• 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!

Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

Except these laws do not serve as a glue that binds people together.

They exist to allow monetary gain far outside reasonable bounds, unless you believe that dead people should be legally allowed to own things or allow corporations to own ideas for 90 years.

Ideas, once released, can not be controlled it's insanity to believe otherwise.

You cannot steal something that is not physical and can be replicated infinitely, at almost 0 cost.



Depends, you do subsidize the cable companies by helping provide the infrastructure that they transmit their product through.
I think it would be fair that they are require to offer everyone a basic set of channels.

I don't see it as wrong, as long as the law stays unreasonable, as it is now.
If the laws change, I may change my mind but until then I have no sympathy towards IP owners.

I agree that copywrites extend far too long I would suggest that the lifetime of the creator/s or 25 years which ever is longest would be fair
 
Is not the tangible product the song itself. Which is generally copywrited

It is the song itself that the artist created, and uses to make money

GM produces a car and makes multiple copies of it to make money, it is illegal for Ford to copy the design of a GM car and produce it. GM lost no tangible object but what Ford did is illegal and it would be punished for it

As such making copies of a song, and giving it out to other people is infringing on the artists rights to that song.

In my opinion

Making copies for personal use is fine, making copies to distribute to potentially thousands of other people is in effect theft

It's absolutely theft of a sort, but it's theft of intellectual property, not tangible property, and is thus treated differently under the law. Again, I think that IP laws are absolutely fundamental to any sort of creative society, but that doesn't mean that they're perfect as drafted.
 
I agree that copywrites extend far too long I would suggest that the lifetime of the creator/s or 25 years which ever is longest would be fair

Personally, 5-15 years should be the maximum.
It allows the owner to profit and allows other people to improve upon it.

Life time seems way to much as we don't do the same thing with patents.
 
Personally, 5-15 years should be the maximum.
It allows the owner to profit and allows other people to improve upon it.

Life time seems way to much as we don't do the same thing with patents.

Patents can prevent the making of similar products, when the TV was patented without lisencing no other manufactures could legally make a TV. Copywrite prevents the duplication or copying of aa song or its component parts. It does not prevent the creation of similar songs. If you like Rap, but dont want to support a specific artist you can buy a different artists music, you cant to the same with patented products. Also in some cases it might take more then 5 years for something created to go "commercial". A screenplay might languish in the depths of MGM for 5 years, then get produced, the writer ends up getting nothing as the copywrite has expired
 
Patents can prevent the making of similar products, when the TV was patented without lisencing no other manufactures could legally make a TV. Copywrite prevents the duplication or copying of aa song or its component parts. It does not prevent the creation of similar songs. If you like Rap, but dont want to support a specific artist you can buy a different artists music, you cant to the same with patented products. Also in some cases it might take more then 5 years for something created to go "commercial". A screenplay might languish in the depths of MGM for 5 years, then get produced, the writer ends up getting nothing as the copywrite has expired

That's unfortunate, I guess in order to make it more perfect I'm willing to take some short term losses.
Writers should wait till someone wants to buy it before they decide to hand it over.
Just my opinion though.

I was thinking more in line with books, there are some decent books written that could be improved upon and sold but because of IP laws, you'd have to cut a check to the original author or get permission to use more than a little of his/her work.

I think once you add significant value to something, the new something should be yours to sell.
The same goes for software, which was incorrectly categorized in the first place.
 
Funny you should mention Trent Reznor, "So I'd be surprised if he could legally authorize fans to "steal it," as he instructed attendees at a recent concert in Sydney, Australia."

"Reznor's eagerness to share the record with fans hasn't been confined to Australia, however. To promote the album, he leaked three tracks as MP3s, fully intending them to be passed around online. At the time he said the freebies were an attempt to boost sales, not crater them. Although his comments in Australia go further, they are in line with his previous remarks about the labels' greed and separation from music fans."

Trent Reznor on CD prices | Bit Player | Los Angeles Times

I am perfectly comfortable taking what I want because, the industry is using government to prop itself and it's prices up, they have to go outside of normal market conditions to earn a buck.
No thanks, enticing government to use force for your benefit is not cool at any level.

Not only that but it is said that many of the movie makers intentionally release early copies to judge movie sale projections, if they are doing that they have gave up control of ownership.

The civil settlements used against uploaders have been ridiculous.
Charging people thousands of dollars for uploading a handful of songs, that aren't worth it on a per song level.

Lastly, trying to get government to require even more DRM in our consumer electronics, I don't want to lose control over things I pay money for, they are supposed to be mine.

It's retaliation against their moronic and abusive behavior.

I mentioned all 4 of those people/groups (Rasputina's a group) - because they have outwardly expressed views against the profoundly fat and corrupt industry. . .yet I still won't rob those individuals of my pennies even if it doesn't really bother them when people do it.
 
I mentioned all 4 of those people/groups (Rasputina's a group) - because they have outwardly expressed views against the profoundly fat and corrupt industry. . .yet I still won't rob those individuals of my pennies even if it doesn't really bother them when people do it.

I understand but I have no moral qualms about it being robbery because, under fair market conditions, they wouldn't be able to charge what they are now.

As long as a company is willing to abuse their customer base through government, they don't earn a dime from me, unless I feel they deserve it.
 
That's unfortunate, I guess in order to make it more perfect I'm willing to take some short term losses.
Writers should wait till someone wants to buy it before they decide to hand it over.
Just my opinion though.

I was thinking more in line with books, there are some decent books written that could be improved upon and sold but because of IP laws, you'd have to cut a check to the original author or get permission to use more than a little of his/her work.

I think once you add significant value to something, the new something should be yours to sell.
The same goes for software, which was incorrectly categorized in the first place.


Books are the most often copied thing out there in some form. How many fantasy books have been "inspired" by the LOTR. With much of the plot, character development pretty much a duplicate of the LOTR. Make enough changes to the story, the names and you have improved the book enough for it to be called yours
 
Books are the most often copied thing out there in some form. How many fantasy books have been "inspired" by the LOTR. With much of the plot, character development pretty much a duplicate of the LOTR. Make enough changes to the story, the names and you have improved the book enough for it to be called yours

That is true but things like spin offs or scientific ideas can be difficult to utilize.
The constant extensions made by congress has been to much.

Things that would have already fallen out of IP protection have been rehoused back under it again.
I don't like how the industry and government have been working so close together.
 
I understand but I have no moral qualms about it being robbery...

I do, since labeling it robberyy does nothing but confuse the issues going on. AS judge Noonan in the Grokster trial stated, we are dealing with something very new, not just in the eyes of the law, but how we as society handle it, something where one can gain with the other not losing that which they already had, which creates conundrums thatr can't be solved by slapping a lable on it carelessly without examining WHAT is going on.
 
I do, since labeling it robberyy does nothing but confuse the issues going on. AS judge Noonan in the Grokster trial stated, we are dealing with something very new, not just in the eyes of the law, but how we as society handle it, something where one can gain with the other not losing that which they already had, which creates conundrums thatr can't be solved by slapping a lable on it carelessly without examining WHAT is going on.

I certainly understand that but for the people who believe it as a moral wrong, I try to explain myself as best as possible.

You're right though, it isn't robbery.
 
What I want to know is if it's illegal to copy music, why is it legal for another artist to record someone else's song? This has happened lots of times before. I was told (whether it's true or not I don't know) that you can't copyright words and notes. Anyone can sing or produce anything at any time.
 
I certainly understand that but for the people who believe it as a moral wrong, I try to explain myself as best as possible.

You're right though, it isn't robbery.

Well - then make it right. Calculate what you feel the artist truly deserves . . . and cut them a check to cover your theft.

Surely you don't feel that artists and actors are purely there to entertain and embrace the whole starving artist personae?

:shrug:
 
I find it interesting to watch how people justify taking what they have no right to take. "I don't want to pay for music, so...the laws are stupid."
 
What I want to know is if it's illegal to copy music, why is it legal for another artist to record someone else's song? This has happened lots of times before. I was told (whether it's true or not I don't know) that you can't copyright words and notes. Anyone can sing or produce anything at any time.

