|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 01/15/2006 : 22:02:22 [Permalink]
|
Among my professions, I perform magic for entertainment. I've invested thousands of hours into creating, refining, and practicing my material. In many cases I do what is known as busking, or street performing. For that I receive from each member of the audience whatever he/she chooses to pay me. Sometimes that's a $10 bill, sometimes it's pocket change, and sometimes it's nothing. When I set out to do this I know that's the deal.
But in some cases I charge particular amounts for my services for festivals or events, etc. And if the potential customer doesn't want to pay that fee, they don't get the results of my work. I would rightfully consider it theft if someone videotaped me at one performance then showed that tape as entertainment at their event, unless we have a specific agreement, one which is likely to involve compensation for my effort.
Also I've written many pieces of software and a few pieces of instructional documentation that have been released under the GNU Public License. That material is available to everyone and I receive no compensation. I have chosen to, more or less, donate that material. I have also written other material which is subject to copyright restrictions. It's not available for free. I reserve the "right" to determine who gets permission to "copy" it and under what conditions.
My work is often the result of a significant investment of time and effort. Unless I place it out there with the stated understanding that the public may have some of it for free, it's not okay for anyone to assume they may take it and do with it what they please.
Anyone who takes my work without my permission, particularly if they intend to profit from it is, hmmm, have a better word than thief? Anyone who thinks theft is acceptable behavior has the moral integrity of, well, what's a good word for thief? And anyone who expects the advantage of my work, but isn't willing to do the work necessary to earn and pay me the required compensation is, how can we politely say, lazy?
So, marfknox, I absolutely support your right, and consider it your prerogative, to set whatever price you choose for disseminating the results of your work, even if sometimes that amount is nothing. Sometimes that's my price, too. But sometimes I'm not willing to work for free. Wouldn't it be more reasonable if anyone who doesn't want to pay someone else's price, simply not expect to take advantage of the results of their work?
Edited for spelling. |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 01/15/2006 22:08:03 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 00:04:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
As far as I'm concerned, unless an artist, musician or author specifies- in writing, verbally, or otherwise- "copy away" as opposed to similarly stating "I'm doing this for profit" the same applies as with software...
International copyright law does, indeed, state just that. The creator of a "work" immediately owns the copyrights on the work as soon as it is "finalized," by default (no copyright notice required). To place the work in the public domain, and specifically waive their copyrights, they must state such explicity. So, if you see some creative work somewhere, the law says that you need to assume that the creator retains their copyrights unless you find that they've specifically given them up.
(One of the idiots who plagiarized one of my Web pages - by cutting and pasting everything except the header information and the copyright notice, and letting everyone else assume he wrote it - claimed, incorrectly, that anything on the Web was public domain.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 01:36:17 [Permalink]
|
| I've heard that "Public Domain" nonsense rattled more than once- seems to be a common misnomer for some reason. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 03:16:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The arguments "It's already been paid for once," "I otherwise wouldn't buy it anyway" don't hold water. If a guy who works construction "borrows" his bosses' crane at 2 AM and uses it to "moonlight" jobs and make a few extra bucks, he's stealing... saying "It would just be sitting there otherwise, anyway" doesn't hold water as a rationalization, either.
I think this is one of the problems associating "copying" with "stealing" in the physical sense. Many people who do pirate whatever really wouldn't have bought it anyway. Do you think 12 year old children who figure out how to use P2P networks would really have bought the hundreds of songs or the software they download?
Copyright infringement can't be justified. but i don't think suing children really helps anyone. And once you put things in a digital format, it's going to be inherently insecure. We need to forget about trying to prevent people from doing it, and simply create an option for obtaining copyrightable works that is more convenient that P2P (eg iTMS) which isn't crippled in such a way that a genuine buyer cannot use it in all legal ways. |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 07:16:14 [Permalink]
|
The program of principle (is that the correct term by the way? I have never heard or read it before, but my dictionary claims it is) of the Pirate Party has just been released to the public. It is to be found at https://www.piratpartiet.se/documents/Principer%202.0.pdf. Unfortunatly, it is in Swedish.
