Copyright Infringement

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I agree, it's your intellectual property. But why do you treat your intellectual property like your property while claiming the very concept is invalid?

I'm not treating it like my intellectual property. You're simply confused. If I make a soup, I can put whatever ingredients I like in it. That's got jack squat to do with intellectual property.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
Ideas aren't scarce.

Good ones are.

Yet another person that doesn't understand scarcity. I'm not saying that there are few ideas. I'm saying that, once an idea exists, it's not scarce because there's an unlimited supply of THAT idea. At least educate yourself before you try to join the fray.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why would anyone take the time (sometimes years) to write or edit a book when they stand no chance of making a return for their effort?

Because it's worth doing. Because people who want to pay for it will pay for it. Because it's something that needs to be said.

I think that pro-patent people don't realize how completely the patent system has been perverted, to the detriment of our society... and I also believe that people don't understand how futile intellectual property patents truly are in the digital age.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

I'm not treating it like my intellectual property.

Yes you are, you even use possessive language about it, calling it "yours". You protect it against copying. Why do you make it more difficult to copy if you do not consider it intellectual property?

Quote:

You're simply confused. If I make a soup, I can put whatever ingredients I like in it. That's got jack squat to do with intellectual property.

Yes, mainly because soup isn't intellectual property. What is your point? Did you consider this to be an argument against anything? If so, what?

Also notice that your analogy itself is based on possession of the property of soup. You can do what you want with your soup but you can't with mine. That is what property is about. Your comparison only strengthens the notion that intellectual property is property.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Yes you are, you even use possessive language about it, calling it "yours".

Let me rephrase it for you then. Any software that I author, I am free to author it in any way I see fit. I'm not claiming ownership on it. It's just a turn of phrase. Do you think it's literally raining cats and dogs too when people say it? I hope not. If your argument rests on a common expression then it's a fairly weak argument.

Robert Gentel wrote:

You protect it against copying. Why do you make it more difficult to copy if you do not consider it intellectual property?

I put copy protection in it because I think it will make me more money that way. I'm sure you knew that though.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The patent system is, indeed, completely outdated for technology and rife with patent trolls. Ridiculously broad patents (Amazon one-click anyone?) are routinely issued and it's a patently ridiculous mess right now.

But that doesn't invalidate the concept of intellectual property, just the over-broad interpretation of intellectual property. It is an indictment on the implementation of intellectual property rights but not the concept itself of intellectual property.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Why would anyone take the time (sometimes years) to write or edit a book when they stand no chance of making a return for their effort?

Because it's worth doing. Because people who want to pay for it will pay for it. Because it's something that needs to be said.

I think that pro-patent people don't realize how completely the patent system has been perverted, to the detriment of our society... and I also believe that people don't understand how futile intellectual property patents truly are in the digital age.

Cycloptichorn

I never understand these silly arguments that nobody would ever produce art if it weren't for copyrights. Copyright laws have existed for around 300 years and great art has existed several times that number of years. People make art because they love it and it's a source of pride.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

The patent system is, indeed, completely outdated for technology and rife with patent trolls. Ridiculously broad patents (Amazon one-click anyone?) are routinely issued and it's a patently ridiculous mess right now.

But that doesn't invalidate the concept of intellectual property, just the over-broad interpretation of intellectual property. It is an indictment on the implementation of intellectual property rights but not the concept itself of intellectual property.

I guess the equation is -

Do modern patent laws lead to levels of innovation in products and ideas to a greater extent than they prevent existing ideas from being fully disseminated in ways that fully help everyone?

It's like the .GIF, LZW-compression formula. A company spent time and money developing a mathematical formula, great. But can they then patent math?

Another example: AIDS and other drugs, under patent, expensive while people suffer. And these companies use every trick in the book to re-patent and extend patents, rather than just make their formulas available for all to use.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:

The patent system is, indeed, completely outdated for technology and rife with patent trolls. Ridiculously broad patents (Amazon one-click anyone?) are routinely issued and it's a patently ridiculous mess right now.

But that doesn't invalidate the concept of intellectual property, just the over-broad interpretation of intellectual property. It is an indictment on the implementation of intellectual property rights but not the concept itself of intellectual property.

I guess the equation is -

Do modern patent laws lead to levels of innovation in products and ideas to a greater extent than they prevent existing ideas from being fully disseminated in ways that fully help everyone?

It's like the .GIF, LZW-compression formula. A company spent time and money developing a mathematical formula, great. But can they then patent math?

Another example: AIDS and other drugs, under patent, expensive while people suffer. And these companies use every trick in the book to re-patent and extend patents, rather than just make their formulas available for all to use.

Cycloptichorn

That ignores the moral aspects. Locking people in rape dungeons or stealing their property because they made a copy of some invention is yet another cost to add to that equation.

1 Reply

The thing that is getting me here is the Night Ripper seems to think that a plow is an idea. It's not. It's the result of an idea.

And the result of perhaps many trials and experiments and failures until the right angle of attack has been found, the right rivets to hold the thing together have been devised, the best way of attaching it to a tractor has been discovered through hours and days of trial and error.
Yet, night ripper seems to believe that if I see the finished product, I can simply replicate the invention, bypass all that experimental effort and possess and use it for my own benefit at no cost to myself and no payment to the persons who devised the finished product.

A plow is not an idea, it's a plow.

The same is true for a song.

If the people who download music who say they are only willing to download music at no cost to themselves were ever asked to put a value on their music collection, they would have to face the fact that either their entire collection is completely worthless (and therefore, ought to be deleted forthwith) or they'd have to admit to the value of their collection and further admit that they are simply cheapskates and thieves.

Joe(delete everything you thought wasn't worth buying now, you putz.)Nation

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

Let me rephrase it for you then. Any software that I author, I am free to author it in any way I see fit. I'm not claiming ownership on it. It's just a turn of phrase.

