SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 456
  1. #51
    #titanic {float:none} silver trophy
    molona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    from Madrid to Heaven
    Posts
    8,259
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by siteguru View Post
    I agree 100%. But do the RIAA, MPAA et al actively pursue such people? Or do they take the path of least (enforcement) resistance and target individuals?
    I don't know about the RIAA but the SGAE (the Spanish version of the RIAA) does... But they can only infract the hairdresser that puts the radio while she's working and talking to her customers... since hers is a public place, she's supposed to pay for the right of turning on the radio...

    Also, they have people inviting themselves to weddings to make sure that in the party no copyrighted song is played and that kind of stuff.

  2. #52
    ✯✯✯ silver trophybronze trophy php_daemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,284
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by molona View Post
    I don't know about the RIAA but the SGAE (the Spanish version of the RIAA) does... But they can only infract the hairdresser that puts the radio while she's working and talking to her customers... since hers is a public place, she's supposed to pay for the right of turning on the radio...

    Also, they have people inviting themselves to weddings to make sure that in the party no copyrighted song is played and that kind of stuff.
    In other words, they don't.

    That's just ridiculous. Definitely not what I meant by "parasite business" as selling other people's products.
    Saul

  3. #53
    SitePoint Member mugloch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi, I'm new on here but have bought a couple of sitepoint books in the past and found them useful.

    I completely agree with many posts above:

    1 - downloads do not equal lost sales, but downloads can lead to new fans who are then potential customers. The potential upside greatly outweighs the (assumed, and as yet unsupported by factual evidence) downside.

    2 - hiring third parties to police the web for infringing copies is probably a waste of money. As someone above said, are there stats on how many takedown notices converted into paying customers?

    3 - copyright is not inherently bad, it's just a long way off being an incentive for creators to create. There should be a system where creators can monetise their work but it should be part of a system where fair use is the norm and sharing is good.

  4. #54
    SitePoint Member BlackHost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ShayneTilley View Post
    Piracy for a while was an internal conflict to me. The idea of sharing things like music, whilst wrong, was just so much as social norm, it didn't feel wrong. That all changed for me when I started at SitePoint and saw things from the producers perspective. Then I co-wrote my own book at it became much much more real for me. I've never tried to hide the fact that our books are scattered all over file sharing networks, nor was I ever happy about the DRM entanglements we had on our electronic products (long gone now), but I was a little shocked when I got this.

    We've be trialling PiracyGuards, to monitor our products on common piracy networks. We got our first report today and nearly 500 take down notices had been issued. I knew that our books were out there, but this shook me up a little.

    I'm interested to hear you're own thoughts on piracy, doesn't matter if it's from a consumer or a producers perspective.

    The reality is that more people pirate our books than buy them, I don't know to what ratio -- I probably don't want to know. And many many people have always claimed, the more that's pirated the more that sells, but I'm still not sure how to take that. Love to hear your input.
    Well this definately does not fall under any guise of "fair use". I completely understand your dilemma.

    How much is it costing you to issue this take down notices, is there 100 compliance with your take down issues in legally?

  5. #55
    Theoretical Physics Student bronze trophy Jake Arkinstall's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lancaster University, UK
    Posts
    7,062
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ok, here's my point of view.

    Whether or not it's illegal in one country or another, I couldn't care less. The definition of law etc is irrelevant to me here.

    If you are gaining something without consent of the owner, without earning it, you are stealing. If, under any circumstance, you require some kind of software to earn money, but can't afford it in the first place, get a loan. No one person has any right to say that they deserve something for free which other people have to pay for.

    Heck, if you feel any requirement to go illegal for a while to gain money which you otherwise wouldn't have access to, the least you could do is pay for the full version once you have said money.
    Jake Arkinstall
    "Sometimes you don't need to reinvent the wheel;
    Sometimes its enough to make that wheel more rounded"-Molona

  6. #56
    #titanic {float:none} silver trophy
    molona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    from Madrid to Heaven
    Posts
    8,259
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Arkinstall View Post
    Ok, here's my point of view.

    Whether or not it's illegal in one country or another, I couldn't care less. The definition of law etc is irrelevant to me here.

