|
Post by Triple S on May 26, 2013 10:05:08 GMT -5
Is this issue a joke? You're in their park, with their entertainers (I'm assuming you posed with characters), with their background, using their camera... the pictures belong to them.
Hence why lots of people (including myself 2 days ago), ask the employees if they'd mind using their (the customer's) cell phone. 99.9% of the time, they don't even question it.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on May 26, 2013 11:18:03 GMT -5
i simply don't believe in the idea that an image can be protected to the point that you cannot actually do anything with it, rather you necessarily profit or not. i believe that if these corporate giants and even individual artists expect to profit from us consuming their work, then it completely leaves their material free to cut, copy, and paste to our own will. herbert block made endless cartoons depicting president nixon in questionable scenarios, the majority of which featuring the president with a 5 o'clock shadow and a scowl. herbert block profited from these cartoons published in newspapers, being by far most well known by his nixon drawings. what that artist in the video i posted basically did was the same thing to mickey mouse, but due to ridiculous copyrights disney restricted him. and yes, i know the difference: mickey mouse is a copyrighted animation, nixon is a real person. but these are the exact kinds of balogna distinctions the copyright act created, not defined. mickey mouse should be just as touchable...or untouchable...as the president. i think that someone should have the freedom and right to their idea. any bastardization of it following shouldn't really be up to them. "good artists borrow, great artists steal..." seems applicable in this, art cannot be limited by capitalist interest. which is essentially what happened here. Why not? If I create something why should I not have the right to profit from it in whatever way I see fit? Why should you have the right to profit from what I have created? To be fair, it may be in my best interest to let anyone use my property. But so what? Herbert Block's cartoons were satire which is fair use. And he is a real person, not a copyrighted creation. Big difference. well, let's flip that around. why? why, solely since you created something, do you see it as entirely yours despite your willingness to attempt to sell it to consumers? why do you think you have the right to hoard an image over others for them to merely look at and pay money for, but never directly engage or be involved in? because that's 'fair'? sorry, not a real argument in this world. the only 'right' you have to it is the bullcrap copyright they've created to cover themselves which is exactly what is now being reconsidered and attacked from all angles. basically, we're (the artists) are going to win unless they somehow completely nazify the internet and silence expression on it. people are going to make mash ups, cut ups, and cut outs of whatever they want free of wrongful legal accusation and the laws will simply have to learn to change around that. iTunes and garbage like that are by no means the answer, as they are still just centralized corporate enterprises with no true recognition of responsibility towards art. secondly, i can only think that you intentionally avoided my point about herbert block, considering you use a point i already recognized and dismissed: yet, despite me stating this, you say: i'm not going to bother debating an issue if the person i am having it with is blatantly ignoring points.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on May 27, 2013 0:43:28 GMT -5
Is this issue a joke? You're in their park, with their entertainers (I'm assuming you posed with characters), with their background, using their camera... the pictures belong to them. Hence why lots of people (including myself 2 days ago), ask the employees if they'd mind using their (the customer's) cell phone. 99.9% of the time, they don't even question it. Well if you paid any attention to previous posts you would have seen that my issue was this.... I've gont to the park for decades and purchased pictures for years now. Them mentioning rights is new. So im left thinking that it's just greed. Before you bought a picture and it was YOURS to do with as you pleased. Now though, I guess you dont own the rights? Although who is to stop me? I bought a picture. The picture is now mine, so if I want to make copys I would think legally I can make a copy of my property. Again, it seems like greed to me. Like how I said that now to travel on an airplane you need to purchase a ticket, pay to bring luggage, pay if your luggage is too heavy, pay for a boarding pass, pay for a meal should you wish to eat, and who knows what other charges exist. All that use to be free, but greed causes people to want to milk everything.
|
|
|
Post by ahunter8056 on May 27, 2013 6:40:29 GMT -5
Well that was incredibly dumb. It's a photo of you, why shouldn't you have the right to use that photo however way you see fit?
|
|
|
Post by AdamBomb on May 27, 2013 7:00:18 GMT -5
Is this issue a joke? You're in their park, with their entertainers (I'm assuming you posed with characters), with their background, using their camera... the pictures belong to them. Hence why lots of people (including myself 2 days ago), ask the employees if they'd mind using their (the customer's) cell phone. 99.9% of the time, they don't even question it. Well if you paid any attention to previous posts you would have seen that my issue was this.... I've gont to the park for decades and purchased pictures for years now. Them mentioning rights is new. So im left thinking that it's just greed. Before you bought a picture and it was YOURS to do with as you pleased. Now though, I guess you dont own the rights? Although who is to stop me? I bought a picture. The picture is now mine, so if I want to make copys I would think legally I can make a copy of my property. Again, it seems like greed to me. Like how I said that now to travel on an airplane you need to purchase a ticket, pay to bring luggage, pay if your luggage is too heavy, pay for a boarding pass, pay for a meal should you wish to eat, and who knows what other charges exist. All that use to be free, but greed causes people to want to milk everything. I'm sure the park has always held copyrights and reserved the rights to use photos of park guests that were taken with their own equipment, by their staff. When you got photos done before, say by an employee with an SLR, and it was taken with film, you probably had to wait some time to pick them up (because developing can take a while), and you probably picked them up in an envelope. More than likely, there was fine print either on the envelope about their policies and copyright information you overlooked. Or, the information could have been posted elsewhere. If you don't like that policy, take your own camera and take your own photos. No one is stopping you, and you own those rights yourself. By your logic, let's say hypothetically, I go and purchase the film Argo. I've bought the film. Now I can make copies and distribute it as my own? No. I bought a copy. I have limited rights usage, just like you do. Six Flags owns the copyrights. They can use them commercially all they want. YOU bought the rights to use them non-commercially. You can get prints made, you can post them online, but you can't claim the work as your own and you cannot try to sell them either. It's the exact same thing if you went to a Super Wal-Mart and had your photos done in one of the studios (or any studio for that matter) that operate there (mine has one at the front of the store). Just because you buy digital files, and prints, does not give you exclusive ownership over those photos.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 27, 2013 7:13:58 GMT -5
