S. 978

[Associate Justice PiT]

Let me remind all of you posters that this threat is about S. 978, not copyright reform.

Under the current copyright laws, something like S. 978 needs to be on the books in order to protect corporations' rights.

Any discussion on whether or not the current copyright laws are "good" or "bad" are not germane to this discussion. 

     But if we hold the view that this should not be passed because it helps enforce an immoral law, the question of copyright reform becomes a clear issue.

[Hotblack Desiato]

I gues I'm the only one that supports this?

I mean, since when is it YOUR right to stream ANOTHER'S private property?  The Technological Revolution has killed the notion of private property.  S. 978 is a step in the right direction...

Yes, outside of Congress and other out-of-touch fascists. Man, if Libby were here....

Ok, well maybe.  I come from a family of corporate lobbyists, no lie. 

But, seriously...what arguments could be made against a proposal to limit the streaming of copyrighted material?  It's COPYRIGHTED

     That such stuff has no business being copyrighted, maybe?

If you invest the resources in order to develop something, then why shouldn’t it be yours? 

It’s kind of like the homesteading principle…

     There are ways to make it yours other than feebly attempt to restrict access by others & thereby create a monopoly on your music. Touring is an important source of income for many bands these days.

Ok…that’s a pretty simplistically stupid argument.  Since when is protecting my private property a violation of antitrust laws?

What’s MINE is MINE and what is YOURS is YOURS.  YOU are not allowed to do whatever you like to do with MINE…

You can endlessly duplicate music and TV shows and spread them around.

It's not the same as taking something that isn't endlessly duplicatable.

[Del Tachi]

I gues I'm the only one that supports this?

I mean, since when is it YOUR right to stream ANOTHER'S private property?  The Technological Revolution has killed the notion of private property.  S. 978 is a step in the right direction...

Yes, outside of Congress and other out-of-touch fascists. Man, if Libby were here....

Ok, well maybe.  I come from a family of corporate lobbyists, no lie.  

But, seriously...what arguments could be made against a proposal to limit the streaming of copyrighted material?  It's COPYRIGHTED

     That such stuff has no business being copyrighted, maybe?

If you invest the resources in order to develop something, then why shouldn’t it be yours?  

It’s kind of like the homesteading principle…

     There are ways to make it yours other than feebly attempt to restrict access by others & thereby create a monopoly on your music. Touring is an important source of income for many bands these days.

Ok…that’s a pretty simplistically stupid argument.  Since when is protecting my private property a violation of antitrust laws?

What’s MINE is MINE and what is YOURS is YOURS.  YOU are not allowed to do whatever you like to do with MINE…

     But we are not talking about your private property. If I own a CD, not permitting me to freely share it with whomever, wherever, whenever is an infringement on my property rights. That is the moral bankruptcy of copyright law.

You are completely right!

Since you purchased the CD you can give it or “share” it with whoever you see fit!  Even though I’m not sure how you could share it, given that half of a CD will not play in a standard CD-Drive…

However, by streaming the audio content of said CD on a site such as YouTube you are not distributing the CD.  You are distributing the content of the CD, which is still owned by the record label.  

You own the CD, not the content of the CD.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I gues I'm the only one that supports this?

I mean, since when is it YOUR right to stream ANOTHER'S private property?  The Technological Revolution has killed the notion of private property.  S. 978 is a step in the right direction...

Yes, outside of Congress and other out-of-touch fascists. Man, if Libby were here....

Ok, well maybe.  I come from a family of corporate lobbyists, no lie. 

But, seriously...what arguments could be made against a proposal to limit the streaming of copyrighted material?  It's COPYRIGHTED

     That such stuff has no business being copyrighted, maybe?

If you invest the resources in order to develop something, then why shouldn’t it be yours? 

It’s kind of like the homesteading principle…

     There are ways to make it yours other than feebly attempt to restrict access by others & thereby create a monopoly on your music. Touring is an important source of income for many bands these days.

Ok…that’s a pretty simplistically stupid argument.  Since when is protecting my private property a violation of antitrust laws?

What’s MINE is MINE and what is YOURS is YOURS.  YOU are not allowed to do whatever you like to do with MINE…

     But we are not talking about your private property. If I own a CD, not permitting me to freely share it with whomever, wherever, whenever is an infringement on my property rights. That is the moral bankruptcy of copyright law.

You are completely right!

Since you purchased the CD you can give it or “share” it with whoever you see fit!  Even though I’m not sure how you could share it, given that half of a CD will not play in a standard CD-Drive…

However, by streaming the audio content of said CD on a site such as YouTube you are not distributing the CD.  You are distributing the content of the CD, which is still owned by the record label. 

You own the CD, not the content of the CD.

     The CD part is not particularly relevant. The part that is relevant is the contents, & to reason that you can somehow pay for something, place it on any number of devices that you own, use it at any time, dispose of it at will, & yet still not own it is peculiar to the utmost.

[Del Tachi]

I gues I'm the only one that supports this?

I mean, since when is it YOUR right to stream ANOTHER'S private property?  The Technological Revolution has killed the notion of private property.  S. 978 is a step in the right direction...

Yes, outside of Congress and other out-of-touch fascists. Man, if Libby were here....

Ok, well maybe.  I come from a family of corporate lobbyists, no lie. 

But, seriously...what arguments could be made against a proposal to limit the streaming of copyrighted material?  It's COPYRIGHTED

     That such stuff has no business being copyrighted, maybe?

If you invest the resources in order to develop something, then why shouldn’t it be yours? 

It’s kind of like the homesteading principle…

     There are ways to make it yours other than feebly attempt to restrict access by others & thereby create a monopoly on your music. Touring is an important source of income for many bands these days.

Ok…that’s a pretty simplistically stupid argument.  Since when is protecting my private property a violation of antitrust laws?

What’s MINE is MINE and what is YOURS is YOURS.  YOU are not allowed to do whatever you like to do with MINE…

     But we are not talking about your private property. If I own a CD, not permitting me to freely share it with whomever, wherever, whenever is an infringement on my property rights. That is the moral bankruptcy of copyright law.

You are completely right!

Since you purchased the CD you can give it or “share” it with whoever you see fit!  Even though I’m not sure how you could share it, given that half of a CD will not play in a standard CD-Drive…

However, by streaming the audio content of said CD on a site such as YouTube you are not distributing the CD.  You are distributing the content of the CD, which is still owned by the record label. 

You own the CD, not the content of the CD.

     The CD part is not particularly relevant. The part that is relevant is the contents, & to reason that you can somehow pay for something, place it on any number of devices that you own, use it at any time, dispose of it at will, & yet still not own it is peculiar to the utmost.

Don’t get you wrong you own the CD.

You have complete ownership over the physical entity that is the actual compact-disk. 

However, you are not free to distribute the tracks on the CD--as you do not own them, you just own the disk. 

[Associate Justice PiT]

I gues I'm the only one that supports this?

I mean, since when is it YOUR right to stream ANOTHER'S private property?  The Technological Revolution has killed the notion of private property.  S. 978 is a step in the right direction...

Yes, outside of Congress and other out-of-touch fascists. Man, if Libby were here....

Ok, well maybe.  I come from a family of corporate lobbyists, no lie. 

But, seriously...what arguments could be made against a proposal to limit the streaming of copyrighted material?  It's COPYRIGHTED

     That such stuff has no business being copyrighted, maybe?

If you invest the resources in order to develop something, then why shouldn’t it be yours? 

It’s kind of like the homesteading principle…

     There are ways to make it yours other than feebly attempt to restrict access by others & thereby create a monopoly on your music. Touring is an important source of income for many bands these days.

Ok…that’s a pretty simplistically stupid argument.  Since when is protecting my private property a violation of antitrust laws?

What’s MINE is MINE and what is YOURS is YOURS.  YOU are not allowed to do whatever you like to do with MINE…

     But we are not talking about your private property. If I own a CD, not permitting me to freely share it with whomever, wherever, whenever is an infringement on my property rights. That is the moral bankruptcy of copyright law.

You are completely right!

Since you purchased the CD you can give it or “share” it with whoever you see fit!  Even though I’m not sure how you could share it, given that half of a CD will not play in a standard CD-Drive…

However, by streaming the audio content of said CD on a site such as YouTube you are not distributing the CD.  You are distributing the content of the CD, which is still owned by the record label. 

You own the CD, not the content of the CD.

     The CD part is not particularly relevant. The part that is relevant is the contents, & to reason that you can somehow pay for something, place it on any number of devices that you own, use it at any time, dispose of it at will, & yet still not own it is peculiar to the utmost.

Don’t get you wrong you own the CD.

