Imagine a SOTU this style ;)

First you take D.C. Then you take New York.

I loved that little lesson, QRS. Still, it isn't the copyright itself but rather the unreasonable length that is objectionable.

As the video pointed out, it was once 14 years, (but renewable for 14 more. Then 28 renewable for 28.) When CR owners are forced to renew their CR, it forces them to be vigilant. And unguarded works will pass into the public domain. CR now is way too long.

The obvious irony here is that Disney made many works based on public domain material. Ahh, greed. Too much is never enough.

QRS’ position (as I understand it) is threefold.

1. Copyrights are extensions of the fundamental concept of monopolies. QRS hates monopolies, since they feed on each other and snowball into tyranny. QRS prefers a society with an ethos based on free exchange. I’m a bit skeptical of doing away with copyrights altogether. If you create a great painting or novel, what’s to prevent someone from copying it and mass-producing it, cutting you out of gain? QRS has an answer to that, but I’m not clear about it.

2. Copyrights are one manifestation of the notion of “intellectual property rights” – a notion that is hideously flawed. Such “rights” force people to pay ROYALTIES in perpetuity. They are DIVINE “rights.” They are used by the rich to enslave the masses. They drive up prices. They enrich lawyers. They form ever-increasing spirals of tyranny. They force companies to pay more and more on legal defense, rather than on production and efficiency.

3. The copyright system (like the patent system) has created a structure so corrupt and convoluted that hardly anyone can understand it anymore. It is a grand system of smoke and mirrors. The rich and powerful simply claim you have infringed their “intellectual property rights,” thereby putting the burden of proof on you. You have violated their "rights." Thus, copyrights extend far beyond the field of "intellectual property." They twist our entire notions of morality.

The system is insane. It is a monster. It has a life of its own. It has no end. It gets more tyrannical all the time. The U.S. government now wants to make copyright “infringement” punishable by life in prison. You don’t even have to commit “infringement.” You can be prosecuted for merely “intending” to do so.

Note the subtle change. If you try to commit murder but fail, you can be charged with attempted murder, which is not the same as actual murder. However, under the proposed changes in copyright laws, there will be no difference between “intending” to commit “infringement” and actually committing “infringement.”

The copyright system is killing us.

Naturally Jews love it.

See http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/1669

And she though that my view that copyright is not necessary and is actually counter productive. I think if a work like a book is good there is always a market for it. a copy is just like publicity. Any publicity is good publicity. I actually don't buy a book until i read it. If the author provides a PDF of it for me to read i will. if i like the book i purchase it immediately. not because some cop told me to but the WORK was of VALUE to me to Own. Making your customer a felon to be investigated doe nothing to foster a lasting relationship of any value. i would read whole novels before i bought the hardcover. Sometimes i would reread the hard cover to see if it was edited. Point is that concepts of Property on things like PDF files and MP3 songs is not being looked at properly. A visit to the record store should include a full player or Ten of songs AS PRE VIEW content all without this DRM bossiness included in them

Same as books. Conceptually the market is large enough to support any fair and realistic business on the good will of general folks actually wanting the real thing to use as they see fit. The Money changers all have you thinking that a easily recreated thing like a MP3 is somehow costing a record sale loss. I would counter with the Music industry could over night bloom again with a acceptance of MP3 as the new Preview and evaluation samples and nothing more. The industry could on demand for content QUADRUPLE over night on the new found SELF promotion network they don't have to pay for at all. Do you think that just because i heard a Mp3 of My band i don't want there whole album with the notes and photos to use? Did Universal lose a sale on the BSG first season DVD because i downloaded it in Xvid off the net two months before it made Network TV here? No i still bought it i even bought season 2. Well trust is a concept some don't understand some do. I do know that the next time i buy a DVD i will be checking it out first. Making that Easy is a no-brainier. But record executives and movie producers are so stubborn and greedy that they just want to make everyone pay over and over for the same old stuff at the same old inflated prices. No deals. And they want to actually tell you how to use that content or on what device.

They will learn. Or not.

First you take D.C. Then you take New York.

I agree with you about the CR abuse and intellectual property. The notion of Property always causes problems, largely because of Greed.

If we are to agree that there is property, then we must devise rules as to its use. Locke said that property is created by labor; That a man has property in his person, and that by mixing his labor with the common property he creates his own personal property. I'll go one further and say that intellectual property belongs to its creator because it originated in his person. It is a creation of pure intellect, and not fashioned from the common creation. (Of course, I personally believe that people don't create anything good; we are merely channels for the graces of our Devine Creator.)

