I disagree with the whole concept of "intellectual property" and don't feel that the words "theft" or "stealing" apply. If anything, the phrase "copyright infringement" should be used. There is a clear difference between using an idea without permission vs using a physical object without permission.
I feel that the term "intellectual property" has been foisted upon us my multi-national corporations. They're trying to blur the lines between "copyright infringement" and "theft" such that they can profit even more from exclusive control of ideas. In my opinion, the western system for copyrights is morally unjustifiable.
I wouldn't imply that I myself had stolen Leopard.
lol, you make it sound like someone creeping into cupertino at night with a crowbar and a balaclava, and obtaining the blueprints for leopard, then removing or corrupting all the code off their computers so that you could hold it to ransom. Thats what "stealing leopard" would amount to imho.
not really. downloading is transferring information or data. Stealing a boxed dvd from a shop is a criminal offence. Certainly different, both legally and ethically. Also its not really the same as someone stealing from you because your version of stealing implies stealing a personal effect, which can hardly be compared to stealing an operating system from a corporation.
Also its really not that difficult to do, and you don't have to burn a DL dvd.
Having said that, I can say that I got my copy off the internet and it works perfectly. It didn't take 3 days to download either (more like an hour and a half), and I didn't have to burn a DL dvd (nor edit down the data to fit it on a SL dvd). However if you want advice on doing I won't be the person to give it. If you want to pirate software thats your lookout, and you can easily obtain information for how to go about it with a google search or two.
I disagree with the whole concept of "intellectual property" and don't feel that the words "theft" or "stealing" apply. If anything, the phrase "copyright infringement" should be used. There is a clear difference between using an idea without permission vs using a physical object without permission.
I feel that the term "intellectual property" has been foisted upon us my multi-national corporations. They're trying to blur the lines between "copyright infringement" and "theft" such that they can profit even more from exclusive control of ideas. In my opinion, the western system for copyrights is morally unjustifiable.
Do you think that all programmers, musicians, vocalists, lyricists, producers, directors, actors, camera men, etc. etc. etc. should all work without pay?
Do you think that all programmers, musicians, vocalists, lyricists, producers, directors, actors, camera men, etc. etc. etc. should all work without pay?
Is that a serious question?
It would be the equivalent of me asking: Do you think all ideas should be owned by someone?
It would be the equivalent of me asking: Do you think all ideas should be owned by someone?
You made the statement "There is a clear difference between using an idea without permission vs using a physical object without permission."
Kind of implying that "things" are either physical or ideas. A movie is not physical, a song is not physical, an operating system is not physical.
All those things can be classed as intellectual property. Do you not agree?
And if you do not agree with the concept of intellectual property, that implies the creators of said intellectual property have no rights. How do the creators of the items above get paid for their work if they have no right to sell them?
They'd make money the same way they did before corporations pushed through the current body of law.
Artists, architects, musicians, and researchers all existed prior to copyright law.
I note you dodged the question.
Are movies, song and OSes intellectual property?
If you disagree with the notion of intellectual property, doesn't that imply these things should be freely distributable without recompense to the original creators?
You're asking ludicrous questions like: is a song considered IP?
Here's something to contemplate...
Economies don't require governmental enforcement of idea-monopolies.
Put a little more simply:
Musicians existed prior to copyright law.
And still you refuse to answer the simple questions I ask.
Is a song IP? I.e., do your arguments surrounding IP apply to songs? Is is acceptable to freely distribute original recordings of songs against the wishes of the artist, musicians, recording engineers, producers, managers, & marketing employees involved in its creation and promotion?
Is a movie IP? I.e., do your arguments surrounding IP apply to movies?
Is an OS IP? I.e., do your arguments surrounding IP apply to OSes?
Actually, the majority of musicians still barely get by. In regards to the argument, for me it's simple.
There are laws out there, and we're expected to abide by them. End of story. Heck, I'm 18. It's no big deal for me, people who create such marvelous things deserve my respect.
laws are frequently stupid. I for one consider my own judgement to be a good enough method of figuring out moral dilemnas - thats not what the legal system is for. The legal system exists to protect people, not to punish them, or provide them with a system of ethics.
While musicians may be overpaid now, it's unquestionable that they are much better compensated today than in the past.
ps dfiler, Do you feel current IP laws too heavily favor the content creators over the public interests, or are you simply against the concept of IP?
I disagree that musicians (and all creators for that matter) are better paid now than in the past.
