• 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!

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

Do you think downloading movies and other content should be illegal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 27.8%
  • No

    Votes: 19 52.8%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • Total voters
    36
Who says? The owner of the car decides this. They don;t have to show you squat. Car dealerships PERMIT you to test drive, its not a right.

So?

No they PERMIT you. No one HAS to let you.

With all that said I just won't buy it then.

I never thought it was a right either. The movies I view are to see if I will buy it or not. Its a nice game the movie industry has going on.

Once you see the movie you can't get your money back if it sucks and if you buy the dvd you can't get your money back either.
 
Yes, we do. Its called intellectual property and copyright. Another similar area is trademarks.
Yes, they are called government-granted monopolies and privileges on information that stifle human advancement. A hold-over from antiquated mercantilist ideology totally inimical to freedom that is long past its due.

Only if you failed to understand the analogy.
There was no analogy. There is no parallel between stealing real property and "stealing" information.
 
Your analogy is flawed - stealing a boxed copy of window deprives the store owner of the physical item and the potential sale. Copying the OS only has the potential - the odds unpredictable IMO - to tarnish potential sales. That is why the law looks at the two matters differently.
If you steal a copy of windows from the store its no different than stealing it from the producing company. Just because, for example, Best Buy loses money as opposed to Microsoft matters not, its still stealing a product that would otherwise be sold. Its copyright infringement if you copy it and its illegal to possess goods which are in violation of copyright law.
 
If you steal a copy of windows from the store its no different than stealing it from the producing company. Just because, for example, Best Buy loses money as opposed to Microsoft matters not, its still stealing a product that would otherwise be sold. Its copyright infringement if you copy it and its illegal to possess goods which are in violation of copyright law.

Private property in the common law sense is for scarce objects, intellectual property is not. It is a state monopoly. What you seem to be saying is that because the state calls it property then it must be just or legitimate private property.

On the other hand I can see some of the point in intellectual property rights, at least for a time, but they should be more limited.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they are called government-granted monopolies and privileges on information that stifle human advancement.
WRONG. All patented items must have a full description of how to use and make the item and that description is in the public domain. There is nothing secret about them. Patents actually contribute to the proliferation of knowledge.

But this isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about COPYRIGHTS, not PATENTS.

A hold-over from antiquated mercantilist ideology totally inimical to freedom that is long past its due.
Only if you don't understand what a patent or a copyright is, yes.

In this country we believe in private property and defending the rights of inventors to protect their intellectual property is the bread and butter of our society. Without intellectual property inventors works would be gobbled up copiers with greater funds and power. Intellectual property protects the individual.

There was no analogy. There is no parallel between stealing real property and "stealing" information.
You aren't stealing information. You are stealing a product. This is but a petty attempt at justification for you.
 
Falsely so. How can it be considered copyright?

If I make a machine with cogs and gears with letters on it can it then be considered a copyrightable device?

You patent devices. You copyright works. This is fundamental misunderstanding on your part.
 
Private property in the common law sense is for scarce objects, intellectual property is not. It is a state monopoly.
I agree. but people shouldn't be turned off just because they hear the word "monopoly". In this case its a good thing. Such a monopoly is sharply limited to certain time frame and is very narrow in its constraints.

What you seem to be saying is that because the state calls it property then it must be just or legitimate private property.
All I'm trying to say is that patents and copyrights exist and for good reason. The positive consequences far outweigh the consequences of not having them.

On the other hand I can see some of the point in intellectual property rights, at least for a time, but they should be more limited.
Care to elaborate on what should be limited?
 
If you steal a copy of windows from the store its no different than stealing it from the producing company. Just because, for example, Best Buy loses money as opposed to Microsoft matters not, its still stealing a product that would otherwise be sold.

Using your logic, am I "stealing" money (that might not even go to a company in the first place) if I eat at McDonalds instead of Burger King?

Again our analogy misses two things:

1) what is "stealing" and HOW is it stealing You can't throw the term around without these parameters IMO.

