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.