• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sopa

Once big business (software specifically) stops stealing from the open source community, I will start supporting the idea that we are really stealing from them.

For reference: GNU GPL

Big business consistently uses these sources as their backbone logic and claims their products are somehow NOT derivative products.
 
Swit said:
Once big business (software specifically) stops stealing from the open source community, I will start supporting the idea that we are really stealing from them.

For reference: GNU GPL

Big business consistently uses these sources as their backbone logic and claims their products are somehow NOT derivative products.
Click to expand...

Or even claims the open-source community is stealing from them.
 
david52875 said:
Or even claims the open-source community is stealing from them.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.... BUT I cannot count the times I was asked to do a complete rewrite of already existing code, based completely off of existing code as a framework, to circumvent GNU GPL. Solely for the ability for the entity I work for to legally argue in court that it was original material.

Confusion: are we in agreement on this? - to David
 
Last edited:
Swit said:
Fair enough.... BUT I cannot count the times I was asked to do a complete rewrite of already existing code, based completely off of existing code as a framework, to circumvent GNU GPL. Solely for the ability for the entity I work for to legally argue in court that it was original material.

Confusion: are we in agreement on this? - to David
Click to expand...

Yes we are.
 
1Perry said:
Sorry, there is no way to debate vague things like this. Whatever it is they are doing, you would legally be able to also.
Click to expand...

Fine a simple example.
Disney practically took a **** ton of their stories from the Brothers Grim.
They added their own twist, but largely the material is not original.

Why should they be able to retain a lengthy IP when they didn't create the original story?
 
Hatuey said:
Do you see what I mean? Harry Guerrilla has a knack for going into the absurd when it comes to piracy debates. If we were to follow his "logic" there would be no right to property at all. After all, if you didn't invent the grass, the trees and dirt on your land, how can you claim that any of it is legally yours?
Click to expand...

Then by all means, take a wag at my example.
Tell me how Disney, who did "stole" from the Brothers Grim, is owed a lengthy IP right?

For your straw man, I'm not completely against IP, I'm against automatic IP and IP length of ownership.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Then by all means, take a wag at my example.
Tell me how Disney, who did "stole" from the Brothers Grim, is owed a lengthy IP right?
Click to expand...

This is why you REALLY shouldn't get involved in discussions about IP - The brothers Grimm didn't create the fairy tales in their books. They COLLECTED local folklore and put it in their books. That shows the stories weren't the intellectual property OF the Grimms to begin with and you'd have a hard time proving who they actually belonged to. What the brothers Grimm and their descendents have the rights to are the product created by the Grimms ie. I can't simply grab their books, change the book cover and print it as my own works or use it for personal gain. I can't even disseminate their works because the copyright of their product is still owned by whatever publisher bought the rights to their books. Similarly, Disney doesn't OWN the rights to the stories, they own the rights to the SCRIPT based on the same folklore used by the Grimms. Usage of that script in any of its forms ie the words, videos, soundtrack etc, is a violation of the PRODUCT created by Disney which is discernibly distinct from that in the Grimms work not only in means of production by finished product.

For your straw man, I'm not completely against IP, I'm against automatic IP and IP length of ownership.
Click to expand...

It's not a strawman. It's the "logical" progression of your argument.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
This is why you REALLY shouldn't get involved in discussions about IP - The brothers Grimm didn't create the fairy tales in their books. They COLLECTED local folklore and put it in their books. That shows the stories weren't the intellectual property OF the Grimms to begin with and you'd have a hard time proving who they actually belonged to. What the brothers Grimm and their descendents have the rights to are the product created by the Grimms ie. I can't simply grab their books, change the book cover and print it as my own works or use it for personal gain. I can't even disseminate their works because the copyright of their product is still owned by whatever publisher bought the rights to their books. Similarly, Disney doesn't OWN the rights to the stories, they own the rights to the SCRIPT based on the same folklore used by the Grimms. Usage of that script in any of its forms ie the words, videos, soundtrack etc, is a violation of the PRODUCT created by Disney which is discernibly distinct from that in the Grimms work not only in means of production by finished product.



