Why are Democrats so reactionary regarding copyright law?

[LiberadorHugo]

Stuff like the DMCA and increasingly longer copyright terms would lose overwhelmingly if they were put to referendum. Why do the Democrats join the GOP in ceding this issue to the elite rather than to the people?

[1corona4u]

1. Who says they do? What are you talking about?

[LiberadorHugo]

4. Everytime legislation regarding anti-consumer copyright reform comes up...

It passes with massive bipartisan support. Does any intelligent American really believe that Life+90 is a good thing or that people should be thrown in jail for cracking European DVDs or corporate DRM schemes?

[dem629]

44. That is a person who wants stuff but doesn't want to pay for it.

Simple as that.

Old, tired argument.

On to more important threads. sigh.

[begin_within]

2. Because I make my living on the fact that I own the rights to what I wrote and created

If there was no copyright law I would be destitute. What I write, photograph and produce has to be protected by law, otherwise I would starve to death. That's why.

[Lint Head]

11. Right on! I've been a songwriter, musician and artist all of my life.

Why do people consider the arts as something that should be free? There would be no continually 'truly' creative things unless the artist can make a living. There are exceptions to the rule. Some people create with no compensation. The thing is that compensation insures is the continual creation of art. There are starving musicians and artists but why should they starve? Why should a brick layer, electrician or any other professional person starve?

:dem:

[LiberadorHugo]

20. That's nice...

I'm still not willing to pay you twice to listen to the same song in different media formats; likewise, I would never defend you if you regional encrypt your work and gouge people in Japan or in continental Europe.

[stopbush]

22. Why should your place of employment pay you for doing the same

thing every day? Didn't you do the job already the day before?

[LiberadorHugo]

26. Not the same thing...

A Metallica song is identical whether I play it on Guitar Hero or listen to it on my computer. I paid for those songs, whether you're willing to accept that or not. Live performances are a different kettle of fish because there is a material difference between the compositions.

[1corona4u]

27. You're wrong.

Sorry, but you are.

[LiberadorHugo]

31. Really?

So if purchase a DVD, break the encryption so that I can have it in .avi format on my computer, and then not distribute the DVD or the avi file to others, I'm doing something wrong?

I don't get it.

[apocalypsehow]

41. Ah, here's the phony refrain "bu-but that's different!!!1" that always emerges at this stage

No, sport, it's not a "different kettle of fish": what you're arguing for is the equivalent of your employer at Company X saying "do you remember yesterday's work performance you gave our company? It was so outstanding I'm going to send you over to Company Y to do the same thing! Loan you out, so to speak." He then informs you that this will be done without pay, and when you protest, he arrogantly states "I already paid for that day of work product, whether you're willing to accept that or not. Now, get cracking."

You really do need to buy a clue.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Then listen to your own music

And nothing else. You want to steal from artists to make your life more convenient. Not willing to pay for a new car myself, so I don't have one. See how that works?
How many formats are you using anyway? Why?
Was the hardware all given to you for nothing?

[MattBaggins]

36. Shouldn't a bricklayers family

have the force of law to give them royalties for 90 years every time someone glances at the brick walls he made?

[leftofcool]

16. Good grief! Me too

Copyright laws are necessary

[eShirl]

3. which Democrats?

[LiberadorHugo]

5. The fascist DMCA was passed unanimously by the US Senate...

And it was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

[1corona4u]

8. The DMCA was much needed.

I'm in the internet graphics/website business, and for me, it works. Sorry, but I don't agree with ANYTHING you have said.

[LiberadorHugo]

17. It's possible that some of its provisions were necessary...

But there were also a lot of over-arching provisions that needlessly restrict civil liberties and needlessly criminalize people. Why couldn't Democrats vote down the law and write a different bill with the provisions people in web design and graphic arts need top protect their works. You know damn well that just as a good law can have bad provisions, a bad law can have good ones.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. That is jargon heavy and fact light

Get specific. What civil liberties do you imagine are restricted by saying you can not steal? In what way are people criminalized, and why is it needless?
Talking points with no basis. What provisions were over-arching, and in what way?

