We would be happy to debate this matter in a dedicated blog post about that topic, preferable written by yourself based on your own experiences.
This blog post is purely about educating the current nature of Copyright, not to discuss personal opinions/loopholes/specific country based laws or whatsoever. We think understanding copyright is more important than to deny it and trying to counter it, as we simply cannot change this overnight. If you wish to contribute to this blog post, rephrase your opinion in a question and we are happy to try to give you an answer that fits.
Currently, the contribution you have made so far, seem to be cries where you demand a different approach on Copyright from your point of view. You simply cannot change law, nor influence the current understanding of Copyright with pushing your thoughts about this matter and expect that the law bends to you whenever you would like to. It is as it is. It was as it was. If you want change, file it to the right people, we are certainly not.
At this current state, creators that are not on this platform, seek federal guidance to start the procedure to send Cease and Desist letters regarding their Copyrighted work, which is damaging the name of Steemit and would slow down its potential grow as this issue grows.
And again, all created work is protected by copyright by law upon creation. This does not mean it is protected for financial compensation for these 'damages' by default. You need to be a registered business in some countries, you need to register a license in other countries and sometimes proof of creation is enough to be illegible for financial compensation.
If you want to talk about logical underlying thoughts about copyright, simply start a blog post and invite people that you deem interesting to reply to.
And again, all created work is protected by copyright by law upon creation. This does not mean it is protected for financial compensation for these 'damages' by default. You need to be a registered business in some countries, you need to register a license in other countries and sometimes proof of creation is enough to be illegible for financial compensation.
You have to include that in your article because theres plenty of talk of how great copyrights are but no specific on this important detail? Why did you have to explain to people that people making art for free do it without compensation? But you couldn't spare a line to "Copyrights doesn't mean that the work if protected upon creation for financial compensation for unfair use, you have to register and "sometimes" proof of creation is enough to be eligible for compensation." But you really don't have to do anything because the bullshit "Let's talk about copyrights" was only meant to express "Let me tell you about copyrights". Cary on
Thus the main proposition of the article is a negative one, although with profound consequences. If copyright law does not matter for the “independence and dignity of artistic creators and performers” what is it really for?
And this was mentioned before that:
New historical data from Germany appears to indicate that in a non-copyright environment, stronger competition for authors as suppliers and lower consumer prices did increase the earnings power of creators.
The point I've made a few times:
Although, under copyright law, the first owner of a work is usually the author, in practice most works are owned by a third party specialising in commercial exploitation, such as a publisher or producer. Under the orthodox economic analysis, this distinction does not matter. According to Landes and Posner, any legal or institutional devices that limit the assignability of copyright “reduce the incentive to create by preventing the author or artist from shifting risk to the publisher or dealer”; if “future speculative gains” must be shared, the author will be paid less.
Also when you say "let's talk about copyright" in the very premise of that is threaded discussing the logical (or lack of it) premise underlying the concept of copyrights. I decline your invitation to discuss the matter at hand anywhere else, I'd rather keep it here, with all the uninteresting, who ought to feel free to come and go as they wish, as in any public forum, even the dullingotns that yapper on "amen, copying is stealing in lalaland".
You don't want to debate Intellectual Theft even though it relates with the post as the underlying logical premise? Odd.
We would be happy to debate this matter in a dedicated blog post about that topic, preferable written by yourself based on your own experiences.
This blog post is purely about educating the current nature of Copyright, not to discuss personal opinions/loopholes/specific country based laws or whatsoever. We think understanding copyright is more important than to deny it and trying to counter it, as we simply cannot change this overnight. If you wish to contribute to this blog post, rephrase your opinion in a question and we are happy to try to give you an answer that fits.
Currently, the contribution you have made so far, seem to be cries where you demand a different approach on Copyright from your point of view. You simply cannot change law, nor influence the current understanding of Copyright with pushing your thoughts about this matter and expect that the law bends to you whenever you would like to. It is as it is. It was as it was. If you want change, file it to the right people, we are certainly not.
At this current state, creators that are not on this platform, seek federal guidance to start the procedure to send Cease and Desist letters regarding their Copyrighted work, which is damaging the name of Steemit and would slow down its potential grow as this issue grows.
And again, all created work is protected by copyright by law upon creation. This does not mean it is protected for financial compensation for these 'damages' by default. You need to be a registered business in some countries, you need to register a license in other countries and sometimes proof of creation is enough to be illegible for financial compensation.
If you want to talk about logical underlying thoughts about copyright, simply start a blog post and invite people that you deem interesting to reply to.
You have to include that in your article because theres plenty of talk of how great copyrights are but no specific on this important detail? Why did you have to explain to people that people making art for free do it without compensation? But you couldn't spare a line to "Copyrights doesn't mean that the work if protected upon creation for financial compensation for unfair use, you have to register and "sometimes" proof of creation is enough to be eligible for compensation." But you really don't have to do anything because the bullshit "Let's talk about copyrights" was only meant to express "Let me tell you about copyrights". Cary on
The law matters? In what case?
Here's one that it doesn't matter, in a very visceral way:
And this was mentioned before that:
The point I've made a few times:
Also when you say "let's talk about copyright" in the very premise of that is threaded discussing the logical (or lack of it) premise underlying the concept of copyrights. I decline your invitation to discuss the matter at hand anywhere else, I'd rather keep it here, with all the uninteresting, who ought to feel free to come and go as they wish, as in any public forum, even the dullingotns that yapper on "amen, copying is stealing in lalaland".