No, of course not. YOu, just like me, agreed to the terms of service when we joined CFC and I believe one of those terms was that everything posted here became the property of CFC.
Should unreleased material be not-subject to copyright laws?
- Thread starter aimeeandbeatles
- Start date
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
i'm militant against commercialization of art. i want to see the big money wiped out completely from the arena for purity's sake.
so if a piece of music is posted by a user here, to show to the forum, it belongs to CFC? but they're not the creator.
LesCanadiens
Deity
I'm against you getting paid for anything you ever do. You should be required to work every job for free, because if you really wanted to work you wouldn't demand money for it in the first place.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
i don't know where artists got this crazy notion that they should make a living off their art.
my idea will weed out people who arent in it to say something honest, but are there for a buck.
aelf
Ashen One
Full-time artists should be paid a basic salary and given bonuses when they produce acclaimed works of art. Art should be public property, and private interests who wish to purchase pieces must buy them off the state, and thus the money goes to taxpayers, whose money is used to support the artists.
That in itself would be a violation of the rules.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/faq.php?faq=cfc_forum_rules#faq_cfc_forum_rules_01
Also read the fourth one.
If you want to make a living, don't be an artist. You don't go into art for money.
scipian
Czar
You all who say that copyrights and patents should be revoked, and that individual property/intellectual rights are "fascist", are insane.
Reality does not revolve around what sounds good. It is pragmatic, and actually is based on what works. Anyone with basic knowledge of economics knows that intellectual rights are crucial to advancement. Without the assurance of sole profit for at least a certain period, the costs of innovation are not worth the effort.
Reality does not revolve around what sounds good. It is pragmatic, and actually is based on what works. Anyone with basic knowledge of economics knows that intellectual rights are crucial to advancement. Without the assurance of sole profit for at least a certain period, the costs of innovation are not worth the effort.
aelf
Ashen One
You misunderstood the fascist reference. It refers to the extremist thought that you can do absolutely anything you want with what you have. There will and must be exceptions.
scipian said:
You talk about economics when you talk so simplistically of the model. The question is how much profit is acceptable.
scipian
Czar
Practices to the degree mentioned, like taking away copyrights as a complete and general principle, are far beyond the point of reasonableness. Yes, some regulation is required, such as occurs with medicines and a number of other issues. However, no society which wishes to continue advancing economically would follow such extreme measures which would stifle innovation.
Anyway, to the more specific idea of old works produced that are stocked away, I'm still against the stealing away of a person's work, since they should have the decision of whether it is to be distributed or not, with a very few exceptions of stuff that actually matters (like medical cures, not outdated music).
And about the fascist reference... Fascism has little to no connection with using what one has worked to create for one's own wishes. In fact, it is far more like the theories in this thread, taking away what others have produced for society's wishes. Not that I would stoop to the overused and almost always unwarranted level of calling the other side fascist.
Anyway, to the more specific idea of old works produced that are stocked away, I'm still against the stealing away of a person's work, since they should have the decision of whether it is to be distributed or not, with a very few exceptions of stuff that actually matters (like medical cures, not outdated music).
And about the fascist reference... Fascism has little to no connection with using what one has worked to create for one's own wishes. In fact, it is far more like the theories in this thread, taking away what others have produced for society's wishes. Not that I would stoop to the overused and almost always unwarranted level of calling the other side fascist.
aelf
Ashen One
You still don't get it. But that's fine, since it's several levels deep. The proponent of this extremist view is also pro free market liberalism (probably necessarily), which is virtually free market Darwinism today. Since in such a system, you are allowed to take what you can take, the limit of what you can have that will be protected by state power through 'property rights' is the limit of your power. And if you can do anything you want with what you have, and if what you can have is technically limitless, the reality of fascism looms large. After all, fascism wasn't just about Hitler and marching around to war. It was also about corporatism.
If you are referring to me, which I assume so since I was the recipient of your fascism remark, then all I can say is you're wrong. And honestly, what is it with people recently taking it upon themselves to presume to know what my views are without having the courtesy to at least ask me first? It's happening with alarming frequency lately.
I have no problem with any and all necessary regulations to maintain a stable and competitive market.
Yes, it's called "copyright."
But not in perpetuity, which American copyright essentially is, because every time it's about to run out, the major studios simply lobby Congress to extend the time limit. As I said, there are concrete examples of copyright in perpetuity doing real harm. Moreover, the idea that "knowledge should be free" isn't "drivel." We're talking on the Internet, aren't we?Cleo
aelf
Ashen One
Unfortunately, the regulations would limit what you can have and also prevent you from doing things with what you have that would harm the public. Too bad. You can't have your cake and eat it.
aelf
Ashen One
Nope. It's not anything new anyway, since people are advocating not letting businesses get too big (read: no to unlimited capital accumulation) and not allowing major shareholders to run their businesses to the ground and damaging public interest in the process (read: no to allowing you to do anything you want to your property if that would harm public interest enough).
Copyright is just one manifestation of property rights.
aelf
Ashen One
Unfortunately, the society does not consist of a single consumer and producer market. The effect of each individual hoarding accrues to a significant effect. Regulation then becomes necessary to prevent too much wastage.
In any case, principles have to be consistently applied in a system. Just because the price tag here isn't $700 billion doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
perhaps you misunderstand me.
if i record a song, and post it here, does cfc own it?
also, this is the most logical way i've ever seen to handle copyrights.
Shadylookin
master debater
unreleased material should be subject to the same copyright as released material. In today's society what you know is probably more important than what you have. Ideas and intellectual property are important and while it's somewhat ridiculous that Disney's dead carcase is making more money a gazzillion years after dropping dead than most Americans could only dream of the concept of IP is generally a good thing.
Similar threads
