(((They))) are trying, yet again, to extend copyright duration and protections for digital music. If this gets through, Disney and the like are likely to reconsider pushing for another full-on copyright extension.
US Congress set to pass the CLASSICS act
Other urls found in this thread:
Archive keeps fucking up the page.
Guys, this is kind of a big deal.
why the shit op op ?
user, please. You know what's going to happen.
Extended copyright is nothing but trouble. TBH, copyright should be no more than 7 years.
Archive keeps fucking up the page
<This is because FSF is pozzed.
Guys, this is kind of a big deal
<Wrong location, bucko. This is the kind of stuff you gotta get autists that care about (((entertainment))) to deal with.
Your best bet is to watch closely the money and influence trading hands with regard to this CLASS act. Dig Dig Dig. Expose the shills in congress.
Do you honestly have no idea how copyright has been twisted to
A) Make a few large corporate entitles gate keepers of all cultures
B) Subdue free expression, leading to
C) Memetic stagnation and manipulation on the part of the Jews from A.
If we can generate the kind of backlash among normal fags that NN did, there may be a slim chance of this getting any worse than it already is. We are talking about the free flow of memes here ultimately, we have to at least stop the bleeding.
One one hand, fuck the jew corporations.
On the other hand, fuck the jew's "popular music"
This is the kind of stuff you gotta get autists that care about (((entertainment))) to deal with.
This effects practically everything memetic and the whole culture by extension. I thought Zig Forums cared about both of those.
Copyright law is the pure strangulation of creativity for the personal profit of kikes running inbetween the public and any entertainment medium. Everyone but the kikes and the lawyers (that are kikes) loses. If you support copyright law you're a fucking cuck and brobably a manlet as well :DD.
Kikes are all cucked manlets, even the women.
It's a windfall of shekels for jews, which is enough reason alone to fight against it.
And lets not forget every time they do this, they're taking some of our natural rights away. It was a fair trade in the beginning, but now it's just not a good deal for the public.
Well sure but we don’t really go |obeying| copyright law in memetics do we? Honestly one of the primary reasons the left can’t meme is because they won’t trespass on the merchant’s copyright. I know you’re gathering (You)s for a cause and shit but don’t try to sell me on the memetic front. Copyright law actually benefits meme wizardry.
Where we should be very very concerned is that the mythological substructure of our culture is copyrighted by a cabal of very bad hombres. If you know the functions of mythology (Campbell) you know what a wonderfully detailed control surface this can be. The imaginations of the goy are unironically referred to as “intellectual property”. This is the source of our culture’s cancer. One piddly little political action will not solve this problem. Strategically speaking this is not the hill to die on.
If you want to be the meme wizard which revives meme wizardry itself, start memeing the 7 year copyright, don’t stop til it’s real.
pushing for another full-on copyright extension
wanna know why your OP is LE garbage?
why didn't you explain this
full-on copyright extension
again, no explanation
gb3cuckchan if you're going to be this much of a faggot
This is great to bring to our attention, OP. But (((Stallman))) is a leftist Jew who I assume still is in charge of the Free Software Foundation, can we really trust him and his organization to truly oppose this? Also, now is a good time to link to this:
Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson on the Nature of ‘Intellectual Property’
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have
a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own
lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether
the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be
singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is
agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual
has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By
an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all
men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies
it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable
ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of
society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an
individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable
property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea,
which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself;
but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every
one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character,
too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole
of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without
lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without
darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the
globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his
condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature,
when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening
their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and
have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give
an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men
to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done,
according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or
complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed,
that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by
a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some
other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and
personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these
monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be
observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful
as England in new and useful devices.
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but
for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line
between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an
exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for
several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I
saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured.
Ah, fucked up on the quoting, but you get the idea.
Nigger, do you literally want me to give you a history lesson about how Disney has lobbied for copyright to go from 28 years to life+75 just to keep their damn mouse out of the public domain?
Copyright law actually benefits meme wizardry.
How exactly does more than a century of copyright do this?
Stallman's autism seems to keep the more cancerous aspects of his merchant nature in check. At the cost of being totally inept socially.
To be honest, if all Jews were quirky harmless autists like Stallman, then they largely wouldn't be a problem. Much like what Hitler said about his childhood Jewish family doctor, Eduard Bloch.
Do they think it's the fucking 90s?
The nerve of these kikes.
Too bad they aren't like that, and now we know today there are no good jews.
fuck off with your shit OP kike.
Das rite goiym! It's about the mouse!
Not about copyright of the BOOKS of a bunch of authors who died in 1945 (+ 75 years would become Public Domain in 2020)
No. I'm honestly surprised most of you don't see the wider implications here.