agreed… the new copyright laws are so over the top ridiculous that they extend the word draconian. a society that centralizes its efforts on copyright under the guise of their ideas of protecting rights is what keeps society from actually benefiting from that technology and innovating further. and what purpose does it serve to have laws like, for example, the person who takes your photograph with your camera holds the copyright to that photo. that is moronic and only serves to hold a place for some future extension of some further moronic principle. there should be some protection for persons that create, but honestly, what person over the age of four doesn’t realize that the reason the music industry isn’t making money is b/c 1)they’ve pissed off their customers (way to turn your customers into criminals) and 2) have been too busy trying to fight against the masses instead of working with them. but that’s what happens when you put people in government who doesn’t have any knowledge about the situation as a whole and jump in reaction to try to get votes for the next time around (obviousy, from their big supporters and not us, the little people who actually consume most of the technology).
Exactly. We as a society “pay” for many kinds of common goods.
We pay X for bridges and Y for firefighters. We “pay” for culture by offering a copyright. Why is increasing the social “pay out” (extending copyright) for culture more important than giving firefighters more money for the social service they provide?
I think the answer is “look to who benefits”.
Leave a Response
What I'm Doing...
So far, I'm happy with the 3G iPhone. 3G data is surprisingly zippy on Fido. Anyone have any advice on the best Twitter iPhone app? 3 days ago
My Del.icio.us links
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm (#)
agreed… the new copyright laws are so over the top ridiculous that they extend the word draconian. a society that centralizes its efforts on copyright under the guise of their ideas of protecting rights is what keeps society from actually benefiting from that technology and innovating further. and what purpose does it serve to have laws like, for example, the person who takes your photograph with your camera holds the copyright to that photo. that is moronic and only serves to hold a place for some future extension of some further moronic principle. there should be some protection for persons that create, but honestly, what person over the age of four doesn’t realize that the reason the music industry isn’t making money is b/c 1)they’ve pissed off their customers (way to turn your customers into criminals) and 2) have been too busy trying to fight against the masses instead of working with them. but that’s what happens when you put people in government who doesn’t have any knowledge about the situation as a whole and jump in reaction to try to get votes for the next time around (obviousy, from their big supporters and not us, the little people who actually consume most of the technology).
May 24th, 2008 at 8:05 am (#)
Exactly. We as a society “pay” for many kinds of common goods.
We pay X for bridges and Y for firefighters. We “pay” for culture by offering a copyright. Why is increasing the social “pay out” (extending copyright) for culture more important than giving firefighters more money for the social service they provide?
I think the answer is “look to who benefits”.