    If you are gaining something without consent of the owner, without earning it, you are stealing. If, under any circumstance, you require some kind of software to earn money, but can't afford it in the first place, get a loan. No one person has any right to say that they deserve something for free which other people have to pay for.

    Heck, if you feel any requirement to go illegal for a while to gain money which you otherwise wouldn't have access to, the least you could do is pay for the full version once you have said money.
    You're going to hate me for saying this Jake but... that's youth talking. I suspect that you don't have a clue of what necessity means and no, not everybody can get a loan. Although it seems that the world is in crisis because banks gave loans and mortgages literally to everyone, that's not exactly true.

    I agree with you that if you find something you like and, once necessity is over, you should buy it and support the creator.

    Yet, it is also true that some people download would never become customers... furthermore, they may have not even known that the book/singer/movie/software existed before the downloaded it out of curiosity!

    Some of them, if they like and can afford it, will buy it. Many of them were not be potential buyers anyway.

    I also agree that a creator has to be paid fairly for their job... but that the system is changing and possibly this era of residual income due to copyrights will be over as technology advances and everything will be in the cloud, not owned by anyone in particular by collectively.

    RIAA and similar companies don't want to lose the control. They charge authors and creators to protect their rights, and that's their job... else, they would not get paid... but also, they get quite a big money from the pie of copyrights since they get the money first and then distribute it to authors and singers.

    I don't know how much a musician receives for writing music in other countries (I mean the one that wrote the music, not the singer or band that sings it) but in Spain, musicians are forced to pay their fees to the SGAE and they only receive 0,5% for copyright. If you're writing for someone famous, that will make you a decent living but if you're not...

    Therefore, only famous, important bands and singers want this system. Only the groups that are popular. But the musicians themselves... they would love to be able to distribute their music freely through the net... because more often than not, they found that they could give concerts (when before they were tied to the music lables) and earn more than when their music is protected.

    Now, SGAE wants to make downloading illegal and the goverment is up to it (after all, they have a strong support from famous people because they're helping SGAE). If downloading is still legal here is, among other things, because they're finding opisition from the musicians too.

    Now, the big dilema here is that many people have your music or book, and you need to turn them into customers. How do you do it? I guess providing something of value that they will only get if they buy it (like customer support) or converting them in brand evangelist and your biggest fans. Easier said than done, of course

  7. #57
    I Love Licorice silver trophybronze trophy Datura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by molona View Post
    You're going to hate me for saying this Jake but... that's youth talking.
    No, that is integrity talking.

    Need does not justify taking. I could not stand by and let you say this molona, I have been sitting on my hands on this one and will continue to do so.

    We have been through this before, so just look at the old posts if you wish. You know my thinking
    Ulrike
    TUTs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  8. #58
    ✯✯✯ silver trophybronze trophy php_daemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,284
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by molona View Post
    I also agree that a creator has to be paid fairly for their job... but that the system is changing and possibly this era of residual income due to copyrights will be over as technology advances and everything will be in the cloud, not owned by anyone in particular by collectively.
    Now what is this you're saying. If that turns out to be true then I'll use the right that no-one can't take away from me - the right to stop producing. And I'm sure I'd not be the only one.

    Being able to be paid what I want for my job means the world for me. And what you talk about is the complete opposite, as you point out very correctly, the collectivism. I'll just say I'm against that and end it there as it's a forbidden zone

    Personally I think (I hope) that's not gonna happen.
    Saul

  9. #59
    I Love Licorice silver trophybronze trophy Datura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by php_daemon View Post
    Now what is this you're saying. If that turns out to be true then I'll use the right that no-one can't take away from me - the right to stop producing. And I'm sure I'd not be the only one.
    A lot of people in the US are talking about going Galt now. The way it all is developing where rights of the individuals are violated left and right, that is not a bad idea at all
    Ulrike
    TUTs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  10. #60
    ✯✯✯ silver trophybronze trophy php_daemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,284
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So I hear. I'm actually following that on PJTV, will be very interesting to see how it all turns out.
    Saul

  11. #61
    I Love Licorice silver trophybronze trophy Datura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by php_daemon View Post
    So I hear. I'm actually following that on PJTV, will be very interesting to see how it all turns out.
    Yea, in the end rationality will win out. How long it will take, anybodies guess of course.