It's not a strawman. It's the "logical" progression of your argument.
Click to expand...

This isn't entirely accurate. Copy-written works and intellectual property terms are not perpetual. After a proscribed amount of time these materials enter the public domain and can be used by anyone without fear of legal recourse. This is a good concise listing of some of those time limits: link. It should also be noted that in rare circumstances firms can lose the ability to enforce IP protections, specifically trademarks. link

However regarding the scope of what we are talking about (music, video, software, etc...) this point is basically immaterial as these works do not enter the public domain until well into the future and simply do not apply to the conversation at hand. Well to be honest I brought it up because works by the Brother's Grimm are most definitely in the Public Domain, but I understand it was just being used as an example and in general your point stands.

It should be noted however that in regard to the music industry (and I am sure it applies numerous other industries as well). They attempt to extend these timelines by re-releasing already produced items and claiming they are somehow new products (i.e. Best of albums, compilations, Collector's Editions, etc...). In short, they circumvent current CR / IP terms lengths by the exact same mechanism that they attempt to prosecute "violators" of CR / IP protections.

In other words. if they (CR / IP holders) create the "compilation" and distribute it, it is a new product and the CR / IP of the works contained therein can get extended, However if a 3rd party does the same thing they claim that it is undifferentiated from the original work and therefore the same product. By this mechanism, they can attempt to retain CR / IP rights indefinitely which was never intended by current law.

This dichotomy is readily present when one considers the Napster issue in contrast with the (relatively recent) writer's strike. The RIAA argued that a mere change of encoding and / or transmission (basically that of wav to mp3 via Internet) was not significantly different enough to qualify as a new product as the end result was indistinguishable (generally) from the originally protected works and they won. Then during the writer's strike Media organizations attempted to block royalties from writer's for content they created because somehow the content was different now that it was reencoded from it's original format and transmitted via internet rather than airwaves. (for all intents and purposes the exact argument that Napster was using to try and justify its actions).
 
Hatuey said:
This is why you REALLY shouldn't get involved in discussions about IP - The brothers Grimm didn't create the fairy tales in their books. They COLLECTED local folklore and put it in their books. That shows the stories weren't the intellectual property OF the Grimms to begin with and you'd have a hard time proving who they actually belonged to. What the brothers Grimm and their descendents have the rights to are the product created by the Grimms ie. I can't simply grab their books, change the book cover and print it as my own works or use it for personal gain. I can't even disseminate their works because the copyright of their product is still owned by whatever publisher bought the rights to their books. Similarly, Disney doesn't OWN the rights to the stories, they own the rights to the SCRIPT based on the same folklore used by the Grimms. Usage of that script in any of its forms ie the words, videos, soundtrack etc, is a violation of the PRODUCT created by Disney which is discernibly distinct from that in the Grimms work not only in means of production by finished product.
Click to expand...

Actually they, like Disney, took the folklore and added their own spin to it.
So yes, they did take it from the Brothers Grim among other story writers and added their own spin to it.

None the less, Disney does own the rights to the modified versions of the stories.
They can use whatever they want from their stories because they're out of copy protection.

Why should they own lengthy copy protections for works they borrowed heavily from others to create?
You haven't answered the question.

Hatuey said:
It's not a strawman. It's the "logical" progression of your argument.
Click to expand...

It's totally a straw man, because I have not advocated such a position.
 
Hatuey said:
The arguments of people who steal the content of others through illegal download boil down to:

1. I don't wanna pay for stuff.

2. You can't make me pay for stuff I want to steal.

3. I should be allowed to steal stuff.

------------

I've blasted away pretty much every supporter of illegal piracy on this forum that I've ever encountered and their arguments, when they realize are bull****, then go into the absurd. I once had some moron claim that because artists today hadn't invented "sound"/"the English language" they shouldn't get the exclusive right to own that which they produce.
Click to expand...

