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

Defensor · Feb 16, 2009

Captain Obvious said:
Critical thinking skills?

You're trying to defend stealing from someone else and you're suggesting I lack "critical thinking skills". By posting some links to some socialist bull**** and whacky ideology? By tossing around terms you don't understand, but can't explain because you're not capable of doing so?

Sorry, you lose.

Thanks for playing, though.

It's obvious that you are a troll now. Go play elsewhere and let the adults continue this discussion.

Defensor · Feb 16, 2009

Hatuey said:
What stupidity. You're not paying for a DVD. You're paying for what's inside the DVD. Just like you're not paying for ink and paper. You're paying for what was done with that ink and paper. Try A-****ing-Gain. Or better yet. Take offense at how stupid I think you are for believing you're paying for ink and paper and not a book.

No, actually you are paying for the paper and ink in those books; that is why there is a charge for them. So the original claim about it being funny to be selling that book was a major lapse of logic on your part.

Defensor · Feb 16, 2009

Coolguy said:
That is right, but that isn't what is occurring. There is no market or marketing involved when people steal another's work.

If they stole another's work, such as a CD or DVD, of course they should return it.

:dohAnd that is where your problem rests.
You do not own the music, the movie or the right to distribute them.

Then I don't own the property at all, do I? Private property ceases to exist and we enter a form of pseudo-socialism dictated by the politically-connected.

Hatuey · Feb 16, 2009

Defensor said:
No, actually you are paying for the paper and ink in those books; that is why there is a charge for them. So the original claim about it being funny to be selling that book was a major lapse of logic on your part.

Here. Buy two bottles and 400 sheets of paper. Now tell me why there is a clear discrepancy between the price you paid for that and the price you'll pay for a copy of Harry Potter? Well clearly it is because two bottles of ink and 400 sheets of paper does not equal a copy of Harry Potter. Not ever. Just like a blank CD will never be the same price as a CD with Britney Spears on it. You're paying for the content. Not the material used to record it on.

Defensor · Feb 17, 2009

Hatuey said:
Here. Buy two bottles and 400 sheets of paper. Now tell me why there is a clear discrepancy between the price you paid for that and the price you'll pay for a copy of Harry Potter? Well clearly it is because two bottles of ink and 400 sheets of paper does not equal a copy of Harry Potter. Not ever. Just like a blank CD will never be the same price as a CD with Britney Spears on it. You're paying for the content. Not the material used to record it on.

You have shifted the goalposts, Hatuey. We were talking about specific books I linked to earlier, not Britney Spears.

Hatuey · Feb 17, 2009

Defensor said:
You have shifted the goalposts, Hatuey. We were talking about specific books I linked to earlier, not Britney Spears.

What GOALPOSTS? You argued that you are paying for the ink and paper and not the ideas written down with that pen and paper. If your logic held ANY ground what so ever then you would not be paying for what is ON a CD but the CD itself. Stop using debate words you don't comprehend. It's funny how your logic seems to hold no ground when applied to the real world. Where you pay for content and not what that content is recorded on. Now explain to me how paying $30 for a book is the same as paying $14 for a bottle of cheap ink and 400 sheets of paper.

Defensor · Feb 17, 2009

Hatuey said:
What GOALPOSTS?

The ones you shifted when you tried to re-frame an argument about specific publications into a general discussion on the factors that go into determining pricing.

You argued that you are paying for the ink and paper and not the ideas written down with that pen and paper. If your logic held ANY ground what so ever then you would not be paying for what is ON a CD but the CD itself. Stop using debate words you don't comprehend.

And that was true. What else would you possibly be paying for considering both authors made their books freely available online?

What you have done here is actually destroy your own argument by acknowledging that when a label sells a CD, they are also selling the content on the CD, which then becomes the property of the buyer.

Defensor · Feb 17, 2009

Hatuey said:
Now explain to me how paying $30 for a book is the same as paying $14 for a bottle of cheap ink and 400 sheets of paper.

Nobody has disputed that the content included in the production influences the price that is set for it.

See now that is what is called a straw man. More debate language for you.

Hatuey · Feb 17, 2009

Defensor said:
The ones you shifted when you tried to re-frame an argument about specific publications into a general discussion on the factors that go into determining pricing.

Again - There is no goalposts at all. You claim that you pay for ink and paper. You're not. Just like you're not paying for a CD but the content on that CD. Arguing that this is somehow 'moving' the goal posts is ridiculous.

And that was true. What else would you possibly be paying for considering both authors made their books freely available online?

And yet the book is STILL for sale. Looks bad for people arguing against intellectual property.

What you have done here is actually destroy your own argument by acknowledging that when a label sells a CD, they are also selling the content on the CD, which then becomes the property of the buyer.

