What's new

Copyright law goes against human nature...

AnanaSUPREME

La Senda Piña
Awards
2
Ok, how? Before the days where we began to preserve media in physical form, all the music and stories we knew were all spread by word of mouth. Obviously this meant that many populations were segmented over what ideas they were exposed to, but they were all free to regurgitate all the songs and hero stories of their times. People themselves would put their own twists to this form of media and so long as it wasn't at the expense of a powerful person, they could do whatever the heck they wanted.
:( Copyright law requires that NOBODY partake in the regurgitation or personal evolution of an idea. Yes, people still sing the current tunes of the day... But if it gets caught on camera, their accounts can get suspended. If someone wishes to create their own story within a pre-existing fantasy or to retell said stories, they will be shot down with C&D letters. We have all been told how outrageous it is that living necessities are constantly being commodified, but all of this started the moment we allowed the few to control the media by barring participation on the legal ground.

pepsimanthumbsupIf we wish to have unrestricted free speech, this is where we have to start to negotiate for the sake of our memetic nature.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

IlluminatiPirate

Well-Known Traveler
Awards
26
Yes I agree 100%, sure I understand the premise of copyright and giving credit to the original person but information should be freely shared because at the end of the day thats what it is. And even patent law hinders humanity by discovering new technologies and keeping it secret under the guise of intellectual property and corporate secrets.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Memoryhead

Well-Known Traveler
Awards
11
Ok, how? Before the days where we began to preserve media in physical form, all the music and stories we knew were all spread by word of mouth. Obviously this meant that many populations were segmented over what ideas they were exposed to, but they were all free to regurgitate all the songs and hero stories of their times. People themselves would put their own twists to this form of media and so long as it wasn't at the expense of a powerful person, they could do whatever the heck they wanted.
:( Copyright law requires that NOBODY partake in the regurgitation or personal evolution of an idea. Yes, people still sing the current tunes of the day... But if it gets caught on camera, their accounts can get suspended. If someone wishes to create their own story within a pre-existing fantasy or to retell said stories, they will be shot down with C&D letters. We have all been told how outrageous it is that living necessities are constantly being commodified, but all of this started the moment we allowed the few to control the media by barring participation on the legal ground.

pepsimanthumbsupIf we wish to have unrestricted free speech, this is where we have to start to negotiate for the sake of our memetic nature.
this is incorrect, information has never been free, it has always been protected.

you can do what you want with your creations, but a human's right to decide how their creations are distributed is human nature. copyright laws are PEAK human nature
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

zweiton

hermit
I can see what your are saying, but at the same time, I don't really want someone taking my creation and passing it off as their own. If someone took something of mine and made changes to make it their own, that is perfectly fine. I really wouldn't even mind if they credited me or not. But to just take something of someone else's, not change it at all or add to it, and then call it your own is not right. I believe this to be the reason why copyright exists.
 

Phosphorescence

Well-Known Traveler
Awards
11
Ok, how? Before the days where we began to preserve media in physical form, all the music and stories we knew were all spread by word of mouth. Obviously this meant that many populations were segmented over what ideas they were exposed to, but they were all free to regurgitate all the songs and hero stories of their times. People themselves would put their own twists to this form of media and so long as it wasn't at the expense of a powerful person, they could do whatever the heck they wanted.
:( Copyright law requires that NOBODY partake in the regurgitation or personal evolution of an idea. Yes, people still sing the current tunes of the day... But if it gets caught on camera, their accounts can get suspended. If someone wishes to create their own story within a pre-existing fantasy or to retell said stories, they will be shot down with C&D letters. We have all been told how outrageous it is that living necessities are constantly being commodified, but all of this started the moment we allowed the few to control the media by barring participation on the legal ground.

pepsimanthumbsupIf we wish to have unrestricted free speech, this is where we have to start to negotiate for the sake of our memetic nature.
Copyright law in some medium, when it isn't mind numbingly complex, can help some artists, we'll take writers in this example. In the literary world, copyright may help prevent against leechlike mimics who will just change your work a little here and there from profiting off of shitty 'spin offs', and could thus also make a bad name for the original work of art or degrade its reputation. A more concrete example could be people trying to sell fanfics of whatever popular literary franchise you can think. Not actually writing one and just sharing with a community, that's where the vast difference is - aside, fanfic is an awful way to write and is just a little step above outright plagiarizing, but that's just my opinion. :BurgerTime:

Copyright in some instances can help little artist too, but of course the lion's share goes towards the Lords of their field. One instance of copyright helping the little guys in which, Avatar (the James Cameron one), the court ruled, 'stole' the idea of floating islands from a fiction author, and thus recompensed the author for this.