This explains the entire brouhaha very well.
 
I find it interesting to watch how people justify taking what they have no right to take. "I don't want to pay for music, so...the laws are stupid."

Yeah - it's the same thought process behind people stealing gas, food, clothing, cars.
"I can't afford it . . . I don't like the laws . . . so I'll just take it . . . because I *want* it"

Yet people don't consider it theft when it's entertainment.
But it is defined as theft when it comes to any othe product.

Wool for your eyes, anyone?
 
Well - then make it right. Calculate what you feel the artist truly deserves . . . and cut them a check to cover your theft.

Surely you don't feel that artists and actors are purely there to entertain and embrace the whole starving artist personae?

:shrug:

I find it interesting to watch how people justify taking what they have no right to take. "I don't want to pay for music, so...the laws are stupid."

I guess you guys haven't been paying attention.

For me, I won't buy the DVD of movies I watch unless I like the movie.
I can't justify spending money on something that I have no clue as to, whether or not, I will like it.

If I like the movie I'll buy it, if not, they didn't earn my money.
I have never burned a DVD in my life.

Your also missing another point, you don't own what you can't control.
Ideas, images, sounds, anything intangible is impossible to control, once released to the public.
 
Yeah - it's the same thought process behind people stealing gas, food, clothing, cars.
"I can't afford it . . . I don't like the laws . . . so I'll just take it . . . because I *want* it"

Yet people don't consider it theft when it's entertainment.
But it is defined as theft when it comes to any othe product.

Wool for your eyes, anyone?

Not the same thing, it requires a person to work to create every car, food, clothing item, etc.
While on the other hand, creating the music, movie, book etc, requires one occurrence that can be reproduced at practically zero cost infinitely.
 
Yeah - it's the same thought process behind people stealing gas, food, clothing, cars.
"I can't afford it . . . I don't like the laws . . . so I'll just take it . . . because I *want* it"

Yet people don't consider it theft when it's entertainment.
But it is defined as theft when it comes to any othe product.

Wool for your eyes, anyone?

Again, it's defined differently because it is different. Taking a car/food/clothing deprives the owner of their property and is a criminal offense. Downloading a CD infringes the owner's copyright and is a civil offense. It doesn't make it right, but it's different.
 
Well - then make it right. Calculate what you feel the artist truly deserves .

So because I / we argue that it isn't robbery/theft that means we think artists deserve nothing/less?

Are you trying to be a troll, or is this all accidental, because I assure you logic dictates your premise to be false.

. . and cut them a check to cover your theft.

Which begs the question of whether or not any theft has occured in the first place. Not making money does not mean money you had was taken from you, so arguing it on that grounds is faulty.

Surely you don't feel that artists and actors are purely there to entertain and embrace the whole starving artist personae?

:shrug:

I'm doubting you are capable of intellectually honest debate, since your post doesn't address the points we've made, and attacks strawmen you created.
 
Your also missing another point, you don't own what you can't control.
Ideas, images, sounds, anything intangible is impossible to control, once released to the public.


Well, they don't give up their ownership of the IP simply by making it available for sale.
 
I guess you guys haven't been paying attention.

For me, I won't buy the DVD of movies I watch unless I like the movie.
I can't justify spending money on something that I have no clue as to, whether or not, I will like it.

If I like the movie I'll buy it, if not, they didn't earn my money.
I have never burned a DVD in my life.

Your also missing another point, you don't own what you can't control.
Ideas, images, sounds, anything intangible is impossible to control, once released to the public.

I've been paying attention to you.
Please note that I'm constantly discussing the general masses of people who engage in piracy - not just you.

I don't buy what I don't like before I view it, either - most people don't. I have no problem renting, borrowing from a friend or watching on TV something to see if you're interested in adding it to your collection.

Not the same thing, it requires a person to work to create every car, food, clothing item, etc.
While on the other hand, creating the music, movie, book etc, requires one occurrence that can be reproduced at practically zero cost infinitely.

Just like trinket jewelry, yeah?
Someone designs it - once - makes a few prototypes. Then someone programs a machine . . . and off it goes - mass production.
:shrug:
Is it ok to steal jewelry off of a rack because it took relatively little labor on someone's part?

