news.bbc.co.uk— Google has vowed to take a tough line on copyright when it completes its $1.65bn (?875m) takeover of YouTube.
Oct 26, 2006View in Crawl 4
Making copyright a law simply means these "artists" can use OUR tax money to enforce their rules. So now they're stealing money from everyone else so they can make a few extra bucks. I certainly don't agree with that. Privatize copyrights.
"maybe they just won't be able to afford the time/money/materials to produce anything else. Their art dies regardless."Here's an alternate view.Copyright ends, free and unlimited duplication of media begins. The poorer people who could not before afford access to these forms of entertainment now can, and live slightly happier and more fullfilled lives. The middle classes who were already spending money on these forms of entertainment now don't have to. They are now able to work less if they so choose, and have the free time to pursue creative interests that they always wanted to, but never had time to. Many learn to play music. Others learn the art of photography and image manipulation. Some become amature film makers and post to youtube and similar sites. There's an explosion of new forms of media.
Uhhhh.... and with Google's stock teetering around $450/share... don't you think that SOMEONE's going to sell SOME of it? Now THAT makes it liquid cash.
"This may come as a surprise to you but pirating media doesn't better anything beyond your pirated media collection. It most certainly does not benefit humanity as a whole or in part."Never said it did. For the record though, the vast majority of the media I consume personally is not pirated. You're making assumptions about me based on my position on copyright."My response to the house cloning analogy would be identical to the food one. However, since there's no humanitarian twist on stealing mp3s and video, it's pointless to continue the comparison."Hardly pointless. It illustrates to any sane thinking person that copying, be it food, media, or something in between is a only matter of degree. Since you regard copying food as theft though, you successfully dodge needing to make that rational leap. Congrats."The media being stolen isn't coming from some kid dancing on a webcam, it's movies and television shows. The professional, quality stuff that people want."OF COURSE! The kids dancing on webcams are GIVING THEIR VIDEOS AWAY!! So does redvsblue.com by the way, which I find more entertaining than 99% of the tripe I would need to pay for to view. You can't steal what people are giving away. Wow... I can't believe I had to just say that."If you made music videos you could distribute them - unless by "made" you actually just patched together someone else's work. In which case you've made nothing, you've just patched together someone else's work."Right. There's no artistic merit at all to the *editing* process. Tell that to the people in the industry whose jobs you defend so voraciously. If that's the case, there's no art to making a good movie trailer. Anyone can slap some scenes together, thrown in some music and a voiceover, and it's fine. Right? Regardless of whether or not I've used my own images, If I used a piece of music under copyright without permission, I'm still out of luck. Nor can I mix other songs together into a new work (ever hear of Dean Gray?) and distribute it. That particular kind of art is illegal, unless you are one of the wealthy elite who can afford to participate. Are you seriously going to tell me that remixing isn't an art either? That will make you even more industry friends, I'm sure.
markstrubeOct 26, 2006
Making copyright a law simply means these "artists" can use OUR tax money to enforce their rules. So now they're stealing money from everyone else so they can make a few extra bucks. I certainly don't agree with that. Privatize copyrights.
crlakeOct 27, 2006
Why in the hell would you (Google) Buy "Youtube" in the first place, if they were SO worried about copyright? Um... Duh!
grayfox777Oct 27, 2006
Bye Youtube! :(I thought Google said they weren't going to ruin youtube...
straxusOct 27, 2006
"maybe they just won't be able to afford the time/money/materials to produce anything else. Their art dies regardless."Here's an alternate view.Copyright ends, free and unlimited duplication of media begins. The poorer people who could not before afford access to these forms of entertainment now can, and live slightly happier and more fullfilled lives. The middle classes who were already spending money on these forms of entertainment now don't have to. They are now able to work less if they so choose, and have the free time to pursue creative interests that they always wanted to, but never had time to. Many learn to play music. Others learn the art of photography and image manipulation. Some become amature film makers and post to youtube and similar sites. There's an explosion of new forms of media.
tzmguitaristOct 27, 2006
Uhhhh.... and with Google's stock teetering around $450/share... don't you think that SOMEONE's going to sell SOME of it? Now THAT makes it liquid cash.
straxusOct 27, 2006
"This may come as a surprise to you but pirating media doesn't better anything beyond your pirated media collection. It most certainly does not benefit humanity as a whole or in part."Never said it did. For the record though, the vast majority of the media I consume personally is not pirated. You're making assumptions about me based on my position on copyright."My response to the house cloning analogy would be identical to the food one. However, since there's no humanitarian twist on stealing mp3s and video, it's pointless to continue the comparison."Hardly pointless. It illustrates to any sane thinking person that copying, be it food, media, or something in between is a only matter of degree. Since you regard copying food as theft though, you successfully dodge needing to make that rational leap. Congrats."The media being stolen isn't coming from some kid dancing on a webcam, it's movies and television shows. The professional, quality stuff that people want."OF COURSE! The kids dancing on webcams are GIVING THEIR VIDEOS AWAY!! So does redvsblue.com by the way, which I find more entertaining than 99% of the tripe I would need to pay for to view. You can't steal what people are giving away. Wow... I can't believe I had to just say that."If you made music videos you could distribute them - unless by "made" you actually just patched together someone else's work. In which case you've made nothing, you've just patched together someone else's work."Right. There's no artistic merit at all to the *editing* process. Tell that to the people in the industry whose jobs you defend so voraciously. If that's the case, there's no art to making a good movie trailer. Anyone can slap some scenes together, thrown in some music and a voiceover, and it's fine. Right? Regardless of whether or not I've used my own images, If I used a piece of music under copyright without permission, I'm still out of luck. Nor can I mix other songs together into a new work (ever hear of Dean Gray?) and distribute it. That particular kind of art is illegal, unless you are one of the wealthy elite who can afford to participate. Are you seriously going to tell me that remixing isn't an art either? That will make you even more industry friends, I'm sure.
Closed AccountOct 27, 2006
i actually got a copyright infringement notice this morning >_>;
iruelOct 27, 2006
so pretty much f**k....
cavaliers007Oct 28, 2006
no prob... wat's important is the buffer...hope tat it will be fast