[Fresh_Start]

6. if its okay to steal other peoples creative efforts

why not allow stealing of other assets without penalty?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. Wow, against copyright extensions = okay to steal other peoples creative efforts?

Do you people EVER tire of using the straw man fallacy?

[jberryhill]

18. The OP referred to several things

The OP referred to copyright extension and the DMCA (which itself had a number of different provisions - some good, some not).

I gather that calling the DMCA "fascist" as a whole requires that I agree it is fascist to provide a liability safe harbor for ISP's and webhosts who respond to the DMCA notice/counternotice procedure.

Can you explain to me why the notice/counternotice service provider safe harbor provision is fascist?

[LiberadorHugo]

10. I never said that..

Copyright law should be applied according to the following principles:

1. No schemes to restrict the global distribution and transmission of media.

2. Buy a piece of media once and be allowed to run it anywhere. Why am I a pirate for buying Death Magnetic on Guitar Hero and then downloading it so that I can listen to it while not playing? It's the same damn songs. Metallica and their label have already been duly compensated for my acquisition of the works.

3. No retroactivity when copyright terms are extended: Mickey Mouse was created when copyright terms were 50 years; he should be in the public domain whether Disney likes it or not. Walt's dead, so who gives a flying fuck about the impoverishment fo a few overpaid executives.

4. No penalties for breaking encryption for non-infringing use. You buy a CD, you have the right to listen to that music anywhere and in any format you want.

[1corona4u]

14. Wow....

interesting set of principles you have there.

[LiberadorHugo]

23. How am I wrong?

I think they represent an adequate balance between consumer protections, civil liberties, and the ability to make a profit. Do you really consider regional encryption, a lack of rights to time and format-shifting, penalties for breaking encrpytion for the purpose of personal, non-infringing use of a piece of media (i.e. Circumventing a watermark or a root kit so that I can listen to a CD on my computer), and overly long and constantly extending copyright terms (thanks to the lobbying power of big business and big entertainment) to be good things?

[MattBaggins]

37. What is wrong with his priciples?

I disagree with him on point two; only as a matter of that specific example.

He is 100% spot on.

[1corona4u]

39. Oh for fuck sake...

the fucking world is crumbling, and is being financially destroyed, and he's worried about his DVD rights. Get the fuck out. This is the lamest distraction I have ever seen.

Jesus. I don't care to post further on stupid shit like this.

[CJCRANE]

50. Agreed. IMO we need the "Skip It" feature back nt.

[MattBaggins]

38. Hey Knee Jerk

He said nothing about stealing.

Why don't you apologize?

[kenny blankenship]

9. Hollywood

Money.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Because what I create is mine

and it is also not yours. So screw you and your desire to steal from artists.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. See post #7. -nt

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Yep. He's wanting to steal

my family's dinner.

[Solon]

43. Question, if I buy one of your works in a DRM format...

and the DRM maker let's say goes out of business or no longer supports the DRM scheme used in the work, do I not have a right to get rid of the DRM on my own? I own the work I bought from you, is it still stealing if I don't want to repurchase it from you?

[jacksonian]

29. screw artists who have no desire to share

I am sympathetic with the ownership issues of the arts. But art is not a wholly a possession - art ain't worth shit without an audience, unlike your car.

Audience means access. Access means availibility, and it means availibilty to those who cannot always pay - as a kid all the reading I did, that has meant so much to my adult life, came from libraries with little or no recompension for these authors. And, I would bet, the same is true for all those who wrote those books. If I, as a 10 year old, had to buy everything, I wouldn't have read anything. If I hadn't read as a kid, I would not be in the market for a book a today. And that is a big issue you can't ignore in this debate.

I make art, music actually, and need protections. Don't exaggerate my position to a all-or-nothing stance. But at the same time, our culture needs access, and especially access specifically by those not in control of financial resources like kids. So many of the arguments ignore basic truths - most of the art in the world, most of the great art, was made by people without much compensation - known as folk art and oral traditions. And today, it is far more likely we are defending those who would limit access for profit than actual artisitc creators, well known for selling things "for a song."

