Nationalist Public Radio, Episode 3: Copyright Law

Despite our Valentine’s Day being hampered by a lack of Roderick, we went ahead and sat down at the round table to open up a new discussion. In this episode of NPR, Brett, Everitt, and Peter discuss a listener suggested topic: copyright law.

As usual, the highlights can be found below.

0:00 – Introduction of the topic by listener 1349.

1:30 – Everitt’s Intellectual Property Law lecture

  • We are not giving you legal advice – don’t sue us!
  • Origins of copyright law in 1709 and the changes that occurred as production has grown

13:45 – What guides the future of a work? What ought we value?

  • Who owns source material?

18:40 – Peter and Brett discuss cultural appropriation and the world of Sherlock Holmes

  • Peter defends derivative works and critiques the concept of “intellectual theft”
  • Peter also defends plagiarism by critiquing by-lines

24:18 – Everitt and Brett go deeper into cultural appropriation

29:20 – The table discusses the idea of “writing in the same world”

37:00 – Peter expands upon his views on copyright

  • The reader’s interpretation may be just as, if not more important than the author’s intent

41:40 – Government granted ad-hoc monopolies are discussed

44:00 – How ought international scientific cooperation work?

  • Should drugs be patented?

48:00 – Brett discusses who ought to control patents

53:30 – How are we going to enforce copyright laws?

  • We shouldn’t punish individuals with huge fines for pirating a $3 song

57:40 – Peter and Everitt discuss their respective content and paywalls

1:05:40 – What liability ought file sharing sites have?

1:08:35 – Peter confirmed for crypto-Libertarian?!?

1:17:10 – Brett confirmed for open-source nerd

1:18:30 – Any questions can be directed towards podcast@amerika.org

1:18:35 – Closing and Outro

Visit our Nationalist Public Radio Archives to listen to past episodes of the show.

Tags: , , , , ,

9 Responses to “Nationalist Public Radio, Episode 3: Copyright Law”

  1. Giant Bean says:

    Is there a way to subscribe to the podcast by way of RSS?

  2. -A says:

    I like that someone thought of the inventors in this argument. However, when it comes to “vague patents” I don’t think any of them are even patent worthy. Are pointers at the tops of GUI’s and light up screens really something that only one person could ever think of. They usually are never the first, are never the last, and are always inferior to what the overall collaborative product would have initially had. This is partly why touch screens took for god damn ever to mainstream and are still not on every monitor.

    Unionization is the not the initial or real reason for the studio buying a script. It is because of the reasonable expectation of budgeting and that even if you go around looking for buyers, the script is still for commission, not for publication. Rather, publication with your ownership retained. That is just common sense to me.

    As a fellow Monarchist I find Brett to be poignant on the role Aristocracy must play. However, I also think that there should be considerable income for the inventor, I think his reputation should be boosted and I think he should be retained in the Court of the Aristocrat who handles the matter. This makes sure that full recognition is given. Of course, it is at the Aristocrat’s discretion. Some people and some inventions don’t warrant it. Sometimes, you just plain don’t want to be stuck with someone.

  3. Dr. Evil says:

    I like that Peter stands up for free speech . There’s so many rules on everything these days. To me, the first amendment basically means you can what the hell you want period. Lawsuits are overused frankly anyways. We should go back to having duels more often instead. If you don’t like what someone has to say don’t sue them – challenge them to a good old fashioned duel instead.

  4. 1349 says:

    Thanks for discussing the topic, gentlemen.
    It is not something anyone can understand or have an informed stance on. It is not a popular/hot topic. BUT copyright lies at the root of today’s world order.

    It was refreshing to hear the feudal/monarchist concept of copyright. Something i wish i had come up with! Although it is very abstract yet, and needs to be elaborated to understand if it can be compatible to modern-day technology. I believe it can, at least to some extent.
    I need to think about this. Thanks.

    I notice that your stance on copyright can be attractive to socialists because it sounds a bit socialist. The fathers of the open source movement are quite anarchist/liberal if i’m not mistaken. (Although the movement might actually be created by corporations to lower the end costs of products, because the latter contained too much proprietary software.)

    • It is not a popular/hot topic. BUT copyright lies at the root of today’s world order.

      It was refreshing to hear the feudal/monarchist concept of copyright. Something i wish i had come up with! Although it is very abstract yet, and needs to be elaborated to understand if it can be compatible to modern-day technology. I believe it can, at least to some extent.

      Copyright is another way of possessing wealth and power. In a sane society, we entrust those to the people who are the best, so that they do good things with them and do not use them as a means in themselves, otherwise society gets stuck in the growth Ponzi scheme death spiral. Intellectual property should be no different: reward the creator, retain ownership in whatever royal or aristocratic force needs to hold these things. This also eliminates the lengthy court fights over patent trolls.

  5. 1349 says:

    Sometime in the future, i’d like to hear more from you on:
    * the connection of American mainstream (neo)conservatives, corporations and copyright witchhunt/”DMCA inquisition”;
    * the connection of copyright laws and esotericism (should we / can we really keep all info open to the public? Are we not afraid if it gets misused? Etc.);
    * the model of international aristocratic copyright (how will copyright/patent granted by local Texan aristocracy work in China, or even in the rest of the US?);
    * the problem of production unprofitability created by copyright (most bucks go to patent owners / software owners / salesmen, but not to actual physical producers).

    • El Duende says:

      Esoteric knowledge has a failsafe against the unworthy. It isn’t a problem to have the info out there if there isn’t someone in the know dumbing it down for the masses, and even I’d there is, the dumbing down itself already incurs a heavy loss of information. Why do you think today everything, even rightful doubts and complaints, are shoved aside as ‘conspiracy theories’?

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>