Looking Back At Copyright Predictions 148
Techdirt has an interesting look back at some of the more interesting predictions on copyright. The article looks at two different pre-DMCA papers and compares them to what has happened in the world of copyright. "The second paper is by Pamela Samuelson, and it discusses (again, quite accurately) the coming power grab by "copyright maximalists" via the DMCA, entitled The Copyright Grab. It clearly saw the intention of the DMCA to remove user rights, and grant highly questionable additional rights and powers to copyright holders in an online world. Samuelson lays out many concerns about where this is headed -- including how these proposals appear to trample certain fair use rights -- and in retrospect, her fears seem to have been backed up by history. Samuelson, by the way, has just written a new paper that is also worth reading pointing out how ridiculous current copyright statutory rates are -- an issue of key importance in the ongoing Tenebaum lawsuit, which (thankfully) the judge in the case is going to consider."
Re:Need to make it clear (Score:1, Informative)
What I'd like to make clear, though, is that I fully oppose those people who would like to take it a step too far, and claim that there's no such thing as intellectual property, no property rights, that people don't have the right to the product of their own ideas, etc.
Bullshit! I have a 15-year-old, and neither he nor any of his generation seem to have any concept of digital copyright. The content industry has entirely failed at educating the masses, and their ultimate demise is completely assured. You can't put 90% or even 30% of the people in jail. We learned that during prohibition. If everyone is breaking the law, the law must be struck down. Same thing with marijuana. Same damn fucking thing.
Sorry, Brian but you will fail under the weight of the masses. Fuck you, sir!
-Dan East
Re:Let's get back to the beginning. (Score:3, Informative)
You don't really know what lobbying is, do you? It's not the same thing as bribery. It's quite necessary in our system too.
Re:Need to make it clear (Score:1, Informative)
Take the high road and support individual rights across the board, and reject government intervention in the economy.
All copyright legislation is obviously government intervention in the economy. I absolutely support your individual rights to profit from any ideas you may have. I don't support your right to prevent others from exercising their own rights, simply because you had a similar idea first.
Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. That is the ultimate government intervention.
Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (Score:3, Informative)
There was music and art long before copyright existed.
There is music and art created under copyleft licenses.
Re:Taking credit is not copyright infringement (Score:3, Informative)
Funny thing. In the U.S. at least, taking credit for someone else's work is not a copyright infringement.
Did I say it was? They are all violations of property rights - that is what unites them. Whether it's fraud or copyright infringement is irrelevant to the question of whether it violates rights and should be prosecuted.
Re:Need to make it clear (Score:3, Informative)
Clerks [wikipedia.org] which had been shot for US$27,575 in the convenience store where director Kevin Smith worked, grossed over US$3 million in theaters, launching Smith's career and reinvigorating the field of independent films.
Pi [wikipedia.org] had a low budget ($60,000), but proved a financial success at the box office ($3.2 million gross in the U.S.) despite only a limited release to theaters. It has sold steadily on DVD.