@) You are comparing copying bits and stealing hard physical media or product. This is not something that I am alone in believing that is different. Why is it that dealing with pirating software doesn't deal with the same body of law as shoplifting? They are the sam after all. :roll:
 
You patent devices. You copyright works. This is fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

I understand completely what each one is supposed to represent.

That is why software is a patented object and not a copyrighted object.
Devices have inputs and outputs. You as an engineer should know this better than I.

Computer software processes inputs and delivers an output.
It is not a literary work. It replaces a lot of patented analog machine controls though.
 
WRONG. All patented items must have a full description of how to use and make the item and that description is in the public domain. There is nothing secret about them. Patents actually contribute to the proliferation of knowledge.

But this isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about COPYRIGHTS, not PATENTS.

Only if you don't understand what a patent or a copyright is, yes.
Copyrights, patents, trademarks; all mercantilist trojan horses used to attack the free market.

The free market works whereas mercantilism is a debunked theory, yet it is unsurprisingly still practiced in the case of "intellectual property" by the socialist regimes of the modern West.

In this country we believe in private property and defending the rights of inventors to protect their intellectual property is the bread and butter of our society. Without intellectual property inventors works would be gobbled up copiers with greater funds and power. Intellectual property protects the individual.
You can't believe in both private property and "intellectual property" considering the fact that the concept of "intellectual property" violates individual property rights.

You aren't stealing information. You are stealing a product. This is but a petty attempt at justification for you.
Shoplifting a physical box from a store is stealing a product.

Downloading content from the internet from others who have purchased the product and are now making it available is most certainly NOT.
 
1) what is "stealing" and HOW is it stealing You can't throw the term around without these parameters IMO.
You are stealing intellectual property by violating its copyright.

Copyright is a form of intellectual property which gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication, distribution and adaptation; after which time the work is said to enter the public domain. Copyright applies to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.


@) You are comparing copying bits and stealing hard physical media or product. This is not something that I am alone in believing that is different. Why is it that dealing with pirating software doesn't deal with the same body of law as shoplifting? They are the sam after all. :roll:

Stealing - to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch

Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) - the unauthorized use of material that is covered by copyright law, in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.

So no you are not "stealing" per se. You are just violating the rights of another by taking/using/distributing their works illegally.
 
Copyrights, patents, trademarks; all mercantilist trojan horses used to attack the free market.
This is nothing but a opinion without support. In other words, its useless.

The free market works whereas mercantilism is a debunked theory, yet it is unsurprisingly still practiced in the case of "intellectual property" by the socialist regimes of the modern West.
I have given sound reasoning for intellectual property. There are plenty more reasons I have yet to give. If all you can do is dribble on with senseless undefended ramblings like this then we are done here. You have nothing to present here.


You can't believe in both private property and "intellectual property" considering the fact that the concept of "intellectual property" violates individual property rights.
please explain.


Shoplifting a physical box from a store is stealing a product.

Downloading content from the internet from others who have purchased the product and are now making it available is most certainly NOT.
See my previous post about stealing and copyright infringement.
 
Just because it is doesn't mean that it isn't logically done so.
huh?

The law was perverted to appeal to Microsoft and other developers.
Its part of the problem that keeps Microsoft in business.
Conspiracy nonsense. Intellectual property has been around for a long time. The idea of rights for the creator of works is nothing new even though computers are. The law was easily extended to cover such areas.
 
Going to bed. I'll respond tomorrow to further posts if time permits.
 
scourge99,

Before "intellectual property," before copyright even, creativity existed, thrived. Your "without IP" rant, IMO, holds a lot of doom and gloom, though the implications of dealing with the abolition of copyright would be problematic since creative commons, copyleft, etc all rely on copyright to work. Copyright, and patents don't need abolition contrary to what some believe out there, but there are very big problems with these systems that need to be addressed and fixed. It is far from a flawless system. Patents are being granted for obvious things, prior art be damned, and copyright lasts for over a century easily, entangled in corporate bull**** and not serving those who actually create but rather those who "help" get the artist's work out.
 
