What is your stance on copyright? (poll)

[sharedawealth]

Please keep this thread constructive if possible....thanks!

Please give reasons for your answer and hopefully we should have a good debate!

[beardedwonder]

Not 100% sure about all the options and why you picked them, copyright can help many people but IMO is very prone to abuse by big companies (cartels) who seek to destroy all competition, who seek to take consumers to the cleaners and abuse the people who create, ie. artists, programmers etc.

I too hope that we have a constructive thread!

[sharedawealth]

I believe copyright is a grey area and I think there needs to be alot more dialogue about it!

[sharedawealth]

Originally posted by beardedwonder
Not 100% sure about all the options and why you picked them, copyright can help many people but IMO is very prone to abuse by big companies (cartels) who seek to destroy all competition, who seek to take consumers to the cleaners and abuse the people who create, ie. artists, programmers etc.

I too hope that we have a constructive thread!

If you made the poll what options would you have given? just wondering.........

[Muffin_Man]

copyright laws, like most things, are good only when used in moderation. when used properly, they can spur innovation and growth. however, current laws (at least in the us) are overkill for two reasons: first, they are far too harsh in comparison to the offense. second, the length of time that copyrights last is far too long, to a point of possibly hurting innovation.

copyright laws as they were originally intended are beneficial to society as a whole, but current ones are beneficial only to money hungry big businesses.

[beardedwonder]

We should increase copyright laws to help spur innovation

I'm not 100% sure that copyright laws do spur innovation, at time it seems that they spurn it!

Free content and information for all!

Is unfeasable IMO and extremely unlikely to ever happen.

What do you mean by information?

EDIT: Completely agree with you Muffin_Man

[sharedawealth]

Originally posted by beardedwonder

What do you mean by information?

Things like Trade secrets and Patents

[dock0184]

copyright fees financially support the developer and his company. if there was no copyright, programmers would have to find jobs in other industries to feed their families. but then again, look at microsoft -> for whom copyright has clearly been a cash boom. and now with DRM under development in Paladin, copyright will truly control our everyday lives

still, i donnt think the world could survice if we just had freesource everywhere. it's kinda like communism -> the idea sounds good, that everyone helps each other for the benifit of the community. yeah, sweet. but how will you motivate people to develop big software and games if all they get in return is a school teacher's salary via technical support

[BlueLieu]

Originally posted by dock0184
copyright fees financially support the developer and his company. if there was no copyright, programmers would have to find jobs in other industries to feed their families. but then again, look at microsoft -> for whom copyright has clearly been a cash boom. and now with DRM under development in Paladin, copyright will truly control our everyday lives

still, i donnt think the world could survice if we just had freesource everywhere. it's kinda like communism -> the idea sounds good, that everyone helps each other for the benifit of the community. yeah, sweet. but how will you motivate people to develop big software and games if all they get in return is a school teacher's salary via technical support

I was going to comment but you said it all.

[guido123]

Originally posted by dock0184
copyright fees financially support the developer and his company. if there was no copyright, programmers would have to find jobs in other industries to feed their families. but then again, look at microsoft -> for whom copyright has clearly been a cash boom. and now with DRM under development in Paladin, copyright will truly control our everyday lives

still, i donnt think the world could survice if we just had freesource everywhere. it's kinda like communism -> the idea sounds good, that everyone helps each other for the benifit of the community. yeah, sweet. but how will you motivate people to develop big software and games if all they get in return is a school teacher's salary via technical support

Well, a lot of development isnt done by company's but by university's and state sponserd organisations.They "produce"a lot more inovation than private company's at way lower cost to society. And often it are private company's who benefit the most of these devopments.

And linux and other opensourge software are often much better than copyrighr protected software and they are totally payed for by technical support and sponsership by private company's like IBM and Philips and goverment sponsered organisations. This why im very critical about copyright and think it should be very limited.

So i also have to agree with Muffin Man on this one.

[PowerMan57two]

Well I'm not sure what this thread is much about. But for copyright almost every site and program have them. I recenty found out from a lawyer that on my site just because I say if any law suits should come up that they may not necessarly be brought to my site just because I say in my Terms you have to come to my site if any law suits are made.

But in a lot of cases people break copyrights, look at movies we copy, cds, sell even copyrighted stuff. It's just there to try and protect the companies butts.

[FileHoover]

There are better ways than copyright to protect your computer algorithms.

One way is to only allow Internet Access to your app. In otherwords, your program runs at your company headquarters and the users, connected by the Internet, only see the user interface on their local computers. That's a virtual guarantee of protection for your app.

The problem is, companies that do NOT protect their content, get more market penetration than you would because people can pirate their software! That's why software companies gave up on copy protection a long time ago. If you make it too hard to pirate, people use the other product partially because of the inconvenience of making even legitimate copies.

I've worked at many big companies and illegitimate copies of Microsoft software were RAMPANT. If these companies had to pay for every copy of Word, Windows, Excel they'd seriously consider switching to Linux. They'd need to hire a whole department just to keep track of licenses! In those companies I worked for, twice, surveys were done, "What software do you need to work so we can get you legitimate licenses?". But nothing was ever done. I'm sure the managers choked on the cost it would have taken to implement that, and just put up their hands and said, "que sera, sera. If the company gets busted for copyright violation, it isn't MY personal bank account that will be confiscated". So they just adopted a "no ask, no tell" policy about the whole thing.

