Copyright, one of the biggest unfought fights

Sure copyright/patent/trolls jewing people is a problem.
But don't forget the little guy in all this. They may be 'protected' by these laws but have no way to actually enforce that.
Patent laws and similar are basically only for companies with gross over a few million a year, or you simply cannot afford it.
So yes, in some ways I support copyright/IP/patents but in others I don't because it's mostly inaccessible for those that would truly benefit from it most.

Attached: trump caddy get in my car.jpg (900x900 163 KB, 72.63K)

In burgerland, prolly
In Eurasia though the (((German govt))) can and does interfere with the public life of their citizens as much as they please.
I had this bizarre idea pop up of making a sort of a Library of Alexandria kind of cluster, where would-be copyrighted works can be sent to (after being properly encrypted, of course), copyright-ing the encryption algorithm via crowdsourcing (lmao I know what a meme but idiots like reddittors spent millions on Star Citizen) and basically (at least theoretically, I know it's impossible as (((they))) can easily do unlawful practices if they wanted to) and basically lock them out of accessing the data store itself (can't decrypt it without either illegally finding a solution or buying exorbitant fees, can't bring to court because they can't prove their data is there as it's not being sold to anyone, can't use the same system because uh oh it's copyright'd). May look really naive but I'd rather have fantasies like that to keep me thinking we can fight back.

My experience with this was actually in .de funnily enough. It's about 50k starting cost to bring suit there and you have 0 guarantee of winning and 0 guarantee it won't spiral out of control (cost wise) to get anywhere.
Best trick is to hit the importers in EU side, not the manufacturer (e.g. when some kike gets chinkroaches to shit out some cheap clone to sell it back in EU).
I don't follow your idea though - Encrypt to-be copyrighted stuff with a copyright algo for what reason?

Safekeeping. Consider how many times shit gets censored or altered to better suit the needs of the (((times))). Like what they're doing in Sweden by destroying artifacts and rewriting their own history, or with the BBC making niggers into historical figures. If a hundred years from now the world gets ever slightly less kiked, where are people going to find shit like old propaganda videos?

Check'd
I'm for a hard five year limit on all copyright/patents, let the inventor of the idea/product benefit from it with the State providing legal help to thwart the copiers, then after five years, you better be able to compete without Big Brother helping you.
The big corps just have to sit and wait five years to benefit from some unknown's idea, this is beneficial for them, as they have the people who can watch over the success/failure of the idea/product and plan how to take over the market of said idea/product using their bigger pocketbooks.
For the small guy, he gets a five year window to make himself a success, maybe he does it on his own, or maybe he sells out, or maybe he builds up his own business, succeeds beyond his expectations, and then sells the company to Acme Corp for a tidy profit and walks into the sunset.
Any opinions on the feasibility of this idea Anons?

this guy gets it
the copyright and patent systems need a massive overall to reduce rampant abuse but also they need to make it more accesible to the little guy. a lot of untapped potential there maybe in the little guy.

also its so ridiculous trying to invent something and then finding out that because some other invention is vaguely similar in some respects that you cant patent it or even make and sell it anymore. and that some big company already owns every vague idea out there making it impossible for the little guy to get ahead. its probably by design

Got you now. That's quite a brilliant idea, like archive.org but time locked/time capsule style? What would necessitate unlocking it? Or would it be only accessible to each user? P.s archive.org is a great uhh repository and often overlooked for some content that one would not expect ;)

This is a great idea. Patent pending is sort of this already but only two years and without the govt help.
Perhaps this can be a future Zig Forums op.
thanks for check

I find these days that most major change of direction innovations are from a single, lone wolf type. It certainly helped me in past as it was from a fresh perspective, not encumbered by 'what the industry can/can't do' type mentality.
And agreed on all points.
Look at some of the most revolutionary (and often suppressed/unknown) inventors in past, most were quite solitary or very secluded;
If people want to MAGA or whatever their own country is, this is one way to really push that effort. Make invention great again. Protect it. Nurture it.
But the reason this will not happen is exactly why the reason 99% of people have no idea who the above inventors are, bar perhaps Tesla in some cases. Because if let loose, white man will fulfil the great prophecy.

Attached: TETRA.jpg (2331x449 176.11 KB, 285.6K)

The question you have to ask is how copyright would work through purely voluntary means. I don't see how you can protect rights to the data but you can definitely enforce a right to perform pieces of music and screen films at theaters.

I'd like to secure a permanent means of living calling you a manlet, but you can't always get what you waaaaant.

There are examples of things that are currently covered by patents that would require entire industry to consumer organization to protect if we did away with patents. The prime example would be pharmaceuticals. Once you release the information that a chemical is a useful drug with data to back that up anybody can copy it easily. So what has to be done i the case of a society without patent law is agreements between pharmacies, doctors, hospitals, and drug companies to allow one company exclusive rights to sell a drug for a while or face penalties imposed by an industry organization and within the other agreements people are involved in.

