Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
everybody needs doors
yes everyone needs doors for privacy but should they need a great big iron fence and armed guards for security?
sadly in our society more so as time passes. I don't know what that says about us, or more I do know but I don't want to think about it.
the whole "people used to leave their cars unlocked and their back doors open 50 years ago" is true. In new york or london you'd be stupid to trust anyone not to rip off anything left un attended for a few seconds.
here there is still the ability to leave a bag or mobile phone on a bar un attended for a little,... sort of.the honesty system obviously didn't work for media, no more than its wise to leave a road side stall un attended any more.
law has to step in to keep things in line where we know they should be in line, and making excuses for our own crapness and that the law is wrong seems to be becoming a valid form of argument. -
Perhaps sadly, we don't all derive benefit as creators of IP
this is wrong.
we all benefit from ip law because we all can create ip and then benefit from it.
we don't all own houses or expensive property but should we own it we benefit from the laws that protect it. its exactly the same with ip law or should be. -
farmer's fence around the stock, or should society pay also pay for that?
that's a particularly bad analogy. farmers fences are to keep stock in not thieves out.
-
remixing
would be more accurately termed "reworking".
the term remixing is incorrectly used by the industry too with some 'remixes' which use very little of the original work and add lots that was never there. I guess he's mis appropriated and inaccurate term.
and I agree, picking a big fight over a few novelty amusements seems a bit less noble than he might have u think his cause is.Just because a creative chooses to share their work, does that mean that they should reasonably expect enforcement of rights without direct cost?
well they pay taxes like anyone else. do you get hit for a direct cost for the laws backing up your property rights? if your house is burgled laws and police back up of said laws is all part of the society deal isn't it. And that back up doesn't evaporate 70 years after the original creators death, it continues in perpetuity for following owners, and that back up is part of establishing a stable and fair society for us to live in.
I'm still not getting the reasoning for rights to evaporate after 70 years.saying people can keep their creations under lock and key if they want to protect them doesn't address their right to derive income safely from the results of their efforts.
That's like saying you can build a house but if you let the location of that house out then you are responsible for people who rob it.
or if you have a garden in your home you should put up a big fence to keep people out. If people can bypass your fence they can help themselves to your fruit and vege and you have no legal fall back unless you pay for it. Its your fault for letting people figure out you have stuff they want. -
I don't quite see the same amount of value in remixing music
he uses the term remixing to refer to recombining various media like doing a silly dance to a song and putting it on you tube. your understanding of remix is the correct use of the word as applies to music. I haven't heard anyone use the term remix in the way lessig has before, but no biggie.
I'm not a big fan of remixes either, sometimes they're a new song built out of familiar snippets of a known work, occasionally they're an improvement sonically on a budget mix.
-
I thought it had been explained satisfactorily,
my comprehension of gist of the 'explanation' was they are what they are 'because', be thankful you get anything, now get back to work.
If a creative wants to share and protect their rights, then pay for it up-front, or pay year-to-year
sure, if you want to pay for your right to not be mugged or burgled,
who gets the money?
why are you paying for something that should be inherently yours to do what you want with?
keep it, leave it to your family, sell it. -
The response to natural right is what makes it a natural right, and all we got re that was a link to a wiki page of new age quotes.
sorry that sentence was badly phrased, might read better like this.
The response to the "natural right" argument was "what makes it a natural right?", and all we got in response to that question was a link to a wiki page of new age quotes. -
incentivize creators to produce more work.
that's like agreeing to give your slaves a ration of meat in their diet to get them to work longer hours in the field. it doesn't address the whole pesky "slave" part of the equation. or in creatives case the right to own and control the works they produce.
-
And you can look at the reasons things like copyright and patents were brought in, which included trying to encourage publishing and invention.
I get that as one of the reasons (and a thoroughly insulting motivation to grant someone control of their works) but doesn't ownership and the protection of that rate as a more important motivation?
-
Your position does not accord with the law as it stands.
the law as it stands isn't the law of 1709 thankfully, and is ever evolving to acknowledge better understanding of what is property and the rights a fair civilisation should attribute to it. Lessig's argument is a step backward and reactivates dated concepts toward creators.
books got written, music got composed, pictures were painted.
land got taken, slaves got captured and sold, rape and pillage, drivers drove drunk, women didn't vote, yeah lots of things used to happen in different days, but we make laws to move us forward.
Its interesting that people who take the position of supposed forward movement (free culture) are doing so invoking dated visions and concepts that include a standpoint of disrespect and servitude.And when people talk about copyright as a "natural right", I think we can look across the grand sweep of time, in which copyright can be seen as an anomaly ;-)
I think that natural right argument came from people saying physical property right was a natural right and not extending the same vision to works that can be represented electronically.
The response to natural right is what makes it a natural right, and all we got re that was a link to a wiki page of new age quotes.is a natural right a version of "if you take my shit I'll come at you with a caveman equivalent of a baseball" based on society saying, yeah that stuff belongs to him so he has a right to defend it, cos if that's the case I can still do that if you pirate my caveman movie.
The issue at the moment is the time limitation on it and under current thinking that hasn't really been explained, and extensions to copyright imply that that is being acknowledged and adjusted for.