Copyright Infringement, Intellectual Property and Pirating

Patents are out of hand. When you can patent a type of encryption or a string of programming that anyone else could have developed independently, you set back innovation. Of course if you invent a new programming language or software package, you should own it, but you should not own any of the parts, just the whole. If you copyright your layout with red flowers and purple ribbons, that should not preclude anyone else from using red flowers and purple ribbons. I personally have no problem with keeping copyright infringement illegal, I just think the penalties in place for it are insanely disproportionate to the actual damages caused.

 

Yes. It's not yours, it's mine.

So what if it can be cloned? I don't understand the argument. You act like stealing is the process of depriving another and miss the fact that stealing is benefiting from the work of another person.

If your boss said "hey guerilla, I'm not going to pay you for your 2 weeks of work because , well, it's not tangible. If you have a problem with that you can go F off."

No I don't. I can get a similiar domain if I want. I can put it in a subdirectory. I can present the information in such a way that it is slander and libel and I ruin your good name. There's a lot of "intagible" ways for me to destroy your website.

Please, can we discuss things in a "normal" fashion instead it degenerating into literal semantics? You know exactly what I meant. Walmart is worth money because it has customers. Customers come because they have something to buy. If there is nothing to buy, there is no customers.

A normal discussion would be nice for once.

Stealing and benefiting from it. I can't argue with you if you think it's more important to be "efficient" in the market than what is right and wrong. Someone steals you site, that pays for your livelyhood and you say it's "market efficiency". I don't know if I can compete with that kind of logic.

You won't go there because you can't argue it. Who the hell wants to talk about petty software? We want to talk about the nuts and bolts of things, like the patented technology in your computer.

And you complain about adhoms. I want to talk about things of VALUE, not wikipedia or a browser.

"lower prices"? Where did you get that from? Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes individual freedoms and property rights. It allows individual to interact and exchange in a peaceful environment, so long as property isn't damaged.

Ideas are built in people's minds and are protected by government, just like your physical property.

I thought you were all about "the message" and not "the person".

Well, I guess I broke the tides than. Property rights and justice. It's awesome.

Child molesters have no credibility on raising children. If I was looking for advice on raping children, I'd probably talk to a child molester.

I didn't ad hom anyone. I do recall someone calling me a troll. hmmmm.

 

Of course not. You complain about the digg and torrent kiddies, then get a principled argument here and you fold.

 

It's their product and they can sell it for whatever they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

lol, the value isn't the cd, it's the intellectual property on the cd.

Why should they have too?

They can do what they want with their intellectual property. It is their choice.

 

I ended up deciding too. Your argument is principled, just as mine is. You just seem to have a hypocritical view of property.

"violence to protect intellectual property", even though it is violence to protect physical property too.

 

I agree with this, earth. It also gets weird in biotech, and nanotechnology. So, I would argue for a careful look at this, and reform. But the essential idea - that someone who created something should be entitled to the fruits from their labor - shouldn't be obliterated simply because the system needs change.

As usual, funny to me that some making a stand against the notion of intellectual property rights also vociferously proclaim themselves (at least when it fits, depending on who is listening) as strict constitutionalists.

This is sort of left out of the conversation, once again.

 

Good point. It's been a while since I actually read the constitution. Even the founding fathers recognized forms of intellectual property.

 

I am going to end the discussion here though. There's no point in continuing to talk because it really doesn't come down to who is right or wrong. We just believe two different things.

I was a libertarian and I argued the same argument you did. It's about what is best for the market place and for consumers.

For me now, it's about the property rights over a persons intellectual creation.

We can argue until we're blue in the face, I doubt we'll change each others mind.

 

Sharing is caring.

The internet is phasing out million dollar record companies that are just high paid middlemen.

 

Tomatoes, tomatoes. What you call sharing, someone else calls redistribution.

 

Well, aside from the fact that the original producers have agreed to sell their property to those middlemen, and those new property owners have a right to get what they can for their acquired property (as much as I'm not a fan of parasites on artists - and they are parasites, but no more than any other agency relationship), I don't have a problem with that - so long as the original producers, the artists, are doing it because it's an open and honest deal, and not because we've raised a nation of assholes who think it's just groovy to steal from others what ever they feel like stealing.

Patents have been with us since at least ancient Greece, the usual misread of history by some notwithstanding. The idea has been with us for a long, long time, that someone coming up with something should be rewarded for their efforts by protecting them from the very thefts were talking about now.