The Constitutional foundation is secure. Patents and CR are allowed to promote science and the useful arts. But the USSC screwed up in allowing the extention to go as far as it has. The Constitution says that inventors are allowed exclusive rights for a limited times, but Lifetime plus 70 years could be said to be both subjectively and objectively unlimited. Not only is it impossible for the CR owner to see the right extinguished, but it would be the rare exception that someone who witnessed the the licensing of a work could also witness its entrance to the public domain.

My point is merely that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Although it appears to be completely bathwater at this point, I assure you there is a baby somewhere in there. But as you say, the whole system needs a lot of reform. As usual, money is steering the govenment to its own doom.

As for QRS, we have a little thing going on. She posts something about CR, and I say that we need SOME intellectual protection. I like to think that we are friends.

Thanks for your reply, Christopher Marlowe

You wrote, “We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Although it appears to be completely bathwater at this point, I assure you there is a baby somewhere in there.”

I agree, despite my railings against the copyright system. It would be nice to do away with monopolies and have a society based on sharing. However, given the way humans are, that seems unrealistic.

I also agree that we need SOME intellectual protection.

However, in defense of QRS, the copyright system is FAR past any hope of “reform.” It must be eliminated. And even if it could be reformed, the continued presence of private central banks, which lend at interest, would create a new monster.

“As usual,” you wrote, “money is steering the government to its own doom.”

The problem is not money.

The problem is private central banks that lend money at interest. That is the basis of the nightmare. It provides all the “moral” justifications for things like the copyright system. It is the core of “moral superiority” of the rich over the poor. When money is used to create more money, there is no sharing of risk or reward, and thus, no sense of community.

The mother of all monopolies is the monopoly of private central banks, which creates a snowballing effect. It hemorrhages into the nightmare we have now. People can no longer imagine a world without the nightmare.

As QRS says,

First, evil is unrecognized
Then it is tolerated
Then it is mandated.

said:

"I personally believe that people don't create anything good; we are merely channels for the graces of our Devine Creator."

If that is how you feel, then why do you accept "copyrights" as "rights" at all?

Your premise that we are merely channels for the graces of our Devine Creator (which I agree is true) requires that our "product" or that which flows through us must flow freely to the rest of God's creation (namely other human beings).

The problem that you and AZ are worried about -- that writers and artists would become impoverished without copyrights -- is actually not a problem created by the lack of copyrights, but one created by the other grotesque monopoly that we suffer under - THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM and all its bastard corporate and industrial monopolies that surround it; they impoverish everyone leaving us all desperate for a viable way to go from rags to riches.

Anyway you slice it - copyrights enable collecting money while sitting idle. Of course you'll argue that the artist exerts the effort up front, but I'll disagree - it's nowhere near as much as he gets in return with the power of mass production and distribution behind him.

Finally, the most important objection I have to copyrights is not so much the obscene monies that it generates through mass production and distribution, but the grotesquely belligerent and invasive police system required to enforce it.

And, one more thing, of course we're friends!

:)

Don't let a little difference of opinion on copyrights ruin a great friendship!

---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.

We must differentiate, first of all, from the mere copying and sharing of things, be it a movie, some music, software or hardware and the selling for profit of someone else's work!

Now if you were to copy dvd's, and sell them as blank for the price of your labour, with no 'mark-up', then is this so wrong?
I won't shed one tear for Sony, that's for sure.

Unfortunately for some, it's all about the money, whether in need or greed, this muddies the water some..

The sharing of invention for free is a very important part of the development of humanity, and should not be hampered by greed! (sic)

Sharing of media leads to higher sales, not the other way around. I wouldn't know half the bands out there if it weren't for the internet and file sharing.

I think the original 14 year deal was adequate, maybe even a lifetime percent. But don't expect people to stop copying things, period.

In the past civilizations have done fine without copyright. I wonder how scholars did so well without such a system and made their societies bloom, without losing their own wealth.

I mean who pays you to do research on mathematics of physics? You can't sell it like a house or table. And who would buy your books except for other peers?

== Could anyone tell me how exactly those scholars and scientists earned their living? ===

A lot of people worry that if the copyright system is thrown away the small guy inventing something will not be able to prevent it being stolen by the big mass producers. However a lot of times the copyright system works the other way around, because only the big companies have enough money and lawyers to successfully copyright (they claim the form of) human thoughts. Disney and Microsoft copyrighting ideas of smaller guys is a good example. Like some of you already stated.

Copyright is basically the ownership of thoughts. Which I find a really weird difficult to grasp concept.

and I must say that this is all new to me.

I never knew about Q's perspective on Copyright laws but this is an eye opener, indeed.

