• 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!

White House wants new copyright law crackdown

Perception trumps that, people perceive that they are paying for something that they don't get free use for. They will get it one way or another.

People? What people? Have you ever seen an ad for a cable provider? They start with "Using X you'll get ACCESS to more programming". Here is one:

Comcast to Offer Fans More Access to NHL Network Programming

Comcast to Offer Fans More Access to NHL Network Programming

New Digital Agreement Will Make NHL Network Available to Millions More Comcast Customers

On Demand Programming to Include Condensed Games, Player Profiles, Historic Games and More

As I have said many times, the overwhelming majority of people who are against copyright laws are incredibly ignorant of media itself. They don't produce anything of real value so it's no skin off their backs if artists go unpaid.

No it wouldn't because no one would buy it.

Gotcha. That's why people pay FOR the network and NOT the actual programs on it. Who wants to pay $5 to watch an episode of Grey's Anatomy or the latest Star Trek episode? Think about it this way, advertisement on mediocre shows usually costs somewhere on the upper end of $100K. The fact that networks charge advertisers so much allows them to offset the costs that they'd have to charge you if they actually made you pay for programs.

Made a correction, it's not $30K but $100K.
 
Last edited:
People? What people? Have you ever seen an ad for a cable provider? They start with "Using X you'll get ACCESS to more programming". Here is one:

Comcast to Offer Fans More Access to NHL Network Programming

Doesn't make any difference, perception of reality trumps what you want it to be.

As I have said many times, the overwhelming majority of people who are against copyright laws are incredibly ignorant of media itself. They don't produce anything of real value so it's no skin off their backs if artists go unpaid.

That's not true, again with your sweeping generalizations and veiled personal attacks.

Gotcha. That's why people pay FOR the network and NOT the actual programs on it. Who wants to pay $5 to watch an episode of Grey's Anatomy or the latest Star Trek episode? Think about it this way, advertisement on mediocre shows usually costs somewhere on the upper end of $30K. The fact that networks charge advertisers so much allows them to offset the costs that they'd have to charge you if they actually made you pay for programs.

Few would pay that much per show, which is telling about the real value of these shows.
Your IP isn't worth as much as you think it is.

You're only using government to prop up your monopoly, which is faltering as technology undoes your attempt to control economics.
 
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Did Bush do the same thing and ever conservative run to support him while only liberals complained about this?

I was referring specifically to your OP. And the first posts from other fringe-right folks.

You were trying to spin it into a free speech, anti-obama issue.
 
Because past the life of the author, does not benefit the author, at all.
He/she is dead, they can no longer benefit from controlling it.

But the profits of his business (his art) go to his estate. Why do you keep trying to separate art and business?




Yes but if you have an improvement on the item, you can't change it without permission.
That's how technology is advanced, new idea's fixing/improving old ideas.

You can certainly invent your own operating system. Nobody owns the rights to 0s and 1s.

But you can't take something someone else invented and change a few things then sell it as your own.





Yes but what if someone else can make it even better?

You can modify your car engine. But you can't duplicate that engine and sell it as your own without permission of the original inventor.



It is a monopoly.

"In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."

Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really, so there is only one creator of movies in the world.

One single creator of music and software.

Yes, MS owns and controls the rights to Windows.

But you can still write your own operation system and sell it.



Yes, they are issued patents, which give them a very limited monopoly over new Honda engines.
Compared to copyright, patents give incredibly short monopoly rights.

You continue to misuse the term 'monopoly'.

Patents and copyrights are not monopolies. I own copyrighted material. My brother-in-law owes over 20 software patents. We hardly control a monopoly.



Commons, owned in commons is something like a public park or idea's like democracy, which can benefit the public.

A movie is not a public park.

Software created for profit is a business commodity.

If Metallica wants to perform a free concert, that's their choice. But they have the right to charge for people to record that concert and use the recording for profit.





I completely disagree, giving control over significant ideas to one person can be incredibly detrimental to the advancement of society and the human race.

Really, so taking away the profit motive will help?
 
