View Single Post
Old 09-03-2011, 05:25 AM   #44
afa
The Forgotten
afa ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afa ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afa ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afa ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afa ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afa ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afa ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afa ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afa ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afa ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.afa ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
afa's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,136
Karma: 4689999
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dubai
Device: Kindle Paperwhite; Nook HD; Sony Xperia Z3 Compact
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phogg View Post
Wrong.
It is exactly equivelent in every way.
What is exactly equivalent?

Quote:
Every Phantom is not designed from scratch, and every book sold is not written only for that purchaser.
The point being...?

Quote:
Designing a new Rolls Royce Phantom would be equivelent to writing your own book.
That's neither here nor there. Semantics. I could easily argue that the people who design the car then hand it over to the engineers to physically build (I am, of course, grossly simplifying the process), similarly it is entirely possible that the person who 'designs' a book (i.e., develops the idea, fleshes out the plot, provides a detailed outline, etc.) then hands it to another (ghost) writer who physically writes it. In that case, the writer is equivalent to the builder, not the designer.

But that would drive this pointless argument further into uselessness.

Quote:
The example holds. It is not illegal to fabricate your own Phantom.
And if I had been referring to someone 'fabricating' their own book, then perhaps this point would have been valid. But instead, I was referring to the act of downloading a pirated copy off the Internet.

So instead, I will repeat the same question that I asked before, which initiated your response:

What's your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phogg View Post
If you do not sell.the Phantom, then you are not breaking any Patents. Which was the point of the rabit hole. Making a copy of something yourself strictly for your own use does not violate a patent.

Of course, it is often either prohibitively expensive or requires specialized knowledge, and it is seldom worth ones time...but it is perfectly legal to do.
I'm not sure that is true. I am by no means an expert on law, and if you admit to being such, then I will happily bow to your superior knowledge. But if this was speculative, then I will speculatively disagree. It just doesn't seem logical to me that the law would allow such blatant rip-offs.

If anything, I think the reverse is true: it is illegal, but is prohibitively expensive to prevent in its entirety.

Last edited by afa; 09-03-2011 at 05:29 AM.
afa is offline   Reply With Quote