This reminds me of a time when in the 90's at some point, the music industry wanted to start charging owners of retail businesss [especially clothing] a certain amount of money for playing the radio in the store.

The music industry's take on this was that the music helped with the sales of items and without the music - business would go down.

I was furious when I read these articles in the newspaper. I couldn't believe such pathetic arrogance and outright greed.

I swear that if this would have happened I will chuck the radio for good and make my own music. It may not be slick and fancy but it will make me happy.

If music executives and recording stars need an extra box of cereal in their 5000 sq ft kitchen, then just sell a lamburghini or two at a yard sale.

That should fix things proper.

Anyway a long long time ago, I stopped buying music. And I don't buy books or magazines anymore. Rarely do I go to movies or rent a video.

Anything free and sharing is so much better.

Besides, I'm making a statement when I don't buy.

Does not always work and is not really a viable way to survive.

A person who creates something, and expends, time, labour, creativity and effort to produce something whether it is music, a cure (a drug )or a software, needs to earn a living. They cannot just give it away.

On the other hand if someone creates something and prohibits anyone else from using the same or similar ideas or products we will get monopolies and cartels.

The middle ground is the context in which all this occurs needs changing. The fractional reserve banking systems creates concentrations of power, in corporations...these then distort the whole economy.

If such a system was dismanteled its alternative would allow for people to create things and to earn a living from it without holding copyrights, people would simply buy the product which is the best made at the fairest price...this compettion would distribute wealth more evenly in society.

Islam prohibits ruthless "begger thy neighbour" competition, and has a complete alternative to the current trade system.

not really asking talented people to give their hard work and labout away for free.

But like the Davy Jone's song goes

"how much do we really need?"

The likes of paris hilton, lindsay lohan, misha barton, nicole richie... should be flushed into a toilet. What are they doing with their wealth? It's revolting.

As for the hateful junk called rap which really expresses a hatred for women and encourages and celebrates violence against them, I stopped listening to current "music" a long time ago.

[I am aware there are some good songs today. but they are not in the mainstream]

since it is so dramatically different than the hell hole we live in today, but if ALL monopolies were dismantled and people made a genuine effort to educate themselves and eachother - with all the technology and knowledge humanity possesses today - not a single man, woman or child on earth would have to "work" for a "living" and everyone would have free time to be creative at their leisure.

There would be no "need" to "sell" the product.

The true purpose of "copyright," like every other monopoly, is GREED not NEED.

---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.

I just noticed this conversation that transpired w/o me two weeks ago. Without repeating myself, I will just respond to QRS' last comment with a yes, but.

Although I think we have more than enough to share in this world, I think that WORK is important and valuable, for the major reason that it keeps us from being idle. Many times I have seen that old saying proven true: "The devil finds work for idle hands".

But mundane, repetitive, thoughtless toil should not take up the better part of anyone's existence.

"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

I mean "work" for someone else.

In other words, being an "employee" for hire.

Everyone should work for themselves. It's called being productive which is essential for a feeling of well being.

As human beings we all need a purpose in life.

But, it should be to serve God and please the ones we love not to serve another just because he has "money" that we need.

---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.

Pre-modern societies when they were not based on feudal relations, largely were self-employed.

Today people work for others. The Capitalist modernisers had to dismantle this structure to enable them to make everyone into 'workers'.

People were protected by being members of Guilds where people helped each other out...these were destroyed, people lost their independence and power and became 'workers' landless, powerless and dependent on 'the wage'.

Corporations and 'the job' that they provide are usually repetitive, souless, mind numbing occupations, people do them because they have no alternatives, all alternatives have been destroyed. It is a type of 'Matrix'.

that people lost their liberty once they became employees of their corporate masters who controlled and owned their salaries. Its a type of checkmate where "you either do what we tell you or else you lose" usually everything including your car and home like Dick and Jane. It would be funny if its not reality hitting many people across the world. I agree with leftfield it is a Matrix but one made by the Zionist architect (Antichrist). Thats why so strong push for global corporate takeover of the world economy. Independence is undesirable in this Matrix for people who have sufficient free time can actually involve in some meditative way of thinking about the meaning of life and the world we live in and then suddenly you have this nuts on Blogs like this one who start to question The Island inventors who would prefer people to work and shut the hell up. Completely programmed society needed to introduce the big lying doctor as the Saviour of the last remnants of the mankind. However nobody can tell you what the Matrix is, you will have to see it for yourself to be able to understand it. So take the pill Neo. And by the way I/We can only show you the door but you have to go through it. Heh, its amazing how this movies are revealing reality of this Matrix that surrounds us.

"Let there be Light!"