The thing is, you know it's stealing, you only try to justify it using facts.
There is a clear distinction between copyright infringement and theft of physical property. While you obviously believe that they are equally wrong, you should at least recognize the difference.
It seems that many citizens of westernized nations can't bring themselves to even consider the morals of a different culture. Acknowledging the above distinction is the first step to understanding why some cultures have entirely different morals with regard to idea ownership.
By some cultures, I mean not only foreign ones, but also counter or sub-cultures within nations like the United States. Many people simply do not think our current patent/trademark/copyright systems are morally justifiable. These are not bad people. They generally have just as strict moral codes as anyone else. There are many laws and moral quirks from the era of serfdom that haven't stood the test of time. Our notions of intellectual "property" likely won't either.
The concept of owning an idea, in my opinion, should not be the goal of any moral code. It is a necessary evil for which the economic tradeoffs must be considered. If it didn't provide an incentive to create, idea ownership would be pure evil.
Idea/information ownership is an economic incentive, not a moral code worthy of being dogma.
There is a clear distinction between copyright infringement and theft of physical property. While you obviously believe that they are equally wrong, you should at least recognize the difference.
Yes, there is a difference, there can be no doubt. But in the specific cases of downloading for free (i.e. pirating) songs, albums, movies and OSes, when those things are available for purchase either at retail or via the internet, I view both piracy and stealing the CD/DVD/whatever as equally "wrong".
However, I would agree with you that many aspects of current intellectual property law are not good. Copyrights last too long, and patents are far, far, far too easily granted.
I note that you have now stated your opinion on intellectual property law several times but have still failed to clarify if your opinions cover songs, movies or OSes.
You have also failed to propose alternatives that demonstrate how these things should be funded should the current laws be recinded.
There is no need to define intellectual property in this thread. It would serve no purpose since everyone here seems to agree on what the term encompasses.
As for funding? I'd rather not structure our legal system to subsidize media conglomerates and patent holding companies. As stated numerous times previously... artists, musicians, architects, engineers, etc... they all existed prior to our current body of intellectual "property" law.
There is no need to define intellectual property in this thread. It would serve no purpose since everyone here seems to agree on what the term encompasses.
Why do you find it so hard to just say something like "yes, my views on intellectual property apply to songs, movies, and OSes". It is not clear unless you unequivocally say so. So come on and say one way or the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
As stated numerous times previously... artists, musicians, architects, engineers, etc... they all existed prior to our current body of intellectual "property" law.
Yes, yes. Very clever. Did movies that you could watch in your home exist before copyright law? How about audio recordings that you could play back in your home? Perhaps copyright laws grew up in tandem with discoveries enabling the delivery of music into the home?
The range of music available now is unimaginably larger than before copyrights existed.
Do copyrights only fund conglomerates? How many independent record companies are there in the world? Are they all conglomerates? Do all artists sell enough to recoup the costs of producing the material or do some loss-makers have to be covered by the more profitable ones? Do all movies make huge profits, or do some fail to even break-even?
Copyright and patents are incompatible with a right to property and thus freedom.
At the beginning they were forced collective trade with a duration on the short side, but gradually the "trade" has turned into simple one-sided privilege rivaling human lifespan in length. At this point, no copyright at all would be preferable.
I like to compensate people for what they create when it's enjoyable and/or useful. That is one reason I have gotten rid of any pirated software.
It's when paying nets me a less useful and convenient experience than an infringing copy does that I turn to copyright infringement. I don't want to encourage people to willfully make their product worse for paying customers.
What I'd like to know is: where did the person who said he got his Leopard for $80 find it at that price, unless he's a student?
The UCLA Store had it for $69 for students, faculty and staff, but even the normal student price is about $115.
Get 5 people. One person buys the Apple Select Developer Membership for $500. It comes with 5 software seed keys and one hardware discount. Four people get the seed key for $80, and the remaining person gets not only a seed key but a hardware discount (which could be worth thousands depending on what you buy) for $180.
And ... the seed key gets you BOTH Leopard client AND Leopard Server.
Lets be blunt about this. Archstudent is trying to rationalize stealing someone's work without paying for it. His logical constructs are bizzare, and aren't deserving of debate. Lets all be honest about it---He uses Bit Torrent to steal property. (His denials are laughable considering his expertise on Bit Torrent times). Why would anyone want engage someone as illogical and manipulative in a debate over intellectual property rights? To me, he is no better then a common thief.
Get 5 people. One person buys the Apple Select Developer Membership for $500. It comes with 5 software seed keys and one hardware discount. Four people get the seed key for $80, and the remaining person gets not only a seed key but a hardware discount (which could be worth thousands depending on what you buy) for $180.