I do my own legal and I would not want to write that contract.
So yeah for pharma, laws at a higher level are no doubt of great use.
I'm not saying go away with patents, just that little guys need more protection and that stifles creativity. I have inventions and ideas sitting on a shelf that can't benefit humanity, because it would just get stolen and be a waste of my efforts to develop them, so instead I find applications for them that will not leak into public and are out of sight and contractually covered.

I'm not saying that, more that a more balanced system is required in order to benefit faggots like you and me.

So my cheetos are kosher and blessed by le rabbi?

I mostly agree, but imagine a case where you create something really good and get customers.
Suddenly a jew with more connections copy your stuff and have his friends promote everywhere that （（（he））） is the chosen one for creating this. Ensue smear campaign.

Copyright isn't perfect, but at least it should last 6 million years and be passed down like it's heritage.

Typo.

30-40 years of hard line copyright laws (i.e. anyone found owning physical copies gets v& and anyone owning a digital copy of a finished product gets harsh fines that could potentially result in jail time) when the material being used is at some objective, quantifiable levels of equity (i.e. if I try to be a smartass and put a small overlay on a movie I can't call parody laws but changing the audio of the whole movie and putting up a disclaimer that it's not the real thing can) is alright, it's not that fine when you try to copyright fucking words or easily replicable images (seriously, they tried to copyright the words Football just so no business can advertise their football-themed products during the Super Bowl unless they pay a fee), but any thing else should be publicly available forever more.

Yeah, exactly something like that. Everyone can SEE that the copy of a work still exist and has not been edited or censored, but no one will actually own it. I don't even think people should actually be able to let's say watch the movie itself. It's not really a way to let people off with freebies as much as an act of defiance against the kikes. They know that the cluster would have no use for anyone in the immediate, but they also know that it contains all the precious material their grubby little hands would like to monetize and there's nothing they can do about it, and the instant they slip up and lose their grip on the laws, the floodgates open up and all of a sudden you have billions of work that ostensibly shouldn't be copyrighted flow back into the public consciousness.
And maybe, every once in a while a small nugget of this immense information treasury gets "leaked" to the world, just to remind them that the threat of losing the copyright battle is still there.
I was thinking of a mix of hash functions for the software itself but a less practical but extremely safer physical terminal where one could peruse it, just like old times' libraries used to be. The only people able to actually decrypt the work would be those that built it and selected trusted spokespersons that would activate the dead man's switch if something happens to the ones that can actually unlock it. Think of it like Wikileaks but instead of handling secret information you're doing the same with works that have no reason to be still under copyright law. And I think this is important because it would also work with works that are already in the public domain: let's say that at some point in the not so distant future, Birth of a Nation gets censored or edited to remove some aspects of it that make it way too racist for that time's world hegemon. Just because it's in public domain doesn't mean that the people who're maintaining the product will care enough to protect its authenticity, so you end up with an edited version that destroys the importance of the original work. Whatever side of the political spectrum you identify with, you can't deny that this kind of shit would rend any culture completely meaningless - and that's what a lot of countries and corporations are doing daily, with Coca Cola trying to deny and retcon all their involvement with Nazi Fanta and old "racist" caricatures from cartoons being loosened - except strangely for some wartime cartoons.
I don't think it should be, not for ideological reasons but because you can't trust the same public that acts as a corporate whore to also defend their shared cultural values against said corporations at the same time. Small nuggets, like almost irrelevant works, sure, with maybe one or two big names that just so happen to have forgotten to renew their claims. The whole archive? That's suicide, in the immediate at least.

Another little aspect no one considers is the equivalent of abandonware for movies and literature: if there's no one there to collect anymore, does the copyright still holds? That kind of shit should also be the front for this kind of project, a gray area that common sense and John Does the world over would agree with, without realizing the implications of such an act, just as they don't understand the importance of keeping the Mouse alive.

Some fine things are hidden there, true, but they're also huge communists who think nothing of deleting wrong think.

Care to elaborate on that?

Isn't that how this bullshit started?
Just lock it in @5 years, with the globalized market combined with the the viral/memetic marketing potential of the internet 30-40 years looks nothing more than an attempt to gear the market towards the current crop of Acme Corps, and their army of Hebrew minded "talent acquisition officers" iow, Fuckwits like Cuckerberg who'll trick ya outta your idea.
Why does it seems that way you ask? Because Acme Corps have a shit ton of money to spend on the position, and Mr. Newbie's Co. does not.

It started because the line between individual and company became unclear. For the product of a SINGLE or really small group of people, having them profit from it for a chunk of their natural life is great. For a CORPORATION of people who don't even know how what they're making is done, 5 years is perfect.

Also, question for you. Though this is for such things as stories Which i write and have serveral online at this time, and am earning no money from, my choice rather than a software application or design for a new surgical tool.
Can a person own an idea?
Fictional stories are just that, Ideas. And can one own an Idea? For myself, I am overjoyed someone took a story of mine and rewrote it with their own idea woven it.

