I hate copyrights

[FUNKbrs]

I hate copyrights. They take all of the efficiency out of our free market economy. They make it illegal for different companies to compete building the same product because someone physically owns the ideas the product is based on. This inventor only invented the idea once, and now they can live off the royalties of someone elses labor. How does stopping mass, efficient, and cheap production of new products help our economy? I understand copyrights are supposed to give incentives to inventors, but lately they have been taken out of hand by greedy businesses. I hate copyrights.

[Jonas]

As a creator of comics, I completely disagree, my material is mine, and noone should be able to steal it away.

[FUNKbrs]

Im a musician, but I believe I should get paid by the performance, not by royalties. You make comics, but you are not a printer. Im not saying you shouldnt recieve payment for the master copy of your comics, just the royalties. The printer should get the money for the copies, and you should get paid for the master. But why should you make money off the copier when youre not doing any extra work to deserve it? Your profit should come from the master copy only, so that prices can stay low and your popularity as an artist can spread. Then when the next master copy comes out, you can charge more for it.

[Shih]

But then how do professional inventors make a living? There are independent inventors out there who rely on the royalties to provide them with living while they work on the next project.

[FUNKbrs]

At 5/7/03 11:07 AM, Shih wrote: But then how do professional inventors make a living? There are independent inventors out there who rely on the royalties to provide them with living while they work on the next project.

If the idea is original, which is necessary for a copyright, then noone else has it. The concept is to sell the intellectual property for a ONE-TIME price, instead of long term royalties. Most inventors work for R&D departments of large corporations anyway, so they never receive any long term benefits for their ideas. The corporation they work for is given these rights as part of the terms of employment. So inventors will continue to make money the same way they do now, WORK

[PreacherJ]

At 5/7/03 11:02 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: Im a musician, but I believe I should get paid by the performance, not by royalties. You make comics, but you are not a printer. Im not saying you shouldnt recieve payment for the master copy of your comics, just the royalties. The printer should get the money for the copies, and you should get paid for the master. But why should you make money off the copier when youre not doing any extra work to deserve it? Your profit should come from the master copy only, so that prices can stay low and your popularity as an artist can spread. Then when the next master copy comes out, you can charge more for it.

Aren't copyright laws a part of the reason why someone recieves royalties?

Anyhoo-
I feel that copyright laws are pretty necessary as well, because, as a writer myself (or a cartoonist like foka), we'd get pretty goddamn pissed off if we poured all our effort into something, only to have it exploited and mass-produced by someone we don't want using it. Also, don't copyright laws stop people from stealing your stuff and claiming it's your own?

[FUNKbrs]

At 5/7/03 11:25 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Aren't copyright laws a part of the reason why someone recieves royalties?

Anyhoo-
I feel that copyright laws are pretty necessary as well, because, as a writer myself (or a cartoonist like foka), we'd get pretty goddamn pissed off if we poured all our effort into something, only to have it exploited and mass-produced by someone we don't want using it. Also, don't copyright laws stop people from stealing your stuff and claiming it's your own?

Im not saying "Abolish Copy rights NOW!" what Im saying is that copyrights in modern day society have been taken out of hand. You do have the right to sell your intellectual work, but do you have the right to with hold that genius work from the public AFTER it has been sold? What ever happened to intellectual property entering the public domain so every one can benefit?

[Shih]

Public domain isn't always good though what if someone took your work and used it to support something you find personally abhorrent.

[Jonas]

In mother russia the copyright sells you.

Haha.

Anyways Funk, you're still not understanding.

If there were no copyrights...

"Hey you read the latest Superman?"
"Which one"
"Ummm....McDougal's Superman"
"Which one's that?"
"The one that say's McDougal's on it"
"What's different about this Superman?"
"He's owned by McDougals!"

*shooting incites*

[FUNKbrs]

At 5/7/03 12:16 PM, Shih wrote: Public domain isn't always good though what if someone took your work and used it to support something you find personally abhorrent.

are we talking about a drawing of Pikachu with huge dong, or something much more sinister here? If your just talking about art, thats already protected under "satire".

[Jonas]

This is why Pornochu wouldn't work.

http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/Cochr...s/Copyright-UNT/airpirates.htm

Pikathulhu does however. (:=

[FUNKbrs]

WHAT?! No more dope smoking donald duck? What is the world coming to when you cant even satirize cartoon characters? Yet more proof, copyright laws do indeed suck.

[Jonas]

You misunderstood it(it protects blatant misuse).
Donald was refered to as Donald duck, no attempt was made to parody, merely ripping off the character instead.

[FUNKbrs]

At 5/7/03 01:03 PM, el_foka wrote: You misunderstood it(it protects blatant misuse).
Donald was refered to as Donald duck, no attempt was made to parody, merely ripping off the character instead.

Right, which is why I refered to him as "dope smoking donald duck" as opposed to "dope smoking animal". I think you should be allowed to play off of well known cartoon characters, if thats what you want to do. Donald Duck should be in the public domain, becuase we all grew up with him as a character. Why isnt he? (I read somewhere copyrights are supposed to end after 20 years). Because of rampant abuse of the copyright system by the Disney corporation.

[Jonas]

Ah yes, the old 20 years.... whoops...

http://www.cbldf.org/articles/archives/000083.shtml

[Shih]

What if someone took Donald Duck and seriously used him to support a neo-nazi party, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. (Not that Disney would necessarily mind supporting neo-nazis)
Disney and it's characters aren't in the public domain because they reapplied for the copyrights, nothing abusing the copyright system itself occured in the whole process.

