Antipiracy law heads for EU vote

TalkBack 4 of 4:

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

A day late and a payment short

Most of copyright law is inconsistent on one basis - the asset of a product is held by the patron to do what they please with it.

This 'copyright 'right this and copyright 'right that is a failing balloon. No single copyright rule,regulation,or law subjugate 'all copyrights to be of the same orginal feature as it is to itself.

Most 'all of this is ''business speak,becuase for the most part there is the person of the copyright,and the holder of wich creates contract in leuw to that person of copyright.

The preposition without saying so is to create process without actually considering the person of the copyright.As well as the person of the copyrighted work. This is the only inhibition being scattered about by these overtures of 'non-standardization.

A copyright can do whatever it wishes to to with the work.When it becomes a product the original person should be able to maintain precept,as to the aesthetic,and qualification that pertains to it. This however is not the case. Most 'all of copyright relies on business relationship - in contract to the person of the copyright,while the copyright itself remains a facet wich these contractual artifacts persist in precluding new indeavors based on new technologies,and features known to enchance a copyrighted work.

The ordinate scheduling of 'laws pertaining to just how a copyrighted work is perceived by a given entity cannot be ascertained when the law pertains to 'copyright while having copyrighted features,technology,and person being set subordinate via unannounce 'business endeavor.

There is actually a much wider array of subsets pertaining to copyright in wich present pretenses of copyright,and product are actually dismally obsolete. Simply on a fact that no standard of 'feature has been coordinately denoted between 'business wich portray themselves as 'owners manners to a copyrighted work.

To this in fact there is not a reason that copyrighted works cannot have exclusivety to there own author,and that those authors can actually know from a specification what that feature set can include. The person of an author is not vacated,and as well a person of use (or patron) is not wrenched from this explicit simply by denoting a premise of piracy,against a different reflection of performance and use.

As well taking space to create that 'piracy market,when in fact within a specification if so done - the true market for copyrighted works could be throughly ascertained. A business purpose details royalty,and authority,while a market with these same persons pertains to 'value in and of the copyrighted work itself. Idea being to subjugate the space for 'value in detail via specifics of:

explicit copy,explicit performance,explicit communication,explicit device to device

any of them,and others can be included within a copyrighted ,and secured product. The role here is simply to have an author notice these as a feature of the work - in detail of the authors own choosing. The value-in-value being the enhancement of the work,rather than the 'royalty in business on a 'piracy premise.

You will notice that 'all liscences deprive the person who is patron to them of proper 'performance.This is something gained through the easily associated 'connectivity via computer networking in wich 'no questions told - has no competitor. The feature-in-feature copyright is being subjugated,as well as the technolgy of wich enhancement is fully capable,to be something of a business relationship of 'copyright wich has no such specification through the copyright itself.

It cannot be stressed enough that there is explicit relationships to a copyrighted work that are completely controlable,as secure and featureful within new technology. However relying on the status quos within the present day niceties of 'business relationship is far from the models the technology is requiring - especially in the persons of the copyright,and the person of the use of it.

You see the middle man is there.But it does not have to be. Only thing anybody needs is a specification from top down of what details a feature a copyright can consist of.Industry wide.This would not take on a business agreement,but would specify just what any and all could expect.

The royalties are there,the values are there. But the specification is not. So the status quo piracy premise still creates the rules here ?

Perhaps some of these "dont tell" persons should do something about it. I know I wouldn't just sit in the driveway and 'pretend a auto was just a machine. They can tell you anything they want,but it is everything it is intended to be. No more imagination,problem solved.


-just talking.

Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 02/22/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now