Poll: Does our generation recognise copyright laws?

[polymath]

Apologies to older members of the escapist but I do mean 30 and under when I say our generation.

Now I don't mean this to get an argument going about money grabbing developers or the ethics of piracy or anything like that. I'm talking about something simpler. Do we appreciate copyright laws and their purpose?

The reason I ask is that I'm doing a course in film and it's kind of funny how whenever someone misses a film in film studies they just download it. You'd think that if anyone was going to be trying to protect copyright it would be the people who are going to be relying on it to make money.

So do we appreciate copyright as a protection of people's intellectual property (regardless of their wealth or status in case someone tries to argue it's ok to rip off big music and movie producers as long as you support independents) or do we kinda ignore it so we can download what we want?

 

[bdcjacko]

I am 29...so I may be on the edge of the generation in question. But any how, no. The generation in question seems to think they are entitled to have the rights of intellectual property even when it isn't theirs. My generation paved the way for that though.

 

[CODE-D]

I dont, Im 20, For the most part I think theyre ridiculous, are abused, stifle creativity and are the epitome of greed.
Protecting your product/idea is one thing but they go to far with consequences for me to respect.

You cant even sing Happy Birthday anymore....

 

[bdcjacko]

I dont, Im 20, For the most part I think theyre ridiculous, are abused, stifle creativity and are the epitome of greed.
Protecting your product/idea is one thing but they go to far with consequences for me to respect.

You cant even sing Happy Birthday anymore....

You can sing happy birthday as long as it isnt a public event because the person that wrote the song wants royalties. That is protecting their intellectual property. Also how does protecting intellectual property to make the the owner of the copy right gets paid for it stifling creativity? Singing a song someone else wrote is not creative.

 

[Fiad]

I respect copyright laws to an extent. I believe that the laws definitely need to be there, but the need redone badly. Current copyright law is so convoluted that it is damn near impossible to do anything with it. I mean, take DMCA for example, you can call it on pretty much anything and it will get taken down immediately without any second looks into it. It isn't until later on that they actually look at it and say "Oh hey there is nothing wrong with this."

 

[CODE-D]

I dont, Im 20, For the most part I think theyre ridiculous, are abused, stifle creativity and are the epitome of greed.
Protecting your product/idea is one thing but they go to far with consequences for me to respect.

You cant even sing Happy Birthday anymore....

You can sing happy birthday as long as it isnt a public event because the person that wrote the song wants royalties. That is protecting their intellectual property. Also how does protecting intellectual property to make the the owner of the copy right gets paid for it stifling creativity? Singing a song someone else wrote is not creative.

But if your song is unintentionally in any way seen as remotely similar or can be construed as such = Lawsuit.


Also you know whats usually a public event, a birthday.

 

[DEAD34345]

I would say no, and I myself don't recognise many copyright laws as valuable in any way for the most part. Practically all I've seen them do is stifle creativity, cause people to earn tons of other people's money by claiming they own words, and allow large companies to abuse regular people with greater freedom. After all this piracy is still completely widespread (to the point that I don't think I know anyone who both listens to music and doesn't pirate it), the people with original products often still can't make money off of them, or worse, can't release them at all, and people who blatantly rip-off and copy other products still end up making tons of money. So what's the point?

I think the current system of copyright laws is completely fucked up. Unfortunately, I also can't think of a better one.

 

[Agayek]

I respect copyright laws to an extent. I believe that the laws definitely need to be there, but the need redone badly. Current copyright law is so convoluted that it is damn near impossible to do anything with it. I mean, take DMCA for example, you can call it on pretty much anything and it will get taken down immediately without any second looks into it. It isn't until later on that they actually look at it and say "Oh hey there is nothing wrong with this."

Basically what this guy said. I definitely respect the original intent behind copyright, but it's been tweaked, added to, and removed from until, in practice, it no longer resembles that intent. The implementation of it (in the US at least) desperately needs to change.

The concept itself is quite sound and I do try to support it.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Fuck the polic- I mean copyright laws.

 

[Simonccx]

I would say yes, I studied law and in truth people have grave misconceptions about what copyright is, in reality use of other intellectual material for non profit purposes is often acceptable. The whole purpose of copyright is the fact you cannot take credit for (in finance or fame) the work of others, it must also be demonstrateable that the work of another is also origional yet not so broad as to be too limtitting to creativity in general. Thus in reality few things are genuinely copywrite and those which are tend to be left alone.

that said its not them recognising it as much as the law doing its job and not overstepping the mark too much.

 

[Wintermoot]

a better question would be "do companies understand fair use?"
and yes I do have rudimentary knowledge of copyright laws

first of it,s legal to use copyrighted material AS LONG AS YOU DON,T MAKE MONEY OR CLAIM IT AS YOUR OWN IT.
IE me SELLING a Mona Lisa is illegal also me copying it and saying I made it.
me copying it,giving it away and saying Da Vinci painted it is legal.
(assuming the Mona Lisa is still copyrighted)

by extension a shitty Naruto AMV on YT is perfectly legal since the maker never claimed What I've Done was made by him not is he making money of it.

shitty Wii knock-off,s ARE illegal they make money off it and 11/10 times they contain copyright material (like Mario bros. or Zelda 1)

overall I disrespect the copyright laws because companies use them to take down good vids on YT and sue people for ridicules amounts of money over a few songs.

 

[NegaWiki]

I respect them, I'm only 15. What I don't respect is the RIAA arresting people for online piracy when they don't have a computer, the wording of their laws that can allow them to arrest you for singing in the shower, and for trying to sue people who use some copyrighted content when they don't make any money from it.
"25% of zero is zero."

 

[bdcjacko]

I dont, Im 20, For the most part I think theyre ridiculous, are abused, stifle creativity and are the epitome of greed.
Protecting your product/idea is one thing but they go to far with consequences for me to respect.

You cant even sing Happy Birthday anymore....

You can sing happy birthday as long as it isnt a public event because the person that wrote the song wants royalties. That is protecting their intellectual property. Also how does protecting intellectual property to make the the owner of the copy right gets paid for it stifling creativity? Singing a song someone else wrote is not creative.

But if your song is unintentionally in any way seen as remotely similar or can be construed as such = Lawsuit.


Also you know whats usually a public event, a birthday.

1) make sure your song is original so you don't get sued. Seems like it is pushing you to be creative.
2) a birthday isn't a public event, it is private unless you invite the general public and no one has ever been sued for singing happy birthday in their own house. You just can't sing it without permission if you are the wait staff at a resteraunt, a teacher at a school, or yadda yadda yadda.

 

[PessimistOwl]

Yes and no. Yes because originally it was created to establish a system of dominance for whomever created the product in question (for example, somebody creates a device that is soon ripped off, however without any protection, the person who originally created it does not receive credit). No, because most of the copy right rules only funnel money to the publisher, not the creator. For example, you buy a song on itunes, and the person who wrote that song is lucky to even receive a portion of that money, that an because industries seem so hell bent on enforcing copyright that they would sooner take away our personal freedoms (inb4 "you have no freedoms, George Carlin blah blah blah) that I would sooner do away with copyrights than not be able to do whatever the hell I want that does not infringe naturally on any copyrighted material (for example, sing whatever the fuck I want because I like a tune).

 

[Something Amyss]

I am 29...so I may be on the edge of the generation in question. But any how, no. The generation in question seems to think they are entitled to have the rights of intellectual property even when it isn't theirs. My generation paved the way for that though.

Damn kids, GIT OFF MUH LERWN!

It's funny how overused the word "entitlement" is, though it fits here.

 

[Daverson]

Yes, though I sometimes can't help but feel publishers that abuse the laws surrounding "their" intellectual property deserve to be stripped of it...

 

[Something Amyss]

But for things like music, I refuse to pay for it. I don't care if it's breaking the law to pirate music, the real bad guys are the record companies who charge multitudes above the standard production costs. I understand that they don't want to sell for nothing, but they have more than enough to work with to turn a massive profit without charging so much for their music.

And yet, by downloading the music illegally, you're sending the wrong message. Further, because you sent that wrong message, you're part of the continuation of the system in which bands CAN'T make money off CDs.

Yay!