Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

blank'd
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13174		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  HHFOV [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:14 am ]
Post subject: 
Dude, the DMCA isn't an assault of freedom of speech at all. It just prevents people from illegally distributing copyrighted materials and stealing from entertainment producers.
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:52 am ]
Post subject: 
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Dude, the DMCA isn't an assault of freedom of speech at all. It just prevents people from illegally distributing copyrighted materials and stealing from entertainment producers.
Well, sure, that's kind of a violation of freedom of speech. If we had complete freedom of expression, ebaumsworld could upload everything from homestarrunner.com, pass it off as their own, and make money from ads for their own site. But thankfully, they can't.
Author:  furrykef [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:44 am ]
Post subject: 
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Dude, the DMCA isn't an assault of freedom of speech at all. It just prevents people from illegally distributing copyrighted materials and stealing from entertainment producers.


I also oppose the DMCA. Not because I support copyright infringement (although I'd be lying if I said I never do it ;)), but because I believe the law is much too overreaching in that area. For example, the DMCA forbids the circumvention of copy protection devices and it also forbids telling others how to do it. The trouble is that sometimes one might want to circumvent copy protection for reasons other than breaking copyright.

For example, the DMCA prevents you from circumventing region coding measures on DVDs/DVD players. Screw that. If you ask me, DVD manufacturers have no right to say who can enjoy their product and who can't. They have a right to determine who they're going to sell their product to, but once the product is out of their hands, I don't think they should have any more say about it.

- Kef
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 8:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
If you ask me, DVD manufacturers have no right to say who can enjoy their product and who can't. They have a right to determine who they're going to sell their product to, but once the product is out of their hands, I don't think they should have any more say about it.
So do you think people should be allowed to copy their discs and give them away to anyone they want, then?
Author:  Rusty [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
So do you think people should be allowed to copy their discs and give them away to anyone they want, then?


I do. As for what Kef said, I think there was a little more to it.
Author:  HHFOV [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Actually, yeah, I do think that Internet filesharing should fall under fair use.

The only difference between borrowing a movie from somebody IRL and downloading it is that you're doing it over the internet, so to arbitrarily declare it illegal once internets are involved is stupid and an infringement of fair use and libertarian principles.
Author:  furrykef [ Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:45 am ]
Post subject: 
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
So do you think people should be allowed to copy their discs and give them away to anyone they want, then?


Allow me to clarify further. Copyright law applies to copying things. Restricting what regions a product can be used in has nothing to do with copying, but rather what is done with an existing copy that was bought legitimately.

And I do think copyright laws should perhaps be relaxed in that area, particularly when the product in question is no longer available. But I'm not so naïve as to think that allowing people to freely copy works would be economically viable.

- Kef
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:48 am ]
Post subject: 
What I have against copyright laws, DRM, etc., is that the majority of the time (read: all of the time) it does little to hinder piracy and usually just hurts the legal consumer.

For instance, an over-used example, but those terrible Anti-Piracy ads at the beginning of movies. This ad gets cut from the movie when it is pirated, so, the only ones getting a lecture on copyright laws are the ones who payed for the movie.

Then there's Bioshock, which had its crazy-strict DRM that managed to go un-cracked for all of 14 or so days. The legal consumer gets screwed over for doing things right.

It's almost like they're trying to provide an incentive to pirate.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:43 am ]
Post subject: 
Yeltensic wrote:
If it weren't for DVDs that block you from fast-forwarding through them, I would like the anti-piracy ads, because I always say,"Arrr!" when they're on the screen.


One of my friends always says that piracy wouldn't be as big of a problem if they didn't call it something cool like "piracy".
Author:  furrykef [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:04 am ]
Post subject: 
Nah, people would just invent cool names for it. Even the existence of the term "piracy" didn't stop the invention of the word "warez", for instance.
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
http://bash.org/?652012

[Language warning]
Quote:
the majority of the time (read: all of the time) it does little to hinder piracy
That's not so true. I think the last time there was a discussion on piracy here, someone posted that 90% of people still pay for their music. If it weren't for copyright laws, that number would be 0, and the artists wouldn't make any money.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
If it weren't for copyright laws, that number would be 0, and the artists wouldn't make any money.

I disagree. Someone would have to pay for the original music in order to pirate it for others. So even a worst-case scenario (which you are assuming here) still requires at least some sales to be made.

But I think that most people would still want to buy the media in a form they could use. People would still buy CD's, just so they can have the original album art and the original music. Heck, I know people that will buy an album's worth of MP3's from iTunes, then turn around and buy the CD when it becomes available in store, even though they already have legitimate MP3's of it.

But the elimination of some of the copy-guard technology would permit fair use, which the copy-guard more often than not restricts. You want a backup copy of your kid's favorite DVD, because you know it's going to get scratched and worn? Too Bad! You want to copy your favorite movie to your laptop so you can watch it while traveling? Too Bad!

Heck, I've even read horror stories of people paying for a DVD, only for it to not work in their player, and have difficulties getting any response from the manufacturers (both of the player and the DVD) to help them get it working right. I've also heard of manufactured DVD's that upload obstructive software onto computer systems without the user's permission, that actually screw up people's viewing experience.

