Is copyright too long?

[2Parties]

I think it should go to the authors of similar stories that were written before Thunder Road that you stole the ideas from.

 

[jillian]

How can you inherit an idea or a concept?

I can hand you my car and house keys before I die. How can i hand you the words I spoke or wrote 30 years ago that are floating around the web, written in books around the world, and resonating in people's heads?

you don't copyright an 'idea'.

so if i wrote Thunder Road and that's the legacy I pass on to my children you think they should be divested of that? who should get the money? the record company? the collective we? or should it just be stolen by people who didn't create it.

The world is coming to an end, two days in a row Jillian has been right, which of course means in agreement with me.

ahhhh... a novel definition for being correct.

a third of my practice was in the area of intellectual property litigation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am attacking them because they are fundamentally wrong, abuse is just the result of that.

Because you can find exceptions to the rule doesn't mean it's right, and even if most of the times patents and copyrights "protected" the little guy it wouldn't mean it's right.

You believe it is wrong because you think that intellectual property is real. The words I write are as real as the house I build. Or do you think anyone can write something like Gone With the Wind? Can anyone design a skyscraper?

The examples you keep coming up with are wrong because you are pointing to things that have been around for centuries, and scoffing that it is impossible to profit off of ideas like them. On the other hand, you have no problem with people profiting off of actually making those springs, building those skyscrapers, or playing those songs. Do you think all labor should be free, or just the stuff you cannot do yourself?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think it should go to the authors of similar stories that were written before Thunder Road that you stole the ideas from.

No you don't.

 

[uscitizen]

How can you own anything 70 years after you die?

Well, you ask if my grandchildren "deserve" to own what I created. My question is, who deserves to own my creation MORE than my own family?

The rest of the world shouldn't have the wheel, internal combustion engines, or airbags without paying some random person who did nothing because someone who died 300, 200, or 70 years ago filed a scrap of paper?

so anyone should be able to use mickey mouse as they want?

Or is it different if an individual vs corporation?

 

[JBeukema]

I should also mention that endless copyrights on anything would be unconstitutional.

How?

Moron.

Scroll up.

 

[JBeukema]

I GUARANTEE you that I have read and studied the COTUS more than you. Your name calling doesn't change that fact.

You obviously have no idea why it would be unconstitutional , and realized it after making a stupid statement and had nothing to back it up that's why you resorted to insults.

Copyrights are NOT unconstitutional.

Hi, you have received -66 reputation points from ConHog.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
if you were half as intelligent as you thought yourself you would be dangerous, luckily for us you are not

Regards,
ConHog

Note: This is an automated message.

Fail, moron. I never said copyrights are unconstitutional. I said that infinite copyrights would be unconstitutional.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, the Copyright and Patent Clause (or Patent and Copyright Clause), the Intellectual Property Clause and the Progress Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
“ To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Learn to fucking read.

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl105-298.pdf


copyrights can be renewed, essentially into perpetuity, YOU learn to read.

Retroactively extending the copyrights was unconstitutional under the ex post faco provision and as an attempt to circumvent the above.

 

[JBeukema]

Fail, moron. I never said copyrights are unconstitutional. I said that infinite copyrights would be unconstitutional.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, the Copyright and Patent Clause (or Patent and Copyright Clause), the Intellectual Property Clause and the Progress Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
“ To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Learn to fucking read.

That is not what you said.

I should also mention that endless copyrights on anything would be unconstitutional.

But thanks for moving the goal posts.

Regardless, the Constitution also provides for treaties that take precedent over US Law, and the Constitution. The Obama administration is currently involved in secret national security negotiations regarding copyrights, and if that treaty ends up saying that copyrights are eternal that would be Constitutional.

If you knew anything about the Constitution you would know that.

Endless and Infinite are synonymous, you dolt.

Learn to read.

Any treaty which conflicts with the Constitution is unconstitutional, same as any law Congress passes.

 

[JBeukema]

Bullshit.

If I "invented" the metal spring and and developed a method on how to manufacture it, you copied my design and got the government to say you invented it, you could legally prevent me from manufacturing something I created using "intellectual property".

If I "invented" the idea of skyscrapers and the government says it's my idea (even though the idea has existed for a loooong time), could I prevent anyone from making what I define as a skyscraper?

If I "invented" 4-4 musical timing could I prevent other people from using and profiting off of it?

It's asinine when you truly get to the root of the issue.

That is exactly how it works, so why are you saying it is ridiculous?

'Patent trolling' firms sue their way to profits - Business - U.S. business - msnbc.com

What is asinine is people abusing the system, not the system itself. Or do you blame the laws against murder for people getting killed?

yes, breaking the law by killing someone is totally the same thing as using moronic laws to scam the system

 

[JBeukema]

I am attacking them because they are fundamentally wrong

O RLY? You realize of course, that without them, there's no reason for anyone not already in a massive corporation to research or develop any new technologies, right?

You do understand the profit motive, don't you? It's the reason we have the modern automobile, the mp3 player, and Blu-Ray technology.

 

[JBeukema]

so you do not believe in inheritance?

You support 100% inheritance tax?

How can you inherit an idea or a concept?

I can hand you my car and house keys before I die. How can i hand you the words I spoke or wrote 30 years ago that are floating around the web, written in books around the world, and resonating in people's heads?

you don't copyright an 'idea'.

so if i wrote Thunder Road and that's the legacy I pass on to my children you think they should be divested of that? who should get the money? the record company? the collective we? or should it just be stolen by people who didn't create it.

Once you're dead, it should pass into the public domain.

