Should Intellectual Property Exist?

It's convenient to trivialize the IP issue by saying there are disagreements or saying that beliefs are not shared. Employers, clients, and customers in the IT industry may not be willing to dismiss the matter that easily.

I did not refer to anybody as a "criminal" or a "communist", and neither the original poster (who raised the issue of employers) nor I gave any indication of how one's opinions on IP could/should affect employment. You are the one making the connection in a particular way. Maybe you really think that "shouldn't be employed" (in the IT industry anyway) is appropriate.

Some people think that IP is an unethical concept. They think that enforcement of laws protecting IP is an unethical action. I think their position on IP presents quite a dilemma when they work in the IT industry and encounter IP on a daily basis.

If they buy software for themselves they are directly supporting unethical behavior.

If they recommend software for others to buy they are directly suggesting unethical behavior.

If they sell software (including Windows) to others they are directly benefitting from unethical behavior.

The alternatives are to support, suggest, or benefit from illegal behavior.

Those in the IT industry who object to IP on an ethical basis apparently must choose between unethical behavior or illegal behavior.

Somehow, I'm less than impressed with your demonstration of how unreasonable I am by pointing out the fact that someone tried to substitute an erroneous claim about my employment status for an argument. I'm also less than impressed by your expansion of limited statements to mean more general, and thus more assailable, things than intended.

There's really nothing here even worth a serious reply. Either discuss the matter at hand, or bugger off.

Now pull the other one.

Sure, you express yourself in simple terms. Anyone that disagrees with you is a thief. That was pretty simple. No need for any of that superfluous complexity like logical justification for statements.

Go on. Keep mischaracterizing my statements any way you like. It doesn't prove anything, but if it makes you feel better I guess it serves a purpose.

...your ellipses....again

There's a difference between "dealing with IP" and "dealing [b]in[/b] IP". Since intellectual property law is just a body of laws, all that's relevant to the job is whether you're following the law. Last I checked, there are no spiritual or ontological requirements for IT jobs.

Let's not convolute the matter any further than we have to.

You implied that there's a problem with being employed if one holds minority views on intellectual property law.

First of all, should we add your last post to that list too?

YOu didn't address the point being made at all and yet are spinning again to get back on the subject. LOL!

You realize you just may as well have emphasized that post in BOLD QUOTATIONS or just said "Yes, look at me now!"
LOL

And since what point in time did you gain the authority to tell people to bugger off?

'Get a life', now there's something I have the authority to say now based on your posts here.

It is not reasonable to expect that every individual will explicitly set forth all relevant terms in any contract.

For example, if I enter into a contract to purchase something from you, and such contract provides that I may resell the item, subject to the continuation of conditions set by you, there is no way that you can insure that I will in fact convey said terms faithfully and in their entirety to my buyer.

Furthermore, it is not reasonable to require that statutory terms, since they are binding on all, be repeated within a civil contract.

Since the purpose of government, as expressed through laws, is to provide for ability of the people to collectively achieve that which they cannot so do individually, Contract Law will provide for you that which you cannot rely on me to do for you when I resell the item purchased from you.

Unfortunately, as I've touched in my response to our other common thread, we can assume neither that all people will know anything about our contractual agreements, nor that those who might will in all cases be cognizant & respecting of them.

Therefore, we require a common body of law, so that the people can collectively do that which they cannot do separately.

As one who came of age in the 60's, I too was once blinded by the utopian dream. I quickly & painfully learned that the human condition is not yet sufficiently developed to make such realizable.

(If you've not yet done so, you may wish to read the novel "Walden Two.)

This is not unlike the problem faced by our Founding Fathers. They realized that it is one thing to establish a democratic form of government, but quite another to have it not only survive, but flourish.

Realizing that, in order for a people to govern themselves, it must first be within their character to so do, they sought do devise a framework which would guard against a tyranny of the majority on the one hand, and anarchy on the other.

As has oft times been observed, ours may not be the best possible form of government, but it's the best that has yet been devised.

How about a simple and reasonable rebuttal?

. . . ?

... ellipsis ...

Your post has absolutely nothing to do with any ethical treatment of the enforcement of implicit agreement terms.

Perhaps, if you read my post again, you'll note that I never identified myself as any kind of victim.

Why would "all people" have to know the terms of an explicit agreement between parties to a given contract? Only the involved parties need know the terms for it to be ethically binding, and you need only involve others if one or the other is in violation of its terms. In fact, that's pretty much how contracts between private parties work now, with the exception that lawyers get involved to close up loopholes. You certainly don't need to force it into the public consciousness every time a deal is struck to ensure that "all people" know about it.

'Poor widdle unaware IT guy who didn't get a text book of rules in bold print and a confirmation phone call with the software.'

Perhaps some form of discrimination would work?

Illogical discrimination, maybe? Taking advantage of the illogical mind.

IT discrimination? Taking advantage of those who can't think beyond memorizing reams of technical data?

I think one of Jerry's kids has gone missing. Actually that's not nice, most of those kids are very capable and smart despite their physical or mental disabilities.

If you can render that as a valid truth table, I'll pay you five bucks.

Someone said Property is Crime but it wasn't me. Legally right and ethically right might differ. Time won't tell

I didn't. Are you sure you're responding to the right person?

You're right: time won't tell. Time is just a concept invented to keep events from running into each other.

