Copyright Ownership Discussion

[edwest4]

Let face it, this AI tech is a double-edged sword,
you can use for good of mankind or worst of Mankind.

We live in interesting Times, like the Chinese curse say.
A time of transition, were old social system is replace by a New System.
like transition of Gothic to Renaissance/Reformation with all conflicts and Wars.
Here is it Cold War Era that replace by something new...

AI Tech will play important role in this transition during 21 century,
Allot Job normal during colt War will become obsolete with AI Tech.
Like assistants in Administration, Law firm and others will be replace by AI Tech.
Something similar will happen with Artist, illustrators and writers.
Imagine the next strike of Writers Guild of America and Hollywood switch to AI script...
although Ai Tech will bring improvement in Technology, like Aerospace or constructions.

But you could use this Technology for malicious means...
Perfect face recognition on Security Camera, precise profile of wanted persons.
Deep Fake of Person to black mail them or falsification of history for those who want total control !


But this not AI fault but fault the people using this technology for good or malicious means,
I think that was Frank Herbert warn us in DUNE about this AI Tech misuse, not about thinking machines...

Seriously? I know artists, illustrators and writers. OpenAI and others are facing lawsuits. This is just a rerun of the Google Book Search Project lawsuit from 2005.

Speaking to no one in particular - THIS is not the future. This is another attempt to steal material under copyright and get away with it. I urge those who don't know this to realize that this is the issue and it won't go away.

 

[aim9xray]

Sorry for the diversion, but how long do you think copyright should extend? Serious question.

 

[edwest4]

Sorry for the diversion, but how long do you think copyright should extend? Serious question.

The life of the artist plus 70 years. And speaking to no one in particular, I am tired of hearing about people who want something for nothing. Public Domain, they say. Create something yourself I say. Find out how hard it is.

 

[aim9xray]

...and for corporations, which can be effectively immortal?

 

[edwest4]

...and for corporations, which can be effectively immortal?

That's right. Legally, they can renew a copyright indefinitely.

 

[aim9xray]

Of what benefit to society is it to have some IP locked up in perpetuity (corporate), whereas other IP (individual artist) eventually becomes part of the commonweal?

 

[edwest4]

Of what benefit to society is it to have some IP locked up in perpetuity (corporate), whereas other IP (individual artist) eventually becomes part of the commonweal?

The benefit to society is that a copyright movie, such as one with Mickey Mouse, benefits society by its existence. Young artists are inspired by such things. They see it and think, I want to do that. But, as in the case of Rolling Stones guitarist, Keith Richard(s), he wasn't going to play Public Domain, or already existing work, he was going to create his own. The benefit of seeing Star Wars inspires a new generation of illustrators to make their own work. That is the benefit.

Not all IPs are created equal. We all hear about those that make millions and never hear about those that don't. And there are a lot more of those.

 

[aim9xray]

The benefit to society is that a copyright movie, such as one with Mickey Mouse, benefits society by its existence.

So the inverse, would you contend that that non-copyright IP (or IP no longer under copyright) does not benefit society by its existence?

Such as the Collected Works of Wm. Shakespeare?

 

[edwest4]

The benefit to society is that a copyright movie, such as one with Mickey Mouse, benefits society by its existence.

So the inverse, would you contend that that non-copyright IP (or IP no longer under copyright) does not benefit society by its existence?

Such as the Collected Works of Wm. Shakespeare?

Not all work is of equal merit. As a working editor, out of every 100 manuscripts I see, perhaps one is worth publishing. The same for a Hollywood script editor friend of mine, who has decided to move on to other things. The problem with some work that is no longer under copyright is that talentless amateurs can now put it on shirts or handbags for nothing and make a profit. And I happen to know that this has happened. Artwork that is old enough reappears wherever with no sense of creative anything. It's just tacked on to make a piece of wood or something else appear more attractive to potential buyers.

 

[aim9xray]

What has merit to do with copyright law?

