Declaration of Independence

[gwynevans]

Originally Posted by Fanas

Drugs still cost ridiculous amounts of money, way over reasonable profit. If people can be saved by showing a finger to the greedy corporations, then I say - go for it. Drug companies still will come up with new drugs.

You'd do well to investigate a bit further - the problem is that the "ridiculous amounts" of money have to not only pay for the costs of the single drug they're charged for, but also the costs involved in the development/testing/trials of the 100's that don't end up as being suitable.

While it's not as might be liked, in the real world, if patents, etc, were changed such that the costs were unable to be recouped, then there's no way the "Drug companies still will come up with new drugs", as they're not charities & would immediately stop almost all R&D.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gwynevans

You'd do well to investigate a bit further - the problem is that the "ridiculous amounts" of money have to not only pay for the costs of the single drug they're charged for, but also the costs involved in the development/testing/trials of the 100's that don't end up as being suitable.

While it's not as might be liked, in the real world, if patents, etc, were changed such that the costs were unable to be recouped, then there's no way the "Drug companies still will come up with new drugs", as they're not charities & would immediately stop almost all R&D.

Precisely. Well said.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think you have have misunderstood me. I said that unless there was a legal system in place to allow drug companies to be reimbursed for their costs, no company would be willing to spend the huge amount of money it takes to create a new drug, and that to manufacture a drug illegally is therefore both morally and legally "wrong".

But, presumably you'd agree, it might not be morally 'wrong' to use that illegally manufactured drug.

[PKFFW]

Personally I think there is a difference between a government funded safety net for health and welfare and the idea that the government should provide free access to all books of the world for all of its citizens.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HarryT]

I think the "right" thing to do is for wealthly countries to buy "legitimate" drugs, and donate them to poor countries, as a part of their foreign aid expenditure. I don't believe it can ever be justifyable for patented drugs to be illegally manufactured without the permission of the patent holder. Those drugs would not have existed in the first place had the drug company not spent the huge sums to create them.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't believe it can ever be justifyable for patented drugs to be illegally manufactured without the permission of the patent holder.

That's where our opinions differ.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

That's where our opinions differ.

That's fine .

[Fanas]

Originally Posted by gwynevans

You'd do well to investigate a bit further - the problem is that the "ridiculous amounts" of money have to not only pay for the costs of the single drug they're charged for, but also the costs involved in the development/testing/trials of the 100's that don't end up as being suitable.

While it's not as might be liked, in the real world, if patents, etc, were changed such that the costs were unable to be recouped, then there's no way the "Drug companies still will come up with new drugs", as they're not charities & would immediately stop almost all R&D.

Yes, I do understand that development costs money. But in most cases prices are too high even considering the big development costs. Why else drug market would be one of the most profitable business.

In any case I am idealistic person and I find the situation of medical care being too expensive for most of the world, if not criminal, then at least highly immoral.

As for intellectual property, while I think that creators must get their share of the pie, I also see that the current copyright laws are insult to the people.
*Fun fact* Whenever I buy empty cd or dvd percent of that sale goes to the anti-piracy organization, no matter what I write in it, I am still considered a criminal.
The problem is all the middle-men, the original creator gets only a fraction of a fraction, while various blood-sucking organizations are profiteering from it.

[Fanas]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Personally I think there is a difference between a government funded safety net for health and welfare and the idea that the government should provide free access to all books of the world for all of its citizens.

Cheers,
PKFFW

About books.
The best situation would be this:
1. All books ever released must be converted to electronic format.
2. E-books must be accessible either for free or for a price which would be considered symbolic. Like 1$ per book. Sort of a public library version of e-books.
3. Paper books becomes a luxury, bought partly because of it's content, but mainly because of it's value as a collectible. Bringing some more profit to the author.

[Dr. Drib]

I am completely opposed to #10.


Don

[pking36330]

Originally Posted by Fanas

I have no way of buying them, unless I want to wait for them to be shipped across the Atlantic and paying extra for shipping which I don't need, I need only book. So I have to steal.

No, you don't "have to steal", you CHOOSE to steal.

So that means you admit to being a pre-meditated thief. You are using these geographic, format, and copyright restrictions to justify your actions, but they don't...you are still a thief. You know you are wrong because you used the word "steal". There is no justification for theft.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Fanas

About books.
The best situation would be this:
1. All books ever released must be converted to electronic format.
2. E-books must be accessible either for free or for a price which would be considered symbolic. Like 1$ per book. Sort of a public library version of e-books.
3. Paper books becomes a luxury, bought partly because of it's content, but mainly because of it's value as a collectible. Bringing some more profit to the author.

The best situation in your opinion.

Really, why should all books be made available for free or for a symbolic price? Someone has gone to the effort of writing that story so why should you not go to the effort of paying a reasonable price for it if you want to read it?

I'm all for libraries and if you want to wait in line until you can borrow a copy that is fine, but the idea that all books must be available for free to everyone is just plain selfish. The work you do you expect to be paid for don't you?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

So... bill... in effect, you are saying that while you have all the rights in the world, authors have absolutely none besides the right to entertain you for no compensation.

Pass.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by pking36330

No, you don't "have to steal", you CHOOSE to steal.

So that means you admit to being a pre-meditated thief. You are using these geographic, format, and copyright restrictions to justify your actions, but they don't...you are still a thief. You know you are wrong because you used the word "steal". There is no justification for theft.

I don't like pirates much, but name calling is _way_ out of line. Please do not repeat it.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by pking36330

No, you don't "have to steal", you CHOOSE to steal.

So that means you admit to being a pre-meditated thief. You are using these geographic, format, and copyright restrictions to justify your actions, but they don't...you are still a thief. You know you are wrong because you used the word "steal". There is no justification for theft.

You're american right ?