The right copy of the law

[Mr. Robin]

2001-12-13

Copying the right laws.

In my attempt to find out your opinions on what I felt was an exceedingly important piece of information, it seems that we bumped up against another topic, copyright laws.

So lets discuss that a little, should we be violating copyright laws by copy/pasting articles, in there completeness, onto website without the authors of origins full and expressed permissions?

Personally I have a vested interest in seeing that copyright laws are upheld as I am, by God?s Grace, the owner of, what is to me, several very important pieces of copyrighted works. For me to go out and violate copyright laws intentionally, well then I should no longer be afforded the protections of the laws as I have clearly demonstrated that I have no respect for them. (even thought the laws do not work that way, as in, even if I do, ?do that to another?s works? I am still afforded the protections of the laws for my own works!)

It was suggested in a previous post that I should copy/paste the article anyways, (which, by the way, is called ?Counseling to commit an offence? you can be charged, and convicted, whether or not the offence is committed, charged with that offence, either in civil, or criminal, court. Copyright infringement, or theft, respectively!) which I would refuse to do as I am aware of the laws concerning copyright, and as I have stated, have a vested interest.

Then again, Hannibal has a vested interest as well, as he is learning to become a computer programmer, and the protection for incomes, rights, ownerships, moral rights, are all under copyright law, so he too should be attempting to up[hold them I would respectfully suggest.

That is actually part of the question, ?Should you have the rights afforded to you by law, if you are, when acting in your own self interest, willing to violate the very laws you seek protection from, for yourself when it is your copyrighted materials that are deriving your income??

American society is, as represented, attempting to work with the Chinese police to stop the intentional violations of copyrights that seem to occur every time the American film industry releases a new BLOCKBUSTER film. Clearly the industries that use copyright laws want the protection, but is it reasonable to ask for it if you own population demonstrates such flagrant abuse of them?

To copy/paste an article, that is copyrighted, here on this bulletin board, is illegal, regardless of how many times that you have done it.

To do otherwise is to state that if you speed often enough, well then speeding is no longer an offence, if you steal often enough, then you can no longer be prosecuted for it because you have gotten away with is for so many times. Clearly we all recognize that this is erroneous thinking, right? If you copy/paste, or typewrite/reproduce, an article that is from a copyrighted source, without permissions, doesn?t matter how many times you do it, it is still illegal!
What do you all think?

P.S. Go see the topic ?Corny news??please.


------------------
My teacher is in all people, but not all people are my Teacher

[This message has been edited by Mr. Robin (edited December 13, 2001).]

[SHATOUSHKA]

first of all, let it be known that shatoushka is officially fed up with this conversation.
but, i will add my humble opinion--because...
well...
because i just gotta.

the whole concept of copyright protect began as a good idea. and naturally, like most manmade things, it got jaded along the way.

i think that protecting yourself from another who happens to be hearing YOUR really good idea--is a good thing.

getting all pissy over who sees what, who copies what, blah blah blah is BS in my book.

it really chaps my hide when people capitalize on knowledge...especially on such subjects of a controversial theme.

as far as i'm concerned, copy/pasting is fine IF you tout where the item came from...both webpage and author.

KNOWLEDGE SHOULD NEVER BE TABOO!!!!!
(damn it!)

i have decided that if ever the day came...
and one is sitting at a restaurant discussing something someone said, and for some reason, couldn't think of who said it, and this fucking gestapo came in and arrested this person...
i'd kill myself.

i despise the state of things as it is.
this would be the final straw.

------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis

[Alex]

Good Points Shatzy, the key is to PROPERLY Credit them...never cut and paste material without the author's name.

I know I posted something on the philosophy board, but it was already without the authors name.

But the intellectual content was important to share.

Plus, isn't it kind of weird that news people don't pay for a story, but then they copyright it and "own it".

Seems like a contradiction.

------------------
Alex

[SHATOUSHKA]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Plus, isn't it kind of weird that news people don't pay for a story, but then they copyright it and "own it".

Seems like a contradiction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

alex, are you trying to get me riled up?



------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...
The Acropolis

[Alex]

I wish someone would force this issue into court on a couple of new points.

If an entity cannot fairly service it's copyrighted material, then it should not be a violation of the law to use the material.

So, If I were to contact the "owner" of the article you intended to share with this board, and they ignore me because there is no "profit" in it for them...then f'em.
They forfeit their right to sue those of us who have no intention of profiting off of their copyrighted material.

It's that simple.

Point number two...

A very small part of my income comes from creating demo tapes for actors who have appeared in movies.

Technically, we are violating copyright laws when we put VHS tapes together and make a new master.

However, The same entities that could sue me for this endeavor are in fact THE SAME ENTITES THAT BENEFIT FROM THE END RESULT.

A day doesn't go by where the studios are not popping in actor demo reels that were illegally made. They do it because it helps them reach critical decisions as to who they will hire.

The same people who could sue, are the same people who the tapes are actually made for.

A record label hears a demo made by a new talent, and the songs are all "covers" of existing copyrighted songs...the talent's "cover" of these songs convinces the studios to sign them...clearly this was an "Illegal" act, yet it is done all the time.

Final point, do newspaper articles credit all of their sources at the bottom of the article...isn't that some form of sanctioned theft?


------------------
Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited December 14, 2001).]

[Julius77]

Hey there! Going through the legal system due to an injury can be quite difficult for most people who do not know what to do or how to do it to achieve the desired result! To ensure that everything goes well, everyone can contact The Dominguez Firm, which can be useful to any client. The user can learn more about their services from The Dominguez Firm customer service staff, who will be happy to answer all questions, and this will help you decide whether their services are suitable.