Of course, I'd have to disagree that property is crime. Proprietary rights are an extension of individual rights to freedom from initiations of force. Where force cannot ethically be applied without provocation against an individual, so too can it not be applied ethically to what one has in one's possession because doing so requires an application of force, again, to the individual.

The upside for modern theory of law in this is that it justifies rights to property in the tangible sense, where what you can defend is judged personal property. Then, by way of the attendant prohibition against fraud, which justifies the basis of contract law, it also extends to justify rights to tangible property when you walk away from it, but only where one exists as part of a social order where an institutionalized means of defense-by-proxy in absentia exists, because of the presence of police protection.

The downside for modern law theory is that intangible "property" isn't justified by this. There is no physical defense justification for "intellectual property", because there's nothing physical to defend directly, and the indirect physical property must be treated by the same rules of physical property that apply for all other forms of physical property. In other words, so long as you ethically claim ownership of some recording medium, it's ethically defensible, but the moment you give up ownership it's gone, recorded data and all.

OK, this is from the UK Patent Office, and does actually make interesting reading.

After reading this, do you think that IP/Patent laws have gone too far in protecting the large corporations instead of the original inventor.

Doesn't this seem to be like history repeating ... the people in power abuse it, whenever possible extending the time and scope.

Just look at the way Disney and Copyrights have "progressed", or in my opinion repressed.

I can just see this getting really messy in a few years, with people not being able to innovate without paying through the nose for lawyers etc.

http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/whatis/fivehundred/origins.htm

Quote:
"Origins

The origins of patents for invention are obscure and no one country can claim to have been the first in the field with a patent system. However, Britain does have the longest continuous patent tradition in the world. Its origins can be traced back to the 15th century, when the Crown started making specific grants of privilege to manufacturers and traders.

Such grants were signified by Letters Patent, open letters marked with the King's Great Seal. The earliest known English patent for invention was granted by Henry VI to Flemish-born John of Utynam in 1449. The patent gave John a 20-year monopoly for a method of making stained glass, required for the windows of Eton College, that had not been previously known in England.

Tudors and Stuarts

In the time of the Tudors it became common practice for the Crown to grant monopolies for trades and manufacturers, including patents for invention. During the 30 years from 1561 to 1590, Elizabeth I granted about 50 patents whereby the recipients were enabled to exercise monopolies in the manufacture and sale of commodities such as soap, saltpetre, alum, leather, salt, glass, knives, sailcloth, sulphur, starch, iron and paper. However, the Queen did refuse to grant patents in certain cases. For example, in 1596 Sir John Harrington's request for a patent on his design for a water closet was turned down on the grounds of propriety.

Under both Elizabeth I and her successor James I, the granting of monopolies for particular commodities became increasingly subject to abuse. It was not uncommon for grants to be made for inventions and trades that were not new; for example, a patent granted by Elizabeth I for the making of knives with bone shafts was held by the Court of Queen's Bench to be unsustainable because these articles were already being made in the Realm. In some instances grants were made to royal favourites or for the purpose of replenishing royal coffers.

In 1610, James I was forced by mounting judicial criticism and public outcry to revoke all previous patents and declare in his "Book of Bounty" that 'monopolies are things contrary to our laws' and "we expressly command that no suitor presume to move us". He stated an exception to this ban for "projects of new invention so they be not contrary to the law, nor mischievous to the State". The doctrine of the public interest was thus introduced into the patent system at a very early date and the words were incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies of 1624. Section 6 of the Statute rendered illegal all monopolies except those "for the term of 14 years or under hereafter to be made of the sole working or making of any manner of new manufactures within this Realm to the true and first inventor"; such monopolies should not be "contrary to the law nor mischievous to the State by raising prices of commodities at home or hurt of trade"."

It does continue for quite a few more pages.......

If you weren't implying that with your last question, what you were you implying in the last question in your response, that I should feel guilty about not conforming ?
Come to think of it the first sentence is along the same lines.
The differing belief is trivial, the fact that I don't hold your's is important ?
You consistantly seen to be saying that those who hold differing beliefs with respect to IP should be concerned about that fact.
You imply because of my beliefs, that a prospective employer should consider their property at risk. In other words because I differ from you, you judge me at the very least a potential criminal.
So spit it out, I might tell you **** off, but I won't sue you.

.
You just can't post a simple and reasonable message, can you? You just can't answer a simple question with a simple answer, can you? And you just have to be evasive, don't you?

You've been boxed into a logic corner, and you can't reply to a simple message without rendering your previous assertions flawed, so you play these silly games. But that's what you're becoming known for around here -- and someone who just can't be taken seriously.

I seem to remember you saying...sic... as opposed to [[i]sic[/i]] but I couldn't find the quote when I posted.

You then made somee comment about not knowing about ellipsis or something. Just some irrelevant babble I guess.

I though Maxwell's comment was extremely simple but stuck to logical facts in the simplest terms.

There was no overexaggerated copy used, just simple and very basic grounds roots terms to describe his position. Which is no mystery to anoyone that has spoken with Max before, including you.

Believe me, I am not one ot jump on Max's side, as I'm sure he will agree, but in this case it was quite black and white. His cmments made sense were based in simple terms but on very logical and unwavering point of view, as usual.

Perhaps that's the problem that causes you to turn every comment to an argument, you aren't seeing the simplest logic in your quest to confuse, compound and then split hairs over the most basic issues.

