Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 12:20 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

Because you own your idea, ideas can be stolen just like any tangible thing, and theft of all sorts ought to be illegal. That is why.

Not to mention the economic reasons that were spoken of earlier.


I disagree that an idea can be owned. If this disagreement were about something objective, say, the height of the Statue of Liberty, we could just go out and measure it to settle the disagreement. Unfortunately, this is not the case so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 12:22 am
Night Ripper wrote:
You own yourself

You may have to clarify your principle then. What exactly does "yourself" in this sentence comprise of?
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 12:27 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
You own yourself

You may have to clarify your principle then. What exactly does "yourself" in this sentence comprise of?


Arms, legs, head, torso, etc... I'm not sure what you're confused about.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 12:30 am
@Night Ripper,
I didn't know if you just meant your body. "Yourself" could mean a number of things.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 12:34 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

I didn't know if you just meant your body. "Yourself" could mean a number of things.


Are you a dualist? As far as I know, I'm just a body. I'm open to evidence to the contrary though.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 12:44 am
@Night Ripper,
When my friend pisses on my face and I begin to cry, he often says, "Get yourself together!", and he is usually referring to my emotional well being, not anything material per se. When an interviewer says, "Tell me about yourself", he's not looking for you to describe the scar on the back of your left leg - no, the interviewer is looking to learn more about your work history, which people consider to be a part of who you are.

I don't know if I would be considered a dualist, but I acknowledge we have personalities and other such relations which are immaterial, and sometimes when people use "you" or "yourself", they are referring to those immaterials.

The point is, I had good reason to question what you meant by "yourself", since people use that word to refer to a number of different things.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 01:00 am
When I discover a good argument for why ideas can be owned, I'll post it.

Until then, over and out.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 11:16 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:
You said I made a claim that nobody devalues intangible property when I was only making a claim about myself.


Nonsense, I said that you have made sweeping arguments about the validity of intellectual property rights in general, not just in the cases where you personally decide to help yourself to intellectual property.

You conveniently ignore the pointed questions about how your arguments can reconcile their sweeping nature about the very validity of intellectual property rights with this bit of revisionism.

Quote:
Anyways, you're on my ignore list now since you can't seem to keep this from getting personal unlike mostly respectful people such as EmperorNero and Zetherin.


I've gotten no more "personal" with you than you have with this very remark, and this is your intellectually dishonest way of begging off from arguments.

When it suits you you feel perfectly comfortable getting much more personal (like your sophomoric comment about how you are sure you make more money than I do) but shamelessly invoke personal respect when it suits you to get out of an argument.
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 02:32 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

When I discover a good argument for why ideas can be owned, I'll post it.

Until then, over and out.
When it comes to art, the thing is, the artist's goal is to have what once belonged entirely to them, come alive in the minds of other people.

So Mark Twain threatened to rewrite Tom Sawyer. Tom Sawyer was already in the public domain. I own Tom Sawyer.

How can it be other than this: we pay authors because they often aren't independently wealthy.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 12:17 pm
There is a viral email/Facebook post going around exclaiming that the Senate is considering a bill that would create an online blacklist of Internet sites Americans would be prohibited from visiting. It urges people to sign a petition at this site: http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/?source=fb

Here's the rest of the story:


Quote:
Bill Would Give Justice Department Power to Shutter Piracy Sites Worldwide

* By David Kravets Email Author
* September 20, 2010 |
* 3:33 pm |

Lawmakers introduced legislation Monday that would let the Justice Department seek U.S. court orders against piracy websites anywhere in the world, and shut them down through the sites’ domain registration.

The bipartisan legislation, dubbed the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, (.pdf) amounts to the Holy Grail of intellectual-property enforcement. The recording industry and movie studios have been clamoring for such a capability since the George W. Bush administration. If passed, the Justice Department could ask a federal court for an injunction that would order a U.S. domain registrar or registry to stop resolving an infringing site’s domain name, so that visitors to PirateBay.org, for example, would get an error message.

“In today’s global economy the internet has become the glue of international commerce –- connecting consumers with a wide array of products and services worldwide,” said Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) in a statement announcing the bill. “But it’s also become a tool for online thieves to sell counterfeit and pirated goods, making hundreds of millions of dollars off of stolen American intellectual property.”

The bill would direct injunctions at a piracy site’s domain registrar, if the registration was through a U.S. company. If not, the Justice Department could serve the court order at the registry for the site’s top-level domain. Registry’s for the dot-com, dot-net and dot-org domains are all U.S.-based, and thus within the courts’ jurisdiction. For domains not under U.S. control, the bill would demand that internet service providers in the United States block resolution of the address upon a court order, but overseas users would not be impacted.

If history is a guide, though, the bill might fail in Congress and might not even be necessary.

The Bush administration in 2008 threatened to veto the legislation that created the nation’s first copyright czar until similar, less expansive Justice Department powers were removed. At the time, the White House complained that directing the attorney general to sue copyright infringers “could result in Department of Justice prosecutors serving as pro bono lawyers for private copyright holders regardless of their resources. In effect, taxpayer-supported department lawyers would pursue lawsuits for copyright holders, with monetary recovery going to industry.”

Things may be different under President Barack Obama. The president has tapped five former Recording Industry Association of America lawyers to key Justice Department positions. And the government, under the code name Operation in Our Sites, has recently seized the domains of at least two first-run movie sites under a process similar to the one outlined in Monday’s proposed legislation.

