA can buy.
Will Obama's copyright czar help save the music? (Yahoo news Sat Nov 15, 2008 Antony Bruno)
Soon after an inauguration that Washington, D.C., insiders are speculating could be one of the musical events of the year, Obama will officially name a copyright czar -- one of the most important decisions he'll make, as far as the music business is concerned.
And FR makes use of fair use provisions within copyright for use of news content.
Indeed. But the super geniouses on the supreme court decided that eternity-1 day is a "limited time".
Who needs a Constitution when it's being "interpreted" by people with zero common sense.
"intellectual property." Ask any second-year law student what it is.
Don't feel too stupid, lots of people don't think things like patents and copyrights matter.
It's a made-up term to cover government-granted monopolies that operate under completely different sets of laws. It includes copyright, patent, trademark, service mark and trade secrets. Except trade secrets aren't monopoly grants, just various differing laws addressing the issue of ill-gotten information. And trade/service mark is only there to prevent confusion in commerce.
You would not believe the confusion I've seen just on this board that was created by that catch-all invented phrase.
Pertaining to copyright and patent, "IP" applies the word "property" to what in reality is considered free, but temporarily restricted by government grant until it goes back to being free. It is not property. The government grant itself can be bought and sold as if it were property, but it's still not property.
That's not to say patents and copyrights don't matter, they're constitutionally supported (trade/service marks and trade secrets aren't). In them we deal with the issue of infringement of rights, not theft, which would apply to actual property. I know the copyright cartel wants you to think it is theft, but it isn't -- it's infringement. That is unless you shoplift a CD, then it's theft, not infringement. Copy the CD, and it may be infringement.
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.
