Copyright is Out of Sight

[elcreative]

Actually "the most persistent, pig-headed jerk" gets the last word in because the rest of us get bored trying to have a reasoned discussion with people who can't appreciate logic and reason because they already "know" they're right... so the thread doesn't come to a halt, it just ends up with the most persistent, pig-headed jerks...

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Well...no. The idea is still right where it was before so no theft occurred.

What I can say, is that it's fairly easy to say that there was something ethically wrong (and most certainly illegal) if the plane was then sold or used for profit. However, if the plane was never, say, fueled up and flown it would be much harder to find something ethically wrong.

To my mind, that's why there are separate laws covering theft and copyright infringement. It's not black and white, and the greyness isn't something you can just ignore.



Not the way I see it. Copyright is there to protect a person's ability to profit from their ideas. Is that a subtle detail? I don't think so.



No way!!!

You don't get to say, "There you go, I win!" and shut down the thread. The Internet doesn't work that way.

It's always the most persistent, pig-headed jerk (like me) that gets the last word in.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Except, of course, that with copyright infringement you haven't "taken" anything. So I think we can both agree that no theft has occurred, not even in spirit.

yes, it occurred. People hear some author is great and his work is magical and hurry to darknet to download it rather than pay for his labor. Potential income is lost -- certainly not as high as publishers want you to think about losses to piracy but still certainly lost.

you keep hammering on that argument and that fiction is knowledge and wants to be free and it just sounds awful and egoistical...

you don't even want to read the best from mankind, all available for free in the public domain, no, you want useful knowledge from Stephanie Meyer's best sellers, which no doubt will help a poor African child get his daily bread and education, right?

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

you keep hammering on that argument and that fiction is knowledge and wants to be free and it just sounds awful and egoistical...

You seem confused. I've never even once hinted that "fiction is knowledge and wants to be free". Giggle keeps saying that, but I think it's a bit loopy myself.

[pietrocrazy]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

yes, it occurred. People hear some author is great and his work is magical and hurry to darknet to download it rather than pay for his labor. Potential income is lost -- certainly not as high as publishers want you to think about losses to piracy but still certainly lost.

you keep hammering on that argument and that fiction is knowledge and wants to be free and it just sounds awful and egoistical...

you don't even want to read the best from mankind, all available for free in the public domain, no, you want useful knowledge from Stephanie Meyer's best sellers, which no doubt will help a poor African child get his daily bread and education, right?

What a nice strawman argument you have made here.

Copyright is not theft. Even most people who are pro-copyright agree that it is not theft. Even most people who think copyright infringement is morally wrong don't think it's theft. Even the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that copyright infringement is not theft.

Why are you and certain other people so attached to the idea that copyright infringement is theft? Do you think it's not possible for someone to make the argument that copyright infringement is wrong without the word "theft" or "stealing" involved?

[wyndslash]

why are we still here? O_O

[Enkidu of Abydos]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

why are we still here? O_O

That is the great mystery of life...
Giggly, your kitty avatar is uber-cute !
Morty, your mustache (if the avatar is you) are almost the same as mine... Though the similarity ends there...

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

What a nice strawman argument you have made here.

Copyright is not theft. Even most people who are pro-copyright agree that it is not theft. Even most people who think copyright infringement is morally wrong don't think it's theft. Even the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that copyright infringement is not theft.

Why are you and certain other people so attached to the idea that copyright infringement is theft? Do you think it's not possible for someone to make the argument that copyright infringement is wrong without the word "theft" or "stealing" involved?

The problem is that "copyright infringement" has, for many people, become a term that does not imply any wrongdoing. The difference to theft is that the original owner still has a copy, but the similarity is that the infringer now has a copy he has taken by illegal means. Copyright gives the owner the almost exclusive right to create copies (with fair use exceptions) and if you get yourself a free copy you have trampled on his rights and unduly enriched yourself. In the end, what is important is that the infringer has obtained something he has no right to get without paying for it. Arguing "the original is still with the author" is just ridiculous semantics, trying to justify a despicable act. Whatever you call that act is another matter.

And let's face it -- most people who download illegal copies and try to argue their guilt away do so for purely selfish reasons. They just have this sense of entitlement that others should work for them for free. And a disclaimer here, I am just a reader, not an author. But unlike some, I do think that an author of a book I read deserves as much respect as the mechanic who fixes my car. I don't share the view that Western Society in particular should only pay people for manual labor and that anything that ever happens to be on a computer and can thus be easily copied is just worthless 1s and 0s. So if King Giggles's attitude prevails then very soon nobody will have any work. Perhaps Giggles can move to China and work on an Apple assembly line, that seems to be the only kind of job he considers worthy of getting paid for.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The problem is that "copyright infringement" has, for many people, become a term that does not imply any wrongdoing. The difference to theft is that the original owner still has a copy, but the similarity is that the infringer now has a copy he has taken by illegal means. Copyright gives the owner the almost exclusive right to create copies (with fair use exceptions) and if you get yourself a free copy you have trampled on his rights and unduly enriched yourself. In the end, what is important is that the infringer has obtained something he has no right to get without paying for it. Arguing "the original is still with the author" is just ridiculous semantics, trying to justify a despicable act. Whatever you call that act is another matter.

To me, copyright feels like a prohibition on the act of thinking. Thought and expression of those thoughts was free before copyright, thought is not free currently, thought will be free when copyright is abolished.

Do you think that those who copied books before the invention of the printing press felt that they were involved in wrongdoing? Or do you think that they understood that what they were doing, copying and spreading knowledge, was beneficial to all.

Time to visit the library to find an old post about it??

There's an argument about the potential benefits of copying outweighing the potential harms of copying. It appears that all the new copying methods, although at first vehemently opposed by the entrenched copying industries of the time, eventually resulted in oodles more money for those copying industries, as well as the creation of new copying industries.

If history is anything to go by, once copyright is abolished, we should expect the most massive increase in wealth generation the world has ever seen. I don't buy the poor little artist argument. Probably because I might be one and I like copying stuff. I mean stealing stuff, to paraphrase Picasso.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

To me, copyright feels like a prohibition on the act of thinking. Thought and expression of those thoughts was free before copyright, thought is not free currently, thought will be free when copyright is abolished.

Do you think that those who copied books before the invention of the printing press felt that they were involved in wrongdoing? Or do you think that they understood that what they were doing, copying and spreading knowledge, was beneficial to all.

Time to visit the library to find an old post about it??

There's an argument about the potential benefits of copying outweighing the potential harms of copying. It appears that all the new copying methods, although at first vehemently opposed by the entrenched copying industries of the time, eventually resulted in oodles more money for those copying industries, as well as the creation of new copying industries.

If history is anything to go by, once copyright is abolished, we should expect the most massive increase in wealth generation the world has ever seen. I don't buy the poor little artist argument. Probably because I might be one and I like copying stuff. I mean stealing stuff, to paraphrase Picasso.

Wow, you are really spreading knowledge to humanity when you are copying that new bestseller. What a noble and selfless act -- pirate a book, save a child! And all those 100s of 1000s involved in making, printing, editing, and distributing books, are thanking you for eliminating their worthless positions. That is what I call a massive increase in wealth creation.

Ever thought of why there are so few opportunities for decent jobs for you? Since you are so free to think, perhaps you should think about that.

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The problem is that "copyright infringement" has, for many people, become a term that does not imply any wrongdoing. The difference to theft is that the original owner still has a copy, but the similarity is that the infringer now has a copy he has taken by illegal means. Copyright gives the owner the almost exclusive right to create copies (with fair use exceptions) and if you get yourself a free copy you have trampled on his rights and unduly enriched yourself. In the end, what is important is that the infringer has obtained something he has no right to get without paying for it. Arguing "the original is still with the author" is just ridiculous semantics, trying to justify a despicable act. Whatever you call that act is another matter.

Now THAT is a reasonable and defensible position that can be discussed.

The problem is that when people say "copyright infringement is theft", what they really mean is "copyright infringement is an evil, despicable act because it is theft". The idea being that if you can slide by the idea that copyright infringement is theft, then you've won the debate without having to actually argue the specifics about copyright infringement.

