Copyright Infringement

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

In cases where the intangible (MP3) is linked to a tangible (CD), something similar does occur when the intangible is stolen - the tangible is devalued.

Right, this has already been argued and my response was twofold (1) we can devalue things all the time by simply introducing competition. If you're the only person selling lemonade in the desert then you can charge whatever you want, perhaps even $100 a glass. However, if I open a lemonade stand next to you and start giving it away for free, I've devalued your lemonade. It's not clear why this is legal but copying shouldn't be. Also, (2) when I copy your MP3 it's only devalued if I would have otherwise paid for it. Since I never had any intention of buying any intangible property it's hard to see how I've devalued anything. Either way you won't get a cent from me so why does it matter if I copy your album instead of not having it at all. Again, you were never getting a cent from me so I've devalued nothing.

Zetherin wrote:

You're being myopic and not considering other business issues that may arise.

Please don't insult me. There's no call for that and it adds nothing to your argument. I'm sure you know about the is-ought problem. There's no grounds for claiming that I "should" do X for some logical reason. You can only appeal to my already existing principles. If you want to reason from there then you're welcome to. Some people making a profit doesn't enter into it though. To put this into perspective, I've made over a million dollars from selling software so if anyone in this discussion has something to lose should copyright be tossed out the window, it's me. However, I still can't bring myself to endorse a system that is incompatible with my principles.

0 Replies

Night Ripper wrote:

Please don't insult me

Saying you're being short-sighted concerning this issue, isn't some sort of childish insult. It's a legitimate criticism. Sorry you took offense. But please do know that every remark that isn't positive towards you, isn't necessarily on the grounds of a childish insult.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
Please don't insult me

Saying you're being short-sighted concerning this issue, isn't some sort of childish insult. It's a legitimate criticism. Sorry you took offense. But please do know that every remark that isn't positive towards you, isn't necessarily on the grounds of a childish insult.

I don't really care what your excuse is. Calling me short sighted doesn't advance your position at all. It's just a way for you to vent some kind of frustration. Stick to the arguments and leave the personal criticisms out of it or I will ignore you. Also, the fact that you are so quick to respond to this but ignored the rest of what I said is troubling.

0 Replies

Night Ripper wrote:

Right, this has already been argued and my response was twofold (1) we can devalue things all the time by simply introducing competition. If you're the only person selling lemonade in the desert then you can charge whatever you want, perhaps even $100 a glass. However, if I open a lemonade stand next to you and start giving it away for free, I've devalued your lemonade. It's not clear why this is legal but copying shouldn't be. Also, (2) when I copy your MP3 it's only devalued if I would have otherwise paid for it. Since I never had any intention of buying any intangible property it's hard to see how I've devalued anything. Either way you won't get a cent from me so why does it matter if I copy your album instead of not having it at all. Again, you were never getting a cent from me so I've devalued nothing.

If everyone obtains the music without paying, there is good reason to believe the sales from the CD will be affected. "I wouldn't have paid anyway, so it's not stealing" just doesn't cut it, I'm sorry.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

It isn't about your sale, per se. It is about the sales in general. If everyone obtains the music without paying, there is good reason to believe the sales from the CD will be affected. "I wouldn't have paid anyway, so it's not stealing" just doesn't cut it, I'm sorry

I'm sorry but it does cut it. I don't pay for intangible property so therefore I cannot devalue it by copying it. I'm not here to argue for everyone else. If they would have paid for X but got it for free anyways then they've devalued it but I'm not part of that group. Saying that I should be held to a standard that doesn't apply to me just doesn't cut it.

You also only responded to half of my statement. What about (1)? Nothing to say to that?

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

But I'm still confused as to why you don't think the same about tangibles. Suppose I was a person who had no intention of buying a bicycle. You insinuated before that you thought that my stealing the bicycle ought to be illegal. And your reasoning for this was that the bicycle is scarce, and when people take scarce things that aren't theirs, it ought to be illegal. But when people take intangibles, it is not wrong because they aren't scare. I don't think that's a good enough reason, even if I agreed with your scarce definition. The scarcity (how you're using the term) of a product doesn't seem relevant, and I've presented you with examples of how the taking of an intangible, regardless of intention or supposed scarcity, can be detrimental to a business/person. In other words, I've detailed why it is reasonable for laws dealing with intellectual property to be in place.

Night Ripper wrote:

(1) we can devalue things all the time by simply introducing competition. If you're the only person selling lemonade in the desert then you can charge whatever you want, perhaps even $100 a glass. However, if I open a lemonade stand next to you and start giving it away for free, I've devalued your lemonade. It's not clear why this is legal but copying shouldn't be

In many cases, this sort of thing is illegal. See price floors.