    Oh how I long for that…
    Ulrike
    TUTs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  12. #62
    SitePoint Addict NetNerd85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    298
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Datura View Post
    A lot of people in the US are talking about going Galt now. The way it all is developing where rights of the individuals are violated left and right, that is not a bad idea at all
    Going Galt? what does that mean?
    a new day, a new beginning
    never follow the crowd, the crowd is poor!

  13. #63
    I Love Licorice silver trophybronze trophy Datura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by NetNerd85 View Post
    Going Galt? what does that mean?
    The fount of this term is the philosophical novel "Atlas Shrugged" written by Ayn Rand.

    Here are some write ups about this
    Ulrike
    TUTs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  14. #64
    SitePoint Evangelist Unit7285's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    514
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Arkinstall View Post
    Whether or not it's illegal in one country or another, I couldn't care less. The definition of law etc is irrelevant to me here.

    If you are gaining something without consent of the owner, without earning it, you are stealing. If, under any circumstance, you require some kind of software to earn money, but can't afford it in the first place, get a loan. No one person has any right to say that they deserve something for free which other people have to pay for.
    Absolutely, Jake! I couldn't agree more. Sagewing's comments (on the first few pages) are bang on too.

    This thread has been quite an eye-opener, I suspect, for many people - and not in a good way. I almost can't believe what I'm reading in some of these posts.

    Some of these self-serving, cynical, greedy justifications of theft, puffed up with confused political theories, dodgy legal nit-picking, unproven marketing theories and liberal helpings of whiny self-pity and envy just indicate to me the existence of a huge underclass of people with no morals, no backbones and no money. Poor people. Underachievers. People who can't be trusted. Failures. Don't leave your wallet lying around...

    Books, films, music and software are not essential to sustain life or facilitate employment. They are luxuries. The answer to being poor is to work harder and smarter so you can afford these luxuries, not to cling like a parasite to the backs of other people. And the theory that illegal downloaders would mostly not have bought the product anyway, so the producer is not losing anything, is irrelevant.

    It all comes down to morals in the end. It really does. The attitude that 'I'm going to take it for free, because the owner can't stop me' is nauseating to decent, honest people.

    Unfortunately, due to the scale of the problem (ie the huge number of dishonest chancers in our society), producers now have no option but to adapt and make the best of the situation, but the fact that many producers are, in a sense, giving in doesn't justify the bogus arguments of the piracy supporters.


    Paul

  15. #65
    Life is short. Be happy today! silver trophybronze trophy Sagewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Denver, Phang-Nga, Thailand
    Posts
    4,379
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mugloch View Post
    1 - downloads do not equal lost sales, but downloads can lead to new fans who are then potential customers. The potential upside greatly outweighs the (assumed, and as yet unsupported by factual evidence) downside.
    I don't think that the above statement is true in many cases. Are you saying that of the hundreds of thousands of people who downloaded and watched Avatar, not a single one of them would have seen the film in the theater if there was no other way to see it?

    All those users who download and pirate Photoshop - not a single one of them would buy it if it wasn't so easy to steal?

    And can you really say that all of these 'potential' customers are benefiting the authors/artists in some way? Most software or movie producers prefer a paying audience to a theoretical 'potential customer'.

    Your whole premise is that there is no harm, and some good coming from all of the piracy. But, if that was the case why don't all content producers take that mentality?

    Why does Sitepoint invest in trying out piracy prevention programs if what you say is true. Why doesn't every artist give away their goods for free?

    Can you really claim that only those who wouldn't pay for something in the first place would bother to steal it? Can you say that those very same people (who would never buy the content, only steal it) are worthy potential customers?

    Regardless, doesn't the producer of the content have the choice about whether they choose to offer it for free or not? Or do you feel that you should make that choice for them?

    Some software is freeware. Some shareware. Some must be paid for. The manufacturers of the software decide what is best for them, as does the consumer. That is, except in your case where you have decided that all of them should give it away for free.

    With respect, I think this is a backed-in rationale, another example of the desperate need for an ethical basis for stealing.
    The fewer our wants, the nearer we resemble the gods. — Socrates

    SAGEWING LLC - QUALITY WEB AND MOBILE APPS. PREMIUM OUTSOURCING SERVICES.
    Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Google+

  16. #66
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,849
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    If nations around the world held national referendums and let the people (not the politicians) decide whether music, movies, and other works should be allowed to be copyrighted and for how long, what would happen?

    I would wager that most people would vote to abolish copyright protections or at least reduce them. Instead of 70 years beyond the creator's death, maybe only a few years.

    In the United States, at least, copyrighted works eventually go into the public domain. The information is at the Wikipedia link below. When a copyright expires, would it still be theft if music or movies were freely traded without paying royalties or buying them retail? Copyright protects exist only at the will of the people.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig..._Extension_Act

    Copyright protections for one year then into the public domain, I say. *&^% the greedy musicians, actors, and producers!

  17. #67
    Life is short. Be happy today! silver trophybronze trophy Sagewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Denver, Phang-Nga, Thailand
    Posts
    4,379
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cheesedude View Post
    Copyright protections for one year then into the public domain, I say. *&^% the greedy musicians, actors, and producers!
    Also screw those greedy web designers, programmers, copy writers, graphic artists, and photographers. After you produce a website design, software application, a movie, a song, a photo, or an article you can keep control of it for 1 year - after that anyone who wants it can just 'take it'. Do we really want that?

    If the maximum value of a piece of work is the amount of money that you can make over a year, then we are effectively putting a limit on how much people can invest into something and make a profit. This seems like an odd approach
    The fewer our wants, the nearer we resemble the gods. — Socrates

    SAGEWING LLC - QUALITY WEB AND MOBILE APPS. PREMIUM OUTSOURCING SERVICES.
    Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Google+

  18. #68
    Designer
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    590
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If it has a price, and you're not paying for it, it's theft.

    Free is free. Not free is not free.

    There's no other reason or rationalization justifying theft. You can't "test drive" something that wasn't intended to be test driven. If a book has "free trial chapters", then those chapters are meant to be test driven. Everything else outside of that offer was not meant to be test driven, and there is no reason that you can or should.

  19. #69
    Designer
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    590
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cheesedude View Post
    Copyright protections for one year then into the public domain, I say. *&^% the greedy musicians, actors, and producers!
    Sagewing is being polite. This is just a completely retarded comment.

    I know musicians who have been working "the circuit" for years. They only make a little money from gigs and promos. They rely on sales from the cd's and/or digital downloads to make ends meet.

    Imagine your friend in that situation. Try stealing from a friend.

    Now imagine a gang stealing from your friend.

    Yeah. That's exactly what you're trying to justify.

  20. #70
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    64
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So, the question is, is downloading a digital copy of a copyrighted work stealing?

    If you go to a friends house and bring a book back home with your friends permission, did you just steal something?

    If you are chatting on IM, and you friend mentions that he just read an awesome ebook that he purchased legitimately, then your friend sends that ebook to you, did you just steal?

    What if you were chatting with several of your friends, and they all got the ebook as well? Was that stealing?

    What if it's a really big file, and your friend creates a torrent so that you can download it easier?

    If sharing between friends is not theft only when you share a physical object, then we live in a very sad world.

    Thus, if you share a digital file with friends, where is the point it suddenly becomes theft? Oh, and how do you define 'friend'?

    Too be clear, I am not supporting illegal file sharing. I just believe that sharing between friends is fine. Thus, the main question, is when does sharing between friends become theft?
    --David Reagan
    DavidReagan.net

  21. #71
    Team ********* Louis Simoneau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    228
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Copyright infringment isn't stealing, it isn't theft. It's copyright infringment. It's illegal. But calling it something it isn't just muddies the issue, and makes it harder for people to make reasonable judgments about it. If the record industry started saying music pirates were breaking and entering, or physically assaulting them, it would be no more true than saying they're stealing. It's a different crime, enforced by a different section of the criminal code.

    When you steal a loaf of bread from a store, the store no longer has the loaf of bread. That's theft. When you make a copy without the copyright owner's permission, they can still make copies of it, they just might be deprived of some income that the state has chosen to guarantee them as a reward for making the content in the first place. Not theft.