[PowerMan57two]

Originally posted by FileHoover
There are better ways than copyright to protect your computer algorithms.

One way is to only allow Internet Access to your app. In otherwords, your program runs at your company headquarters and the users, connected by the Internet, only see the user interface on their local computers. That's a virtual guarantee of protection for your app.

The problem is, companies that do NOT protect their content, get more market penetration than you would because people can pirate their software! That's why software companies gave up on copy protection a long time ago. If you make it too hard to pirate, people use the other product partially because of the inconvenience of making even legitimate copies.

I've worked at many big companies and illegitimate copies of Microsoft software were RAMPANT. If these companies had to pay for every copy of Word, Windows, Excel they'd seriously consider switching to Linux. They'd need to hire a whole department just to keep track of licenses! In those companies I worked for, twice, surveys were done, "What software do you need to work so we can get you legitimate licenses?". But nothing was ever done. I'm sure the managers choked on the cost it would have taken to implement that, and just put up their hands and said, "que sera, sera. If the company gets busted for copyright violation, it isn't MY personal bank account that will be confiscated". So they just adopted a "no ask, no tell" policy about the whole thing.

My school got adobe photoshop 5.5 loaded onto the computers~ 5.5! and their like yeah for around $130 a piece? I'm like damn, let me come there on my free time and load my copy on there for $10 a piece and save the school some money, and hey I'll even update it to 7.0! LoL, and the software doesn't even cost $130, what a bunch of BS

[FreakinWeasel]

I would have to say, *cough* pay for anything that is copyrighted provided that the copyright laws are just and fair.
Obviously a ton of programming is meant for single users so saying that they should all be free won't work or you'll have a bunch of not very interesting stuff out there in the way of games and programs. But, from a business standpoint if you use the program for profit either direct by resale or indirect as in accounting/ wordprocessing you should be accountable also.
I think the biggest reason I support the people here at ZP is that most of the copyrights laws now only protect the corporation that release the actual work. Not the consumer, not the artist or programmer(although you could argue that the programmer does have a job). There was a time when copyright was there to protect both sides. So it has come down to $$ vs what's right. In the end this will stiffle creativity by never allowing what is considered history to be built on for the future. Everything will have to built from scratch and a learing curve will be attached to every new technology. Maybe my thinking is wrong here but after reading quite a bit on what original copyright laws were there for I really think we heading way off track.

[sharedawealth]

Originally posted by FreakinWeasel
I would have to say, *cough* pay for anything that is copyrighted provided that the copyright laws are just and fair.
Obviously a ton of programming is meant for single users so saying that they should all be free won't work or you'll have a bunch of not very interesting stuff out there in the way of games and programs. But, from a business standpoint if you use the program for profit either direct by resale or indirect as in accounting/ wordprocessing you should be accountable also.
I think the biggest reason I support the people here at ZP is that most of the copyrights laws now only protect the corporation that release the actual work. Not the consumer, not the artist or programmer(although you could argue that the programmer does have a job). There was a time when copyright was there to protect both sides. So it has come down to $$ vs what's right. In the end this will stiffle creativity by never allowing what is considered history to be built on for the future. Everything will have to built from scratch and a learing curve will be attached to every new technology. Maybe my thinking is wrong here but after reading quite a bit on what original copyright laws were there for I really think we heading way off track.


You have a good point about needing copyright for what individuals consume, this helps encourage product development in that area.

So I guess if you like getting things for free and you know how, thenyou are better off having copyright so that companies still develop a product for you. Let the people who do not know how to get the product for free help pay for the product. The only problem with this is if everyone knows how to get the item for free, then even with copyright laws companies would not invest in making products for that market! :bk

[FreakinWeasel]

Originally posted by sharedawealth
You have a good point about needing copyright for what individuals consume, this helps encourage product development in that area.

So I guess if you like getting things for free and you know how, thenyou are better off having copyright so that companies still develop a product for you. Let the people who do not know how to get the product for free help pay for the product. The only problem with this is if everyone knows how to get the item for free, then even with copyright laws companies would not invest in making products for that market! :bk


This whole thing goes way deeper than the music thing we are entrenched in now. So much important info that used to pass into the public domain will now never see the light of day beacuse of "unjust" copyright law. But if you want an example, the current law says that an author have copyright protection till the time of their death plus 50 years. So if companies own the rights to all the music then when does it ever flow into the public domain? At this point it could be never. So how as a free society do you educate those who can't pay? Note, I didn't say refused to pay. So in the future only those able to pony up the bucks may be able to expand their mental horizons while the huddled masses stay down... Alright a bit extreme, but you get the point.
Personally, I believe that we should pay for music, but I have yet to see the business model out that I want to support. I don't see the changes in the system that are fundamental to what I want to see, which is taking better care of the artist and letting them control their music. Then and only then does it seem fair to support the music industry. In the meantime, I support the EFF.....

[crackerjacker]

Personally, I believe that we should pay for music, but I have yet to see the business model out that I want to support. I don't see the changes in the system that are fundamental to what I want to see, which is taking better care of the artist and letting them control their music. Then and only then does it seem fair to support the music industry. In the meantime, I support the EFF.....

The main reason that people share files is because they cant afford the prices of the files, movies, music etc.
If you think about it someone will buy a product and share it with their family so what does it matter if that person is sharing with his other 3 million friends? You see the other 3 million friends wasnt going to buy it anyways because they have no money, so the industry would not lose any money..

heh