But thankfully public domain exists which is a reasonable trade off for copyright, for instance look at all the vampire and werewolf fiction available, that concept of vampire and werewolf is public domain. Same thing with Greek myths (American Gods, Percy Jackson etc etc). Frankly enough, there are treasure troves of obscure and esoteric public domain stories and ideas which I'm sure if you do some digging can yield extremely original stories. Take for instance African folklore, mix that with some aboriginal myths, and you've got something (maybe) original?

But legality aside, when looked from a philosophical stance, can someone possibly own an idea? I can't answer that. But, when you have an idea and it's not heard, and some sly guy steals your idea without acknowledging you and claiming it's his own, wouldn't you be upset? Copyright in theory, was supposed to stall this drama we've all encountered to a degree (someone taking our idea and getting rewarded - pat on the back etc) from proliferating out of control in our avarice society.

Free speech is also a tricky subject, because when you are using a platform on the internet, remember when you create an account and you have to click on the small tome of I agree to the conditions which we never read? That means that's a contract you just 'signed' with a private company, and all those rights go bye bye, and the owners can do whatever they please and not get punished legally for it if one cries foul. Free speech usually applies in person to person interactions, like you can go gather your friends and animals and march into a plaza and demand purple colored hamburgers with sprinkles, and nobody can censor you for that, even if they like green colored hamburgers with orange icing, but hate speech is not free speech. Hate speech is not only disgusting, it can also be penalized. Beware of the cancel culture and free speech too, there's an aura of would be censorship going on there, but that's a completely different topic.

All this can bridge into an infinity of other discussions, and I'm no expert in this matter.
 
Last edited:
Virtual Cafe Awards

BobbyTrivia

Well-Known Traveler
Awards
3
I implore anyone curious to see how far "fair use" can get you to watch both seasons of the Vice Canada show Nirvanna the Band the Show. The movie The Dirties has some similar "fair use boundary-pushing" themes, but NTBTS really hits the nail on the head.

Here's a 12-minute video of the show's creators and its stars discussing fair use:

(edit: and I actually think that many, many vaporwave artists have a legitimate fair use argument for repurposing and recontextualizing the copyrighted material they choose to. Court probably isn't fun, even if you have a winning case, though)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQXxw6PUu_4
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

AnanaSUPREME

La Senda Piña
Awards
2
I can see what your are saying, but at the same time, I don't really want someone taking my creation and passing it off as their own. If someone took something of mine and made changes to make it their own, that is perfectly fine. I really wouldn't even mind if they credited me or not. But to just take something of someone else's, not change it at all or add to it, and then call it your own is not right. I believe this to be the reason why copyright exists.
The problem is, even if someone were to create changes of their own they can still get in legal trouble. Even if someone were to create such a thing with a different name, you can still have a more powerful person come and threaten you with legal action.
And in the case of similar works, we only need to look at how brostep declined in popularity because everyone did the same crap for like 5 years thanks to Skrillex. There are so many blatant copies and nobody ever said anything, if Sonny was a real dick like Metallica or any damned band from the 80s he would've gone after thousands of artists-- but he didn't. These takedown measures give bad actors too much power even if they were made with the intent of helping people preserve what they made.
 
