| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (55)

Posted: Feb 9th 2007 2:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"No, if you had written that song you would have been DEAD FOR THE PAST SIXTY YEARS."

If your argument is that copyright law is in need of reform or that the terms are too long, you'd get no argument for me.

Using the disagreements with those aspects as a rationalization for infringement is where I run into issues with people.

"Hey, who do you think caused the collapse of Enron? It was the guys at the top fucking over the wage slaves. That's the worst analogy ever."

That wasn't the point. Your point is that infringement hurts the company. The end game of everyone doing this is that the company will eventually cease to exist. Who's hurt most by any major public corporation's failure? The public, who are its employees and its owners via the stock market.

Those fat cat execs you hate so much already have their millions.

"The public domain was the wellspring of creativity and derivative works (and yes, I defend derivative works because they on occasion add something of value)."

Um, you have no idea what you're talking about. Again, when was this magical time when everything was public domain?

Almost every major work of classical music was commissioned by someone wealthy, for example. Shakespeare wasn't writing for free.

"Do you know why all the classics are so cheap? Because they're all in the public domain, different publishers are put into competition and it lowers the prices."

Are the classics cheap? If you're talking about books, the answer is no. They cost the same as, er, Narnia. (I guess.)

The Odyssey (Penguin Classics): $10 at Amazon.com
Chronicles of Narnia: $10 at Amazon.com

The market for books determine their price, and competition with other books and demand is what sets the market rate.

"How many great books of the last century will be lost because the publishing companies decided that it wasn't worth the cost to publish them?"

None? They don't just disappear into the vapor. There's this wonderful "digital" technology the kids rave about which virtually guarantees that the great books of the last century won't disappear.

Also, not every author signs the rights of their books to the publisher in perpetuity.

Another question is this: how many great books would be lost because the original manuscript was lost and no one published it in the first place?

"For you see, I could go online and download these episodes in all of their glory, but it would be illegal - illegal even though it's not hurting anyone."

Such are the terms dictated to you by the creator of a work. I'm under no obligation to provide you with my works in perpetuity. If I made Manimal and I'd rather that work never appear on DVD, why wouldn't I get to control this?

By always turning this into a "big corporations vs. me" argument, you're forgetting that everything a corporation can do is available to any individual as well.

"If and when it is fixed and the public domain is resurrected, then hey, I might still steal things, but at least I won't feel good about it."

You rock! Stick it to the man!

Here's a better question about what you stand for: Do you pirate anonymously? If so, you're just looking to mooch free stuff. If you really want to take on copyright, be willing to do it in a very public way so you can get yourself arrested.

Civil disobedience isn't posting on forums under pseudonyms; it's believing enough in your cause to put your life and liberty on the line for it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say copyright isn't quite that important in the overall scheme of things.

Posted: Feb 9th 2007 3:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Grunge: "just because something is legal doesn't mean that its moral"

I agree, and likewise just because something (like say copying CDs for friends) is illegal, it doesn't mean that it's automatically immoral.

Several posters have a big problem with "trying to morally justify an illegal act" but that assumes that laws are always intended for the moral good, which is questionable, dontchya think?

Posted: Feb 9th 2007 7:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ 52

You're an idiot.

Posted: Feb 10th 2007 2:16AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@53

haha, actually, sounded like he had some pretty good points to me,

for once its actually been almost interesting reading a pointless internet argument,

both sides here have come up with some half decent points,

well ... carry on then ...

Posted: Mar 7th 2007 7:55AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
forever ;DD

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW