Copyright Infringement, Intellectual Property and Pirating

Thanks, Lightless, I appreciate your thoughts.

 

Someone isn't posting their website and now is trying to weasel out of what they said.

You certainly talk the talk of a hypocrite, and what do you know, you're walking the walk of it too.

Website please.

 

Oh look, he's preparing a post now. How much you want to bet there is no website?

 

Well, one I am not retreating, I had to get some sleep. Two, I am not backed into a corner. No one has attacked the meat of my argument. That IP is not property. It's a lot of puffery about me, my websites, what is stealing etc.

The fact you challenged me on how sites are valued, made me wonder if you had a personal experience which differed from mine. I have bought and sold sites. The general rule of thumb is 10x monthly revenue. Not 10x cost of content. Not 10x cost of template. Not 10x man hours invested in setup and configuration. 10x revenue.

I too believe you are a very bright guy.

I keep repeating my point, because it is not being addressed. Even if you hate my guts, I'd like the points of property, scarcity and legal fiat addressed.

Your argument that there is no new information is not true. I have expanded on the topic repeatedly. However, no on is picking up the ball and challenging the argument on merit. Instead it's distractions and strawmen.

See, right back to twisting my position into some moral argument about stealing. Before you ask me this, let's debate whether or not IP satisfies the criteria of being property.

Well, I know you are not interested. That's why we keep going in circles.

The idea is to get me to incriminate myself, since I have pushed back on false accusations, in the hope that such (like the demand for a website) can beat me back from my argument.

Not happening. I want to discuss whether or not IP is property. It either is or it isn't, and from that your questions about theft will answer themselves for all of us.

Legally, your 3 examples are theft. Under current circumstances, everyone should follow the law and avoid such activities.

I do not believe the law is correct, and as such, in absence of the law that makes IP an unnatural institution, they would have to be looked at again.

I meant important in the eyes of the SE. When Google et al parse a page, keyword density, anchor text etc are likely very important. No one knows specifically how Google ranks or weights things, so I cannot conclusively say that content is or is not important, however my gut instinct says it is.

 

I don't know where this entire line of "valuation" came from, as this is something I never said. You have posed "traffic" as the zenith, and dismissed "content" as worthless. A ridiculous statement, since content has a large hand in driving that traffic.

To "retreat," etc.:

As another example,

And you do this quite often. You really do need to stop presuming anything regarding the ability of others, and making your points by reliance on the same tactic.

Well, none of this is true. Another bad habit you have is saying "no one is addressing X," when in fact, they have - you just don't like the answer. Not sure how much more I can help you beyond repeating that, yes, I acknowledge this is your working definition, and yes, we established laws, "legal fiat," because as a country we believed it was a good thing that creators should have right to patent, and protection from the theft of their work:

and

No, actually not. I consider having a coronary over the use of the word "rights" when we are talking about whether you think it's "okay" to take others' work is a ridiculous game of semantics. As I said. Another poor habit of yours:

No, we keep going in circles because you pretend we haven't discussed these things several times already, and merely re-post the same point. You do this as well, and at some point, it gets old, that's all.

No, the idea is that when you say it's OK to take the work of others, providing examples - books, websites, cd's - I will take issue with this, and say why. To play a martyr after the fact, also a poor habit, doesn't change the fact there are legitimate, and good faith reasons, folks such as myself, Supper, Grim, Wisdomtool, earthfaze, (don't recall if others) will take issue with some or all of your justifications for the behavior. Many have said it's wrong, and a couple have said it's wrong, but can't be stopped. I agree with them - it's wrong, and it's illegal.

The notion of asking for you to provide your websites was the fruit of your contention that "content is worthless." I understand the concern over vandalism, so in lieu of this, I'd ask again - to you, to anybody: would you be willing to hand over all code/scripts you've written? In fact, all work you've come up with?

OK, I'm glad to hear a definitive statement affirming that these are, if only legally, in your mind, theft, and that these should not be done. I believe the law is correct, and has been since the concept has served western civilization since at least the Greeks, so I'm glad the concept is enshrined in law.

I understand; I am well aware of it, and meant the same thing, obviously, since I have repeatedly asked the question, "does content aid in driving traffic?"

Yes, right. My understanding as well, "tyro though I am in SEO." You have certainly and routinely been forceful in saying content is worthless for this purpose. Now that we acknowledge it is "likely very important for SEO," I would say you are very definitely advocating the taking of something quite worthy when advocating it is "okay" to do so.

