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.