 

[edwest4]

What has merit to do with copyright law?

In the case of those who wait for a work to go into the Public Domain, its value is based on its popularity. In other cases, on its attractiveness. A copper or steel engraving from the 1800s may reappear wherever, especially if it shows things like birds or flowers. Undesirable things, though available, do not reappear.

Copyright law is generally not understood. It is usually seen as a means to make money - that's all.

 

[aim9xray]

Very strictly speaking, it would seem to me that - boiled down, copyright is a means of controlling and protecting an [possible] income stream from an IP.

 

[1635yankee]

Very strictly speaking, it would seem to me that - boiled down, copyright is a means of controlling and protecting an [possible] income stream from an IP.

Disney and the recording industry are not spending millions on lobbying to protect some moral right of creators; they're doing so to retain control of a revenue stream.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Let face it, this AI tech is a double-edged sword,
you can use for good of mankind or worst of Mankind.

We live in interesting Times, like the Chinese curse say.
A time of transition, were old social system is replace by a New System.
like transition of Gothic to Renaissance/Reformation with all conflicts and Wars.
Here is it Cold War Era that replace by something new...

AI Tech will play important role in this transition during 21 century,
Allot Job normal during colt War will become obsolete with AI Tech.
Like assistants in Administration, Law firm and others will be replace by AI Tech.
Something similar will happen with Artist, illustrators and writers.
Imagine the next strike of Writers Guild of America and Hollywood switch to AI script...
although Ai Tech will bring improvement in Technology, like Aerospace or constructions.

But you could use this Technology for malicious means...
Perfect face recognition on Security Camera, precise profile of wanted persons.
Deep Fake of Person to black mail them or falsification of history for those who want total control !


But this not AI fault but fault the people using this technology for good or malicious means,
I think that was Frank Herbert warn us in DUNE about this AI Tech misuse, not about thinking machines...

Frank Herbert was a bitter guy who was only able to see the bad side of life, but... What about the bright side? I could rewatch CSI: Vegas without Jorja Fox, The Hunt for Red October with Alec Baldwin replaced by Harrison Ford and Deep Impact without Morgan Freeman. With the help of AI you could make the movie Red Storm Rising, a decent version of Them! 1954 or an understandable end of 2001.

 

[edwest4]

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-65610337

 

[edwest4]

Let face it, this AI tech is a double-edged sword,
you can use for good of mankind or worst of Mankind.

We live in interesting Times, like the Chinese curse say.
A time of transition, were old social system is replace by a New System.
like transition of Gothic to Renaissance/Reformation with all conflicts and Wars.
Here is it Cold War Era that replace by something new...

AI Tech will play important role in this transition during 21 century,
Allot Job normal during colt War will become obsolete with AI Tech.
Like assistants in Administration, Law firm and others will be replace by AI Tech.
Something similar will happen with Artist, illustrators and writers.
Imagine the next strike of Writers Guild of America and Hollywood switch to AI script...
although Ai Tech will bring improvement in Technology, like Aerospace or constructions.

But you could use this Technology for malicious means...
Perfect face recognition on Security Camera, precise profile of wanted persons.
Deep Fake of Person to black mail them or falsification of history for those who want total control !


But this not AI fault but fault the people using this technology for good or malicious means,
I think that was Frank Herbert warn us in DUNE about this AI Tech misuse, not about thinking machines...

Frank Herbert was a bitter guy who was only able to see the bad side of life, but... What about the bright side? I could rewatch CSI: Vegas without Jorja Fox, The Hunt for Red October with Alec Baldwin replaced by Harrison Ford and Deep Impact without Morgan Freeman. With the help of AI you could make the movie Red Storm Rising, a decent version of Them! 1954 or an understandable end of 2001.

The outcry from the original directors, or their heirs, would be enormous. 'You CAN'T change my work.'

 

[riggerrob]

The benefit to society is that a copyright movie, such as one with Mickey Mouse, benefits society by its existence.

