Pirates vs. America

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

My point being responded to, however, had nothing to do with the present legal structure. I just seems a bit disingenuous for people who are grabbing songs and software for free to use the "it is really better marketing for the artist/owner," when I think that call -- right or wrong -- should actually be made by the artist/owner.

And I can agree with that. But why should we accept the claims from artists and labels that it is hurting them financially when there is little supporting evidence? We do not look at the financial harm done to them by libraries and rental businesses.

So the idea that they are being hurt financially vs having the decisions over how it is promoted made by others are very different arguments and should not be taken as a single position.

Quote:

That has nothing to do with the legal system as it is or as it should be, nor does it endorse any particular part of any law from any country. For those who are actually defending the current system precisely as it is, and not the idea of intellectual property protection in general or in some form -- if those people are actually posting in this thread -- they are more than welcome to answer your questions. But I am still not one of them.

So then you agree that the system is being manipulated by groups who do not have the publics interests at heart and are trying to remove rights that people traditionally had over content that they have purchased?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by ARubberChickenWithAPulley

And this is where we disagree. According to the definition I provided earlier, stealing does not have to be a physical object. If I take a book you wrote and publish it with my name, I think it is perfectly acceptible (and very common) to say I "stole" your book, even though I didn't steal a physical item. If I hack into I-tunes and download their music without their permission, I think it is perfectly acceptible to say I am stealing their product or service. If I download a movie I did not pay for against the wishes of its creator, I think it is perfectly valid to say I am stealing their movie. Or, if you want to get technical, I am depriving them of the right to control their creation, just as plagiarism is depriving you of credit for your work.

And if you rent a CD or computer program you are stealing the music or software.

Quote:

Because we've come to a social consensus,

BULL. When did society decided that the public wanted to reduce the rights they have on Music or Computer Programs that they have purchased?

Lawmakers decided but that is not at all the same thing.

Quote:

just as we've come to a social consensus that taxation is not stealing, and eminent domain is not stealing.

Eminent domain can certainly be stealing. What else should think of it when it is done to promote a private business venture?

Quote:

If you're pointing out that there is a degree of subjectiveness to it, I agree. That, however, isn't unique to "stealing." Many terms we use are arbitrary outside of their strict legal definitions -- "murder," for one example (a murder to one person might be a completely justified killing to another -- or not murder at all). That doesn't make the concepts less valid.

So why should different types of material under copyright be treated differently? Libraries or "Book Sharing" would certainly be considered illegal if introduced now and would be called theft. So why are they being grandfathered out of the status that they rightly deserve, that of stealing?

Quote:

Ultimately, we can argue this until we are blue in the face, but we are more debating semantics than anything else. Even if you were to convince me that copyright infringement is 100%, not a form of stealing, I would still consider it to be the moral/ethical equivalent of stealing. As such, I cordially suggest we let this one go since we're probably not going to convince each other in either direction

Copyright infringement can be stealing, I am thinking of counterfeit products that are sold. As some of them are functionally identical the buyer has little or no way of knowing if the product is legitimate or not.

Quote:

Slightly different issue, but I somewhat agree. However, while you might be valid in stating that copyright laws as they currently exist are not in the public interest, they do protect more than big business. They also protect small publishers, authors, and musicians.

And in principle I agree that such protections should exist, it is how they have been bent in ways that are not in the public interest that pisses me off. If the recent trends in how intellectual property is treated continue libraries will be illegal, or prevented from having anything not in the public domain. I do not really expect that to happen, but individuals are losing rights that they have over things that they have purchased.

Quote:

I'm not, by the way, claiming that copyright laws as they exist are perfect. I think the DMCA, for example, was a horrible piece of legislation that went way beyond protecting copyright, and actually added ridiculous restrictions that do not exist for any other type of product. The idea that it is a crime, for example, for me to remove copy protection from a CD or DVD I purchased legally is absolutely absurd -- as absurd as if the automotive industry made it illegal for me to disassemble my own car. I am merely defending the principle that music, books, games, art, etc. are products and should be accorded the same rights as other products. If I purchase it legally, I should be able to personally use the product and do with it as I desire. If I don't purchase the product, I don't have any right to use it.

So where does the public domain fit into this? Is it an out modded concept?

Then what about some small businesses that made a nice business publishing thing that sat in large record company vaults and would never have been published with out it? Why is it in the public interest to keep such things out of the publics hands?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Societies that don't believe in inalienable rights fail because they are not worth having members of that society. Why should anyone join a club that cares more for the collective than the individual, even though the collective is merely the sum of the individuals? The good of the state is the good of the individuals within that state--the state has no other purpose in existing than to strive for the maximum benefit for each and every person in it. And if it stops trying for that, it deserves to fail.