Last edited:
Incorrect - streaming copyright ed content without PERMISSION TO DO SO [outside of using bits and pieces in accordance to fair use] is infringement
Fair use is more broad than that.

For example, if I streamed music to a small group of friends that would probably be considered protected by fair use. However, If i streamed music that anyone could get to then it wouldn't be.
 
But the profits of his business (his art) go to his estate. Why do you keep trying to separate art and business?

Except copyright law was never meant to perpetually fund anybody's estate, and as I have mentioned before, was certainly not meant to last as long as it does now.
 
But the profits of his business (his art) go to his estate. Why do you keep trying to separate art and business?

Because societal advancement is more important than perpetual ownership on an idea.

You can certainly invent your own operating system. Nobody owns the rights to 0s and 1s.

But you can't take something someone else invented and change a few things then sell it as your own.

That's how virtually everything sold today was invented, all improvements on the idea's of other people.

You can modify your car engine. But you can't duplicate that engine and sell it as your own without permission of the original inventor.

You can, once the patent runs out, which compared to copyright is minuscule.


Really, so there is only one creator of movies in the world.

One single creator of music and software.

Yes, MS owns and controls the rights to Windows.

But you can still write your own operation system and sell it.

That's going around your elbow to get to your ass.
Practically everything sold today is an improvement of older ideas.


You continue to misuse the term 'monopoly'.

Patents and copyrights are not monopolies. I own copyrighted material. My brother-in-law owes over 20 software patents. We hardly control a monopoly.

That is exactly what it is, a monopoly.

He has monopoly control over the use of that software, he can dictate who can and cannot use it.


A movie is not a public park.

Software created for profit is a business commodity.

If Metallica wants to perform a free concert, that's their choice. But they have the right to charge for people to record that concert and use the recording for profit.

All of those things are based on idea's, which are held in commons.

Really, so taking away the profit motive will help?

No taking away monopoly control will help.
 
Doesn't make any difference, perception of reality trumps what you want it to be.

Perception of reality? I'm sorry if you don't understand what it is you're paying for when it's explained to you in plain English.

That's not true, again with your sweeping generalizations and veiled personal attacks.

You JUST proved it. You like every other single advocate of lax copyright laws I've ever debated has not a single clue what it is they're talking about. Why is it that you don't have lawyers suing media corporations for their greedy monopolistic ways? I find it interesting that you, a Libertarian of all people would even be arguing against copyright laws. I guess since the demographics are about the same for both groups then it really shouldn't come as a big surprise.

Few would pay that much per show, which is telling about the real value of these shows.

Oh I get it, you get to determine the real value of a show now. Here, the reason I don't use an iPhone is because I don't believe it's worth $500. Does that mean the real value of an iPhone is not in the hundreds of dollars? Sorry, you don't get to determine the value of something and then use it as you wish.

Your IP isn't worth as much as you think it is.

No. It's worth whatever I think it is. If you don't think it's worth that much, don't buy it.

You're only using government to prop up your monopoly, which is faltering as technology undoes your attempt to control economics.

No. I'm using the government to protect my property. If you don't like it, stop trying to use it.
 
Perception of reality? I'm sorry if you don't understand what it is you're paying for when it's explained to you in plain English.

People perceive that they are buying these shows and resort to IP infringement to get their full value, regardless of whatever contract arrangement the IP maker and distributor say.


You JUST proved it. You like every other single advocate of lax copyright laws I've ever debated has not a single clue what it is they're talking about. Why is it that you don't have lawyers suing media corporations for their greedy monopolistic ways? I find it interesting that you, a Libertarian of all people would even be arguing against copyright laws. I guess since the demographics are about the same for both groups then it really shouldn't come as a big surprise.

Just because the law disagrees with me doesn't me it isn't true.
You're just making an appeal to authority now.

Free market > monopoly

Oh I get it, you get to determine the real value of a show now. Here, the reason I don't use an iPhone is because I don't believe it's worth $500. Does that mean the real value of an iPhone is not in the hundreds of dollars? Sorry, you don't get to determine the value of something and then use it as you wish.

