oh and musicians make the bulk of their money via concerts not CD sales ...

---

Some intellectual property protection makes sense, but it ought to be much more limited.

There are three problems with current copyright law: first, it extends the monopoly far too long (currently the life of the creator plus 70 years in the USA, if I recall correctly, though given the idiots in Congress, at the RIAA, etc, I wouldn't be surprised if that length continues to get longer and longer.

Second, the line between "expression" (itself a gloss on the traditional limit of copyright protection "words") and "ideas" has become far too blurry.

Third, and this just makes #1 more likely and #2 more problematic, the rights of copyright are exerciseable not just by individuals, but by corporations with both the ability to "live forever" (under the law) and to concentrate much greater weatlh on "protection" efforts. When a company worth billions can put its legal counsel to work flexing their litigation muscle, and do so without penalty for "frivolous" action, they can push the boundaries of restriction much farther than an individual copyright holder ever can.

Personally, I think the creative commons idea is an excellent one, especially the way it leaves the decision as to how much copyright claim to keep. But I am not convinced that the creative commons approach will have the success its proponents claim unless and until the way by which other legal and political institutions determine copyright protections is substantially reformed. As long as the system is set up to enable the RIAAs of the world to be significant players in the game, the system will fail to do what it should be doing.

---

What do you mean by 'creative commons'? I'm curious about that, it sounds good.

---

You have a good point, but the "drones" have come up with ways not to pay so much now. The system should be correcting itself, but the people making all of the money are trying to scare people into overpaying as before.

---

FYI...

http://creativecommons.org/about/what-is-cc 

---

I like free! :)


I was at Walmart last night and noticed quite a few DVD's are $19.99 and Blu Ray are $29.99. That's for movies that are more than six months old and some over a year old!

That's freaking insane. And they want to bitch about people downloading music and movies? Really? I've watched MTV Cribs a few times, they don't need a 7th car to be happy.

---

My website  is released under the Creative Commons License.

---

Second link from the bottom on the left ... I admit ... I excitedly clicked it and then 'sighed' ... in disappointment.

---

You are indeed an asshole, my friend, but I like you all the better for it.

---

I'll come out and say that yes, I have pirated software, music, and movies before.

I will also come out and say that at least 80% of what I've pirated I've eventually bought, or already owned (or in the case of movies/TV shows, brother had the DVDs but didn't want to borrow them). In my mind, this is responsible pirating, in that I'm not hurting anyone or taking money from anyone.

Where I take issue, is when people say "WOW, that CD is overpriced *rant about how little artists get without realizing that CD sales/radio exposure is what gets word about bands out, and thus sells concert tickets which is where the money is at*"... Then go download the music anyways with no intention of ever paying for it if they like it. This is theft, plain and simple, and indicative of what I see as a rising culture of expecting things for free.

I'm involved in the Starcraft II beta, and the sheer amount of WHINING from people, and threats to not buy/pirate the game due to minor issues like a lack of public chatrooms is just sick. If there's enough issue with a product to where it's not worth your money, don't steal it.