3 ms·

No, I'm a person who creates IP in exhange for money. I dislike the concept as much as the next person but it seems hypocritical to consider code one kind of t

No, I'm a person who creates IP in exhange for money. I dislike the concept as much as the next person but it seems hypocritical to consider code one kind of thing while considering music another kind of thing. You either accept the license or you don't. There is an aspect to metal which is about making sure you look after yourself and taking care of your own interests, in the face of people who want to justify coming and taking your stuff. I think this is the deeper message than blurb about fans.

Clubber 10y ago
I never said I disagreed with their claims, I said I disagreed with the way Metallica handled it. It's the first approximation of the Streisand effect that I can recall. But I do disagree with the constant extension of copyright duration, which is a legal monopoly originally granted for 14 years optionally renewable for another 14. Now it's life of the author plus 70 years. This is of course mostly done for intrenched interests that can afford to lobby congress for their benefit and the detriment to society as a whole. As I'm sure you are aware, the concept of copyright is to grant temporary legal monopoly to incentivize and reward creation but to ultimately benefit the public by releasing it to public domain after 28 years. Now it can be 100+ years. All the benefit of monopoly, but no meaningful benefit to the public. If copyright laws were as they were originally intended, all Metallica from their founding to ...Justice would be public domain now. Finally, anything copyrighted after 1978 will probably never be public domain in our lifetimes. How is that beneficial to society? Monopolies are bad, especially life long ones granted by the government. Furthermore, copyrights for software are very weak. I can clone Excel all day long as long as I don't copy their code. Software patents were designed as a copyright of sorts for software ideas, but look at what a disaster that turned into. So technically, as soon as you or your company releases a product, I can probably clone it to my heart's content, unless you have a patent that will hold up. Why are you bringing up 15 year old talking points? It just goes to show much much Metallica is married to the idea of copyright rather than their music, again to their net detriment.
- xyzzy123 10y ago
  You're trotting out the "injustice of copyright" argument (yeah, I think it's messed up too) as though it's a justification for what was at the time the commercially enabled piracy of recently released albums. My view on the world is only an epsilon away from yours. I'm not in the "home taping is killing the movie industry crowd". I release "free as in freedom" software by default. But from my point of view, the epsilon is that a lot of people in the software industry do rely on and understand the value and importance of IP as a work product yet insist that others should be ok with a company profiting off the illegal distribution of music. Anyway, while we are having a way old discussion all over again, thanks for your sincere replies.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    You're welcome, and for what it's worth, I wasn't the one down voting you.

Clubber 10y ago

I never said I disagreed with their claims, I said I disagreed with the way Metallica handled it. It's the first approximation of the Streisand effect that I can recall. But I do disagree with the constant extension of copyright duration, which is a legal monopoly originally granted for 14 years optionally renewable for another 14. Now it's life of the author plus 70 years. This is of course mostly done for intrenched interests that can afford to lobby congress for their benefit and the detriment to society as a whole. As I'm sure you are aware, the concept of copyright is to grant temporary legal monopoly to incentivize and reward creation but to ultimately benefit the public by releasing it to public domain after 28 years. Now it can be 100+ years. All the benefit of monopoly, but no meaningful benefit to the public. If copyright laws were as they were originally intended, all Metallica from their founding to ...Justice would be public domain now. Finally, anything copyrighted after 1978 will probably never be public domain in our lifetimes. How is that beneficial to society? Monopolies are bad, especially life long ones granted by the government. Furthermore, copyrights for software are very weak. I can clone Excel all day long as long as I don't copy their code. Software patents were designed as a copyright of sorts for software ideas, but look at what a disaster that turned into. So technically, as soon as you or your company releases a product, I can probably clone it to my heart's content, unless you have a patent that will hold up. Why are you bringing up 15 year old talking points? It just goes to show much much Metallica is married to the idea of copyright rather than their music, again to their net detriment.

xyzzy123 10y ago
You're trotting out the "injustice of copyright" argument (yeah, I think it's messed up too) as though it's a justification for what was at the time the commercially enabled piracy of recently released albums. My view on the world is only an epsilon away from yours. I'm not in the "home taping is killing the movie industry crowd". I release "free as in freedom" software by default. But from my point of view, the epsilon is that a lot of people in the software industry do rely on and understand the value and importance of IP as a work product yet insist that others should be ok with a company profiting off the illegal distribution of music. Anyway, while we are having a way old discussion all over again, thanks for your sincere replies.
- Clubber 10y ago
  You're welcome, and for what it's worth, I wasn't the one down voting you.