Copyright

[Xanex]

Im not in th USA, im UK but from what I have read and heard some parts of the US constitution seem to protect you the person, but in fact open the can of worms to the government to own you if they so wish.

If read carefully, the average US citizen actaully has little of their own rights that cant be overturned or blocked by some ammendment or courtcase.

This website was quite a intersting read, dunno how much of it is true though.

http://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm

( I particualy like the bit about your children not being your own)

But this post is aobut copyright anyway....

Quote: From RIAA website
"The Congress shall have Power . . . 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 ."

(/offpostTopic what makes me laugh is that most american companys believe that they can succesfully sue a person even tho they are not in the country, haha, INFO: USA law is just that, USA ONLY. unless some international law comes about then nothing can be done, even then the law only applies to those countrys that are part of that international union.)

Basically copyright is that you own the rights to anything that you yourself have made, to prevent other people from stealing your ideas and claiming them as your own. The origenal Copyright has nothing to do with ripping a song to your pc thou it holds for most things.

EG Dyson the vaccum cleaner guy , he has to copyright his designs so people dont use them in their machines.

Though if you read it carefully, it says for a limited time. This opens the doors for the copyright protectors to charge you countless sums of money to keep your idea your idea.

Gone where the days where if you have the deed to your house then its your house, and if someone has your deed, by law its their house, though you would like to try and proove that it is your house and thus we move to todays "ownership" standards.

(Now im not bashing the usa constitution, nor do i wish a flame war, tho i feel that some heavy patriots will take offense to what i say because im challenging their beliefs, and because of their Quote: sheer bloody mindedness in thinking that the USA is the center of the world, -excerpt from some post i cant find right now.)
But if people use their brains and not believe the things that they have been spoon fed over the decades then they will see the truth.)

Now copyright has taken on another form being that it now is supposed to protect the owners money, since each song cost money each copy is vital, they are all like scrooges hording their copys of songs. So if u copy a song you are stealing from the owner (haha). It reminds me of my mum, she goes shopping and its sale day, she buys somthing that is reduced, comes home and says "look how much i saved, i reply "u aint saved nothing, uve spent that money actaully"

Just some random BS that popped into my head right now,

Xanex

[Jibbler]

Interesting opinion, I especially liked the reference to your mom.

[Xanex]

EDIT: typo

Yea mums can be like that sometimes.

Its like go figure

[aNiZeGuy]

lol i never read that shit


besdies u think the police r gonna come torugh ur door , take ur computer away an dbe arrested

[will233]

....................copyrigth laws are a big joke.........no one can or will enforce them................its all just talk............

[TIDE-HSV]

No, the copywright laws are not a joke. They're just looking for a proper "handle" to enforce them. For decades the RIAA has employed people to tour the countryside, even into small lounges and the like. When they hear a protected song, they log the performance and the performer. They may attend several nights in a row. They return to home base and the owner of the lounge gets a letter. He's given the choice of paying the royalty per song (prohibitively expensive) or paying an annual fee. When my brother passed away, I inherited the responsibility of running his lounge for a couple of years, so I know what I'm talking about. Their problem is that they haven't found a way to move this model for collection into the cyber age. We're too slippery, so far. But they will keep trying. I think it's a mistake to call them a "joke." Those who don't think the heat's going to be turned up in this area, at least in the states, are, at best, naive.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 18:03
They may attend several nights in a row. They return to home base and the owner of the lounge gets a letter. He's given the choice of paying the royalty per song (prohibitively expensive) or paying an annual fee.

Apples to Oranges my friend. Performing a song, in front of a croud, for profit, is different than sharing a file over the internet. No one is profiting from the filesharing here.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Jibbler+21 April 2003 - 00:11--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jibbler @ 21 April 2003 - 00:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 18:03
They may attend several nights in a row.&nbsp; They return to home base and the owner of the lounge gets a letter.&nbsp; He&#39;s given the choice of paying the royalty per song (prohibitively expensive) or paying an annual fee.

Apples to Oranges my friend. Performing a song, in front of a croud, for profit, is different than sharing a file over the internet. No one is profiting from the filesharing here. [/b][/quote]
Specious, at best.

[TIDE-HSV]

There is no "for profit" parameter built into our copywright law - nor any other country I know of.

[Jibbler]

Yes, well, you wouldn&#39;t need to copyright something unless it were for profit now would you? If it were publically available, then it would not need a copyright. For all you non believers, this quote is from websters.com, from their definition of a copyright.

Use of copyright to restrict redistribution is actually
immoral, unethical, and illegitimate. It is a result of
brainwashing by monopolists and corporate interests and it
violates everyone&#39;s rights. Copyrights and patents hamper
technological progress by making a naturally abundant resource
scarce. Many, from communists to right wing libertarians, are
trying to abolish intellectual property myths.

The entire article can be found here.

Websters Dictionaries have been in print for over 100 years. Care to find me an older source which would be more reliable?