Sorry about my earlier gaffe, and thank you Mab for translating. Given that an offical English translation of the program is not available, I will post one later today. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 07:32:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
[quote]... i don't think suing children really helps anyone...
Society and the law apply different standards to wrongs committed by children than they do to adults, as is appropriate... but I agree, and I don't with your statement... it's too general. For instance, it depends on the 12-year-old, the circumstances, and what was being done with these data files. For example, most aren't... but some 12-year-olds are "street-wise," arrogant, and have little or no regard for others, or other's property. Some such 12-year-olds even commit henious crimes- rare, but it happens. Albeit "exceptions to the rule," they must be somehow punished- if not rehabilitated (if possible) as well- for their own good, and society's good as well. There are shades of gray- one couldn't judge such a situation without closely examining it, possibly in a court room. Was he probably intending to circulate or sell the information knowing this activity was wrong? I can't make a sweeping assumption based on such minimal information.
As for adults... "No." Whether information theft occurs via copyright violation, plagiarism, or other it's still fundamentally wrong in an ethical sense, and just because technology has presented new problems with enforcing security, we shouldn't just "throw up our arms" and say, "oh well, might as well make theft of some very valuable commodities legal" any more than were a new technological breakthrough made widely available which would enable most mechanical locks to be opened. Pending a better security solution, it doesn't make sense to throw basic ethical standards and respect for other's labors "to the wind". This is relatively new territory- we have to at least "give technology a chance" to manage the problem, even if it proves ultimately unsolvable before reaching for easy solutions that are unfair to people who've invested their time, money, talents, and sweat in these projects.
You seem to imply that that this is a "hopeless situation," maybe paralleling the "War on Drugs" in its futility, but there are big differences. That's been going on for over half-a-century at the cost of many billions of dollars and countless lives, with numerous enforcement strategies having been investigated, most having found to be ineffective as well as expensive... methods to cope with this haven't even been thoroughly investigated yet, let alone tried. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 09:26:21 [Permalink]
|
I finished the translation now. Please note that this is merely a private translation of a document, and meaning is easily lost in translation. Consider this a disclaimer of pretty much anything and everything related.
As I said earlier, the original can be found at https://www.piratpartiet.se/documents/Principer%202.0.pdf.
Program of principle of the Pirate Party
Introduction
It is claimed that copyright benefits culture and the dissemination of knowledge, and this claim is seldom questioned. We question it, and do so with the conviction that only in this way can democracy and the freedom of the individual be protected, and may live in a society where culture and knowledge is available to all. We question that which has been proclaimed obvious and claim that copyright activly thwarts it's purpose by limiting access to culture, limits the consumers' choices, worsens the conditions for entrepreneurship, and damages democracy.
One of the foundations of the democratic society is that individuals have free access and the right to spread knowledge and culture. That our politicans, elected by the people, have acted to abolish these rights July the 1st 2005 has meant that over one million citizens in our generation have been criminalised. Something which has never before happened.
Another foundation is free acces to knowledge. So if copyright implies a monopoly on culture, patents are a monopoly on knowledge, and patents are often abused in a way similar to copyright.
We also want to promote questions of integrity. According to current law we are in a society where practically everyone is under constant surveillance. We mean that is not compatible with a modern comunity governed by law that all citizens are subject to surveillance and thus treated as suspects. We claim that a democracy requires (assumes?) a certain minimum of personal integrity. The commercial and political forces advocate a control-society we are acting against.
Civil Rights
The defense of the indivdual's right to privacy is confirmed by (as?) law in the Swedish Constitution. From this basic right springs several other important human rights like freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, freedom of information, the right to culture and the right to personal development. All attempts from the public power's side to restrict these rights must be questioned and be met by forcefull resistance. The common society's right to existance (possibly "justification of existance") bases itself in that it improves the lives of it's citizens and that it's legitimacy comes from the will of the people. Created laws must be anchored in the people and the politicansmust believe the laws will be followed. If not, we risk a contemp of politics and politicians which is damaging to our sense of justice and our democracy.