The theoretical point of copyright isn't to make sure that people own ideas, but that people don't get scammed out of their own ideas (if they so happen to want to make a profit from it) or they don't get their ideas bastardized and passed as their own when it goes against their ideological principle. But this was born out of a time when the only way to read a story was physical. With the way things are now, copyright laws are a relic of the past that only profit those who could exploit the market long ago.

Everyone who used to fight it got jobs working for the MAFIAA. All of the old FUCK COPYRIGHT names from the 1990s/2000s are working for Pritzker and Valenti and Univision and Bill Gates and the other big copyright holders. I have a feeling that they were blackmailed by the feds after getting caught warezing. Or they just sold out.

It is curious how intellectual property demands greater protection under the law than real property does, isn't it?

The funny thing about this all is that there needn't be ANY action by the legislature to fix the problem.

All that it would need to fix the problem is an EO, or the head of the Copyright office, to cite the US Constitution (A1, S8, Cl8) and note that the Congress is empowered only to secure exclusive rights to authors/inventors – this means NO "Author's Estate" and NO "Corporate IP" – then use the DB to find all copyrights not held by the author and invalidate them.

Done.

Attached: I-knew-it.gif (250x250, 743.54K)

Come to that it does say it allows the protection of 'useful Arts', not any old piece of crap someone's putting out.

Indeed; but that's so vague that trying to divide useful vs unuseful in court against lawyers is a losing proposition.

OTOH, 'inventor' & 'author' are good, because you can easily show that just because someone/something is a "person" doesn't mean they're an author/inventor. – And, capitalizing on that distinction, you can easily show that employees creating something for a company are "commissioned" to do so, and the company IS NOT the actual author or inventor.

Attached: Important Lesson.jpg (788x1920, 475.79K)

Useful arts are legally defined as “technological arts” and have a test: bakerbotts.com/ideas/publications/2016/03/ip-report-s-kassa

I think you misunderstand: I'm saying that the Judiciary is lawless, politically motivated, and does not love Justice — therefore existence of "a test" is of no import and can/will be altered to suit motives.

Attached: Cabbage.gif (320x212, 1.8M)

Ive talked about how copyright should be abolished with family members, they agree on my points.

1. If copyright were gone, hollywood wouldnt be able to spread so much propaganda without the money.
2. Then movies would all be free to download and watch, to pass time.
3. Copyright on books is bullshit, information should be 100% free.

Attached: i dont really fuck with non-ballers.jpg (799x606, 95.95K)

Copyright shouldn't have stronger protection than patents.

No movie is more important than the cure for cancer is.

Any content that's 20 years of age or older would become public domain.

Attached: 232500_G.jpg (2163x1611, 1.58M)

Only problem with that is that nobody would be able to make anything bigger than youtube videos because they cant afford it, as there is no return on the time invested.

You could still not download movies for free, because there would not be any movies to begin with. Same with books. Why bother investing countless hours writing if a chink copyshop reprints your book and sells it for half the money.

You're no better than Channel 101's nigger faggot Garfield.

kys you ungrateful faggot. To be able to understand a subject and to present it in a digestable format (all the more so if you have to come up with the problems/exercises yourself) is worthy of some value.
The real issue with books is that publishers fuck shit up. E.g., a textbook should be worth something, but not $100-200. Especially when it's just because the faggy author wanted some color in their book to up the cost of production.

Are there no precedents for this?

It seems more like the real work here is in the research and development, not the manufacture, so rather than lock up manufacturing of the drug, enforce licensing of their research. This would allow competition to reduce prices while still ensuring that the researchers get paid for their work. If manufacturers still want to do their own research, it would be purely for the advantage of beating others to market, which is still a huge incentive.

Bullshit, there's some impressive amateur artists out there now that get passed by, while Hollywood shits out billion dollar superhero sequels annually. Even on shoestring budgets some youtubers put together great short films. With a slightly bigger budget these guys could do feature length films.

If people want a movie enough, they'll fund it, and we'll more likely start getting good movies again. Veronica Mars was crowdfunded, and Serenity was started via a fan campaign.
Writing books already has a terrible return on your time. 99% of authors make barely anything from their books, and would see no loss or even benefit from a donation-based model. David Irving's books are impossible to find in print without paying (((Amazon))) hundreds of dollars, but are free downloads on his website. He accepts donations.
The only rich authors are the Stephen Kings and the J.K. Rowlings, sellouts who gain because Hollywood wants to use their message for propaganda.

Textbooks for schools are designed by committee to cram as much propaganda in as possible. Unless you're talking STEM only, in which case there's countless alternative ways the authors can be paid, i.e. industry associations in the field they work in who have an interest in attracting talent.

So shouldn't you be paying all the channers and memelords for their content? Think of all the hours in photoshop spent to sum up an issue in a single image. Think of all the esoteric books they read to give a unique take on something, to be screencapped and sent around. Isn't their labor worthy of reward?

You can consider yourself a moron.

but wouldn't that be counterproductive?

fuck off

Fuck off, greedy shyster kike.

cpoy