Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That's exactly what it is like.
spoke either like a man who's never actually created anything, or as a genius who hasn't had to work hard in his life :)
Either way you don't value the work of creatives which is sad, but a society who doesn't comprehend and value its creative types is a society that won't progress as a whole because it gives no incentive to do so. -
They way you describe them, the 'thing' they are is information.
which is the common mistake a layperson makes. you're looking at the end result, not the resources effort time and skill that went into that end product. music isn't information, its entertainment. you use the information angle as an excuse to justify marginalizing its commercial value.
Copyrights aren't treated like physical property because they aren't physical property.
and yet they are given property type rights by those enlightened enough to comprehend their worth, but only for a limited time. my question still stands un answered. why are they given laws protecting their value and distribution and then those laws expire. if its good enough for 70 years then why not forever. Just cos society deems their work 'cool' doesn't justify ganging up on once sector and removing their property rights. I'm waiting with interest for the justification for that.
-
because, "Intellectual Property" is simply and expression of ideas.
you talk of it likes its a conversation over a cup of tea.
creative works be they stories music, inventions etc all take a lot more effort that that. 99.99999999% take a lot of development trial and error and dare I say it work. -
The idea that the action of writing out an idea should somehow exclude everyone else having a similar thought and acting upon it is not only repugnant, it is stupid.
repugnant a great word.
ok apply your views to the early elvis recordings. why are they public domain?
someone paid good money to record those versions of those songs, create a physical master,etc. they're more than just ideas. they're an actual thing, a thing which modern technology has allowed us to make into ones and zeros and freely move around the world. why after a certain period of time should those things stop belonging to the creator and or the people the creator has decided to pass the rights on to. why does our law which sees fit to give that product laws to back up its rights see fit to take them away after a certain period of time?i'm not saying its right or wrong, I'm just asking for justification and comparing it to how we see other products and property produced in society.
If I was entrepreneurial enough recorded elvis's singing (similar in nature to investing in land which bears oil) and I exploited that entrepreneurial move by producing copies of that work and deriving income from it (like pumping oil out of the ground) why does my right to ownership and control of that property cease after a certain period?
In the oil example I don't cease to own the land.
the land and the oil it contains benefits society, why not grab that after 50 years (this is imaginary land with limitless oil in it before someone grabs that argument) -
Those laws that grant you copyright over your creation also set limits on it, for the benefit of society as a whole. We live in societies for mutual benefit. This is one of the prices of gaining those benefits, like rode rules or taxes.
you didn't answer my question mark.
Why one set of rules for Intellectual property people and another set for everyone else?
you must live in a different society to me cos people run stores and business purely for personal profit all across western civilization and they keep that money for themselves, and pass it on to their families etc, straight up business.
Creatives on the other hand are allowed to work hard at their skill but have to hand over rights to it after a pre determined time. Why is it different. is it purely because society 'likes' what they do so want to take it and if so can we apply that attitude to other industries we like. perhaps oil resources, land etc. I'm up for that if we all work under the same rules. I could do with some land and oil resources in exchange for free access to the fruits of my efforts. -
If an author aged 20 releases a stunning new book which has a huge impact on society, then lives to 103, that's 83+50 years before anyone can do more than comment on it.
that's nice but why do you think that it is societies right to strip a citizen of their possessions in a non communist society. why in a democracy are capitalism rules only for non IP.
-
but it was pointed out up-thread that exceptions like Rowling (and Dickens was bigger in his day than Rowling in hers) don't count.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with your intepretation of my comment but I meant that if you want to infer all writers are rich from the jk rowlings example of all musicians are rich an decadent based on some hip hop videos you''re falling for the hype. those people are the .0000000001 % and yay for them, but its not real life for creatives.
-
Culture is not property
why?
just cos society deems it to be relevant to them does that give them the right to strip the creator and owner of a work of its value?
isn't that communism for intellectual property and capitalism for everything else?
is consistency too much too ask for? -
Because part of its appeal is its timeliness. The further away you get from the inception of a creative piece (in the main), the less relevant it usually is to its cultural environment.
by lose I mean stripped of its legal right to hold value or be owned.
you and your relatives can own land for eternity, yet IP is stripped of its worth to the creator and his designated inheritors after a certain time -
ouch, that was possibly the lamest award show I've ever seem. a significant portion of the winners didn't bother to turn up, the mc's were lame, and in contrast with the down to earth nature of many of the nz musicians the set looked like some crazy fashion shoe set up, obviously dreamt up by people out of touch with their own countries nature and culture, wanting to reinvent it as something more international no doubt. The sound wasn't bad though.
what a sham what a shame.