What is Digg?48 Comments
- almostdone, on 10/10/2007, -4/+33Someone should copyright Fair Use and put an end to all of this!
- justlook, on 10/10/2007, -8/+30But how would the music and movie industries make money?! Copyright laws exist to protect starving artists like Britney Spears, Otis Spunkmire, and Metallica.
- SuperSloth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Dugg down? Proof that Digg users are too young or too stupid to understand sarcasm.
- williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I am a conservative, and I favor going back to the terms of copyright when the Constitution first created copyright.
If you are a REAL conservative, you know that copyright is a weak right: It is the ONLY "right" (really, a grant of monopoly, and not a right at all) created by the Constitution. Yup, that's right, all your OTHER rights are yours NOT because they are granted, but because you just HAVE RIGHTS, period. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from abridging your rights. It does not grant rights. Kings "grant" rights.
Read the IX and Xth Amendments. It's spelled out right there. - daftman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE ;)
- LLLSecretChimp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9And two Wrights made an airplane.
- dafragsta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Just remember two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do!
- qwertydvorak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+101.) the bible is the perfect example of it. millions of copies are sold every year by dozens of different publishers. apparently there is still money to be made off of it.
2.) you get to lay claim to if for a LIMITED time, not forever as the current copyright laws are becoming.
3.) why shouldn't someone be able to take the work you made, change it to something new, and make money off of it. you didn't make the same change and re-release it. even patents allow for major changes made to a patented design to get a new patent. i can agree that it has gone somewhat crazy with the internet (patents where they just add "transacted over internet through computing device" shouldn't be an upgrade. - cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Just don't let the music industry know that their artists are usually some of the biggest abusers of copyright laws.
- drachemorder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I'm a conservative and I support weak copyrights. I would see us return to the definition established in the Constitution, which is that copyright is for limited times and intended to promote the progress of art and science.
- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7the recent US South Korea required Korea to adopt very strict US style copyright laws, not to mention that Russia's entrance into the WTO seems quite dependant of them shutting down allofmp3.com, even though the site is legal according to Russian laws
- drachemorder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8What you say is only true if copyright were entirely repealed. However, limited copyright law as originally envisioned in the Constitution would provide sufficient incentive to create while maximizing the utility of the product to the people.
- JoshuaGross, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Copyright law != fair trade.
- malkir, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Yeah, this is almost as absurd as the MPAA/RIAA studies we've seen.
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5On the other hand, say you saw some character you really liked and wanted to write a new script expanding on that character. Your work is new and original even though some of the ideas came from someone else. Or, even worse, say you wrote it and then later someone claims some similarities to something they wrote that you've never even read? Fair use is supposed to prevent suppression of creative efforts.
- atk124, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9If I take the time to write software, a book, screenplay, or song, why should someone else get to profit from my work? What incentive do I have to express a new idea, if someone else can lay claim to it, as if I never existed?
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I already settled this debate over on reddit:
If you're first to market with a product, whether it's a book, a drug, a song, or a Transformer, it takes time for someone to reverse engineer it and recreate the original. By that time, you've made a tidy sum on the first run. Once competition steps in with copies of your widget, then you'll just have to switch to the lowest-cost distributor you can find in order to keep selling it.
I think laws should prohibit knock-offs from being marketed as "The Original ", so you can perhaps still charge a modest mark-up for selling the original, "collector's edition" widget, but the only way to keep your profit margins as high as when you were the only seller on the market is to constantly refine/improve/reinvent your product to keep your version of it more desirable.
Case in point: the iPhone. If those Chinese ripoffs that are completely unlocked and have far more functionality ever make it to America, kiss your ass goodbye, Steve. Nothing's stopping him from making an iPhone with all the same functionality as the Chinese version, of course, other than his desire to charge everyone for every additional feature they unlock. Screw that. I will NEVER buy an iPhone unless it does everything the Chinese version does, because I as a consumer feel like I'm being ripped off. That's the problem with copyrights; they allow the consumer to be ripped off. No copyrights = no ripoffs.
As for the argument that it will stifle innovation, to that I give a hearty "Bollocks!" Was it copyright protection that enabled the Romans to build aqueducts? Did the caveman suffer from his inability to patent fire? Mankind always has, and always will, be inquisitive above all else. It's our undeniable nature, and we won't stop until we've solved every problem that we've ever pondered.
Just look at all the great open-source OS's and software that's out there today; you can find a free alternative to almost every patented/copyrighted/spyware-infested proprietary piece of software, and the free version is almost always better. Oh, the woes that all those unheralded programmers must face for their fruitless efforts. Thing is, most of them have a "donate" button, and many are apparently satisfied with the donations they receive since they're still constantly improving their brainchild rather than abandoning it as economically unviable. And even if they do give it up, some high school kid ends up taking it over since he'll keep working on it for peanuts. Let's face it, the debate's as over on this as it is on stem-cell research. Copyrights = crap.
P.S. No, I'm not a commie... I'm a Libertarian: http://www.mises.org/story/2632 - fatdog789, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7This was a seriously flawed study. It ignored the economic value of much copyrighted material, accorded billions of dollars in value to educational product, specifically HOMEWORK (not research, which was calculated separately), and hundreds of billions to unspecified "intangibles" of fair use.
Making up numbers...that's a great way to support your cause.
I'm all for fair use, but making fallacious arguments like this just makes fair use seem stupid. - HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You WANT to profit, but don't inherently deserve to...appropriate copyright laws make profiting off your own work just a little easier. Furthermore, you have no right whatsoever to prevent others from indirectly profiting from your work, and any such right would be blatantly anti-progress.
