Sec. 201. Streaming of copyrighted works in violation of criminal law.
Sec. 202. Trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services.
Sec. 203. Protecting U.S. businesses from foreign and economic espionage.
Sec. 204. Amendments to sentencing guidelines.
Sec. 205. Defending intellectual property rights abroad.
 |
| Digital Art |
In contrast, there are some "demands" by the "official" Anonymous twitter feed which linked to the group's list of demands last Wednesday (Blackout Day).
Being an artist, being an author, among other creative things, I recognize the necessity of copyright, I also respect others' copyrights. For a group of people to "demand" the exclusive ownership rights after buying a product so they can adjust, twist, fiddle with, juggle with devices or other products purchased. I have seen my own stories reprinted as another person's creativity. It stings when that happens. Is it right for someone to benefit from my own (or your own) creativity? I think not. But, I'm open to your own reasons why I might be wrong...
Another "demand" is to reduce copyrights to reasonable lengths (2-5 years). Would this mean that anyone could rewrite "Gone With The Wind" and benefit from Margaret Mitchell's genius? How fair is that I wonder. Akin to that is the demand for broadening "fair use". So anyone can just remix, translate, adjust colors, and [gasp] make parodies of any work without having to pay the creator any kind of royalty.
Obviously this Anonymous group has never actually created something of their own which they have literally sold for profit; and their creation has never been stolen to profit another's pocket. Apparently, they haven't had to work fingers to the bone to promote their own work. They must have the Jolly Roger flying from their car antennae, mores the pity. Ahoy, maties, blow me down!
No comments:
Post a Comment