Why not? If I create something why should I not have the right to profit from it in whatever way I see fit? Why should you have the right to profit from what I have created? To be fair, it may be in my best interest to let anyone use my property. But so what? Herbert Block's cartoons were satire which is fair use. And he is a real person, not a copyrighted creation. Big difference. well, let's flip that around. why? why, solely since you created something, do you see it as entirely yours despite your willingness to attempt to sell it to consumers? why do you think you have the right to hoard an image over others for them to merely look at and pay money for, but never directly engage or be involved in? because that's 'fair'? sorry, not a real argument in this world. the only 'right' you have to it is the bullcrap copyright they've created to cover themselves which is exactly what is now being reconsidered and attacked from all angles. basically, we're (the artists) are going to win unless they somehow completely nazify the internet and silence expression on it. people are going to make mash ups, cut ups, and cut outs of whatever they want free of wrongful legal accusation and the laws will simply have to learn to change around that. iTunes and garbage like that are by no means the answer, as they are still just centralized corporate enterprises with no true recognition of responsibility towards art. Why do I own something I create? Because I created it. Why should I NOT own my work? Look at it another way. If, instead of creating a cartoon character, what if I grew apples. Am I required to let you use my apples without compensating me? Don't I have the right to stack my apples in a pile and sit on them until they rot if I want to? It may not be in my best interests to do, but I've got every to do it. If I have the right to hoard my apples (physical property), why would I not have a right to "hoard" my intellectual property as well? I addressed your point because you just dismissed it out of hand. There's a huge difference between a real person and a copywritten character. There's also fair use and using someone's image for satire is completely different from using someone's image to promote your product or your politics. Big difference. You can't use someone else's property for your profit, not compensate them and claim it's fair use.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 27, 2013 7:43:12 GMT -5
Ugh. You're missing my point completely. Would it make a difference if it was a Disney restaurant instead of a Coke restaurant? Official sandwich shop of Mickey Mouse. There's no way in the world Disney could claim that a family friendly sandwich shop damaged it's brand. I could benefit from the brand goodwill that Disney has built and their marketing and their popularity while paying them not a single dime. Why would I not do that? No, I'm assuming that you selling my book will cost me sales. People will buy the book from you instead of me. This is especially true since you can sell it cheaper than me because you didn't have to pay any editors, proof readers, publishers, etc.... and every penny you make off my book is profit for you. If you cost me one single sale from someone who wanted to buy a brand new copy and went to you instead of me, how have I not been harmed? Why hasn't Coke's recipe come out? Because it's highly illegal and wouldn't do anyone who got it any good. Let's say Pepsi paid some guy $10 mil to steal Coke's recipe. That's illegal of course even under your system. But let's say Pepsi provides the guy with a crack lawyer (they have the money to do so) and they get the guy off with a light sentence and there's $10 mil waiting for him when he gets out. Can Pepsi, under current laws, use that formula? No they can't. If they do, Coke will sue the bejesus out of them. They will end up paying a bajillion dollars in civil penalties. Those at Pepsi who were in charge of this whole operation will lose their job and possibly end up in jail. Any fake Coke they put out will be confiscated by the authorities. The civil penalties may well bankrupt the company. Virtually everyone in charge at the top will end up in the unemployment line. Further more, Pepsi will make no money at all off the formula. That is the reason why it doesn't happen in the current system. Even if you walked into them with Coke's formula, they would not be able to use it. Why spend the money, time and effort to acquire something you can't use? What's the point? Why do you have a right to profit off of my work without me being compensated appropriately? For a guy who claims to be a libertarian of sorts that's a remarkably communistic viewpoint. What I don't understand is how I only have rights to my work if it's something physical. If it's not physical it's worthless. Patents that last forever are a completely different argument. You have been saying all along that any good that's not a physical good should have no copyright protection at all. Verdi actually did have the benefit of copyright. Copyright protection has been around in some form (though not in the modern form) since the 1700s. Copyright doesn't cover ideas. It just covers the way they're expressed. What copyright extends to and what it doesn't is pretty well established. Fair Use can be murkier though but selling someone's work without compensating them doesn't fall under Fair Use. This has legal precedent going back several hundred years. Copyright laws governing performance of music can be tricky. Generally you can cover a song that's already been released, but need the composer's permission to record it for the first time. In either case, the composer makes money. We've all seen Chinese knockoffs. We all know they're cheap and the quality is lacking to say the least. The main reason for this is the manufactures are just guessing at what they're making. Imagine a market flooded with counterfeit goods that are as good as the original. You're telling me consumers won't buy them if they're cheaper than the real thing? It's just a name. There is a restaurant here in town called Dynasty. Now I know it's not the only restaurant in the country named Dynasty. Recently the owners of that restaurant were arrested and since then people have stopped going there. Should they be the only ones able to run a restaurant called Dynasty? Of course not. I know you'll say that Dynasty isn't a well known name or a multi-billion dollar company. So that means what our government is doing is protecting