Copyright Infringement

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

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

Or...he's just...erm....not to put too fine a point upon it...******* WELL RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@dlowan,

He's not right. Real property can mean real estate or it can erm.... not to put too fine a point upon it... property that is actually REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fact that we are arguing over imaginary vs. real property should have put that into context enough.

However, let's ignore reality for a moment and delve into your fantasy world where he's finally right about something. How does that change my argument one bit? It doesn't. It's not relevant at all. It's merely an aside that adds nothing to the discussion except some lame personal gratification.

So, he's wrong, cars are real and they are property and in that sense of the words they are real property. Only a fool would argue against that. Of course, cars aren't real property in the sense of real estate but that much is obvious.

Now please shut your mouth unless you've got something to add to this discussion instead of just jumping in with pathetic attempts to stir the pot.

So cars aren't real estate congratulations. You've stated the obvious. Please explain how that changes my argument at all if you can.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

As I said before, a contract is between two parties. If I violate the contract and then a third party uses my violation of that contract to make further copies, a contract can't do anything about that since they were never a party to the contract in the first place. The law you're suggesting would change that and make everyone bound to that contract even if they never agreed to it.

No, not at all. Recall, I said that the law would do the exact same thing as the contract: i.e. the consumer would be obligated not to make any copies, or else the consumer would pay damages to the creator. Nothing there about third parties, nothing about copies of copies. Once again, you're trying to anticipate my argument, and once again you're doing a very bad job of it. How about trying to follow my argument instead of anticipating it for a change?

Night Ripper wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
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?

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" -The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America (JULY 4, 1776)

That's nice. Now how about answering my question?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

No, not at all. Recall, I said that the law would do the exact same thing as the contract: i.e. the consumer would be obligated not to make any copies, or else the consumer would pay damages to the creator. Nothing there about third parties, nothing about copies of copies. Once again, you're trying to anticipate my argument, and once again you're doing a very bad job of it. How about trying to follow my argument instead of anticipating it for a change?

The law is still just a contract then. I have no problem with contracts.

joefromchicago wrote:

That's nice. Now how about answering my question?

I did. I can only be governed insofar as I consent to be governed.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

The law is still just a contract then. I have no problem with contracts.

Then it follows that you'd have no problem with the law, right?

Night Ripper wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
That's nice. Now how about answering my question?

I did. I can only be governed insofar as I consent to be governed.

Well, I understand when the drafters of the Declaration of Independence said "consent of the governed." They meant "the consent of the people through their representative institutions." In other words, the people expressed their consent through their elected representatives. Is that the same kind of "consent" that you're talking about?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

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

My secret is revealed.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Then it follows that you'd have no problem with the law, right?

If the law is nothing but a contract, sure.

joefromchicago wrote:

They meant "the consent of the people through their representative institutions."

Really? You'd think that they would have written that then. No matter. I'm not going to argue about what they meant. I take it to mean that I can only be governed if I consent to be governed. Since I don't consent, I'm not to be governed. Even if they didn't mean that, that's what I believe. You can't just declare that I'm under your rules. I have to agree to them, which I don't.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

If the law is nothing but a contract, sure.

So you'd agree with a copyright law that was limited to prohibiting copies of the original, correct?

Night Ripper wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
They meant "the consent of the people through their representative institutions."

Really? You'd think that they would have written that then. No matter. I'm not going to argue about what they meant. I take it to mean that I can only be governed if I consent to be governed. Since I don't consent, I'm not to be governed. Even if they didn't mean that, that's what I believe. You can't just declare that I'm under your rules. I have to agree to them, which I don't.

Well, why didn't you say that a long time ago? You could have saved us a whole lot of bother. If your position is that you must personally consent to every law, and that, by withholding consent, you are not bound by the law, then it really doesn't matter if you have any kind of philosophical or theoretical objection to copyright laws. You should have just said "I don't like copyright laws, so I don't have to follow them." That is, after all, your position, isn't it?

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

I take it to mean that I can only be governed if I consent to be governed. Since I don't consent, I'm not to be governed.

People have tried that defense in the courts, and they have failed every time. You're consenting to be governed by being present in the jurisdiction.

Night Ripper wrote:

Even if they didn't mean that, that's what I believe.

The courts don't really care what you believe.

Night Ripper wrote:

You can't just declare that I'm under your rules. I have to agree to them, which I don't.

