Peter Lerangis Quotes

We need to create technologies - and a culture of respect, and an updated legal doctrine, too - that allow creative folks to make money from their own efforts.

The copyright bargain: a balance between protection for the artist and rights for the consumer.

The Constitution wanted artists to have control over their works because they knew it would create incentive to create more works. That is clearly still the goal.

Copyright is too valuable to be wholly renounced.

… the pursuit of civil rights by copyright.

As long as copyright is breached in Iran and international works are being freely published in magazines and newspapers, no one feels any need for Iranian works.

If you create something, you don't want someone else to go and profit from it; you have your right to make a living and everything. So I respect copyright. What I don't respect is copyright extremism. And I what I don't respect is a business model that encourages piracy.

We need an unambiguous rule - a law - that nobody will step between the publisher and the consumer, full stop.

A free culture is not a culture without property; it is not a culture in which artists don't get paid.

If we're talking about someone creating something new, those rights are fairly well defined (in the United States, at least) under existing copyright law. But then there's often discussion about the rights of people who produce works under work-for-hire arrangements, which can be far more subtle and nuanced.

If you don't move to protect copyright, if you don't move to protect our children, it's not going to sit well.

Anything illegal under Chinese law is, of course, not protected by copyright.

I think the purveyors of e-books are only too happy for this atmosphere of 'everything belongs to everybody' to increase because it means they don't have to think so much about the original maker of the thing, or they can get away with paying them less.

Certainly the interest in asserting copyright is a justified one.

I have made it a rule for a long time, not to part with the copyright of my drawings, for I have been so copied, my drawings reproduced and sold for advertisements and done in ways I hate.

I think that one of the most useful applications of the Creator's Bill of Rights is that it clearly indicates for creators what rights they have at the outset.

On scores of sites, users can upload illegal files of my books. As per 1998's toothless Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I bear the burden of discovering and reporting each theft.

In practice, the copyright system does a bad job of supporting authors, aside from the most popular ones. Other authors' principal interest is to be better known, so sharing their work benefits them as well as readers.

All over the world copyright holders are trying to limit consumers' rights. We cannot have that.

Napster was predicating its business model on violation of copyright.

But here's the thing: what you do as a screenwriter is you sell your copyright. As a novelist, as a poet, as a playwright, you maintain your copyright.

I believe that artists should be paid for their creativity. There's no other industry where people can come in and take what you create for free and give it away for free and that's acceptable.

I think copyright has its right to exist, absolutely, and I think that it's up to copyright creators to come up with new solutions that deal with the reality of the world we're living in today.

The problem with copyright enforcement is that when the parameters aren't incredibly well defined, it means big corporations, who have deeper pockets and better lawyers, can bully people.

Up until the final decade of the nineteenth century, the United States and the United Kingdom did not recognize copyright in each other's creative works.