Copyright Infringement

But my property rights prevent you from using my car even if I don't intend to use it myself.

We need to take this one step at a time. I can understand why you'd want to brush off the issue of the amount of damages because you're probably aware of how damaging it is to your position. But that's what I want to focus on, so humor me.

The answer to this question is, "because intellectual property rights create an incentive to produce intellectual value."

joefromchicago wrote:

But my property rights prevent you from using my car even if I don't intend to use it myself.

... and you may well want to take advantage of that by renting your car to me. But even so, your car can only be ridden by four persons or less to any one place at any one time. The Linux operating system, by contrast, is used by millions of people, each for their own purposes, at any given time. The difference in the number of possible users and uses is several orders of magnitude.

I never denied that removing copyright laws would disruptive to the business of others. I simply think that individual liberty is more important than a bottom line or profit margin.

Night Ripper

Quote:

I never denied that removing copyright laws would disruptive to the business of others. I simply think that individual liberty is more important than a bottom line or profit margin.

why ?

north wrote:

Night Ripper

Quote:

I never denied that removing copyright laws would disruptive to the business of others. I simply think that individual liberty is more important than a bottom line or profit margin.

why ?

Why do I think liberty is more important? Well I think that's kind of like asking why lying is wrong. If you have to ask then how can I really convince you otherwise? It's just my opinion. I think that all humans are equal and therefore none of us has any kind of higher authority over anyone else. If you think that people should be locked up for copying music and I think otherwise then your opinion is no more valid than mine. You don't get your way if I disagree with you.

Night Ripper wrote:

north wrote:

Night Ripper

Quote:

I never denied that removing copyright laws would disruptive to the business of others. I simply think that individual liberty is more important than a bottom line or profit margin.

why ?

Why do I think liberty is more important? Well I think that's kind of like asking why lying is wrong. If you have to ask then how can I really convince you otherwise? It's just my opinion. I think that all humans are equal and therefore none of us has any kind of higher authority over anyone else. If you think that people should be locked up for copying music and I think otherwise then your opinion is no more valid than mine. You don't get your way if I disagree with you.

to the orginator of this music and the company , who put the time , effort and expense , to produce this disc , where is the justice of stealing ?

north wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

north wrote:

Night Ripper

Quote:

I never denied that removing copyright laws would disruptive to the business of others. I simply think that individual liberty is more important than a bottom line or profit margin.

why ?

Why do I think liberty is more important? Well I think that's kind of like asking why lying is wrong. If you have to ask then how can I really convince you otherwise? It's just my opinion. I think that all humans are equal and therefore none of us has any kind of higher authority over anyone else. If you think that people should be locked up for copying music and I think otherwise then your opinion is no more valid than mine. You don't get your way if I disagree with you.

to the orginator of this music and the company , who put the time , effort and expense , to produce this disc , where is the justice of stealing ?

Please don't confuse stealing with copying.

Night Ripper wrote:

north wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

north wrote:

Night Ripper

Quote:

I never denied that removing copyright laws would disruptive to the business of others. I simply think that individual liberty is more important than a bottom line or profit margin.

why ?

Why do I think liberty is more important? Well I think that's kind of like asking why lying is wrong. If you have to ask then how can I really convince you otherwise? It's just my opinion. I think that all humans are equal and therefore none of us has any kind of higher authority over anyone else. If you think that people should be locked up for copying music and I think otherwise then your opinion is no more valid than mine. You don't get your way if I disagree with you.

to the orginator of this music and the company , who put the time , effort and expense , to produce this disc , where is the justice of stealing ?

Please don't confuse stealing with copying.

why , what is the difference ?

why , what is the difference ?

Quote:

why , what is the difference ?

Is this a serious question?

'Stealing' implies depredation or loss. 'Copying' does not, for the original information or product remains intact.

Couldn't be simpler. What more, recent studies have been unable to find ANY product which was materially harmed by copying, in terms of either sales or viability.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

why , what is the difference ?

Is this a serious question?

'Stealing' implies depredation or loss. 'Copying' does not, for the original information or product remains intact.

Couldn't be simpler. What more, recent studies have been unable to find ANY product which was materially harmed by copying, in terms of either sales or viability.

