Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
06/07/09
06/07/09
A close friend of mine lives in Sweden. She's been excited about it for a while, and I think she's been talking about software and media piracy in response to their ridiculous regulations on the subject. Though, those two things may be unrelated.
05/01/09
I cant comment on the Patent section as I dont have any professional dealings with pharmaceutical companies however The copyright section is laughable to say the least.
First off, Im happy what happened to TPB. Its a win for recording musicians everywhere.
The idea that copyrights should be abolished after 5 years is simply not fair. Tha fact that File sharing and P2P should be openly encouraged is fine but when it violates LAW then this is the problem. No-one would walk into an antique store and walk out with an antique vase without paying for it. Sure its a piece of art, but its over 100 years old so by their standards if they havn't made money on it by now then its public property. If anyone did this then they would be prosecuted as they are STEALING.
So under the cover of the internet it is acceptable? I think not.
And under these ideas artists are expected to work for free as its considered Culture and comercial? How would anyone else feel if they went into work every day and at the end of the month they were told "sorry, were not paying you this month. Were taking your work for free". People would be outraged! So when a musician uses his/her recordings etc. to make a living it is considered wrong? No-one is forcing people into shops to buy material.
Cars, Televisions, Decoratives, Clothes etc. are not free, and these are born from creative minds also. So why should Music/Film be any different? Just because it can be converted to a digital medium? I think not...
05/01/09
Okay, five years may be too soon. But while copyrights are designed to allow creators the ability to profit from their efforts, that ability should not be indefinite, because in the long run it results in exactly what is going on with the major media companies now: an incessant hoarding of past property as opposed to a willingness to create anew, and using the bludgeon of copyright law to set price points for past work that is artificially high as opposed to a price point that's truly set by the market.
05/01/09
Mozart's music was paid for by kings for kings. It was for an elite audience. And he died young and impoverished and miserable.
Copyrights allow music to be consumed by regular people, not kings, and for musicians to be able to earn a living producing music. Copyrights enabled the explosion of popular music in the 20th century.
If you want music to made only by rich people for rich people, and for talented musicians who could make everyone else's lives better by producing music they love to... continue working at Starbucks and not producing a note, then abolish copyright.
Incidentally - copyrights expire a certain number of years after an artists death anyway, so things revert to the public domain. Also, musicians have an interest in getting their work out. Copyright doesn't prevent distribution of work as much as it encourages people to create it in the first place.
05/01/09
Copyrights allow artists to profit from their work at the point of sale. But it also, IMO, encourages holders of successful IPs to attempt to milk their IP - as they do now - as opposed to creating new works. Also, since corporations are treated as individuals in the rights of the law, and the lifespan of a corporation can be much longer than that of an actual person, the intent of copyright law is warped.
Again, maybe 5 years is too short. But there is no doubt in my mind that copyright law as it currently stands needs a major overhaul.
05/01/09
05/01/09
03/28/09
Personally, I haven't paid for a waffle in years and if you're being honest, you know you haven't either. Besides, when you buy a waffle, it's not like the money goes to the guy who made the waffle in the first place.
Arrrrrr.... waffles!
03/28/09
03/28/09
LOL. I knew the Americans are far right politically, but that's just ridiculous. Sweden isn't a socialist (==communist) country. Socialism is quite different from social democracy...
03/28/09
03/28/09
Political Compass, despite it's flaws, is a good site for summarising where people stand.
[www.politicalcompass.org]
03/29/09
Far right America?
LOL. I knew Swedes are far left politically, but that's just ridiculous. America isn't a far right (==fascist) country. Most southern states being more socially conservative than most of Europe and not having nationalized health care is quite different from being a far right country...
03/29/09
[www.politicalcompass.org]