Someimes over analyzing an issue results in it becoming completely illogical in your own mind and then the ability to see the common logic is clouded.

Maybe you should have chosen a different alis, apotheosis is a pretty arrogant and self centered term, it just echos your attitude here and creates argument. Anyone who would CHOOSE such an alias ot describe himself must obviously have some issues with their own ego that need to be reolved before a fair and equal conversation can be had.

What music do you listen to?

What influences did they have.

Does it sounds sort of similar.

Is it a parody.

There's a very fine line between copying and having something as an influence.

You did it again! You decided to respond with insult and attack! Thanks for making my point.

NOTE: It's not "apotheosis", it's "apotheon".

[i]an individual element of a greater, transcendent whole.[/i]
(second definition)

Don't jump to conclusions. There are several definitions for "apotheon", and none of them are identical to those for apotheosis. Aside from that, such attempts to paint me as the bad guy are irrelevant to the substance of the discussion at hand. Yet another straw man rears its vegetative head.

If you look at MS for example.

Most of the stuff is actually a secret, they don't release all the API's even (see SAMBA and MS compatibility).

The text would actually be copyright (as copyright is basically issued the moment you write it, you just need to prove when exactly you wrote it)

And then, they also get the IP on it.

Sort of a win win win situation for them, forget about the smaller players.

You see, smaller people won't have the funds to be able to defend their own IP, MS will drag it out as long as possible to try and break the company.

What happens is the largest corporations just end up "swapping" patent uses with each other.

Simple for them, hell for the smaller, generally more innovative creator.

For instance,

Quote:
"BALTIMORE -- Microsoft Corp. will pay $60 million to settle a lawsuit brought by a California software company that alleged Microsoft stole its multimedia streaming software.

Microsoft and Burst.com said in a joint statement late Friday that they had reached "an agreement in principle" to resolve all claims against Microsoft. Under the settlement, Microsoft also will receive a non-exclusive license to Burst's patent portfolio. "

Microsoft has settled several antitrust lawsuits in recent years, including cases filed by the U.S. government and several states over its use of the Windows operating system to muscle out rivals, including competitors to its Web browser.

Over the past two years, Microsoft has spent some $3 billion to settle private antitrust lawsuits filed by AOL Time Warner Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc., Be Inc. and Novell Inc. It also paid an undisclosed amount to a trade group that had backed antitrust complaints by the U.S. government and the European Union.

The Novell settlement relates to antitrust claims regarding its NetWare product. Less than a week after reaching that deal, Novell filed a lawsuit regarding WordPerfect, a product Novell used to own. Microsoft also faces complaints from RealNetworks Inc. and the EU."

Fine. If you can render it as a valid truth table, I'll pay you [b]ten[/b] dollars. That's US dollars. Real money. I'll mail it to you. Will you take a personal check?

Can it get any less evasive than this? I could have just said "Give it to me as a logical proof," but a truth table is much easier to construct properly, and I figured the addition of fiscal motivation might even get some results.

Maybe you tried and it didn't work, and that's why the two of you are now falling back on projecting your own failings onto me and (inaccurately) attacking my choice of username instead of providing valid analyses of your attempts at logical justification.

It's quite amazing that the very people, you in particular, who get irate when others accuse them of certain statements/positions are the worst offenders of making false accusations. You have stated that I referred to certain individuals as "criminal" or "communist". You now state that I think a certain kind of individual is an "idiot". I have not used any of those terms, nor anything resembling them.

I think the worst thing I have said about others in this discussion is that those who hold your views have no respect for the IP interests of others. You seem to acknowledge that position again and again ("I don't believe the current definition of IP is ethical"), unless you actually respect that which is unethical. If you are uncomfortable with your own position then maybe you should change it.

Now that was a bad example.

I do like Steven King, and just had to have a quick hunt to find this book by him:

I suppose he was trying to see if enough people would take it up, so he let people download it for free to see how it turned out. But it seems like quite a few people didn't get to grips with the "interweb" ;) at the time. Even he preferred a physical book.

But what will happen in the future with smaller, better devices to read from is anyone's guess.

Will We Close the Book on Books?
BY STEPHEN KING
From: Visions of the 21st Century
Time Magazine, June 2000
Book lovers are the Luddites of the intellectual world. I can no more imagine their giving up the printed page than I can imagine a picture in the New York Post showing the Pope technoboogieing
the night away in a disco. My adventure in cyberspace ("Riding the Bullet", available on any computer near you) has confirmed this idea dramatically. My mail and the comments on my website (www.stephenking.com) reflect two things: first, readers enjoyed the story; second, most didn't like getting it on a screen, where it
appeared and then disappeared like Aladdin's genie.
Books have weight and texture; they make a pleasant presence in the hand. Nothing smells as good as a new book, especially if you get your nose right down in the binding, where you can still catch an acrid tang of the glue. The only thing close is the peppery smell of an old one. The odor of an old book is the odor of history, and for me, the look of a new one is still the look of the future.
I suspect that the growth of the Internet has actually been something of a boon when it comes to reading: people with more Beanie Babies than books on their shelves spend more time reading than they used to as they surf from site to site. But it's not a book, dammit, that perfect object that speaks without speaking, needs no batteries and never crashes unless you throw it in the corner. So, yes, there'll be books. Speaking personally, you can have my gun, but you'll take my book when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the binding.

