I’ve seen you use alot of unfair debating tactics, but this is by far the most creative. You can’t possibly lose!
I actually refuted your post but I didn’t bother to post it. You should have seen it, it was a work of art, links and cites from conservatives like Reagan, Bush 1, even a Santorum and Ralph Reed quote in there, all backed by the words of Jesus. But since you didn’t bother to post, I didn’t either.
That Jesus quote would have been devastating. No wonder he didn’t post.
I DID find a cite though.
But I’m not providing it here - do your own research!
Bullshit. You know what he almost posted was a straw man and a fundamental misunderstanding of the debate, so there’s no way you could find a cite to prove it. Don’t toy with the poor man!
The *almost *poor man.
I’m not sure what “excessive compensation” is. All I want is for you to work for me for a “reasonable” salary, and not have the right to withhold your work and demand compensation I find excessive. Deal?
It seems like a lot of the problem some posters have with copyright laws is really a problem with how corporations are treated under the law, not with copyright itself.
If corporations are to be treated like people, with the ability to possess copyright (and to inherit it from individual humans who have died, as Disney seems to have done), it seems only fair that corporations be subject to other aspects of the human condition: to wit, that they (legally) expire themselves after some time period equivalent to a human lifespan.
Let Disney have the copyright to Dumbo “for the life of the copyright holder.” But also, “kill” the Disney corporation (legally, anyway) when it’s 70-90 years old and free up that copyright.
Where do you get the notion that only people should own copyright in the first place, or that letting a corporation own it is “treating it like a person?”
Copyright is property. Do you think only people should have the legal right to own property?
No, simply make the copyright that Disney owns expire when the person who created the work and conveyed the copyright to it dies, just as it would if the creator still owned it.
When I write something and I own a copyright, it’s mine. I’ll withhold my property if I want to, for any reason. I am not obligated to write you a novel, or to release it to the public, or to sell it for an amount you deem “reasonable” or any of that.
Yeah, but what about their heirs? And their heirs? And their heirs? Just how much do we owe people who never created the work and are milking it for all it’s worth? (This is also essentially what a corporation does.) Edgar Rice Burroughs estate, I’m looking at you!
It’s what makes it available to other creators who want to use/reference their creations in their own works.
It happens with such regularity that it is naive or more likely in your case, deliberately obtuse, to believe otherwise.
Says the adamant defender of the Citizens United decision.
Nope, I’ve got my head screwed on straight, you’re the one who had put himself in a corner.
Agreed. I am not sure how the copyright discussion grew out of a discussion of nuns being assholes.
I’m all for changing the laws wrt copyright. Discussing it on message boards and persuading others seems a reasonable extension of that.
No, that’s not true either. Other creators can do that by paying royalties to the copyright holder. Happens daily.
Well no, that’s not even argument. It’s just an assertion.
My argument was a logical fact - correlation is not causation. And I am most certainly not naive about this issue.
Yes. Citizens United did not say money is speech. No court ever said that. I’m happy to explain the details if you want. I support CU because I actually understand what it said.
But you’re not doing that. You’re whining about how nothing can be done to stop the all-powerful corporations, as if the voters have no say in what happens and no responsibility for it.
Wasn’t the goal of copyrights to both enable the creator to profit off his work, and thus more likely to create more original work, and, allowing for a reasonable time to pass, enrich the general public by making that work freely available eventually?
Corporate trademarks may be long-lasting, but eventually it should expire, not simply exist forever throughout the life of the corporation.
If I had my way, I’d propose even more radical changes. There are some intellectual properties owned by now-defunct companies. But the IP remains with them, and if someone tried to do something with it, the ghosts of that corporation gets to sue. So you have IPs like the brilliant Star Control franchise with Accolade, whose follow up to that game was crap, and the creators who would probably crowdsource a new sequel to that but is blocked because they don’t own the copyright anymore. That’s fucked up. It serves no one, not the dead corporation, not the creator, and not the public.
I don’t know. I’m not defending that. But if heirs can own a copyright forever, that solves the dilemma about corporations owning them forever.
Well, yes, but I think they should have the ability to do it collectively. A partnership between two persons allows them to own property jointly. From that point, it’s just legal fine-print to say that “the partnership” owns the property. I have no objection to this fine print, because it allows partners, and other groups, to own, operate, buy, sell, build upon, and otherwise control their property. At the heart, it really is people who own property: the “corporation” is just a collective name for that bunch of people.