Carpenter’s, real estate, anything created in the material world has no rights limit. None. Not ever. That’s how houses and land an all kinds of property can be passed down from family to heir for hundreds and hundreds of years. All digital artists are lobbying for is a very reasonable 95.

Now put down the bong and go sit with Dingo. You’ve both had enough.

Really? I wasn’t aware carpenters or real estate developers had rights to their works for 95 years. So, why should musicians ALONE get this perk. Shouldn’t ALL CREATORS get to own their work for 95 years? WHY JUST MUCISIANS?

Reasoned Mind = Spineless soul less sucker of satans c__k!

Keep loving your copywrong fools, we’ll watch you burn on the fire with the other corporate whores.

We’ll keep in touch with petitioners and suggest actions you can take.

Well; for your information, I have more than 10 years of experience in my area, and I know very well where the law the intellectual property protects me and where not; and will not be an IMBECILE and IGNORANT as you, that tell me the opposite.

As I already said, there doesn’t exist any reason for giving to movies or music a different treatment; and NOBODY has been able to prove that.

A question; Can you prove really that file-sharing is illegal? Obviously NOT, and even the moment NOBODY has been able to prove it, as also, NOBODY has been able to prove that profit or loss can be derived from the action of SHARING, as such, all the claims about millions of losses that the RIAA claims are without evidence, only BULLSHIT.

I hope your tits are better than Roze’s.

“To save the expense” Illegal file bartering has been held to be a commercial use, cutting off the defense of fair use in the U.S.: “…[C]ommercial use is demonstrated by a showing that repeated and exploitative unauhorized copies of copyrighted works were made to save the expense of purchasing authorized copies.” A&M Records, Inc. et al v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), at 1014.

Way to go, Roze. Could be true. I hear speed limits, environmental guidelines, divorce law, performing rights, public dress codes, octane ratings and gun regulations were different then, too. :-)

“You may not build an exact replica to give away without express permission of the designer.”

————————————-

@’Reasoned Mind’;

Well; I don’t have the time for useless discussions, but this statement that you said, is so UTTERLY WRONG, that I can’t let pass it.

Tell me on what basis you say this bullshit. There doesn’t exist any law for punishing to any person for sharing any goods, and also there doesn’t exist any reason for giving a different treatment to movies or music, and also is a BIG LIE that is necessary the ‘express permission’ of the owner of the creation of a good which I already bought and want to share.

SHARING is an UNIVERSAL RIGHT, and NOT a privilege.

My main profession is designer, but not in architecture. I am designer in electronics; mainly, audio equipment. Also, I have a secondary work as computer technician.

I have registered many of my electronic designs. This is a standard process that any person who creates something can do; with a lawyer, and the same rules apply for any creation, independently if this is music, electronics, architecture, etc.

These rules are very explicit:
According to the laws of intellectual property, which protect (in theory) the creations of the inventors or artists; I have the right and can sue to that person who does an exact replica of a product that is of my creation, but ONLY, and ONLY, if there exists a monetary gain in the DIRECT PROCESS of the specific action (in this case, copying).

In a few words, if any person does a copy (exact replica) of a product of my creation, and this person sells it, then, I can sue to this person. However, if this person does an exact replica for giving away to an friend, brother, father, etc. there doesn’t exist violation of the law, and the process is completely legal, because there didn’t exist a commercial operation involved.

I will illustrate this with a situation more detailed:
Robert (a hypothetical personage) buys me a ‘guitar amplifier’ designed and created by my person. Now Robert owns a guitar amplifier of my creation, and Robert as new owner can do with the amplifier that he wants (including copying). However the only exception is if Robert does exact replicas of the amplifier and he sells these copies to other persons.

Now, if Robert does exact replicas of this amplifier for giving away to other persons, then, I can’t do nothing on the matter; because not monetary gain has been involved in the operation. Even if Robert distributed 50 exact copies I can’t do nothing again; because not monetary gain has been involved in the process.

Now, if I discover that Robert sold AT LEAST one of these copies, then, I can sue him; but ONLY for the one amplifier that he sold, and not for the others 49 that he distributed free.

This is the same for any work protected for these laws, and there doesn’t exist any reason for giving a different treatment to movies or music.