You don't have to agree with them, but failing to abide by them puts you at risk of prosecution.

That's life.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

So you'd agree with a copyright law that was limited to prohibiting copies of the original, correct?

This is getting tiresome. As long as that law is identical to a contract, I don't care that you insist on calling it a law since it's still just a contract. So the answer is obviously yes. Now, please enlighten me as to what ground you've gained by making a contract into a "law"?

joefromchicago wrote:

If your position is that you must personally consent to every law, and that, by withholding consent, you are not bound by the law, then it really doesn't matter if you have any kind of philosophical or theoretical objection to copyright laws.

I'm not here just to state my personal preferences. That would be a waste of time. I'm trying to convince others that they should also have the same preference and shouldn't seek to enforce their preferences on me.

This all goes back to the original question, why should copyright infringement be illegal? I didn't ask why should I be forced to obey government that I don't consent to.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

You're consenting to be governed by being present in the jurisdiction.

"Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives, from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean and perish, the moment he leaves her." -David Hume

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Are you a poor peasant or artisan?

All you have to do is start hitchhiking South, and eventually you'll get to some Anarchist utopia.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

All you have to do is start hitchhiking South, and eventually you'll get to some Anarchist utopia.

Really? Where? As far as I can tell you're suggesting I jump off this ship and onto another. It's still a ship with a master that claims I am consenting just by being on his ship.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

This is getting tiresome. As long as that law is identical to a contract, I don't care that you insist on calling it a law since it's still just a contract. So the answer is obviously yes. Now, please enlighten me as to what ground you've gained by making a contract into a "law"?

Well, I've gotten you to agree that, in some circumstances, you would agree with a copyright law. Your insistence, then, that there should be no such thing as intellectual property isn't an insurmountable hurdle to your acceptance of copyright laws, since you think that they're OK as long as they are framed in terms of contract rather than property.

Frankly, I don't quite understand the distinction. After all, if I write a novel and you enter into a contract with me to read my novel, that means that I, in some significant way, own that novel. If I didn't, I wouldn't have the authority to sell access to it. And owning a novel is far different from owning the paper it's printed on. Suppose, for instance, that I never wrote the novel out on paper. Instead, I had memorized the entire thing and I would recite it to anyone who paid me (sort of like if Ayn Rand had written Fahrenheit 451). In that instance, I would still be selling the same thing as if I had written it down on paper, and there wouldn't be any significant difference in my ownership of that novel, regardless of the medium in which it is recorded.

Night Ripper wrote:

I'm not here just to state my personal preferences. That would be a waste of time.

On the contrary, that's all you've done. And it has been a waste of time.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Poor baby. Is life too unfair for you? I suppose you're up in arms because nobody asked you if you wanted to be born.

If you don't like copyright laws, then move somewhere that doesn't have 'em.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length

Afghanistan
Laos
Marshall Islands

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, I've gotten you to agree that, in some circumstances, you would agree with a copyright law.

That's a copyright contract, which I never disagreed with. The fact you call it a law and then say "aha! you agree with laws!" is a cheap trick and you know it. Smoke and mirrors, nothing more. I have always supported contracts plain and simple.

Guess what though, when I go and download a copy of some bit of art, how exactly am I a party to this magical umbrella contract? I'm not since I'm not a consumer. So, your law is pointless and does nothing to do what you want it to do.

joefromchicago wrote:

Frankly, I don't quite understand the distinction.

It's quite simple. You can own your house but you can also enter into a contract that allows ME to limit how YOU can use your own house, what color you can paint it, how tall the grass can get, etc. Does that mean I suddenly own your house just because you entered into a contract with me over it? No. In the same way, entering into a contract over some novel you wrote doesn't mean you own it either. Contracts have nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with binding agreements which I am happy to acknowledge.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

If you don't like copyright laws, then move somewhere that doesn't have 'em.

Afghanistan
Laos
Marshall Islands

So instead of hitchhiking I better learn to swim, eh? It looks like Hume was right.

"Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives, from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean and perish, the moment he leaves her." -David Hume

I'm supposed to just jump in and die if I don't like it? No, that's not consent. That's coercion.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

That's a copyright contract

lol

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

I'm sure that someone as clever as you could find a way to get there. It's not the 1700's anymore.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

I'm sure that someone as clever as you could find a way to get there. It's not the 1700's anymore.

Welcome to my ignore list.

1 Reply

Copyright Infringement

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know