Showing posts with label copyright extensions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright extensions. Show all posts

Sunday, June 22, 2025

Comment on cool gundam ai music video from youtuber FantasyRemaster

 



Comment:  algorithms are getting faster and cheaper to run. But without copyright reform only small clips can likely be made even if it eventually becomes practical to remake the whole series. A full 1 for 1 full series remaster would likely need blessing of copyright owners. But currently the laws say ai gen is copyright free, which is also a problem on its own. We definitely need new laws to enable fair use and sharing of royalties while retaining some level of rights to those that modify and update content with ai tools


Friday, August 6, 2021

Copyright: Forever Less One Day


comment: copyright used to last far less, as it should, but it was extended to the detriment of the art and sciences,  and harm to the people of the land.

We are in need of copyright reform to reduce copyright duration and extend fair use rights, other nations need fair use inscribed as constitutional right.

Monday, April 30, 2018

COPYRIGHT REFORM COMMENT 2018

Copyright is an infringement of free speech.  I mean we know that if we write something, it is speech too, some say even money is speech, iirc.  Now tool assisted communication, such as a telephone call, is still speech.   If you use an algorithm and a computer to assist in the copying of one number from one location to another, how can that be illegal?    Because it is a fact that is just what it is, using tool assistance to copy one number from one location to another. It is merely tool assisted communication.    I mean you can charge money for improving society, taxes, so you should be able to justify charging money for such speech but not excessive punishment, nor should you be able to prohibit tool assisted communication and free exchange of ideas.  

That said, I still think we should have some form of copyright to protect artists.   I think producers should be pursued not consumers.  I also think the punishment needs to be proportional to the crime, potentially years in jail and tens, hundreds of thousands or even millions?  That seems cruel and unusual excessive punishment.   

But thing is I have a different position on copyright and patents, I think given that we all have a right to free speech, you cannot take that basic human right away merely to incentivize art creation.   Nor will it ever be justifiable to punish an individual for basic use of their innate human rights.  I think copyright should be modified so as to grant you the right to a REASONABLE royalty for your creation, but you cannot bar others from creating and selling unofficial fanfiction versions, nor prohibit distribution.    You merely take a cut of their income, a reasonable cut.

Same with patents, you should not be able to bar others from using your inventions or charge exorbitant fees.   You shouldn't be able to deny licensing, and licensing should have a reasonable cost.   This fosters innovation and competition.

Right now copyright and patents are harming innovation, startups, the development of the art and science, rather than fostering progress these laws are harming progress as well as the innocent. Harming humanity and civilization for the profit of the few.   The free exchange of ideas, allows society to develop and progress, these laws are an impediment to such, slowing down progress and reducing competition in the market.

TLDR:
You can potentially charge people some money merely for communicating, in order to incentivize the arts and science, though speech being a basic innate human right, you cannot deny their basic human rights nor use barbaric excessive punishment to incentivize the arts and science.   Really, we cannot take away basic human rights of others to incentivize artists, but let's be honest it likely is the middlemen who benefit the most, and many artists are actually harmed by such laws, and their creative output is stifled.

In patents, we've seen patent trolls, and large corporations with large war chests of patents threatening smaller companies and startups with extensive litigation and extorting them out of the market or to give away their inventions in exchange for peanuts.   Same happens in the arts, with large corporations having gargantuan ever growing body of copyright that can be used against new independent artists on the grounds of similarity.

Friday, September 16, 2016

On the ridiculousness of IP laws, copyright

The US copyright law:
To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place
where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family
and its social acquaintances
 is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the
work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device
or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance
or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the
same time or at different times.



Ah, their ridiculous attempt to rule out devices which are merely natural extensions of the body. Problem with that is Stephen Hawking, and other people with neural interfaces, they need devices to even interact aptly with the world.
Also we can define both the muscles of the body and their action as both natural device or process.
If money is a form of speech, ideas are speech. When banks exchange money they exchange digital data, digital numbers, there is a numerical quantity equal to any work of art that is possible. So if we are free to exchange money which today is basically just fundamentally digital numbers, we are free to exchange those numbers at any value including ones corresponding to works of art.
Say, I have a lot of money, and say I send a precise quantity of money, but the quantity corresponds to the compressed form of some copyrighted work. Are you saying it is illegal in principle for me to send this precise quantity of money? Don't you see how ridiculous and self-contradictory that is.
Inflation alone will ensure quantities get big enough that you can send precise quantities corresponding to any of the reasonable size finite set of works of art. Or are you going to DICTATE what precise quantities of money people can send to each other?-source kurzweilai

Monday, July 18, 2016

Comment on copyright

Companies have been successfully lobbying the government for more copyright extensions.   Copyright is ok, but for a limited time, a REASONABLY limited time only.   But all these unreasonable extensions to copyright have harmed the public.

The generation of content, excellent content, is probably one of the greatest things the human race does.  By content I mean art, beautiful wonderful art.   If the governments of the world will not do what is best for the people, and for the world, because of corruption, then they're simply not fit to lead.

The following video from someone on cracked comments on this, but it makes some silly comments regarding BvS