What about a book?
Author writes it, a company refines it - into a machine it's put and then off it goes - multiple copies, instantly.
Does that mean it's ok to steal it off the shelf?
But you can check it out at the library and read the entire thing for free if it swings you.

My point is that if someone wants to *own* it forever - they need to *buy* it - regardless of their opinion of the *laws, rules, regulations and corporate crap* behind it.
 
I've been paying attention to you.
Please note that I'm constantly discussing the general masses of people who engage in piracy - not just you.

I don't buy what I don't like before I view it, either - most people don't. I have no problem renting, borrowing from a friend or watching on TV something to see if you're interested in adding it to your collection.

I won't give them a dollar unless they prove that it is worth buying.
Won't do it.
Went to the theatre and watched Toy Story 3 this weekend, same cast of actors it's been a good series.
They won my money.

Unknown quality movies, won't get my money until I see it first.

Just like trinket jewelry, yeah?
Someone designs it - once - makes a few prototypes. Then someone programs a machine . . . and off it goes - mass production.
:shrug:
Is it ok to steal jewelry off of a rack because it took relatively little labor on someone's part?

It still requires materials and labor to produce.
I don't steal things.


What about a book?
Author writes it, a company refines it - into a machine it's put and then off it goes - multiple copies, instantly.
Does that mean it's ok to steal it off the shelf?
But you can check it out at the library and read the entire thing for free if it swings you.

I should be able to read it, before I will buy it, unless the author has a history of writing good books.
Then I may buy it.

My point is that if someone wants to *own* it forever - they need to *buy* it - regardless of their opinion of the *laws, rules, regulations and corporate crap* behind it.

That's the thing, you don't own it.
IP law only allows you to rent it indefinitely or until the device it is stored on is destroyed.
Then you have to buy another copy.

The law allows dead people to own stuff.
If that is allowed I think I'm being a bit more reasonable than it is.
 
Well, they don't give up their ownership of the IP simply by making it available for sale.

I understand but until IP laws move to realm of reasonable, that is my stance.
It's current incarnation is crazily stupid, so I must take the extreme position in hopes of the law moving towards a middle ground.
 
That's the thing, you don't own it.
IP law only allows you to rent it indefinitely or until the device it is stored on is destroyed.
Then you have to buy another copy.

You don't own a book's content even if you've bought it :shrug:
If you *lose* a book - like - it gets blown into the water at a lake - you have to go and buy another copy :shrug:
When you buy something you buy *that one* of it - there - that one is yours. . . a book, someone's art - all these things are still under copyright laws. :shrug:

Your issue isn't with that, then, because a variety of things fall under that - and these other things don't seem to bother you.

Your issue is with the companies - stuffing the prices and charging too much. (I agree here)
Your issue is with the government - getting involved more and more. (I agree here)
Your issue is with the copyright laws as they exist now - which defined how much is *yours* and how much still belongs to another person. (I agree here)

The only thing we're not agree on is what is acceptable for you or me to do in response to these three issues.

Like I said before - I think the government needs to tend to the kitchen where it has bigger fish to fry. . . I think that focusing on this is stupid and won't do anything. . . but I understand why they're going for it - even though it's a waste of time and there's no point.

The only thing I have strong issues with is when the photographer comes to my children's school - takes pictures of my children - prints them off off and sends them home - and then charges me an arm and a leg for pictures of my children and then claims copyright over those photos. . . which makes it illegal for me to make my own personal copies even if I buy 1 or 10.

Difference between this and everything else: I have a legal option...
I can write the photographer and request permission to "put a permanent backup of this photo on file just in case something happens to the printed copy" - once they say yes (they always do) then I can put it on my computer and print it off all I like.

So - I think options like this should be available to all other copyrighted items. . . I feel you should be able to make copies of something you purchase - sure - as long as you don't intend on selling it and as long as you've legally purchased the original.

Whats' wrong with that? Don't know - but some people have a serious issue with that proposal (like the companies, for one)
 
Back
Top Bottom