Understanding Copyright Law and Exclusive Rights

[12quillemall5321]

Often one creation is based on another creation. Example. The basic cake wasn't flavored.

Supposed the original cake bake had a copywrite on cake. Where would cake baking be now. stuck to an unflavored mass called cake.

[ThomasMoar]

I download and burn music to disks, vast libraries of music, for no monetary gain. I distribute these to a lot of people I know for the sole benefit of their enjoyment.

I dont care about your oppresive bureaucracy. I only care about the music, man. You cant OWN music any more than you can own birdsong.

When did it stop being about creativity and start completely revolving around the money, huh?

The route of all things evil indeed. Its killed everything good in this world. Even music.

[TrentDaniel01]

I do music covers, is that copyright infringment even if I dont sell the music and I dont own ownership? I just sing it and film myself while singing.

[stamstuff]

just watch the movie "zeitgeist movving forward" here on youtube, and you'll sea much better way for many points in people life, and if you like it, spread the word.

[onelineproof]

There are many different ways to create incentive to create something. Copyright is one of those ways that forces you to give up freedom of speech and privacy.

Fight copyright!!!

[marcopolo3001]

Inventing things shouldn't require an economic incentive. It should be there for all to benefit. However in our monetary system we unfortunately have to play the carrot &stick game to get anything to work. We already live in a backwards society that would hold out on free energy, cure for cancer &a whole bunch of things, until they find a way to make it profitable. In other words, anti humanistic. Then it can get priority. Just look at history &Tesla's wireless energy, it wasnt profitable so no

[mordor6666]

This is the kind of thinking that means money you gain from your art is more important than the meaning, social standing, etc.

[12107170]

I believe if you create something you should have the right to own it, and do with it all you want, but harm to other people with it. You do need a law in an imperfect world to show that you created it. To show that it's yours. Some people aren't the fastest or the smartest or the bravest or the prettest.. So what they create in their mind is for sale. Infact intellectual property is the only ownership I can think of in this life so the laws should be simple, free, and easy to apply.

[a12gregjockca]

@12107170 i believe you should also be allowed to harm people with your work. what's the point copyrighting a guillotine if you can't use it? YAY!!

[12107170]

@a12gregjockca I don't know. :(

[cajundude62e]

This is such B.S. So to get around the copy right law you are required to pay .091 cents per copy to the creator and the companies that are supposedly leagally distributing this such as Itunes charge $1.99 per song? So why are they not brought to justice for gouging the price. Companies like Itunes are making $1.90 per song doing what we are being brought to jail for no profit. This really pisses me off!

[MAREKISBACKAGAIN]

who invented copper wire ???? 2 jews fighting over a penny........... jews = money hungry..

[Whatisthescore]

*swindlers

[Whatisthescore]

Don't listen to these professional swindler's at Berklee. You'll go bankrupt. In this economy that's no good. Berklee is a scam.

[yaseedeechannel]

and if i record a cover of a famous and pubblished song.

& i pubblish my version of the song online for example on youtube do i infringe someones Right....Thanks

[tmslibrarian]

@yaseedeechannel YES

[yaseedeechannel]

@tmslibrarian thanks for the reply.

[PerErik87]

copyright is come to an extent where it makes it harder for people to produce/create and needs to be changed. You also own the copyright 70 years after you die so expect that it will be money on your grave if you create something good.

[barmack]

would a remix be considerd legal or not? specifiacly a doom2 one.

[MrKevin1a]

How about the incentive of the betterment of humanity? Peter Kropotkin says that once people have their basic needs taken care of, they are naturally industrius and creative and will expend their effort to better humanity. Intelectual property and copyright is a detriment to development and progress because it prevents people from building on the success of others.

"Ideas are not a commodity, knowledge is not a product."

[Bombright]

that is 100% not true. our naturual inclination as humans is and will always be to improve our own lot in life. copyright does not necessarily keep someone from building on others Ideas, it keeps them from distributing it for themselve while the original inventor get zip.

[MrKevin1a]

I still maintain that people are not necissarily greedy and selfish by nature. It is the circumstances of their lives and their existance within social constructs that renders them so. I do however respect your position and understand why you might hold it. Especially in the US, where the modern Judeo-Christian worldview reigns, human nature is portrayed in a matter very similar to how Thomas Hobbs portrayed it. I respectfully disagree, and would ask you to consider it from my point of view.