A good reason to make patents like copyrights and have them be permanent as well. Sure it will hurt innovation and competition but those are not individually useful they are putting society ahead of the individual.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

A good reason to make patents like copyrights and have them be permanent as well. Sure it will hurt innovation and competition but those are not individually useful they are putting society ahead of the individual.

Um, no. Society is each and every individual. Nothing can be good for the society if it isn't good for the individuals in it. Even when it looks like it might be, like when you have to jail one innocent man to keep a hundred killers locked up, it's not in society's best interest--because any one of the individuals who comprise it might be that one man.

Patents and copyrights should expire with the death of the original inventor/creator. Why should anyone who didn't do the work of inventing or creating benefit from a monopoly upon it? Johnny da Vinci didn't paint it, so I don't see why he should get two bucks a view of his grandad's Mona Lisa. Who the heck is so greedy that they insist on profitting from their work even after their own death? What are they going to spend it on?

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Um, no. Society is each and every individual. Nothing can be good for the society if it isn't good for the individuals in it. Even when it looks like it might be, like when you have to jail one innocent man to keep a hundred killers locked up, it's not in society's best interest--because any one of the individuals who comprise it might be that one man.

Is that so? Now what if it's 200 killers? 2000? 50 million? You can't possibly be dumb enough to argue that we should let an infinite number of criminals walk to avoid an infinitely small risk of convicting an innocent man.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Kerberos

Is that so? Now what if it's 200 killers? 2000? 50 million? You can't possibly be dumb enough to argue that we should let an infinite number of criminals walk to avoid an infinitely small risk of convicting an innocent man.

If you have 50 million killers, locked up or not, your society and its civilization has already collapsed.

If a society is willing to lock up the innocent, it is sick and needs to be corrected. Fortunately, the just solution is also the most sensible one: find out who's actually guilty, and only lock those people up. It's the best way for individuals, their society, and even conforms to higher considerations like ethics and junk.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Um, no. Society is each and every individual. Nothing can be good for the society if it isn't good for the individuals in it. Even when it looks like it might be, like when you have to jail one innocent man to keep a hundred killers locked up, it's not in society's best interest--because any one of the individuals who comprise it might be that one man.

Patents and copyrights should expire with the death of the original inventor/creator. Why should anyone who didn't do the work of inventing or creating benefit from a monopoly upon it? Johnny da Vinci didn't paint it, so I don't see why he should get two bucks a view of his grandad's Mona Lisa. Who the heck is so greedy that they insist on profitting from their work even after their own death? What are they going to spend it on?

So when the invention is the product of a great many peoples labor they all get the patent? And this clearly means generic drugs are theft.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So when the invention is the product of a great many peoples labor they all get the patent? And this clearly means generic drugs are theft.

If you produce work for a company, the patents, copyright, etc belong to the company.

-Gumboot

ETA. I would also point out that all other property a person owns is given exclusively to their heirs. When you die your house does not become "public domain" for "society" to enjoy. The millions you had saved in a bank account because you were an old miser doesn't become "public domain".

Copyright law is first and foremost is property law. As it is, intellectual property is treated very differently to other forms of property, because after a time they enter the public domain. I don't see why it should be treated so differently to other types of property that the moment you die it should be stripped from your estate. Allowing your estate to benefit for a time, before gifting the work to society, seems a reasonable compromise to me. If nothing else, having a 50 year gap means only good works will be exploited in the public domain, works that have stood the test of at least 50 years of worthiness.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And if you rent a CD or computer program you are stealing the music or software.

Nonsense. You are not doing anything to own a copy of that intellectual property. If you rent a CD, copy it, and keep it in your CD collection, then you might be stealing it. Renting a DVD, however, is no different than renting any other piece of property: like a car, for example. Somebody purchased the car (the rental company) and they are lending it to you for a period of time for your personal use. When that period of time is over, you no longer have control of that automobile. Similarly, if you rent a DVD, Blockbuster is lending you the DVD -- or, specifically, the intellectual property on the DVD -- for a brief time. If you want to own that intellectual property, just like if you want to own a car, you can go and purchase the DVD yourself. It's just like any other product.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

BULL. When did society decided that the public wanted to reduce the rights they have on Music or Computer Programs that they have purchased?

Lawmakers decided but that is not at all the same thing.

In a democratic country, it is the only official avenue we have for implenting such a consensus, so effectively, it is the same thing.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Eminent domain can certainly be stealing. What else should think of it when it is done to promote a private business venture?

So are you ready to charge public officials with theft?

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So why should different types of material under copyright be treated differently? Libraries or "Book Sharing" would certainly be considered illegal if introduced now and would be called theft. So why are they being grandfathered out of the status that they rightly deserve, that of stealing?