As to the "copyright infringement is despicable" argument, however, I'm not so sure. As I see it, copyright laws have been put in place to encourage the creation of new content, by helping creators to earn money from their creations. There's no inalienable human right to profit from your creations, and the laws aren't intended to defend them. It's all about what's best for society.

But what if society decides that's a crock, and that creators will keep finding ways to create even if they can't make much money from creating? Personally, I think we've seen lots of evidence of that with open source software, blogs, podcasts, YouTube and God knows what else. Sure, a lot of it is crap, but a lot of it isn't crap too.

I'm not saying that the average filesharer has gone through this thought process, or even cares about any of this. But what I have been saying is that copyright laws have NEVER been effective at deterring individuals from copying and sharing stuff. What has been effective has been the cost, difficulty and loss of quality with the copying processes available to individuals. Now that has changed, and a huge proportion of the population has no moral issues with sharing stuff like crazy.

So I'd say copyright is dead. Dead, dead, dead. And rather than arguing about how despicable filesharing is, we should be finding ways to keep creators creating quality content without copyright.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

Why are you and certain other people so attached to the idea that copyright infringement is theft?

because it steals away the possibility for an author to actually make money off his creations! What value it is that he may keep his original copy when everyone else can obtain for free?

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The problem is that "copyright infringement" has, for many people, become a term that does not imply any wrongdoing. The difference to theft is that the original owner still has a copy, but the similarity is that the infringer now has a copy he has taken by illegal means. Copyright gives the owner the almost exclusive right to create copies (with fair use exceptions) and if you get yourself a free copy you have trampled on his rights and unduly enriched yourself. In the end, what is important is that the infringer has obtained something he has no right to get without paying for it. Arguing "the original is still with the author" is just ridiculous semantics, trying to justify a despicable act. Whatever you call that act is another matter.

And let's face it -- most people who download illegal copies and try to argue their guilt away do so for purely selfish reasons. They just have this sense of entitlement that others should work for them for free. And a disclaimer here, I am just a reader, not an author. But unlike some, I do think that an author of a book I read deserves as much respect as the mechanic who fixes my car. I don't share the view that Western Society in particular should only pay people for manual labor and that anything that ever happens to be on a computer and can thus be easily copied is just worthless 1s and 0s. So if King Giggles's attitude prevails then very soon nobody will have any work. Perhaps Giggles can move to China and work on an Apple assembly line, that seems to be the only kind of job he considers worthy of getting paid for.

priceless post. Too bad I gave you karma before for a slightly less refined one...

Originally Posted by Giggleton

To me, copyright feels like a prohibition on the act of thinking. Thought and expression of those thoughts was free before copyright, thought is not free currently, thought will be free when copyright is abolished.

what's really prohibiting you to have thoughts is whatever you're taking, man. Copyright is not impeding you to express your incoherent thoughts here... though I certainly wouldn't pay for them...

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Do you think that those who copied books before the invention of the printing press felt that they were involved in wrongdoing?

There was no money involved! People were not only illiterate, but also were not willing to pay other people to tell them novel stories and tales -- in part because there were already plenty of stories and tales in the Bible and that sufficed in the Dark Ages. Once people got some time for their own useless personal enjoyment, they thought the idea of reading new stories was a worthy one and would be willing to pay for people to tell them.

nowadays crackheads just want their addiction for free...

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

because it steals away the possibility for an author to actually make money off his creations! What value it is that he may keep his original copy when everyone else can obtain for free?

Actually it's murder, because it kills off their ability to make money.

Only crackheads use the same word for everything.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Actually it's murder, because it kills off their ability to make money.

another excellent point...

Only crackheads use the same word for everything.

the problem is that the law still has not caught up with the times. The legal term for theft should be updated to reflect digital media sales being stolen from illegal downloads...

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

the problem is that the law still has not caught up with the times. The legal term for theft should be updated to reflect digital media sales being stolen from illegal downloads...

At least you've stated the problem properly.

[Giggleton]

@Enkidu I like your avatar too, Futurama inspired? Very nice greens, did you make it yourself?

Copying DOES NOT restrict the creators right to profit. Please stop saying that it does, it just makes this useless debate continue.

We need to imagine ways for creators to profit in a world of infinite and free copying.