"There are more of us than there are of you."

We? Who are we? Do you know my name? Do you know who is downloading your precious copyrighted stuff? Sucker.

I've already written extensively within this thread demonstrating my point. The response from the copyright trolls has basically been to ignore it and continue insisting they're right without engaging seriously (except to get suckered into Zmaj fucking with them).

<c/p bloshio-sorry-you-dont-understand/jpg>

PE, that's nothing to be surprised at. Copyright is a dogma, and its proponents employ the usual method of defending a dogma: they appeal to "belief", and if that doesn't work, they threaten you with inquisition.

@ Zmaj: "Jamiet, what do you mean? Why should you have *control*?"

Why should an artist have control over their creations? Ok, let's say I write a song. Let's say I release that song via iTunes or whatever so that people can pay to download it. (I'm not stupid so I make sure I'm also identified as the publisher or at least the co-publisher of the song).

Now let's say that someone from a political party I despise wants to use my catchy little song in their next TV broadcast, a party political broadcast aimed at winning support for their horrible policies. Thanks to copyright, I can prevent them from using my song. If there was no copyright, they would be free to use it.

That's one example, in my view, of the value of an artist being able to have control over their creations.

@ Zmaj, " 'You can not prove they don't beloing to him.'

I prove it every day by perusing their creations on the Internet. I don't believe it. I do it, sucker."
That's like saying I can prove the car isn't his because I stole it from him. It's still his property, but you stole it. All you are saying is your a thief.

@PE, I apologize but this thread has grown fast I might have missed it while reading through so can you please repost the points that you made that have been ignored.

Jamiet, depends on your contract with Apple. If Apple doesn't restrict the use of your song when selling it to other people via iTunes, then you shouldn't contract with Apple if you don't want your song to end up being used for things you don't want, or, when you do contract with Apple, stipulate the limited nature of its use. All of this can be done within the confines of existing laws regarding fraud; copyright doesn't protect against any of the things you're describing - the only thing it protects is the "right" of publishing companies to extort users of copyrighted materials who are not causing any harm to the artists. It's crony capitalism at its finest.

jabberjaws - It was a pretty long post, check back on p3 for it

@ PE - the question, as directed to me by Zmaj, was why should an artist have any control over their creations? That's what I was answering in the post you're responding to, and yes you may be right that there are other legal ways to achieve this. However given the fact that Zmaj questioned the very notion that an artist should have any right to exercise any control over their creations after they've been created, I would presume he would also strongly oppose the fraud laws you mention.

Hmm... the more I'm thinking about it the more my own position on the iTunes example might be contradicting my core point. Lemme think about this more and get back to you.

Ok PE, looking forward to your further comments - it's an interesting issue.

"Now let's say that someone from a political party I despise wants to use my catchy little song in their next TV broadcast" etc.

Jamiet, what's the problem? If there's no copyright, everyone can use any work of art for anything. What's bothering you? That somebody would think you endorse that despising party? But if there's no copyright, nobody in their right mind would think that. They would know anything can be used for anything.

Jabber, try discussing the issue with me, not quoting my angry replies to Draugnar, OK? If you keep doing that, you're a fucking idiot, of course.

I'm sorry Zmaj, I can't agree with you there, I think that if an artist's music is used by a political party, many people will assume the artist supports that party and has been consulted over the use of their music, whether or not the party were actually under any obligation to consult them.

Jamiet, in your example, you said "if there were no copyright", but obviously assumed that everything else would remain the same. But that's wrong. Must I explain why?

Are you suggesting that the repeal of copyright law, by itself, would be enough to bring about a wholesale revolution in both our economy and our society?

"I'm sorry Zmaj, I can't agree with you there, I think that if an artist's music is used by a political party, many people will assume the artist supports that party and has been consulted over the use of their music, whether or not the party were actually under any obligation to consult them."

Couldn't they publicly condemn said politician/party, like RATM did with Paul Ryan? Or make a new song blasting the party?

I mean that would force artists to become more overtly political, which I think is a good thing.

Putin - You think forcing someone to be overtly political despite their choice to normally not be is good? You truly are an ass of the highest order.

Well, if theyre already PO'd about a party using their song, they're already political enough aren't they? Why should publicly speaking out about it be a problem?

I mean this happens all the time with academics, for example. Scholarly work is cited by people for reasons that the scholars being cited might cringe at, and might lead to associations with bad causes or bad people. They have to be publicly repudiated. A song, IMO, is a much less serious matter than having your academic papers hijacked by lunatics for evil causes.

But those papers have to be recognized when used in a bibliography do they not? What CommieZ describes wouldn't even require that acknowledgement. So writer B could.plagarize to his heart's content because there is no ownership of ideas and therefore no plagarization.

I think there has to be recognition of intellectual property rights in a multitude of fields.
To say that because (for example ) a powerful corporate entity misuses the current
legal systems that protect intellectual property / design rights to engage in ruthless
profiteering and causes harm to others ( eg Microsoft, Apple, Bayer or Novatis et al )
is a valid reason for abandoning the whole idea of intellectual property & design rights
and abolishing the legal systems that currently exist for protection of intellectual
property & design rights is a "non sequitur" ( making an illogical conclusion from a
statement or argument )
The logical conclusion is to realise that the current legal systems for protecting intellectual property & design rights need improvement in ways that allow a both creators and users fairness & equity.

For example Draugnar spends a lot of blood sweat & toil creating a new software
product and has his product "recognised & registered" via a patent or similar process.
Draugnar has the right to derive an income from his work, and unathorised use of his
product is theft & Draugner must have a way of seeking compensation for
unauthorised use of his product & to prevent further unauthorised use of his product.

However, there are (for example ) 20 companies operating in the same field that could
all use this product,
is Draugnar allowed to make his product available to one company for $2,000, but
demand $200,000 from each of the other 19 companies for his product ?
That is anti competitive behaviour, he is giving one purchaser an unfair advantage over
it's competitiors.
So the system that recognises Draugnars rights also has to recognise the rights of
potential users and give them equal "rights of use"

I think Zmajor is a clown on this one, he is simply engaging in "justification of theft"
& his "logic" is both convoluted and flawed.

Revolutions usually create as many problems as they solve -- incremental reform has proven to be the best way to achieve progress
To say that because the "rules of an operating environment" are imperfect, then abolishing those rules is a valid solution is both a non sequitur and usually disasterous,
instead it does provide reason(s) for incremental improvement(s).

PS the logical constructs and arguments posted by myself are my intellectual product
-- users must pay me one WebDiplomacy point for use ( ho ho hohoho )

Seriously, when a company eg Microsoft or others engages in blatant profiteering from the sale of licensed software, fairly soon there is a "free to use" alternative available eg Linux, or in the example of Microsoft Office s/w there is Open Office

In case you guys never saw this:

© 2010 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and the color brown are trademarks of United Parcel Service of America, Inc. All rights reserved.

Yes, at least as of April 2010 when I noticed this UPS had trademarked the color brown.

bump

Trademark is different from copyright. Trademark is very clear in that it onlu applies to the line of business the trademark holder operates to protect the identity and reputation of the holder. Admittedly, the Nestle/Cadbury suit should have been trademark as well.

But more to the point, I thought this thread had died out.

I understand, but what that effectively means is that nobody can deliver packages in brown vehicles except UPS.

Yep. And the have the trademark on "See what brown can do for you."