Yes I do.
If the Iphone is not worth $500 to you, it's not worth $500.
Price is based on what individuals are willing to pay, not what you dictate it should be.

As to your very last statement, the reality is that I do get to determine the value and use it as I wish, at least as far as IP is concerned.


No. It's worth whatever I think it is. If you don't think it's worth that much, don't buy it.

To you individually yes, to everyone else no.

No. I'm using the government to protect my property. If you don't like it, stop trying to use it.

It's not your property as you have use the ideas of others to develop it.
To the point that ideas are held in commons and your work is just an improvement of the work of other people, not solely yours.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's tone it down some please.
 
You JUST proved it.

Like hell he did.

You like every other single advocate of lax copyright laws I've ever debated has not a single clue what it is they're talking about.

You just PROVED HIS point, unless you can actually PROVE it - nut just randoml;y cherry picking quotes - maybe providing evidence from outside sources, or explaining why you chose the quotes you did and why they are wrong in your opinion?


Why is it that you don't have lawyers suing media corporations for their greedy monopolistic ways?

In cases where it is justified, the problem is the corporations they go after hold all the cards.

I find it interesting that you, a Libertarian of all people would even be arguing against copyright laws.

From what I understood, it seemed like he was advocating for LAX copyrights, which is not the same at all really.

I guess since the demographics are about the same for both groups then it really shouldn't come as a big surprise.

Another attempt at smearing people on baseless grounds, this is getting REALLY boring.


No. It's worth whatever I think it is.

Actually, it is worth [a balance between] both what you think, and what the customers, or consumers-to-be think - supply and demand.
 
Perception of reality? I'm sorry if you don't understand what it is you're paying for when it's explained to you in plain English.



You JUST proved it. You like every other single advocate of lax copyright laws I've ever debated has not a single clue what it is they're talking about. Why is it that you don't have lawyers suing media corporations for their greedy monopolistic ways? I find it interesting that you, a Libertarian of all people would even be arguing against copyright laws. I guess since the demographics are about the same for both groups then it really shouldn't come as a big surprise.



Oh I get it, you get to determine the real value of a show now. Here, the reason I don't use an iPhone is because I don't believe it's worth $500. Does that mean the real value of an iPhone is not in the hundreds of dollars? Sorry, you don't get to determine the value of something and then use it as you wish.



No. It's worth whatever I think it is. If you don't think it's worth that much, don't buy it.



No. I'm using the government to protect my property. If you don't like it, stop trying to use it.

Harry Guerrilla's arguments would be valid if they concerned non-discretionary goods like access to food, water, shelter....
 
Frankly, I'm not a supporter of intellectual property rights at all, so I don't support this move.
 
People perceive that they are buying these shows and resort to IP infringement to get their full value, regardless of whatever contract arrangement the IP maker and distributor say.

People 'perceive' that they are buying these shows? You know for somebody who constatly bitches about generalizing statements, that's a pretty ridiculous one. People don't perceive that they're buying anything other than the channel. Networks don't promote shows, they promote channels. Networks don't promote The Sopranos, they promote HBO. They don't promote the Lakers vs Heat, they promote NBA channels. You seem to be the only person who is under the perception that they are buying programs and not access to channels. Is it any coincidence you'd also be an advocate of pirating? Hahaha. I doubt it.
Just because the law disagrees with me doesn't me it isn't true.
You're just making an appeal to authority now.

Free market > monopoly

What a silly strawman, the reason the law doesn't agree with you is because property rights and property owners don't agree with you.

Yes I do.
If the Iphone is not worth $500 to you, it's not worth $500.
Price is based on what individuals are willing to pay, not what you dictate it should be.

What a silly statement. Prices are based on the demand. If people want something actual price becomes irrelevant. They don't get to determine what that price will actually be or if they'll pay for it or not.

As to your very last statement, the reality is that I do get to determine the value and use it as I wish, at least as far as IP is concerned.

