6 ms·

> The next time you have a fleeting thought about how internet radio sucks, and could be better—well, now you know what’s to blame. It’s copyright. Can be broa

> The next time you have a fleeting thought about how internet radio sucks, and could be better—well, now you know what’s to blame. It’s copyright. Can be broadened to "why does <insert aspect of creative culture> suck, blame copyright.

6stringmerc 11y ago
...and, if you want to know why things are going to continue to suck with respect to Copyright, blame Congress for letting Disney and large corporations rig the game for their interests.
- williamcotton 11y ago
  Wanna to help fix the problem? Just start building applications that honor protocols like Open Publish and encouraging artists to publish on public-access platforms. The existing infrastructure of contracts and payments are not working for authors wishing to engage in the commercial application of intellectual property. It's time for a change! https://github.com/blockai/openpublish https://github.com/blockai/openpublish https://github.com/blockai/openpublish-state-engine https://github.com/blockai/openpublish-state-engine https://www.berklee.edu/news/fair_music_report https://www.berklee.edu/news/fair_music_report
- hga 11y ago
  We also have to blame the Supremes. The Constitution is reasonably clear about this in Article 1: Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power.... 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; Perpetual copyright is most certainly not "for limited Times", but per Wikipedia's analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft): However, the major argument for the act that carried over into the case was that the Constitution specified that Congress only needed to set time limits for copyright, the length of which was left to their discretion. Thus, as long as the limit is not "forever," any limit set by Congress can be deemed constitutional. Although I suppose we should not be surprised, given how little respect they show for so much else of the Constitution, e.g. my current pet peeve, we have a right to keep arms, but not bear them outside our dwellings, another very crabbed interpretation of clear language.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    12,000 non-suicide gun deaths per year say "too fucking bad." Sorry, it's time to find a different hobby.
    - hga 11y ago
      300 million plus guns in the hands of 100 million plus citizens say "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ" ... and as for my "hobby" of armed self-defense, that's a "too fucking bad" right back at you. But let's get back to topic: this right is enshrined in our highest law. You don't entirely like it (I'm assuming you're willing to call armed police to protect yourself), but by what principle do you propose to infringe it without, you know, the other ones that e.g. prevent the Congress from passing a bill of attainder that orders you and everyone else contributing to the Windows ecosystem into a computer free concentration camp.
      - coldpie 11y ago
        It is a hobby, don't kid yourself. I would enthusiastically support a repeal of the 2nd amendment. It was a product of its time, and its time has passed. In any case, it is so incredibly vague that your argument can be used to support private ownership of nuclear weapons.
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Untrue. To "bear arms" had a particular well-known meaning at the time of writing. So had "militia". The defense of Americans to keep arms is not a mysterious or strained interpretation. And since people haven't changed in 200 years, I'm not sure why the time passing has any meaning. Examples abound. Look to "The Battle of Athens" in 1946 for an early one. But I'm afraid I'm just feeding the troll. I detect no honest attempt to understand or discuss this topic.
        hga 11y ago
        Well, there is one thing he brought up that also has a parallel to the topic of hand. Weapons of mass destruction and trivial to make perfect digital copies do qualitatively change the facts on the ground in ways we suspect our Founders did not anticipate. And while there's no great interest let alone lobby for citizen possession of WMDs, in the digital media realm....
- anon4 11y ago
  Let's just let the large corporations keep their rotten rodents effectively forever, given they pay a small fee (smaller than their lawyer fees, at least), and give everything else sane copyright terms.

6stringmerc 11y ago

...and, if you want to know why things are going to continue to suck with respect to Copyright, blame Congress for letting Disney and large corporations rig the game for their interests.

williamcotton 11y ago
Wanna to help fix the problem? Just start building applications that honor protocols like Open Publish and encouraging artists to publish on public-access platforms. The existing infrastructure of contracts and payments are not working for authors wishing to engage in the commercial application of intellectual property. It's time for a change! https://github.com/blockai/openpublish https://github.com/blockai/openpublish https://github.com/blockai/openpublish-state-engine https://github.com/blockai/openpublish-state-engine https://www.berklee.edu/news/fair_music_report https://www.berklee.edu/news/fair_music_report
hga 11y ago
We also have to blame the Supremes. The Constitution is reasonably clear about this in Article 1: Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power.... 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; Perpetual copyright is most certainly not "for limited Times", but per Wikipedia's analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft): However, the major argument for the act that carried over into the case was that the Constitution specified that Congress only needed to set time limits for copyright, the length of which was left to their discretion. Thus, as long as the limit is not "forever," any limit set by Congress can be deemed constitutional. Although I suppose we should not be surprised, given how little respect they show for so much else of the Constitution, e.g. my current pet peeve, we have a right to keep arms, but not bear them outside our dwellings, another very crabbed interpretation of clear language.
- coldpie 11y ago
  12,000 non-suicide gun deaths per year say "too fucking bad." Sorry, it's time to find a different hobby.
  - hga 11y ago
    300 million plus guns in the hands of 100 million plus citizens say "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ" ... and as for my "hobby" of armed self-defense, that's a "too fucking bad" right back at you. But let's get back to topic: this right is enshrined in our highest law. You don't entirely like it (I'm assuming you're willing to call armed police to protect yourself), but by what principle do you propose to infringe it without, you know, the other ones that e.g. prevent the Congress from passing a bill of attainder that orders you and everyone else contributing to the Windows ecosystem into a computer free concentration camp.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      It is a hobby, don't kid yourself. I would enthusiastically support a repeal of the 2nd amendment. It was a product of its time, and its time has passed. In any case, it is so incredibly vague that your argument can be used to support private ownership of nuclear weapons.
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Untrue. To "bear arms" had a particular well-known meaning at the time of writing. So had "militia". The defense of Americans to keep arms is not a mysterious or strained interpretation. And since people haven't changed in 200 years, I'm not sure why the time passing has any meaning. Examples abound. Look to "The Battle of Athens" in 1946 for an early one. But I'm afraid I'm just feeding the troll. I detect no honest attempt to understand or discuss this topic.
        hga 11y ago
        Well, there is one thing he brought up that also has a parallel to the topic of hand. Weapons of mass destruction and trivial to make perfect digital copies do qualitatively change the facts on the ground in ways we suspect our Founders did not anticipate. And while there's no great interest let alone lobby for citizen possession of WMDs, in the digital media realm....
anon4 11y ago
Let's just let the large corporations keep their rotten rodents effectively forever, given they pay a small fee (smaller than their lawyer fees, at least), and give everything else sane copyright terms.