• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Intellectual Property Law

Yes it was. The control of it exists before the copy is made.

Try taking off your goggles and reading what you just wrote with an open mind. You will find it hilarious.

No. It is you that seems lacking in abstract thinking. Copies doesnt appear from nothing. They are result of causes. Copyright is all about handling these causes.
 
Try taking off your goggles and reading what you just wrote with an open mind. You will find it hilarious.

No. It is you that seems lacking in abstract thinking. Copies doesnt appear from nothing. They are result of causes. Copyright is all about handling these causes.

That may or may not be so, but that's not an argument for calling it theft.
 
No. It is you that seems lacking in abstract thinking. Copies doesnt appear from nothing. They are result of causes. Copyright is all about handling these causes.

That may or may not be so, but that's not an argument for calling it theft.

Yes it does. Someone has taken something that didnt belong to them without consent of the owner. That is theft.
 
Try taking off your goggles and reading what you just wrote with an open mind. You will find it hilarious.

No. It is you that seems lacking in abstract thinking.

The problem is that theft does not deal with abstract concepts. It does not deal with rights infringements. It deals with objects.
 
If you were to buy a copy of my book and make copies of it, to either sell or distribute for free, you have stolen more than one copy of a book. Maybe I should have written it in French.
Yet here you say.
Bronzeage said:
The first principle of private property is one cannot claim to own something one cannot protect and keep secure.

How do you protect the book (or the book from being copied) once someone else has it?
 
As a side note, I think the idea of an 'information economy' is as delusional as communism. People in developing countries simply will not pay rich first worlders to sit on their asses and type when they can take it for free - especially when their money comes from slogging away in factories. Microsoft makes more from the Netherlands than the PRC. Everyone sees the information revolution as hugely positive, but no technological change is completely good. This ones means the end of copyrights and IP, which will likely be very disruptive. I run Linux, haven't paid for software in years - I just contribute. I suspect in the future authors will hold on to thier IP until a certain amount of donations are made, perhaps Kickstarter style, then just let it go. I paid $20 for Radiohead's Rainbows album (which was free) and never listened to it - hate that crap, but had to support the idea.
 
As a side note, I think the idea of an 'information economy' is as delusional as communism. People in developing countries simply will not pay rich first worlders to sit on their asses and type when they can take it for free - especially when their money comes from slogging away in factories. Microsoft makes more from the Netherlands than the PRC. Everyone sees the information revolution as hugely positive, but no technological change is completely good. This ones means the end of copyrights and IP, which will likely be very disruptive. I run Linux, haven't paid for software in years - I just contribute. I suspect in the future authors will hold on to thier IP until a certain amount of donations are made, perhaps Kickstarter style, then just let it go. I paid $20 for Radiohead's Rainbows album (which was free) and never listened to it - hate that crap, but had to support the idea.

You're assuming the information is in a form they can just pirate it. When that information is used to control systems it's not nearly so able to be stolen.
 
Yet here you say.
Bronzeage said:
The first principle of private property is one cannot claim to own something one cannot protect and keep secure.

How do you protect the book (or the book from being copied) once someone else has it?

The idea of "intellectual property" is preposterous. The idea that someone should have the right to absolute control of an idea and whatever may come of it amounts to limited distribution of intellectual activity. Eventually, unless we blow ourselves up, the whole world will be populated like China and will probably be ruled in much the same way. It is possible that demographics may dictate the form government takes. The greater the earth's population, the more important it is to share things. That means less hoarding is possible without dire consequences. That means less per capita consumption of the earth's resorces. If there really is valuable intellectual property, this too will have to be shared. I strongly suspect that the forms governments will take will continue to become more and more totalitarian. That is because it will be more important for government to control more and more resources of all kinds to insure their proper distribution. To me this is a no brainer. The question I have is can there be a totalitarian government that humans can live with and find life worth living in it?

Are there structures that are possible that would make it more possible for people to be happy? So far we have seen insane totalitarian regimes like Hitler's, The Kumher Rouge,etc. They have attempted to blindly dictate the conditions of life within their regimes. The possible conditions our society could morph into could get downright ugly if we don't learn to live as a society that cares for its own collective well being. Somehow "intellectual property" just doesn't seem to have any future at all. It's like the war on drugs, slowly descending into the realm of unnecessary thuggery enforcing the unenforcable.
 
As a side note, I think the idea of an 'information economy' is as delusional as communism. People in developing countries simply will not pay rich first worlders to sit on their asses and type when they can take it for free - especially when their money comes from slogging away in factories. Microsoft makes more from the Netherlands than the PRC. Everyone sees the information revolution as hugely positive, but no technological change is completely good. This ones means the end of copyrights and IP, which will likely be very disruptive. I run Linux, haven't paid for software in years - I just contribute. I suspect in the future authors will hold on to thier IP until a certain amount of donations are made, perhaps Kickstarter style, then just let it go. I paid $20 for Radiohead's Rainbows album (which was free) and never listened to it - hate that crap, but had to support the idea.

You're assuming the information is in a form they can just pirate it. When that information is used to control systems it's not nearly so able to be stolen.

i have no problem with control systems. make your own website, make people pay to login and read your stuff, if you like, encrypt it, that's all good. but when you put your IP on the internet, you've lost control. you do that mostly to make money, and generally you do. that's great. but you knew good and well when you did it, other people would copy it and not pay you. when you don't make as much money as you've promised yourself, you are not being robbed. are advertisers robbed when you fast forward through commercials? they paid for what you're watching based on the idea that you'd watch the ads and they'd make money.
 
Back
Top Bottom