Diagree with the OP on numerous grounds stated above.
I disagree with this. Mickey freakin Mouse should alway and forever be the property of Walt Disney Corp. Spider-Man should forever be the property of Marvel Comics, inc. and Superman should forever be the property of DC. Or, until the point that such entities do not exist whatsoever. I think that some iconic “trademark” type characters should be “forever” protected. Or maybe there should be a special legal mechanism for that; I don’t think there is currently but IANAL.
If I can take a pic of Kate Middleton’s boobs from some location where I am legally entitled to be, then I should able to and THOSE PICS WOULD BE MINE!!! Ahahahahahahaha! Tresspassing to get them is a separate issue.
Also – no punishment whatsoever for any speech at all? I guess that eliminates confessions to criminal acts as evidence for a conviction.
What Oak said, though like another poster I think we would disagree what those categories should entail. I don’t have an ethical problem with censorship, but in its application it is one of the few areas where the old slippery slope argument actually seems to hold true for a certain value.
I respectfully disagree. The person making the confession isn’t being punished for what they said; they are being punished for what they did. Their confession merely confirms their crime.
We’re not talking about “banning numbers”. We’re talking about prohibiting disseminating information that is extremely damaging to society or individual liberties (or privacy).
The numbers that happen to make up some encoding of this information aren’t banned. Those numbers can be presented in a context where they’re not conveying the information in question (e.g., Kate’s boobs).
The number of numbers that would be banned are an infinitesimal set of the set of publishable numbers, and those “banned numbers” are only special in the sense that they convey the undesired information. If by some odd chance the jpg encoding of Kate’s boobs should miraculously happen to appear as the consequence of an academic discussion of numerical algorithms (and without any actual image of said boobs used as source), well, (a) it wouldn’t be censored since it wouldn’t be presented as an image, and (b) if the authors happened to learn of this odd consequence, they could make a trivial change and avoid the mishap. But the probability is vanishingly small so there’s no sense discussing it.
Do you have any actual reason for your feeling, or is it just a gut feeling, that since all information can be reduced to numbers, then all information should be open and free?
I agree, no censorship. But not eliminating charges for criminal or civil wrongs associated with the free speech. So you won’t be stopped from using free speech to steal, defraud, murder, etc., just prosecuted for doing so. Which is pretty much the system we have here in the US. I don’t see how this relates to the case of political speech in Brazil referenced in the OP.
Many Disney movies and characters are based on ancient stories. Should those ancient stories have been protected and owned by their heirs? If so, Disney would have only a small fraction of its classics. Disney relies on public domain, but denies any public domain for all future (practically speaking).
The situation now is that every time the limit on copyrights reaches the point where Disney IP is threatened, they extend ALL copyrights by 20 more years. If this keeps up, NOTHING will ever go into the public domain again, except by the (very rare) case where it’s done explicitly. There is no procedure to find out if someone has abandoned interest in anything.
Any artistic work fixed in any medium is automatically copyrighted, to 70 years after the author’s death. (And it’ll be changed to 90, 20 years from now!) So, there is effectively NO MORE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
That’s a sad state of affairs. An alternative would be for copyrights to expire by default, and companies that wanted to retain them would have to periodically renew them (for a nominal fee, or free). The problem with this is that it’s terribly difficult to administer – both on the part of the government and the industry.
However, a possible alternative that’s easier to administer would be, rather than for the copyright holder to have to renew every copyright, it could renew, in one document, ALL copyrights held by that individuual or corporation. That would allow Disney to have Mickey and all its movies, forever, while letting stuff that nobody cares about any more to fall into public domain – and possibly be rediscovered.
Above, I agreed to liability after the fact rather than censorship before publication.
Of course, there are exceptions to this, such as national security, and publishing the recipe for the little experiment anyone could do from stuff in any hardware store, that would make the sun go nova. I plan on keeping that one a secret, and I sure hope nobody else lets the cat out of the bag.
You managed to invoke both Godwin and a classic straw man argument in one post.
Then you evidently have never travelled much. There’s a lot more needed for civilization than free speech, and, frankly, “free speech” is a relative term anyway.
I assume that this all started from the movie trailer that triggered riots in the Middle East. There is actually some precedents in Constitutional law that apply to this. Speech that is intended to incite violence falls outside the First Amendment protection, and this movie could fall under that exception. IANAL, so that’s about all I know.
Taste is based on chemicals. It is very easy to encode the chemistry of a substance into numbers.
Anyway, I’m a hardcore “free flow of information” guy. Pretty much the only information I think should be restricted is that which could cause direct harm. Troop locations, bank account numbers… that’s about it.
No porn of any kind should be censored. 99% of classified documents should be open. Diplomatic cables should be free for all to see. Especially since those cables supposedly represent me in the international community, I should have oversight. Government should be ~100% transparent, except for specific real time military information. Once the military operation is over, it should be unclassified. That SEAL who wrote a book about capturing Osama should be in the clear. The operation is over with, so we don’t have to worry about Bin Laden finding out.
Individuals should of course be free to keep secrets, but not public institutions. And when the information is no longer secret, you shouldn’t get to assert control over it. Yes, that means I am against copyrights and patents, NDAs and gag orders. ETA: I’m also against libel and slander laws.
The taste of sulfuric acid can be discussed, detailed and described at length in writing. That text can be reduced to a (very large) binary number.
That binary number is probably broadcast by Wikipedia right now
Oh, fuck *that *forever. Mickey goat-felching Mouse and Spider-Man have both been out long enough, and spread far enough that they’re pretty much part of the fabric of culture itself. And not just the American one - I’m sure any Japanese or Russian kid can instantly recognize Miki Maosuh and Chto Spider Tovaritch respectively.
Should Disney and Marvel be rewarded every time someones watches a *Fantasia *DVD or reads the next issue of Ultimate Spider-Man ? Possibly. Probably even. Should no one in the world be allowed to use Mickey Mouse in their works or write their own take on Spider-Man ? Fuck that in bold letters. There’s really no justification for it, and it stifles creation. The idea certainly would have prevented many, many beloved famous works from being published in the first place (A Midsummer Night’s Dream ? Think again, Bill ! Puck’s some dead Gaelic twerp’s flagship intellectual property !). Also Pride, Prejudice & Zombies, and wouldn’t that have been a shame ?
Plus whatever the third party publish, it can’t be worse than One More Day anyway
This mixes up copyright and trademark. Yes, in due course, the copyrights to “Steamboat Willie” and “Fantasia” and “Spider-Man #228” should expire, and the content should become public domain. But the basic rights to the characters should be open to active renewed trademark, so that, until it lapses, no one else can be allowed to write new Mickey Mouse or Spider-Man stories.
Not “forever,” but as long as the people (or corporations) who own the characters make the effort of maintaining property rights.
No, I’ll stick with it, thanks. You were the one who’s saying that any impingement on free expression is tantamount to Nazism, which is, to be quite honest, preposterous. You also, to support this, created an argument nobody had made, which is what a “straw man” argument is.
There just isn’t an either-or line with free speech. The world is not that simple. Even the super-allegedly-free USA has perfectly reasonable limits on free speech - not a lot of them, but some, and there’s people lined up demanding more. (Citizens United, anyone?)