So the inverse, would you contend that that non-copyright IP (or IP no longer under copyright) does not benefit society by its existence?

Such as the Collected Works of Wm. Shakespeare?

Not all work is of equal merit. As a working editor, out of every 100 manuscripts I see, perhaps one is worth publishing. The same for a Hollywood script editor friend of mine, who has decided to move on to other things. The problem with some work that is no longer under copyright is that talentless amateurs can now put it on shirts or handbags for nothing and make a profit. And I happen to know that this has happened. Artwork that is old enough reappears wherever with no sense of creative anything. It's just tacked on to make a piece of wood or something else appear more attractive to potential buyers.

Like mass-marketed T-shirts depicting Ernesto "Che" Geuvera.

 

[edwest4]

Oh yes. *Everybody* would want one of those...

 

[Justo Miranda]

Let face it, this AI tech is a double-edged sword,
you can use for good of mankind or worst of Mankind.

We live in interesting Times, like the Chinese curse say.
A time of transition, were old social system is replace by a New System.
like transition of Gothic to Renaissance/Reformation with all conflicts and Wars.
Here is it Cold War Era that replace by something new...

AI Tech will play important role in this transition during 21 century,
Allot Job normal during colt War will become obsolete with AI Tech.
Like assistants in Administration, Law firm and others will be replace by AI Tech.
Something similar will happen with Artist, illustrators and writers.
Imagine the next strike of Writers Guild of America and Hollywood switch to AI script...
although Ai Tech will bring improvement in Technology, like Aerospace or constructions.

But you could use this Technology for malicious means...
Perfect face recognition on Security Camera, precise profile of wanted persons.
Deep Fake of Person to black mail them or falsification of history for those who want total control !


But this not AI fault but fault the people using this technology for good or malicious means,
I think that was Frank Herbert warn us in DUNE about this AI Tech misuse, not about thinking machines...

Frank Herbert was a bitter guy who was only able to see the bad side of life, but... What about the bright side? I could rewatch CSI: Vegas without Jorja Fox, The Hunt for Red October with Alec Baldwin replaced by Harrison Ford and Deep Impact without Morgan Freeman. With the help of AI you could make the movie Red Storm Rising, a decent version of Them! 1954 or an understandable end of 2001.

The outcry from the original directors, or their heirs, would be enormous. 'You CAN'T change my work.'

Correction: You can't market my work, but you can make versions for non-profit friends.

I have a friend who alters short sequences of unforgettable movies as a hobby, whenever I go to his house for dinner he has something really cool to show me. The latest was an altered version of the Millennium Falcon's combat in the asteroid field:

- Are you going into an asteroid field?

- "They'll be crazy if they follow us.

In this particular version of only three minutes Carrie Fisher has been replaced by Greta Garbo with material extracted from Ninotchka and in my opinion the improvement is great.

 

[edwest4]

You haven't thought this through. First, actors are selected and paid. And it won't be long before some yahoo/anarchist posts things like this online. Then Hollywood, who has an army of lawyers, will track this person down and apply the thumb-screws. Seriously, I am appalled at the devil may care attitude displayed by some. Again, everyone gets paid for their work. If you alter it and it ends up online by accident, they will hunt you down and shave the hair off your pets. What they could do to you, well, I won't go into that...

The Copyright Office, on the other hand, is being rational.

Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative

Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative The U.S. Copyright Office today launched a new initiative to examine the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial...

newsroom.loc.gov

 

[Justo Miranda]

You haven't thought this through. First, actors are selected and paid. And it won't be long before some yahoo/anarchist posts things like this online. Then Hollywood, who has an army of lawyers, will track this person down and apply the thumb-screws. Seriously, I am appalled at the devil may care attitude displayed by some. Again, everyone gets paid for their work. If you alter it and it ends up online by accident, they will hunt you down and shave the hair off your pets. What they could do to you, well, I won't go into that...