You can't wiggle out on the basis of wordplay. You are claiming rights to it, you are recognizing value in it, and you are protecting your value in it.

You are treating your intellectual property like intellectual property while merely insisting stubbornly that you aren't and that the concept is invalid.

Quote:

Do you think it's literally raining cats and dogs too when people say it?

No, but my argument isn't predicated on any logomachy or inordinately literal interpretation of what you are saying either. This is another of your many examples of intellectual dishonesty, you prefer to argue against what was not said, but that you can argue against, instead of what was said but that you cannot argue against.

Quote:

I hope not. If your argument rests on a common expression then it's a fairly weak argument.

Good thing it doesn't. But you continue to evade arguments with such facile dismissal. If my arguments "rest on a common expression" then yours rest on a dismissive wave of your hand and delusional self-image.

Quote:

I put copy protection in it because I think it will make me more money that way. I'm sure you knew that though.

Ok, so let's get this straight. You see the right to treat it like it is yours (you compared it to soup, which yes you could do what you want with if it is your property). You also see value in it and value in protecting it. And you sell copies of it. But you don't think it's intellectual property?

What would you call it then?

What is this software you protect and sell but that is not intellectual property? Out of pure curiosity I'm interested in knowing what we are talking about here.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

I never understand these silly arguments that nobody would ever produce art if it weren't for copyrights. Copyright laws have existed for around 300 years and great art has existed several times that number of years. People make art because they love it and it's a source of pride.

And yet "producing art" can also be expensive, both in terms of money and time. There are indeed examples of people who put their creative efforts on the net for free, but it is not long before you see some advertising or requests for donations. Maintaing a web site is not free. Publishing a book is not free. Editors are not free (and add a lot of value). The same could be said of any human endeavor. Why pay a policeman? Doesn't he take value in his contributions to society? Doesn't a scientist work for the love of science? A programmer work for the challenge of solving a difficult coding task? It is not a libertarian position that you can take the fruits of another's labor without compensation. If you don't like the amount asked, then don't take the fruits.

1 Reply

To me the central issue of Intellectual Property should consider what is actually being invented from scratch if anything is invented at all...
Take for instance the impossible metaphor of making a line which is neither straight or curve, a thing which is completely out of possibility...such did, yes, would be really creating something out of nothing but pure will...but mostly what we humans always have done is to edit and assemble together existing segments of information towards some goal inspired in what is around us and nurtured by previous cultural backgrounds. And this is even more accurate nowadays with Globalization and Internet around. Now the middle ground I can find given the effort of getting there before others is that we might agree at best with very limited rights for a short period of time in virtue of some merit that must be recognized and promoted. Holding back the release of such discovery´s, or in turn their free use, on the long run slows down the exponential rate of progress of a Society and does not optimizes resources...nevertheless I admit that companies and people on this field must make a living in order to continue developing their projects, but getting to the market in first place with some bright innovation in hand is already a good incentive just for itself.

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

You are claiming rights to it, you are recognizing value in it, and you are protecting your value in it.

I'm not claiming rights to anything but myself. I own myself and what I do with my time is my business. Part of that time is spent writing software and how I spend that time is also my business.

I'm done talking to you about this since your argument is nothing but an ad hominem. You claim I'm wrong because you claim I don't practice what I preach. However, even if that were true, which it's not, it's not a refutation of anything but your good manners.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Quote:

That ignores the moral aspects. Locking people in rape dungeons or stealing their property because they made a copy of some invention is yet another cost to add to that equation.

I think you would make a better argument if you avoided Appealing to Extremes.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Why pay a policeman? Doesn't he take value in his contributions to society? Doesn't a scientist work for the love of science? A programmer work for the challenge of solving a difficult coding task?

I've seen some loose definitions of art but I don't think being a policeman is an artistic endeavor. If it were then I wouldn't expect to pay for them unless I wanted them to do a performance for me personally.

engineer wrote:

It is not a libertarian position that you can take the fruits of another's labor without compensation.

The fruits of labor has nothing to do with property. Steal a block of metal from me and produce a sword. That sword is the fruit of your labor but it's still not your sword. It's my block of metal that is now damaged thanks to you.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
That ignores the moral aspects. Locking people in rape dungeons or stealing their property because they made a copy of some invention is yet another cost to add to that equation.

I think you would make a better argument if you avoided Appealing to Extremes.

Cycloptichorn

Do you honestly think that the government is going to send me a notice to appear in court or a notice to pay some fine for copyright infringement and allow me to ignore it without locking me in a rape dungeon or taking my house from me to pay the fines?

I admit it's extreme but it's the reality of laws.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

I never understand these silly arguments that nobody would ever produce art if it weren't for copyrights.

I don't think anyone in this thread is claiming that nobody would ever produce any. Only that fewer people would produce less of it.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
I never understand these silly arguments that nobody would ever produce art if it weren't for copyrights.

I don't think anyone in this thread is claiming that nobody would ever produce any. Only that fewer people would produce less of it.

I'm not convinced that this would be a bad thing at all, because the vast majority of art out there - in any form - is crap that nobody cares about.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
I never understand these silly arguments that nobody would ever produce art if it weren't for copyrights.

I don't think anyone in this thread is claiming that nobody would ever produce any. Only that fewer people would produce less of it.

If you say that the world would be bleak and devoid of art and therefore some people must be locked in rape dungeons or murdered to make the world have some kind of artistic content then I might consider that for a few moments before rejecting it.

However, once you simply state that it will only decrease the amount of artwork and not get rid of it completely, your argument is a complete joke. If you don't like classics then I feel sorry for you. Get some culture.

0 Replies

Copyright Infringement

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know