NOT FOR SALE
This PDF file was created for educational,
scholarly, and Internet archival use ONLY.
With utmost respect & courtesy to the
author, NO money or profit will ever be
made from this text or it's distribution.

.
And X = "If you can render it as a valid truth table"

Whaaaat?

that nutter neo-con presenter on Fox News, I can't remember the guys name, but he is famous for using the words "Shut Up" when someone says something he doesn't like, and then not admitting to having done so, but trying to explain something else.

Did they go to same school/shrink or whatever, cause they seem to have the same style.

To pick up on 1 miniscule point in the whole post and completely ignore any actual "difficult" questions that were asked.

And, actually, if that's the only point you want to pick up on, then:

"My employment situation has zero to do with the logic of my statements."

So you don't believe that someone employed by MS would have a pro-MS stance, likewise with Apple, Macromedia etc....

Oh yeah, like I say, Stven King was a bad example as he as given a book away free on the Internet ... see my later post:
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=9&threadID=169191&messageID=1733405

Yes, you're right, it was lindows,

That then changed it's name to linspire.

Personally I would have preferred if they chose something that would make a complete mockery, something like "The OS formerly known as Lindows" hahaha.

And, on a more serious note, it's actually MS who is currently getting done by the EU for anti competitive, they're supposed to get rid of WMP and release some info for better interoperbility (namely SAMBA).
Now, MS are playing again. They are trying to word it so that you are tied into a agreement, and I believe one part of that is that you can't be open source.
Also (even tho it's windows without WMP) they're calling it a stupid name (Windows Reduced Media).

All this is just a ploy to drag on as long as possible.... this isn't technology by MS people, it's business, marketing, stall-tactics, and seeing how far they can push the law, not technology.

OK, take the BBC for example, a public service broadcaster.

In the UK, we pay our TV licences for them to make programmes that are important to the lives of the public (supposedly).

So because we (the public) paid for it, if they only show it once, why would it be wrong to record it and play it back at a later date?

Doe I get to keep a quarter if I run to the store fo ryou too?

I would happily bill you, if I thought you had the credibility to actually pay it.

YOu would most likely need a credit card though. The last quote I created cost the client $1800.00 without him buying anything.

YOu want to me to work, dig deep. YOu want to prove your point? Try again, thus far you have failed miserably.

It seems that YOU have the opinion nobody sane is willing to accept. Therefore the burden of proof rests on YOUR shoulders, not mine. Due to the democratic nature of our societies and the acceptance of global IP protection, one owul dthink it is up to any protestor of those laws to be the one burdened with proof, not the other way around.

TWISTY TURNY LITTLE BUGGER, AIN'T YOU!? aka, 'snake' or 'gummy worm'

Maybe that'll be your new alias, drop the self adoring ego trip 'APOTHEON' and go with 'gummy worm' or 'snake', it fits better.

Not a clever one though.

The subject line for your message reads "self-contradiction everywhere", yet you make no mention of any self-contradiction in the body of the message. Why? Have you taken to attempting to discredit me with subject lines because the substance of your messages is lacking?

I'm willing to assume that you obey the laws, but the laws only go so far and sometimes that's not enough. At those times, a person's ethics have to come into play.

Suppose you're doing some work for a company and you discover that an employee of the company is leaking source code (IP) for the company's software products to a competitor. As far as I know, you would be under no legal obligation to alert the company of the issue. As a person who believes that the notion of IP is unethical, would you alert the company so they can act to protect their IP interests, knowing that the employee in question would probably be fired?

If you don't like the example of source code above then substitute electronic versions of finished products. You have clearly stated that you have no consideration for anything but the physical media of a finished product.

If I am working for someone, I've signed a contract that states what I am working on is theirs. While I may dispute whether it is ethical for them to consider certain facets of my intellect theirs, I signed on the dotted line and it would violate my ethics to go against what I've agreed to in writing or verbally.
Whether it could be considered ethical, moral or even legal to break my word, once I've freely given my word that's it.
Is that enough respect for other people's principals for you, perhaps you should take a leaf out of your own book and start showing some for others.

I think that I am agreeing with you here.

I don't really think that it is a yes or a no answer.

I think that the current model only seems to serve the larger businesses/corporations.

OK, take certain drugs, for instance AIDS.

Now it's a basic fact that there are people currently dying from this disease and this could be greatly reduced.

What I don't understand about the general conservative view is this:

In the US there are protests against people having abortions as they say that it is killing an innocent life.

But in the same breath, they don't want to give drugs to someone who has AIDS and has become pregnant. Those drugs could stop the mother from passing opn the killer infection to her child but she can't afford it, and so are willing to let them die.

Can anyone explain me why??

Well, actually copying money would be called "counterfeiting" only if you try and use it.

Do you think whenever you see money burning in a film, or flying from a suitcase into the wind ... do you think that's real money. Nope, it's called fake money. So by your rekoning that would be illegal, they would actually have to use real money, eh?

Quote:
"Copying the original denigrates the value of the original.

The same is true of intellectual property of all types, especially when the copies give no credit to the author."

So, how do you explain open source, creative commons, gpl, copyleft to name a few.

If giving stuff away doesn't do anything why do they exist?

.
Why not put my statements into your "truth table", assign whatever variables you'd like to whatever statements I made, and prove them to be false.

Hello, you three, has definetly been interesing read, so here's my take on things.

Oz, I agree with you to an extent, ideally that would be nice, the examples you give seem absolutely logical, but that's not how it seems to be working in real life.