You used to be able to make a living as a professional musician. Bands and orchestras would compete with each other to get the best musicians. Even small cities had a healthy market for talented musicians. Times have changed though. You'll find very few musicians actually supporting themselves as performance artists or through record sales. Granted, this has always been somewhat the case.
Only in rare instances do musicians actually make money from selling their so called intellectual "property". The top few acts make money back on album sales. Most smaller acts actually lose money in the process of selling their albums. If you want to make money as a musician, the only realistic way to do it is through public performances.
Intellectual "property" laws are enriching media distribution empires, not the original artists. IP laws are pretty much here entirely at the behest and lobbying of corporations.
But I must thank you for noticing the intricacies of my rant. I am not entirely against copy restrictions. However, I feel that the current legal climate is doing a disservice to both consumers and creative people. So I guess the rant was two faceted. The term intellectual "property" is biased in and of itself. But also, that the current copyright laws are unjust.
I disagree that musicians (and all creators for that matter) are better paid now than in the past.
Motzart and Beethoven, the 50 cent and Kanye West of their day, never achieved the financial success that popular musicians of today achieve. I'm sure the average musician today stuggles to make a living but the successful musicians and entertainers of today live a life that rivals royalty of yesteryear.
Yes I think IP laws could balance public interests against creators interests better, but IP laws are essential IMO.
mozart and beethoven the 50 cent and kanye west of their day? based on what? That is a stupid comparison, and therefore can only lead to stupid conclusions. I don't think I can take anything you say seriously, if you believe that mozart and beethoven were the 50 cent and kanye west of their day.
mozart and beethoven the 50 cent and kanye west of their day? based on what? That is a stupid comparison, and therefore can only lead to stupid conclusions. I don't think I can take anything you say seriously, if you believe that mozart and beethoven were the 50 cent and kanye west of their day.
If you don't understand the analogy, you're not trying.
If you don't understand the analogy, your not trying.
You made a stupid analogy.. "Understanding" has nothing to do with it. What you are failing to understand is that your comparison is bad and that therefore your conclusions are bad.
On what basis do you compare beethoven or mozart to 50 cent or kanye west as opposed to any other contemporary musician? Wait I think I see the answer - you're either ignorant regarding music, or you havn't really thought about it.
Comments
I disagree with the whole concept of "intellectual property" and don't feel that the words "theft" or "stealing" apply. If anything, the phrase "copyright infringement" should be used. There is a clear difference between using an idea without permission vs using a physical object without permission.
I feel that the term "intellectual property" has been foisted upon us my multi-national corporations. They're trying to blur the lines between "copyright infringement" and "theft" such that they can profit even more from exclusive control of ideas. In my opinion, the western system for copyrights is morally unjustifiable.
I wouldn't imply that I myself had stolen Leopard.
lol, you make it sound like someone creeping into cupertino at night with a crowbar and a balaclava, and obtaining the blueprints for leopard, then removing or corrupting all the code off their computers so that you could hold it to ransom. Thats what "stealing leopard" would amount to imho.
not really. downloading is transferring information or data. Stealing a boxed dvd from a shop is a criminal offence. Certainly different, both legally and ethically. Also its not really the same as someone stealing from you because your version of stealing implies stealing a personal effect, which can hardly be compared to stealing an operating system from a corporation.
Also its really not that difficult to do, and you don't have to burn a DL dvd.
Having said that, I can say that I got my copy off the internet and it works perfectly. It didn't take 3 days to download either (more like an hour and a half), and I didn't have to burn a DL dvd (nor edit down the data to fit it on a SL dvd). However if you want advice on doing I won't be the person to give it. If you want to pirate software thats your lookout, and you can easily obtain information for how to go about it with a google search or two.
Chav!
My take:
I disagree with the whole concept of "intellectual property" and don't feel that the words "theft" or "stealing" apply. If anything, the phrase "copyright infringement" should be used. There is a clear difference between using an idea without permission vs using a physical object without permission.
I feel that the term "intellectual property" has been foisted upon us my multi-national corporations. They're trying to blur the lines between "copyright infringement" and "theft" such that they can profit even more from exclusive control of ideas. In my opinion, the western system for copyrights is morally unjustifiable.
Do you think that all programmers, musicians, vocalists, lyricists, producers, directors, actors, camera men, etc. etc. etc. should all work without pay?
Do you think that all programmers, musicians, vocalists, lyricists, producers, directors, actors, camera men, etc. etc. etc. should all work without pay?
Is that a serious question?
It would be the equivalent of me asking: Do you think all ideas should be owned by someone?
Is that a serious question?
It would be the equivalent of me asking: Do you think all ideas should be owned by someone?
You made the statement "There is a clear difference between using an idea without permission vs using a physical object without permission."
Kind of implying that "things" are either physical or ideas. A movie is not physical, a song is not physical, an operating system is not physical.
All those things can be classed as intellectual property. Do you not agree?
And if you do not agree with the concept of intellectual property, that implies the creators of said intellectual property have no rights. How do the creators of the items above get paid for their work if they have no right to sell them?
How do the creators of the items above get paid for their work if they have no right to sell them?
No right to sell?
They'd make money the same way they did before corporations pushed through the current body of law.
Artists, architects, musicians, and researchers all existed prior to copyright law.
No right to sell?
They'd make money the same way they did before corporations pushed through the current body of law.
Artists, architects, musicians, and researchers all existed prior to copyright law.
I note you dodged the question.
Are movies, song and OSes intellectual property?
If you disagree with the notion of intellectual property, doesn't that imply these things should be freely distributable without recompense to the original creators?
Here's something to contemplate...
Economies don't require governmental enforcement of idea-monopolies.
Put a little more simply:
Musicians existed prior to copyright law.
You're asking ludicrous questions like: is a song considered IP?
Here's something to contemplate...
Economies don't require governmental enforcement of idea-monopolies.
Put a little more simply:
Musicians existed prior to copyright law.
And still you refuse to answer the simple questions I ask.
Is a song IP? I.e., do your arguments surrounding IP apply to songs? Is is acceptable to freely distribute original recordings of songs against the wishes of the artist, musicians, recording engineers, producers, managers, & marketing employees involved in its creation and promotion?
Is a movie IP? I.e., do your arguments surrounding IP apply to movies?
Is an OS IP? I.e., do your arguments surrounding IP apply to OSes?
Put a little more simply:
Musicians existed prior to copyright law.
Yes and they barely eked out a living.
While musicians may be overpaid now, it's unquestionable that they are much better compensated today than in the past.
ps dfiler, Do you feel current IP laws too heavily favor the content creators over the public interests, or are you simply against the concept of IP?
There are laws out there, and we're expected to abide by them. End of story. Heck, I'm 18. It's no big deal for me, people who create such marvelous things deserve my respect.
...
While musicians may be overpaid now, it's unquestionable that they are much better compensated today than in the past.
ps dfiler, Do you feel current IP laws too heavily favor the content creators over the public interests, or are you simply against the concept of IP?
I disagree that musicians (and all creators for that matter) are better paid now than in the past.
You used to be able to make a living as a professional musician. Bands and orchestras would compete with each other to get the best musicians. Even small cities had a healthy market for talented musicians. Times have changed though. You'll find very few musicians actually supporting themselves as performance artists or through record sales. Granted, this has always been somewhat the case.
Only in rare instances do musicians actually make money from selling their so called intellectual "property". The top few acts make money back on album sales. Most smaller acts actually lose money in the process of selling their albums. If you want to make money as a musician, the only realistic way to do it is through public performances.
Intellectual "property" laws are enriching media distribution empires, not the original artists. IP laws are pretty much here entirely at the behest and lobbying of corporations.
But I must thank you for noticing the intricacies of my rant. I am not entirely against copy restrictions. However, I feel that the current legal climate is doing a disservice to both consumers and creative people. So I guess the rant was two faceted. The term intellectual "property" is biased in and of itself. But also, that the current copyright laws are unjust.
I disagree that musicians (and all creators for that matter) are better paid now than in the past.
Motzart and Beethoven, the 50 cent and Kanye West of their day, never achieved the financial success that popular musicians of today achieve. I'm sure the average musician today stuggles to make a living but the successful musicians and entertainers of today live a life that rivals royalty of yesteryear.
Yes I think IP laws could balance public interests against creators interests better, but IP laws are essential IMO.
mozart and beethoven the 50 cent and kanye west of their day? based on what? That is a stupid comparison, and therefore can only lead to stupid conclusions. I don't think I can take anything you say seriously, if you believe that mozart and beethoven were the 50 cent and kanye west of their day.
If you don't understand the analogy, you're not trying.
If you don't understand the analogy, your not trying.
You made a stupid analogy.. "Understanding" has nothing to do with it. What you are failing to understand is that your comparison is bad and that therefore your conclusions are bad.
On what basis do you compare beethoven or mozart to 50 cent or kanye west as opposed to any other contemporary musician? Wait I think I see the answer - you're either ignorant regarding music, or you havn't really thought about it.
And maybe you should debate respectfully.