large corporations. And I am not a fan of a corporatocracy. Are we talking ebooks or actual physical books? Because you can't tell if an ebook is new or used. If I sell or give away my ebook copy to someone I have cost you a sale because they will not buy the book from you. Now if we are talking physical books then I would have to worry about editing and publishing (at least self-publishing) the book. I would have to buy a brand new copy of your book then either copy it out by hand on my computer or scan each page. Then I'd have to bind it together. I'd have to market it to people and distribute it. I could do it cheaper only because the book publishing company has everyone from janitors to secretaries to their CEO to pay. I can shop around to get the best deal which if you are signed to a publisher, you aren't able to do. If you self-published then you could probably do it for the same price I did it for and you wouldn't have to worry about paying everyone and their mother just to get your book to the world. Why would Pepsi use the Coke formula? People wouldn't buy it. Unless the companies merged, people aren't going to buy Coke *A Pepsi production*. Sure they can make the can look the same but there would be obvious differences like the bar code (because if it was the same then Pepsi obviously wouldn't get any money from it) for example. And just because you have the recipe doesn't mean it's going to turn out like the original. A guy in Georgia claims he has the Coke recipe and he's trying to sell it for millions of dollars. Coke is saying it's fake. But would they admit it's the real thing if it truly was? Of course not. As I explained. If you write something down and I copy it either by hand or with a copy machine, we both have a copy. That cannot happen with a bike. I cannot take your bike and copy it to make one for myself. That is why it is not stealing. That is why I don't support copyright because if I can leave you with a copy while I also have a copy then ok. And being against copyright is a view a lot of libertarian/anarcho-capitalist hold. Others were able though to take Verdi's music and play it right away. That is if he published it or they even were in the audience and wrote down each note (which may be hard to do, I don't know, I'm not a musician). If they had copyright it certainly wasn't enforced. In the example of WCW, they took Smells Like Teen Spirit and didn't pay Nirvana because they ripped it off and made their own version. Another example would be the Iron browser. They took Google Chrome and copied it exactly except they took out all the things Google had in Chrome to track you and things of that nature. Now they do give it away for free but they encourage people to donate to them. Neither Nirvana (or more accurately their label) or Google were harmed. If they are cheaper than the real thing then that is a problem for the original maker and they should find a way to sell their goods for a better price. It's just breaking up monopolies and I do support that (citizens breaking them up not government). A brand is not just a name. The most valuable brands in the world are measured in the tens of billions of dollars. A strong brand is worth a crap ton of money. Why do you think companies spend so much money developing and marketing their brands if they're just names? You don't give that away for nothing. Did they trademark their name? Probably not. But it's all about what the public is going to think. If you started a restaurant in town and called it Dynasty would they think it was owned/endorsed by those guys? If so, then you're causing confusion and you shouldn't be allowed to do that. Now if you open a restaurant in some town 1700 miles away and call it Dynasty that's another thing. No one there will have ever heard of the restaurant. Physical books aren't stuck in physical form any more. There are specialized book scanners. Libraries use them to digitize their libraries. I did a quick google search and you can buy a book scanner for less than $500. You can build a DIY book scanner that will scan 150 pages a minute. Your physical copy of the book that you bought can easily be digitized in a matter of minutes. According to you, as soon as that physical copy becomes digital, I have no copyright protection. That's why we need reasonable copyright laws. At the end of the day, virtually everything in this economy is digital. Any manufacturing company can build an air conditioner or a bicycle or a car even. The value is in knowing how to build those things. The blueprints created by those with that knowledge should be protected by copyright. Otherwise you have a world where no one can profit from their ideas. Who wants that? Why would Pepsi not make Coke and market it under Coke's label? Why wouldn't they do that? And since when do libertarians believe that people don't own the work they produce and have no right to profit from their work? Verdi lived/worked 200 years ago. Long before the advent of modern copyright laws. Not sure what kind of example he makes. Who knows how much money he missed out on. Is that a good thing? You can't harm an artist by doing a ripoff version of their song. You change the lyrics. You change the tune slightly. Now you claim you're doing a parody or something inspired by that song. Fair use but skirting the edges. I think Nirvana threatened to sue them at one point. Not sure. Also, Chrome is given away free and is basically open sourced so it's kind of hard to steal something that's already given away free. Nothing wrong with Google doing that if they choose.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on May 27, 2013 11:58:36 GMT -5
Well if you paid any attention to previous posts you would have seen that my issue was this.... I've gont to the park for decades and purchased pictures for years now. Them mentioning rights is new. So im left thinking that it's just greed. Before you bought a picture and it was YOURS to do with as you pleased. Now though, I guess you dont own the rights? Although who is to stop me? I bought a picture. The picture is now mine, so if I want to make copys I would think legally I can make a copy of my property. Again, it seems like greed to me. Like how I said that now to travel on an airplane you need to purchase a ticket, pay to bring luggage, pay if your luggage is too heavy, pay for a boarding pass, pay for a meal should you wish to eat, and who knows what other charges exist. All that use to be free, but greed causes people to want to milk everything. I'm sure the park has always held copyrights and reserved the rights to use photos of park guests that were taken with their own equipment, by their staff. When you got photos done before, say by an employee with an SLR, and it was taken with film, you probably had to wait some time to pick them up (because developing can take a while), and you probably picked them up in an envelope. More than likely, there was fine print either on the envelope about their policies and copyright information you overlooked. Or, the information could have been posted elsewhere. If you don't like that policy, take your own camera and take your own photos. No one is stopping you, and