Cycloptichorn

so the problem in China with copies of DVD,s , music , etc. is no longer a problem then

It's not damaging at all. I see where you're going and I already tried to skip to the end. If I violate the contract then I owe you damages up to "the sum that would restore the injured party to the economic position they expected from performance of the promise". In this case, it would be any lost sales. Let's ignore the people that would never have bought it in the first place but would only get it for free and focus on the people that would have bought it but instead got it for free. Let's say there's a million of those people and you're selling your art for $10 each. So, I owe you $10 million dollars.

How exactly does that damage my position? It doesn't. I'd love to hear how you think it does. I never denied that removing copyright laws would be disruptive to the business of others. I simply think that individual liberty is more important than a bottom line or profit margin.

Why is the contract so important?

After all, if you take anything else from me -- say, for instance, my car -- we don't have to have a pre-existing contractual relationship in order for me to collect damages from you. So why is the contract necessary in the case of my novel?

Well, let's see. You have now, for the first time, acknowledged that the creator of a work of art can suffer damages as a result of having that work of art copied without authorization. That's something you hadn't acknowledged before.

You still, I presume, take the position that the creator suffers no damage if the art is copied absent some sort of pre-existing contractual relationship between the copier and the creator, but then that's an inconsistency you need to explain.

Contracts are voluntary agreements involving some kind of exchange, in this case money for a copy of the book. You entered into the agreement willingly knowing the terms and by taking your part of the exchange without following the terms, that is stealing.

Your car is real property so that's theft. I'm not arguing that theft should be legal.

I acknowledged that back on page 5 when I explained what I do for a living. It's not my fault you're ignorant of that fact. You should follow the discussion closely before declaring what I have or haven't said.

I never claimed that no damages were incurred. I claimed that it's simply not relevant. If you are selling lemonade for a dollar and I start selling it for a penny, I've damaged your business. So what? Damages aren't relevant. Culpability is. By violating an agreement, I've committed a form of theft or possibly fraud. Those are genuinely wrong acts. Copying is not.

Night Ripper wrote:

Contracts are voluntary agreements involving some kind of exchange, in this case money for a copy of the book. You entered into the agreement willingly knowing the terms and by taking your part of the exchange without following the terms, that is stealing.

It's stealing? Then you do recognize intellectual property rights, at least in some cases, correct?

That is to say, a contract is an exchange of promises with specific legal remedies for breach. These can include Compensatory remedy, whereby the defaulting party is required to pay monies that would otherwise have been exchanged were the contract honoured, or an Equitable remedy such as Specific Performance, in which the person who entered into the contract is required to carry out the specific action they have reneged upon.

Well, a car isn't real property, it's tangible property.

Suppose I have written my one-of-a-kind novel that I want to charge people to read and that I don't want copied without my authorization. And let's say there are a bunch of other creators who have taken the exact same approach to their novels, artwork, music, and other productions that would, under the current legal regime, be covered under copyright. Now, suppose instead of each creator insisting on each consumer entering into a separate contract, whereby the consumer promises not to copy the item, the legislature passes a law that, in effect, does the exact same thing. In other words, it passes a law that says "consumers shall not copy a novel, artwork, piece of music, etc., without authorization from the creator, and if they make a copy they shall be liable for the damages." Given that you've already conceded that, if you enter into a contract with me not to make a copy of my novel and yet you go ahead and do it, you would be liable to me for damages that result from that unauthorized copying, shouldn't you also be liable to me for damages if the state passed a law that achieved the same result?

See the second definition? You're playing word games. I know that "real property" can also refer to real estate but I meant that real property is property that exists physically, i.e. tangible. You're so desperate to be right about something, anything, that you've resorted to pedantry.

Only I can enter a contract on my behalf. The state can't do it for me.

The fact that a state passes a law is irrelevant since I don't agree with that law. I don't consent.

Even though a car is "real" and "property," it's not "real property."

Night Ripper wrote:

Only I can enter a contract on my behalf. The state can't do it for me.

The state wouldn't be entering into a contract on your behalf. It would simply be passing a law that accomplishes what thousands of individual transactions would do while eliminating the transaction costs. Such laws are passed all the time.

Night Ripper wrote:

The fact that a state passes a law is irrelevant since I don't agree with that law. I don't consent.

Are you saying that you take a pick-and-choose approach to laws, i.e. you're only bound by the ones that you agree with?

Like I said, you're just being pedantic in a desperate attempt to be right about something.