Poll: Does our generation recognise copyright laws?

[Speakercone]

I agree that creators should have some legal protection against unscrupulous people and organizations who would use their creations without credit or payment given. I also think that Intellectual Property rights should be non-transferrable. If you created it, you own all rights to it. Simple as that. The problem we have now is when publishers own IPs for the content they publish. This brings about the uncomfortable scenario whereby the creator of the IP in question is required to cede all rights to their creations in order to have them published.

Copyright law as it stands favours publishers over creators and this is directly contrary to the what copyrights are supposed to do. As such, I do not recognize copyright laws as legitimate in their current state.

 

[Something Amyss]

Copyright law as it stands favours publishers over creators and this is directly contrary to the what copyrights are supposed to do. As such, I do not recognize copyright laws as legitimate in their current state.

Worse, it favours corporations over pretty much everyone else.

Additionally, we really need to stop this extension of copyright law terms. There's no way Mickey Mouse should be kept out of the public domain. It no longer serves the intention of copyright law to do so. It serves only Disney, much as we all will when they march on Earth's capitols....

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I think most people are more than willing to admit when they're using material that they didn't create themselves. The issue, I think, is that major companies and corporations, and through them, governments have become almost Orwellian in their enforcement of copyright laws.

The reason I ask is that I'm doing a course in film and it's kind of funny how whenever someone misses a film in film studies they just download it. You'd think that if anyone was going to be trying to protect copyright it would be the people who are going to be relying on it to make money.

The majour issue with this in particular is that downloading stuff is classified as copyright violation instead of theft for some asinine reason that is beyond me. To me a copyright violation would be if they downloaded it, slapped their name on it, and then tried to resell it as their own product. That would be a copyright violation! Simply downloading it is not copyright violation, it's stealing; ostensibly getting something without paying for it that wasn't being given away for free!

 

[chowderface]

I dont, Im 20, For the most part I think theyre ridiculous, are abused, stifle creativity and are the epitome of greed.
Protecting your product/idea is one thing but they go to far with consequences for me to respect.

You cant even sing Happy Birthday anymore....

Speaking as an artist, this is an incredibly ignorant remark. We have enough obstacles to getting paid (go look up "Craig's Pissed" sometime; it's several years old, and yet everything in it is still a problem today) without having people declaring copyrights to be bunk. Yes, some of the bigger corporations get a little wacky with it, but copyrights are just as important, if not moreso, to the little guy.

I believe we recognize the laws in the sense that we are aware of their presence, we just don't respect them.

I believe in adhering to the laws for things such as video games since a good game has such huge production costs, and they need to charge us a lot to manage to turn a real profit. But for things like music, I refuse to pay for it. I don't care if it's breaking the law to pirate music, the real bad guys are the record companies who charge multitudes above the standard production costs. I understand that they don't want to sell for nothing, but they have more than enough to work with to turn a massive profit without charging so much for their music.

Selling the music is just exposure for their stars to make them more marketable, the real money comes from all the products, tours, appearances, etc... So I don't feel bad about getting free music, because they brought it on themselves by being greedy.

I have kind of a paradoxical attitude towards music piracy. The more I like a band, the less likely I am to pirate their music, because that's how they make their living and I want to hear more of their music, so I want to actually pay for it so they'll make more. This goes double for if I can purchase the music direct from the artist (like how Jonathan Coulton does it), for pretty much the reasons you cited; the people getting my money are the people who actually deserve it in that case.

 

[ElPatron]

in reality use of other intellectual material for non profit purposes is often acceptable.

Which explains why YouTube took down one of my videos which did not give me any profit and contained content of my own (Fair Use mentions "remixes", etc).


No matter how "fair" the concept of copyright can be in theory, in reality I don't trust it.





Also, SOPA. It's so vague it basically means corporations will be able to judge what is copyright infringement or not and take it down without going trough the proper channels.

 

[bdcjacko]

I love how the 99%ers hate copyrights when it is the only thing they have to protect their intellectual property. And more and more intellectual property is the only thing that can make them money.

 

[lacktheknack]

About as much as jaywalking, methinks. Most people really don't give care.

 

[dickywebster]

I personally stick to the copyright laws where i can, but theres some lesser known ones ive admitted to breaking, like how some friends and i used to watch a film after school in one of the class rooms on the projector, but we didnt find out until a lot later that that in itself was actually illegal, even though all we were really doing was taking advantage of a massive screen and been entertained until our parents picked us up. But then we werent even teenagers so copyright laws wasnt something we had really encountered (this been over a decade ago now when i hadnt even hit double digits). As far as we knew, its just something everyone did, keep the kids happy with a film or the like, i dont even know what you would need to do to show films in technically public places, heck we watched videos and dvds in class that said this film or what not shouldnt be shown in schools.

So to what extent are we meant to follow these rules when they seem impossible to enforce in cases like say that, they cant have someone watching every public place and is there even a public place allowed copy of films you can buy?

But from what i understand, its all outdated and to some extent hasnt really got around the problem of the internet, so as others have meantioned it does need to be updated and maybe a semi international one drafted if it hasnt already?
And with regards to piracy, its been proven it doesnt hurt the music industry, the film industry seems to think it is an excuse to bankrupt people and yes it might not be uncommon, but when they start saying everyone does it then i just give up on the lot.

 

[Hoplon]

I think my generation know exactly what they are and despise the current system because the people that should own it frequently don't.

It's more often owned by middle men that didn't put the in the effort to create and only care about it passing some arbitrary sales goal which they then keep all most all of the return on.

These same middle men are now complaining because they didn't notice an entire new market and instead of embracing it they have tried the same old tricks to no effect simply because they still don't understand it.

It's the closest we have come to organised resistance.

Anyone that claims to think it is fine is a bullshit artist of epic proportions.