The Copyright Office, on the other hand, is being rational.

Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative

Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative The U.S. Copyright Office today launched a new initiative to examine the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial...

newsroom.loc.gov

I agree, if someone is stupid enough to publish that material they deserve to see all the lawyers in their kitchen. But honestly, I think that whole copyright thing will be the least of Hollywood's problems for years to come... At least the dinosaurs were lucky enough not to have telescopes.

 

[edwest4]

You haven't thought this through. First, actors are selected and paid. And it won't be long before some yahoo/anarchist posts things like this online. Then Hollywood, who has an army of lawyers, will track this person down and apply the thumb-screws. Seriously, I am appalled at the devil may care attitude displayed by some. Again, everyone gets paid for their work. If you alter it and it ends up online by accident, they will hunt you down and shave the hair off your pets. What they could do to you, well, I won't go into that...

The Copyright Office, on the other hand, is being rational.

Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative

Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative The U.S. Copyright Office today launched a new initiative to examine the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial...

newsroom.loc.gov

I agree, if someone is stupid enough to publish that material they deserve to see all the lawyers in their kitchen. But honestly, I think that whole copyright thing will be the least of Hollywood's problems for years to come... At least the dinosaurs were lucky enough not to have telescopes.

Uh... what? I am a Hollywood actor. I get paid for appearing in a film. Then, somebody replaces me with someone else. Then it gets posted online. What does the director do? His film has been altered. He won't say, "Oh, that's OK." Why? That film is his work, his legacy. It earned money. He is not getting a cut from a pirated and altered version of his work.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Sorry for the diversion, but how long do you think copyright should extend? Serious question.

The life of the artist plus 70 years.

Life of the artist plus 30 or maybe 50 makes more sense. With corporate-owned IPs still limited to the life of the artist most responsible.

Some things enter common parlance long before they enter public domain. Keeping cultural icons locked up for the better part of a century is rather silly.

 

[edwest4]

Sorry for the diversion, but how long do you think copyright should extend? Serious question.

The life of the artist plus 70 years.

Life of the artist plus 30 or maybe 50 makes more sense. With corporate-owned IPs still limited to the life of the artist most responsible.

Some things enter common parlance long before they enter public domain. Keeping cultural icons locked up for the better part of a century is rather silly.

Another desperate plea for "Public Domain as soon as possible so I can make money off it." Create your own IP. Warning: It takes more than 5 minutes.

"cultural icons"? Trust me, the majority of the junk released is no longer marketable even a few years later.

You might be interested in an event where people try to market their IPs. And before you start seeing dollar signs from multi-million dollar deals, not everyone who goes to shows like this gets a big contract.

Show Information | Licensing Expo

For more than 40 years, Licensing Expo has connected the world's most influential entertainment, character, art, and corporate brand owners and agents with consumer goods manufacturers, licensees and retailers.

www.licensingexpo.com

 

[Apophenia]

... Copyright law is generally not understood. It is usually seen as a means to make money - that's all.

Under the first copyright law (Britain's Statute of Anne, 1710) published authors received 14 years protection (with an option to extend for another 14 years). Current US regulation protects for 95 years from publication (or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter).

I genuinely hope that such attitudes reflect naked cash-grab greed. Otherwise, it is simply a desire for control ... which is infinitely more frightening.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Another desperate plea for "Public Domain as soon as possible so I can make money off it."

"Projection" is a poor replacement for actual thought.

Once the artist is dead, you quickly start running out of reasons why the IP needs to remain locked up. He's *dead.*

 

[edwest4]

... Copyright law is generally not understood. It is usually seen as a means to make money - that's all.

Under the first copyright law (Britain's Statute of Anne, 1710) published authors received 14 years protection (with an option to extend for another 14 years). Current US regulation protects for 95 years from publication (or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter).