To you individually yes, to everyone else no.

It's not your property as you have use the ideas of others to develop it.
To the point that ideas are held in commons and your work is just an improvement of the work of other people, not solely yours.

As I have stated before, people who advocate pirating are nothing more than people who clearly don't produce anything. You're sitting here playing the same game of semantics about whether or not an 'idea' should be paid for or not. Do you get to determine whether you should pay for a car at a dealership because various people came up with the various ideas behind it? No. You don't even get to determine whether you'll pay for it or not. You're nothing more than an economic leech who is trying to justify being too broke to pay up. If you don't like it that people are selling their creations, don't use them. What's so hard about that? I don't go to a book store and steal books because the person selling them didn't invent the English language. I don't go into a furniture store and steal **** because the people there didn't invent furniture or sitting down. It's a pretty simple concept. Instead of advocating pirating others ideas, why don't you try actually creating something other than ridiculously uninformed posts on copyright laws. But don't just create it, try to make a living out of it. If you can make any money off it, then you'll be vexed at the fact that some snot nosed punk from NYC or Miami is downloading it for free.
 
People 'perceive' that they are buying these shows? You know for somebody who constatly bitches about generalizing statements, that's a pretty ridiculous one. People don't perceive that they're buying anything other than the channel. Networks don't promote shows, they promote channels. Networks don't promote The Sopranos, they promote HBO. They don't promote the Lakers vs Heat, they promote NBA channels. You seem to be the only person who is under the perception that they are buying programs and not access to channels. Is it any coincidence you'd also be an advocate of pirating? Hahaha. I doubt it.

The actions of IP infringement show that people tend to believe that they are buying the shows and not just the channel.


What a silly strawman, the reason the law doesn't agree with you is because property rights and property owners don't agree with you.

It's not your property though.
You did not originally create all the work in developing your idea's, you most definitely borrowed from others.
Talk about leech.

What a silly statement. Prices are based on the demand. If people want something actual price becomes irrelevant. They don't get to determine what that price will actually be or if they'll pay for it or not.

Price is based on Supply and Demand, for IP the supply is infinite, so it should be free right? :lol:

As I have stated before, people who advocate pirating are nothing more than people who clearly don't produce anything. You're sitting here playing the same game of semantics about whether or not an 'idea' should be paid for or not. Do you get to determine whether you should pay for a car at a dealership because various people came up with the various ideas behind it? No. You don't even get to determine whether you'll pay for it or not. You're nothing more than an economic leech who is trying to justify being too broke to pay up. If you don't like it that people are selling their creations, don't use them. What's so hard about that? I don't go to a book store and steal books because the person selling them didn't invent the English language. I don't go into a furniture store and steal **** because the people there didn't invent furniture or sitting down. It's a pretty simple concept. Instead of advocating pirating others ideas, why don't you try actually creating something other than ridiculously uninformed posts on copyright laws. But don't just create it, try to make a living out of it. If you can make any money off it, then you'll be vexed at the fact that some snot nosed punk from NYC or Miami is downloading it for free.

It takes time and materials to make each physical item, not so much for IP.
I won't be vexed as that is reality.

The whole point of the limitations of IP was because IP creators did not do all the work in their creations, they borrow from others.
You call piracy leeching, yet you "leech" work from others and claim credit for the whole idea.
 
The actions of IP infringement show that people tend to believe that they are buying the shows and not just the channel.

No. It doesn't show anything other than people who don't want to pay for access to the programing. Nice non-sequitur Harry. If the majority of people weren't home when their favorite show is on, you'd have a point. However, that's not the case. People don't just infringe on TV shows, they infringe on movies, books, music, software etc. The list of things people don't want to pay for is simply too big for your argument to make any sense.

It's not your property though.You did not originally create all the work in developing your idea's, you most definitely borrowed from others. Talk about leech.

Yes. It is. What are you even talking about? Not only have I shown your entire premise about paying for shows to be absolute bull**** now you're off on some random tangent about whether or not using somebody's 'ideas' is copyright infringement? Here Harry, I'll ask you, when you buy a book, are you paying for the person's use of the English language or are you paying for what is in the book?