But it's not always about devaluation of copied product, either. It may involve things that aren't normally copied at all, or that there is only one of. Take the schematics for a new air conditioner design (someone used that example earlier). People patent such designs so that others cannot profit from them. Imagine a design that, if sold to an air conditioning company, would be worth $200,000. Don't you think it is right for the person who invented the design, and who bases their profession on invention, to have some legal protection? I don't see why not.

How about public defamation? While reputations aren't necessarily considered intellectual property, I think they are still relevant to this discussion. There are multi-million dollar lawsuits over slander and other sorts of defamation. Why? Because the reputation of a person can be considered a business asset. It doesn't matter that a reputation is immaterial or scarce (?). If you tarnish someone's reputation and draw them bad publicity, it can certainly negatively effect them, and often times financially. You don't think we should have laws against slander, simply because reputations aren't scarce?

Of course in many of these cases it's not going to be as clear cut as stealing a CD from a store, and acknowledging that the store now has one less CD to sell. Often times it is difficult to come to a conclusion regarding the damages of a person/business, but that certainly doesn't mean no laws should be in place for intangibles.

By the way, that software you made money off of: Let us suppose you invented it, and wanted to sell that software to companies (to make your millions!). You don't think it would be wrong of me to steal the software you created, and then profit from it? Scratch that, why even exert the energy when I can just steal the money you already made? After all, the money you made is immaterial when it is in a bank, isn't it? As long as we see no green, it's for the taking, right?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I don't think that's a good enough reason, even if I agreed with your scarce definition. The scarcity (how you're using the term) of a product doesn't seem relevant . . .

Of course it's relevant. If there were an unlimited number of identical bicycles surrounding us at all times it would be absurd to claim a particular bicycle as yours and then claim I stole it even though you weren't using it.

Zetherin wrote:

In many cases, this sort of thing is illegal. See price floors.

Giving away free lemonade is illegal? In what country? It's not at all and it's hard to see why, even if it were, it would make any difference to me. Arguing for some current illegitimate law by appealing to other illegitimate laws isn't very convincing. FYI, examples of price floors include minimum wage laws which actually harm low wage earners and alcoholic beverages which are meant to discourage consumption. These kinds of nanny-state laws are the exact kind of laws I'm against.

Zetherin wrote:

Don't you think it is right for the person who invented the design, and who bases their profession on invention, to have some legal protection? I don't see why not.

What does protecting the profession of some person have to do with anything? Should cars be made illegal so buggy whip manufacturers can still have a job?

Zetherin wrote:

You don't think we should have laws against slander, simply because reputations aren't scarce?

This is not the place to discuss this. Start a new thread and I'll comment there.

1 Reply

Night Ripper wrote:

Of course it's relevant. If there were an unlimited number of identical bicycles surrounding us at all times it would be absurd to claim a particular bicycle as yours and then claim I stole it even though you weren't using it.

What does the number or make of the bicycles have to do with my claiming ownership over a bicycle? It doesn't matter how many identical Hondas are parked on the same street my Honda is parked on. If someone attempts to take the car, it's stealing as I own the car! And yes, that ought to be illegal!

Quote:

Giving away free lemonade is illegal? In what country? It's not at all and it's hard to see why, even if it were, it would make any difference to me. Arguing for some current illegitimate law by appealing to other illegitimate laws isn't very convincing. FYI, examples of price floors include minimum wage laws which actually harm low wage earners and alcoholic beverages which are meant to discourage consumption.

When price wars get out of control, many governments step in to set price floors. I believe this happened with China concerning airline tickets last year. Some airlines were selling tickets at up to a 70% discount, and this was severely hurting the economy. All the government funding was being wasted, as the airlines were not promoting or stimulating the growth of their businesses (which was the point of the funding).

And, yes, government intervention like this can definitely be beneficial to the economy.

Quote:

These kinds of nanny-state laws are the exact kind of laws I'm against.

And I agree with you in some cases, like the seat belt one. But not this.

Quote:

What does protecting the profession of some person have to do with anything? Should cars be made illegal so buggy whip manufacturers can still have a job?

The point was that, intangibles can be just as valuable as tangibles. And it's unfair not to have laws to protect an inventor who sells intangibles, but at the same time have laws to protect a jeweler (for instance) who sells tangibles. A product is a product. And both parties can be hurt if someone steals their product.

Quote:

This is not the place to discuss this. Start a new thread and I'll comment there.

That's fine, but I just want it to be clear that these issues don't just stop at the examples we've used. Intangible assets certainly have value, and there's no reason not to have laws protecting them.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

You write a screen play over two years. Some asshat presents it first to a major studio, as a treatment, via gossip asshat heard from someone the writer and he knew. The studio takes you as the interloper, but negs the both of you.

