If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
One of the irritating issues regarding this discussion comes from the... "infallible" nature that copyright and patent law are ascribed. As soon as Mickey Mouse stops getting his protection extended, I might be more inclined to think of infringement in a more negative light.
But where there's a potential for money, there's a fat, greasy hand reaching for it.
I don't think that absolute opposition to copyright is better than mickey mouse extensions to nullify the actual benefits of copyright as used for the basis for having intellectual property, an increase in shared public knowledge in the public domain. It should be limited to commercial infringement (after all, music on the radio used be free advertising for sales, now companies have to pay to play those advertisements if they play the radio at work...).
Copyright needs to stay limited to less than two decades and it must only apply to commercial ventures. Infringement without profit shouldn't be an issue. If what you are selling can be copied and shared in 10 seconds by a 12 year old, it has no physical value and you should focus your efforts to make money on something else, like live shows, rights for inclusion in movies and ads.
Isn't the book he is reading from copyrighted? Too funny.
Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.
Europe doesn't recognize software patents and yet software still gets written there. (Although attempts continue to be made to create the same environment of suppression of innovation there that we "enjoy" in the US.)
Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?
snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."
Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."