A Modest Proposal - Eternal Copyright

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by The Straven

Very good. What evidence can you provide to support your assertion? I take it you are necessarily arguing that copyright is primarily a moral rather than a legal concern; just how bad is limited copyright? Is it worse than manslaughter? First degree murder? Serial killing? Genocide? If I give my grandmother a couple of mp3s, is that better or worse than killing puppies? If I confess to my priest that I made a photocopy of a Farside strip to hang up at work, should he consider turning me in? Just how bad is theft itself, anyway? Maybe we should pass a law that punishes shoplifters by cutting their hands off, just to be safe.

Again, care to support your assertion? History suggests that your view is in fact the warped one. I present the writings and opinions of the U.S. Founding Fathers and other Enlightenment figures as evidence.

It's my opinion. I don't believe in different rules for different types of property.

Those same Founding Fathers were also slave owners.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I don't see a difference between tangible property and intellectual property.

Intellectual property is a government creation. Even without government, you can still protect your physical property by locking it up. This kind of property has existed for many thousands of years. But without government, you have no mechanism at all for protecting intellectual property.

Some businesses decide to forgo the protection of patents, for example, and use trade secrets. That way they can keep their technology as long as they can keep it secret. But once it gets out, they have no protection at all. If you don't like the deal that copyright gives you, you're free to forgo this protection. It's impossible to keep someone from copying it, but you're free to go it alone.

If you really believe that the public domain is theft, then anyone who uses public domain materials, or materials derived from the public domain is receiving stolen goods.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Intellectual property is a government creation.

Like I said; laws can be changed.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Like I said; laws can be changed.

Laws can be changed, what of it? Of course, in the US to make copyright eternal would require not a law change but a Constitutional amendment.

But your contention that the public domain is theft is to claim that regardless of what the law or the constitution says, the public domain is theft.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Laws can be changed, what of it? Of course, in the US to make copyright eternal would require not a law change but a Constitutional amendment.

But your contention that the public domain is theft is to claim that regardless of what the law or the constitution says, the public domain is theft.

Right.

Right again; but until such time as the laws are changed, we live with what we have.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It's my opinion. I don't believe in different rules for different types of property.

Those same Founding Fathers were also slave owners.

I think it took 'em a while though, they didn't sail from Plymouth with any, as far as I know.....
And I suppose any would have been native inhabitants, either captured, given or bought from same ?

Didn't someone learned say a society had to become lazy in order to "need" slaves ?
Or have a lot of warring to cope with, I suppose.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

I think it took 'em a while though, they didn't sail from Plymouth with any, as far as I know.....
And I suppose any would have been native inhabitants, either captured, given or bought from same ?

Plymouth wasn't part of the Revolutionary War.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Intellectual property is a government creation. Even without government, you can still protect your physical property by locking it up. This kind of property has existed for many thousands of years. But without government, you have no mechanism at all for protecting intellectual property.

There is no property without governement. Without exception. Without government, the strongest take what they want; your ability to protect what you define as "your property" only works if you are stronger than whoever wants to take it.

Property is a collection of rights the owner has over things. These rights vary significantly depending on the type of property and the type of ownership - but it really doesn't matter whether the property is tangible or intangible.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

It is less immoral to tell that someone that they cannot read something because they cannot afford the price of admission than it is to tell them that they cannot eat because they cannot afford food or live because they cannot afford to go to a doctor. There are many free books via pubic domain and libraries and very few free doctors and food resources.

To form an anology: you want to read be able to everything and think that you should have that right. You are angry that you cannot legally do so and make excuses based on your sense of deprivation.

Helen

A lot of united states tax dollars goes towards building bombs to kill people in foreign countries, this seems pretty immoral doesn't it? The entire system is garbage...

We are concerned with books here, and access to them.

Internet 2.0 is not nonsense, far from it. There are many working on the nuts and bolts of the new system. Internet 1.0 was built to be open, and as such bred a community who believed in the openness of the network to all. If Internet 2.0 is built to be closed, we can assume that it will breed the same.

Laws???????????????????

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

A lot of united states tax dollars goes towards building bombs to kill people in foreign countries, this seems pretty immoral doesn't it? The entire system is garbage...

We are concerned with books here, and access to them.

Internet 2.0 is not nonsense, far from it. There are many working on the nuts and bolts of the new system. Internet 1.0 was built to be open, and as such bred a community who believed in the openness of the network to all. If Internet 2.0 is built to be closed, we can assume that it will breed the same.

Laws???????????????????

We are talking about access to books. You can easily access them legally just by paying for them. Nobody prevents you from doing that. Internet 2.0 doesn't have to mean slave labor from content creators for your personal pleasure. Respect others' rights and contributions to society.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

We are talking about access to books. You can easily access them legally just by paying for them. Nobody prevents you from doing that. Internet 2.0 doesn't have to mean slave labor from content creators for your personal pleasure. Respect others' rights and contributions to society.

How do you measure an individuals contribution to society?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

How do you measure an individuals contribution to society?

If somebody writes a book that people want to read that person has already made a contribution. And you can respect their wishes or disregard them and just take what you want. Is that the "great society" you are dreaming of, where everybody ignores other people's rights because they think they will easily get away with it?

And what contribution did you make to society, to justify your boundless sense of entitlement?

And don't tell me you have already read all PD works worth reading.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

There is no property without governement. Without exception. Without government, the strongest take what they want; your ability to protect what you define as "your property" only works if you are stronger than whoever wants to take it.

Property is a collection of rights the owner has over things. These rights vary significantly depending on the type of property and the type of ownership - but it really doesn't matter whether the property is tangible or intangible.

Nonsense. Locks exist, without government, people can still lock their doors to protect their property. Even with government, such things as locking your doors are the primary means for protecting property. Government merely provides an extra level of protection for your property; the government will apprehend people who steal your property.

The claim that the public domain is "legalized theft" is an appeal to natural law, it is a claim that intellectual property is a right which exists even without government. If someone wants to claim that no property rights exist without government, then it is not possible for the public domain to be legalized theft.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Nonsense. Locks exist, without government, people can still lock their doors to protect their property. Even with government, such things as locking your doors are the primary means for protecting property. Government merely provides an extra level of protection for your property; the government will apprehend people who steal your property.

Then once your lock is broken, your property is public domain.

[dadioflex]

I addressed this real problem in an article that I re-upped a little while back.

http://dogsdespair.blogspot.com/2012...aper-book.html