[Bombright]

While I see your point as well (and appreciate the calm matter in which you presented it), but I do not think that copyright keeps from expanding and building on knowledge, in fact it promotes new ideas. the more people see profit in creating things, then more things will be created, not out of greed for money, but the need for a sustaining income. if what you say is true then we would see no growth of ideas in america where copyright is enforced, but we have, so I believe you are wrong.

[grammaticus00]

These R just ifs. Take a look at history. The classical culture didn't use ©, but still stuff was invented. The widely accepted practice of the day was to adopt & work on existing ideas. I'd also examine your notion of so called "new ideas", if U C what I mean. Another issue concerns the human motivation to do things for profit. It's oversimplification and I'd refer U to psychological works (Maslow) which contradict the claim about humans being entirely income-driven species.

[grammaticus00]

I appreciate your point of view, & deem it quite accurate.

[Bombright]

Take a look at even more recent history, technology is improving at a faster rate than in the classical era, and we have copyright. BTW how did you get the c inside the circle symbol?

[grammaticus00]

Mind you I shall freely disseminate someone's intellectual property how to copy © (without patents&©) :) - go to the bottom of this page where U C © 2009 YouTube & just select the © sign & copy it, then paste in your message or comment. An alternative way is to press & hold the left ALT key & use your numeric keypad to press 0169) then release the ALT. It's that easy.

[MrKevin1a]

I do not deny that the American system for copyright protections has worked in the past and it is likely that it will continue to work if given the opportunity. The question, at least for me lies in whether or not it works the best. Is there an option that would work better and stimulate more innovation? Some of us think so; others disagree. Very rarely is something so black and white that one governmental policy will work 100% while the other fails 100%.

[MrKevin1a]

Additionally, is it right for us to force our ideas of copyright on other countries like we allegedly did with Sweden (correct me if I got the country wrong, I am referring to the US gov throwing it's weight around to get the pirate bay shut down. WOW! This is one of the only truly rational conversations I have had on YouTube. If anyone wants to discuss this further, feel free to contact me on AIM. My username is the same as on YouTube.

[grammaticus00]

This meddling in the Swedish Pirate Bay trial has shown that vested interests may be at risk.

[grammaticus00]

I'd respectfully consider it at least disputable to hold, as U do, that "technology is improving at a faster rate than in the classical era". How have U arrived at such a conclusion? Is your calculation based on per capita rate or some other system. Then, also, what's the common denominator on which U base your comparison of the pace of progress. And how do U compare technologies of the then & now.

[Bombright]

when I made that statement I knew it would be hard to prove but the point I am trying to make is that technology is still improving at an extremely fast rate.

[grammaticus00]

Yet, one may not know whether the pace of this progress wouldn't be even faster without © and patents as we know them today. Another issue is that, speaking about the technological progress conceptually we tend to personify technology, as if it was an independent being, which may also render the whole picture inaccurate. Perhaps it would be more accurate to argue that our living standards are improving or we are making an increasing use of technological advances etc.

[Bombright]

do you really have nothing better to do than this?

[grammaticus00]

Yes, trying to change all that. So my point is that around the year 1 AD the world population was some ~ 200,000 K to contribute to technological progress, now it is estimated at some 6,700,000 K. Do U believe we R also advancing technologically 34 x as fast? It puzzles me.

[Bombright]

Are you trying to say that around 1 A.D there were only 200,000 people on the planet? or 200,000,000?

[grammaticus00]

200,000 K[ilo] = 200,000,000. The K comes from the Greek χίλιοι ("khilioi"), meaning thousand.

[grammaticus00]

This estimate I have found on wikipedia. Term: World population.

[grammaticus00]

By the way, God bless Wikipadia, it is nothing like © !

[grammaticus00]

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of the World, projected to 05/31/09 at 17:13 GMT (EST+5) is 6,783,496,710 people :)

[JSGuitar80]

She always sounds like she's contemptuous of the music industry at large. Good stuff.

[micximus1hoodwink]

If there any other footage explaining law?

[micximus1hoodwink]

Mean. Im From Auckland University studying law part 1, trying to get into part 2.

this helped alot. I appreciate the way you logically broke the explanation down. 1. Public Policy; Creating incentives 2. Copy Wright law allowing exclusive dominion, aka monopoly = 5 exclusive rights. then example of Music. and then explaining all those other "exemptional" rights. haha. Thanks alot!!

Intellectual property can reconcile with Locke's View on Property.