You present it yourself to another major studio, in treatment form, and the studio says no, and posts their new film in production a few weeks later in Variety, with a slightly different title.

I was the one who earned the money during all that writing.

I felt fucked over. At this point, I don't remember which of those episodes happened first

I do understand that idea is not copywright worthy.

I get that some theft is not court worthy, but it is still slime.

I also understand the bile of being fucked over.

I don't suppose Night Ripper understands that.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Well, there are laws against screenplay plagiarism, so, yes, I suppose this could be a very real issue. And yet another example of how an intangible asset has value, and why it is a good idea to have laws which protect peoples' intangible assets.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

This applies to other intangibles like food recipes. It should be illegal to steal a company's special recipe for a food item, since that recipe is the essence of that product. If everyone knew the special recipe, the product would lose value or competitive advantage.

Recipes are not subject to copyright protection, although the unique expression of a recipe might be. Secret recipes (such as, e.g., the recipe for Coca-Cola) are protected as trade secrets. In other words, they are only protected so long as they're secret.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

That's what ownership is. Ownership is the right to control an object. If you control an object, you get to decide who uses it.

Indeed. That's a concept that Night Ripper understands only imperfectly.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Well, there is the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and that helps companies protect their i-property, right? I am not sure exactly what that Act entails, but I'll do some more research on it later.

Regardless, I think most acknowledge that having laws for intellectual property, on some level, is wise.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Well, there is the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and that helps companies protect their i-property, right? I am not sure exactly what that Act entails, but I'll do some more research on it later.

The UTSA is of limited use. The primary responsibility remains with the possessor of the trade secret to keep it secret.

Zetherin wrote:

Regardless, I think most acknowledge that having laws for intellectual property, on some level, is wise.

From a thief's perspective, all property laws are unwise.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

From a thief's perspective, all property laws are unwise.

Haha, "in the eye of the beholder", right? Man, this theme is just rampant nowadays.

So what if that is true? That doesn't mean that having intellectual property laws is unwise. Some people can simply be wrong. A thief that steals my car may believe that it ought to be legal to steal my car, but that doesn't mean it ought to be legal to steal cars. We have good reasons for why stealing cars should be illegal.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
copying doesn't necessarily diminish the value of an asset, which I agree with

Since I was only ever talking about myself that's all I needed you to agree to. I never said that no one else can recognize intangible property as legitimate. If I had said that then you would be catching me moving goal posts. I only ever said that I do not recognize it as legitimate.

You are moving the goalposts yet again. I'll also note that you taking my idea fragment out of context to pretend I have agreed with you. I was agreeing that copying doesn't "necessarily" take value away but clearly disputing your claim that it takes "nothing" away with examples where it clearly does. You are seizing on a fragment of a sentence to pretend like I've ceded your point when in fact I was actively disputing it.

You also did not argue that intellectual property is only not legitimate in the case where you copy things you would not purchase, you made a sweeping case that intellectual property is not legitimate because it is not "scarce" and because copying takes "nothing" from the person you are taking ideas from.

When I demonstrate that your claim that copying takes "nothing" is false in certain scenarios you conveniently wish to claim the examples are cases you had always intended to exclude but that's transparent equivocation, you were clearly making a sweeping case about the validity of intellectual property rights (you didn't say that intellectual property is only invalid in cases where you personally want to copy something you would not have purchased, you said it was invalid because it was not "scarce") and when examples are given that show your claims to have been false you prefer instead to pretend that your claims had always excluded those examples.

Thing is, if you are "only ever talking about myself that's all" how does that square with your notion that intellectual property is not legitimate because it is "scarce"? The latter is not a statement that pertains to yourself exclusively and your arguments to support it have holes (that you then claim you were never talking about).

So is intellectual property legitimate for others but not for you or something? How are you going to reconcile the sweeping arguments you made in this thread about property rights with this sudden claim that you are only talking about your limited use cases where your claims are right and not the many other use cases where your claims are demonstrably false?

Quote:

Please admit defeat and move on if you wish to be seen as intellectually honest.

Why? You are the one obsessed with victory and defeat on an internet forum, why should I humor you? Why shouldn't I just carry on having arguments and conversations and not care about your obsession with victory?

I don't care about "winning" this argument. If you show an argument of mine to have been wrong, I will admit to it (and I won't revise it after the fact either) but I'm not getting into your victory proclamation thing, I'd feel too silly.

Night Ripper wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
You beg off on the pretext of people being mean to you instead of addressing their arguments but are as quick to try to insult as anyone else.

I only show disrespect to those that have shown it first. If you can't take it don't dish it out.