There's a very fine line between derivative works for instance.

In your bridge example, how much would the bridge actually have to change for it to be deemed different, and who would actually decide this?

And, how about reverse engineering. Say another bridge builder never saw the bridge, and either someone else described it to him (not the methods of contruction) but what it visually looks very similar to it.

There's many other examples I can think of.

What did you think of the Grey Video by Dangermouse for instance?

You could say there was quite a lot of artistic difference between the beatles, jay-z or whoever it was and the major video editing, audio mixing that was done. So, unlike the bridge example, it is not an exact copy, but yet they still deem it to be against copyright.

I must say - i'd never buy a beatles album, or a jay-z album. But that video was wicked, and I would have bought it.

OK, to answer Maxwell's Question.
Quote
"If I write a piece of music and record it, and I want it to go to people who only pay me for it, who in the hell are you to trump my desires? Screw you! And if you take it without paying for it, you're stealing -- plain and simple. If you don't want to pay me for it because I'm a greedy S.O.B., that's fine and dandy; nobody's forcing you to. I'm not forcing you to succumb to my desires, and I'll be damned if you'll force me to succumb to yours -- so leave your greedy and thieving little hands off my property - whether that property's tangible or intangible, or whether it's something that you can see or something that you can only hear, without my permission and without complying to my conditions. You're infringing on ME, not the other way around."

OK, I have to agree, to a certain extent, that it does sounds more like a tantrum, "you're not going to play with my toys" sort of statement. But this is the stance is being widely pushed at the moment, which I do really think is a bad thing.

This is what I think is wrong about Copyright/IP in it's current form. It doesn't distinguish between someone being greedy, or monopolistic.

You see, in MY view IP/Copyright should be about someone who made something having the assurance that no-one is going to steal their idea and take it as their own to resell.

THAT is what we need to address, piracy for profit, not filesharing.

There would be many people who would buy your music (assuming its any good of course).

How about if they are playing it at their house when I go visit them?

Surely what you want is to make a living/profit from your work.

Don't forget, that if you had any sort of deal with a record company, they would in most likely make the largest profit from your work, not a person who is enjoying your work.

Rather than putting their product on file-sharing applications, they are prosecuting free-download users for theft. I don't really class the current downloads as any good. Poor quality, DRM laden files.

There are a few labels who have embraced new technology, and are giving high quality, non DRM files.

Warp Records for example.

If that's what you want too, don't buy the commercial stuff, support independant and smaller artists.

And anyway, surely everyone is free to share what they have with their friends.

Someone had bought your music, then lends it to a friend, how would you know?

You see that's the difference between stealing and copyright infringement (please note - not theft).

With stealing you are at the loss of a physical product, if someone takes one, you have one less.

After all, if your product is good enough, people will want to buy it.

People who download still buy music and films, but the more that those record companies sue their own customers the more there will be a backlash.

What the record companies are not adressing is the internet and new technologies. They tried to stifle the video recorder, trying to say that it will be the death of the film industry.

It didn't.

Just like you wont go broke cause a few people actually have friends who share.

I must say I am a bit confused with apotheon and what exactly you are for - total anarchy? There would also be many losers if that is what you are advocating.

He seemed to pick me up on this, I rekon he's just learnt a new word :)

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=81&threadID=168955&messageID=1733368

So all those railing to make all information free:

is someone's credit records something Apotheon would be willing to buy then 'distribute for free' to a friend to help him out? (similar to choicepoint incident)
(perhaps a friend in the identity theft biz)

how about medical records?

how about names and addresses of people who wish to be private?

And if you agree these should not be 'freed' then there IS a limit to 'freeing the bits'

to attempt to enforce statutory terms on the grounds that they were not explicitly copied into the contract? (I am asking the question because the threads as here viewed are becoming increasing difficult to navigate; it would be so much better if posts could be viewed in situ, as opposed to ones being thrown back to the top of the discussion.)

If this is the case, then statutory law would become enforceable, and anarchy would ensue.

If I misinterpreted your post, kindly advise.

Because you are concentrating on your own little patch.

The reality is, that we as humans have come up with these cures.

What would you feel like if you caught some disease that YOU can't afford to pay the cure for and live through the suffering, watching your children go though the same fate, dying slowly, knowing that someone could have saved you and your children. Apart from they couldn't be arsed cause they're not going to get enough money.

Because that's what they have to deal with.

Your arrogance and lack of compassion disgust me.

Clearly this post was intended as a reply to a different sub-thread; with so many to chose from, only the postor knows for sure.

I think it was on euro vacation movie where only thing on 4 bbc channels where showing 12 hours of cheese making. In reality, they make quality, equally boring shows like Mystery or that detectives one. (Sorry but I have to watch it as my gf likes it).

I'm not sure what your laws are in UK but probably would still be copyrighted even tho govt made. Not that I necessarily agree. But if everyone copied it then govt industry would lose money, but I think they do anyway.

I do like the BBC world news, more unbiased than US news. However I flamed you further down for the 'compassion' post, I think was yours.

wasted though we've already been tried and found guilty of holding a different set of ethics, therefore we are unethical.
Still at least we've graduated from immoral commies to merely untrustworthy.

Another five hundred or so posts and someone might come up with a valid argument as to why we are wrong.
Intellect = property. So none of my knowledge is mine or any that is not in the public domain, I've stolen.
Sheesh.

rights and obligations acquired under contract can frequently be conveyed to other parties.