All aspects of power, systems and methods which the state can use against (on) it's citizens must be in constant review (lit: retesting and observation) by elected representatives. When the state uses it's aspects of power to supervise innocent zitizens it has de facto violated the individual's private life and limited the freedom of speech in a fundamentally unacceptable way. Every citizen shall be guaranteed the right of anonymity which today is assumed in the Constitution and the right to exclusivly command (have at one's disposal, access, can't find a satisfactory translation) one's own personal information must be strengthened. The opposite is the hallmark of dictatorships and totalitarian states.
The right of secrecy of letters (possibly privacy of correspondence) shall be extended to a general right of privacy to communication. It should be prohibited to listen in (tap) other people's conversations on the phone, read other people's email and SMS in the same way it is today illegal to read other people's (normal) mail. The state shall only on suspicion of crimes have the right to collect evidence and perform surveillance of it's citizens and shall assume innocence. This right of privacy to one's communication must be given a strong protection as the state has on a number of occasions shown itself incapable handling information in a way which inspires confidence or faith.
We want to annul the "Data retention directive" and strengthen the protection of the individual's private life
Patents hurt society
Patents are supposed to encourage the spread of information by protecting those who invent and invest in new inventions and production methods. Obviously inventors and other entrepeneurs must receive compensation for their work and ideas. More and more often, patents are instead used by large companies to hinder smaller competitors from competing on a level playng field (lit: equal conditions). Instead of patents encouraging innovation, companies use "patent carpet-bombing" (lit: patent-carpets) in wars against competitors (lit: other actors) to avoid competition, patents which the owner has no desire or aim to develop or exploit.
True breakthroughs are often kept secret to the last in order to create a favourable market (lit: market advantages). Pharmaceutical companies use their patents to stop poorer, less economically developed nations, from creating copies of neccessary (lit: neccessary for life) AIDS-medication while the public has paid for large parts of the basic research and the chemists' research and education. Small inventors who have already laid out relativly large resources in seeking patents are not uncommonly (lit: not seldom) taken to court to defend themselves against armies of patent lawyers from larger companies who meanwhile repriduce the original inventor's work in low wage nations. We believe that paents have played out their role and that they actively hinder innocation and new knowledge.
We mean to successivly dismantle the patent system
We wish to see a society where small and large actors can compete on equal terms and conditions with customer use, quality and price, instead of having the winner being the one who hired the best patent lawyer firm. This will free resources which can instead be used to foster real innovation and improve products faster, which in the end will be to the benefit of all. This assumes and requires consumers and producers boths can trust a continued strong trademark and industrial design rights.
There is a strong public interest for trademarks and logos to be protected by laws and regulations. The citizens have a need to know that what they are buying is what they think it is. THe companies in turn need help from society to protect their trademarks to compete in a fair way. The only exceptions to this strong protection are in special circumstances where for example the images are used for consumer review or satire. We also wish to strengthen the laws concerning commerciaö copying of trademarked goods.
We wish to strengthen trademark protection
Culture must be released
We wish to strengthen the part of copyright which deals with a person's right to be recognised the creator (orignator, author) of a piece. This right shall not be traded away, inherited or stolen. Further, we wish to strengthen the requirment to cite a source when copying, citing or change a work. It shall be forbidden in the future to change a work so it insults or violates the orignator, especially when doing so for commercial reasons. This copyright which shall require no registration or fee shall extend for perpetuity.
On the other hand, we wish to completely annull that part of copyright which treats an originator or author exclusive rights to produce copies of the work. This is based on the false assumption that such an exclus |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 10:07:37 [Permalink]
|
Bunga,
This party has nothing to do with pirating any other works than computer programs. Why? Because art (visual and audiotory) is not information.
Further, it forgets the inherent dampener on invention that basically throwing out all patents would do. What's the point of inventing something if you won't be able to profit from it? Drug companies wouldn't need to spend all that R&D money when they could just wait for someone else to invent it. (I will grant you that pharmecutecal industry does bend the patent office over and uses it like a $3 whore.)
