1. Create an account to join in the discussion. Once you register don't forget to enter our monthly drawings.

    Register to post on our forum.
  2. Home Theater Lounge will begin holding a live chat every Wednesday evening at 9pm Central. The goal is to get as many members online at the same time and just talk movies, music, and gear. You can join the chat by going to the Shoutbox app.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Dismiss Notice

Should all creators/inventors be able to....

Discussion in 'Home Theater Lounge' started by Guest, May 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. fully control the distribution and consumer use of their creations/inventions?

    If not, why not?

    If so, should those products be required to include the complete terms of that use, and require purchasers of those products to sign off on what amounts to a contract between them and the creator/inventor?

    If not, why do you think that assumptive contracts(implied terms of use), without full disclosure, are okay?
     
  2. Michael M

    Michael M Active Member

    I'll say no because I'd hate to think I can't use toilet paper to blow my nose in during the times I'm out of tissue, or have Honda tell me where and when I can drive my car.
     
  3. I have to agree with you on that. TP companies might disagree though since using TP to blow your nose would reduce their profits since you wouldn't then have to buy their tissues? :wink:

    At what point would it be right to require creators/inventors to not dictate their creations use by consumers, and who should draw that line?
     
  4. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    There are reasons that physical goods, copyrightable items and patentable items are all treated differently. In many cases, the contracts are not assumptive. They are either codified in law or are in the EULA. Just because you don't read them doesn't mean they aren't applicable.
     
  5. CJ,
    It's okay if you feel the need to thread fart, but please, at least first participate in answering the questions asked in the thread. Your statements may have a role later on in the thread, but right now, we are talking about toilet paper. :lol:
     
  6. Michael M

    Michael M Active Member

    I think it would be pretty crappy if we could only use it for what it is intended for. (pun intended)
     
  7. So, to repeat, here are the questions upon which this thread is based:

    Should creators/inventors be able to control the distribution and consumer use of their creations/inventions?

    If not, why not?

    If so, should those products be required to include the complete terms of that use, and require purchasers of those products to sign off on what amounts to a contract between them and the creator/inventor?

    If not, why do you think that assumptive contracts(implied terms of use), without full disclosure, are okay?

    Finally, per CJ, if only some creators/inventors should get to decide how their products are used, and if only some creators/inventors need to disclose the terms up front to each consumer prior to the purchase, who should decide which creators/inventors gets these advantages?
     
  8. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    Not sure where you are going with this since we have about 5 copyright threads going on the forum now. The answer to your first question is really "it doesn't matter because the law says they do."

    The answer to "If so, should those products be required to include the complete terms of that use, and require purchasers of those products to sign off on what amounts to a contract between them and the creator/inventor? " is that with things like software you are agreeing when you pop the shrink wrap. Where would you sign off? The guy at Sam Goody is going to have contracts behind the counter? You can't open that until the contract goes through...

    The answer to "Finally, per CJ, if only some creators/inventors should get to decide how their products are used, and if only some creators/inventors need to disclose the terms up front to each consumer prior to the purchase, who should decide which creators/inventors gets these advantages?" is congress and/or the courts.
     
  9. :lol: :lol: :lol:
    Pun-ilicious. Good One MM. :mrgreen:
     
  10. CJ,

    I started this thread in order to try and keep this threads discussion out of those other ones. Wasn't that a good idea? :)

    In response to your answers:
    I just don't think that most consumers know that the entertainment they bought has such restrictions to it and that by buying/using that entertainment they are also agreeing to give up certain usually assumed personal rights(and I am NOT talking about Fair Use).

    It seems to me that it would be beneficial for the purchase contract to be outlined as to the terms of use, restrictions on the user, and outline any and all types of potentially intrusive CP and DRM such as AACS. Of course, that same contract would also make clear that the person is buying ONLY the plastic disc and that the movie on it remains the property of the creator/seller.

    A few postings of this at CD and DVD display areas would be all that's needed along with a sign off sheet, or check box on the receipt, in order to serve both the sellers and the buyers contract needs?
     
  11. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    Yes, insofar as prescribed by Titles 17 and 35. Merc, please recall that copyright right law is all about controlling copying and distribution.

    As far as use, copyright holders have no say over, for example, the time of day the work is listened to or read, nor (in the case of CDs of DVDs) the speakers or display device you use, nor the volume you listen at. If by "use" you are referring to copying, then the copyright holder absolutely positively can and should have control.