 

How will you know I did it? How will you know I stole from you if it is done in the privacy of my own home?

It's silly to say you will sue to protect yourself from theft, when you can't even know when the theft is occurring.

I agree, you do not understand the argument.

So is all benefiting from the work of another person theft? Of course not. Try again.

That would be a violation of contract. He and I have both agreed to a wage for labor trade. If he violates that contract, he's susceptible to the resolution per contract law.

Again, I don't think you are a webmaster. A similar domain or a subdirectory is not the same. shoes.com/nike or nike-shoes.com is not nike.com

You're talking about destruction. That is completely different. If I copy your book and give it to someone, have I destroyed it? Of course not. If I share your music on the web, have I destroyed it? Again, of course not.

If you're going to debate, please make rational arguments.

And how do customers know where to buy the goods? How will you process their credit and debit cards? How will you manage inventory? Where will you find staff?

A real capitalist would see the counter-argument. Without a market, there are no products. To imply that supply always proceeds demand is disingenuous.

Running a business, like running a website, is about a lot more than just having content or goods. And this is a normal discussion. Your argument doesn't stand up to the simplest of examples.

Sure. Feel free to start making rational arguments instead of Ad Homs, strawmen or appeals to emotion.

Again, an ultra-rare situation, but the reality that the inventor, may not be a capable enough businessman or marketer to bring his good to market and have it be a success.

I was saying "don't go there" because you were being intentionally stupid.

Calling the software "petty" doesn't help your argument. The reality is, people will produce goods, services and innovations, art etc without patent protection, which was your argument. That if people cannot benefit commercially, they will not act. This betrays a lack of understanding of human action.

Not all profit is defined in monetary terms.

Your argument is that Firefox doesn't have value? That Wikipedia doesn't provide value? See, that's the irrationality in your position. You have to impose value judgments that conflict with the results of the marketplace in order to justify your position.

Clearly Wikipedia has enormous value, as a resource, as a repository, as a community, and as a commercial web entity.

Why won't you address Linux? Millions of people use, test and work on this system, for little or no financial gain. The information is open source, it's available as a framework for anyone to use, without restraint.

Clearly Linux is proof that you do not need a patent to build a highly successful technology framework and operating system.

Individual freedom + property rights = free market. Free Market = price efficiency. This is Econ 101 stuff.

Property rights exist before government, not after it.

I'm happy to slice and dice your position to pieces.

How do you justify the coercive power of government via majority rule, against the rights of individuals? If you believe in property rights and justice, then I am guessing you don't believe in the right to use aggressive force?

Totally irrelevant. As I wrote, if the advice is good, why would I reject it? You're not making judgments on merit, you're making them on emotional bias.

You are posting like a troll. If you look like a troll, post like a troll, then you just might be a troll. If you want to debate logically and honestly, then avoid comparing my expert source to a child molester.

 

Not at all. You're mis-defining property. You're claiming that property can exist in two or more places at once, while admitting that the creator is not the only one capable of producing more copies. It's flawed.

How can you protect something you did not create? Conception and manufacturing are two different and separate processes.

That's not my argument. You're not listening. I'm seriously doubting this claim to libertarianism, if you are going to argue for the state to govern commerce and property.

It's not property!

Uhm, yeah.

 

I understand better now where some are coming from. Warez is wherez it's at, baby! To hell with individual worth, creating something that adds value, or gaining reward by the fruit of one's good effort. Create nothing, pirate everything!

'kay, carry on.

 

Heres how i feel...

If a record company loses a percentage of sales due to 'sharing' then great.
If a movie company has similar with movies then even better. The common man is sick and tired of overpaid actors, film and record companies.

Anything digital will be copied and shared so get over it guys because it will never change and never be cured. Its down to these multi million dollar companies to find new ways of generating revenue or how about selling at a much fairer price?

I have had many digital products of mine copied and stolen, but hey thats life and i still make a good living. It cannot and will never be stopped so stop stressing about it and go along with it.

 

The music industry will probably evolve into where musicians sell their music online in digital format, song by song. Good songs will sell better than bad songs - when was the last time you bought a CD for one song and found out it was the only good song and the rest sucked? Popular musicians can still make tons of money from touring as well.

I think it sucks that people are getting ripped off, but there isn't really anything that can be done to stop it. It's like an out of control beast - this is the internet.