Last edited:
Virtual Cafe Awards

BobbyTrivia

Well-Known Traveler
Awards
3
The problem is, even if someone were to create changes of their own they can still get in legal trouble. Even if someone were to create such a thing with a different name, you can still have a more powerful person come and threaten you with legal action.
Sometimes this is the case, but I think the bigger issue is the legal action more than actually getting charged with a crime. It can be very expensive to fight in court, even if you're completely in the legal right.
And in the case of similar works, we only need to look at how brostep declined in popularity because everyone did the same crap for like 5 years thanks to Skrillex. There are so many blatant copies and nobody ever said anything
Citation needed. This is not how copyright law works. Led Zeppelin doesn't have a case against Greta van Fleet, and Skrillex doesn't have a case against Bassnectar or Kill the Noise or Flux Pavilion or really anyone except maybe Zomboy (if he didn't clear the sample beforehand). Hell, Skream doesn't have a case against Skrillex for that matter; you think Skrillex single-handedly invented these types of sounds? Again, that's not how copyright law works at all.
if Sonny was a real dick like Metallica or any damned band from the 80s he would've gone after thousands of artists-- but he didn't.
Citation needed. Metallica is known for being a lawsuit-happy band for sure, with Metallica v. Napster, Inc. leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth. But yeah, their lawyers sent a cease and desist to the cover band Sandman, but Lars put a stop to that by licensing out the relevant materials basically for free. What's notable, though, is that the cease and desist written by Metallica's "rogue" laywers specified that the cover band must stop using their "name, font, or logos to advertise their shows." Nothing to do with the music itself and everything to do with how it was advertised. In other words, I can hire someone who looks and acts like Ryan Gosling for my movie, but I can't put Ryan Gosling in the advertisements if I don't have the relevant license to do so (I actually probably could if I had a legitimate fair use argument, but it gets a lot more complicated when you're using it to promote the work). And your comment about "any damned band from the 80s" -- do you mind directing me towards the lawsuits that you're referring to? I'm sure they're out there, but it seems like you're misrepresenting what the musicians actually did by making up some nonsense about Sonny not suing other brostep acts like he holds the copyright to an entire genre or something.

Hope this clears some things up. I'm no expert on copyright law, but your entire post seems to showcase a fundamental misunderstanding of what copyright is or does. Deriving inspiration from someone else doesn't immediately become "copying" from a legal perspective.

These takedown measures give bad actors too much power even if they were made with the intent of helping people preserve what they made.
Since we're on a vaporwave forum, which is a genre that was birthed out of recontextualizing copyrighted works, do you ever stop and wonder why no one is posting high profile vaporwave lawsuits? I'm not saying that they don't exist, but it seems like if there was going to be mass lawsuits, they would've begun half a decade ago.

Here's another fun fair use video; it isn't entirely relevant to my post but may help illustrate why "this thing is like this copyrighted thing therefore it's illegal" is total nonsense.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5ZmVheuxpo
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

vaporwavemaster1

Eccojamming Emperor
Awards
22
大きな問題はミュージシャンと彼らのレーベルの間のダイナミクスだと思います。多くの場合、ミュージシャンのレーベルは、利益が危険にさらされているミュージシャンに相談することなく、著作権侵害を犯したと信じている人を訴えます。これはしばらく前のケースでした。デンジャーマウスがビートルズのラップミックステープをリリースしました。ビートルズを後援するレーベルがデンジャーマウスを訴えた。しかし、ポール・マッカートニーには問題はありませんでした。多くの場合、レーベルはミュージシャンよりも訴訟に飛びつくのが早いです。ミュージシャンはすでに十分に裕福で、ランダムな人が自分のものをリミックスすることを本当に気にしません
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

zweiton

hermit
The problem is, even if someone were to create changes of their own they can still get in legal trouble. Even if someone were to create such a thing with a different name, you can still have a more powerful person come and threaten you with legal action.
And in the case of similar works, we only need to look at how brostep declined in popularity because everyone did the same crap for like 5 years thanks to Skrillex. There are so many blatant copies and nobody ever said anything, if Sonny was a real dick like Metallica or any damned band from the 80s he would've gone after thousands of artists-- but he didn't. These takedown measures give bad actors too much power even if they were made with the intent of helping people preserve what they made.
That *is* true. Copyright law is a fickle thing. I don't really have anything else to add, I just wanted to acknowledge that I saw your reply :)
 
Macintosh Cafe.FM
Help Users
    admin: @Franz, if u are on your phone turn it vertical it will change the font. Its based on screen size