you own those rights yourself. By your logic, let's say hypothetically, I go and purchase the film Argo. I've bought the film. Now I can make copies and distribute it as my own? No. I bought a copy. I have limited rights usage, just like you do. Six Flags owns the copyrights. They can use them commercially all they want. YOU bought the rights to use them non-commercially. You can get prints made, you can post them online, but you can't claim the work as your own and you cannot try to sell them either. It's the exact same thing if you went to a Super Wal-Mart and had your photos done in one of the studios (or any studio for that matter) that operate there (mine has one at the front of the store). Just because you buy digital files, and prints, does not give you exclusive ownership over those photos. If I buy Argo then that dvd is mine to do with as I please. If I want to take pictures of the dvd, it's my property so who is to say I can not? If I want to make copys of that dvd again, who is to tell me what I can do with my property? I can see how a company would try to protect their assests. So if I wanted to profit from their assets then go ahead and stop me. But my family pictures are not an asset to Six Flags. I may legally be in the wrong but the way I see it is if I paid for something than it is mine, unless previously agreed upon like when you rent or lease something. And if I am in the wrong, then it's just greed on the companys part. Companys changing policys mid game to earn them profits is dirty. Just like what happened to my grandmother. The government gave her an ID with no expiration date. She used that ID and had no issues since the 70's. But now because they want more money guess what? That ID with no expiration date is now expired. So now you have to pay more money and go through more paperwork to replace the ID which was supposed to have been a lifelong ID.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 27, 2013 12:30:28 GMT -5
I'm sure the park has always held copyrights and reserved the rights to use photos of park guests that were taken with their own equipment, by their staff. When you got photos done before, say by an employee with an SLR, and it was taken with film, you probably had to wait some time to pick them up (because developing can take a while), and you probably picked them up in an envelope. More than likely, there was fine print either on the envelope about their policies and copyright information you overlooked. Or, the information could have been posted elsewhere. If you don't like that policy, take your own camera and take your own photos. No one is stopping you, and you own those rights yourself. By your logic, let's say hypothetically, I go and purchase the film Argo. I've bought the film. Now I can make copies and distribute it as my own? No. I bought a copy. I have limited rights usage, just like you do. Six Flags owns the copyrights. They can use them commercially all they want. YOU bought the rights to use them non-commercially. You can get prints made, you can post them online, but you can't claim the work as your own and you cannot try to sell them either. It's the exact same thing if you went to a Super Wal-Mart and had your photos done in one of the studios (or any studio for that matter) that operate there (mine has one at the front of the store). Just because you buy digital files, and prints, does not give you exclusive ownership over those photos. If I buy Argo then that dvd is mine to do with as I please. If I want to take pictures of the dvd, it's my property so who is to say I can not? If I want to make copys of that dvd again, who is to tell me what I can do with my property? I can see how a company would try to protect their assests. So if I wanted to profit from their assets then go ahead and stop me. But my family pictures are not an asset to Six Flags. I may legally be in the wrong but the way I see it is if I paid for something than it is mine, unless previously agreed upon like when you rent or lease something. And if I am in the wrong, then it's just greed on the companys part. Companys changing policys mid game to earn them profits is dirty. Just like what happened to my grandmother. The government gave her an ID with no expiration date. She used that ID and had no issues since the 70's. But now because they want more money guess what? That ID with no expiration date is now expired. So now you have to pay more money and go through more paperwork to replace the ID which was supposed to have been a lifelong ID. Not sure how they changed the rules on you. You walked in. They said these are the rules. You got pissed. Not sure where you agreed to a set of rules and then they changed them on you. And yes, pictures that Six Flags employees take of you are Six Flags assets. They can use them in advertising if nothing else. Not sure why you think you automatically own any picture taken of you regardless of who takes it.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on May 27, 2013 13:00:47 GMT -5
If I buy Argo then that dvd is mine to do with as I please. If I want to take pictures of the dvd, it's my property so who is to say I can not? If I want to make copys of that dvd again, who is to tell me what I can do with my property? I can see how a company would try to protect their assests. So if I wanted to profit from their assets then go ahead and stop me. But my family pictures are not an asset to Six Flags. I may legally be in the wrong but the way I see it is if I paid for something than it is mine, unless previously agreed upon like when you rent or lease something. And if I am in the wrong, then it's just greed on the companys part. Companys changing policys mid game to earn them profits is dirty. Just like what happened to my grandmother. The government gave her an ID with no expiration date. She used that ID and had no issues since the 70's. But now because they want more money guess what? That ID with no expiration date is now expired. So now you have to pay more money and go through more paperwork to replace the ID which was supposed to have been a lifelong ID. Not sure how they changed the rules on you. You walked in. They said these are the rules. You got pissed. Not sure where you agreed to a set of rules and then they changed them on you. And yes, pictures that Six Flags employees take of you are Six Flags assets. They can use them in advertising if nothing else. Not sure why you think you automatically own any picture taken of you regardless of who takes it. I gotta agree here simply because you are willingly entering their park by buying a ticket. I am pretty certain that's the way it is for all other amusement parks.
|
|
gawd6sic6™
Main Eventer
" I cross the lines you love to hate "
Joined on: Jan 13, 2009 13:50:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,868
|
Post by gawd6sic6™ on May 27, 2013 15:37:34 GMT -5
this is just like how all pictures you put up on facebook belong to facebook...
once you click that " I agree to all terms" box... you agreed to it... its in the rules.... but people went nuts when this was brought to light... just because you didn't read it, don't get pissy because you don't like it...
