Originally Posted by JLB1987
How would you say Copyrighting stagnates freedom of expression? Copyright is there to protect the intellectual property or a person or group of people. Wish is fair enough. If I make something, people shouldn't be able to use it without my consent. If you're referring to stuff like music, which is obviously widely distributed through legal, illegal, and semi-legal means, then I sort of see your point. Where do you draw the line as to what can and can't be used on youtube, for example? I agree there should be some extent to fair usage in this scenario, but even then, the main priority should be to defend a person's property.
Copy right was made for the IP owners it was never meant to protect the indevendaul IP creator, at least this is the outcome of how it works. So it dose not boon creation as much as consumption. SO the abse of copy right is flawed and the only thing keeping me from being a copy right anarchist is what of the IP creator whos fed to the wolves because conglomerated interests can't play nicely with the masses. Though in a sense if you go with copy right anarchy its a boon to creativity because people are forced to be creative to stay alive.
With everything little thing being copy righted you can not make like non competing derivative works without the the treat of being sued(fan works,protest stuff, commentary, blogging,ect,ect). WHich IMO is scary stuff as it's protecting the IP at any cost over the needs of society.
Youtube is a interesting case you have 3 or so issues at play a website that allows users to upload media, users who put stuff up and for the later half of youtubes existence(I think) you have ad revenue, I am a bit unsure how youtube sold itself but I am sure merchandise was a small part of it.
So you have at least 2 issues when you go to mind/mine the monetary flow, Ad rev and merchandise and the stocks if they are publicly traded but I would not necessarily go that far as it undermines the goal of making a bit off monetary flow as things move forward.
I myself would break down Youtube and like sites (all but freehosting that do not use ads) into 3 categories
Fair use lite(whats commonly protected under fair use) Expanded/extended fair use(clips based on time and qaulity factors) and revenue sharing.
When youtube,ect makes its pact with big media it should be allowed to distribute their IP's and share the profits from that base it on qaulity factors(back to E fair use) to allow for room for the IP owner to offer better quality premium products.
Basically set up a independent big biz/gov clearing house for IP owner groups to get their extortion money from.Also have a mind to force the you have to take this money because the information is going to be shared regardless if you fight it or not.
Now that is at least a minmin I have in mind for the absolute right to distribute with a monetary flow.
That aside we still need a independent big biz/gov committee to run copy right and balance it with the basic right of society in mind, without this there is no due process and might be better off without copyright altogether.
In my mind when a problem with IP/CP comes up dose it pass intent if not dose it pass fair use if not dose it pass E/expanded fair use if not at a qaulity cost of say 60% their must be revenue sharing for it to be distributed under a monetary flow.
Quality would probably be based on the 40-60% of the lowest frequently sold item the IP owner has for sale.