For years, since the rise of the Internet's enormous popularity, there has been increases in "copyright infringement" cases. For example, remember David's falling out with Nintendo of America? SOPA? Those two were spurred on through supposed "anti-piracy" and claims of "copyright infringement". DMCA, Cease & Desist, and more all lead to trouble and hostility. What do you think of "copyright" on the internet? Is it justified to attack, or is it petty? You decide, please.

Ah, copyright laws. I'm a huge fan of property rights and copyright law protects the creation and revenue generation of intellectual property rights.

I can't wait to read what some people have to say when it comes to this, especially if they think it is completely acceptable to just go ahead and steal other people's information. Sure, Nintendo, for example, makes a ton of money. That does not justify someone illegally stealing their games, making 'hacks' and then getting ad revenue off website traffic.

You didn't make the game. You didn't write the code. You changed the color of a sprite somewhere. That gives you no right to start collecting dollar bills off their intellectual property.

Without copyright laws, there's no creation because anyone can come along and steal your stuff and make money. It's the same as artists with music, as factories generating steel and cars, and stores selling fruit in a city somewhere. And copyright law is what binds the world's economy together. Books, magazines, movies, all of it, are protected by law so people can't steal them and use them for personal use.

Copyright law is fair, equal, and allows the creator to share their information as they see fit. They have creative control.

Copyright is a good thing, it protects people's property. Though most companies abuse it by targeting videos even under fair use which are usually critical to their work rather than praising it. So while it's good to have copyright, it sucks that it's abused.

Copyright laws are necessary to protect people's creative rights. If I were the one that was making something, I want to get paid for it. But, there is a problem with people taking it too far. Nintendo goes to the extreme, protecting things that are now old. (Disney does this too, they kept reviving older thing to keep their copyrights.) That in the end, does kill the market. They keep their rights, but nothing new comes out. (It's an exaggeration.)

Pretty much, what boured said... In the end.

Copyright is a good thing in my opinion. It stops people from just blatantly stealing someone else's work. I honestly don't know how someone could see copyright laws as a bad thing.

I'm 100% for property rights and I believe you should be able to protect intellectual property. If someone abuses the law, then you have to blame the person. Patent trolling is absolutely unacceptable, and I'm a little torn on anti-piracy. I think there's a line somewhere that, when crossed, it doesn't really matter if there's illegal distribution of IP, if it's no longer making the company any money. That's not to say that I believe that things should be forced to go public domain after a certain time, but just that people could voluntarily be more reasonable.

Put it this way, do you love doing tons of work and putting your heart and soul into something, then get nothing for it? Do you love having your stuff stolen? Didn't think so.

Think of that as a super-simplified likeness to Copyright law protections.

In cases where people are making money off of other peoples hard work??(ahem) Even worse I feel.

Copyright laws (especially on YouTube) have always been very protective, and it should be. It allows owners to keep and protect their copyrighted property from others. Copyright laws were put in place so that only the creator could earn money off of their own creation, and if anyone else used that property to make money, the creators could take action. When it comes to using copyrighted material that you don't own, I believe that as long as you give credit to the owners/creators of the copyrighted content and you're not making any money from it, you should be fine.

Copyright is both a blessing and a curse. It helps creators keep their works protected, but they could be abused. I'm looking at you, Atlus with what you did with P5...

ah2190 :

What's your beef with what Atlus did with Persona 5? It's well within their legal rights and they issued enough statements to make a claim sound legitimate. It's their property. They can protect it however they see fit.

I've seen people on youtube get all pissed and angry when videos they like get taken down. I see them chanting curses at the companies who claimed copyright for their videos. 

News flash: Those companies owned those videos, and they were uploaded without permission, so they had the rights to pull the copyright card on them. 

Copyright is great. It can protect your ideas and if someone steals them, you can earn money from them. I did a research essay on writers having copyright, and I certainly would love to earn copyright for my works if and when I decide to publish my original writing.

Ghostbear1111 : True, bit it's one of the most strangest ways of them protecting their copyrights, while at the same time harming those who were going to Let's Play their game, or already had. I mean, why only up to 7/7? Why only show the first boss, but not the other two? This really confuses me...

Copyright is a great idea on paper. But it has ultimately done a lot more harm than it has good. It is important to have something in place to protect your work. But it shouldn't be used as a weapon to take down videos you don't like. Or to shut down roms of games you aren't even selling, and haven't sold in over a decade now. :V

I agree that copyright is important -- but only for the creator and maybe one generation later if the original creator didn't enjoy success. However, I believe it utter stupidity for a company whose success is mainly collections of other individual's creations or public domain to be stopping others from doing the same. 

I believe that if someone were to by a product it's the purchaser who now totally owns all rights to that one copy and should do with it as he of she likes (rent, lease, sell, modify, display). It might even help boost sales. Matter of fact, the US SUPREME COURT made a ruling on May 30, 2017 saying that copyright can only limit reproduction (making copies)  and that once a copy is bought the owner can do whatever ( including modifying) with it as long it is not being reproduced. Although it doesn't cover digital goods yet. 

I personally see a hack being a new creation as long as it isn't something like just changing texts.

I'm a fan of copyright laws to an extent because it creates a more even market in a sense. You give everyone the power to create the same thing, sometimes it takes away too much from the original product, which I have seen before. On the other hand, there are many times where companies take their laws too seriously.

Yeah, we're all fans of copyright laws. Until by breaking them WE can benefit. Its not as if when prior to Nintendo putting their foot down many of us played Pokémon Red-Crystal on here, knowing nintendo still eshops it, or will do so. Many a time a law can be very correct but still be broken, even by yours truly. I mean, five years ago I was simply too broke to buy gaming supplies. Vizzed was a veritable heaven. Now that I have 150 plus xbox 360/1 games, and a 2ds with some decent games, I really steer clear of it. But yeah, we all know the real stuffs better than emu, but emu works. To reiterate-Copyrights exist, I have brokd them, many do, but NORMALLY just because budget issues.

In all honesty, it depends on what media we are talking about here.

I feel that the copyright system is indeed a needed factor on our web space, however, I do feel that we as human beings are quite abusive of it. If a consumer buys a product that solely then belongs to them as they had spent, excuse my informality, "hard earned cash" on this item, why restrict modifications or hacks in the game? Unless a hack gives an unfair advantage to others why restrict the player to install it?

Another problem with the copyright system is that there is no international law regarding it: my point being that each country has a different set of rules, this is ironic. We're dealing with the World Wide Web here. It is complete lunacy. While one country may restrict this another country may allow it. Who is right, and who is wrong?

Feel free to disagree with me. I'd actually love to hear what you guys think on this part of the copyright system in itself.

It is "justified to attack" because the copyright holders hold the copyrights, but not without intelligence.

It is also petty, depending on how you see it.

Pirating is pirating no matter how you look at it, so much so that their are VPNs and proxys. .lol