As with DVD rentals, libraries do not allow people to copy entire books and take them home to own. The person can borrow the book, and then has to return it. Ownership is the key here. If I want to own the book, I have to buy it.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Copyright infringement can be stealing, I am thinking of counterfeit products that are sold. As some of them are functionally identical the buyer has little or no way of knowing if the product is legitimate or not.

Though I agree, this doesn't seem to jibe with the rest of your position here. Even in counterfeiting, they aren't depriving anyone of a physical object, they're simply copying a logo or name. It's essentially the same thing as plagiarism.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And in principle I agree that such protections should exist, it is how they have been bent in ways that are not in the public interest that pisses me off. If the recent trends in how intellectual property is treated continue libraries will be illegal, or prevented from having anything not in the public domain. I do not really expect that to happen, but individuals are losing rights that they have over things that they have purchased.

Well, like I said, I think intellectual property should have the same protections as any other product. As such, just as someone can rent or borrow a car, the same should extend to people renting or borrowing DVDs, CDs, or books. I agree, I don't think they will ever pass a law banning that -- at least, I sure hope they don't.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So where does the public domain fit into this? Is it an out modded concept?

Then what about some small businesses that made a nice business publishing thing that sat in large record company vaults and would never have been published with out it? Why is it in the public interest to keep such things out of the publics hands?

Valid question and points, and I certainly don't claim to have an answer. Logically, as Gumboot has argued, we don't do this with anything else: my house doesn't become public property after I pass away. On the other hand, though, I agree that I would hate to see classic works sit in vaults collecting dust.

I am curious, though, what companies you are talking about (and I mean this question honestly): are there public domain works that were discovered sitting unpublished before a company came along and, because of public domain, was able to release them to the public?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And I can agree with that. But why should we accept the claims from artists and labels that it is hurting them financially when there is little supporting evidence? We do not look at the financial harm done to them by libraries and rental businesses.

So the idea that they are being hurt financially vs having the decisions over how it is promoted made by others are very different arguments and should not be taken as a single position.

Until and unless harm or lack thereof can be shown by one side or the other, we have to make a decision regarding which side we err on the side of caution for. The arguments for erring on the side of the creator/owner -- because of the potential for harm and the arguments for the right to control their own works -- trump, IMO, the speculative benefits that they might get. That's a judgment call, and no one else has to disagree.

Quote:

So then you agree that the system is being manipulated by groups who do not have the publics interests at heart and are trying to remove rights that people traditionally had over content that they have purchased?

I don't see that I have taken any type of position that would lead you to believe that I either believe or disbeleive that. In fact, I have tried to pretty hard to expressly indicate that I was not taking a position in the larger debate.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally Posted by ARubberChickenWithAPulley

Valid question and points, and I certainly don't claim to have an answer. Logically, as Gumboot has argued, we don't do this with anything else: my house doesn't become public property after I pass away.

Well, the estate tax -- if you have enough assets -- may well force you to sell off that house to pay the rather large taxes. Not a perfect analogy, but your other property may well be at risk on your death, too.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I don't see why it should be treated so differently to other types of property that the moment you die it should be stripped from your estate.

Because we want people to create new intellectual property, instead of profiting from their past accomplishments indefinately. The former means progress, the latter stagnation.

And you never lose intellectual property anyway, only the sole right to its benefits is temporary.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by gumboot

If you produce work for a company, the patents, copyright, etc belong to the company.

Then when do they expire? The idea was that they would expire with the creators death. But that is largely what we have now, companies don't die like people do so they can own such things indefinitely.

Quote:

ETA. I would also point out that all other property a person owns is given exclusively to their heirs. When you die your house does not become "public domain" for "society" to enjoy. The millions you had saved in a bank account because you were an old miser doesn't become "public domain".

But then again they don't get to keep your pension/social security. Copyright and intellectual property is different because it is not about ownership but the granting of special rights to someone who created an idea or other intellectual exorcise. So they are not at all like property. So you are not granting them property you are granting them special rights over ideas that are not theirs.

Hmm suing your neighbor for copying your house...

Quote:

Copyright law is first and foremost is property law.

Wrong. It is fundamentally different. Property laws are not written with the intent of providing an incentive to make new property, that is the basis for copyrights. That has been entirely forgotten.

Here is a question is anyone who takes a generic drug a dirty dirty thief?

Quote:

As it is, intellectual property is treated very differently to other forms of property, because after a time they enter the public domain. I don't see why it should be treated so differently to other types of property that the moment you die it should be stripped from your estate. Allowing your estate to benefit for a time, before gifting the work to society, seems a reasonable compromise to me. If nothing else, having a 50 year gap means only good works will be exploited in the public domain, works that have stood the test of at least 50 years of worthiness.

I am not arguing for a death based time limit on intellectual property. I think that what should work is a time where it is cheap and easy to keep something under copyright, and then as years pass it gets progressively more and more expensive. So if Disney wants to keep steam boat Willy under copyright then can, it just gets more and more expensive every year. I was thinking about an exponential growth system myself.