I genuinely hope that such attitudes reflect naked cash-grab greed. Otherwise, it is simply a desire for control ... which is infinitely more frightening.

Control of a talking mouse? What's frightening about that? I'm sure that a few here who end up with a 100 million dollars or more made through licensing their own creation would suddenly turn their attention away from complaining and put most of their time into thinking about ways to spend their money.

 

[edwest4]

Another desperate plea for "Public Domain as soon as possible so I can make money off it."

"Projection" is a poor replacement for actual thought.

Once the artist is dead, you quickly start running out of reasons why the IP needs to remain locked up. He's *dead.*

Projection? Ha ha. Examine what you wrote: "The body is cold. End the copyright now so I can make a buck."

Or, at the reading of The Will: "I bequeath to my heirs all titles and rights to my works created when I was alive."

 

[Orionblamblam]

Projection? Ha ha. Examine what you wrote: "The body is cold. End the copyright now so I can make a buck."

I didn't write that. You're *lying.*

 

[edwest4]

Projection? Ha ha. Examine what you wrote: "The body is cold. End the copyright now so I can make a buck."

I didn't write that. You're *lying.*

But isn't that what you want?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Projection? Ha ha. Examine what you wrote: "The body is cold. End the copyright now so I can make a buck."

I didn't write that. You're *lying.*

But isn't that what you want?

Nope. That's what you *imagine* because that's how *you* think. I have no desire to make a dime off of Superman, Batman, Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, "Happy Birthday," "The Grapes of Wrath," "WAP," "Monopoly" "The French Connection," "Jaws" or any of a million other things that are or someday will be in the public domain. Copyright is there to protect the artist and to promote artistic productivity. Once the artist is no longer there to protect... copyright serves very little function. Society is then better off being able to produce and re-interpret "Tom Sawyer" or "Moby Dick" or "Dixie."

 

[Orionblamblam]

Or, at the reading of The Will: "I bequeath to my heirs all titles and rights to my works created when I was alive."

And the rights to that work expire at some specified time and become public domain. I'm arguing in favor of a *reasonable* time. You want to stretch it out long enough that for the vast majority of stuff, nothing is or can be produced so it's forgotten.

"I bequeath my voting franchise" is not a line in a will that will hold up in court. "My stuff remains under the control of my family for five generations" seems similarly silly.

 

[Justo Miranda]

You haven't thought this through. First, actors are selected and paid. And it won't be long before some yahoo/anarchist posts things like this online. Then Hollywood, who has an army of lawyers, will track this person down and apply the thumb-screws. Seriously, I am appalled at the devil may care attitude displayed by some. Again, everyone gets paid for their work. If you alter it and it ends up online by accident, they will hunt you down and shave the hair off your pets. What they could do to you, well, I won't go into that...

The Copyright Office, on the other hand, is being rational.

Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative

Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative The U.S. Copyright Office today launched a new initiative to examine the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial...

newsroom.loc.gov

I agree, if someone is stupid enough to publish that material they deserve to see all the lawyers in their kitchen. But honestly, I think that whole copyright thing will be the least of Hollywood's problems for years to come... At least the dinosaurs were lucky enough not to have telescopes.

Uh... what? I am a Hollywood actor. I get paid for appearing in a film. Then, somebody replaces me with someone else. Then it gets posted online. What does the director do? His film has been altered. He won't say, "Oh, that's OK." Why? That film is his work, his legacy. It earned money. He is not getting a cut from a pirated and altered version of his work.

All that is very true, but technology often acts against the legitimate rights of artists.

I am old enough to remember a similar debate when cassette recorders allowed young people to record music broadcast on the radio, or when the government of my country tried to ban porn publications.


When a new technology is available to the general public, abuses are inevitable.


I am an author and I have suffered illegal copies of some of my works, I do not like it but I know that they will not ban photocopiers or scanners.

 

[edwest4]

Projection? Ha ha. Examine what you wrote: "The body is cold. End the copyright now so I can make a buck."