You have complete ownership over the physical entity that is the actual compact-disk. 

However, you are not free to distribute the tracks on the CD--as you do not own them, you just own the disk. 

     The CD is a medium, though. You could buy the tracks off of iTunes & my point would be the same. Being able to buy (not lease or rent) something without coming to own it is an unquestionably bizarre notion. Not necessarily crazy or wrong, but definitely bizarre.

[Del Tachi]

I gues I'm the only one that supports this?

I mean, since when is it YOUR right to stream ANOTHER'S private property?  The Technological Revolution has killed the notion of private property.  S. 978 is a step in the right direction...

Yes, outside of Congress and other out-of-touch fascists. Man, if Libby were here....

Ok, well maybe.  I come from a family of corporate lobbyists, no lie. 

But, seriously...what arguments could be made against a proposal to limit the streaming of copyrighted material?  It's COPYRIGHTED

     That such stuff has no business being copyrighted, maybe?

If you invest the resources in order to develop something, then why shouldn’t it be yours? 

It’s kind of like the homesteading principle…

     There are ways to make it yours other than feebly attempt to restrict access by others & thereby create a monopoly on your music. Touring is an important source of income for many bands these days.

Ok…that’s a pretty simplistically stupid argument.  Since when is protecting my private property a violation of antitrust laws?

What’s MINE is MINE and what is YOURS is YOURS.  YOU are not allowed to do whatever you like to do with MINE…

     But we are not talking about your private property. If I own a CD, not permitting me to freely share it with whomever, wherever, whenever is an infringement on my property rights. That is the moral bankruptcy of copyright law.

You are completely right!

Since you purchased the CD you can give it or “share” it with whoever you see fit!  Even though I’m not sure how you could share it, given that half of a CD will not play in a standard CD-Drive…

However, by streaming the audio content of said CD on a site such as YouTube you are not distributing the CD.  You are distributing the content of the CD, which is still owned by the record label. 

You own the CD, not the content of the CD.

     The CD part is not particularly relevant. The part that is relevant is the contents, & to reason that you can somehow pay for something, place it on any number of devices that you own, use it at any time, dispose of it at will, & yet still not own it is peculiar to the utmost.

Don’t get you wrong you own the CD.

You have complete ownership over the physical entity that is the actual compact-disk. 

However, you are not free to distribute the tracks on the CD--as you do not own them, you just own the disk. 

     The CD is a medium, though. You could buy the tracks off of iTunes & my point would be the same. Being able to buy (not lease or rent) something without coming to own it is an unquestionably bizarre notion. Not necessarily crazy or wrong, but definitely bizarre.

I will give you that it is, in deed, a very bizarre notion.

Neverthesless, copyright laws are needed to protect corporations from unfair competition. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Technological Revolution has killed the notion of private property.

Which, in the realm of art, is probably a good thing.

[Hotblack Desiato]

I gues I'm the only one that supports this?

I mean, since when is it YOUR right to stream ANOTHER'S private property?  The Technological Revolution has killed the notion of private property.  S. 978 is a step in the right direction...

Yes, outside of Congress and other out-of-touch fascists. Man, if Libby were here....

Ok, well maybe.  I come from a family of corporate lobbyists, no lie. 

But, seriously...what arguments could be made against a proposal to limit the streaming of copyrighted material?  It's COPYRIGHTED

     That such stuff has no business being copyrighted, maybe?

If you invest the resources in order to develop something, then why shouldn’t it be yours? 

It’s kind of like the homesteading principle…

     There are ways to make it yours other than feebly attempt to restrict access by others & thereby create a monopoly on your music. Touring is an important source of income for many bands these days.

Ok…that’s a pretty simplistically stupid argument.  Since when is protecting my private property a violation of antitrust laws?

What’s MINE is MINE and what is YOURS is YOURS.  YOU are not allowed to do whatever you like to do with MINE…

     But we are not talking about your private property. If I own a CD, not permitting me to freely share it with whomever, wherever, whenever is an infringement on my property rights. That is the moral bankruptcy of copyright law.

You are completely right!

Since you purchased the CD you can give it or “share” it with whoever you see fit!  Even though I’m not sure how you could share it, given that half of a CD will not play in a standard CD-Drive…

However, by streaming the audio content of said CD on a site such as YouTube you are not distributing the CD.  You are distributing the content of the CD, which is still owned by the record label. 

You own the CD, not the content of the CD.