What really bugs me is using copyrights to keep things unavailable to the public.

[Geckko]

Originally Posted by gumboot

If you produce work for a company, the patents, copyright, etc belong to the company.

-Gumboot

ETA. I would also point out that all other property a person owns is given exclusively to their heirs. When you die your house does not become "public domain" for "society" to enjoy. The millions you had saved in a bank account because you were an old miser doesn't become "public domain".

Copyright law is first and foremost is property law. As it is, intellectual property is treated very differently to other forms of property, because after a time they enter the public domain. I don't see why it should be treated so differently to other types of property that the moment you die it should be stripped from your estate. Allowing your estate to benefit for a time, before gifting the work to society, seems a reasonable compromise to me. If nothing else, having a 50 year gap means only good works will be exploited in the public domain, works that have stood the test of at least 50 years of worthiness.

Gumboot,

Copyright and patent law is designed to address market failures, as some here have identified (e.g. there will under-investment in new ideas etc. if the origniators of those ideas cannot profit from them, but find them snapped up and copied by others). Hence patents to allow protection to avert this.

However, the solution is simply one that allows monopoly rights and that itself represents another type of market failure that leads to higher prices and lower consumption.

So the compromise is to allow a temporary period of monopoly rights to provide the incentive to innovate, but to limit this period to allow competition to bring down prices below monopoly levels after (even leading up to) expiration to bring larger and more widespread economic benefits.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Kerberos

I really don't see how it has anything to do with bureaucracy (which has an unfairly bad reputation BTW). The decision not to step on the toes of the voters sounds more like a political descision than a bureaucratic one.

Of course it will be a political decision. Laws are made by lawmakers who are politicians. That is also characteristic of a bureaucracy.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

If you have 50 million killers, locked up or not, your society and its civilization has already collapsed.

Thanks for sharing, now could you answer the question or do you realize how stupid a consistent answer would sound?

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

If a society is willing to lock up the innocent, it is sick and needs to be corrected. Fortunately, the just solution is also the most sensible one: find out who's actually guilty, and only lock those people up. It's the best way for individuals, their society, and even conforms to higher considerations like ethics and junk.

And if it's not willing to run the risk of locking up innocents it's got murderers, rapist and other criminals running rampant in the streets because they can't be convicted under the "proven beyond any doubt, reasonable or not”, standard. I prefer a "sick” society to such a monumentally stupid one.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Of course it will be a political decision. Laws are made by lawmakers who are politicians. That is also characteristic of a bureaucracy.

No it's not, first of all that's simply not what the word means, politicians are not part of the bureaucracy. Secondly many organisations that don't have politicians at the top are still run partially or wholly by bureaucracies. Big companies for example.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Kerberos

Thanks for sharing, now could you answer the question or do you realize how stupid a consistent answer would sound?


And if it's not willing to run the risk of locking up innocents it's got murderers, rapist and other criminals running rampant in the streets because they can't be convicted under the "proven beyond any doubt, reasonable or not”, standard. I prefer a "sick” society to such a monumentally stupid one.

I never said anything about "proven beyond any doubt, reasonable or not".

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I never said anything about "proven beyond any doubt, reasonable or not".

So you've changed you mind and now think that we must (regretfully of cause) accept that innocent people will sometimes be convicted and imprisoned?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Kerberos

So you've changed you mind and now think that we must (regretfully of cause) accept that innocent people will sometimes be convicted and imprisoned?

I didn't say that, either. There is a very large difference between "reasonable doubt" and "let's not worry about imprisoning the innocent".

I wonder how'd you feel about it if you were the one innocent imprisoned?

But then, I think that when people don't care about injustice, they deserve it to happen to them.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I didn't say that, either. There is a very large difference between "reasonable doubt" and "let's not worry about imprisoning the innocent".

And who has said that exactly? It’s really quite simple. One possibility is that we tolerate a system which convicts people based on evidence beyond a certain limit short of 100% certainty which also means accepting that sometimes innocent people will be convicted. The alternative is to let everyone off. Which do you prefer?

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I wonder how'd you feel about it if you were the one innocent imprisoned?

I probably wouldn't like that very much. I wouldn't like to be shot either or die in a car crash, that doesn't mean that I think society is a failure because it’s unacceptable for society that it cannot eliminate murder or traffic accidents. I accept that these things happen because the consequence of trying to eliminate them totally would be far worse than the problem itself.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

But then, I think that when people don't care about injustice, they deserve it to happen to them.

I suppose this is you rather unsubtle attempt to smear me and others willing to face reality? If so please at least have the courage to voice your pathetic straw men clearly.

[TragicMonkey]

To be honest, I stopped giving a damn about this thread ages ago. Whatever. You win, you're teh awexome, yay team.