It also says that there is a right to information. This is wholly unreasonable as there are some critical bits of information which a country must have for it's own defense. The names of covert operatives in other nations, for instance. In addition, why should any computer company supply and equipment or software to a nation which has said "we don't recognize proprietary information or ownership".
Lets also consider the absurd notion that an artist should not have exclusivity for their product. I'll use Siberia as an example. Siberia produces 45 interesting paintings in 10 years. She is unable to afford a gallery showing of her works. You find the work interesting and take pictures of the art or buy up the paintings for a mere 10 USD each. (She's starving and needs money fast.) You then turn around and make a book containing her art work and attribute all paintings to her. It doesn't sell in Brazil, but the Chinese think her stuff is great. It sells 100 million copies. You get one penny from every book you sell.
You get 1 million USD from the sale. Siberia doesn't get a kiss, but can buy herself dinner from the 450 USD original monies you put down. (And that assumes you bought the art work. Otherwise, she doesn't even get dinner.) She gets squat from the sales of books of her art work. Bottom line, you don't do anything creative and get rich. Siberia does all the creative work and gets royally hosed. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 01/16/2006 10:12:30 |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 10:21:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Bunga,
This party has nothing to do with pirating any other works than computer programs. Why? Because art (visual and audiotory) is not information.
You are incorrect on two fronts. It does have a lot do with with visual and audoitiry art, reread the section entitles "culture must be released". This deals explicitly with music, video, paintings, sculpture, text and other forms of art.
Also, both visual and auditory art can be and very often is information.
quote:
Further, it forgets the inherent dampener on invention that basically throwing out all patents would do. What's the point of inventing something if you won't be able to profit from it? Drug companies wouldn't need to spend all that R&D money when they could just wait for someone else to invent it. (I will grant you that pharmecutecal industry does bend the patent office over and uses it like a $3 whore.)
They do not wish to "throw out all patents" but rather "successivly dismantle the patent system".
And drug companies would need to spend lots of money on R%D, or otherwise nothing (no new drugs, rather) would be invented.
quote:
It also says that there is a right to information. This is wholly unreasonable as there are some critical bits of information which a country must have for it's own defense. The names of covert operatives in other nations, for instance. In addition, why should any computer company supply and equipment or software to a nation which has said "we don't recognize proprietary information or ownership".
Information classified with regards to national security, or personal information such as a person's job, fingerprints or sexual kinks, is explicitly protected in this... manifesto?
You might want to reread the program, since I don't think you quite understand it.
quote:
Lets also consider the absurd notion that an artist should not have exclusivity for their product. I'll use Siberia as an example. Siberia produces 45 interesting paintings in 10 years. She is unable to afford a gallery showing of her works. You find the work interesting and take pictures of the art or buy up the paintings for a mere 10 USD each. (She's starving and needs money fast.) You then turn around and make a book containing her art work and attribute all paintings to her. It doesn't sell in Brazil, but the Chinese think her stuff is great. It sells 100 million copies. You get one penny from every book you sell.
You get 1 million USD from the sale. Siberia doesn't get a kiss, but can buy herself dinner from the 450 USD original monies you put down. She gets squat from the sales of books of her art work. Bottom line, you don't do anything creative and get rich. Siberia does all the creative work and gets royally hosed.
In this case, Siberia has in a stroke become famous in China and in all likelyood around the entire world. 100 million books are in circulation containing her collected works.
And you think that doesn't allow her to show her next pieces on her terms? Or that it doesn't open the lecture circuit to her? Or can move to China and sell new originals there for obscene amounts of money? She just got free publicity, 100 million times over! Or open any number of ways for her to make money, if that is her goal.
BTW, I have no idea of Siberia is male or female, I often use "her" and "she" when I do not have that information, blame Wizards of the Coast for this.