[Nirvana13666]

At 5/7/03 09:54 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: I hate copyrights. They take all of the efficiency out of our free market economy. They make it illegal for different companies to compete building the same product because someone physically owns the ideas the product is based on. This inventor only invented the idea once, and now they can live off the royalties of someone elses labor. How does stopping mass, efficient, and cheap production of new products help our economy? I understand copyrights are supposed to give incentives to inventors, but lately they have been taken out of hand by greedy businesses. I hate copyrights.

I think there has to be a way to claim ownership of an idea. It isn’t right for people not to recognize the inventor/writer/musician…etc. What would you propose instead of copyrights?

[FUNKbrs]

At 5/7/03 02:44 PM, Nirvana13666 wrote: I think there has to be a way to claim ownership of an idea. It isn’t right for people not to recognize the inventor/writer/musician…etc. What would you propose instead of copyrights?

Again, I never said I wanted to "abolish" copyrights. I just think they are abused and are stifling our economic system. I did want to get rid of royalties in exchange for a one-time fee, however.

[Shih]

but how do you determine how much that one-time fee should be?

[FUNKbrs]

At 5/7/03 02:54 PM, Shih wrote: but how do you determine how much that one-time fee should be?

Its the job of the buyer and inventor of the idea to determine that among themselves, not the government, or myself. It SHOULD be determined by the amount of effort it took to come up with the idea, as determined by the seller, however.

[mrpopenfresh]

Like it or not, copyrights are very important. Without em, everything would be ripped off something, its what keeps the world original. Besides think about those countless swiffer knock offs, theyre starting to irritate me.Thats pretty much what the consumer world would be without copyright.countless drones

[FUNKbrs]

you mean like Japan? Or China? Asia is famous for its piracy of ideas, and it doesnt seem to hurt them all that much. And even you admit that copyrights dont stop knock-offs of successful products (swiffer example). Would anyone rollerblade or play with a frisbee if it werent for the affordable knock offs of these products most people use? I love knock offs. I eat knock off cereal, I drink knock off beer, I take knock off (generic) sinus medications. Why? Because they are cheaper and more efficient.

[Jonas]

I'm now confused. Are we talking about

1. Piracy?
2. Parodies?
3. Knockoffs?
4. International Law pertaining to international rights?
5. whether strawberryclock can sue someone over using his letter?
6. Why public domain is controlled the government?

[FUNKbrs]

At 5/7/03 06:31 PM, el_foka wrote: I'm now confused. Are we talking about

1. Piracy?
2. Parodies?
3. Knockoffs?
4. International Law pertaining to international rights?
5. whether strawberryclock can sue someone over using his letter?
6. Why public domain is controlled the government?

Damn, youre good.

1yes, 2yes again, 3yup, 4to some extent, 5fuck strawberry clock, Ill shit on his letter and make his mother eat it, 6not yet, but its probably a good idea.

All of that pertains to use by the public of intellectual property as affected by national/international law (except for strawberry clock, for as we all know, clocks are not humans, but machines, and therefore have no rights).

However, I seem to be the only cheap bastard who has no moral compunctions about buying knockoff products and using file sharing software.

[cylon]

At 5/7/03 11:02 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: You make comics, but you are not a printer. Im not saying you shouldnt recieve payment for the master copy of your comics, just the royalties. The printer should get the money for the copies, and you should get paid for the master. But why should you make money off the copier when youre not doing any extra work to deserve it? Your profit should come from the master copy only, so that prices can stay low and your popularity as an artist can spread. Then when the next master copy comes out, you can charge more for it.

If he makes a comic, it's his. If someone wants to print a bunch out and sell them, they can pay him to do so. He'll still hold the copyright though, and thus justly deserves the royalties. He made it, after all. Why should the printer make money off of his work, by printing later copies? Without it they'd have nothing to print.

On the other hand, that's why you can sell the rights to stuff... if the printer wants to be able to print however much of it they want, whenever they want and not pay royalties, they can buy up the full rights. They'll own it, they'll make the full amount from the copies they make.

If cartoonists - or anyone really - only get paid for the originals and do not make any royalties, I don't think that would lower prices. In fact, I think it would increase prices dramatically.

The artists would be selling their work for much more, to cover the fact that they lose all rights to it after selling the original. The printers would have to cover that cost, raising their prices to do so.

And who would pay the creators, anyway? If there are no copyrights, then why should Printer A pay $200,000 for a comic, when Printer B can just come along and print the same thing, later, without paying Printer A any royalties or anything. :/

[JudgeDredd]

inventors, artists, musicians, blah blah blah - phooey!!

Lawyers make more from copyrights than any other group in society. How can you say this simple squiggle or that particular sound combo or the other certain shape is OWNED by 1 person?

This Mickey Mouse Law (extended again in 1999 to cover Mickey's 50th birthday) now states that a person can hold a copyright for 50 years, and a corporation for 75 years?!?

Now think about it - how does that protect the original creator?

[JMHX]

Not everything can be privatized so that only the individual owns it for the length of their life and as long as it is around. Sometimes, things have to go to public domain or be bought by other people. It's just the way the copyright system works. It's the same with patents.

[Shih]

and not everything is that privatized the ability to make knock-offs really does help to prevent unfair use of copyright laws, as well as the fact that the goverment does have the right to make something public domain if it is judged to be vital to it's citizens well beings.

[XkwiziTOnE]

Well I dont know what to tell ya but they are here to stay and one has to deal with them......

[JMHX]

Speaking of copyrights, I need to find out how much it costs to copyright the name of a character in my novel. I've always wanted to have the little "c" there.