Thread: Do you think downloading movies or other content should be illegal?

Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla

It all started from the original IPR holder releasing it to the public.

That was his choice.

Originally Posted by Harshaw

That was his choice.

I know but that why I think copyright laws are crazy stupid in their length of time.

Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla

I know but that why I think copyright laws are crazy stupid in their length of time.

That's a different argument -- one of degree, not concept.

Originally Posted by Harshaw

That's a different argument -- one of degree, not concept.

That is my point on IPR. Serious reform is needed.

Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla

I'd ask you then, would you buy a piece of art without looking at it, a cd without know what type of music it was.

Why would you buy a movie without viewing it?

Your comparison is simply RIDICULOUS. The creator of a painting wants me to look at a painting before buying it. The rights owner of a music CD does not want me to download his music and not pay for it. The rights owner of a DVD does not want me to rip him off by pirating his DVDs. I buy a DVD and CD knowing that I may not like what is on it because that is what I agree to when buying the content and all the legal ramification that come with it.

Thats not really what I was talking about.

Lets say I get a mustang and inspect the engine. There are area's to the engine where I could modify its design to increase performance, fuel economy or whatever.

I modify the engine(physically) and am happy with the results. Should I then be able to sell it even though the original design is under my modifications?

I don't even know where to start with this because you've simply gone off the deep end as far as patents and copyright go. You can not get a patent or distribution rights of an engine because you've modified the performance or fuel level of somebody else's work. Not at all. I'm sorry but to keep arguing this shows you simply have no clue what patents are about.

I know it can't use the original trademark.

What I'm saying is that. I purchase a copy of photoshop and find that there are many features that it is lacking. I reprogram it to include those features and sell it under a different name with my new features adapted to the program.

Same as above.

Software is also an invention. It is a virtual non physical invention. Just because a program is in written form doesn't mean it isn't mechanical in design.

With GM plants they reprogram the original plant to produce a new desired result. It is biological software.

And again. Software because it is written is included under copyright. A patent is for physical inventions. Please read on this subject? You're making yourself look ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Your comparison is simply RIDICULOUS. The creator of a painting wants me to look at a painting before buying it. The rights owner of a music CD does not want me to download his music and not pay for it. The rights owner of a DVD does not want me to rip him off by pirating his DVDs. I buy a DVD and CD knowing that I may not like what is on it because that is what I agree to when buying the content and all the legal ramification that come with it.

The music industry is getting wise to what is best for marketing. They allow you to hear the music before you buy it.

I have no problems with them.

With movies if I don't like it after I buy it I can not return it or get my money back.

The movie industry wants to have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Hatuey

I don't even know where to start with this because you've simply gone off the deep end as far as patents and copyright go. You can not get a patent or distribution rights of an engine because you've modified the performance or fuel level of somebody else's work. Not at all. I'm sorry but to keep arguing this shows you simply have no clue what patents are about.

I am talking about a real physical modification. Not tuning the engine.
I talking about physically changing part of the structure of the engine.

Originally Posted by Hatuey

And again. Software because it is written is included under copyright. A patent is for physical inventions. Please read on this subject? You're making yourself look ridiculous.

That is completely retarded. So if I build a machine with letters printed all over it I should then be able to copyright it?

Software is a virtual machine its function are completely identical to a machine except that it is in a virtual world.

Originally Posted by Hatuey

What I'm saying is that Ford has never owned the patent or sole rights to the production of cars. Not ever. They do however own the production rights to the car models which they design. Where he got the idea that Ford has EVER owned the right to the production of cars is beyond me. That's like getting the production rights to books. Or chairs. And where you got that I said patents should run for 80 years or more is beyond me. You guys simply don't understand the debate at hand and are pretty much making it up as you go.

It was simple question no need for your infantile personal attacks. It was simply an impression I got from your post and I asked you a question.

When you purchase a CD with content in it. You do not purchase the distribution rights to the content within that CD. The only thing you are purchasing(other then the content) is the right to use that CD for the usage intended by the creator. This is made CLEAR from the moment you buy a DVD, Music CD, Software etc in many different ways from labels on the media to inside labels(black labels on that pop up when you start a DVD).

I know it is put on the CD. This however is a legal argument not a normative one.

I'm willing to endorse limited intellectual property rights, particularly copyrights for the present but I do note how they contravene common law principles of property and are a state fiat grant of monopoly. They also encourage consolidation and centralised in industry which is rarely a good thing in my book.

Originally Posted by rathi

I'd suggest taking your own advice Hatuey.

Business method patent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your link :

Business method patent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking, tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods.[1] Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations.[2]

Whether a business method is regarded as patentable subject matter depends on the legal jurisdiction. The World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) does not specifically address business method patents.

Create a new type of engine. It can be patented anywhere in the world. Create a new business method and it depends where you are. My statement stands.

I really hate it when somebody steals my aesthetic. I hate it even more when somebody uses an image I created without permission even more. The first should be legal the second should not.