I have.I havent ever done any of those things
Where I live carrier locking of phones is illegal. It may also be illegal in the EU. I hold dual citizenship so I can flip flop haha.
I should care about these more than I do. Some of them I definitely understand, and others… Ehhh. I don’t really understand how making a gif out of like 1 second of footage is harmful. (I don’t actually make gifs, I’m just saying.)
All of the things you mentioned were and are public domain. It is like how suddenly there are a bunch of things about the Wizard of Oz coming out. The movie rights just recently became public domain. It is also why a lot of videogame and movie companies re-release things about about 10-15 years. Most copyrights only last at most 20 years.
Really? I heard it was the lifespan of the creator + 70 years, which is way too long IMO (unless we’re going to change the rules about derivative fiction).
They were public domain but they need not have been. You are following these artificial social constructs as though they’re valid.
Well, the consumer of the mattress is allowed to remove it.
They could make it 10000 years. It’s still based on stolen work. It’s akin to a thief “pimping” a car and reselling it. Oh but he should be paid. Well in real life he wouldn’t be paid at all, the rightful owner would get the car back, pimped up or not.
I don’t really understand the analogy, but I think I agree with you, since you said upthread that copyright and intellectual property were artificial ideas.
This is more or less happening anyway. But for me, it’s immoral to all of the sudden say, ok we cut off here. Everything before this is up for grabs, but afterward, it’s yours. And then people really think the ideas they stole or copied from others’ are theirs. That’s absurd. And it’s not as if people don’t profit already. You’re a dentist. You work you eat. You don’t work you don’t eat. You’re a writer. You rip off a public domain work and others’ experiences and you then get paid for 70 years? Is that right? Maybe it is, but then there should be NO PUBLIC DOMAIN at all. That PUBLIC DOMAIN is appropriated property, unless it’s given away willingly.
Remember Nazis also wanted to obey the law. Many were hanged at Nuremberg and elsewhere. A law does not make something right, IMHO. Especially when it’s short sighted and arbitrary.
I still don’t really understand your position. The point of copyright, patents, etc. is to reward those that do creative or innovative work, and make sure they get proper compensation for all the effort they put in. I don’t really believe that people should (or even can) have ownership of ideas, but I do acknowledge that we need to have some way of rewarding artists for their work. Even though all creative work builds on ideas that came before it, putting those ideas into novels, art, etc. is hard work, and people should be paid for it.
Point me to the copyright martyrs, and I’ll join your revolution. Until then, I think we need to do our best to change laws we disagree with without doing anything illegal. Or anything definitely illegal, anyway.
Ahhh, OK. I think your position is actually the opposite of mine. I don’t think that artists and creators deserve to be compensated indefinitely. If I had my way, everything would enter the public domain in more like 20 or at most up to maybe 50 years from creation. You can still make a profit on it when it’s cutting-edge, but then you can’t hog your ideas to yourself anymore. You need to let other people have them so they can be refined and improved. I would also probably get rid of the ban on derivative works, because I think that stunts creativity, too. We can fiddle with the details, but I think that anything that stops ideas and works from being created, passed around, altered, and improved needs to be changed.
Not sure how you don’t understand this. The purpose may or may not be what you say. Wasn’t the original purpose when the concept came into being to prevent copying of ideas, in print, that humanity has been doing since the beginning? But sure, we protect innovation. OK. But then WHO paid the people who Brothers’ Grimm stole from? And who paid Brothers’ Grimm? And how come if Disney and works creators can benefit from these things, why not so many of the creators? Why just let the most modern, politically well connected generations benefit? Because earlier generations had no concept of intellectual property? And if you base your work off something you’re morally not authorised to use, the law should follow that morality. Disney can profit from Snow White but then the people who’s heritage gave right to the Snow White originally should be paid loyalties too. They should be rewarded.
But the people who originally came up with these ideas worked just as hard or even harder. It’s harder to have an original idea than copy one. So I agree. But I want consistency.
I’m not asking anyone to join a revolution. I’m just trying to be consistent and fair. If rewarding hard work today is fair, so should it be fair to reward hard work yesterday, especially as current “hard workers” are wanting to extend the protection of their hard work for longer and longer periods.
The world did not start with the Berne Convention or the printing press. 