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on May 28, 2013 1:50:07 GMT -5
If I buy Argo then that dvd is mine to do with as I please. If I want to take pictures of the dvd, it's my property so who is to say I can not? If I want to make copys of that dvd again, who is to tell me what I can do with my property? I can see how a company would try to protect their assests. So if I wanted to profit from their assets then go ahead and stop me. But my family pictures are not an asset to Six Flags. I may legally be in the wrong but the way I see it is if I paid for something than it is mine, unless previously agreed upon like when you rent or lease something. And if I am in the wrong, then it's just greed on the companys part. Companys changing policys mid game to earn them profits is dirty. Just like what happened to my grandmother. The government gave her an ID with no expiration date. She used that ID and had no issues since the 70's. But now because they want more money guess what? That ID with no expiration date is now expired. So now you have to pay more money and go through more paperwork to replace the ID which was supposed to have been a lifelong ID. Not sure how they changed the rules on you. You walked in. They said these are the rules. You got pissed. Not sure where you agreed to a set of rules and then they changed them on you. And yes, pictures that Six Flags employees take of you are Six Flags assets. They can use them in advertising if nothing else. Not sure why you think you automatically own any picture taken of you regardless of who takes it. Again, either you fail to read things through or you choose to ignore. I said that once I PAY for something than you have sold it to me. You no longer are the owner. You no longer have a say in what you just sold me. Somehow though in an attempt to milk more money from you the park is claiming ownership of something they just sold you. Go sell someone a wrestling figure. Go sell someone a car. Go sell someone anything. Take money from that person, now go tell them you still own what you just collected money for. See how that goes for you.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 28, 2013 6:23:28 GMT -5
Not sure how they changed the rules on you. You walked in. They said these are the rules. You got pissed. Not sure where you agreed to a set of rules and then they changed them on you. And yes, pictures that Six Flags employees take of you are Six Flags assets. They can use them in advertising if nothing else. Not sure why you think you automatically own any picture taken of you regardless of who takes it. Again, either you fail to read things through or you choose to ignore. I said that once I PAY for something than you have sold it to me. You no longer are the owner. You no longer have a say in what you just sold me. Somehow though in an attempt to milk more money from you the park is claiming ownership of something they just sold you. Go sell someone a wrestling figure. Go sell someone a car. Go sell someone anything. Take money from that person, now go tell them you still own what you just collected money for. See how that goes for you. As stated previously, you're not paying for the item. You're paying for a copy of the item.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 28, 2013 15:05:51 GMT -5
A brand is not just a name. The most valuable brands in the world are measured in the tens of billions of dollars. A strong brand is worth a crap ton of money. Why do you think companies spend so much money developing and marketing their brands if they're just names? You don't give that away for nothing. Did they trademark their name? Probably not. But it's all about what the public is going to think. If you started a restaurant in town and called it Dynasty would they think it was owned/endorsed by those guys? If so, then you're causing confusion and you shouldn't be allowed to do that. Now if you open a restaurant in some town 1700 miles away and call it Dynasty that's another thing. No one there will have ever heard of the restaurant. Physical books aren't stuck in physical form any more. There are specialized book scanners. Libraries use them to digitize their libraries. I did a quick google search and you can buy a book scanner for less than $500. You can build a DIY book scanner that will scan 150 pages a minute. Your physical copy of the book that you bought can easily be digitized in a matter of minutes. According to you, as soon as that physical copy becomes digital, I have no copyright protection. That's why we need reasonable copyright laws. At the end of the day, virtually everything in this economy is digital. Any manufacturing company can build an air conditioner or a bicycle or a car even. The value is in knowing how to build those things. The blueprints created by those with that knowledge should be protected by copyright. Otherwise you have a world where no one can profit from their ideas. Who wants that? Why would Pepsi not make Coke and market it under Coke's label? Why wouldn't they do that? And since when do libertarians believe that people don't own the work they produce and have no right to profit from their work? Verdi lived/worked 200 years ago. Long before the advent of modern copyright laws. Not sure what kind of example he makes. Who knows how much money he missed out on. Is that a good thing? You can't harm an artist by doing a ripoff version of their song. You change the lyrics. You change the tune slightly. Now you claim you're doing a parody or something inspired by that song. Fair use but skirting the edges. I think Nirvana threatened to sue them at one point. Not sure. Also, Chrome is given away free and is basically open sourced so it's kind of hard to steal something that's already given away free. Nothing wrong with Google doing that if they choose. They do it because the system is set up in their favor. You do something "bad" to them and the government will come knocking on your door (or they'll just barge right in). So I shouldn't be allowed to open a restaurant with the same name but McDonalds can have a ton in the same city. You'll say because it's a chain restaurant so they can open as many as they want. How many small time chain restaurants are there? Again this is advantage large corporation protected by government. So you make a copy of the book on your computer. If people don't have e-readers they'll need physical copies (unless they are going to sit on their computer and read the pdf). So you'd still need to print it off and advertise that you are selling it. People are still going to profit from their ideas. Getting rid of copyright just gets rid of a government backed monoply. If you are selling your book for $5 I'd rather buy it from you so you get money. Now if you were selling it for $100 then of course I'd get it elsewhere. When you don't have that government security you'll have to better your prices. I've shown people paying what they want for your work does work. So you could set it up that way. There is a whole website dedicated to indie bands putting up their music and charging people for it from set prices to suggested prices to free. For one reason just because they have the recipe doesn't mean they'd be able to make it taste exactly the same. Another reason would be they wouldn't want Coke to start making Pepsi products so if Pepsi passed on making Coke then Coke would see that as a goodwill gesture if someone ever came around offering them the recipe for Pepsi. They'll know that if they start making Pepsi that Pepsi could then make Coke. It just wouldn't make sense for them to do it. If people owned the stuff they produced then record labels wouldn't own musicians music, the people who actually make Pepsi in the plants would own it instead of the corporate people. And you have no guarantee to profit and you don't have the right to have the government step in and give you a profit. Definitely was better back then that many others could play his music without fear of punishment and it could get to a wider audience. Verdi should appreciate that others loved his work and that it spread all over. Imagine if the only people who ever heard his work were people who actually went and saw his concerts/operas instead of having someone use his work to create it elsewhere. Imagine if that were today and the only people who heard the Rolling Stones were people who went to shows they put on. The people who hold the rights to the birthday song don't seem to think it's ok for people on TV to sing the song even if it is a character singing it. Why do they need the copyright? It was copyrighted in 1935, 78 years ago. So why did Time Warner need to prevent people from singing that song? They've since sold it to another group along with all their music but that group is still profiting from the song. And why, 78 years later, is it not in the public domain?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 28, 2013 17:28:01 GMT -5