The ramifications for illegal piracy do not concern me.

The ramifications for legitimate websites do.
 
Wikipedia is going to be blacked out globally tomorrow to protest SOPA and PIPA.

You should contact your representative if you can to voice your protest about these draconian measures.

Censorship of this magnitude is not acceptable in a free democracy, and people should not stand for this crap.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Actually they, like Disney, took the folklore and added their own spin to it.
So yes, they did take it from the Brothers Grim among other story writers and added their own spin to it.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The brothers Grim are by no means the first people to write the stories down. They simply put them in a book. So to claim that Disney took from the brothers Grim is a stretch of the imagination if not a complete fabrication. Do you know what folklore is? Here is a fine example on Cinderella:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella

Published in:
The Pentamerone (1634)
Mother Goose Tales (1697)
Grimm's Fairy Tales (1812)

---------------

So Cinderella was published nearly 200 years before it appeared on the Grimm's works. Is it an original work by them? No. Was the script made by Disney based on the Grimm's work? No way to find out. Did Disney read out the Grimm's work and try to pass it as an original? No. So with what authority do you get to claim that Disney's work is some rip-off from the Grimm's? Oh I know: None. You're simply talking nonsense and trying to make a specious argument that leads to nowhere.

None the less, Disney does own the rights to the modified versions of the stories.
They can use whatever they want from their stories because they're out of copy protection.
Click to expand...

No. Disney owns what they have produced ie their movies in all of its forms. They don't own the story of little red riding hood anymore than they own cinderella. It's why different versions of these movies exist by videos that aren't Disney. Your ignorance on the topic is showing. AGAIN.

Why should they own lengthy copy protections for works they borrowed heavily from others to create?
You haven't answered the question.
Click to expand...

I don't have to answer uninformed questions by people who clearly have no idea what it is they're discussing to begin with.

It's totally a straw man, because I have not advocated such a position.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you did. I said it was the logical progression of your ridiculously flawed argument.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Nonsense. The brothers Grim are by no means the first people to write the stories down. They simply put them in a book. So to claim that Disney took from the brothers Grim is a stretch of the imagination if not a complete fabrication. Do you know what folklore is? Here is a fine example on Cinderella:

Cinderella - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Published in:
The Pentamerone (1634)
Mother Goose Tales (1697)
Grimm's Fairy Tales (1812)

---------------

So Cinderella was published nearly 200 years before it appeared on the Grimm's works. Is it an original work by them? No. Was the script made by Disney based on the Grimm's work? No way to find out. Did Disney read out the Grimm's work and try to pass it as an original? No. So with what authority do you get to claim that Disney's work is some rip-off from the Grimm's? Oh I know: None. You're simply talking nonsense and trying to make a specious argument that leads to nowhere.
Click to expand...

I'm quite aware of what folklore is.
With that said, The Brothers Grimm likely adapted the folklore stories for their works, like Disney did for themselves.

Now Disney feels entitled to an IP ownership of a story that was already in existence, hundreds of years before Walt was farted out of his mother.
The facts always come back to, the story was not original and that there is no justifiable reason why they should be entitled to a multiple decades of ownership.

Hatuey said:
No. Disney owns what they have produced ie their movies in all of its forms. They don't own the story of little red riding hood anymore than they own cinderella. It's why different versions of these movies exist by videos that aren't Disney. Your ignorance on the topic is showing. AGAIN.
Click to expand...

Which were adaptations of work that already existed.
Now there is nothing wrong with that..

What is wrong, is the automatic entitlement to multi decade IP.

Why shouldn't someone else be allowed to improve upon Disney's Ciderella or whatever?


Hatuey said:
I don't have to answer uninformed questions by people who clearly have no idea what it is they're discussing to begin with.
Click to expand...

Cop out.

Hatuey said:
I didn't say you did. I said it was the logical progression of your ridiculously flawed argument.
Click to expand...

