Is current copyright law ethical?

"This discussion has drifted completely away from a coin-related topic, and comments on whether US copyright law is moral, justified, or effective at accomplishing desireable ends belongs in the Politics, Religion and World Events forum, so anyone inclined to do so should continue talking about it there.
__________________
Roy

WINS #502
ANA #K-218183
AC6H since 1978, OOTC #4256 "


That quote is from the coin chat board. I hope that I have not violated Roy's copyright by copying it here :goofer: :goofer: :goofer: If I did I am sure I will get a cease and desist letter.
Good old Roy suggested that we take it up here so I thought I would do just that.

Copyright exists to serve the population as a whole and not individual artists/writers/creators. The idea is that if the creative person has an incentive to create, better quality products will result. The idea that intellectual property is property of the same nature as material property is bogus and has resulted in a lessening of quality in intellectual property, here is why: In the case of music large corperate interests (Sony/BMG and the like) have intervened into the process and used promotion (illegal payola and legal promotions both) to create artificial and arbitrary demand for low quality product.There incentive to do this is the fact that they OWN the copyright (or a portion thereof). Therefore copyright has had the exact opposite effect as its intent. Drug patents have had a similar effect in that billions are spent on superficial problems like acne and less is spent on real problems like malaria.

 

So are you saying giving everything away for free will create better quality stuff? Even thou these drugs, music or anything can take millions of dollars to create or develop.

 

If no money could be made on any of the afore-mentioned products, why would anyone want to create/distribute these products? Please don't tell me these companies/individuals would do it from the good of their heart.

 

O.K. V.D.B. don't let the village idiot tell you what and how it is, read it for yourself and make up your own mind. Believe me, you are ever bit as smart or smarter than the individual who is saying this BS. Here is the nuts and bolts of the discussion 'Purpose of Copyright'. CLICK HERE

 

Timeless advice OldDan, but I would like to see Danr's response to the questions we sane people have asked.

 

I'm afraid you will be waithig a long time, as Danr has studied 'slick willies' techniques and does the two -step every time he runs out of words. Remember when old Billie Clinton kept saying would you repeat the questrion and the best one was, how do you define that word ? Danr gives the same song and dance.:kewl:

 

That "give it away free" idea is yours not mine. I never said that. We certainly need a better system than we currently have though. One that provides true incentives for worthwhile projects.

 

That law is similar to the earmark (bridge to nowhere) stuff that ends up in law. It is no more legit than the bridge to nowhere (I am referring to the Alaskan earmark debacel by way of comparison).

 

Where do you get "no money" you just pulled that out of the air. I never said "no money"

 

Then what are you proposing? and What are these true incentives that you speak of? Like any business succes is measured in profits. People invest money into a business to make a return, I would not be willing to risk my money if I can not make a decent return. I am sorry but a plaque with my name on it is not going to cut it.

 

OldDan, that was amazing!! You hit the nail on the head before Danr even said anything.

 

Well, here is another one he won't like as it makes him look as foolish as he actually is! This site tells it without any miss direction or hidden agenda, which you won't get from anything Danr says. To read all about it just CLICK HERE

 

We need to revisit copyright law from a reasonable point of view. We need laws that have NOT been written be record company lawyers. The exact law is up to greater minds than mine.

 

Then how do you know that another system will work better? How do you know the best system available is not already in place? You can not say that in the last 100 years that great litterature, Movies, Drugs and Technology have not been created and developed. Just because you do not like something does not mean somebody else doesn't, or just because a certain illeness has not been cured does not mean it is not being worked on. Things cost money, new ideas are funded by the money of old ones.

 

-There have been revisions of the copyright laws in the past 10 or so years that are not good at all. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) is a flunky for the record companies and he pushed through these changes. With that in mind you have contradicted yourself when you tout the last 100 years of lit etc.. because the current law is quite different then the laws under which those things were produced. Further drug patent law encourages companies to spend many times more money on acne than malaria (which I am sure you agree is wrong).

Things do cost money and we need a better system to reward (with money ) those things that help society most.

 

So are you commenting on the revisions that have occured in the last ten years, or are you reffering to copyright laws in general?

 

Lets put it this way neither is ideal but the revisions have made it worse!!

 

Well, since current law is soo bad, what do YOU propose be done? Keep in mind, we KNOW your're not an expert, but just entertain myself and others with a rough proposal. I'm not looking for specifics, just an outline.

 

The starting point has to be "what is best for the public good" not "what is good for a few powerful corperate interests". As long as you start from this point anything that you come up with will be better.

 

Well now, that's a pretty broad statement. But hey, it's improvement right? At least you didn't ask another question?

Care to be just a tad more specific?