    As far as distribution, the person who buys a book, CD or DVD is entitled to distribute THAT copy per the First Sale doctrine.


    Larry
     
  12. CJ

    CJ Well-Known Member Admin War Zone Member

    It does not matter whether they are or not. There was probably a time in 1999 that people REALLY didn't know that Napster was illegal. That didn't make it legal just because they didn't know.

    Beneficial to whom? And, why, no one would read it. They would blithely go along assuming they could do whatever they want.

    What purpose would any of this serve? Do you honestly think that presented with this information consumers would say "What? I didn't know that? I'm no longer buying CDs and DVDs!!!"
     
  13. Larry,

    This thread isn't about copyright law... at least not yet.

    Right now, we're discussing these questions, the answers being based on what you yourself think is right.

    Here are the questions again:

    Should creators/inventors be able to control the distribution and consumer use of their creations/inventions?

    If not, why not?

    If so, should those products be required to include the complete terms of that use, and require purchasers of those products to sign off on what amounts to a contract between them and the creator/inventor?

    If not, why do you think that assumptive contracts(implied terms of use), without full disclosure, are okay?

    Finally, per CJ, if only some creators/inventors should get to decide how their products are used, and if only some creators/inventors need to disclose the terms up front to each consumer prior to the purchase, who should decide which creators/inventors gets these advantages?
     
  14. I think knowing what is in a contract is beneficial to both parties.

    Then that would be their loss... but just because some dummies wouldn't read a contract doesn't mean that we should not have them, or share their terms with the consuming party?

    Information is power. First, it would educate the buyer what he is REALLY buying. Second, if we are to allow our congressmen to make laws which are binding on us, then we need to know what laws we want them to make. Finally, if CDs/DVDs were required to tell folks that they had CP/DRM/AACS on them, there would be some who would not buy them.

    Why would either party be afraid or reluctant to disclose the terms of a contract to the other side?
     
  15. DYohn

    DYohn Well-Known Member Donor

    Top Poster Of Month

    They do now.

    They do now.

    This is up to the creator/inventor.

    Again merc, you are trying to combine concepts from both patent law and from copyright law and they are different animals. See the other thread.
     
  16. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    merc:

    I am not trying to be a PITA (that's your job :) ) but I don't know what you mean by "right." Is a 65 mph speed limit "right" but not 64 mph? Or 66 mph? Is a 20 years term (from original filing) "right" for a patent, but not 21 years? These questions are difficult to answer because, unlike the speed of light, they are not absolutes.

    Laws governing copyrights and patents are designed to protect individual's property, in an analogous fashion to laws designed to protect against theft of tangible property. The complexities of Titles 17 and 35 evolved over hundreds of years, in an attempt to balance the property of the inventor with that which benefits society AS A WHOLE.

    There is no aspect of Titles 17 or 35 which strike me as being not right, though I recognize that some alterations would also be okay.

    Larry
     
  17. DYohn

    DYohn Well-Known Member Donor

    Top Poster Of Month

    And, once again I will repeat MY broken record point from all 35 of these threads: it really does not matter what any of us "think is right." The law exists and has for many years. What is "right" and what is allowed may not be the same things in your opinion, but it really does not matter. If you think what is allowed is not "right," then get out there and do something about it.
     
  18. David,

    This thread isn't about copyright, patent or any laws... so I am not confusing/combining anything having anything to do with laws. This thread is also not about what IS...

    We may eventually get to the legalese where you want us to go, but right now, we aren't there yet. This thread is about what YOU, yourself, think is right with regard to the questions I posed.
     
  19. DYohn

    DYohn Well-Known Member Donor

    Top Poster Of Month

    Like I said, that really does not matter, does it?
     
  20. Larry,

    You're not very good at following instructions, are you? :D

    I'll answer your questions, even though you are avoiding mine. As for your 65mph analogy, as it applies to this thread, yes, I think it is right and just. If folks that drove Mercedes could drive 100, while the rest of us had to drive 65, then that would be wrong. But, this thread isn't about what you think I think is right, but what you think is right. :)

    Saying our opinions don't matter is to say that the Lounge doesn't matter. Aren't voicing our opinions what forums are all about? Do you go into the Movies subforum and tell those folks that the movie is the movie and what they think is irrelevant? :)

    Let's let your threads on this be about legalese and let mine be about our opinions of equality, right and wrong, with regard to the questions I posed.
    Okay?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page