You kids, if they want to make money off your work, can print the book or record or whatever Thunder Road is and compete in the free market you people all seem to love the rest of the time.

Funny that so many of you are the same ones who speak out over 'entitlement mentality' yet then say someone's entitled to money because their great-great-great-great-grandfather happened to write a stageplay that inspired a movie (derivative work) hundreds of years later.

 

[jillian]

I think it should go to the authors of similar stories that were written before Thunder Road that you stole the ideas from.

No you don't. Not anymore than you think Nikos Kazantzakis' royalties should go to the writers of the new testament.

We all have inspirations. I could have written "well, i like paying music so come take a ride with me". springsteen wrote 'well, i got this guitar and learned how to make it talk, and my car's out back if you're ready to take that long walk from your front porch to my front seat'.

see the difference?

leonard bernstein wrote West Side Story... beautiful in its own right. but he got the idea from shakespeare's romeo and juliet... .also beautiful in its own right, and while having certain similarities, were both original and extraordinary works.

and then springsteen came along and wrote a song with the lines 'there's an opera out on the turnpike, there's a ballet being fought out in the alley' after watching west side story.

and when 30,000 people sing your words back to you, i figure you deserve to get paid for them.

so should you because their creation is no different than the creation of anything else in which we have a proprietary interest. an architect derives inspiration from many places, too...

if you value creativity in society, then you have to value the creative people whose creativity is our soundtrack and who give us the literature that inspires us.

 

[jillian]

How can you inherit an idea or a concept?

I can hand you my car and house keys before I die. How can i hand you the words I spoke or wrote 30 years ago that are floating around the web, written in books around the world, and resonating in people's heads?

you don't copyright an 'idea'.

so if i wrote Thunder Road and that's the legacy I pass on to my children you think they should be divested of that? who should get the money? the record company? the collective we? or should it just be stolen by people who didn't create it.

Once you're dead, it should pass into the public domain.

You kids, if they want to make money off your work, can print the book or record or whatever Thunder Road is and compete in the free market you people all seem to love the rest of the time.

Funny that so many of you are the same ones who speak out over 'entitlement mentality' yet then say someone's entitled to money because their great-great-great-great-grandfather happened to write a stageplay that inspired a movie (derivative work) hundreds of years later.

why? its my property the same as if i were passing along a house to my son. who are you to divest my family of its property? and, more importantly, why would you want to?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I should also mention that endless copyrights on anything would be unconstitutional.

How?

Moron.

Scroll up.

Asking question makes a person a moron, nice to know.

Actually, from you, the only thing a sane person could consider that is a complement.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fail, moron. I never said copyrights are unconstitutional. I said that infinite copyrights would be unconstitutional.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, the Copyright and Patent Clause (or Patent and Copyright Clause), the Intellectual Property Clause and the Progress Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
“ To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Learn to fucking read.

That is not what you said.

I should also mention that endless copyrights on anything would be unconstitutional.

But thanks for moving the goal posts.

Regardless, the Constitution also provides for treaties that take precedent over US Law, and the Constitution. The Obama administration is currently involved in secret national security negotiations regarding copyrights, and if that treaty ends up saying that copyrights are eternal that would be Constitutional.

If you knew anything about the Constitution you would know that.

Endless and Infinite are synonymous, you dolt.

Learn to read.

Any treaty which conflicts with the Constitution is unconstitutional, same as any law Congress passes.

If only life were so simple.

 

[uscitizen]

That is not what you said.



But thanks for moving the goal posts.

Regardless, the Constitution also provides for treaties that take precedent over US Law, and the Constitution. The Obama administration is currently involved in secret national security negotiations regarding copyrights, and if that treaty ends up saying that copyrights are eternal that would be Constitutional.

If you knew anything about the Constitution you would know that.

Endless and Infinite are synonymous, you dolt.

Learn to read.

Any treaty which conflicts with the Constitution is unconstitutional, same as any law Congress passes.

If only life were so simple.

It can be.

 

[JBeukema]

How?

Moron.

Scroll up.

Asking question makes a person a moron, nice to know.

Actually, from you, the only thing a sane person could consider that is a complement.

Askin a question that's already been answered a few posts earlier makes you a moron.


Scroll up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How can you own anything 70 years after you die?

Well, you ask if my grandchildren "deserve" to own what I created. My question is, who deserves to own my creation MORE than my own family?

The rest of the world shouldn't have the wheel, internal combustion engines, or airbags without paying some random person who did nothing because someone who died 300, 200, or 70 years ago filed a scrap of paper?

Actually, all of those things would be patented, not copyrighted. Quite different. Furthermore, copyrights and patents don't prevent people from having those things. They merely prevent people other than the inventor - or his heirs - from PROFITING from the invention without paying him for its use. Are you suggesting that big corporations should be able to use some poor little inventor's work to make obscene amounts of money without having to pay for his labor?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Intellectual "property" is a contradiction of terms. More libertarians and free-marketers need to realize this. You can't own a thought, you can't own a musical sequence, and you can't own an idea.

You CAN, however, own the tangible expression of all of those things. Besides, if I don't own the thoughts in my own head, what else CAN I be said to truly own?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Moron.

Scroll up.

Asking question makes a person a moron, nice to know.

Actually, from you, the only thing a sane person could consider that is a complement.

Askin a question that's already been answered a few posts earlier makes you a moron.


Scroll up.

It might have been answered before I ask, but I tend to read threads in chronological order, which means I read your post before I even read the post where someone else asked the same question. And I read that question before I read your answer. You might start at the end of a book, but intelligent people prefer to understand the background before jumping to conclusions.

Which makes you callinng anyone a moron a compliment.