I have learned better than to attempt any form of reason with you, you have PROVEN that as a futile practice with me, Max, ippirate, and all those I have listed here before. You are what they called incourageable in Alcatraz.

Why even pretend to seek a discussion when that is the furthest thing from your mind? You are not here to discuss anything, you are simply here to dictate your views and twist any logical rebuttal into a circular and never ending discussion.

Can I ask WHY you posted your last reply if not simply to create argument? I don't believe you are seeking answers,explanations, truth or logic, you just want something you can argue.

SO when it comes to THAT level of crap, I will just save you the time, as well as my own trying to make a viewpoint clear to you, and simply bash you instead. That's all you're worth at this point in time and I am sure I am not the first to recognize it. Perhaps the most patient that's all.

So when YOU begin to accept rational answers and reply in the same fashion, I am sure you will find a lot more acceptance of even the most warped logic, whether people agree or not they will accept your views as YOUR views.

You can't possibly expect to convince a forum full of adults that your overanalysis of the protection behind 'that which doesn't exist' as being an immoral, unethical or plain illogical law, when you take to it by not respecting other views or posts from your peers.

Apotheon (apotheoun), derived from the Greek Apo and Theos or DEIFY and GOD.

Apotheosis is the ACT of self denounced superiority.

The reason I brought it up today is because it made the cover of the local news today.
A young girl, grade 8 age 13, won the CanWest spelling bee with that word.

Perhaps SHE could explain the NEED for copyright protection for you. Mind you she would probaly reach the same conclusion everyone else has, it's a waste of time trying to explian any views to you unless they agree with your own.

Yet he is not the first to use titles to draw attention to himself.

At some point in a thread, peopl estop following other people's posts, often when Apotheon starts running in circles with someone.

In order to retain SOME sense of credibility in thd discussion, it is not uncommon for people to use titles that are flames without including any support in the body copy.

It attracts attention and for those who are just skimming titles it makes him appear to be setting people straight, proving a point etc.

If not, people might actually feel inclined to read his posts and find out what insanity they are derived from.

It is advertising and baiting. "Hey everyone! Look at me, I am gonna start something,because I'm clever."

It's really something that small children do more than adults but adults do it when cornered too.

He's not the first to do it here though, and most certainly not the best, I hold that trophy for another unnamed peer for his title efforts to support an endless string of proven lies. But he's not that bad nowadays.

Apotheon seems to have grabbed the reins but isn't anywhere nearly as good at it as some have been here. What do you expect from him though, other than completely mindless drivel.

You CAN'T COPY money for ANY reason. Movies have an exception, it is simply scrip that appears to look like USD. They apply to a government approved copy service to get the notes and they require authorization from the government, you used to be able to download the copy request form fromParamount's site but it's been a few years since I've been there, had to once for a video shoot in San Diego.

Remember when Canon came out with that wild color copier a few years back (in the $40K range). You needed government clearance to buy one, it is subject to RANDOM inspections and you cannot clear the copy log. They found that you could copy money FAR too easily with it and the government's tried to stop it's release to the public.

It is also illegal to deface, draw faces on your money, though everyone has seen the Queen's moustache on our money by now or other scribble or numbers jotted down on it.

"The law states that scratching, marking or otherwise defacing coins such that it is unrecognizable, is illegal; so when you take a penny and put in in those machines that squish the penny and mark it with a picture or something, that's breaking the law. As such, if you apply the law to notes, if you were to colour it completely black that would be breaking the law as well (of course, you'd also be a twit as you'd be out the face value of note)."

Canadian law is a bit old and hard to enforce in this case, it was designed to protect coins but as dollars are considered currency the same applies there as well. Yet these laws are not enforced and I don't think anyone sits in jail for writing some girls phone number on a $20 (maybe for HANDING her $20 though).

So scribble away, DON'T PHOTOCOPY it, flatten your penny at Disneyland and do so without fear of repercussion, BUT, there technically IS a law to prevent it. I would assume like many Canadian laws, unenforced but handy when they need to press charges on a related incident.

TO explain a little further though.

The PLANS to the Brooklyn Bridge are protected. Not the idea of building a bridge though. If you purchased the Brooklyn Bridge and DUPLICATED it as you own work, you would also need ot duplicate the plans to that bridge and would therfore be infringing on copyright. We are talkng another BB all rivets and steel the same, like copying a CD.

If you described it to someone and they drew up their own plans and created and sold it, no problem. If you duplicated the BB and claimed it as your own design, that would be unlawful.

With works of music it is a little less lenient. If your work copies IN PART or in whole someone else's it is unlawful. Take Vanilla Ice and Ice ICE Baby, it included the intro from Queen's Under Pressure. They took him to court and won a sizeable sum for every CD and airplay Vanilla Ice sold.

I haven't seen the viedo you are referring to, as much as I respect the Beatles for their contribution to music, as I do with the Stones or The Who, I don't rally like any of their music enough to buy it. There's enough on the radio for me to get more than my fill. Funny enough, I know almost every Stones and Who tune released but have never bought a single one of their albums.
I do still have a cool limited edition Abbey Road that is still sealed and stored with other collectibles I own in England, but I have never run out to buy a Beatles album. I can only assume that in some way, the video copied in part or in whole or was related to a Beatles property, but as I said, unless I saw it I wouldn't recognize the copyright infringement.