I didn't write that. You're *lying.*

But isn't that what you want?

Nope. That's what you *imagine* because that's how *you* think. I have no desire to make a dime off of Superman, Batman, Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, "Happy Birthday," "The Grapes of Wrath," "WAP," "Monopoly" "The French Connection," "Jaws" or any of a million other things that are or someday will be in the public domain. Copyright is there to protect the artist and to promote artistic productivity. Once the artist is no longer there to protect... copyright serves very little function. Society is then better off being able to produce and re-interpret "Tom Sawyer" or "Moby Dick" or "Dixie."

"Society"? Do you really think society is actually concerned about great and/or popular things? That instead of creating something new, the *preferred* approach is: The artist just kicked off so gimme? That instead of creating something new that is as good as Tom Sawyer, it's just gimme?

I find that sort of thinking to be a bit pathetic. Not directed at you but "society." A money grab by the little guy. As opposed to Amazon who would buy it, milk it for all it's worth, and then quietly sell the leftovers.

 

[edwest4]

You haven't thought this through. First, actors are selected and paid. And it won't be long before some yahoo/anarchist posts things like this online. Then Hollywood, who has an army of lawyers, will track this person down and apply the thumb-screws. Seriously, I am appalled at the devil may care attitude displayed by some. Again, everyone gets paid for their work. If you alter it and it ends up online by accident, they will hunt you down and shave the hair off your pets. What they could do to you, well, I won't go into that...

The Copyright Office, on the other hand, is being rational.

Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative

Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative The U.S. Copyright Office today launched a new initiative to examine the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial...

newsroom.loc.gov

I agree, if someone is stupid enough to publish that material they deserve to see all the lawyers in their kitchen. But honestly, I think that whole copyright thing will be the least of Hollywood's problems for years to come... At least the dinosaurs were lucky enough not to have telescopes.

Uh... what? I am a Hollywood actor. I get paid for appearing in a film. Then, somebody replaces me with someone else. Then it gets posted online. What does the director do? His film has been altered. He won't say, "Oh, that's OK." Why? That film is his work, his legacy. It earned money. He is not getting a cut from a pirated and altered version of his work.

All that is very true, but technology often acts against the legitimate rights of artists.

I am old enough to remember a similar debate when cassette recorders allowed young people to record music broadcast on the radio, or when the government of my country tried to ban porn publications.


When a new technology is available to the general public, abuses are inevitable.


I am an author and I have suffered illegal copies of some of my works, I do not like it but I know that they will not ban photocopiers or scanners.

Speaking generally: I am a victim of thieves! The unscrupulous have made illegal copies of my work!! Oh dear. This victim mentally assumes the wrong things.

Before the internet. I took a number of phone calls from copier shops. It went like this: "Hello. I have a customer here who wants to copy one of your books from cover to cover." I always said NO.

So what we have here is a new technology to steal.

One thing I am called to do is to scan the internet for illegal copies of my company's work. Then, takedown notices are sent out. By law, these sites must comply.

I don't think it is wise to say, 'Oh well. What can you do? Illegal things will happen. What can you do?'

My company is doing something as opposed to nothing. The police may miss a few traffic violations in a day but they never stop. That is my company's approach. Never stop.

 

[Justo Miranda]

You haven't thought this through. First, actors are selected and paid. And it won't be long before some yahoo/anarchist posts things like this online. Then Hollywood, who has an army of lawyers, will track this person down and apply the thumb-screws. Seriously, I am appalled at the devil may care attitude displayed by some. Again, everyone gets paid for their work. If you alter it and it ends up online by accident, they will hunt you down and shave the hair off your pets. What they could do to you, well, I won't go into that...

The Copyright Office, on the other hand, is being rational.

Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative

Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative The U.S. Copyright Office today launched a new initiative to examine the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial...

newsroom.loc.gov

I agree, if someone is stupid enough to publish that material they deserve to see all the lawyers in their kitchen. But honestly, I think that whole copyright thing will be the least of Hollywood's problems for years to come... At least the dinosaurs were lucky enough not to have telescopes.

Uh... what? I am a Hollywood actor. I get paid for appearing in a film. Then, somebody replaces me with someone else. Then it gets posted online. What does the director do? His film has been altered. He won't say, "Oh, that's OK." Why? That film is his work, his legacy. It earned money. He is not getting a cut from a pirated and altered version of his work.

All that is very true, but technology often acts against the legitimate rights of artists.

I am old enough to remember a similar debate when cassette recorders allowed young people to record music broadcast on the radio, or when the government of my country tried to ban porn publications.


When a new technology is available to the general public, abuses are inevitable.


I am an author and I have suffered illegal copies of some of my works, I do not like it but I know that they will not ban photocopiers or scanners.

Speaking generally: I am a victim of thieves! The unscrupulous have made illegal copies of my work!! Oh dear. This victim mentally assumes the wrong things.

Before the internet. I took a number of phone calls from copier shops. It went like this: "Hello. I have a customer here who wants to copy one of your books from cover to cover." I always said NO.

So what we have here is a new technology to steal.

One thing I am called to do is to scan the internet for illegal copies of my company's work. Then, takedown notices are sent out. By law, these sites must comply.

I don't think it is wise to say, 'Oh well. What can you do? Illegal things will happen. What can you do?'

My company is doing something as opposed to nothing. The police may miss a few traffic violations in a day but they never stop. That is my company's approach. Never stop.

Well, if there's anything worse than being robbed, it's that it's not worth stealing... What a humiliation!

 

[Apophenia]

... Copyright law is generally not understood. It is usually seen as a means to make money - that's all.

Under the first copyright law (Britain's Statute of Anne, 1710) published authors received 14 years protection (with an option to extend for another 14 years). Current US regulation protects for 95 years from publication (or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter).

I genuinely hope that such attitudes reflect naked cash-grab greed. Otherwise, it is simply a desire for control ... which is infinitely more frightening.

Control of a talking mouse? What's frightening about that? I'm sure that a few here who end up with a 100 million dollars or more made through licensing their own creation would suddenly turn their attention away from complaining and put most of their time into thinking about ways to spend their money.

I cannot imagine. Okay, so a 95-year-long naked cash-grab it is then. Glad we got that cleared up.

 

[edwest4]

... Copyright law is generally not understood. It is usually seen as a means to make money - that's all.

Under the first copyright law (Britain's Statute of Anne, 1710) published authors received 14 years protection (with an option to extend for another 14 years). Current US regulation protects for 95 years from publication (or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter).

I genuinely hope that such attitudes reflect naked cash-grab greed. Otherwise, it is simply a desire for control ... which is infinitely more frightening.

Control of a talking mouse? What's frightening about that? I'm sure that a few here who end up with a 100 million dollars or more made through licensing their own creation would suddenly turn their attention away from complaining and put most of their time into thinking about ways to spend their money.

I cannot imagine. Okay, so a 95-year-long naked cash-grab it is then. Glad we got that cleared up.

And if you had that cash in your hands, what would you say? I know a few people who made a lot of money by licensing their work. But that was decades ago and the money has mostly been spent. Say I create my great work at age 25, license it for millions and retain the rights which I then pass on to my children, and if there is time, my grandchildren. Sometimes, having millions of dollars in hand changes people.

 

[Apophenia]

And if you had that cash in your hands, what would you say? I know a few people who made a lot of money by licensing their work. Bit that was decades ago and the money has mostly been spent. Say I create my great work at age 25, license it for millions and retain the rights which I then pass on to my children, and if there is time, my grandchildren. Sometimes, having millions of dollars in hand changes people.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhjqmAoBKCQ

 

[edwest4]

I never watch/listen to anything with the words Parental Advisory.