*** I don't hate your guts, guerilla; in fact, I don't really know you - as none of us know each other any more than a flat image springing from the posts we make online. I don't like how you proceed on this forum and find your methods supremely frustrating - being called "psychotic," "mentally ill," "deranged," suffering from "paranoia" and "narcissism," for example, when you have before you many well-reasoned, good faith points of contention. But hate? No.

 

My former post was not about only IP and I even used a loaf of bread as example to make it more clear. You didn't answer my post and instead started to post how bad socialism which for you and most American equals to old east Europe is.
There is an inherent conflict between respecting private property right and respecting other human rights and I wonder how you are going to come up with a hegemonic idea without excepting that private property right is not some kind of universal right sent by God himself.

 

The right to property begins with the right to own one's self. To deny that you own yourself, is to imply that someone has a higher claim to your life than you do.

Many of what you call "rights" are in fact positive obligations. I'd advise that you look into the difference between positive and negative rights.

One may have a "right" to life, liberty and happiness, but they do not have a right to demand life, liberty and happiness at the expense of another.

 

Well, I asked you some questions about the subject when we were discussing in another thread but you refused to answer, so let's not go there if you can't or don't want to defend your position.

 

The offer still stands. I refuse to answer publicly, I don't refuse to answer privately.

I am more than happy to go there. By PM.

 

That's hilarious.

 

The defenders of our strict IP laws should be glad to know that Viacom has obtained, through court, the names and IP addresses of everyone who has ever used Youtube to watch a video.

Of course, Viacom argued that online distribution was just promotional. Or that's what they told their content writers when explaining why they wouldn't be expecting a cut of the revenue.

 

I don't necessarily agree with his position on IP, but I do agree with his position about not revealing websites on DP.

I only took issue with your calling his refusal an indication he did not stand by his position. I wanted to point out that there are reasons other than IP which would make one not want to reveal a site on DP.

 

I doubt they've obtained the names unless the viewers were logged in then maybe they got the name on the youtube account.

 

Yup, and with the IP addresses they'll be able to connect a lot of people to their user accounts and whatever name the account is signed up under. They say they're using it to gather up "statistical data" in their billion dollar Youtube lawsuit, but if they get any traction recovering their imaginary damages I'm sure they'll start shooting at the small fish they have neatly collected in their bucket.

 

Fully understand, Brown, and your point is well taken. My intent was for another purpose, but I obviously have zero right to demand anybody reveal anything.

 

Here's something that's actually pretty funny.

http://www.us.playstation.com/support/termsofuse

It's Sony's attempt to explain copyright infringement on a level where it can be understood by PS3 users.

I'd excerpt it here, but I don't think that SonyCorp would see the humor in that.

 

So you are saying that I as a software developer should work for free, make good software without bugs and not expect to get payed? I have to sit in from the of PC 8-10 hours a day, wear glasses (yes computers are bad for your eyes) and swallow pain killers for my headaches so you can have software for free and only pay me if you can't install it alone or need support? What if somebody else installs the software on your PC? Should I starve? What gives you the right to decide that I should work for free? Do you think my line of work is easyer then yours? Do you think I should be your personal slave?

You do realize patents are sold and bought right? A local pharmaceutical company can buy a license to produce that drug instead of stealing it. The inventors had payed millions of dollars in research to produce that drug. What happens to all that investment money? They have bank loans that need to be payed. The drug doesn't come from thin air.

As for software, there are open source solutions. Why not use Linux? It's free. Why not use open office? It's free. Not only that you wouldn't steal but you'd give a chance for open source software and not contribute to microsoft's monopoly.

You reasoning is faulty. I don't have money to buy windows, so I should steal it. To hell with open source, I want windows and I'm going to steal it because it's to expensive. I also want a car, but can't afford it. I need a car to go to work as I live 20Km away from my work place. I can't walk. So I will steal the car.

If I don't have a job and I'm poor, having financial problems, bank wanting to take my house I'll just have to rob/mug people on the street. I need that money. Yes, it happens....people are sometimes mugged and even killed to steal a phone. What justifies this? The need to survive? How far would you go because you need something you can't have? Where do you draw the line between "i have the right to commit this crime" and "this is too much"? Is the limit IP, a service (you receive without paying), theft, murder? All this is called rationalizing. You find moral reasons to allow you to commit an injustice and to deprive somebody of what is rightfully theirs.

And yes, for your information I do live in one of those countries. In Romania to be more exact. I'm a software developer that gets payed much less I should because people like you think they are entitled to help themselves with my time (and money) and development costs.