A brand is not just a name. The most valuable brands in the world are measured in the tens of billions of dollars. A strong brand is worth a crap ton of money. Why do you think companies spend so much money developing and marketing their brands if they're just names? You don't give that away for nothing. Did they trademark their name? Probably not. But it's all about what the public is going to think. If you started a restaurant in town and called it Dynasty would they think it was owned/endorsed by those guys? If so, then you're causing confusion and you shouldn't be allowed to do that. Now if you open a restaurant in some town 1700 miles away and call it Dynasty that's another thing. No one there will have ever heard of the restaurant. Physical books aren't stuck in physical form any more. There are specialized book scanners. Libraries use them to digitize their libraries. I did a quick google search and you can buy a book scanner for less than $500. You can build a DIY book scanner that will scan 150 pages a minute. Your physical copy of the book that you bought can easily be digitized in a matter of minutes. According to you, as soon as that physical copy becomes digital, I have no copyright protection. That's why we need reasonable copyright laws. At the end of the day, virtually everything in this economy is digital. Any manufacturing company can build an air conditioner or a bicycle or a car even. The value is in knowing how to build those things. The blueprints created by those with that knowledge should be protected by copyright. Otherwise you have a world where no one can profit from their ideas. Who wants that? Why would Pepsi not make Coke and market it under Coke's label? Why wouldn't they do that? And since when do libertarians believe that people don't own the work they produce and have no right to profit from their work? Verdi lived/worked 200 years ago. Long before the advent of modern copyright laws. Not sure what kind of example he makes. Who knows how much money he missed out on. Is that a good thing? You can't harm an artist by doing a ripoff version of their song. You change the lyrics. You change the tune slightly. Now you claim you're doing a parody or something inspired by that song. Fair use but skirting the edges. I think Nirvana threatened to sue them at one point. Not sure. Also, Chrome is given away free and is basically open sourced so it's kind of hard to steal something that's already given away free. Nothing wrong with Google doing that if they choose. They do it because the system is set up in their favor. You do something "bad" to them and the government will come knocking on your door (or they'll just barge right in). So I shouldn't be allowed to open a restaurant with the same name but McDonalds can have a ton in the same city. You'll say because it's a chain restaurant so they can open as many as they want. How many small time chain restaurants are there? Again this is advantage large corporation protected by government. You make absolutely no sense at all. You do realize there is a huge difference between you opening a McDonald's and paying them the appropriate franchise fees and you opening a McDonald's without compensating them at all. Gigantic difference. And small chain restaurants are entitled to the exact same trademark protection that McDonald's is. Why wouldn't they be? I have no idea what your point is. You can open one restaurant and you're entitled to the same trademark protection that McD's is. So I should not have the right to charge whatever I want for my work? It's my work. Why should I not have the right to charge whatever I want from it regardless of how insane my price is? What you are saying is that I don't own my work. It would make complete sense for them to do it. So what if Coke makes Pepsi? Why would Pepsi care? What if it's just some small store off brand soda that starts making Coke. Coca-cola has no interest in putting out crappy knock offs of their own product. But some small bottling company would have a great interest in putting out Coke products that look and taste like the real thing. In what way does the government guarantee anyone at all a profit? No one has to buy your product. You don't even have to sell it if you don't want to. The idea that you don't own the work that you produce is a blatantly communistic/socialistic idea any way you want to look at it. Ugh. Clearly you have no idea how copyright works as clearly the Rolling Stones stuff is protected by copyright yet people still are allowed to play covers of their songs, you can buy their music, etc..... Clearly, copyright has not caused anyone to only be able to hear the Stones in concert. [/quote] Once again you're going off down a side road. Earlier you were arguing that all songs should be public domain right off the pen. Now you're saying there should be a reasonable time limit and 78 yrs is unreasonable. Ok. Which is it? Reasonable limit or no copyright at all?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 28, 2013 20:45:04 GMT -5
You make absolutely no sense at all. You do realize there is a huge difference between you opening a McDonald's and paying them the appropriate franchise fees and you opening a McDonald's without compensating them at all. Gigantic difference. And small chain restaurants are entitled to the exact same trademark protection that McDonald's is. Why wouldn't they be? I have no idea what your point is. You can open one restaurant and you're entitled to the same trademark protection that McD's is. I know there is a difference. But it shouldn't matter. I know how things are, I just don't want them to be that way. I never said you couldn't charge what you want. But if you set the price too high don't be shocked when someone copies your work and sells it for much less. That small store off brand must have a ton of money to spend on getting the recipe. But you are also assuming stores would carry any other version of Coke. They'd see two Coke's and be confused. They'd find out which is the real one and they'd sell that one. In what way does the government guarantee anyone at all a profit? No one has to buy your product. You don't even have to sell it if you don't want to. The idea that you don't own the work that you produce is a blatantly communistic/socialistic idea any way you want to look at it.[/quote] They guarantee a profit by enforcing the monopolistic copyright. It's either don't buy your book or buy the book from you. If it were up to you those would be my choices. So if I want it I must pay you no matter how outrageous your prices are. Government is backing you up by not letting others sell it. You own the original. You don't own copies. I'm not leasing the book. I purchased it. You can't just barge into my house and take the book back because it's your work and you claim you own it. I said imagine if that is how it was. I didn't say that is how it is. My god. Apparently we've stopped talking in hypotheticals. I didn't say there should be a reasonable time limit. Where did I say that? I was complaining about how ridiculous it is that a 78 year old song (older but only copyrighted that long) still has government protection.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 29, 2013 6:46:40 GMT -5