:rofl - It's awesome to watch you debate something you have no clue about. If you knew anything about copyright laws you'd know that by buying it you agree to not make illegal copies of the content. You are made aware of such agreement by not only the vendor but the people who created the content. Just like when you buy property you agree to follow all the rules and regulations regarding that piece of property. Buying something does not mean you get to do whatever you want with it. Same argument applies here. Buying content does not make you the rights holding owner of such content. You do not get the rights to distribute it as you see fit or make any money from it what so ever. Seriously. Do you even know what copyright laws are?

Examples :

Notice how the DVD says 'Do Not Make Illegal Copies of this Disk?'

Notice how before a legally made copy of DVD starts a black screen telling you that it is illegal to make copies of such DVD?

Wessexman · Feb 17, 2009

Captain Obvious said:
Critical thinking skills?

You're trying to defend stealing from someone else and you're suggesting I lack "critical thinking skills". By posting some links to some socialist bull**** and whacky ideology? By tossing around terms you don't understand, but can't explain because you're not capable of doing so?

Sorry, you lose.

Thanks for playing, though.

Wtf? Are you calling the Ludwig Von Mises Institute socialist? And I thought I'd seen terms being twisted before.

There is nothing that is particularly "socialist" about arguing against IP, particularly as it stands in contradition to most common principles of private property. So try and focus on some more substansive argument than throwing around terms like socialist.

Hatuey · Feb 17, 2009

Defensor said:
Nobody has disputed that the content included in the production influences the price that is set for it.

Content is the SOLE factor in what influences price. Again :

1. A blank CD - $1

2. A CD with Britney Spears on it : $20

3. A CD with Adobe Photoshop CS4 Upgrade - $250

Now do you see a discrepancy? I'll explain why :

1. It takes the work of around 8-10 people to create a blank CD.

2. It takes the work of 8 people + an army of musicians, producers, graphic designers and Britney Spears to create a Britney Spears CD.

3. It takes an army of some of the world's greatest programmers, artists, etc. years to create the coding that goes into an edition of Photoshop.

Do you see it yet?

See now that is what is called a straw man. More debate language for you.

No, actually you are paying for the paper and ink in those books; that is why there is a charge for them.

A straw man :

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

You argued that the charge is for the ink and paper. Not the idea conveyed on that paper with that ink. Please learn what a straw man?

Harry Guerrilla · Feb 17, 2009

Hatuey said:
3. A CD with Adobe Photoshop CS4 Upgrade - $250

3. It takes an army of some of the world's greatest programmers, artists, etc. years to create the coding that goes into an edition of Photoshop.

The problem with software is that it should have never been allowed to be copyrighted, it is a patent situation.

Wessexman · Feb 17, 2009

Me said:
common principles

That should be common law principles.

Hatuey · Feb 17, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
The problem with software is that it should have never been allowed to be copyrighted, it is a patent situation.

This would bring in serious legal issues. A patent is given to an inventor and it is limited to a period of time. Why would this bring legal issues? Well Software isn't usually created by just one person. I'll use the one piece of software I have the most knowledge of. Photoshop. Adobe has different teams working on different aspects of it's flagship project. People working on filters, processes, brushes etc. All these teams work under the guidance of a sort of 'director' who then has another team make all these components work together under the same program. If patents were an effective method of protecting software then legal issues would arise as to whether it is the actual creators of the components who have ownership of the components or Adobe.

Defensor · Feb 17, 2009

Wessexman said:
Wtf? Are you calling the Ludwig Von Mises Institute socialist? And I thought I'd seen terms being twisted before.

There is nothing that is particularly "socialist" about arguing against IP, particularly as it stands in contradition to most common principles of private property. So try and focus on some more substansive argument than throwing around terms like socialist.

Attacking the Ludwig von Mises Institute as "socialist" is what tipped me off that Captain Obvious is not interested in a serious debate.

Defensor · Feb 17, 2009

Hatuey said:
Again - There is no goalposts at all. You claim that you pay for ink and paper. You're not. Just like you're not paying for a CD but the content on that CD. Arguing that this is somehow 'moving' the goal posts is ridiculous.

Hatuey, stop wasting my time with this nonsense. If the books are available free online, its pretty damn obvious what you are paying for when you purchase a print copy.

I never said that that applied generally since obviously most works aren't made available free by the authors.

Again this is an example of straw man; I'm glad you looked it up so you can avoid doing this again in the future.

Harry Guerrilla · Feb 17, 2009

Hatuey said:
This would bring in serious legal issues. A patent is given to an inventor and it is limited to a period of time. Why would this bring legal issues? Well Software isn't usually created by just one person. I'll use the one piece of software I have the most knowledge of. Photoshop. Adobe has different teams working on different aspects of it's flagship project. People working on filters, processes, brushes etc. All these teams work under the guidance of a sort of 'director' who then has another team make all these components work together under the same program. If patents were an effective method of protecting software then legal issues would arise as to whether it is the actual creators of the components who have ownership of the components or Adobe.

Inventors create stuff all the time. Machines are created by corporations and groups of individuals all the time.

Me thinks the software companies lobbied to get their works copyrighted instead of patented as it should have been.

