I was reading Rosa's tweet (someone linked it) and I have to agree. Copyright laws don't make any sense. How can you patent an idea? It should be mandatory that you provide a working model for a patent, none of this 15 years in the future bull feathers.
If I ever becomes ruler of the earth one of the things I am going to have to change is copyright law and the second is change all staircases length and height so that they complement my stride.
@Professional_Iceberg_Hunter: For starters, patents and copyrights are two entirely separate issues. Copyright covers creative works while patents are for specific implementations of technological or mechanical inventions.
Ideally, patents are supposed to be very, very specific. Though in recent years there have been some broad applications accepted which has led to more than a few screwed up situations.
And of course, copyright law also needs reform. Claiming sole ownership of the rights to publish a creative work? Fine. Claiming one retains those rights for their entire life plus seventy years? Borderline egregious. Lobbying for more laws to extend those rights even farther so you can keep Mickey Mouse all to yourself: let it go, dammit.
Also, Mark Twain's grievance discussed in that link has long since been addressed by major revisions in copyright law since that time. Nowadays, Twain's publisher would be able to seize the offending pirated copies with very little difficulty.
Probably not your point, but I though I'd address that bit.
@OCEntertainment: Details OC, always with the details. But that was my point overall, the whole system is messed up.
Copyright laws as far as music and videos go are a funny business. I had to do some research for my music class about a year ago (when I was still in high school). The reason why some commercials tend to be shorter than 30 seconds (give or take 5 seconds), or at least use the same music for 30 seconds is because after the aforementioned time they consider that illegal. That's why they only play songs for that amount of time if you ever noticed.
@OCEntertainment: I see you've noticed the trend in when the length of copyright seems to magically extend. It's not like people are going to stop buying Disney products the moment Mickey goes into the public domain.
@Gordonium: You know what? I would honestly pay huge amounts of money to go to the trial where convicted felon Enron execs tried to argue that the dissemination of their accounting records qualified as "copyright infringement" as they were creative works and thus they alone had the rights to distribute them.
That could be the single best trial since The Pirate Bay.
2019 is the date to watch, which is when things will start falling into the public domain again (nothing has done so since 1998 because of the extension). Watch closely the next few years, because you're sure to start seeing some arguments and lobbying about why we need another extension.
@OCEntertainment: Well to be fair companies can copyright software. That's what I think is most ridiculous. We need a new system for software. Patent and Copyright just aren't meant to handle it. (I didn't really care at all about this topic, but just wanted to flaunt the fact that I have a star now. I'VE GOT A STAR!!! WOOO!!!)
@OCEntertainment: Okay, fair enough, we can shorten that, but am I supposed to care when a majority of the people lobbying for reform just want everything to be free, and probably already take whatever they want anyways? (present company excepted of course).
The problem with copyright reform is that no one ever offers a reasonable and unselfish plan. The problem also is that most people either take what they want via piracy or theft, or have a pretty simple concept that basically boils down to: "if they thought of it, they own it, and I'll pay for it."
Rarely does anyone come up with an alternative that reasonably compensates the creator while easing copyright restrictions. The debate is run by corporate shills on one side and idiotic pirating assclowns on the other. Anytime you let the extremes run the debate you never make any progress.
@NorwoodIsMyHero: I'd settle for a more simplified legal mechanism for licensing (since many things done online anymore aren't truly "copies"), some of the issues of partial permissions dealt with (Creative Commons is a patchwork solution, but a step in the right direction), a simpler mechanism for evaluating fair use issues besides a court case (seriously, a few dudes making a video in their back yard using a Coldplay song as the soundtrack isn't costing any label any money), and, like I said, copyright terms of infinity cut short.
But most of all, I'd prefer that the people with these ridiculous extreme opinions be barred from any of the proceedings. I'm with you there. There is a middle ground here that can result in protection for the copyright holders while still allowing for freedom of new artists and a protection for reasonable uses. Copying DVDs I paid for to my computer for personal use is no threat to the MPAA. Yet, it is simultaneously both against the law and not against the law. This kind of thing is beyond ridiculous.
@OCEntertainment: tsk tsk OCE, you are as always much too reasonable.No one in D.C. will ever listen to you if thats how your gonna be.:-) #whitenoise(Edit comment)
@Professional_Iceberg_Hunter: There's nothing wrong the patents in principle. The problem is the examiners.... patents are supposed to be only for inventions that are novel and non-obvious. For example, the H.264 patents, while annoying, are still reasonable.
The problem is there are a lot of bullshit patents which are neither novel nor non-obvious.
@Rosa Golijan: Which reminds me, I took the liberty of taking a semi-nude picture of myself per your request (you know, the whole one semi nude photo= instant star thing) Well, here it is:
@ jepzilla: The problem is that a lot of patents aren't novel because it's a grab to try and make sure that anything that's a stepping stone to a novel idea can't be taken, thereby making novelty a harder thing to achieve.
I was reading Rosa's tweet (someone linked it) and I have to agree. Copyright laws don't make any sense. How can you patent an idea? It should be mandatory that you provide a working model for a patent, none of this 15 years in the future bull feathers.
