If so, propose one.
I’m simply saying that one can’t rationalize violating copyright in this way.
In that case, take it. I’m talking about cases where there is a clear copyright holder.
I have no problem with a “use it or lose it” clause. But you have to wait until that’s enacted to take advantage of it. You can’t just declare it and steal something.
Oh well. That’s life. You don’t get every little bit of entertainment you desire.
I’m a musician by profession and do some history as well. So it’s well beyond entertainment for me.
I guess the concept of “cultural heritage” doesn’t cut any ice with you. Especially not up against the rights of corporate personhood.
Still, that’s life. You don’t get everything you want, for free or sometimes at all.
Please don’t start with the evil corporations bit.
No, you don’t get to expect someone to work hard for no money so you can have a cultural heritage. If someone owns a copyright, it’s because someone, somewhere, produced a work and sold the rights, and made money on it.
If an artist wants to give away cultural heritage, he/she can do so by simply licensing the work royalty-free. The fact that he/she didn’t is an indication that he/she didn’t intend that. So too bad.
To sum up so far :
Us : “We think copyright law is flawed, and therefore feel justified in disregarding it in certain circumstances.”
Lance : “You can’t do that, it’s illegal!”
Us : :rolleyes: :smack:
I’m willing to let you start with the good corporations bit, in the interests of equal time.
Little to no work-for-free is needed to make heritage works available. They’ve been created. They need only be made accessible and preserved.
Good try, though, attempting to turn back the focus from companies to artists. (In this case, often deceased artists, working for hire without a royalty deal.) But that discussion is well underway, and this one has barely begun.
Then modify copyright law, or go make them an offer.
Every artist is a future deceased artist. Doesn’t mean they can’t sell their copyright to someone else, who will only buy it if they have the right to keep it for a while.
This is all about the artist. Don’t pretend it’s not.
The latter would take a tycoon’s pockets. The former even a tycoon couldn’t pull off at this point.
Don’t you pretend you don’t want to keep big media rights holders immune from criticism. They only stand to benefit from having the same legal status as creators.
Well, yes, except I’d modify it slightly:
You: “We think copyright law is flawed, and therefore feel justified in stealing stuff because our arguments resemble those of petulant children who think they can just break any rule they don’t like.”
I do.
But that’s because artists benefit from it. It allows artists to sell their rights to companies. If companies didn’t have the same rights, they wouldn’t buy them from artists.
So then. Arguments you don’t agree with are the stuff of “petulant children.” :dubious:
I’m beginning to see why you won’t defend your points at any length, strongarm (and what a well-chosen name that is). You actually think you’re better than the people you’re arguing with.
No, arguments that resemble petulant children are petulant children.
No, I’m simply calling it as I see it.
You want to take stuff that isn’t yours.
OK, then you won’t object to my pointing out that some folks in the Pit have called you as they see you.
In the interest of full disclosure, I too used to be a tiresome troll. But I got better.
Back to the topic of copyright now, hopefully.
Yes, hopefully.
If only you possessed the rhetorical chops to actually defend that point, rather than baselessly asserting it. 
No I don’t.
I was criticizing the argument, not the people making it.
I act like a petulant child sometimes too. My wife usually points it out.
Okay.
Children believe that they can just take something they want, even if it is owned by someone else. They often come up with all kinds of excuses and rationalizations for this.
There you go.
No, you said we feel justified **because **our arguments resemble those of children.
In logic form, you have asserted “If A, then B.”
Your premise, A, is “Your arguments resemble those of children.” Your conclusion, B, is “Therefore, you feel justified in ignoring copyright law.”
Even if we accept A as a given (and as it is entirely subjective, that’s a big leap already) - B does not follow from the premise. In fact, arguments would flow from the feeling of justification, not vice versa. Basic cause and effect seems to elude you as easily as logic. 
Then I misspoke.
For the record, the reason I wrote it that way, which in hindsight was confusing, was that I initially wrote in a way that described the posters themselves instead of their arguments, but that would violate forum rules.
Now you know what I meant.
You meant to baselessly and indefensibly liken our arguments to those of children in a snarky manner, in response to my succinct summary of the festivities so far. So, snarkfail. Got it!