Comments on: Joey Teow’s copyright blog http://www.p2pnet.net/story/20792 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Robert http://www.p2pnet.net/story/20792/comment-page-1#comment-972791 Robert Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:17:15 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=20792#comment-972791 You know... on The Hour, Corgan bashed the labels, quite professionally, and it certainly was a beating. And yet then he goes on to promote copyright not realizing that he is no better than the labels he detests. He supports creative freedom and the ability to distribute it any way he wants, but doesn't support the people who's purchases of his music put the clothes on his back. And, unfortunately, those large number of purchases also helped feed his ego, which appears to have blinded him. Billy, it isn't just the labels man, it's the control over copyright, or more appropriately named, temporary-monopoly-on-privileges-of-creative-works. You can hate the labels all you want, but remember that those you alienate in support of "anti-piracy" campaigns are the people who supported you and gave you the career you enjoyed, when you support anti-piracy "laws." How many people would have heard of Mozart if it were not for the fact that anyone can play it in a concert hall, school, music store, etc... where people will hear it if it were not in the public domain? Imagine if your creative works were viewed by the rest of the world in the same light that you view them and people were able to play it anywhere? That's called free promotion! You'd see more sales, which clearly matters most to you. You know… on The Hour, Corgan bashed the labels, quite professionally, and it certainly was a beating. And yet then he goes on to promote copyright not realizing that he is no better than the labels he detests.

He supports creative freedom and the ability to distribute it any way he wants, but doesn’t support the people who’s purchases of his music put the clothes on his back. And, unfortunately, those large number of purchases also helped feed his ego, which appears to have blinded him.

Billy, it isn’t just the labels man, it’s the control over copyright, or more appropriately named, temporary-monopoly-on-privileges-of-creative-works. You can hate the labels all you want, but remember that those you alienate in support of “anti-piracy” campaigns are the people who supported you and gave you the career you enjoyed, when you support anti-piracy “laws.”

How many people would have heard of Mozart if it were not for the fact that anyone can play it in a concert hall, school, music store, etc… where people will hear it if it were not in the public domain? Imagine if your creative works were viewed by the rest of the world in the same light that you view them and people were able to play it anywhere? That’s called free promotion! You’d see more sales, which clearly matters most to you.

]]> By: Henry Emrich http://www.p2pnet.net/story/20792/comment-page-1#comment-972718 Henry Emrich Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:21:46 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=20792#comment-972718 "THEY are violating their part of the bargain; therefore the contract should be deemed null and the society should be freed of the obligation to respect their part of the deal too." EXACTLY. This guy "gets" it. :) This is also why the pro-copyright side cannot win this: They: 1. Buy themselves an extension every few years (so much for the "limited time") 2. Lobby to ban technologies: the VCR, DVD copying, BitTorrent (so much for that "science and the useful arts" thing.) 3. Propagandize, bully, harass, and sue their own customers ("And they tell their friends, and THEY tell their friends." -- remember that shampoo commercial.) :) 4. Stage show-trials staffed by Industry sockpuppets like Nordstrom. (Can you say "crony Capitalism"? I knew you could.) :) 5. Attempt to destroy the best communication medium in history (the Internet) SOLELY for their own short-term profitability. Sorry Lars, Bono, "Maca", Billy Corgan --- ain't gonna happen. Breach of contract is not a good business strategy. “THEY are violating their part of the bargain; therefore the contract should be deemed null and the society should be freed of the obligation to respect their part of the deal too.”

EXACTLY.
This guy “gets” it. :)

This is also why the pro-copyright side cannot win this:

They:
1. Buy themselves an extension every few years (so much for the “limited time”)
2. Lobby to ban technologies: the VCR, DVD copying, BitTorrent (so much for that “science and the useful arts” thing.)
3. Propagandize, bully, harass, and sue their own customers (”And they tell their friends, and THEY tell their friends.” — remember that shampoo commercial.) :)
4. Stage show-trials staffed by Industry sockpuppets like Nordstrom. (Can you say “crony Capitalism”? I knew you could.) :)
5. Attempt to destroy the best communication medium in history (the Internet) SOLELY for their own short-term profitability.

Sorry Lars, Bono, “Maca”, Billy Corgan — ain’t gonna happen.

Breach of contract is not a good business strategy.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/20792/comment-page-1#comment-972702 Reader's Write Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:48:52 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=20792#comment-972702 "People also believe that copyright is not a right, but a commercial privilege for the benefit of publishers." A while ago, Michael Geist leaked the e-mail sent by CRIA to Canadian MPs lobbying for Canadian DMCA. Here is the comment that says it all: ------------------------------------ "Copyright is the right held by the creator of a literary work, musical work, artistic work or software to decide how that work should be reproduced and made available to the public." Wrong. Copyright is NOT A RIGHT, and it is not a GIVEN right. Not at all. Copyright is a PRIVILEGE, granted by the SOCIETY to the creator of a literary work, musical work, artistic work or software so that the creator has an incentive to create. It is granted on a CONDITION that the work gets returned to the public domain in a reasonable time, so that other creators can build upon it freely and the society can benefit. So, it is a CONTRACT between the creator and the society. However, the "intellectual" "property" industries have been violating this contract for years, with their lobbying of copyright extension amendments everywhere. The most notorious violator is Disney, who essentially made the copyright term INFINITE to prevent Mickey Mouse from falling into public domain. THEY are violating their part of the bargain; therefore the contract should be deemed null and the society should be freed of the obligation to respect their part of the deal too. “People also believe that copyright is not a right, but a commercial privilege for the benefit of publishers.”

A while ago, Michael Geist leaked the e-mail sent by CRIA to Canadian MPs lobbying for Canadian DMCA.

Here is the comment that says it all:

————————————

“Copyright is the right held by the creator of a literary work, musical work, artistic work or software to decide how that work should be reproduced and made available to the public.”

Wrong.

Copyright is NOT A RIGHT, and it is not a GIVEN right. Not at all. Copyright is a PRIVILEGE, granted by the SOCIETY to the creator of a literary work, musical work, artistic work or software so that the creator has an incentive to create. It is granted on a CONDITION that the work gets returned to the public domain in a reasonable time, so that other creators can build upon it freely and the society can benefit. So, it is a CONTRACT between the creator and the society.

However, the “intellectual” “property” industries have been violating this contract for years, with their lobbying of copyright extension amendments everywhere. The most notorious violator is Disney, who essentially made the copyright term INFINITE to prevent Mickey Mouse from falling into public domain.

THEY are violating their part of the bargain; therefore the contract should be deemed null and the society should be freed of the obligation to respect their part of the deal too.

]]>