Copywrite laws are they to vague?

[Phoenix-D]

Uh, Pax? I think I speak for more than myself when I say:

Where the HELL did that come from?

[Rojero]

Ditto

[Erax]

I think he meant to say that just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean we should go ahead and use it.

But there are, um, better ways to say it. In fact, I can't think of many worse ways to say it.

Pax, you sometimes come across as... intense. Too intense. Maybe you should reword your example.

[PvK]

Yeah, you could just say that you disagree with the premise that it would be a good thing if everyone could have free access to all content.

I suppose I overstated my cases about megacorporate evil, particularly if you happen to be someone who thinks megacorporations are good. I've just seen plenty of examples, and to me the idea of most of the wealth and power being concentrated in organizations whose stated overriding purpose is to maximize their own wealth in any way they can come up with, satisfies my definition of evil.

I agree there are plenty of people (you used the word "***") who will try to steal other people's work for their own ends. It seems clear to me that megacorporations tend to institutionalize and legalize this behavior, for instance by buying up smaller companies for their intellectual property, and then laying off the staff, destroying their competition at the same time. However I don't agree that the existing copyright system (even with shorter time limits) is the best answer.

PvK

[Pax]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Uh, Pax? I think I speak for more than myself when I say:

Where the HELL did that come from?

It's really very, very, unbelievably simple:

Just because a tool CAN do a thing, does not mean it is wise nor right to actually do that thing with a tool.

Ease of accomplishment is NOT justification for the deed itself.

I chose to illustrate that point in as shockingly glaring a way as I could -- by using PvK's words RE: the ease etc of free sharing of data via computer, only as applies to nuclear munitions. After all, it is about as easy for a nuclear munition (once constructed, ofc) to destroy a city, as it is for a computer to download a few score MB of mp3's.

And would take less time, if you didn't need ot ship the bomb to the target city.

[Pax]

Originally posted by PvK:
[QB]Yeah, you could just say that you disagree with the premise that it would be a good thing if everyone could have free access to all content.[/b]

I fully support the use of computers to facilitate the transfer of data within the bounds of reasonable law; reasonable in this case would be, fair protections for the rights and fonancial (or nonfinancial) interests of the creator of such data or content.

I suppose I overstated my cases about megacorporate evil, particularly if you happen to be someone who thinks megacorporations are good.

I hold a neutral stance on them, actually. I hold some corporations -- those with high community-minded standards, for example. Do the corporations do good works in order to "buy" that intangible but nonetheless incredibly valuable commodity known as "public good will" ... ? Well of course.

But seriously, do you care WHY a company might support, say ... children's hospitals and hostels? Isn't it enough that the corporation DOES so?

I.E., McDonald's and the Ronald McDonald House ... ?

A corporation, regardless of size, is never inherently evil -- nor good -- based solely on it's being a corporation that exists to generate profit for it's owner(s).

It is the actions of that corporation that defines it as a good, or bad, entity within our economy and society.

I've just seen plenty of examples, and to me the idea of most of the wealth and power being concentrated in organizations whose stated overriding purpose is to maximize their own wealth in any way they can come up with, satisfies my definition of evil.

It satisfies my definition of greed, but not evil.

The holocaust ... that was evil.

Squeezing every dreg of legal profit possible out of a product ... that's just greed.

I agree there are plenty of people (you used the word "***") who will try to steal other people's work for their own ends.

A friend calls this the "turd in the punchbowl" concept -- no matter how wonderful the punch is, it only takes one turd floating in it to ruin the whole thing.

It seems clear to me that megacorporations tend to institutionalize and legalize this behavior, for instance by buying up smaller companies for their intellectual property, and then laying off the staff, destroying their competition at the same time. However I don't agree that the existing copyright system (even with shorter time limits) is the best answer.

I think the best thing to do would be to extend Trademark status to characters in continual, renewed use (that would protect Superman and Batman as continued sources of income for DC Comics, for example -- and keep Mickey Mouse et al solidly in Disney hands).

Individual products -- films, shorts, music, etc -- shoudl have a corporate life of 75 to 100 years, or a private life of "creator's life + 25 years" ... and that's it.

The corporation gets a solid entury of profit out of something; an individual author or artist can know that their profitable products (if any, ofc) will continue to support their family after they die, even supporting newborn children until after their expected college graduation.

But you don't end up with "mine in perpetuity" issues.

The thing is, PvK, the ends you want to achieve cannot be reached by changing the law. I'm sorry, but, the law just can't do that. What you want would require massive social re-engineering; you would have to change the very fabric of society, and readjust what EVERYone thinks is right and wrong.

That's the work of generations ... if it's even humanly possible; social constructs tend to defy proactive engineering by we mere humans.

"Free all the information" looks good on paper. In reality ... it simply wouldn't work; too many people would simply decide the effort needed to produce a piece of (unprotected) artwork, given the almost-assuredly-low return on their investment of time, effort, and self.

Seriously -- do you think SE4 would be as good as it is, if Aaron had no guarantee that at least some money from the sale of SE4 would find it's way into his pocket? He'dhave to get and keep a "real" job, and SE would be relegated to a "project in his spare time" -- if it didn't get dropped altogether.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

legal does not always mean good or right. any action motivated purely by greed is close to evil, because greed, by it's nature, seeks to be unchecked and is evil. or in other words, you can't stick your hand in the fire without getting burned.