     The CD part is not particularly relevant. The part that is relevant is the contents, & to reason that you can somehow pay for something, place it on any number of devices that you own, use it at any time, dispose of it at will, & yet still not own it is peculiar to the utmost.

Don’t get you wrong you own the CD.

You have complete ownership over the physical entity that is the actual compact-disk. 

However, you are not free to distribute the tracks on the CD--as you do not own them, you just own the disk. 

     The CD is a medium, though. You could buy the tracks off of iTunes & my point would be the same. Being able to buy (not lease or rent) something without coming to own it is an unquestionably bizarre notion. Not necessarily crazy or wrong, but definitely bizarre.

I will give you that it is, in deed, a very bizarre notion.

Neverthesless, copyright laws are needed to protect corporations from unfair competition. 

Competition is not unfair.

[Free Palestine]

The Technological Revolution has killed the notion of private property.

Which, in the realm of art, is probably a good thing.

[Napoleon]

I gues I'm the only one that supports this?

I mean, since when is it YOUR right to stream ANOTHER'S private property?  The Technological Revolution has killed the notion of private property.  S. 978 is a step in the right direction...

Yes, outside of Congress and other out-of-touch fascists. Man, if Libby were here....

Ok, well maybe.  I come from a family of corporate lobbyists, no lie. 

But, seriously...what arguments could be made against a proposal to limit the streaming of copyrighted material?  It's COPYRIGHTED

     That such stuff has no business being copyrighted, maybe?

If you invest the resources in order to develop something, then why shouldn’t it be yours? 

It’s kind of like the homesteading principle…

     There are ways to make it yours other than feebly attempt to restrict access by others & thereby create a monopoly on your music. Touring is an important source of income for many bands these days.

Ok…that’s a pretty simplistically stupid argument.  Since when is protecting my private property a violation of antitrust laws?

What’s MINE is MINE and what is YOURS is YOURS.  YOU are not allowed to do whatever you like to do with MINE…

     But we are not talking about your private property. If I own a CD, not permitting me to freely share it with whomever, wherever, whenever is an infringement on my property rights. That is the moral bankruptcy of copyright law.

You are completely right!

Since you purchased the CD you can give it or “share” it with whoever you see fit!  Even though I’m not sure how you could share it, given that half of a CD will not play in a standard CD-Drive…

However, by streaming the audio content of said CD on a site such as YouTube you are not distributing the CD.  You are distributing the content of the CD, which is still owned by the record label. 

You own the CD, not the content of the CD.

     The CD part is not particularly relevant. The part that is relevant is the contents, & to reason that you can somehow pay for something, place it on any number of devices that you own, use it at any time, dispose of it at will, & yet still not own it is peculiar to the utmost.

Don’t get you wrong you own the CD.

You have complete ownership over the physical entity that is the actual compact-disk. 

However, you are not free to distribute the tracks on the CD--as you do not own them, you just own the disk. 

     The CD is a medium, though. You could buy the tracks off of iTunes & my point would be the same. Being able to buy (not lease or rent) something without coming to own it is an unquestionably bizarre notion. Not necessarily crazy or wrong, but definitely bizarre.

I will give you that it is, in deed, a very bizarre notion.

Neverthesless, copyright laws are needed to protect corporations from unfair competition. 

Competition is not unfair.

Indeed
Copyright laws, however, ARE unfair.

[Hotblack Desiato]

Opposition to IP laws is the truly free market stance to take.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Competition is not unfair.

Indeed
Copyright laws, however, ARE unfair.

They are needful, altho they have become excessively lengthy.  There is a very good reason Shakespeare is known mainly for his plays and not for his poetry, and why he never attempted any lengthy prose writing.  Without copyright, he had to make his money off of performing the original plays he wrote for his acting company.  Who knows what else he might have written if there had been a reasonable chance for him to make some serious shillings from scribing it?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Competition is not unfair.

Indeed
Copyright laws, however, ARE unfair.

They are needful, altho they have become excessively lengthy.  There is a very good reason Shakespeare is known mainly for his plays and not for his poetry, and why he never attempted any lengthy prose writing.  Without copyright, he had to make his money off of performing the original plays he wrote for his acting company.  Who knows what else he might have written if there had been a reasonable chance for him to make some serious shillings from scribing it?

Still, right now the law is 90 years after the creator dies. It's only that way because Disney doesn't want Mickey Mouse to be public domain.