Should unreleased material be not-subject to copyright laws?

[aimeeandbeatles]

Suppose there is unreleased material (videos, music, etc.) Since the company is not making any money from it, why do they care about the copyright? Should they be exempt from copyright, or at least less caring about it? Like if later on, they put it out (although they're crappy quality so I doubt it), then they can take it down.
Wouldn't it also be free promotion?

 

[PeteAtoms]

i think potential profit is what makes them so pissed about piracy. and whether or not they are making any money from it, they still own the material.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

This is a huge problem right now. Apparently there are vast archives of film sitting in warehouses in California that are physically going to decay before their copyrights run out, forever removing them from this world. It's a shame, and really goes against the reason why we have copyright law.

Cleo

 

[PeteAtoms]

This is a huge problem right now. Apparently there are vast archives of film sitting in warehouses in California that are physically going to decay before their copyrights run out, forever removing them from this world. It's a shame, and really goes against the reason why we have copyright law.

Cleo

This why i think old software, music and movies that drop to almost no profit should become public domain.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

This why i think old software, music and movies that drop to almost no profit should become public domain.

One suggestion I'd read (probably from Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig) is that every X years, you have to re-file to continue your copyright, and it costs a dollar. Otherwise, it's public domain. It's a nominal fee, but it shows that the person actually has some interest in the work. If you're not willing to pay a dollar, it goes public.

It wouldn't quite cover the stuff you're talking about, but I bet it would be surprising how much would enter the public domain.

Cleo

 

[Phlegmak]

Should unreleased material be not-subject to copyright laws?

No .

 

[bhsup]

This is a huge problem right now. Apparently there are vast archives of film sitting in warehouses in California that are physically going to decay before their copyrights run out, forever removing them from this world. It's a shame, and really goes against the reason why we have copyright law.

Cleo

If I create something, it should be mine to do with as I see fit. If I want to burn it in a fire, so be it. Even if the rest of the world thought it should be saved, it is still mine, period.

 

[philippe]

One suggestion I'd read (probably from Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig) is that every X years, you have to re-file to continue your copyright, and it costs a dollar. Otherwise, it's public domain. It's a nominal fee, but it shows that the person actually has some interest in the work. If you're not willing to pay a dollar, it goes public.

It wouldn't quite cover the stuff you're talking about, but I bet it would be surprising how much would enter the public domain.

Cleo

i would approve of this idea.

 

[aelf]

If I create something, it should be mine to do with as I see fit. If I want to burn it in a fire, so be it. Even if the rest of the world thought it should be saved, it is still mine, period.

Sounds like fascism. If you can, take it, then you can do whatever you want with it and nobody can tell you no.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I tend to think that the owners of copyrights should be entitled to demand a large portion of profits (maybe even all of it when prior arrangements aren't reached) from using their material, but not control the ability to actually use it. Thus, the material could be available to the public for free, but no one could make a buck off of it that way.

Of course, physically stealing the records to get access to it would be theft, so this only apply if the owner of the copyright had at some point released the material and copies had been made.

 

[LesCanadiens]

You don't need to do anything with material to lose the copyright. If you write a book and it never leaves your hard drive, you still own the copyright to it. It doesn't matter if the material is never put into the marketplace, it is still the property of the owner, and not you (and usually not the publisher, unless the artist is stupid enough to sell their copyright).

 

[bhsup]

Sounds like fascism. If you can, take it, then you can do whatever you want with it and nobody can tell you no.

Fascism? I thought it sounded more like, oh, what's mine is mine and not yours. I never said "take it", I said if I create something.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

piracy keeps media from being lost forever.

and just because i enjoy it, though i know it's slightly off topic...

 

[aelf]

Fascism? I thought it sounded more like, oh, what's mine is mine and not yours. I never said "take it", I said if I create something.

But, according to free market Darwinism, people should be allowed to take whatever they can. To do that, you need power. Otherwise, how do you increase what's yours and how do you prevent others from benefiting from what you have?

 

[bhsup]

How? Personally, I use a Bersa Thunder .380. It's a very personal choice and you should research thoroughly before you pick your prevention tool.

 

[aelf]

Some prefer Walther PPK plus armbands.

 

[bhsup]

Some prefer Walther PPK plus armbands.

I guess you didn't know...

Spoiler :

Bersa Thunder .380

Walther PPK

 

[Mr. Dictator]

How? Personally, I use a Bersa Thunder .380. It's a very personal choice and you should research thoroughly before you pick your prevention tool.

people who would kill over property have always confused me.

 

[LightFang]

One suggestion I'd read (probably from Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig) is that every X years, you have to re-file to continue your copyright, and it costs a dollar. Otherwise, it's public domain. It's a nominal fee, but it shows that the person actually has some interest in the work. If you're not willing to pay a dollar, it goes public.

It wouldn't quite cover the stuff you're talking about, but I bet it would be surprising how much would enter the public domain.

Cleo

As usual, Cleo always brings interesting ideas into the light.

That's a very good idea! QFT.

 

[emzie]

One suggestion I'd read (probably from Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig) is that every X years, you have to re-file to continue your copyright, and it costs a dollar. Otherwise, it's public domain. It's a nominal fee, but it shows that the person actually has some interest in the work. If you're not willing to pay a dollar, it goes public.

It wouldn't quite cover the stuff you're talking about, but I bet it would be surprising how much would enter the public domain.

Cleo

That is an awesome idea.

piracy keeps media from being lost forever.

and just because i enjoy it, though i know it's slightly off topic...

QFT.