Travelsonic · Feb 17, 2009

Hatuey said:
Examples :

Notice how the DVD says 'Do Not Make Illegal Copies of this Disk?'

Notice how before a legally made copy of DVD starts a black screen telling you that it is illegal to make copies of such DVD?

Because they have no concept of fair use maybe?

That's not a binding contract, like an EULA (well, what isn't unchallenged anyways) - this also convinently ignores that while making copies to distribute is illegal, making copies in of itself - backup and timeshifting only - is fair use and actually legal.

Hatuey · Feb 17, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
Inventors create stuff all the time. Machines are created by corporations and groups of individuals all the time.

Me thinks the software companies lobbied to get their works copyrighted instead of patented as it should have been.

And for the most part a lot of these inventors sign away their rights when they're hired. Also like I said a patent is limited by time :

General Information Concerning Patents

A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available.

The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.

What company is going to allow their work to be theirs for 20 years?

Harry Guerrilla · Feb 17, 2009

Hatuey said:
And for the most part a lot of these inventors sign away their rights when they're hired. Also like I said a patent is limited by time :

General Information Concerning Patents

What company is going to allow their work to be theirs for 20 years?

To be honest it shouldn't be their choice, considering that they shouldn't have a monopoly on it.

It is like a machine in every way except it is virtual.

Hatuey · Feb 17, 2009

Travelsonic said:
Because they have no concept of fair use maybe?

That's not a binding contract, like an EULA (well, what isn't unchallenged anyways) - this also convinently ignores that while making copies to distribute is illegal, making copies in of itself - backup and timeshifting only - is fair use and actually legal.

What ignorance. It doesn't conveniently ignore anything. Learn what fair use actually is before you start throwing it around :

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 1

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 1

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

So 'fair use' depends on whether you've LEGALLY obtained the copy of the product. If you haven't then your claim to 'fair use' is bull**** for the most part. Not to mention distribution is clearly the sole right of the actual owner of the copyright. Not those who've purchased copies of it.

Hatuey · Feb 17, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
To be honest it shouldn't be their choice, considering that they shouldn't have a monopoly on it.

It is like a machine in every way except it is virtual.

Companies shouldn't have a right to own that which they create? Are you even being serious?

Harry Guerrilla · Feb 17, 2009

Hatuey said:
Companies shouldn't have a right to own that which they create? Are you even being serious?

Should Ford have exclusive rights to making cars forever?

If you make something and release it, you have a limited time under patent laws where it is just yours after that expires it is open season.

Hatuey · Feb 17, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
Should Ford have exclusive rights to making cars forever?

If you make something and release it, you have a limited time under patent laws where it is just yours after that expires it is open season.

Good lord are you really this uninformed?

Automobile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although several other German engineers (including Gottlieb Daimler, Wilhelm Maybach, and Siegfried Marcus) were working on the problem at about the same time, Karl Benz generally is acknowledged as the inventor of the modern automobile.[8]

An automobile powered by his own four-stroke cycle gasoline engine was built in Mannheim, Germany by Karl Benz in 1885 and granted a patent in January of the following year under the auspices of his major company, Benz & Cie., which was founded in 1883. It was an integral design, without the adaptation of other existing components and including several new technological elements to create a new concept. This is what made it worthy of a patent. He began to sell his production vehicles in 1888.

An automobile powered by his own four-stroke cycle gasoline engine was built in Mannheim, Germany by Karl Benz in 1885 and granted a patent in January of the following year under the auspices of his major company, Benz & Cie., which was founded in 1883. It was an integral design, without the adaptation of other existing components and including several new technological elements to create a new concept. This is what made it worthy of a patent. He began to sell his production vehicles in 1888.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_A_(1903)

The original Ford Model A was the first car produced by Ford Motor Company, beginning production in 1903. Dr. Ernst Pfenning of Chicago, Illinois became the first owner of a Model A on July 23, 1903. 1,750 cars were made from 1903 through 1904. The Model A was replaced by the Ford Model C during 1904 with some sales overlap.

But aside from the historical inaccuracies let's see here. Ford doesn't and has NEVER had ownership of the patent for 'cars'. It owns the rights to the Model A. It owns the right to the Model T. It owns the right to Mustangs, it owns the rights to even F350s. Does Ford own the exclusive rights to making cars? No. And it never has. It does however have the exclusive rights to all the cars it designs and produces.

Travelsonic · Feb 17, 2009

Hatuey said:
So 'fair use' depends on whether you've LEGALLY obtained the copy of the product. \

And you talked to me about ignorance?

Where did I suggest otherwise? I know damn well what fair use is, you are judging and assuming what I do and don't know wihout knowing a ****ing thing.

Timeshifting and archival backup is legal. They don't include that exception. That, IMO, is omission.

Take your own advice.

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

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

Yes

No

Not sure

Other (explain)

Member

Member

Member

Rule of Two

Member

Rule of Two

Member

Member

Rule of Two

Dorset Patriot

Rule of Two

Dorset Patriot

Rule of Two

Member

Member

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Rule of Two