The Brooklyn Bridge analogy wasn't mine to begin with, I just used an analogy to put the initial comments into perspective.

Edit: as for your views on filesharing, I have said those same points myself many times.

Actually musicians and bands use file sharing more than most other people. Collectors of music will also downlaod unheard of music, but they are also the first to buy the CD as they COLLECT them.

Your right, copyright is set out so that nobody can profit from your music. Unlike Apotheon, I don't think it s right to run off 100 copies and sell them at a profit, THAT is theft! However, I have worked with top selling artists and indie bands too. They BOTH use file sharing as a marketing tool. Indie bands use it to gain new fans. Accomplished bands use it as a prerelease to gague initial runs so that they don't oversaturate a market. No, U2 didn't REALLY have their new music LEAKED on the internet, they provided it themselves, it wasn't even the same as the finished release it was a raw master to get a feel for the reception and to help decide on a title track. They are also not the first band to do it.

It pisses of the labels because U2 owns their label rights and market how they see fit. The record conglomerates want to release ONE hook song and have it sell CD's. Other songs released on P2P networks make people realize that there is no value in buying the entire CD of junk to get the one marketable tune. This is also the fault of the record industry for gaining a reputation of poor quality releases, selling artists with no talent and saturating radio to get ONE song sold.

I recently was sent a copy of Judas Priests CD about 2 weeks before it was released. It was sent by a prmoter who often sends me prereleases under full licence but in this case it was slipped to me.

The day they released it though, I was at the store buying the CD. I want liner notes and graphics, not just the tracks. Plus I support anything they do, will buy any disk they release and also buy a t-shirt at shows even if I get free admission, I feel guilty about not buying concert tickets that often so I always buy programs or shirts. Plus the shirts these days are really good quality compared to what they USED to be (surprisingly enough)so I don't mind dropping $50 or so for a shirt. That's tour revenue for you!

I understand the industry, the poeple in it and the financial aspects of it too. For this reason, I don't mind paying my way, even if I do download tunes. I own a massive CD collection, if I am running out for the day and want some fresh music in my MP3 player, it would takes ages to go through CD's rip tunes and take them with me. I can download a playlist in no time (5 Mbps)and be on my way. I still bought the disk and support the band though.

I don't even know if it was this thread now, and i'm sure a hell am not going to read all of the posts again to find it.

It MAY have been in () but I THOUGHT it was ...sic...

EIther way, both are wrong and it wasn't even 'as such' [[i]sic[/i]]becase there was a typo/word in the sentence that was omitted.

It was someone rying to give a grammar lesson while showing less than perfect grammar themself, that's all.

I had an epiphany tonight.

I suddenly realized that all of the fun has been sucked out of this discussion. Every last bit of meaning has been bled from it. Not one bit of potential for progress or reasoned discourse remains so long as people like Oz and maxwell (and, to a lesser extent, people like bwalker) keep trying to dominate the field.

I've posted more than enough about the ethical basis of property rights, the logical basis of ethics, and my thoughts on the matter for anyone with a few brain cells to rub together to get something substantive from it, even if he disagrees. People like ibis, dafe2, and KaceyR have proven that. I have even, at one point, laid out a simple logical progression from [i]cogito ergo sum[/i] to the right of self-determination and the ethical statement that "initiation of force is wrong" in an attempt to foster further rational discussion.

With rare exception, my reward has been flaming and other abuse at the hands of maxwell and Oz. Well, I've got thick skin. I'm pretty well fireproof. I can take it. My feelings aren't hurt, I'm not personally humiliated, and ultimately I don't give a damn. Fools only injure themselves when they pursue their foolishness with such vigor. On the other hand, I don't have much interest in pursuing the matter: regardless of whether it hurts my feelings, it's still wasting my time.

Time and again I've seen opposing arguments start at "it's right because the law says so" and the like, and end at "You're a dirty nasty commie THIEF!" It gets old. It gets especially old when maxwell devolves into SCREAMING about how I'm a thief (without even bothering to provide logical support for the concept of theft of "intellectual property" that isn't circular) and Oz turns the discussion to discussions of his disdain for my choice of username. Clearly, I must be some kind of monster, for I disagree with maxwell and have a username that Oz deems arrogant. Others following them in lockstep only add to the dreary wearying nature of the discussion.

There's nothing more to be gained here, since I've stopped getting any serious discussion aimed directly at me, with the possible exception of deepsand and one or two other hesitating forays into the dangerous realm of taking me seriously in the presence of Oz and maxwell. The jury's still out on those possibilities, but they aren't worth wading through the garbage. The signal to noise ratio is about 10:1 here: we're not getting as much light as heat. Fare thee well. If anyone wants substantive discussion on the matter, they can reach me through my profile. Be forewarned: I'll be less tolerant of asinine crap like I've tolerated here when it's not public.

To sum up: Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

EDIT: For the record, I retract my offer of ten dollars for constructing a truth table here, because I won't be monitoring this discussion any longer. I don't have the time.

So much for his making up that truth table he likes to talk about so much. I wonder if truth syrum would help at that point?

Mind you, somehow I think Apotheon's TRUTH table resembles what I would call a Ouija board.

I was going to reduce my posts here, but I still have at least 150 more to go before I can fill those shoes he's given me for dominating the discussion.

Perhaps I should give him some shoes to fill too, big floppy red ones.

