Victory Road  

Go Back   Victory Road > General > General Chat > Debate

Notices

 
 
  #1  
Old December 21, 2011, 10:25:25 AM
Akiyama's Avatar
Akiyama Akiyama is offline
Charizard
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Pacific Timezone
Posts: 124
Post Rethinking Copyright and IP

Seeing such a power-giving bill like SOPA and NDAA being voted on around the same time (and with an 85% disapproval rating of Congress) made me ask "Maybe Congress is wrong thinking up these bills." Ninety-three senators deserve no reelection for NDAA, but as for SOPA, I asked why the government needs to protect things like IP with so much force.

Is it moral to shut down sites like Youtube or Twitter because some companies are losing money from copyright infringement?

Infringing what? Copyright is a monopoly because only the company or person holding it can use the ideas, and, these days, it is indeed unlawful to infringe on copyright. I cannot answer the question until I ask why copyright can last one hundred years. Indeed why a hundred? How about a thousand?

Nah, imagine a single chef having copyright to a book of recipes for a hundred years. Only he can cook it in that time, or until his death, I think. Now think of all the others wanting copyright on their own recipes, and then see the lawsuits between the chefs as they fight for their monopolies. What would you, the foodie, get from all that? Likely a lot less than we have now because a chef's business can't afford to fight many lawsuits every time a new meal is added on the menu, or even pay the royalties.

This is something for people here to think about. . . You may even want the entire elimination of copyright and IP. Or prefer something less so.

My idea for that would be to divide copyright's max time by a hundred to make copyright's term to be one year. One year to get the most money out of a music record before it goes to public domain (and it'll likely still make money after one year anyway). And all things protected by IP have one year before they are public domain. Plus you get more focused enforcement since ninety-nine years of copyrighted materials are no longer bothered with.

But of course, I recommend that people start questioning IP completely. That means that you must ask if ideas, like Pokemon, can be owned by anybody. Also, if major limiting of copyright would improve production. Again, there must be some reaction from people due to SOPA being proposed.



I think someone may ask, but I'll say it now: Services like Xbox Live would not be free, nor would buying a seat in a movie place, or downloading from Netflix, or downloading off a pirate site (side effects of viruses don't go away). Can't expect a book to be free either, it has to be printed. And servers have limited bandwidth that costs money to maintain.
  #2  
Old December 21, 2011, 12:01:40 PM
Quadcentruo's Avatar
Quadcentruo Quadcentruo is offline
Giratina
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Unknown area
Posts: 3,734
Default

I think the 100 year copyright term is fair game. It saves companies, such as Nintendo, the trouble of having to go through the hassle of renewing the copyrighted name of their most popular products, in this case Pokémon. Nintendo has enough issues to deal with on a day-to-day basis, reducing the copyright term to one year would make it more trouble to keep that popular name up and running.

Besides, it's up to the copyright owner to decide what he/she can do with the product. That Chef that holds the rights to the recipes could decide to print copies of the recipes and sell them (which is the main idea of copyright). Or that Chef could just decide to lock-up the recipes for himself.

Can't think of anything else at this moment, so I'll just end it here.
 
Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Victory Road ©2006 - 2018, Scott Cat333Pokémon Cheney
Theme by A'bom and Cat333Pokémon