And ... the seed key gets you BOTH Leopard client AND Leopard Server.
Comments
The UCLA Store had it for $69 for students, faculty and staff, but even the normal student price is about $115.
The thing is, you know it's stealing, you only try to justify it using facts.
There is a clear distinction between copyright infringement and theft of physical property. While you obviously believe that they are equally wrong, you should at least recognize the difference.
It seems that many citizens of westernized nations can't bring themselves to even consider the morals of a different culture. Acknowledging the above distinction is the first step to understanding why some cultures have entirely different morals with regard to idea ownership.
By some cultures, I mean not only foreign ones, but also counter or sub-cultures within nations like the United States. Many people simply do not think our current patent/trademark/copyright systems are morally justifiable. These are not bad people. They generally have just as strict moral codes as anyone else. There are many laws and moral quirks from the era of serfdom that haven't stood the test of time. Our notions of intellectual "property" likely won't either.
The concept of owning an idea, in my opinion, should not be the goal of any moral code. It is a necessary evil for which the economic tradeoffs must be considered. If it didn't provide an incentive to create, idea ownership would be pure evil.
Idea/information ownership is an economic incentive, not a moral code worthy of being dogma.
There is a clear distinction between copyright infringement and theft of physical property. While you obviously believe that they are equally wrong, you should at least recognize the difference.
Yes, there is a difference, there can be no doubt. But in the specific cases of downloading for free (i.e. pirating) songs, albums, movies and OSes, when those things are available for purchase either at retail or via the internet, I view both piracy and stealing the CD/DVD/whatever as equally "wrong".
However, I would agree with you that many aspects of current intellectual property law are not good. Copyrights last too long, and patents are far, far, far too easily granted.
I note that you have now stated your opinion on intellectual property law several times but have still failed to clarify if your opinions cover songs, movies or OSes.
You have also failed to propose alternatives that demonstrate how these things should be funded should the current laws be recinded.
As for funding? I'd rather not structure our legal system to subsidize media conglomerates and patent holding companies. As stated numerous times previously... artists, musicians, architects, engineers, etc... they all existed prior to our current body of intellectual "property" law.
There is no need to define intellectual property in this thread. It would serve no purpose since everyone here seems to agree on what the term encompasses.
Why do you find it so hard to just say something like "yes, my views on intellectual property apply to songs, movies, and OSes". It is not clear unless you unequivocally say so. So come on and say one way or the other.
As stated numerous times previously... artists, musicians, architects, engineers, etc... they all existed prior to our current body of intellectual "property" law.
Yes, yes. Very clever. Did movies that you could watch in your home exist before copyright law? How about audio recordings that you could play back in your home? Perhaps copyright laws grew up in tandem with discoveries enabling the delivery of music into the home?
The range of music available now is unimaginably larger than before copyrights existed.
Do copyrights only fund conglomerates? How many independent record companies are there in the world? Are they all conglomerates? Do all artists sell enough to recoup the costs of producing the material or do some loss-makers have to be covered by the more profitable ones? Do all movies make huge profits, or do some fail to even break-even?
At the beginning they were forced collective trade with a duration on the short side, but gradually the "trade" has turned into simple one-sided privilege rivaling human lifespan in length. At this point, no copyright at all would be preferable.
I like to compensate people for what they create when it's enjoyable and/or useful. That is one reason I have gotten rid of any pirated software.
It's when paying nets me a less useful and convenient experience than an infringing copy does that I turn to copyright infringement. I don't want to encourage people to willfully make their product worse for paying customers.
Copyright and patents are incompatible with a right to property and thus freedom.
Why and how?
What I'd like to know is: where did the person who said he got his Leopard for $80 find it at that price, unless he's a student?
The UCLA Store had it for $69 for students, faculty and staff, but even the normal student price is about $115.
Get 5 people. One person buys the Apple Select Developer Membership for $500. It comes with 5 software seed keys and one hardware discount. Four people get the seed key for $80, and the remaining person gets not only a seed key but a hardware discount (which could be worth thousands depending on what you buy) for $180.
And ... the seed key gets you BOTH Leopard client AND Leopard Server.
Get 5 people. One person buys the Apple Select Developer Membership for $500. It comes with 5 software seed keys and one hardware discount. Four people get the seed key for $80, and the remaining person gets not only a seed key but a hardware discount (which could be worth thousands depending on what you buy) for $180.
And ... the seed key gets you BOTH Leopard client AND Leopard Server.
That's awesome!!!
but I don't got no friends who would do it...
Who cares anyhow, I've already got Leopard
Why and how?
I don't want to write at length now, but this article for instance reflects my position pretty well.