Pages: [1]   Bas de page
«Imprimer»
Auteur Fil de discussion: "Balanced Copyright"  (Lu 164 fois)
Jeremy McGibbon
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Toronto, ON
Messages: 2
Karma: 0


« le: 13 ao�t 2010, 11:07:39 »
0

Although there is no stated "purpose" of copyright law in Canada, in the United States power is given "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) There is no "balance" between the "rights" of producers and consumers that everyone always gets hung up on. Copyright is not there to say that Alice should be compensated by Bob because Bob is playing a video game that Alice worked hard to make, or to say that Bob shouldn't be allowed to modify her game in any way. Copyright is there to give Alice incentive to create a video game, and to promote further progress of the Arts.

This might not seem relevant, because it is U.S. law, not Canadian. However, what I'm trying to say is that we need to get people to know the true purpose of copyright. Copyright should promote the creation and spread of culture, not hinder it. As soon as you talk about "balanced" copyright you are saying there is something to be balanced.

I'll give another example. Let's say Alice has made a game, and is selling it for $50 per copy. Bob works a minimum wage job, and barely has enough money to pay for food and internet, never mind a video game. There is no way he would buy the game. If you're talking about "balanced" copyright, the story ends there - Bob has no right that "balances out" with Alice's supposed right to be compensated for her work. Perhaps you could argue a "right to culture", but it would be nigh impossible to convince most people that this balances with a "right to compensation". However, if you look at copyright as it is meant to be, law should not stop Bob from pirating Alice's game, as that law does not promote progress.

It would probably be a big move to rename http://www.balancedcopyright.com/, so it might not be worth it. But am I the only one who feels like it's not a question of balance?
Mikkel Paulson
Party Leader
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Edmonton
Messages: 982
Karma: 18


WWW
« Répondre #1 le: 13 ao�t 2010, 02:15:08 »
0

We use the name because the government has balancedcopyright.gc.ca and an astroturf movement controls balancedcopyrightforcanada.ca. However, we don't use it for much.

But no, you're right to say that there's no balance involved.
btrower
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 21
Karma: 3


« Répondre #2 le: 16 ao�t 2010, 02:20:03 »
0

Oh my. I agree with you. I had a much lengthier reply, but perhaps mercifully for readers here, the forum software timed me out mid-edit and destroyed the message.
Nuitari
Director-at-Large
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 250
Karma: 15


« Répondre #3 le: 16 ao�t 2010, 11:49:44 »
0

Copyright law isn't balanced, it gives all rights to publishers, barely any to artists and none to consumers.

The idea between balancedcopyright.com was to create our own astroturf, but I'm a techie, not a writer / PR person.

Jay Frank
Forum Member
****

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 308
Karma: 14


« Répondre #4 le: 22 ao�t 2010, 12:28:52 »
0


I'll give another example. Let's say Alice has made a game, and is selling it for $50 per copy. Bob works a minimum wage job, and barely has enough money to pay for food and internet, never mind a video game. There is no way he would buy the game. If you're talking about "balanced" copyright, the story ends there - Bob has no right that "balances out" with Alice's supposed right to be compensated for her work. Perhaps you could argue a "right to culture", but it would be nigh impossible to convince most people that this balances with a "right to compensation". However, if you look at copyright as it is meant to be, law should not stop Bob from pirating Alice's game, as that law does not promote progress.

It would probably be a big move to rename http://www.balancedcopyright.com/, so it might not be worth it. But am I the only one who feels like it's not a question of balance?

Software is code - not culture.
Copyright is law - not "guidelines".

J

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
-Plato
Mikkel Paulson
Party Leader
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Edmonton
Messages: 982
Karma: 18


WWW
« Répondre #5 le: 22 ao�t 2010, 12:46:43 »
0

Napster is culture.
Jay Frank
Forum Member
****

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 308
Karma: 14


« Répondre #6 le: 22 ao�t 2010, 01:51:29 »
0

Napster is culture.

No.  Napster is software.
The "community" who used the software shared culture.
The idea behind Napster is culture.
I think we could agree that the Napster software code requires no special copyright protection nor has any entitlement to profit.

J

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
-Plato
Mikkel Paulson
Party Leader
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Edmonton
Messages: 982
Karma: 18


WWW
« Répondre #7 le: 22 ao�t 2010, 02:57:15 »
0

If Napster is only lines of code then Mozart is only vibrating air molecules. Culture is what surrounds a work, not the work itself.
Pages: [1]   Haut de page
«Imprimer»
 
Aller à: