Internet Piracy

If you walk into Wal-Mart and you steal a pack of gum, you could say the same thing. "Oh they are making so much money, they wont even notice it." And you know what? They wont, but it is still stealing. When you steal a video or a song, it might not make a huge impact on the money they made, but its still stealing.

I suggest everyone try and write a book, record enough music to fill an entire cd, create a video game, shot a movie. Tell me that it is easy. None of that is easy. Someone spends ten million dollars creating something, then you are going to sit there and tell me, they don't deserve the right to control their creation? They spend years creating something, and they don't have the right to sell it?

It is WRONG. We all know its wrong. You are basically making up the same excuses criminals do. "Oh it didn't hurt anyone." Some people just don't care though. They think the prices suck, so they go ahead and steal it. Go ahead, I am sure everyone has done it atleast once. You are not going to get caught. Just don't act like you are not doing anything wrong.

if you're comparing copyright infringement with sealing physical goods
then you have absolutely no understanding at all.....

please see my sandwich example

If you been making sandwiches for 30 years, and finally perfected your ability, and sold a unique sandwich which no one else sells, and you sold that to someone and they went out and they cloned it and gave it out to their friends. Well thats stealing, and its wrong!

Its like saying all of his work and time that he put into it, was worthless, because you are just going to recreate it at will. What may be accumulation of him working as a chef for 30 years, you just stole and recreated with no effort of your own, using some stupid cloning machine.

Its wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

If you been making sandwiches for 30 years, and finally perfected your ability, and sold a unique sandwich which no one else sells, and you sold that to someone and they went out and they cloned it and gave it out to their friends. Well thats stealing, and its wrong!

Its like saying all of his work and time that he put into it, was worthless, because you are just going to recreate it at will. What may be accumulation of him working as a chef for 30 years, you just stole and recreated with no effort of your own, using some stupid cloning machine.

Its wrong.

---

I agree that intellectual property is real property. If it wasn't, then people wouldn't be responsible for what they say or write, which makes no sense. However, let's not confuse 'real' IP with government-enforced IP. The real version of IP should wear off as soon as the IP itself has been culturally disseminated. For example, I believe Mickey Mouse is still technically owned by Disney, but that's really silly to think of, considering how integrated that character is into modern culture.

I think when people pirate stuff for their own use, it's usually either because the IP is overpriced or it's something they have the cultural right to, no matter what arbitrary government laws say.

Well as long as the person who created it is alive, I believe there is no doubt that they still own it. I don't think you can really debate it, when they are alive and well. Though even then people should be able to pass things onto their children and stuff. And if that is ok for a single person, then it should apply to a group of people working together as well, which is what a company is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Well as long as the person who created it is alive, I believe there is no doubt that they still own it. I don't think you can really debate it, when they are alive and well. Though even then people should be able to pass things onto their children and stuff. And if that is ok for a single person, then it should apply to a group of people working together as well, which is what a company is.

---

Even having IP expire upon the person's death is way shorter than the span you get in most countries.

As for inheriting IP, now that makes no sense whatsoever. We need IP because people are responsible for their actions. But to have IP in wills would somehow imply that you can shift responsibility from one person to another, which is obviously ludicrous.

Its because its property and has a value. If you put time and energy into making something, it belongs to you. Its not fair if you spend your life writing the greatest book ever written then when you die other people make money off of your work, when your wish is that your children makes the money. You created it, you should get to decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Its because its property and has a value. If you put time and energy into making something, it belongs to you. Its not fair if you spend your life writing the greatest book ever written then when you die other people make money off of your work, when your wish is that your children makes the money. You created it, you should get to decide.

---

Since when do works in public domain make money? This is news to me.

We are not talking about public domain. If you illegally take something and treat it as public domain property, that doesn't make it public domain. Only the creator of something can give up the rights to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

We are not talking about public domain. If you illegally take something and treat it as public domain property, that doesn't make it public domain. Only the creator of something can give up the rights to it.

---

No, but you said people should be able to make money off of something as long as they choose. But you also seemed to agree with the current IP law, which makes everything public domain after a certain period of time has passed. So which is it, do people get to own IP forever or not?

Alric, I think you're missing the point here

Copyright infringement
Right, Wrong or Indifferent, you are not going to stop it

The UK government has just learnt this the hard way
They were proposing to cut-off net access to perpetual infringers
but have just realised that that would alienate about a 1/3 of the voting population....not a good political move, so they've canned the whole idea

Your job, as an adaptive businessman in a fast-changing world, is to develop new revenue streams based around your products

If you can't directly sell music / books / whatever, due to people infringing on your copyright, you have to find a way to entice them

If you can't, you will not be able to support yourself, and will have to find another job
But rest assured, someone else will step up and succeed where you have failed

That's life

Actually in my first post I said you probably wouldn't get caught. I never said it was something easy to enforce. I am only say what is right and what is wrong, and its wrong to steal things made by other people. What you are basically saying is that you don't give a crap what happens to others people property. Its not all about business either.

What if I own the rights to something, and I do not want to sell it? Its not always about money you know.

As for how long a person owns their copyright, that can be up for debate. What isn't up for debate, is that they should own it for as long as they live. Which is what the current law stats. That its protected for 70 years after you have died.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

As for how long a person owns their copyright, that can be up for debate. What isn't up for debate, is that they should own it for as long as they live. Which is what the current law states.

---

The current law protects IP long after the person dies. What is the logic there?

Its so people don't take credit for other peoples work, shortly after they die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Its so people don't take credit for other peoples work, shortly after they die.

---

When I pirate music, I don't take credit for it. I just play it. You're failing to distinguish between personal use and selling for profit.

Its because its all connected. It doesn't matter if your making money off of it or not, you are stealing from that person. When you claim something that doesn't belong to you, that is stealing. When you say, "I don't care if you made this song, it now belong to me." You are stealing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Its because its all connected. It doesn't matter if your making money off of it or not, you are stealing from that person. When you claim something that doesn't belong to you, that is stealing. When you say, "I don't care if you made this song, it now belong to me." You are stealing.

---

When I pirate music, I don't claim that the IP belongs to me. I just play it.

You are using it without permission. Its like going over to your neighbors pool and going for a swim without his person. Or breaking into his home and watching his TV without his permission.

Even if there is no harm done, you are not respecting his property. If you think its ok to do things like that, I am not sure how I can explain why its wrong.

Oh, so I'm going over to the musician's house and forcing him to play at gunpoint?

Don't be stupid. The example I gave is actually the perfect example. Breaking into someones home while they are not there and watching their TV, is pretty much the same thing as illegally downloading their music and listening to it.

There is no force in either example, because you are doing it without the person knowing it.

Oh, so it's wrong to make a copy of the person's tv and watch the copy in a copy of their house?

No, it isn't anything like that. We are talking about peoples right to own their idea and thoughts. Its nothing like copying their TV. If you want to use that example, it would be like breaking into someones house and making a copy of something personal.

It would be more like breaking into someones house and then making a copy of a personal photo the person owns. Though if the person built their TV by hand in a unique way, and you broke in and made a copy of it for yourself, I suppose that would count.

Music which is being sold (and performed) to the public is hardly personal.:roll:
Face it, YNot's sandwich analogy is perfectly applicable.

Also, given that someone finds an infinitely cheap way to duplicate food, it it wrong to copy a sandwich sold by the shop, and give away the copies for free, thus solving world hunger? Does the shop really have the right to prevent people from duplicating their sandwiches, just so they can make a profit from a faulty business model?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Also, given that someone finds an infinitely cheap way to duplicate food, it it wrong to copy a sandwich sold by the shop, and give away the copies for free, thus solving world hunger? Does the shop really have the right to prevent people from duplicating their sandwiches, just so they can make a profit from a faulty business model?

---

There already is enough food and money to solve world hunger temporarily. You might as well argue that stealing food is acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Don't be stupid. The example I gave is actually the perfect example. Breaking into someones home while they are not there and watching their TV, is pretty much the same thing as illegally downloading their music and listening to it.

There is no force in either example, because you are doing it without the person knowing it.

---

Nothing alike sorry.

For once I'm with Drew.