A Modest Proposal - Eternal Copyright

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Try owning a field without government.

--
Bill

It's not that difficult. All you have to be able to do is to chase away anyone who wants to take it over. Or you can build fences and put locks on it. You have at least some means to protect your property without government, and these means can be pretty effective. Locks, safes, fences can keep people out or make it more difficult to access your property, and your strength or weapons can keep people out.

A government gives you added protection for your property, but it simply isn't true that without government you don't have any property protection. People still have property in Somalia.

Intellectual property, on the other hand is meaningless without government. Anyone who sees your book can make copies, and there is nothing you can do about it. It is only government that could prevent people from making copies.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Yes, the selling price is negotiable. The buyer may attempt to come to an agreement with the seller. If they can agree to a price, they make the exchange at that price. If not, no exchange is made.

No, if a text is uploaded, it is available to anyone who wishes to access it. That is just the nature of the network, if you do not wish anyone to access your text simply do not upload.

Now if someone wishes to resell your text in a different form than the one you originally uploaded it as, meaning if a single bit has been changed than the original creator should be expected some compensation. Under Internet 2.0, (the non-anonymous 100% tracked internet) this compensation should be completed simply.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Intellectual property, on the other hand is meaningless without government. Anyone who sees your book can make copies, and there is nothing you can do about it. It is only government that could prevent people from making copies.

A government can only ask you to not make a copy, and they can also expend much effort into enforcing this no copying restriction, but they cannot actually make anyone not copy anything. Whether or not someone is going to do something is entirely up to them, as it has always been.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

No, if a text is uploaded, it is available to anyone who wishes to access it. That is just the nature of the network, if you do not wish anyone to access your text simply do not upload.

No, it is not the nature of the network. You can copy a file illegally, but you cannot expect that no one is going to do anything to stop you.

A government can only ask you to not make a copy, and they can also expend much effort into enforcing this no copying restriction, but they cannot actually make anyone not copy anything. Whether or not someone is going to do something is entirely up to them, as it has always been.

Nonsense. Governments do considerably more than merely "ask". That you care capable of copying the file doesn't mean you have any right to. Does the government merely "ask" me not to commit arson?

It wouldn't make sense to say "A government can only ask you to not commit, and they can also expend much effort into enforcing this no arson restriction, but they cannot actually make anyone not burn down buildings. Whether or not someone is going to do something is entirely up to them, as it has always been."

I'm not saying arson is as serious a matter as illegal copying, merely exposing the absurdity of your argument.

Perhaps you really are a copyright advocate. After all, you've done an outstanding job of making the anti-copyright position look utterly ridiculous.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

No, it is not the nature of the network. You can copy a file illegally, but you cannot expect that no one is going to do anything to stop you.



Nonsense. Governments do considerably more than merely "ask". That you care capable of copying the file doesn't mean you have any right to. Does the government merely "ask" me not to commit arson?

It wouldn't make sense to say "A government can only ask you to not commit, and they can also expend much effort into enforcing this no arson restriction, but they cannot actually make anyone not burn down buildings. Whether or not someone is going to do something is entirely up to them, as it has always been."

I'm not saying arson is as serious a matter as illegal copying, merely exposing the absurdity of your argument.

Perhaps you really are a copyright advocate. After all, you've done an outstanding job of making the anti-copyright position look utterly ridiculous.

I hate to say it, but Giggleton is right on this one. Enforcement of laws (in open Western Governments) is based on the premise of capturing the criminal after the crime has occurred. Without the occurrence, there is no cause for intervention.

(War is a different kettle of fish. Once war is declared, both sides operate under the rules that anything they can do to each other, they will, and proactive blocking is acceptable, to prevent extra damage. In essence, both sides have declared the other criminals up front, and are trying to invoke the death penalty on each other...)

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I hate to say it, but Giggleton is right on this one. Enforcement of laws (in open Western Governments) is based on the premise of capturing the criminal after the crime has occurred. Without the occurrence, there is no cause for intervention.

That can't be honestly said to be merely a "request". Does the government merely "request" that someone not commit arson? His position is that he should be allowed to copy anything he wants just because it is possible to do so. That enforcement of law doesn't happen until after the law is broken is irrelevant.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That can't be honestly said to be merely a "request". Does the government merely "request" that someone not commit arson? His position is that he should be allowed to copy anything he wants just because it is possible to do so. That enforcement of law doesn't happen until after the law is broken is irrelevant.

