Comments on: Why People Hate Copyright

By: laptop battery

laptop battery — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:52:00 +0000

Hope to be better. Better means more features.

By: laptop battery

laptop battery — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:52:00 +0000

Hope to be better. Better means more features.

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:37:57 +0000

The problem with the so-called defenders of copyright is that they are seizing rights that they don't even own and then they whine "theft" to their zombie lawmakers, who then pass even more onerous laws that defy logic by criminalizing what was once legal. As one aspect of this trend towards seizing rights, TechDirt writes: AP Will Sell You A License To Words It Has No Right To Sell. While not specifically a copyright issue; patents have also been proposed for extension (increased "rights") by zombie politicians. On this issue TechDirt wrote: Biologic Drugs Likely To Get Separate 12-Year Monopoly Protection Beyond Patents. In Copyfraud Jason Mazzone writes how many content producers claim copyright ownership over content that is even in the public domain. When any "law" essentially legitimizes actions that society has ethical concerns with supporting, the laws become meaningless. Not only does the specific law itself become an item of derision, but the very concept of the law as serving society becomes a mockery. Look at the respect society has towards the US tax code. Society's response to unjust laws is civil disobedience.

If the defenders of copyright wish to have copyright respected, return the copyright law to what was envisioned when the constitution was passed. If onerous laws can be passed, the laws can also be undone. So, in the face of increasing civil disobedience, will the copyright "defenders" see the handwriting on the wall and restore copyright to what was envisioned when the constitution was passed or will they simply continue down the path toward self-immolation?

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:37:57 +0000

The problem with the so-called defenders of copyright is that they are seizing rights that they don't even own and then they whine "theft" to their zombie lawmakers, who then pass even more onerous laws that defy logic by criminalizing what was once legal. As one aspect of this trend towards seizing rights, TechDirt writes: AP Will Sell You A License To Words It Has No Right To Sell. In Copyfraud Jason Mazzone writes how many content producers claim copyright ownership over content that is even in the public domain. When any "law" essentially legitimizes actions that society has ethical concerns with supporting, the laws become meaningless. Not only does the specific law itself become an item of derision, but the very concept of the law as serving society becomes a mockery. Look at the respect society has towards the US tax code. Society's response to unjust laws is civil disobedience.

If the defenders of copyright wish to have copyright respected, return the copyright law to what was envisioned when the constitution was passed. If onerous laws can be passed, the laws can also be undone. So, in the face of increasing civil disobedience, will the copyright "defenders" see the handwriting on the wall and restore the copyright to what was envisioned when the constitution was passed or will they simply continue down the path toward self-immolation?

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:17:14 +0000

Yeah, that partly my point, Jonas. It's incidents like this that make people hate copyright—whatever the underlying legal issues actually are.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 21:05:41 +0000

the flash player is streaming an mp3 file. the mp3 file can be found here: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ageofpersuasion_20090...

By: facebook-631598553

facebook-631598553 — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 21:01:12 +0000

@Jonas Smith
It is really practical to ask Terry & Co. to seek out the rights holders of 40 year old commercials just so it can be downloadabl in the podcast? Were copyright resonable in Canada US, and elsewhere the copyright would have expired by now and they would know they are in the clear. So it is a copyright issue, but I do sympathize with them. What is the copyright for 40 year old Canadian TV and radio commericals? Who knows but it should be just a couple of years so we can talk about them and use them in this manner. The probably copyright is hampering the discussion of these historic commericals. Maybe Terry should make this his next story.

By: Jonas Smith

Jonas Smith — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:23:44 +0000

you haven't established that this is actually a copyright issue rather than some other sort of licensing issue. people bash copyright unfairly without any real thought about copyright law.

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:49:28 +0000

Thanks, Nick! That seems like a pretty good work-around. I'm loading my pod now.

By: facebook-631598553

facebook-631598553 — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:40:07 +0000

Hmm, they have not updated for a month.

By: facebook-631598553

facebook-631598553 — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:37:28 +0000

Oh, look at that! Someone did it! http://feeds.feedburner.com/ageofpersuasionpodcast You can always leave it to nature to fill a void.

By: facebook-631598553

facebook-631598553 — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:31:36 +0000

I discovered this podcast a couple of months ago and was also disappointed it was not offered as a podcast. I went to the page for a dozen or so episodes and did view source, hacked the mp3's URL together, and downloaded them, and sent them to my iPod. The podcast is ok. I did learn about some historical TV and radio commercials, but the narrator's style is kind of hokey. They use the audio of these commercials in the podcast, and these are probably what the are talking about.

One could bookmark the audio URLs in delicious, run the feed through feedburner with an appropriate URL name, put the URL in iTunes podcast subscription field and be done with it

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 14:22:18 +0000

Thanks, Chad, but unless you know of an easy way to get those MP3s onto my iPod as podcasts, that doesn't help much in terms of being able to listen to these on the go.

By: Chad

Chad — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 04:23:22 +0000

You realize, of course, that clicking on the “streaming” link just sends the mp3 file to you via http? Yeah, the legal issues are all murky and complicated – but the physics remains nice and simple.

By: Chad

Chad — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 04:23:22 +0000