EDIT: Bolding fixes |
| Edited by - Bunga on 01/16/2006 10:23:41 |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 10:28:28 [Permalink]
|
| I'm a girl. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 10:34:18 [Permalink]
|
| Well, thats one person I didn't insult today at least. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 10:48:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Bunga,
This party has nothing to do with pirating any other works than computer programs. Why? Because art (visual and audiotory) is not information.
You are incorrect on two fronts. It does have a lot do with with visual and audoitiry art, reread the section entitles "culture must be released". This deals explicitly with music, video, paintings, sculpture, text and other forms of art.
So it's institutionalized stealing. Got it. I was reading it's main thrust into this was the freedom of information.
quote:
Also, both visual and auditory art can be and very often is information.
Funny, I don't see it that way. Art is experienced. It does not teach anything. Perhaps we have a serious disconnect in the way we define information.
quote:
quote:
Further, it forgets the inherent dampener on invention that basically throwing out all patents would do. What's the point of inventing something if you won't be able to profit from it? Drug companies wouldn't need to spend all that R&D money when they could just wait for someone else to invent it. (I will grant you that pharmecutecal industry does bend the patent office over and uses it like a $3 whore.)
They do not wish to "throw out all patents" but rather "successivly dismantle the patent system".
And this isn't removing all patents and preventing the issuance of others..... how?
quote:
And drug companies would need to spend lots of money on R%D, or otherwise nothing (no new drugs, rather) would be invented.
And why would someone invent something when they can't recoup any of that R&D cost? Pharmaceutical companies exist to turn a profit. Remove the profit from the R&D and you don't have any reason to develop new medicines.
quote:
quote:
It also says that there is a right to information. This is wholly unreasonable as there are some critical bits of information which a country must have for it's own defense. The names of covert operatives in other nations, for instance. In addition, why should any computer company supply and equipment or software to a nation which has said "we don't recognize proprietary information or ownership".
Information classified with regards to national security, or personal information such as a person's job, fingerprints or sexual kinks, is explicitly protected in this... manifesto?
You might want to reread the program, since I don't think you quite understand it.
I saw this as contradictory for national security. Personal information was never part of my argument. I also see it as a dodge from the main problem that companies would have by selling their hardware and software products to a country which, through this manifesto, advocates people to disassemble and reverse engineer their products.
quote:
quote:
Lets also consider the absurd notion that an artist should not have exclusivity for their product. I'll use Siberia as an example. Siberia produces 45 interesting paintings in 10 years. She is unable to afford a gallery showing of her works. You find the work interesting and take pictures of the art or buy up the paintings for a mere 10 USD each. (She's starving and needs money fast.) You then turn around and make a book containing her art work and attribute all paintings to her. It doesn't sell in Brazil, but the Chinese think her stuff is great. It sells 100 million copies. You get one penny from every book you sell.
You get 1 million USD from the sale. Siberia doesn't get a kiss, but can buy herself dinner from the 450 USD original monies you put down. She gets squat from the sales of books of her art work. Bottom line, you don't do anything creative and get rich. Siberia does all the creative work and gets royally hosed.
In this case, Siberia has in a stroke become famous in China and in all likelyood around the entire world. 100 million books are in circulation containing her collected works.
And you think that doesn't allow her to show her next pieces on her terms? Or that it doesn't open the lecture circuit to her? Or can move to China and sell new originals there for obscene amounts of money? She just got free publicity, 100 million times over! Or open any number of ways for her to make money, if that is her goal.
No, it doesn't. Especially if she doesn't know her stuff is a hit in China. And moving there, she has no money to feed herself let alone move anywhere. And how much is that free publicity worth? What if she dies of starvation (because you photographed her stuff and put it in circulation) or she is homeless (again, she has no money). Cites of art usually has the author's name. Not country of origin. Even if you did say she was Brazilian, Brazil's a big place. Lots of towns. Hard to find people. Again, you make out like a bandit and she gets screwed.
quote:
BTW, I have no idea of Siberia is male or female, I often use "her" and "she" when I do not have that information, blame Wizards of the Coast for this.
EDIT: Bolding fixes
The way my public school taught me was to assume the person is male if gender is unknown. I know through past postings by Siberia that she is female. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 11:30:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
So it's institutionalized stealing. Got it. I was reading it's main thrust into this was the freedom of information.
From Dictionary.com:
steal Audio pronunciation of "stealing" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl)
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Given that this program, if made law, gives both right and permission to copy the work; no, it is not stealing.
quote:
quote:
Also, both visual and auditory art can be and very often is information.
Funny, I don't see it that way. Art is experienced. It does not teach anything. Perhaps we have a serious disconnect in the way we define information.
Maybe we do. I'm not entirely sure what the formalised definition if any word I use is, since they are all defined recursivly down into my subconscious. Again, from Dictionary.com:
4 entries found for information.
in·for·ma·tion Audio pronunciation of "information" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nfr-mshn)
n.
1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See Synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.
7. Law. A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.
Both number three and number five are examples of how music or pictures can be information. I have long held that knowledge is information which is understood by a person, and that information is any collection of data or facts. When discussing mathematics or computer science, there are a few more things information can be.
To me, information does not have to "teach" anything to be information. It just has to be. I also think that the only thing which can be experienced is information, in various forms and states.
But whatever debate we can hold on the nature of information, we should probably leave it to a different thread, if we agree that the program does deal with art as well as information.
quote:
quote:
They do not wish to "throw out all patents" but rather "successivly dismantle the patent system".
And this isn't removing all patents and preventing the issuance of others..... how?
I suppose it does. But "thrown out" to me implies "quickly, suddenly" and usually "without regard to those it affects" and "without attemps to soften the blow". Probably another disconnect.
quote:
quote:
And drug companies would need to spend lots of money on R%D, or otherwise nothing (no new drugs, rather) would be invented.
And why would someone invent something when they can't recoup any of that R&D cost? Pharmaceutical companies exist to turn a profit. Remove the profit from the R&D and you don't have any reason to develop new medicines.
James Watt didn't get to patent his improved steam engine. He died a rich and famous man. Albertus Magnus didn't patent his process of creating arsenic. He died a rich man. Famous, too. Gutenberg didn't get to patent his printing press, and died a poor man. He still invented it, though.
Profit can be made without a patent. No one has patented whiskey, but still seems to be going strong. And medicines has a rather larger market than even booze.
quote:
quote:
quote:
It also says that there is a right to information. This is wholly unreasonable as there are some critical bits of information which a country must have for it's own defense. The names of covert operatives in other nations, for instance. In addition, why should any computer company supply and equipment or software to a nation which has said "we don't recognize proprietary information or ownership".
Information classified with regards to national security, or personal information such as a person's job, fingerprints or sexual kinks, is explicitly protected in this... manifesto?
You might want to reread the program, since I don't think you quite understand it.
I saw this as contradictory for national security. Personal information was never part of my argument. I also see it as a dodge from the main problem that companies would have by selling their hardware and software products to a country which, through this manifesto, advocates people to disassemble and reverse engineer their products.
You see what as contradictory, sorry? That fingerprint data is protected or that the names of agents operating undercover is protected, or something else? I don't understand, sorry.
The other problem, that companies might not want to sell their products in one country if they are not protected there... yes, that may be a problem.
On the other hand, lets give this an example. Say car producers stop importing their cars to Sweden after patents are abolished. Sweden has no domestic car factories (Volvo is owned by Ford, I forget what happened to Saab). No one is importing cars. Swedes need cars. Demand grows.
As demand grows, cars are bought outside and imported privately. Since no cars at all are sold domestically, there is a landslide of privately imported cars.
What do you think will happen when the car manufacturers see this? Will they go "thats a big market we could exploit, but we won't"? Or will they go "that's a big market to exploit; first come first serve"?
Because of private importing, reverse engineering will take place wether the product is sold in the country or not.
This will hold for all 'hardware pr |
| Edited by - Bunga on 01/16/2006 11:31:50 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 11:39:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga...