No it's not.
Your example was physical property, we're talking about intellectual property.
And you have the nerve to call me ignorant.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Fine a simple example.
Disney practically took a **** ton of their stories from the Brothers Grim.
They added their own twist, but largely the material is not original.

Why should they be able to retain a lengthy IP when they didn't create the original story?
Click to expand...

What is it? 70 years? I think the Grimm brothers were past that.
 
Anyone post up that Wiki is going dark tonight in protest of SOPA?

As Wikipedia and other websites go dark Wednesday in what backers are calling the largest Internet protest ever, the epic battle between Silicon Valley and Hollywood over online anti-piracy legislation continues to heat up, even as many Web surfers scratch their heads over what it all means.

The fight is over the Stop Online Piracy Act, a bill now stalled in the U.S. House of Representatives that's aimed at stopping the spread of pirated copies of movies and other content by "rogue'' websites overseas. Heavyweight supporters of SOPA like Time Warner and the Motion Picture Association of America are butting up against tech titans like Wikipedia, Google (GOOG) and Facebook, who argue the legislation could lead to widespread censorship.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia and other websites shut down to protest online piracy bill - San Jose Mercury News

Here's the link to Wiki -- appears at the top of every page one pulls up on their site:

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Obama will sign SOPA if it goes through congress, but I don't think the House will vote for it, as conservatives wouldn't let happen.
 
Amigo said:
Obama will sign SOPA if it goes through congress, but I don't think the House will vote for it, as conservatives wouldn't let happen.
Click to expand...

Obama announced that he wouldn't sign it as it was. SOPA was written by a conservative Republican Representative from Texas. You got just about everything wrong.
 
Last edited:
I need someone that knows alot about greek.

Dude was saying that SOPA is greek alphabet... (or something like that. Not sure If I got it all the way.)

Well, SOPA= shut up. Or Shh, don't talk. And PIPA was commen slang for suck pipe or suck dick.

Anyone knowledgable in this area and can explain this or just let me know if its bull****?

σώπα / πιπα
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
I've seen no legitimate arguement outside of being pissed that you might not be able to as freely D/L the property of others.
Click to expand...

Really? So I suppose you think it's okay that we, the United States, the land of the free, are to be subjected to the same sort of censorship on the internet that China has to endure? Or what about the fact that maybe you can't go and find certain videos you used to love on youtube? How about the fact that the Attorney General will have one more resource to look into your life and see what you're up to? I don't care if you're a model citizen, privacy is one thing people should be entitled to. With nearly everything going to the internet, you can kiss that goodbye.
 
Here's some food for thought: Companies that release software already price their products to compensate for the losses of piracy. If SOPA passes and does somehow manage to stop piracy, do you think they will lower their prices? No, they sure as hell won't. At $64.19 for any new release game (excluding wii) and having willing buyers who are likely ignorant of the reasons games are getting more and more expensive, they're just fine charging more for a game. And don't give me the "they have to pay for production costs and all that crap", yeah they do but their revenues FAR exceed the costs of production. Here's another thing to think about... Lets take Call of Duty for example. I purchased the games up through Black Ops then realized something. 1) Online play of CoD is overrated and hacked, 2) I really don't enjoy the online play, 3) I'm forced to buy the online play with the product even though I don't want it. So it begs the question, why should I pay the price of a whole product when I only want half of it? We're talking something as simple as separation of files to distribute as a different product at a lesser price. All I want is the storyline. Seeing as how a pirate can't get the online play due to registration keys linked to accounts and whatnot, they're not getting the full product anyhow. More like an extended demo. Charge me 20 bucks for the story and 40 for the online if you want, I'll pay. Online play is what they develop for anymore anyhow.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Obama announced that he wouldn't sign it as it was. SOPA was written by a conservative Republican Representative from Texas. You got just about everything wrong.
Click to expand...

I was expressing a prediction, because each time Obama opens his mouth, he lies! Did you know that Obama's czar Cass is trying to push for "net neutrality"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom