Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 
DonGould
3892 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164


  #1821230 12-Jul-2017 12:52
Send private message

ripdog:

 

Pie in the sky, Lias, but I love it. A mysterious alternative timeline where copyright serves the public interest, rather than the corporate interest.

 

 

 

 

It's election year... perhaps a few people need to ask their candidate?





Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz




Behodar
11096 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6075

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1821240 12-Jul-2017 13:08
Send private message

frankv: The TPPA Amendment Bill was passed into law in Nov 2016. That already extended copyright protection by a further 20 years to 70 years after the author's death.

 

That amendment isn't yet in force, and no date has been announced.

 

http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0090/latest/DLM6838027.html

 

I also have no idea what happens for content (eg. movies) between 50 and 70 years old; if it's already left copyright does it stay that way, or does it magically become copyrighted again? If I'd made copies of one of these movies, do they suddenly become infringing copies or are they still legal?


solutionz
589 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 164
Inactive user


#1821245 12-Jul-2017 13:16
Send private message

IMO: Copyright (and Patents) have no basis in natural law (it's not a natural extension of "theft <> use of force <> violence" as lobbyists would argue). 

 

Copyright fundamentally erodes our basic freedoms of thought, expression, speech and communication; when corporations can make claim to human noises, visual expressions, abstract numbers etc. then use the threat of violence to intimidate "competitors" into submission.

 

It stifles innovation, slows the progress of mankind and contributes to needless human suffering of those who can't afford proprietary goods (drugs, medical equipment, technology) or are simply blocked from supplying them in a better / cheaper way.

 

The only thing that should be strongly protected and enforced is trademark and brand (which is a natural extension of "dishonesty <> deception <> false advertising").

 

If you want to take a Microsoft product; reverse engineer the API's, make it better, faster, cheaper, more compatible, more useful to mankind...go ahead (as Microsoft, Apple, Acorn etc all did in the early 90's with IBM products).

 

But you must make it very clear that it is a derivative work and no way associated with Microsoft; the market will decide which version they will prefer and many will continue to buy the original due to brand loyalty, trust etc - this is where the value should be placed rather than the product.

 

Yes, content would still get created and technology would still be developed without the "protections" of copyright. Just look at the level of development before many of these monopolies were established, the opensource industry, crowd funding, government research and non-profit organisations.


1 | 2 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic








Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.