That for me is very impressive, is as some people don’t have is clear yet.

Interesting. Public Domain. Then, this “public domain” directly contradicts the idea (that you have touted) that as you have stated earlier, “[y]ou may own the tangible house and sell the house as you see fit. You may not build an exact replica to sell or give away without express permission of the designer” at any time. Perhaps you may object to the idea of public domain itself. After all, it is most likely that you do favor the indefinite extension of copyright laws.

“The evidence you seek is in every AIA contract.”

AIA stands for the American Institute of Architects. There are two problems with the evidence you cite: firstly, that it is American rather than global, and secondly, that the AIA has not existed from (as you have stated earlier), “day one in the architecture field.” You have stated that such restrictive measures have existed since day one in the architecture field, which you have provided no evidence for. I contend that, instead, it has only existed since ever restrictive copyright laws, if ever, which is most likely more correct.

For example, please cite a law that stated that it was illegal to build a replica of the Parthenon in the times of Ancient Greece. I am sure there was none.

The evidence you seek is in every AIA contract.

And words cannot express how grateful I am that you actually lobby here for the other side.

LOL

To build a replica of the white house on one’s own land, for example, has never been illegal.

The copyright czars are attempting to treat digital items the same as physical items, ignoring the fact that the scarcity of material matter doesn’t apply to the digital realm.

I’ve predicted that there will be rioting, violence and bloodshed over this stuff sooner or later. Whether it will come soon enough to make a difference, I don’t know.

Roze. An IDEA is not copyrightable. An exact replica is. Evidence of the factual nature of my post abounds online, just Google AIA documents and read the licensing agreements. Every word of my post was precisely accurate and you are just sadly out of your depth at this point.

I remember some weeks ago another poster said to you “Roze, get your tits out.” At the time I thought it was a bit dumb, and rather classless. Now, watching you week by week lower the standards here and utterly humiliate yourself in the deep end of an intellectual discussion you truly know nothing about, I’m finally realizing the cogency of that request.

Roze? Get your tits out.

Clearly it’s the best thing of value you have to offer here. More and more it appears the only thing.

That is incorrect. Firstly, as you provide no evidence that this is the case, there is no evidence that what you have stated is true. Secondly, even if it is true, it has been the case only since the advent of ever restrictive copyright laws. The architecture field, as you may know, has been around since… pretty much when humans have existed. When people build architecture, and sell it to someone else, then the buyer always had the right to build a replica of it, or if what you have stated is correct, at least until these restrictive copyright laws came into place. Sometimes, even if people did not own a house/building, people still copied them for themselves. An example of this is Versailles, which attracted the jealousy of kings and princes all across Europe, even if they hated Louis XIV. Naturally, they wanted their own Versailles, and many built a Versailles for themselves, and, even if they were not exact replicas, were essentially modeled after Versailles.

You are utterly delusional if you think that will work for the benefit of anybody in the long run, including the copyright holders.

They are just cutting their own throats with this blatant greed.

http://patchwurkdurt.blogspot.com

I also sample tracks and don’t give a fuck about clearance :) so what?

@ Reasoned Mind
you seem like a twat. If I knew you I would probably steal your car for a laugh.

I feel I recognize your reasoning, but you just don’t seem willing to extend the logic far enough in order to accept reality, and for that you and your system will absolutely fail for the simple reason that you chose to defy reality in order to support your beliefs, and reality always prevails by the simple fact that it is true.

The extension of copyright on audio recordings from 50 to 95 years in the EU has moved another step closer to realization, with its passage through the legal affairs committee. The action, ostensibly to provide a pension for session musicians, is in re…

Hahahahaha, whew, that bit was hilarious!

but the question still stands: “How would such a law reflect the will of the ppl?” as it should in a democracy.

If we’re waiting to be saved we are doomed.

So, be save!

———————–

Oh!!! you are something confused, ‘Brilliant Death’. :-)

File-Sharing; as all the forms of SHARING, is completely legal. This doesn’t need any moral justification.

SHARING (independently if this is done of digital way or physical way) is an UNIVERSAL RIGHT, as also the FREE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION; and any UNIVERSAL RIGHT is ABOVE of any law (including copyright law) and until the moment, NOBODY has been able to demonstrate the opposite (including the useless and outdated RIAA).

This is incredible (for me at least) that SOME people don’t have this basic knowledge.

For the democracy index from the economist, see:
a330 (dot) g (dot) akamai (dot) net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics (dot) eiu (dot) com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008 (dot) pdf

(Note: replace the all instances of “(dot)” with a “.”)

As you can see, as of 2008, Sweden (9.88) is the most democratic nation on Earth, followed by Norway (9.68), Iceland (9.65), Netherlands (9.53), Denmark (9.52), Finland (9.25), New Zealand (9.19), Switzerland (9.15), Luxembourg (9.10), Australia (9.09), Canada (9.07), Ireland (9.01), Germany (8.82), Austria (8.49), Spain (8.45), Malta (8.39), Japan (8.25), United States (8.22), Czech Republic (8.19), Belgium (8.16), United Kingdom (8.15), Greece (8.13), Uruguay (8.08), France (8.07), Portugal (8.05), Mauritius (8.04), Costa Rica (8.04), South Korea (8.01), and Italy (7.98). The list continues until you get to Syria, Laos, Guinea, Libya, Guinea-Bissau, Saudi Arabia, Central African Republic, Burma, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Chad, and North Korea on the bottom, which are the least democratic.

“May we all be save[d]”
No, let us all save ourselves. Self-reliance! As we are all humans, we all have human potential, no matter how difficult something is. Have you not heard of humanism?

Is democracy dead? How is the opinion and stand of the people on these issues reflected in these laws?

It seems to me that it is the attempt to regain the traditional powerstructure the corporate world (and their executives) is so used to. (old habits die hard)

Don’t get me wrong: I am totally for artist or ppl in general being paid for their work, but I don’t see that a industry is better or even necessary to ensure that. (esp. if the administration is better paid than the creatives)

I recommend watching the Congress-footage of the CCC on a similar matter. It helped me understand how difficult it is to save us from enslaving laws:
ftp://ftp.ccc.de/congress/2008/video_h264_720x576/25c3-2791-en-la_quadrature_du_net_-_campaigning_on_telecoms_package.mp4.torrent
ftp://ftp.ccc.de/congress/2008/video_h264_720x576/25c3-2791-en-la_quadrature_du_net_-_campaigning_on_telecoms_package.mp4

if the link doesn’t show search for:
“25c3-2791-en-la_quadrature_du_net_-_campaigning_on_telecoms_package.mp4″
it also comes as a torrent.

May we all be save …

WRONG. If a real estate developer sells a house to someone else, then there is nothing in the law that prohibits the buyer of the house from creating a copy (meaning a perfect replica) of the house whenever he/she wants, and giving these replica houses to other people.

what holly wood is and these greedy bastards are is a copyright troll
YES COPYRIGHT TROLL just as there are patent trolls …..

I also never suggested special privileges be afforded creators of IP, rather I am saying that the same creators rights exercised by the carpenter or the real estate developer should also be afforded a creator of intellectual property. If not, then creators of IP would enjoy fewer rights and protections, an inherently inequitable position that, in fact, does LESS to compel the creation of IP, not more.

I also never suggested that creators of IP should have control over everyone else, only the IP they create. I have no problem with you controlling that IP which you create Roze. None whatever.

Perhaps you have a problem with those who create material objects having an inherent creators control over those tangible objects. If you do, then your line of reasoning is consistent and then you seem to be saying that no one should exert control over anything they create, ever, at all, in any medium. This position is odd, indeed.

Perhaps you have a problem with an equitable situation existing for all creators regardless of their medium.

Perhaps, too, you just have a problem reading and comprehending.

La ampliación del copyright en grabaciones de audio de 50 a 95 años en la Unión Europea ha avanzado un paso más hacia su aprobación. La acción, claramente para proveer a los músicos de "una pensión", es en realidad un regalo multimill…

Session musician were paid for their session(s) and don’t get any royalties anyway.

It’s a lie.

We all have a vested interest in an open and free society, whether online or off. Offline, legal accountability to our actions is a standard in all but the most lawless of societies. The online world is newer and still sorting itself out but no one here has ever made a reasonable case why the internet should remain lawless or why privacy laws should facilitate anonymous online crime of any sort.

Whether copyright infringement or illegal hacking, the misuse of proprietary data or even cyber bullying, little by little the legal precedents are revealing themselves and the countries of the world are slowly knitting together into online accountability. ACTA will be a big step forward and you can bet it is coming.

It’s a testament to the wise and slow-moving nature of justice that 9 years after Napster, the internet still remains a haven of illegal behavior. Not for much longer. Certainly this will not be indefinite and were it your work and your income being eroded by “theft is the new business model” lol, you’d be on the phone to your congressman, too.

“Pathetic”, Pete#19, this is not. In fact, digital artists are better organized and more persuasive the world over than anything pirates have ever advanced beyond “you’ll never stop us.”

Oh really? We shall see about that.

@27

that’s out of order, NubCakes has given us alot of advice and thought provoking opinions..i don’t see what YOU’VE done recently?

Oh, wait… That’s what you’re payed to do. I forgot for a minute that you work for the RIAA. Sorry! My bad!

It’s not. It’s going to affect people who make use of older recordings that have passed into the public domain. For example, some student who’s making a movie for a film class who wants to use some song from the 40′s. Or a musician who wants to sample some old music, but doesn’t want to deal with record companies, so he samples 50+ year old music.

90% of you are overreacting. If you’re worried about copyright law, worry about it becoming stricter, not about it becoming longer. Extending copyrights on audio recordings from 50 to 95 years is akin to shooting 50 spit wads at an attacking bear, saying “Oh God, that didn’t kill it! I’ll shoot 45 more, lets see if that’ll work!” If the EU thinks this will help prevent piracy (doubtful), they’re wrong.

That all being said, I still think copyright law these days is a complete joke. For certain things it still works. Books, for example. I can’t go retype up a Dan Brown book and publish it as my own. But I sure as hell could retype it and share it as a torrent. I’ll start being concerned about stuff like this when copyright law starts dictating how many times I can listen to a mp3 I purchased, or how many times I can watch a DVD I bought.

Last time I went to a cd shop I wanted to buy a 4 cds boxset of a jazz pianist who died like 40 years ago, it was on a big label (warner or emi), and it was sold for 70€

I mean, WTF.

My opinion remains that the “Sharing”(Alternating use of an inherently finite good) of a “File”(A block of arbitrary information, or resource for storing information.) is perfectly fine.

A global population of apprx. 6.8 billion of which 1.463 billion are internet users(21%). Out of all the internet users most(51%) are casual and will neither take the time nor have the desire to learn about anything more than “How to Google” or use a social communications interface “Facebook/Myspace”. Leaving us with 10% of a global population, most(51%) of which have a job..a family…friends…priorities that do not allow for the time required to download and share every single release ever created by any and or all release group/s(Not to mention all the nameless crap floating around P2P). Leaving behind a very small set of internet users. This “Set of users” is not a set of pirates. Far from it, this set includes all the “legit/legal” file sharing users. The actual set of “20th Century Literate Pirates” is so small that if the gigantore media companies actually embraced the statistics produced by these users they might actually learn something about what their doing right/wrong or even what to make/create in the first place. Large companies claim loss of revenue. Loss of revenue on a very bad album kept completely secret apart from one good/commercial song that makes the sales for the album even happen. Preying on curiosity and the gullibility of human nature and integrating that type of sale strategy should be the real issue on the legal debate.

I’ve been “File Sharing” for many years and I still *sometimes* purchase a cd/movie/video game(not for the purpose of putting on the net).

If a media company records an album or produces a movie…..the second that artwork *created by the artists and owned by GOLIATH* is transfered over to a computer and the first digital version is made, any reproduction made internally is still “copying”.

Open a text file on your computer and type “DATA”…save it as a txt file called data.txt. You own that file, but you do not own the file on another persons computer or disk named data.txt that contains the exact same txt information. If you decide to make 56 000 “copies” of an album and ship them around the world…you lost the ownership of the “DATA” on the disc when I purchased it! I purchased a “COPY”!

When I purchase a video game and the creators/publishers decide to include something on the disc that is not a playable part of the data and is used for another purpose…Identifying/protecting….whatever you want to call it….I call it an invasion of my home!

All this to say…”I do not recognize your copyright laws”

Freedom of religion still exists…right?

sorry it was soooo long