daught
Well-known member
When I was in Washington at MT Rainier, I asked this old hag for a coke at the base lodge restaurant. I swear she looked at me like I was asking for blow. After repeating myself twice she asked "Oh, Coca-Cola?"
Piracy Laws
- Thread starter nobbie48
- Start date
When I was in Washington at MT Rainier, I asked this old hag for a coke at the base lodge restaurant. I swear she looked at me like I was asking for blow. After repeating myself twice she asked "Oh, Coca-Cola?"
OpenGambit
Banned
If you paid them to take pictures of you, pretty sure you own those pictures as that is "work for hire".
Its the reason why disney owns the characters ( and not the artist ). Same with software code, scientific discoveries, etc.
Depends on how the work is contracted. You can contract just for prints, which is the common thing for portrait shoots. That doesn't necessarily give you reproduction rights. The artists, who work for companies like Disney, are either directly employed by them (with a contract covering intellectual property while employed), or are under a specific performance contract.
I once worked for a computer company that wanted me to sign a contract, that stated anything I designed or invented during my tenure there belonged to the company. It carried no limitations on the type of product, the place it was developed, nor the times during which it was developed. I could create the better mouse trap in my home shop, on my own time, and it would have belonged to a computer company. I refused to sign.
This guy makes some good points ...although, obviously very biased
http://www.gonzotimes.com/2012/01/t...ningless-unless-we-end-intellectual-property/
"Copyright laws were written to keep others from making money from the work of another. They are used today to force payment from people who make no money from the work of another they just simply are enjoying the work. The money was never there from album sales for artists that was always taken by the record companies. The money came from merchandise and tours. The industry deceives us into thinking that if you listen to songs without paying them money you are somehow harming the artists. The only one who ever ‘stole’ from musicians was the record company execs and lawyers."
http://www.gonzotimes.com/2012/01/t...ningless-unless-we-end-intellectual-property/
"Copyright laws were written to keep others from making money from the work of another. They are used today to force payment from people who make no money from the work of another they just simply are enjoying the work. The money was never there from album sales for artists that was always taken by the record companies. The money came from merchandise and tours. The industry deceives us into thinking that if you listen to songs without paying them money you are somehow harming the artists. The only one who ever ‘stole’ from musicians was the record company execs and lawyers."
No, those aren't very good points at all. The music companies market the music. You wouldn't likely be going to the concerts, of an unknown band, and they wouldn't be taking in millions by performing then. The artists are under contract and compensated for their product, by record companies. Whether the level of compensation is adequate is a different topic of discussion, but no one forced them to sign the contracts.
In Canada a better argument is that the recording industry is already compensated, for illegal copies, by the levy placed upon recordable media. In fact it's because of this levy, that they themselves demanded, that no cases against illegal copiers has been successful since it came into effect (at least the last time I checked).
we do have laws against illegal distribution - selling others works, and thats why raids on certain stores in the pacific mall were successful.
Selling, yes. The issue I'm talking about, in the past lawsuits, involved free P2P transmission, IIRC.
well the recording industry can not have their cake and eat it too (despite trying)
Recent bills, that have been submitted in Parliament, would say otherwise.
You are absolutely right about this.
In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have added that quote to my post.
The point of the article (I think) is that they are creating bad laws to correct previously enacted bad laws that are based on bad ideas (intellectual property) ........and these are being pushed by huge corporations to preserve a dying business model.
And as I said, it's very one sided ..but he does make a compelling argument.
Intellectual Property isn't a bad idea. It's a necessary concept, to protect those who create art/concepts/ideas, that in themselves have value.
Isn't that what copyright if for?
What do you copyright, if there's no concept of Intellectual Property?
Copyright refers to laws that regulate the use of the work of a creator, such as an artist or author. This includes copying, distributing, altering and displaying creative, literary and other types of work. Unless otherwise stated in a contract, the author or creator of a work retains the copyright.
For a copyright to apply to a work, it must be an original idea that is put to use. The idea alone cannot be protected by copyright. It is the physical use of that idea, such as an illustration or a written novel, that is covered under copyright law.
[SUB]
Sources: [/SUB][SUB]Ralph E. Lerner and Judith Bresler. “All About Rights for Visual Artists.” Practising Law Institute, 2006. [/SUB]
The concept of copyright is based on the concept of Intellectual Property.
http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/
Yes, the World Intellectual Property Organization does seem to have a broader view but their definition:
http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/909/wipo_pub_909.html#works
..still doesn't include ideas
The first copyright law in the US was in 1790
The idea of intellectual property didn't come along until the 1990's
An 'idea' isn't something that can be protected, until it has been expressed. Back in the '80s I was trying to come up with a sensor, that would warn a driver if he was about to back into something. Auto makers now include this sort of thing on many vehicles, using the same technology that I originally envisioned. They owe me nothing.
If you trust wikipedia...
"The term intellectual property is used to describe many very different, unrelated legal concepts."
and to correct my post above:
"Modern usage of the term intellectual property goes back at least as far as 1867 [....] it did not enter popular usage until passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980"
"The term intellectual property is used to describe many very different, unrelated legal concepts."
and to correct my post above:
"Modern usage of the term intellectual property goes back at least as far as 1867 [....] it did not enter popular usage until passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980"
While I do occasionally consult Wikipedia, it's usually only to find better, more qualified sources