Whoever said I can't take it? I am not the one begging off from arguments and whining about being insulted, I am just pointing out that you have no compunction against it while hypocritically whining about it, I am not myself complaining about your insults and using them as excuses to not address your arguments. That's your gig, not mine.

Insult away. I am probably not going to find it nearly as insulting as you would like. I care about whether you have the capacity to construct and address arguments, I'm not going to use your insults as a pretext to beg off and I'm not the one whining about them and declaring that you have "won" the discussion by "default" by ignoring the people who don't treat your ego with kid gloves.

So somewhere in that emoting, why not address your claim that intellectual property is not legitimate but how you are only talking about yourself or somesuch? I'm interested in how you are going to argue your way out of that hole you dug yourself.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

So what if that is true? That doesn't mean that having intellectual property laws is unwise. Some people can simply be wrong. A thief that steals my car may believe that it ought to be legal to steal my car, but that doesn't mean it ought to be legal to steal cars. We have good reasons for why stealing cars should be illegal.

That was precisely joe's point.

Not all beholders are created equal.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

I have no quarrels with that. After all, I'm not the guy here who is searching for a justification to steal intellectual property.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

What does the number or make of the bicycles have to do with my claiming ownership over a bicycle? It doesn't matter how many identical Hondas are parked on the same street my Honda is parked on. If someone attempts to take the car, it's stealing as I own the car! And yes, that ought to be illegal!

Why? That's retarded. Just get in another identical Honda and drive off! Why waste everyone's time by worrying about which identical Honda is really yours.

If someone were to swap all the cars on the street randomly, the next morning you would sweat up and down that some different Honda was really yours.

Why does making it a Honda instead of a bicycle matter anyways? Couldn't we have just stuck to my analogy?

Zetherin wrote:

When price wars get out of control, many governments step in to set price floors. I believe this happened with China concerning airline tickets last year. Some airlines were selling tickets at up to a 70% discount, and this was severely hurting the economy. All the government funding was being wasted, as the airlines were not promoting or stimulating the growth of their businesses (which was the point of the funding).

And, yes, government intervention like this can definitely be beneficial to the economy.

I didn't ask you whether it was beneficial to the economy. I asked you when was giving away lemonade ever illegal. Do you think that people should be jailed if they try to give away lemonade? Please try to stick to the discussion instead of going off-topic.

Zetherin wrote:

The point was that, intangibles can be just as valuable as tangibles. And it's unfair not to have laws to protect an inventor who sells intangibles, but at the same time have laws to protect a jeweler (for instance) who sells tangibles. A product is a product. And both parties can be hurt if someone steals their product.

A product is not just a product. That's the entire point of this discussion. A jeweler can only sell a limited number of jewels. Artwork can be copied indefinitely.

Zetherin wrote:

That's fine, but I just want it to be clear that these issues don't just stop at the examples we've used. Intangible assets certainly have value, and there's no reason not to have laws protecting them.

I disagree. Make a new thread and I'll explain why but don't think that going off-topic here has gained you any ground with me. It hasn't.

Zetherin wrote:

Well, there are laws against screenplay plagiarism, so, yes, I suppose this could be a very real issue. And yet another example of how an intangible asset has value, and why it is a good idea to have laws which protect peoples' intangible assets.

Plagiarism is a form of fraud. The victim is whoever was defrauded, the studio in this case.

I'm sure the guy that had his lemonade stand put out of business by the guy giving away free lemonade felt "fucked over" but that's tough ****. The world isn't all about you and your hurt feelings.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I was agreeing that copying doesn't "necessarily" take value away but clearly disputing your claim that it takes "nothing" away with examples where it clearly does.

I never made such a claim.

Robert Gentel wrote:

You also did not argue that intellectual property is only not legitimate in the case where you copy things you would not purchase, you made a sweeping case that intellectual property is not legitimate because it is not "scarce"

I did make this claim.

Robert Gentel wrote:

and because copying takes "nothing" from the person you are taking ideas from.

I never made such a claim.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Thing is, if you are "only ever talking about myself that's all" how does that square with your notion that intellectual property is not legitimate because it is "scarce"?

Because I said I was only talking about myself in the case of devaluing not in the case of scarcity. It's really quite simple if you read back over the thread.

Robert Gentel wrote:

I am just pointing out that you have no compunction against it while hypocritically whining about it

That's laughable. I'm against violence but I'll defend myself, is that hypocritical? No, it's not because what I really mean is that I'm against the initiation of violence. I have no problem using violence in response to an attack. If you start something, I'll be glad to finish it.

You're still stuck in tough guy mode. I'm just a weak pussy whining and you're the big tough guy that is too strong to worry about that kind of bullshit. Please, nobody is impressed by your routine.

1 Reply

Copyright Infringement

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know