You're misconstruing the law. The concept of law says "If you do X, you will be punished for doing X", not that we will prevent you from doing X, trusting that the threat of punishment for doing X will sufficient deterrent. It will not stop a sufficiently determined person from doing X. In that, Giggleton is correct.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Nonsense. Governments do considerably more than merely "ask". That you care capable of copying the file doesn't mean you have any right to. Does the government merely "ask" me not to commit arson?

I believe I have the right to copy anything, whether or not I am capable of doing so is irrelevant.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I believe I have the right to copy anything, whether or not I am capable of doing so is irrelevant.

Why do you believe this?
Copying for personal gain/cheating on exams/avoiding paying for a product(stealing) or passing off anothers work as your own, is generally considered immoral/illegal.

Not as bad as murder, but way up on the list of things to avoid if you wish to think of your self as a moral person.

I don't care what you steal in a personal sense. Makes me irresponsible I suppose, but I am not in charge of your morality.

I suspect that you do care and feel guilty in some small way or you would not feel this constant need to justify/glorify your behavior.

Helen

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Why do you believe this?
Copying for personal gain/cheating on exams/avoiding paying for a product(stealing) or passing off anothers work as your own, is generally considered immoral/illegal.

Not as bad as murder, but way up on the list of things to avoid if you wish to think of your self as a moral person.

I don't care what you steal in a personal sense. Makes me irresponsible I suppose, but I am not in charge of your morality.

I suspect that you do care and feel guilty in some small way or you would not feel this constant need to justify/glorify your behavior.

Helen

Copying is in our nature. Personal gain is a very general term, every time I read a book I feel that I have gained something. Perhaps a small insight into the mind of another. This is how ideas spread I suppose.

I understand that authors need to be compensated for their work but we should be able to come up with a system that allows for free access to all texts while still compensating those texts creators.

I think it is immoral to tell that someone that they cannot read something because they cannot afford the price of admission. Copyright is holding back the potential of knowledge.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Copying is in our nature. Personal gain is a very general term, every time I read a book I feel that I have gained something. Perhaps a small insight into the mind of another. This is how ideas spread I suppose.

I understand that authors need to be compensated for their work but we should be able to come up with a system that allows for free access to all texts while still compensating those texts creators.

I think it is immoral to tell that someone that they cannot read something because they cannot afford the price of admission. Copyright is holding back the potential of knowledge.

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.

A starving person might want filet mignon served on a silver platter but they are not marching into 5 star restaurants and snatching it off a silver platter. Any food is better than none to most of the world's hungry.

An ill person (one with cancer perhaps) might want to go to a world reknowned treatment center but many would be better off if they had any treatment at all.

IMO you just want an excuse to take something without paying and all of this talk about internet 2.0 is nonsense. Not that I think you are a bad guy, just that you are an immature one concerned only with your own self and no-one else.

Helen

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I understand that authors need to be compensated for their work but we should be able to come up with a system that allows for free access to all texts while still compensating those texts creators.

Where does said compensation sprout from? Your contention is that you should be allowed to profit from the efforts of your fellow human beings, and that they be compensated by someone else instead of yourself. If your proposed system involves a pool of compensation generated by community contributions that is independent of the individual levels of consumption of said works, you've just described the tax system. You're perfectly welcome to patronise public libraries that are funded by said system. And you'd also notice that this is still a system that depends on citizens making small payments upfront in the form of said taxes, that is, it is still not "free access". The "free access" you demand does not exist because it would effectively cut off any means of compensating the authors. There has to be something going out of your pocket in order for there to be something going into the pockets of the authors.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You can say that copyright is theft, but based on what? Property exists without government, you can carry your possessions on your body or lock them up to prevent others from taking them.

But copyright is meaningless without government; copyright is a government-granted limited time monopoly on copying. Unlike physical property, once you let people read a book, there's nothing you can do to prevent them from copying it. You can get the government to enforce your limited time monopoly.

Laws can be changed.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Limited copyright can't be construed as legalized theft, because it was copyright that essentially created the notion of intellectual property in the first place.

If you want to retain perpetual rights over a work of art, then there is an easy way to do it; never publish it. Ever.

As it is, copyright is an agreement that is made between authors and the public (via the government) that provides an incentive to publish (limited exclusive rights) in return for agreeing to let the work go into the public domain. If you publish you essentially have become a party of this agreement.



What any definition of property other than yours is warped?

--
Bill

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

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

You're misconstruing the law. The concept of law says "If you do X, you will be punished for doing X", not that we will prevent you from doing X, trusting that the threat of punishment for doing X will sufficient deterrent. It will not stop a sufficiently determined person from doing X. In that, Giggleton is correct.

I am misconstruing nothing. I never said that the law would stop a sufficiently determined person from doing anything. I did say that law isn't just a "request".