4 ms·

In my humble opinion, this guy deserved what happened to him, which was justified in its entirety. He was an enabler of technologies that allowed sharing of in

In my humble opinion, this guy deserved what happened to him, which was justified in its entirety. He was an enabler of technologies that allowed sharing of information for enjoying content without permission from authors of said content. Also, in my humble opinion, this should cover anyone that provides links, including search engines. Furthermore, again in my humble opinion, copyrights should be permanent, and I really see no reason why someone should stop enjoying the success of their creation as long as their creation is popular. If there is demand for something, why shall it not produce profit?

bleuarff 8y ago
Permanent copyright? So you're saying your great-grandchildren should be entitled to reap the benefits of something they did not create and has nothing to do with them, long after the death of the original creator?
- axilmar 8y ago
  Yes, absolutely. If one creates a timeless piece of work, then whoever inherits the rights to this should enjoy the benefits as well.
- Asooka 8y ago
  Permanent copyright might in the end be a good thing, because it's so completely unworkable in real life, that we'll be forced to put in place enough exceptions as to make copyright in its current form extinct.
martimarkov 8y ago
By your humble opinion do you think links are copyrightable? Why are links a problem? If for example I post hxxps://thepiratebay.org/torrents/some_id is that to a copyrighted content? What if that link was to my free book I decided to post for free? What if now the website changes that link to a pirated movie? Do you think that links have a permanent quality? Just because something could provide access to copyrighted material via illegal means doesn't mean it should be stopped or blocked. I don't even think I should go into the permanent copytight, it sounds more like a troll statement than anything...
- axilmar 8y ago
  > Just because something could provide access to copyrighted material via illegal means doesn't mean it should be stopped or blocked. And your justification for that is? you failed to give one. The possibility of links being changed to something else is not one, because it would never happen that you post a link to your own work named 'Venom' for example, and then a third party comes and changes it to 'Venom, the movie'. This has never happened and it will probably never happen. No links, should be copyrightable, links should be permissible: if you have permission from the author, only then you can post a link to to it. > I don't even think I should go into the permanent copytight, it sounds more like a troll statement than anything... Not a troll, I am deadly serious.
  - martimarkov 8y ago
    My justification is blacklisting rather than whitelisting. You are not born guilty and have to prove you are of a good character. Just because you can commit a crime does not mean we should ban everything you can use to commit crime. If I link to Venom the movie I still have permission from the pirate bay to link to it. The pirate bay or the uploader (who actually created the file itself and the description to that file) will be the author. [if you don't think the uploaded is the author of the new file checkout what you get charged for in the UK for downloading a child pornography file -> creating a NEW child pornography file. obvs not supporting child porn but i still feel this is a bit excesive] Like links are nothing more than pointers. It's like saying if you had permission from the author of this book can you only tell other people. As for the permanent copyright -> Your work is not original it's a remix (there is a great video on youtube). You never come up with an original idea. It's always influenced by others. So this kinda kills the whole "original idea" myth we have. Let's say you have to write a short story no more than 5 words. There are just N possible combinations you can do. What you should have copyright until the universe ended because you wrote every single combination? Just because you were the first person to go to the moon does not mean you own the moon. Why should it be any diff with the 5 words sentance you were asked to write?
hyperman1 8y ago
I'm assuming this was sarcasm. But to be sure I'll provide an opposite view: A [farmer|musician] has [a plow|a guitar], and he uses it to [grow food|play music]. This provides value to other people, so he sells the results of his work. When he dies, the [plow|guitar] is inherited by his children, and they decide if they will use it and do necessary maintenance. If a [farmer|musician] stops working, there is no reason he should get paid. As creating copyrighted works is a lot harder than cloning them, it is reasonable for the creator to get a temporary monopoly. But the important word here is temporary. If you take a few weeks to write a song, you might get at most a few years of this monopoly. After that, it's time to get working on your next creation. What's the right time period? For a song, maybe a year. For a well-reasearched book, maybe 5 years. If you keep working on it after release, an extension might be acceptable, but even then 10 years should be the maximum. 75 years after your death? That's insane.
- axilmar 8y ago
  > I'm assuming this was sarcasm. Unfortunately for you, I am deadly serious. > If a [farmer|musician] stops working, there is no reason he should get paid. There is no such thing as 'stops working'. There is a thing called 'stops providing value'. A farmer that does not produce anything has stopped providing value to others. A musician's the music of which is no longer desirable also has stopped producing value to others. > it is reasonable for the creator to get a temporary monopoly. No, he doesn't get a monopoly through copyright. A monopoly is a state where within a domain, there is only one producer. You can't say the domain of music only contains the song creator. > After that, it's time to get working on your next creation. You haven't presented any reason for doing so. > What's the right time period? For a song, maybe a year. For a well-reasearched book, maybe 5 years. If you keep working on it after release, an extension might be acceptable, but even then 10 years should be the maximum. 75 years after your death? That's insane. If your work is so good that it has mass appeal over a span of 100 years, then why not get paid for it? why do you want free stuff like this? after all, we are talking about a piece of work that would have almost unprecenteded success.