But at the same time, the technology to pirate those movies is too easily accessible to prevent actual piracy. In the end, it is the legitimate consumer getting screwed over, not the pirates, and all so some major corporation can glean a few extra bucks off of them.
Author:  Rusty [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Artists barely make any money as is. Trent Reznor wants people to pirate his music just because he makes so little money off album sales as is.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Only well-established artists who own their own production and publishing companies actually make any money off their music. The rest - all their royalties are eaten up by the big-name labels. So, either the artist already has tons of money and doesn't really need you to buy their music, or their label is going to take it from them and leave them to starve. Buying music doesn't really help anyone who really needs it.
Author:  Sedric A. Dragon [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
That's not so true. I think the last time there was a discussion on piracy here, someone posted that 90% of people still pay for their music. If it weren't for copyright laws, that number would be 0, and the artists wouldn't make any money.

Even if I could fill my plate for free I would still pay for my records as I wish to support the artists I love wso they'll make more music. The only time I have stolen a record has been when it was commercially unavailable to begin with (e.g. Horrific Child's album has been out of print for decades now)
Author:  Rusty [ Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
See above posts, dude
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 1:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
That's not so true. I think the last time there was a discussion on piracy here, someone posted that 90% of people still pay for their music. If it weren't for copyright laws, that number would be 0, and the artists wouldn't make any money.


I was actually referring more to the anti-piracy measures, like programs, DRM stuff, etc., as opposed to the laws.

But yeah, even if there were no laws against downloading free stuff, some people would still pay, either out of support for the artists, or to have an actual physical copy of whatever.
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:32 am ]
Post subject: 
Simon Zeno wrote:
some people would still pay, either out of support for the artists, or to have an actual physical copy of whatever.
The first point is definitely true to some extent (Wikipedia survives off donations, right?)... but the artists wouldn't make any profit if people just want a physical copy. Anyone with a CD burner could make a physical copy of music and sell for profit himself.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:22 am ]
Post subject: 
I don't think Zeno is referring to it just being a physical medium, but a legitimate physical medium, such as a CD purchased from a store. As I said above, I know people who actually have legitimate MP3's of songs - purchased and downloaded from authorized sources - who will still plop down the $15 or so for the actual albums.
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 3:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
I don't think Zeno is referring to it just being a physical medium, but a legitimate physical medium, such as a CD purchased from a store. As I said above, I know people who actually have legitimate MP3's of songs - purchased and downloaded from authorized sources - who will still plop down the $15 or so for the actual albums.
But still, if not for copyright laws, none of the profit from actual albums would go to the artists, because they'd have no 'ownership' of the material at all. It would go to whatever company prints off the CD's and stuff.
Author:  bwave [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yeltensic wrote:
I would have voted against the 16th amendment because I'm against income tax.

http://www.ahherald.com/bishop/2003/gb0 ... me_tax.htm

Dont pay it. You technically dont have to pay income tax, you just have to file some papers. Only businesses have to pay. Or something like that. I dont remember. Watched a documentary about it a few days ago.
Author:  Mikes! [ Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:32 am ]
Post subject: 
Copyright law restricts free speech because it states that certain combinations of words, sounds, etc. can only be reproduced under license from the so-called creator of "intellectual property."
Author:  furrykef [ Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:58 am ]
Post subject: 
bwave wrote:
Dont pay it. You technically dont have to pay income tax, you just have to file some papers. Only businesses have to pay. Or something like that. I dont remember. Watched a documentary about it a few days ago.


^--- Good formula for either going to jail and/or being fined a lot more money than you'd have paid if you just paid your taxes.
Author:  Didymus [ Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:23 am ]
Post subject: 
Mikes! wrote:
Copyright law restricts free speech because it states that certain combinations of words, sounds, etc. can only be reproduced under license from the so-called creator of "intellectual property."

Perhaps, but I would disagree. If you use someone else's combination of words, that is not an expression of free speech, since the speech you are using is someone else's to start with. Free speech applies directly to the use of personal speech to express one's thoughts and opinions without direct reprisal from institutions that do not wish those thoughts and opinions expressed (for example, if the government tried to prohibit newspapers from printing articles critical of government policy or activity). It is that kind of restriction that the First Amendment is attempting to address.

If you were using someone else's words to express your ideas (say, in a speech or a dissertation), and did so giving them credit, and with their permission, I would consider it fair use. If you don't want to get permission or give credit, then you need express your own ideas using your own words instead.

But if you're ripping MP3 copies of someone's music so you don't have to buy their CD - or even worse, so you can sell copies of those MP3's to make money - that is not free expression, but theft of work that you did not create for your own personal benefit. It is not the same thing.

A writer or musician has to invest time, materials, imagination, etc., into their work. It is no different than when a sculptor crafts a statue, or a potter shapes and kilns clay. Just because sounds and words are intangible does not negate the fact that it is their work, and if you want to use it, there is no reason they shouldn't expect some recompense for providing that work to you.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:16 am ]
Post subject: 
Speaking of all this, the new Radiohead album is available for purchase online for whatever price the consumer thinks it's worth. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any word on what the average amount paid is...
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/