 

[asacatman]

I believe we recognize the laws in the sense that we are aware of their presence, we just don't respect them.

I believe in adhering to the laws for things such as video games since a good game has such huge production costs, and they need to charge us a lot to manage to turn a real profit. But for things like music, I refuse to pay for it. I don't care if it's breaking the law to pirate music, the real bad guys are the record companies who charge multitudes above the standard production costs. I understand that they don't want to sell for nothing, but they have more than enough to work with to turn a massive profit without charging so much for their music.

Selling the music is just exposure for their stars to make them more marketable, the real money comes from all the products, tours, appearances, etc... So I don't feel bad about getting free music, because they brought it on themselves by being greedy.

That's fine if you pirate big, popular, (often pretty shitty, think Justin Bieber) music. But if you are pirating indie bands that can't sell out tours and always have millions of pounds left over if something goes wrong, then sometimes album sales are a big part of their profits, although I'm not certain of that since Radiohead don't seem to give a shit, although they're a big band, I guess.

Anyway, to sum up:
If you pirtate smallish bands, you're a bad person.
If you pirate big bands, you probably have bad taste in music.

So it's a lose lose situation

 

[Total LOLige]

The majour issue with this in particular is that downloading stuff is classified as copyright violation instead of theft for some asinine reason that is beyond me. To me a copyright violation would be if they downloaded it, slapped their name on it, and then tried to resell it as their own product. That would be a copyright violation! Simply downloading it is not copyright violation, it's stealing; ostensibly getting something without paying for it that wasn't being given away for free!

I think it's classed as copyright because you're not stealing something physical, it's just a digital copy of the original. The companies can make a copy anytime they want.

OT: I used to download alot but I've stopped it because I want to support my local film an music companies. A small band might not get another deal because their last album didn't get strong sales. But massive film companies can take a few hits from pirates because more people will buy than pirate.

Some companies go a little OTT with intellectual property protection, like Microsoft anyway wasn't microsoft built by stealing other peoples ideas?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

The majour issue with this in particular is that downloading stuff is classified as copyright violation instead of theft for some asinine reason that is beyond me. To me a copyright violation would be if they downloaded it, slapped their name on it, and then tried to resell it as their own product. That would be a copyright violation! Simply downloading it is not copyright violation, it's stealing; ostensibly getting something without paying for it that wasn't being given away for free!

I think it's classed as copyright because you're not stealing something physical, it's just a digital copy of the original. The companies can make a copy anytime they want.

Maybe so, but that still doesn't make any goddman sense.

Some companies go a little OTT with intellectual property protection, like Microsoft anyway wasn't microsoft built by stealing other peoples ideas?

For example most of them do that. ¬_¬

 

[Mrrrgggrlllrrrg]

I do but I cant speak for the generation. Entertainment is largely an undervalued industry and part of that has been the general attitudes on intellectual property not being seen as a thing to care about or with value.

There are people that wont bat an eyelash at filling a fancy new ipod with music gotten from torrents, or take an image to use without crediting or even asking the creator, or even downloading a film.

Entertainment is getting to the point of being expected for virtually nothing and that negatively impacts the view of intellectual property. In the end piracy really does hurt the entertainment industry as a whole, it forces out the risky creative works and promotes an environment where "safe bets" are much more common.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

No generation has ever respected copyright.

 

[Kopikatsu]

in reality use of other intellectual material for non profit purposes is often acceptable.

Which explains why YouTube took down one of my videos which did not give me any profit and contained content of my own (Fair Use mentions "remixes", etc).


No matter how "fair" the concept of copyright can be in theory, in reality I don't trust it.





Also, SOPA. It's so vague it basically means corporations will be able to judge what is copyright infringement or not and take it down without going trough the proper channels.

To be fair, Youtube is probably REALLY strict about those kinds of things because they want to avoid a lawsuit at any cost.

Which makes sense. Lawsuits suck hardcore style.

 

[-Dragmire-]

I recognize it and I respect what it used to be, not what it's become.

Until recently, the purpose of intellectual property law was to give as little protection possible in order to encourage innovation. Historically, therefore, they were granted only when they were necessary to encourage invention, limited in time and scope.

 

[Batou667]

I think that the rise of the internet (and other mechanisms for information-sharing) will eventually be the death of Copyright as we know it.

 

[Bad Jim]

Copyright is like a bull. It's an asset, but only as long as it's kept in its' enclosure. I can accept that a limited monopoly on artistic works can encourage people to create them who otherwise would not. But . . .

Copyrights that go on for centuries ensure that only the very best works will still be available by the time their copyright expires. It would be less barbaric to find some profitable way of destroying the Louvre.

And another thing. Copyright infringement is not stealing. You can tell, because when you steal car you get due process. If you steal at gunpoint you get due process. If you murder someone you get due process. In fact, Zacarias Moussaoui, the 9/11 terrorist, got due process.

Why is copyright infringement different? Why are copyright holders allowed to wipe you off the internet before their piracy claims are tested in court? Why is breaking DRM illegal, even to accomplish legal goals. And why should I get into more trouble for illegally downloading Top Gun than I would for stealing all three of Tom Cruises' private jets?

 

[MiracleOfSound]

As someone whose primary income is selling music through the internet I can confirm that yes... people definitely do ignore copyright and take stuff for free... a lot.

The ethics of this are not something I've made my mind up on, I've never done it myself but am hesitant to judge those who do as well, it's what they grew up with. When I was a kid there was no such thing as free music/movies.

 

[XDravond]

No.
It was protection for innovation, it is protection for big companies budgets and a way of reduce privacy.

More direct money to creators I support. The companies that "need" the money for "promotion" and "discovering" I do not support.

But with todays laws/etc getting sillier/stupider by the day it is hard to feel any "respect" for some off them....