Price is based on Supply and Demand, for IP the supply is infinite, so it should be free right? :lol:



It takes time and materials to make each physical item, not so much for IP.

Ah, I guess musical instruments, musicians, record producers, and the thousands of hours that go into making a single record or film etc don't count as 'time and materials'.

I won't be vexed as that is reality.

You're simply reaffirming my point. You don't create anything and are one more simpleton trying to steal **** from others. So it's no skin off your back.

The whole point of the limitations of IP was because IP creators did not do all the work in their creations, they borrow from others.You call piracy leeching, yet you "leech" work from others and claim credit for the whole idea.

Rofl, that doesn't even make sense. Writers don't credit people for the paper they use. They don't credit people for the invention of pencils. What 'ideas' are musicians leeching off others? Seriously, do you know anything about the media industry? Or are you going to keep claiming you're paying for shows?
 
Last edited:
No. It doesn't show anything other than people who don't want to pay for access to the programing. Nice non-sequitur Harry. If the majority of people weren't home when their favorite show is on, you'd have a point. However, that's not the case. People don't just infringe on TV shows, they infringe on movies, books, music, software etc. The list of things people don't want to pay for is simply too big for your argument to make any sense.

What's the difference though?
I paid for the "service" and even though I missed it, the cable company got the money, which they then paid to the creators.

Why shouldn't I be able to watch it through a download?

Yes. It is. What are you even talking about? Not only have I shown your entire premise about paying for shows to be absolute bull**** now you're off on some random tangent about whether or not using somebody's 'ideas' is copyright infringement? Here Harry, I'll ask you, when you buy a book, are you paying for the person's use of the English language or are you paying for what is in the book?

No, you use the idea's of others to create your unique piece of IP, so your creation, is not entirely yours.
You do not own it.

You're paying for the writing style.

Ah, I guess musical instruments, musicians, record producers, and the thousands of hours that go into making a single record or film etc don't count as 'time and materials'.

For that one instance, you don't have to reproduce any of that every time a song is made.
Costs associated with creating that product + the amount of product/demand = almost 0.
So we might as well call it free.

You're simply reaffirming my point. You don't create anything and are one more simpleton trying to steal **** from others. So it's no skin off your back.

:lol:

Rofl, that doesn't even make sense. Writers don't credit people for the paper they use. They don't credit people for the invention of pencils. What 'ideas' are musicians leeching off others? Seriously, do you know anything about the media industry? Or are you going to keep claiming you're paying for shows?

It's pretty well documented that contemporary music "borrows" from past work, the same goes for movies, books, art and just about anything involved with IP.

Your creations are not solely yours.
 
I was referring specifically to your OP. And the first posts from other fringe-right folks.

You were trying to spin it into a free speech,
Where exactly did I try to spin it into a free speech issue? And how does this prove your "you wouldn't care if it was someone else" ?

anti-obama issue.

If Bush was doing the same thing as Obama then it would be a anti-Bush issue. Not everybody only gives a **** when its only the other side doing it. I am against outsourcing, anti-2nd amendment laws, illegal immigration and many other things and I will speak out against those things regardless who is doing it. I did not ignore Bush and McCain when they tried to enact anti-illegal immigration laws nor did I try to give them a free pass.
 
Last edited:
Where exactly did I try to spin it into a free speech issue? And how does this prove your "you wouldn't care if it was someone else" ?

Because during the Bush years there were the same type of 'crackdowns', prosecutions, working with MPAA, RIAA... Yet you didn't care.



If Bush was doing the same thing as Obama then it would be a anti-Bush issue. Not everybody only gives a **** when its only the other side doing it.

Yes, that's all this thread was about for you -- the black guy in the White house. And the first couple of posters in the thread started in with the free speech b.s. as if that was relevant.
 
Because during the Bush years there were the same type of 'crackdowns', prosecutions, working with MPAA, RIAA... Yet you didn't care.