Bob Pisano, the Motion Picture Association of America chief executive, applauded the measure’s introduction.

“These sites, whose content is hosted and whose operators are located throughout the world, take many forms. But they have in common the simple fact that they all materially contribute to, facilitate and/or induce the illegal distribution of copyrighted works, such as movies and television programs,” Pisano said.

Mitch Bainwol, the RIAA’s chairman, welcomed the proposal.

“The trafficking of pirated American movies and music from rogue websites outside our borders is a big business,” Bainwol said. “This bill is a welcome first step toward cutting off the financial lifeline that sustains these illegal operations and threatens the livelihoods of countless members of the American music community.”

Websites eligible for Justice Department targeting — if the measure is approved — must be “dedicated to infringing activities,” according to the text’s language. A site can be “subject to civil forfeiture” if it’s “primarily designed” as a pirate site with “no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use” other than to distribute pirated or counterfeited wares.

The measure’s other sponsors include Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), and committee members Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin), Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania), Chuck Schumer (D-New York), Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota). Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) are also co-sponsors.


Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/justice-department-piracy/comment-page-1/#ixzz13g6qWaim


Here's the full text of the bill if anyone wants to read it:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3804/text
0 Replies
 
OpSec Security
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 11:46 am
It prevents us to be innovative if we just steal from others.
0 Replies
 
longfun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 03:26 am
@stevecook172001,
Copyright is theft. a limiter on evolving ideas, If we would share ideas more openly, labor would be re-valued, production plants would reduce in size but increase in numbers, stimulates local production and solutions, even local improvements. An example, in India you have fuel saving technologies which western manufacturers won't use as their is no copyright profit in it.
CFK's in refrigerators were only replaced when the copyright ran out even if the replacement was available years before. Look at soja production and monopoly positions of geneticly manipulated seeds etc. (not naming anybody)

It's like the I-pad, if there were no copyrights we would have had i-pads a long time ago (As in China where you can find local versions of it)
without copy right governments can control things much better.
In the end an idea is just a sum of quantum states in your brain, how can you claim it your own and deny the idea to be emerging somewhere else and prevent the usage of the idea.
longfun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 03:30 am
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:

So funny.
If I make and sell car parts for a living, Ripper is willing to pay me for them.
If I make and sell copies of my song for a living, he is not willing.

Joe(clearly something missing here)Nation

You will be payed if you sing it for him! (labour)
The words and notes aren't yours, not event he sequence you placed them in.
you're just lucky there is no copyright on words and notes as you would have been paying royalties just to make music or hear or think words.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 06:23 am
@longfun,
The examples you give are for patents, not copyrights.
longfun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 09:20 am
@DrewDad,
True, strings of words fall under copyright the way you produced or reproduce this string falls under patent 9patent for the print technology).
Although there are differences between patents and copyright the principle is the same.
I wish I owned the copyright on the single letters of the alphabet LOL
as Copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted by the law of a jurisdiction to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work .
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state (national government) to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of an invention.
the first limits the free exchange of information.
The second limits the free exchange of practices and goods.

Information and in such goods should be free, How can anyone talk about free global market if one can't leave such information to flow freely.

If anything is worth investigating It will be investigated. If anything is worth producing it will be produced but you will have no profit, the one producing and selling will have the profit of their labor So to win you need to be the best and not as Monsanto own the patents and bind the client as he can't go elsewhere or invent it himself.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 10:10 am
@longfun,
longfun wrote:
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state (national government) to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of an invention.
[this] limits the free exchange of practices and goods.

I see it differently.

Without a patent, we wouldn't know what's in the medicine that we're taking, or why it works. The pharma company would keep the ingredients and manufacturing details secret, and we would pay high prices indefinitely.

Because the pharma company can make a medicine exclusively for a while, we have the benefits of open disclosure, plus generic drugs once the patent runs out.

Now, there are people who misuse patents, but that doesn't mean that the whole system is broken.
Night Ripper
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 05:41 pm
@DrewDad,
Actually, pharmaceutical companies as we know them wouldn't even exist. Without patents to protect their investments in millions of dollars in research most research would be publicly funded.

As things stand, fewer than 5% of medicines that the World Health Organization considers essential are subject to patent monopolies. The other 5% could most likely be researched publicly for the common good of everyone. Millions of dollars are donated to charity for HIV and cancer research already so I really doubt that pharmaceutical companies will be missed.

You're also talking about whether or not the system works which is a pragmatic argument. I'm against all forms of intellectual property because of certain principles. I think intellectual property is immoral. Working or non-working is irrelevant. That's like saying that slavery works. Maybe so but it's still immoral.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 07:43 pm
@Night Ripper,
Now there´s a very important point of agreement between us worth underlining...specially considering that the so called " inventions" emerge with a social context and History behind them in an converged evolutionary process often repeatable given the right ingredients...network modern society´s will stablish this as the standard natural form of looking into the problem concerning intellectual property...
0 Replies
 
longfun
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2011 06:05 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Because the pharma company can make a medicine exclusively for a while, we have the benefits of open disclosure, plus generic drugs once the patent runs out.

Now, there are people who misuse patents, but that doesn't mean that the whole system is broken.

True but this can be solved in a different way (it takes a completely different set of legislation). Notice thatthe system as it stands now can keep complete countries in the dark.
If China would have kept itself to copyright and patent laws as they exist in the west they would never have been able to grow as fast as they do now.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2011 07:57 am
@longfun,
Perhaps you could describe the alternate solution?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/18/2019 at 10:12:56