You make absolutely no sense at all. You do realize there is a huge difference between you opening a McDonald's and paying them the appropriate franchise fees and you opening a McDonald's without compensating them at all. Gigantic difference. And small chain restaurants are entitled to the exact same trademark protection that McDonald's is. Why wouldn't they be? I have no idea what your point is. You can open one restaurant and you're entitled to the same trademark protection that McD's is. I know there is a difference. But it shouldn't matter. I know how things are, I just don't want them to be that way. And I still fail to understand why you have a right to someone else's property. McD's is the most recognizable fast food chain in the world. They make a crap ton of money and have spent tons of time and tons of effort in developing their brand. I'm sure we'd agree on this. Why do you have the right to benefit from their work without compensating them for it? So, if I set my price above what the market determines to be too high it's ok for you to steal? Who gives you the right to my work? Let's say I'm selling apples. They're the best apples anyone has ever tasted. I've been selling them for $1, but now I raise the price to $100. So now my price is too high. Are you justified in stealing my apples now because I'm charging more than the market is willing to pay? What gives you the right to my work? There were like 3 local stores that got raided here locally for selling counterfeit goods. The owners were arrested and taken to jail. They knew they were selling counterfeit goods, but they were able to sell them at greater margins than the real thing. So apparently stores are more than happy to sell counterfeit stuff. If real coke costs a store $1 a bottle and I sell fake coke that is in the same packaging and made with the same formula for $.75 a bottle, they're going to buy from me instead of Coke. Why wouldn't they? And how is Coke not harmed by that loss of business? Again, who gives you the right to my content? You can buy the book or you can not buy the book. What gives you the right to it at all? If everyone shares your opinion that my price is too high then I'm not going to sell very many copies. That's my problem. Not yours. How do you have the right to everything I create and I'm doing something wrong by not giving it to you? Look at what HBO is doing with Game of Thrones. It's a popular show (though I've never seen it) and HBO is foolishly delaying it's release. They'll broadcast it in the US, but then wait 6 months or never to put it out in other countries. Meanwhile they don't make it available via streaming or VOD services or DVDs. Consequently people who missed the first broadcast are pirating the living crap out of it. It's a product in high demand and HBO isn't making it available. Is it ok that these people pirate the show simply because HBO doesn't make it widely available? What gives those people the right to that show? The fact that it's created? Then I missed your point completely. I have no idea what the point of your hypothetical was since no one was arguing for that extreme. [/quote] You said earlier that there should be no copyright. Which is it? So confused.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 29, 2013 15:01:37 GMT -5
And I still fail to understand why you have a right to someone else's property. McD's is the most recognizable fast food chain in the world. They make a crap ton of money and have spent tons of time and tons of effort in developing their brand. I'm sure we'd agree on this. Why do you have the right to benefit from their work without compensating them for it? That's to say that I will profit. There is no guarantee that I will. Especially with so many other McDonalds in the surrounding area, customers find out I'm not the actual McDonalds they won't continue to come to my place. I may be more optimistic than I should be about people's nature but you aren't optimistic enough (if at all). We are in a never going to happen scenario of getting every single recipe from them and then constructing a building that looks just like theirs and putting up signs and everything to look identical. As I've said before one would not be able to steal your apples. That would be wrong. First, apples can't be copied so someone would have to steal an actual apple and not leave you with the original like what would happen with copying. Second, apples aren't something that can be monopolized so you wouldn't be the only one selling apples. You jacking up the prices to $100 only hurts you since we can get them elsewhere or grow them ourselves. Were the stores in on it like they requested to sell it or they knew someone who made it? I'm talking about, for instance, Wal-Mart selling my knock off Coke. They wouldn't buy or sell it. If we said everyone has a right to what they produce then why don't I have the rights to the copied books? I took my time and effort to produce the copies so I should have the rights to them. Then the person who picks the apples (or the person who planted the seeds) has the rights to the apples. The person who builds car engines has the right to the engine. Should any of them be able to come and collect what they have made? One day the guy who made my car engine comes and says he wants his engine back, should he get it? Of course not because he agreed through his working for the car company that it is not his work. Well then should the car company be able to come and take my engine? Of course not because they relinquish that once they sell it. Just like you have no right to the book I just bought. It may have your name on it since you are the author but you have no right to it just like the Ford family has no right to my car just because it says Ford. I never said you were wrong for not giving me your book. Don Marquis, "Writing as a medium of expression will continue as long as someone has a burning need to express. And if all they have to express is a need for second payments and associated residuals, we’re all better off for not reading it." Should making a mix-tape be illegal? I have a bunch of CDs and then I take music from each CD and make a new CD containing various music. I give it to my love interest as many before me have done. Since I still have the original after making the new CD then that should technically be illegal and I should go to jail. Same with how people would record songs off the radio. I never paid for the music but now I have a copy. I wonder how many people would have gone to jail if the government cracked down on those two things. Yes it is ok for them to do it. It'd be ok even if HBO had a Game of Thrones network that ran the show 24/7. We are back to the argument of giving/selling the original to a person who sells to another and on and on until you reach 100 people having had it at one time or giving/selling a copy to 100 people while keeping a copy for yourself. How it is now the first is ok, the second is not. As long as I don't keep mine then I'm free to sell it or give it away to another person. HBO makes no money by me selling my DVD to you. They'd also not make any money by me having a copy and then selling my DVD to you. HBO has made money off the original sale but not off any sales legal or illegal that take place after the original purchase. I just don't understand what the difference is. I sell it to someone and they sell it to someone and somehow it's been passed to every single person in the country. That's perfectly legal. But me making a copy for every single person is wrong. Nobody (after me) would have to buy the DVD from HBO in either case but because I have a copy after I sell it that makes it wrong. I've never said anything different. I was merely saying that in how our system is today that it's ridiculous that something can be kept copyrighted for 78 years especially after the creators have been dead for so long.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 29, 2013 18:47:13 GMT -5
And I still fail to understand why you have a right to someone else's property. McD's is the most recognizable fast food chain in the world. They make a crap ton of money and have spent tons of time and tons of effort in developing their brand. I'm sure we'd agree on this. Why do you have the right to benefit from their work without compensating them for it? That's to say that I will profit. There is no guarantee that I will. Especially with so many other McDonalds in the surrounding area, customers find out I'm not the actual McDonalds they won't continue to come to my place. I may be more optimistic than I should be about people's nature but you aren't optimistic enough (if at all). We are in a never going to happen scenario of getting every single recipe from them and then constructing a building that looks just like theirs and putting up signs and everything to look identical. True. It's not guaranteed that you'll succeed. Still you don't think you improve your chances of success by styling your restaurant to look like a McD's (which isn't that hard to do)? The brand does improve your chances of success. Shouldn't the people who developed that brand have the rights to make money of it? [/quote] But what gives you the right to what I produce? My apples are above and beyond what everyone else produces. Everyone else's are grossly inferior. Because they are physical I should be protected by law against someone stealing them (taking them and enjoying them without compensating me) but if, instead of apples, I produced music it would be ok for you to steal my songs (taking them and enjoying them without compensating me)? It's the same thing. You are taking something I produced and using it without my permission or consent and I'm getting no compensation for it. Honestly, I have no idea if the stores solicited the counterfeit goods or if the counterfeiters approached the stores. The allegation is that the store owners knew the items in question were counterfeits and continued to sell them anyway. Like I siad earlier, if I go to Wal-mart and can sell them my counterfeit Coca-cola for less than what they're buying the real deal and it looks the same and is bottled the same, you're telling me they're not going to be interested? Some place like Wal-mart might not be initially, but the mom and pop stores and corner stores probably are. Businesses are all about making money after all. [/quote] You said "They guarantee a profit by enforcing the monopolistic copyright. It's either don't buy your book or buy the book from you. If it were up to you those would be my choices. So if I want it I must pay you no matter how outrageous your prices are. Government is backing you up by not letting others sell it." Which is why I responded with the question of why you have any right to my work at all. Why should I not be able to charge an outrageous fee if I choose to do so? It's obviously not in my best interests, but why shouldn't I be allowed to? The government only enforces copyright laws at the behest of the rights holder. Clearly the rights holders are not complaining in the case of mixed tapes. You created nothing by making copies. All you did was plagiarize my works in essence. The person who designs and builds the car engine is paid by the company he works for. Ford pays people to do those things so those people are compensated for their work which Ford then owns. You're right. Same thing if you buy a book and then re-sell it. I have no right to stop you. On that I agree. However if you start making copies of my book and distributing them to god and everyone, then I have every right to stop you. You're cutting into my sales at that point. You're welcome to sell that book one time for whatever price you can for it. That's it. The first doesn't flood the market with copies of my work thus making my work worth less (simple supply and demand). The latter does exactly that. [/quote] Your original post that I disagreed with was as follows: This is why copyright for digital things is stupid. Which is it? Is there a legit reason for digital copyrights or not? If there is, then I don't disagree with you at all. The current laws may need some work, but there should absolutely be digital copyrights.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 29, 2013 20:05:35 GMT -5
True. It's not guaranteed that you'll succeed. Still you don't think you improve your chances of success by styling your restaurant to look like a McD's (which isn't that hard to do)? The brand does improve your chances of success. Shouldn't the people who developed that brand have the rights to make money of it? Yes, it would improve your chances. Of course they should be able to make money off it, I'm not saying they can't or shouldn't be able to. They just don't have the exclusive right to make money. What gives me the right is that the idea is out there. Once it leaves your head it's not an exclusive property. Let's say your book is a poem book. I buy it and I am moved by one of the poems. I then write the poem on a piece of paper. I've copied your work. If I send that poem to someone they now have a copy of it and I have a copy. Should I be fined or jailed for that? You don't authorize every sale of the book after I buy it. I don't call you up and say "Hey, I loved your book. I'm done with it I'm going to sell it to my friend. Would that be ok?" Of course not because once you sell the book it is no longer your property, you don't have the right to it. Therefore I can do as I wish with it. If I want to burn it. If I want to tear pages out and rearrange them or glue those pages into another book. You cannot tell me that I can't do those things. It's only when you lose a sale (and really only when you lose a sale by copying not lose a sale by me giving up my copy of the book) that it is wrong. If you could get it to taste the exact same they'd be interested. It is about making money. If someone can make money selling knock off Coke then let them. If they are terrible the market will knock them out of business. If they are successful that just means they are offering a better product and better prices. You can and should be allowed to charge whatever you want. $1 or a million dollars but you shouldn't be shocked that when you charge a million dollars that someone is copying your work. And you are paid by the publisher for your book. So I guess they really own it. But if everyone sells and passes around that one copy I bought it is cutting into your sales. If no one buys your book (except for me buying the original) you'll get no money. So if I gave someone the book and they gave it to someone and on and on you wouldn't have a single sale after my buying it in the first place. So you'd rather have 1 sale where only one person at a time has your book than 1 sale where everyone has your book at the same time. What's the difference? You only get one sale either way. So you print 100 books and sell each of them. 100 people have a book. You print 50 copies and each of us that buy it gives someone a copy bringing the total number of books to 100. Either way there are 100 books but apparently only the former has value since you allowed the printing. I don't know how much value you can get out of something like books since they can be copied (I don't know how many people invest in books as a way of securing their future). A finite amount of something has more value than your reprintable book. If there is demand for 100 books and you only print 50 then that is your fault for not printing more and making people resort to copying. If there is demand for 100 books but each person is only willing to pay $25 and the price of the book is $50 then you are losing out on sales and making people resort to copying. No, there is no reason for them. If I had to compromise I would if it meant getting rid of the current system but I'd prefer no copyright.
|
|