If I ever becomes ruler of the earth one of the things I am going to have to change is copyright law and the second is change all staircases length and height so that they complement my stride.
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)@Professional_Iceberg_Hunter: For starters, patents and copyrights are two entirely separate issues. Copyright covers creative works while patents are for specific implementations of technological or mechanical inventions.
Ideally, patents are supposed to be very, very specific. Though in recent years there have been some broad applications accepted which has led to more than a few screwed up situations.
And of course, copyright law also needs reform. Claiming sole ownership of the rights to publish a creative work? Fine. Claiming one retains those rights for their entire life plus seventy years? Borderline egregious. Lobbying for more laws to extend those rights even farther so you can keep Mickey Mouse all to yourself: let it go, dammit.
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)@Professional_Iceberg_Hunter:
Patents and copyright are two different things.
Also, Mark Twain's grievance discussed in that link has long since been addressed by major revisions in copyright law since that time. Nowadays, Twain's publisher would be able to seize the offending pirated copies with very little difficulty.
Probably not your point, but I though I'd address that bit.
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)@OCEntertainment: Details OC, always with the details. But that was my point overall, the whole system is messed up.
Copyright laws as far as music and videos go are a funny business. I had to do some research for my music class about a year ago (when I was still in high school). The reason why some commercials tend to be shorter than 30 seconds (give or take 5 seconds), or at least use the same music for 30 seconds is because after the aforementioned time they consider that illegal. That's why they only play songs for that amount of time if you ever noticed.
(Edit comment)#whitenoise
@OCEntertainment: I see you've noticed the trend in when the length of copyright seems to magically extend. It's not like people are going to stop buying Disney products the moment Mickey goes into the public domain.
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)@OCEntertainment: Copyright covers creative works
So, did Enron copyright their account books?
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)#Enron
#badjokes
#unstarring
@Gordonium: You know what? I would honestly pay huge amounts of money to go to the trial where convicted felon Enron execs tried to argue that the dissemination of their accounting records qualified as "copyright infringement" as they were creative works and thus they alone had the rights to distribute them.
That could be the single best trial since The Pirate Bay.
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)2019 is the date to watch, which is when things will start falling into the public domain again (nothing has done so since 1998 because of the extension). Watch closely the next few years, because you're sure to start seeing some arguments and lobbying about why we need another extension.
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)@OCEntertainment:
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)@OCEntertainment: Well to be fair companies can copyright software. That's what I think is most ridiculous. We need a new system for software. Patent and Copyright just aren't meant to handle it. (I didn't really care at all about this topic, but just wanted to flaunt the fact that I have a star now. I'VE GOT A STAR!!! WOOO!!!)
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)@MarcusMaximus: It's about friggin' time.
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)@OCEntertainment: Okay, fair enough, we can shorten that, but am I supposed to care when a majority of the people lobbying for reform just want everything to be free, and probably already take whatever they want anyways? (present company excepted of course).
The problem with copyright reform is that no one ever offers a reasonable and unselfish plan. The problem also is that most people either take what they want via piracy or theft, or have a pretty simple concept that basically boils down to: "if they thought of it, they own it, and I'll pay for it."
Rarely does anyone come up with an alternative that reasonably compensates the creator while easing copyright restrictions. The debate is run by corporate shills on one side and idiotic pirating assclowns on the other. Anytime you let the extremes run the debate you never make any progress.
Why would I bother to listen to either one?
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)@NorwoodIsMyHero: I'd settle for a more simplified legal mechanism for licensing (since many things done online anymore aren't truly "copies"), some of the issues of partial permissions dealt with (Creative Commons is a patchwork solution, but a step in the right direction), a simpler mechanism for evaluating fair use issues besides a court case (seriously, a few dudes making a video in their back yard using a Coldplay song as the soundtrack isn't costing any label any money), and, like I said, copyright terms of infinity cut short.
But most of all, I'd prefer that the people with these ridiculous extreme opinions be barred from any of the proceedings. I'm with you there. There is a middle ground here that can result in protection for the copyright holders while still allowing for freedom of new artists and a protection for reasonable uses. Copying DVDs I paid for to my computer for personal use is no threat to the MPAA. Yet, it is simultaneously both against the law and not against the law. This kind of thing is beyond ridiculous.
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)@Professional_Iceberg_Hunter: There's nothing wrong the patents in principle. The problem is the examiners.... patents are supposed to be only for inventions that are novel and non-obvious. For example, the H.264 patents, while annoying, are still reasonable.
The problem is there are a lot of bullshit patents which are neither novel nor non-obvious.
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)@Professional_Iceberg_Hunter: Twitter stalker! :)
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)@Rosa Golijan: Which reminds me, I took the liberty of taking a semi-nude picture of myself per your request (you know, the whole one semi nude photo= instant star thing)
Well, here it is:
(Edit comment)#whitenoise
@Rosa Golijan: Whitenoise thread stalker! ;P
@ jepzilla:
The problem is that a lot of patents aren't novel because it's a grab to try and make sure that anything that's a stepping stone to a novel idea can't be taken, thereby making novelty a harder thing to achieve.
#whitenoise
(Edit comment)User action
Thread action