Intellectual Property is not property

Reproductions of someone elses work without compensating the creator violates copyright law but what you seem to imply is that such a reproduction is done in secret. In that case, enforcement wouldn't be possible until the authorities are informed and dispatched but that's true of all crimes, not just forms of piracy.

 

What you send IS the tangible expression I'm speaking of in the case of a design from someone seeking a patent.

 

What you're advocating is thought crime. Nothing is original. Everything has been done before in some way. You can't selectively claim what constitutes an idea and what doesn't. You can't say that changing the script of a movie is a new idea but changing some words around in the movie isn't. It's not stealing if nothing is taken... how hard is that to understand?

 

Oh, ok. My bad. Let's pretend I was clearing that up for others reading.

 

I see. So, you think something which required hours upon hours of labor inputs cannot be owned; but something that required no labor inputs whatsoever can be owned.

Tell me, why do you think someone is entitled to own something they had no hand in creating while someone who spent hours working an idea is not entitled to the fruits of their labor?

 

No problem. I knew we could come to an understanding

 

What you advocate puts us below petroleum.

All that is being human is worth less than rocks. I find your position ludicrous.

 

Not to mention, people think it is a threat for everyone with money leaving America. Imagine if all creative people left for fear they could never create again without it being legally stolen. Much worse than losing big money.

 

Who said they aren't entitled to the fruits of their labor? As I said before, they can put their product on the market and get benefits from being an early adopter and also for selling a quality product. This is how you make money from your product, no need for IP laws.

As for ideas, if you don't want your ideas to spread, then don't share them with the world. Ideas are not tangible or physical, you can't steal ideas because their is nothing to steal. Once, you spread an idea into someone else's head then it is no longer yours. You can't control it after that. If you don't want to spread it then don't tell people about it, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

That being said, I agree with some portions. The best defense to imitation is complexity. Make the process of making a product or service so difficult that no one wants to invest the capital and risk.

 

But copyrighted material ISN'T available for free. That's the point. Arguing that you wouldn't have purchased the copy anyway is no argument at all. Theoretically, any stolen item may or may not have been purchased by the thief. All property is either an original or a copy of it. That's true of physical property as well as IP. My car is a reproduction. My computer is a reproduction. If some thief steals those items, I assume he won't buy them but the owners loses the opportunity to profit just the same.

 

Another key component of the argument is copyright laws have no bearing on theft so long as you aren't making money off the distribution. Those who argue against IP laws, are people who are arguing to make money off of someone's innovation. Basically, greed is their motivation while using the "other guy's greed" as some sort of noble motivating factor. Only 1 in the argument is genuine.

 

You don't think after someone purchases a CD, it becomes their property?

 

Marketing is irrelevant. Either something is your property or it is not. If I put years of work into an idea and someone found my notebook on the street, the logical conclusion of your position is that they could take that idea and market it to their heart's content.

Since when is "control" the meaningful factor? I could easily rest control of anything you owned were we to meet; does that mean I am the legitimate owner? No, of course not. Ownership is an idea in and of itself. The morality of ownership transcends tangibility and control.

And you failed to address my question. Why do you think someone can own land or natural resources? What did they do to create it? What labor did they provide which would entitle them to own land and natural resources?

 

Your argument holds no water. Has been tried and tried and epic fails every time. The reason, the basics are a thief's greed should trump an innovator's greed. No one of sound mind will ever support the notion. You can copy a CD and GIVE it to all your friends if you so choose. That is your right. Try to sell it, and you are GUILTY.

 

I believe in the principle of homesteading. Look it up.

Okay then, we agree. Music is available for FREE on thepiratebay, people are GIVING it away so it's okay. That's what you just said.

 

You never answered my question, other than self importance, why would I bother publishing anything which might be worthwhile?

You are relying on my sense of altruism?

To recap... the elephant in the room is that the companies who make money keeping their product theirs... shape the horizon for those who give it away... even though it is the product of the most amazing phenomenon we have encountered to date. The human mind. I believe it is worth something. I believe the evolution of millions of years has produced something much more interesting than the compression of coal.

 

Yes the CD becomes the buyers property. The songs are still the artists property. What you purchase is the right to use, not to reproduce and distribute, the songs on the CD.

 

He's wrong and so are you. Copyright protects the artist from having his work copied and distributed without compensating the artist. Giving away the pirated copy is no less illegal than selling the pirated copy.

 

So if you buy a lawnmower and a year later you don't want it, you shouldn't be able to give it away or sell it. That's so silly...

Ever heard of Shakespeare? Why did he make plays without copyright?

 

Of course silly because I didn't make a copy of it and sell it. I sold or gave away the one I already bought. You can't see the difference? I can sell a CD I purchased but I can't COPY the songs on it and redistribute the copies.

 

IP is just an excuse to create another privilege so that consumers pay higher prices and parasites get fat.

Everything about IP is arbitrary. Good grief, we spend a great deal of money to send our children to school with the expressed intent that they learn other peoples ideas. Why can I learn and use some ideas, but other ideas are off-limits? Doesn’t that seem a little suspicious? Just read a few chapters of this book and you will see how IP is damaging the economy and just how unnecessary, even stupid, IP really is:

Even Bill Gates understood and admitted that patents stagnate innovation.

...

 

As long as people are giving it away I believe it should be legal. I have nothing against file sharing.

 

BS. There is no law against copying a CD and giving it to your friend and you know it. The recording industry never had a problem with it at all until file sharing over the internet came into play. Only when you burn CDs to sell did it become a crime.

 

Gving someone an apple was a bad example. You can't make money or use the fact that someone has an apple.