bleuarff 8y ago

Permanent copyright? So you're saying your great-grandchildren should be entitled to reap the benefits of something they did not create and has nothing to do with them, long after the death of the original creator?

axilmar 8y ago
Yes, absolutely. If one creates a timeless piece of work, then whoever inherits the rights to this should enjoy the benefits as well.
Asooka 8y ago
Permanent copyright might in the end be a good thing, because it's so completely unworkable in real life, that we'll be forced to put in place enough exceptions as to make copyright in its current form extinct.

martimarkov 8y ago

By your humble opinion do you think links are copyrightable? Why are links a problem? If for example I post hxxps://thepiratebay.org/torrents/some_id is that to a copyrighted content? What if that link was to my free book I decided to post for free? What if now the website changes that link to a pirated movie? Do you think that links have a permanent quality? Just because something could provide access to copyrighted material via illegal means doesn't mean it should be stopped or blocked. I don't even think I should go into the permanent copytight, it sounds more like a troll statement than anything...

axilmar 8y ago
> Just because something could provide access to copyrighted material via illegal means doesn't mean it should be stopped or blocked. And your justification for that is? you failed to give one. The possibility of links being changed to something else is not one, because it would never happen that you post a link to your own work named 'Venom' for example, and then a third party comes and changes it to 'Venom, the movie'. This has never happened and it will probably never happen. No links, should be copyrightable, links should be permissible: if you have permission from the author, only then you can post a link to to it. > I don't even think I should go into the permanent copytight, it sounds more like a troll statement than anything... Not a troll, I am deadly serious.
- martimarkov 8y ago
  My justification is blacklisting rather than whitelisting. You are not born guilty and have to prove you are of a good character. Just because you can commit a crime does not mean we should ban everything you can use to commit crime. If I link to Venom the movie I still have permission from the pirate bay to link to it. The pirate bay or the uploader (who actually created the file itself and the description to that file) will be the author. [if you don't think the uploaded is the author of the new file checkout what you get charged for in the UK for downloading a child pornography file -> creating a NEW child pornography file. obvs not supporting child porn but i still feel this is a bit excesive] Like links are nothing more than pointers. It's like saying if you had permission from the author of this book can you only tell other people. As for the permanent copyright -> Your work is not original it's a remix (there is a great video on youtube). You never come up with an original idea. It's always influenced by others. So this kinda kills the whole "original idea" myth we have. Let's say you have to write a short story no more than 5 words. There are just N possible combinations you can do. What you should have copyright until the universe ended because you wrote every single combination? Just because you were the first person to go to the moon does not mean you own the moon. Why should it be any diff with the 5 words sentance you were asked to write?

hyperman1 8y ago

I'm assuming this was sarcasm. But to be sure I'll provide an opposite view: A [farmer|musician] has [a plow|a guitar], and he uses it to [grow food|play music]. This provides value to other people, so he sells the results of his work. When he dies, the [plow|guitar] is inherited by his children, and they decide if they will use it and do necessary maintenance. If a [farmer|musician] stops working, there is no reason he should get paid. As creating copyrighted works is a lot harder than cloning them, it is reasonable for the creator to get a temporary monopoly. But the important word here is temporary. If you take a few weeks to write a song, you might get at most a few years of this monopoly. After that, it's time to get working on your next creation. What's the right time period? For a song, maybe a year. For a well-reasearched book, maybe 5 years. If you keep working on it after release, an extension might be acceptable, but even then 10 years should be the maximum. 75 years after your death? That's insane.

axilmar 8y ago
> I'm assuming this was sarcasm. Unfortunately for you, I am deadly serious. > If a [farmer|musician] stops working, there is no reason he should get paid. There is no such thing as 'stops working'. There is a thing called 'stops providing value'. A farmer that does not produce anything has stopped providing value to others. A musician's the music of which is no longer desirable also has stopped producing value to others. > it is reasonable for the creator to get a temporary monopoly. No, he doesn't get a monopoly through copyright. A monopoly is a state where within a domain, there is only one producer. You can't say the domain of music only contains the song creator. > After that, it's time to get working on your next creation. You haven't presented any reason for doing so. > What's the right time period? For a song, maybe a year. For a well-reasearched book, maybe 5 years. If you keep working on it after release, an extension might be acceptable, but even then 10 years should be the maximum. 75 years after your death? That's insane. If your work is so good that it has mass appeal over a span of 100 years, then why not get paid for it? why do you want free stuff like this? after all, we are talking about a piece of work that would have almost unprecenteded success.