 

What right do you have to say an actor is overpaid? Pro athlete? If they're getting their money, what are the producers or team owners making? Actors get this because it is expected their taking the role will reap astronomical sums over and above their back-end points on the film. If you don't support what they make to do their work, don't buy the ticket. This will mean their drawing power is diminished, and their asking salary will go down - simple.

This is what I can't abide. I hear all the time about how the state and its machinations are egregious limits on profits, and profit making, yet the idea of curbing "those greedy artists," or their agents, is somehow given a big round of applause.

I also can't abide the argument - theft happens, so accept it and move on. If we said this about everything wrong in life, where the hell would we be? No! Don't accept it. Make something, and fight so that that thing is honored for what it is, and you are rewarded for your efforts. Do not cave to those who buy up warez sites or otherwise employ methods of ripping you off while doing nothing to add any worth whatsoever.

To those who think it's cool to do this, get over it, people. Creators are entitled to the fruits of their work. None of us have any right to rip it off, via gleefully playing "warez" blacknet games or any other method where we didn't do a damn thing of worth.

Though some of the "strict constitutionalists" on board will continue to ignore it, such a right was preserved as an essential part of our country - and so it is included in our Constitution:

The guy whose location indicates he is "surrounded by statists" is, characteristically, now reporting my post or posts to the "DP state," folks, because I pointed up the problems with the notions brought forward. The debate is worthy, so if it should happen to be closed, or I should somehow be dinged/banned for this, I hope it has provided food for thought.

Basically, listen to what your mother told you. Don't steal. It's wrong.

 

LOL, this is already happening. Welcome to 2008 buddy!

It would help if people stop looking at it as a "rip off". It is not. Study after study shows that so-called theft doesn't really affect the retail #s. In other words, there is no loss of income. The people who download things are the ones who will purchase when the price is zero. They would never have bought at $1 or $20.

Copyright and patents can be written into private contracts. Like NDAs. In fact, an NDA is a form of patent protection. Does the government require all of us to sign NDAs everytime we interact with anyone else? Do we require NDAs from the government every time we fill out a government form?

Of course not.

The future of information is a trend towards zero cost. People will be paid to produce things, not ideas. The most successful ones will package ideas into attractive and desirable things.

 

You are seriously going to get stressed over this because like a runaway train. Digital piracy will forever be with us and encouraged by many. When the majority of people think its ok then your onto a losing battle.

And yes i dare say artists are overpaid, as you say "Actors get this because it is expected their taking the role will reap astronomical sums over and above their back-end points on the film". There you go astronomical sums. I say greed, greed, greed.

Everyone deserves to earn a living but in a world where 15,000,000 people die of starvation each year its obscene.

These companies having a couple of high profile cases suing members of the public is laughable and deters people not one iota.

I say keep copying and sharing. Theres a new torrent site popping up every 5 minutes.

 

Then you are placing a value on one person's work, and not another. Again - why do you have a problem with the actor, and not the producer who makes his nut? Are we to say what people can, and can't make, now, in their work? It isn't just the egregiously "overpaid" actor who will suffer, by the way, but when studios get ripped off, and to take it to the extreme, what's to be done with the thousands of journeymen crew members affected by lower margins? The grips, carpenters, etc., all of them making a middling income and desiring, like you, to sustain their families. This is cool, all in the name of "what is?"

I'll tell you, as a former actor who lived for months on rice and (honest to god) a 25 lb. wheel of cheese, a prop from a 5-year old show, I know what it is to be an artist in this country. I call it obscene that so many talented people cannot make their modest living doing something they love and do well. But guess what? TOUGH SHIT. Them's the breaks. We love our market in this country, and the market determines relative worth of labor. So, guess what, part 2, an actor making a serious boatload? TOUGH SHIT. He or she does that because he or she is worth it, in revenue coming in. Millions flock to see him or her, and his salary is warranted by the draw. Get over it.

Here, I'll start with "obscenity." Personally, what I find obscene are people who rip off other people's work, and make a living at it by playing in blacknet games - such as the warez sites I have already mentioned. It's obscene. Those people create nothing, and shouldn't get a dime. You with me?

I also thought it wasn't the majority that should matter, but principle?

Here, Guerilla - whine to Rob, do whatever you want - a direct question: you call yourself a strict constitutionalist (though I don't really see it - based on many examples). The Constitution preserves state oversight of patent protection. Why do you cower from this?