Was Bush trying to make these types of things a felony and authorize wiretaps for copyright violations? When Bush, and McCain tried to pass amnesty for illegals I said they were trying to sell this country out and I am pretty sure many other conservatives said the same thing I did. So this disproves your idiotic notion that I only give a **** when its the other guy doing something bad.


Yes, that's all this thread was about for you -- the black guy in the White house.

Other than you, did anyone in this thread bring up Obama's race in this thread?
Amazing how you libs seem to be the only bringing up Obama's race. I guess as the old saying goes "he who smelt it dealt it".

Just in case you do not know what that old saying means.
he who smelt it dealt it - Wiktionary
# (colloquial, by extension) Used to suggest that a person calling attention to or complaining about a given problem may in fact be the source of the problem.


And the first couple of posters in the thread started in with the free speech b.s. as if that was relevant.
I did not bring up the issue of free speech. And posters bringing up the issue of speech is not evidence that anyone here is a racist, nor is it evidence that they only give a **** when only when the other side does something bad. You are pathetic for always trying to unnecessarily bring up race and accuse others of only giving a **** when the other side does something bad.
 
What's the difference though?

It's the difference between saying you're paying to play golf and access to the court.You don't actually pay for the food at a restaurant. You pay for the service they provide. You don't pay for a hooker, you pay for her services. You don't pay for the individual shows of a channel, you pay for access to that channel. Seriously, is an adult at your home? I'd like to explain it in simpler terms but I can't really use crayons on this board.

No, you use the idea's of others to create your unique piece of IP, so your creation, is not entirely yours.

You do not own it.

You're paying for the writing style.

For that one instance, you don't have to reproduce any of that every time a song is made.
Costs associated with creating that product + the amount of product/demand = almost 0.
So we might as well call it free.

:lol:

It's pretty well documented that contemporary music "borrows" from past work, the same goes for movies, books, art and just about anything involved with IP. Your creations are not solely yours.

The law, property rights, intellectual property laws etc all disagree with your ridiculous assertion that a person's unique creations are not theirs to sell as they wish. I'm sorry you can't understand the simple concept of property rights and are arguing a non-sequitur.
 
It's the difference between saying you're paying to play golf and access to the court.You don't actually pay for the food at a restaurant. You pay for the service they provide. You don't pay for a hooker, you pay for her services. You don't pay for the individual shows of a channel, you pay for access to that channel. Seriously, is an adult at your home? I'd like to explain it in simpler terms but I can't really use crayons on this board.

I asked what the difference was, because I consumed the product one way or another and it got paid for.

First sign of weakness is resorting to insults. Tisk, tisk.


The law, property rights, intellectual property laws etc all disagree with your ridiculous assertion that a person's unique creations are not theirs to sell as they wish. I'm sorry you can't understand the simple concept of property rights and are arguing a non-sequitur.

Except that isn't entirely true.

The Constitutional provision about intellectual property is that it's held in commons and that the only reason they granted a limited monopoly was to encourage the creation of new ideas.

Both Madison and Jefferson agreed with this and thus it was added into the Constitution as such.
 
Except that isn't entirely true.

The Constitutional provision about intellectual property is that it's held in commons and that the only reason they granted a limited monopoly was to encourage the creation of new ideas.

Both Madison and Jefferson agreed with this and thus it was added into the Constitution as such.

Exactly. Intellectual property is counter-Lockean in the extreme, and it's one of the glaring logical inconsistencies that remains at odds with the founders' conception of property rights.

More importantly, in the modern world, the very concept of intellectual property is breaking down before our very eyes. The way of the future a free exchange of ideas, and entails the non-ownership of ideas. Regressive, conservatives types may want to put the skids on change and hold fast to obsolete IP regimes, but it is impossible to stop this change.

The increasing interconnectedness of society will ultimately render IP completely archaic. Sorry Hatuey, but you can either fight the change or get with the times, but either way the times will catch up with you.
 
Back
Top Bottom