Even then people infringed on copyrights by (for instance) singing "Happy Birthday" without paying for it -not to mention nursery rhymes and school-yard-games...Oh, dear. What did the world do before YouTube?
Illegal downloads
- Thread starter JarodRussell
- Start date
Or, the thing I actually said and have already provided evidence of. I mean people have been doing what I described for centuries and it has demonstratably contributed to both artistic works and society. You're doing a really good job of ignoring the arguments put against you, but that's hardly a retort. I've given many examples of artistic reuse and I can give countless more. Why are you so quick to dismiss thousands of years of human culture?
No, see, you just repackaged my argument and tried to use it against me, only you didn't bother to actually provide any evidence to support the position that limited copyright opposes the enrichment of culture.
Fortunately, I recognize that my argument was influenced by other arguments before me so I won't press an infringement case against you
It's not an argument; there's nothing to argue against because you have no point. The quote was about creative play; you talked about posting it on YouTube.Oh, dear. What did the world do before YouTube?
Silly knockout argument. What did the world do before television or cassette players, or 8 mm film, to get back to that Wenders quote?
None of those are Copyrighted.
I never ignored any arguments or dismissed thousands of years of Human culture. How would that even be possible? Of course lack of creator Rights contributed to Human culture. Just like slave labor contributed to the building of the pyramids and the Vietnam War resulted in great folk music. That doesn't mean that slavery and war are good things. This is now the 21st Century. It's well past time to recognize the Rights of people who create culture.
Actually, I tried to make you see the inherent contradictions of your position. I never said that limited (or no) Copyright opposes the enrichment of culture, because it obviously does-- what I said is that it's wrong. The world we live in, including all the good, was built on plagiarism, oppression, Human bondage, war, conquest and so on-- that doesn't make them good, it just means that's the way it was. The idea is to make the future a better place.
All I can say is that you guys must be huge fans of The Asylum.Fortunately, I recognize that my argument was influenced by other arguments before me so I won't press an infringement case against you
"Happy Birthday To You" is in fact copyrighted.
I agree with RJDiogenes and look forward to the day where all the tragic copyright infringement of Happy Birthday can be corrected by the government through mind wipes. No longer will anarchists hold thieved copies of works in their brains! We will build a better society!
The Wenders quote was about cutting movies to create new movies. So I guess you are the one who doesn't have a point.It's not an argument; there's nothing to argue against because you have no point. The quote was about creative play; you talked about posting it on YouTube.Oh, dear. What did the world do before YouTube?
Silly knockout argument. What did the world do before television or cassette players, or 8 mm film, to get back to that Wenders quote?
Well, it's obvious that RJ is right and everyone else is simply wrong, because he said so. There's no other reason than that. In his mind, the public domain is tantamount to slavery. Once you draw that parallel, is there really anything left to argue?
Copyright terms already last far past the creator's death, but that's just not good enough. You can be sued for tens of thousands of dollars for downloading a single song, but that's just not good enough. You have to pay your ASCAP fees every time you sing "Happy Birthday to You," but that's just not good enough.
When will this awful tyranny against the downtrodden artist end?
Copyright terms already last far past the creator's death, but that's just not good enough. You can be sued for tens of thousands of dollars for downloading a single song, but that's just not good enough. You have to pay your ASCAP fees every time you sing "Happy Birthday to You," but that's just not good enough.
When will this awful tyranny against the downtrodden artist end?
Apparently so, although it seems to be disputed. Personally, I think that's along the lines of Copyrighting "99 Bottles Of Beer On The Wall."
So you don't understand the difference between private activities and public performances? Do you think a kid making a collage of magazine pictures violates Copyright?
Oddly enough, I do think I'm right. Am I supposed to think I'm wrong?
Comparisons are useful for illustrative purposes. If you have to resort to being obtuse, I take it you have no counter argument.
Private property exists long after a person's death. A business can exist long after the person's death. I've not seen any justification for intellectual property being public property by State decree.
Beats me.
Nonsense, it was litigated like 70 years ago, and the various copyright extensions passed by congress covered it before it expired. How is it not copyrighted?
Last week I was at a restaurant and people there sang Happy Birthday to You, I am positive they did not receive permission to do so. Those people literally STOLE one of the most well-known, and thus most valuable songs in HISTORY. That song is worth millions. At least. The people who performed it in public are CRIMINALS because they are STEALING and they should serve prison terms.
So, would you freak out about said collage if the kid scanned it and put it up on his/her facebook or something?
Copying a friends CD that he loans to you is a private activity too.
Well, after a few pages of people showing you why you're wrong... yeahOddly enough, I do think I'm right. Am I supposed to think I'm wrong?
Because intellectual property and physical property are two completely different things, and to outright equate them is plain retarded. With your logic replicators in Star Trek would be illegal because by 'copying' physical objects you are 'stealing' physical objects.
I'm not saying intellectual property deserves no protection, but concepts such as fair use are important, and if anything, too limited in current law.
I don't know. I thought it was Copyrighted. You better do some research.
By making vague assertions about taking away people's property being for "the greater good?" Nah, not so much.Well, after a few pages of people showing you why you're wrong... yeah
This is reality, Greg.
Being photographed steals your soul.
Similar threads
