Copywrite laws are they to vague?

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Pax:
PvK, no offense, but your repeated cries against how corrupt, monolithically-conspiratorial "megacorporations" controlling this, that, and the other ... leaves me with nothing so much as the impression that you are, in a word ... a crackpot.

Nice. "No offense" but you're a "crackpot" Gee how could someone be offended by being called a crackpot.

[Pax]

[quote]Originally posted by DavidG:

Nice. "No offense" but you're a "crackpot" Gee how could someone be offended by being called a crackpot.

Back at you.

I didn't CALL him an actual crackpot; I said his words leave me with that IMPRESSION. There is a difference with saying one is left with the impression of someone being something, and saying they actually are that thing.

And IMO, PvK's not-quite-IMO-rational opposition to all things corporate is teetering dangerously on the edge of that particular precipice.

Sue me for being completely honest, eh?

[Phoenix-D]

He does have a point. If you, say, eliminate copyright entirely, you get something like so:

Guy makes a web comic, its popular. He isn't getting paid, but he doesn't care because he likes doing it. He has a modest, not huge, readership.

Someone else (with more money) sees this, turns his creation into a huge, over-marketed over commericalized thing. No one will go near the web comic except the original viewers, because they naturally think its a rip off of the over-marketed thing. The over-marketed rip off eventually dies its inevitable death, leaving the first guy with..jack. He gains nothing from the cash grab, and most people have been turned off his comic now too.

I see only a few problems with copyright law, and one of them is a law in general problem.

1. It Lasts too long, and really shouldn't be renewable.

2. Its too expensive to defend yourself from accusations, or go after violators. Smaller Groups HAVE been run into the ground by baseless (but expensive!) lawsuits.

[Pax]

Originally posted by PvK:
it's fundamentally silly and wasteful to not use computers and networks to do what they do with great and natural ease - duplicate and distribute data which, once we get over our ancient and corrupt economic and legal institutions, will allow us to use it to share all data with everyone freely. All that's required is a replacement for the corporate-dominated system of employment and intellectual property ownership, so that creative people can earn a reasonable wage by virtue of how much people appreciate their work, without a corporate monster devouring most of the profit and dictating what everyone creates.

Another thought for you, turning your words above to another concept and end:

it's fundamentally silly and wasteful to not use nuclear armaments and delivery systems to do what they do with great and natural ease - destroy cities and slay millions of innocents which, once we get over our respect for human life, will allow us to use it to obliterate all life on this planet. All that's required is a replacement for the instinctive system of morality, so that psychotic people can kill untold millions of people, without a single shred of guilt.

[ June 23, 2003, 19:06: Message edited by: Pax ]

[Phoenix-D]

Uh, Pax? I think I speak for more than myself when I say:

Where the HELL did that come from?

[Rojero]

Ditto

[Erax]

I think he meant to say that just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean we should go ahead and use it.

But there are, um, better ways to say it. In fact, I can't think of many worse ways to say it.

Pax, you sometimes come across as... intense. Too intense. Maybe you should reword your example.