In this case, Siberia has in a stroke become famous in China and in all likelyood around the entire world. 100 million books are in circulation containing her collected works.
And you think that doesn't allow her to show her next pieces on her terms? Or that it doesn't open the lecture circuit to her? Or can move to China and sell new originals there for obscene amounts of money? She just got free publicity, 100 million times over! Or open any number of ways for her to make money, if that is her goal.
What a ridiculous attempt to justify your support for thievery. You advocate that she shouldn't have the right to establish her own terms for release and copy protection of the original X number of pieces of art. So when she releases her next series of paintings, does some kind of copyright protection kick in then? Or since you had no qualms about stealing the results of her first effort, wouldn't you just steal the second series, too?
From my experience in life, those who believe that the fruits of other people's labor should be made freely available to all, aren't usually willing to do the hard work for themselves. And again I contend, those who feel they deserve the things they aren't willing to work for can be defined as lazy.
Edited for spelling. |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 01/16/2006 11:41:10 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 11:40:50 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer wrote: This party has nothing to do with pirating any other works than computer programs. Why? Because art (visual and audiotory) is not information.
I bed to disagree. Songs, pictures, and films are copied and distributed all the time. They ARE information. There is also technology being developed as we speak to create 3D printers. No doubt eventually the technology to print out a life-sized, realistic copy of the Mona Lisa will be widely available. While there are differences between software and art/music/writing, many of Bunga's basic arguments hold for both.
What's the point of inventing something if you won't be able to profit from it?
*sigh* Once again, the argument for copyright laws assumes a purely capitalistic system.
So it's institutionalized stealing.
The whole concept of property is a social institution! Now you are just playing a silly semantics game.
ronny white wrote: Because laws aren't intended as subject to the philisophical leisures and interpretive whims of the public- they're made for reasons, and intended to be mandatorily followed. These questions are specific enough to answer "legal" or "illegal" (and "right" or "wrong," too... in my opinion, "It's wrong".)
Actually, laws are subject to the public view (not to mention that they are always subject to the philosophical leisures and interpretive whims of lawyers and judges). May I point to the failure of prohibition in America? Laws are based on social norms that vary from society to society. Sometimes they may seem to have some sort of objective moral underpinning, but that's only because some basic laws (like those against murder or perjury) are necessary for ANY human society to function. I was only asking to have a debate/discussion where we discuss the nature of different kinds of copyright laws and about whether we should or shouldn't have them in the first place.
Your crane analogy doesn't hold up because the crane is a material object that suffers wear and tear while being used in those moonlight jobs. Several people on hear insist on comparing theft of intellectual property to theft of physical property. I guess because you feel so strongly about it and you desperately want to get the strength of your convictions across. But those comparisons have been repeatedly demonstrated as false. Give that up and argue your case on its own merits.
Also, I don't have any mural on my website (I'm not a muralist, but I do teach after school art class for the Mural Arts Program). I will work on finishing my new website. Gimme a break, I'm in grad school.
GeeMack wrote: So, marfknox, I absolutely support your right, and consider it your prerogative, to set whatever price you choose for disseminating the results of your work, even if sometimes that amount is nothing. Sometimes that's my price, too. But sometimes I'm not willing to work for free. Wouldn't it be more reasonable if anyone who doesn't want to pay someone else's price, simply not expect to take advantage of the results of their work?
Both you and Ron have completely ignored the basis of my argument (for the sake of practicality due to technological advances, getting rid of copyright laws but then solving the problem of compensation by adding a socialistic element to a capitalistic economic framework) and instead are arguing as if capitalistic notions of intellectual property are objective. You feel strongly about intellectual property being regarded as legal property in the same way as physical property. I feel that that is philosophically unsound, impractical to try to enforce, and potentially limiting to social freedoms.
You can try to demonize me and opposing views all you want (such as ronnywhite saying that copyright violation is “fundamentally wrong in an ethical sense”), but in reality, both sides have an ethically sound point of view.
I repeat, it comes down |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
