Poll: Should copyright apply on the internet?

[Karma168]

Should companies be able to block media on the internet due to copyright? I'm not talking about illegal downloads they do what they want there, I'm talking about the companies uploading material themselves and then blocking it to certain countries.

One of my friends (who's doing computer science atm) always points out that the internet cannot be regulated because it covers the world and as such a thousand different variants of the law. what is legal in one country might be illegal in another, the same applies to copyright.

We are always warned about the things we upload as 'once its on the internet it can never be removed.' the same should apply to large companies, they uploaded the content and therefore should have no right to have it banned due to copyright as it is their own site, youtube page etc. if they didn't want the world to see it for free don't put it online.

the internet is built upon the free transfer of information to any part of the world. China gets huge criticism for blocking access to online material so why don't the companies?

 

[Something Amyss]

Defense of intellectual property and government control of information aren't exactly the same.

 

[Xaryn Mar]

They should not be allowed to block information including media. Copyright is a mess as it is and should be revised so that it will be uniform on the internet.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Copyright is a mess as it is and should be revised so that it will be uniform on the internet.

What, get every country on the nation to sit down and agree on binding laws that apply to all of them equally? Good luck with that.

 

[Bobic]

It's their material, they can do what they like with it. If they don't want the dirty foreigners viewing their material so be it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Copyright is a mess as it is and should be revised so that it will be uniform on the internet.

What, get every country on the nation to sit down and agree on binding laws that apply to all of them equally? Good luck with that.

Yeah, it's a pipe dream at best. We usually can't get a dozen groups to agree.

 

[FamoFunk]

I'm not sure, I never understand why I can't watch a certain music video on YouTube :/

When it comes to something like not being able to watch BBC programmes on iPlayer in other countries because you don't pay the licence fee, we do. I'm all for it.

 

[Something Amyss]

They should not be allowed to block information including media. Copyright is a mess as it is and should be revised so that it will be uniform on the internet.

The last time we saw something like that, it was the WIPO Treaty of the 90s. This treaty is what the DMCA codified in the US.

I'm just saying, best case scenario, we're going to get shafted.

 

[Steve Butts]

We are always warned about the things we upload as 'once its on the internet it can never be removed.' the same should apply to large companies, they uploaded the content and therefore should have no right to have it banned due to copyright as it is their own site, youtube page etc. if they didn't want the world to see it for free don't put it online.

That's demonstrably wrong. Information is a commodity with tremendous commercial significance. It represents an investment of effort and a tolerance for risk, which deserves reward or at least recognition. Compromising a creator's chances of reaping those rewards is theft, plain and simple.

You might as well say the distribution or sale of bootleg recordings of concerts or photocopies or printed material are perfectly legal simply because the creators of that content decided to make it available in a public forum. Even if the material's available for free (concert in the park, books in the local library), the creator should still have rights. The internet makes it so easy to capture and redistribute material anonymously, users feel it's their right to steal content.

Copyright is absolutely applicable to the internet and is essential to maintaining any sort of quality.

 

[theheroofaction]

If they're posting their stuff, on the internet they can do whatever they want with it: how is this worse than DRM

 

[Baby Tea]

Information is a commodity with tremendous commercial significance. It represents an investment of effort and a tolerance for risk, which deserves reward or at least recognition. Compromising a creator's chances of reaping those rewards is theft, plain and simple.

You might as well say the distribution or sale of bootleg recordings of concerts or photocopies or printed material are perfectly legal simply because the creators of that content decided to make it available in a public forum. Even if the material's available for free (concert in the park, books in the local library), the creator should still have rights. The internet makes it so easy to capture and redistribute material anonymously, users feel it's their right to steal content.

Copyright is absolutely applicable to the internet and is essential to maintaining any sort of quality.

And this is why Steve Butts is the man.
Or, as the Spanish say: "El Manno".

Why wouldn't it be enforced on the internet?
This ridiculous sense of entitlement needs to stop. People deserve to get paid for their work, whether its music, movies, whatever. I'll be the first to say somethings need to change about our current copyright system in this age of the 'net, but one thing will NOT change: Paying people who create the content. That's just common sense.

Nobody deserves this stuff for free.

 

[Steve Butts]

And this is why Steve Butts is the man.
Or, as the Spanish say: "El Manno".

Takes one to know one.

 

[Karma168]

You might as well say the distribution or sale of bootleg recordings of concerts or photocopies or printed material are perfectly legal simply because the creators of that content decided to make it available in a public forum. Even if the material's available for free (concert in the park, books in the local library), the creator should still have rights. The internet makes it so easy to capture and redistribute material anonymously, users feel it's their right to steal content.

I said in the OP that piracy is still wrong and copyright would apply in this case. What i'm talking about is uploading your own material. you've put it on the internet so should you then control who sees it? to use your example its like holding a free concert in the park then telling half the crowd to put their fingers in their ears as they aren't allowed to listen.

Once you publish something online that is free either everyone should be able to see it or no-one should.

 

[badgersprite]

Information is a commodity with tremendous commercial significance. It represents an investment of effort and a tolerance for risk, which deserves reward or at least recognition. Compromising a creator's chances of reaping those rewards is theft, plain and simple.

You might as well say the distribution or sale of bootleg recordings of concerts or photocopies or printed material are perfectly legal simply because the creators of that content decided to make it available in a public forum. Even if the material's available for free (concert in the park, books in the local library), the creator should still have rights. The internet makes it so easy to capture and redistribute material anonymously, users feel it's their right to steal content.

Copyright is absolutely applicable to the internet and is essential to maintaining any sort of quality.

And this is why Steve Butts is the man.
Or, as the Spanish say: "El Manno".

Why wouldn't it be enforced on the internet?
This ridiculous sense of entitlement needs to stop. People deserve to get paid for their work, whether its music, movies, whatever. I'll be the first to say somethings need to change about our current copyright system in this age of the 'net, but one thing will NOT change: Paying people who create the content. That's just common sense.

Nobody deserves this stuff for free.

A+

You two just said everything I came in here to say. Provided it's not covered under things like Fair Use, which is a whole other topic we could do, then copyright holder has every right to say how their material can and can't be used.