Last edited:

The law was applied in a nonsensical, illogical way.


Conspiracy nonsense. Intellectual property has been around for a long time. The idea of rights for the creator of works is nothing new even though computers are. The law was easily extended to cover such areas.

I knew I shouldn't have mentioned Microsoft but its the most obvious one to prove my point.

They have an inferior product and because it is copyrighted and not patented no one can improve upon it and create a superior product.

Intellectual property is such a vague term. It could apply to machines to.

It takes brains to create machines. Software is a graphical mechanical device, there is no disputing that.
 
I agree. but people shouldn't be turned off just because they hear the word "monopoly". In this case its a good thing. Such a monopoly is sharply limited to certain time frame and is very narrow in its constraints.
Not limited enough in my book.

All I'm trying to say is that patents and copyrights exist and for good reason. The positive consequences far outweigh the consequences of not having them.
Personally I can think of many negative consequences such as the encouragement of centralisation in industry.

Care to elaborate on what should be limited?
The length of copyrights, what can be copyrighted and by whom.
 
scourge99,

Before "intellectual property," before copyright even, creativity existed, thrived. Your "without IP" rant, IMO, holds a lot of doom and gloom, though the implications of dealing with the abolition of copyright would be problematic since creative commons, copyleft, etc all rely on copyright to work. Copyright, and patents don't need abolition contrary to what some believe out there, but there are very big problems with these systems that need to be addressed and fixed. It is far from a flawless system. Patents are being granted for obvious things, prior art be damned, and copyright lasts for over a century easily, entangled in corporate bull**** and not serving those who actually create but rather those who "help" get the artist's work out.

Whats funny is that the famous artists of the Renaissance time "pirated" or recreated each others works to sell.
 
This is nothing but a opinion without support. In other words, its useless.
Opinion? No, its called economics.

I have given sound reasoning for intellectual property. There are plenty more reasons I have yet to give. If all you can do is dribble on with senseless undefended ramblings like this then we are done here. You have nothing to present here.
How quaint, accusing me of doing what you yourself are doing in the very same paragraph.

When will you people learn that allowing free minds to operate in free markets is the best way to allow society to run? Government only destroys, never creates.

please explain.
The fact that "intellectual property" clearly limits what I can do with my real property is self-evident.

If I purchased a book or film and I made copies of it onto paper or discs that I owned, and then chose to give them away or sell them for money in voluntary exchange with willing buyers, that is none of the government's business.

"Intellectual property" instead grants corporations and the government veto power over what I can do with my own REAL property, in case the pattern of letters I write with a pencil I own on a piece of paper I own ends up resembling something "copyrighted."

It is an artificial monopoly incompatible with a free market.
 
Companies aren't stopping the sharing of information anymore than a store stops you. You can't walk into a store and steal "Windows" off the shelf without facing penalties. Just because the information isn't in a physical form doesn't mean its OK to steal it from others.

The difference, of course, is that you aren't actually "stealing" anything, but simply copying it. This is why it isn't a violation of property in the literal sense; this is also why we are seeing companies attempt to claim that they are not actually selling video games/movies/CD's as products themselves, but are actually selling the ability to access that product (which is why we are seeing video games with draconian anti-piracy software installed).

This is an even more absurd position, attempting to claim that even though I own the product I don't have the right to access it unless it is granted from the company. Ironically, this is an even more blatant violation of property rights than the supposed violations it is supposed to prevent! And it is this violation of property rights that those that consider filesharing to be illegal are defending.
 
...
it allows you to see what isn't there and spout off semi-intelligently without actual rational basis to do so.
steal   /stil/
verb, stole, sto⋅len, steal⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force.

So explain how taking music, video, software, and other content against the wishes of the rightful owners is not stealing.

Trying to justify it by what you think of the rightful owners and their practices is just rationalization but I'm sure it makes those that do it feel better about themself.

Some folks that walk into a convenience store with a gun and steal some beer and cigs can rationalize their actions also. I suppose you think their actions are justified or do you also rationalize hypocrisy?
 
Back
Top Bottom