Oz:

I'm sure you're correct about the Top 5 list. The list seemed to match my perception of post counts in this thread and I made an incorrect assumption. Thanks for telling me about it (seriously).

All:

Obviously, I'm a newcomer to this forum. I have followed quite a few discussion threads (on this site and several others) over the years, but this is the first I have participated in in any significant way. Alas, the experience does not make me eager to do so again. I would like to find a forum where passionate opinions can be expressed, explained, and debated with civility. That's probably just a dream. Some people (here and elsewhere) seem to share that dream and they try hard to keep the discussion at a civil tone, but it looks like all forums tend to quickly turn to contentiousness and irrationality. In a way, that appears to mirror public debate in other contexts (such as political elections), so I should not be surprised that it happens online.

That's possible.

While strong businesses are good for producing medicines, and competition reduces the prices often, I feel monolithic health care and govt buying here has actually reduced competition in US and kept prices high.

I would of hoped the drug companies would have been willing to make deals for such as cross licensing and orphan drugs to help people.

Tho I don't believe in forcing them as if not for that business, no one would have developed some drug needed.

Cut and paste saves me hours. I also can't typpe worh a damn. Two hands and fingers flailing everywhere. I am the TYPO KING on TR.

I think they finally buckled and added the edit button just for me sometimes. :D

I'm just playing and having some fun most of the time. TEE HEE HEE!

Oh, there's proof.

Quoth apotheon:
"Yes, shoplifting has an effect on the store closing. Yes, shoplifting is wrong. No, there isn't any shoplifting (or even ethically equivalent activity) going on if someone downloads music. That's my point."

If that is your point, then I would suggest that your point is quite clearly flawed. The difference between music bought at a store and music downloaded is basically the physical media - the CD itself. You suggest that taking that CD containing from the store is wrong, but downloading just the music without the CD is not. Logically it follows that what you place value on is the physical media.

To me, that is ridiculous. The physical CD has virtually no value. What is of value is the music that it contains, which has taken many hours of work to produce.

Now, if you accept my premise that the value of the item is in the music and that the physical CD is merely a carrier and of no value in itself, then I cannot see how you can make an argument that downloading is different to stealing from the record store. Where exactly do you not agree with my logic?

BTW, you suggested that I read your arguments. Well, I have, but I must have somehow missed the convincing ones.

I totally understand why you wouldn't wan't to participate any further in this thread. Forgive me for trying to pull you back in.

I have been programming computers for 50 years come May 2006 and I have come to the conclusion, after years of study, that IP, copyrights, and patents are
totally subjective intangible objects and whose legal and moral properties are controlled entirely by political power via financial power of institutions.
To me this level and amount of disagreement between intelligent people on this forum proves that their definition, or at least their implementation, will never reach universal acceptance. I have a thousand friends who purchase books and after being read they are given to me. No problem, right? Those same
friends buy songs, listen to them, then send them to me via a peer-to-peer network. Whoa! I now have the FBI, RIAA, Sony, Jack Valenti, and George Bush after me. What happened? The answer is absolutely simple. There is no difference in principle between th acts but with books, the act is legal. Why? Obvious. It just simply cannot be made a crime because there is no way that it could be enforced.
The music. RIAA, et al can buy a few congressmen and pass laws to make it illegal and the internet
is controllable, ergo, I get CRIMINALLY prosecuted (NOT in civil court) for the act. Conclusion. The legality or illegality of "infringement" depends upon the possibility of enforcing these concepts.
Finally, it all adds up to who has the power. Look at what Disney did after they bought Sonny Bono.

I have been programming computers for 50 years come May 2006 and I have come to the conclusion, after years of study, that IP, copyrights, and patents are
totally subjective intangible objects and whose legal and moral properties are controlled entirely by political power via financial power of institutions.
To me this level and amount of disagreement between intelligent people on this forum proves that their definition, or at least their implementation, will never reach universal acceptance. I have a thousand friends who purchase books and after being read they are given to me. No problem, right? Those same
friends buy songs, listen to them, then send them to me via a peer-to-peer network. Whoa! I now have the FBI, RIAA, Sony, Jack Valenti, and George Bush after me. What happened? The answer is absolutely simple. There is no difference in principle between th acts but with books, the act is legal. Why? Obvious. It just simply cannot be made a crime because there is no way that it could be enforced.
The music. RIAA, et al can buy a few congressmen and pass laws to make it illegal and the internet
is controllable, ergo, I get CRIMINALLY prosecuted (NOT in civil court) for the act. Conclusion. The legality or illegality of "infringement" depends upon the possibility of enforcing these concepts.
Finally, it all adds up to who has the power. Look at what Disney did after they bought Sonny Bono.

For most of the computer industry, the IPR's are owned and controlled by the major corporations where such products emerge from. The EULA that everyone gets when they purchase only gives the end user the right to "rent" or "use" the program on a limited basis.

Some major corporations compensate their inventors with better pay and benefits while others are so tight they squeak and share nothing with the inventor.

I would like to be the guy who invented the motorized windshield wiper device. Do you know how many cars have windshield wipers ?

If you wrote a program that you would later sell on the open market, don't you think that whatever language you wrote the program in, that author should deserve some compensation for your use of his work to develop your program?

Some things are "fair and equitable" while others are flat out against human intelligence.

I'm all for the inventor getting just compensation, if only to keep mega corporations from profiteering from it.