- sonicdevo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Amen. Personal rights are considered innate by the founders. "Copyright" is a monopoly granted, with the intention of ultimately benefiting the citizenry as a whole. Once this stops being the case, we should demand that an entity's "copyright" be limited/revoked.
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And, sadly, the sarcasm must be sacrificed so the masses understand it was sarcasm...and begin digging him up
- atk124, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Fair use is a compromise between the protections of Intellectual Property Law, and the freedom of others to use and learn from ideas.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Fair use means you don't make any money directly. Say for example it is fair use for me to use a movie clip (20 seconds) and criticize it in my lecture. I don't make money off the the movie. However I make money by teaching.
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'd believe that. Stealing copies of movies and music are also not fair use.
- jackpotiq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think that website has $4.5 trillion worth of ads on it!
- HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Copyright is a compromise on natural property rights, fair use is a (supposedly real) defining limitation on that compromise.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm sorry, what ads?
***turns off adblock plus***
....oh my!.. - HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I believe patent law is the bigger problem there. Copyright laws stopped being relevant about the time the horrible precedent of "look and feel" lawsuits was reversed quite some time ago.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You duped my story!
- dustyshadow, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The next time you comment, try to know something about what you are commenting on.
- HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2But that's what most idiots are doing these days...
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Fair use is also intended to prevent stagnation by enabling new work based on older work. Unfortunately the old rules haven't applied all that well to software where people are tyring to use it to shut down competition.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ironic. Since ownership and possession are nothing but ideas that are incorporated into the law. Very much the same way as copyright. Just because there are people exploiting copyright doesn't mean the concept of copyrights are evil. Following your logic, we should abolish all laws because there are few individuals who exploit the laws for their personal gain.
Realistically, the only thing that allow artist to actually make some sort of money off their work is copyright. If an author write a book, what prevent the publisher from making money off those books without give a dime to the author? What prevents a movie production from turning that book into a blockbuster without paying a cent to the author? Copyrights. - seven999, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Spoken story from Nate Harrison about the Amen break (drum beat) http://nkhstudio.com/pages/amen_mp4.html and copyright.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2protections mean you are free to sue if someones copying without permission
fair use is just a set of rules(that sometimes can be shacky or in a grey area) that dictates what you can do legally - gcnaddict, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Dugg down for misspelling the name of the world's greatest cookie mass production brand. It's Otis Spunkmeyer, mkay?
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Although you have good intention, you seem to be confused between copyright and patents. Since this article deals with copyright, things that you mention such as iphone, aqueducts, drug are patents.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Too bad you live in the same world as me.
- tony23, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How does your argument apply to authors? Screenwriters? Music writers?
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1 see no difference between any forms of intellectual property protection. If you love your song or book so much, keep it for yourself. Chances are people will make a lot more money sharing it than not sharing it, even if they don't become instant billionaires. I'm sure Rowling would still be living a comfortable life even if she didn't have sole ownership of Harry Potter.
Look at magicians - plenty of them make a good living doing the same tricks that someone before them did, and very few of them bother to patent their new tricks and/or sue those who reenact them. Nonetheless, Copperfield is still a millionaire and still puts butts in seats even though Criss Angel can probably recreate all his tricks. Given that they don't really bother with patenting and copyrighting all their tricks, how on earth do any of them make a living?
If 80 different people decide to make their own versions of Harry Potter, Rowling will still sell books because she informally owns that character and only her stories will be accepted as authentic by consumers. And by the time China starts selling knockoff copies, she'll already have sold 20 million copies herself in that first week. Hell, I'd love to redo the first 3 Star Wars episodes that Lucas screwed up, but no matter how great my versions are, they still wouldn't REALLY be Star Wars.
So thanks for recognizing my good intention, but no, I'm not confused between copyright and patents. The confusion as I see it is in those people like yourself who think there's a difference between the two. - dustyshadow, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2No one else can claim your copyright without you signing it over to them. Stop being an idiot.
- j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ideas can not be owned. They can not be controlled. The only way to control them is through force, and even that doesn't work. To back up your idea of ownership, you have to back it up with the barrel of a gun. That's exactly why I have no interest in paying for any kind of mainstream media product, they believe they believe they're entitled to ideas that somebody else came up with. Most artists just want to be able to make some sort of money off their work, while multi-millionaires cry about people "stealing" their "art." Even though their dominance in the free (not) market is backed by force. It is black and white, it's about violence and nonviolence. If you believe you have the right to put a bullet into somebody else's head for stealing an idea then you deserve to be opposed and fought against.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think joker hit the nail right on the head. You can add all the shades of gray you want to your world, daftman, but I love my black-and-white world because it's a helluva lot easier to live in than yours.
- j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Freedom is always better than tyranny. Fair use is more freedom, and copyright is tyranny.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The world is not like black and white as you defined. It's nice if it was because it save alot of people from thinking too much but there's more to it than fair use = good, copyright = bad.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1It sounds like fair use is not really fair use at all them. If the people under the guise of "fair use" are making more money than the people who created the content their leeching off of, they should be paying royalties. Without the content, they'd have nothing.
- personfromhell, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0the point is that the study was done using the same methods as the RIAA/MPAA
- DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4I can't even imagine how privatizing conservatives who claim that the private sector and a prosperous economy go hand in hand will ever reconcile this.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is