Current copywrite laws don't admit our increased capacity to share is a mixed bag, bad for making it easy to steal, but also a powerful good to bring us together culturally.

[MattBaggins]

34. So don't put it up for sale

Once I buy it I have rights to my copy short of giving/selling it to others.

[Rabrrrrrr]

13. Because creative people, who create intengibles, have a right to protect their income stream.

[LiberadorHugo]

24. How does regional encryption protect income streams?

All it protects is price gouging and Hollywood greed. Why should an imported video or game not work here? How does that benefit the average artist in any way?

[MattBaggins]

35. They are not going to respond to the actual issues

They just want to call you a thief and tug on heart strings with tear jerking stories about starving.


Hell I work in the Biopharm industry and if I were to discover a cure for cancer; why don't I and my family get life+90 for it? I could cure childhood diabetes and make less money then Brittany Spears made off her silly bubble gum career.

[WA98070]

15. I wish they'd be as reactionary about my right to privacy!!!!!

[BumRushDaShow]

30. Why is this in GDP? And not GD?

:shrug:

[1corona4u]

46. I just asked the mods the same thing.

It should not even be here.

[DefenseLawyer]

32. Do they pay you to fuck that bear? n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

33. The copyright laws ARE out of control

Artists and songwriters (which usually are one and the same, since I don't buy bubblegum crap) deserve to be paid for their work. So I buy a CD, or a DVD, or a concert ticket, or whatever media format is out there anymore. I don't pay for Mp3 or any other lossy format that can be (theoretically) erased by one mistaken touch of a button, but if other people would rather buy 12 lossy files from I-Tunes than the actual album, that's up to them.

Up until that point, the laws are perfectly reasonable. Beyond that is where it gets crazy. When I purchase a CD or a DVD, it is MINE. I paid my royalties to the artist, and the ridiculous markup to the record company. If I want to rip it to my hard drive, or portable player, or make a mix CD because I don't feel like dragging along 40 different Rolling Stones CD's with me everywhere I go, that's my right, as long as I'm not selling copies of it. But the RIAA nazis, if they had their way, would try to charge me for each and every time I listened to a song.

As far as downloading lossless music goes, I won't do so for anything commercially available, but I will definitely do so for bootlegs, out of print stuff that the labels refuse to put out, and "leaked" albums that aren't for sale yet. We all know damn well that it's the labels that "leak" them anyway. And in each of those cases, I'll buy the "legal" copies, if and when they are made commercially available. Because let's face it, a lot of bootlegs sound like shit, because the tapes were copied and re-copied God knows how many times before digital copying was made available, and even the best sounding boots probably aren't going to sound as good as an official release from the actual master tapes would, if the label ever wises up and releases it. I.e. Springsteen's "Tracks" box, the Beatles "Anthology", Dylan's "Bootleg Series", etc.

Or there's always the Grateful Dead/Pearl Jam/Phish approach where you release dozens of shows on disc yourself....

[Solon]

40. A lot of people on this thread don't realize that the DMCA was designed to circumvent Fair-Use...

rights. Such as being able to make backups of copyrighted material for your own use.

[apocalypsehow]

42. Because stealing someone's work is wrong?

:shrug:

[Solon]

45. Question for those who defend the DMCA...

Real world example, I bought the entire set of Futurama on DVD. I then had the encryption cracked and ripped them to my hard drive on my computer. I then shifted them to another format that I can play on my Nintendo DS, itself having its encryption cracked to allow me to do this. This is so I can watch videos at work, which can get really slow.

My question is this, did I steal anyone's work?

[1corona4u]

47. ..

[Solon]

49. Look up fair use rights...

and see if that applies to what I did. Especially provision 4.

[apocalypsehow]

48. Fair question, here's an honest answer: I don't know. I'm not defending the "DMCA" in particular,

just the concept of copyright protection for artists, writers, and musicians in general. I won't pretend to understand all the technical/legal nuances of just when any given work is actually "stolen" when it comes to scenarios as you describe above.