Secret Copyright Law Reported

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The legalities are details. It's the concept that matters. The ethics, the morality.

It should also be noted that it is in the legalities as well. Consider this news article: http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...6&pageNumber=1

In a motion filed Monday, Apple asked Alsup to grant a permanent injunction that would force Psystar to stop selling any computer bundled with Mac OS X; using, selling or even owning software that lets it crack Apple's OS encryption key to trick Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware; and "inducing, aiding or inducing others in infringing Apple's copyright."

"Psystar's whole business is premised on stealing from Apple," the motion read. "Psystar pirates Apple's software, circumvents Apple's technological protection measures and illegally benefits from the good will and reputation Apple has built. Psystar's conduct, if permitted to continue, will both tarnish Apple's reputation for excellence and lead to the proliferation of copycats who also will free ride on Apple's investments, infringe Apple's intellectual property rights and cause further irreparable injury."

This is in a legal brief, both stealing and pirating are words that are used by a company that many around here claim are against copyright.

Dale

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

What ethics, and what morals? This is a serious question.

If you look at the various religious texts of the world, .....

As far as being "Your" property... If I buy a apple from you, I can do whatever I want with it - eat it, throw it at politicians, stomp on it, give it to a teacher, ect. I bought it, so it's mine thereafter. So, by your own reasoning, when I buy a piece of I.P., I should have the same "rights" as I do with the apple, right? I bought it. If you say I don't have those rights, then you are admitting that I.P. is different from Physical Property, and different rules apply. So if different rules apply, how do same ethics and morals apply?

Nor do ethics or morals have anything to do with religion.

Ralph I agree with you and the rights. If I agree to sell you my Intellectual Property and then you decide to sell it to someone else. I have no problem with that .... provided of course you did not actually keep a copy of it yourself. That's the ethics and morals that apply.

Different rules do not apply, that's exactly my point. It shouldn't matter if it is a physical book or a digital book.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

It should also be noted that it is in the legalities as well. Consider this news article: http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...6&pageNumber=1



This is in a legal brief, both stealing and pirating are words that are used by a company that many around here claim are against copyright.

Dale

Once more, this is precisely NOT what I'm talking about. The law is ephemeral. Maybe I'm missing your point.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Nor do ethics or morals have anything to do with religion.

Ralph I agree with you and the rights. If I agree to sell you my Intellectual Property and then you decide to sell it to someone else. I have no problem with that .... provided of course you did not actually keep a copy of it yourself. That's the ethics and morals that apply.

Different rules do not apply, that's exactly my point. It shouldn't matter if it is a physical book or a digital book.

Question, if I had a Star Trek replicator, could I make a copy of the apple?

Before you say that being far-fetched. 3D printer are currently in their infancy right now. Can I make a copy of a part if the printer could do so?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Question, if I had a Star Trek replicator, could I make a copy of the apple?

Before you say that being far-fetched. 3D printer are currently in their infancy right now. Can I make a copy of a part if the printer could do so?

I don't know, do you have permission to do so?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Once more, this is precisely NOT what I'm talking about. The law is ephemeral. Maybe I'm missing your point.

The whole concept of Intellectual Property is ephemeral. It didn't exist before 1714...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The whole concept of Intellectual Property is ephemeral. It didn't exist before 1714...

And for that matter the Human Race is Ephemeral.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I don't know, do you have permission to do so?

I bought the original. What didn't I get when I bought it?

[kennyc]

Let me just try to clarify my point once more and then maybe we can get back to more interesting things.

My opinion: If you take something of mine without my permission, you are a thief.

Certainly that is a simplification but for me is true. It's the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If you earn you living through production of I.P. then I personally am ethically and morally bound to let you do that by purchasing your products legally and by supporting you in your right to do so. If I sell said product then I sell it in total, not keeping a copy or not "selling" it to multiple people, nor giving it away and keeping it myself. Just because something is easy doesn't make it ethical, moral or legal.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I bought the original. What didn't I get when I bought it?

Just answer the question and you'll know.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Let me just try to clarify my point once more and then maybe we can get back to more interesting things.

My opinion: If you take something of mine without my permission, you are a thief.

Certainly that is a simplification but for me is true. It's the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If you earn you living through production of I.P. then I personally am ethically and morally bound to let you do that by purchasing your products legally and by supporting you in your right to do so. If I sell said product then I sell it in total, not keeping a copy or not "selling" it to multiple people, nor giving it away and keeping it myself. Just because something is easy doesn't make it ethical, moral or legal.

And when I buy something, it's mine! You claim ends! And that has been the golden rule throughout history. If you don't like what I do with it, don't sell it.

Now, an exception was written into law for I.P. to encourage the creation of more I.P. It is just that, an exception. Not a moral change, nor a change to the concept of "you sold it, it's now mine".

I agree with a limited exception for that reason. Not because it's moral, or right, but because it's useful. Even so, I don't waive my "I bought it, it's mine" right. As far as I'm concerned, when you sell me something it's mine to do with as I please, and you no longer have a claim. I'll grant you the exception of further copying, not for moral reasons, which I don't recognize, but for practical encouragement of more I.P. creation.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

...
I agree with a limited exception for that reason. Not because it's moral, or right, but because it's useful. Even so, I don't waive my "I bought it, it's mine" right. As far as I'm concerned, when you sell me something it's mine to do with as I please, and you no longer have a claim. I'll grant you the exception of further copying, not for moral reasons, which I don't recognize, but for practical encouragement of more I.P. creation.

Again I agree with you, but you have to understand that it is a product and item a thing. You can't sell it and keep it at the same time. That is the ethics of the situation. That is the thing I object to. If you sell it and sell it in total that's fine and dandy, but if you sell it or give it away and keep it for yourself then you are a thief -- IMO.

I just want people to DO the Right Thing. Do as you would expect to be done to.

[pwalker8]

Yep, I.P. is basically a legal construct that came into being when a lawyer was trying to convince a jury that his client had a right that had never been recognized before. The use of the phrase wasn't popularized until around 40 to 50 years ago, once again it was lawyers trying to push the envelope in getting juries to award their clients more and more rights to ideas, which had never been recognized as property before. Copyright and patents are not property per se, they are simply rights that were written into the Constitution which gives the holder a limited monopoly to copy works or a machine. Both rights have been stretched beyond belief over the last 40+ years.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

My opinion: If you take something of mine without my permission, you are a thief.

You pass by someone on the street corner playing a guitar. You stop and listen for a few minutes, then walk away without putting money in his jar. Are you a thief?

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Once more, this is precisely NOT what I'm talking about. The law is ephemeral. Maybe I'm missing your point.

My point was not aimed at you in particular. Many people in the forum have stated that copyright violation is not stealing nor is it pirating. My point was that these terms are commonly used and are even used in a legal brief that is to be understood by the court. I was defending your use of the term as being an understood term when not splitting hairs to justify stealing.

Dale