    </rant>

  22. #72
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Unit7285 View Post
    Some of these self-serving, cynical, greedy justifications of theft, puffed up with confused political theories, dodgy legal nit-picking, unproven marketing theories and liberal helpings of whiny self-pity and envy just indicate to me the existence of a huge underclass of people with no morals, no backbones and no money. Poor people. Underachievers. People who can't be trusted. Failures. Don't leave your wallet lying around...
    Rather an amusing attitude to have, throwing people into a category of right and wrong without accounting for circumstance or trying to understand the reason why they behave in such a way (and rather than just critiquing them for that behaviour, working out how to convert this "free" audience into a profitable model) is the very reason why the media industries and software companies are no closer to understanding how to best to deal with the issue which let's not fool ourselves, occurs within a statistically significant proportion of the population. You can throw around as many self-serving opinion pieces about these people as you like but clearly the current model of serving information to the people isn't working and criminalizing the general population and referring to them like their soulless demons isn't constructive.

    I used to work as a software developer and my entire pay-check was in the hands of those who paid for my software, I already stated my works were pirated from here to china, I'm at the very end of what "you" would quantify as suffering from the rot of civilisation. Yet I managed to make my business profitable, not through cease and desists, not through legal hounding, and certainly not through moaning... In this thread I've acknowledged molona's argument and others "self-justification" for their acts, and stated my sympathy for people who are in certain positions. does this make me some kind of untrustworthy, un-moralistic failure? I don't pirate anything, every piece of music, media and software on my machine was paid for in full, and I've come to accept the reality of what technology has brought us. As you are from the UK I would love to hear whether you've ever ripped a CD to your MP3 player or computer, because as denoted earlier under UK copyright law, that would make you one of the very people your so quick to criminalize, perhaps you haven't done that (even to this day), but most people have done so... and I expect if we looked hard enough at any persons behaviour we could find some aspect to which they have violated a law or too in their time.

  23. #73
    I Love Licorice silver trophybronze trophy Datura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis Simoneau View Post
    Copyright infringment isn't stealing, it isn't theft.
    Yes it is stealing, it is the stealing of intellectual property. Period.

    But in the world of collectivism and rolling over the rights of the individuals and the creators, I am really not surprised at the audacity of thieves to claim that taking is their right..
    Ulrike
    TUTs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  24. #74
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,191
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by XLCowBoy View Post
    If it has a price, and you're not paying for it, it's theft.

    Free is free. Not free is not free.

    There's no other reason or rationalization justifying theft. You can't "test drive" something that wasn't intended to be test driven. If a book has "free trial chapters", then those chapters are meant to be test driven. Everything else outside of that offer was not meant to be test driven, and there is no reason that you can or should.
    Today I saw a woman read a magazine while waiting in the line at the supermarket, she put it back before paying for her goods ... that's when I pulled out my tazer and arrested the *** out of that sorry deadbeat underachiever.

    /end sarcasm

    Anyone who drives over the speed limit (and I'm gonna assume that's almost everyone at some point) has broken a law. But worse, far, far, far, far, far worse is the fact tobacco is legal.

    /end prioritiesareinorder

    These threads are everywhere. The only problem is they are biblical in statistics. Nothing is ever proven anywhere, it's just one side vs another, both claiming to be righteous.

    /end generalisation

    SP, give us the results of your campaign give us something unbiased and honest with which to further educate ourselves about the impact (positive or negative) of filesharing and attempts to stop/promote/whatever it.

  25. #75
    #titanic {float:none} silver trophy
    molona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    from Madrid to Heaven
    Posts
    8,259
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Datura View Post
    No, that is integrity talking.
    Off Topic:

    What I meant about Jake was simply that he will not know what he will do until he sees himself in that situation... which hopefully it will never happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Datura View Post
    Need does not justify taking. I could not stand by and let you say this molona, I have been sitting on my hands on this one and will continue to do so.

    We have been through this before, so just look at the old posts if you wish. You know my thinking
    Yes, I do. But I've been on both sides (no, no, I don't create anything more than tutorials and manuals for my students but I did work in the Editorial world for a while) so I don't have things as clear as you have

    Now what is this you're saying. If that turns out to be true then I'll use the right that no-one can't take away from me - the right to stop producing. And I'm sure I'd not be the only one.


    The system is getting obsolete. As things like TV a le carte and personalised radio channels grow on the internet, the regular and still used copyright system will be obsolete and it will need to changed. People may pay a monthly fee to have those channels, as they do today but... you don't think that it would work forever, do you?


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •