• 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
Defensor said:
From an anti-property rights perspective perhaps.
Click to expand...

From the perspective of the law, and the principles of property rights. Buying a copy confers a specific license, not ownership.

This is also true in real property, in which you can place any manner of restrictions on a sale, which, if broken, would revert the ownership back.
 
Captain Obvious said:
Wow - I have to spoon feed. I'm not surprised though.

Ok, let me dumb it down. Explain to me your thoughts on what a monopoly and free market system are as they pertain to sales of licensed, artistic material and how the evil government is "creating artificial monopolies" to disrupt the process.

Don't be shy, let it rip. I can't wait for your response.

This sounds like a Pinky and the Brain plot......
Click to expand...
I'm not here to be your teacher.

Invest in an economics textbook, look up the word "monopoly," and then return to apologize for spreading misinformation.
 
Harshaw said:
From the perspective of the law, and the principles of property rights. Buying a copy confers a specific license, not ownership.

This is also true in real property, in which you can place any manner of restrictions on a sale, which, if broken, would revert the ownership back.
Click to expand...
"Intellectual property" is not property at all.

And if it is merely a license they are offering, they should call it leasing or renting and lower prices accordingly.
 
Defensor said:
I'm not here to be your teacher.

Invest in an economics textbook, look up the word "monopoly," and then return to apologize for spreading misinformation.
Click to expand...

Hah, pretty much what I expected.

Drop back, punt.

Thanks for playing, though.
 
Captain Obvious said:
Hah, pretty much what I expected.

Drop back, punt.

Thanks for playing, though.
Click to expand...

Well Captain, I'm not here to bestow my "intellectual property" upon you. Go help your local publisher and invest in that textbook I mentioned, or at least a dictionary so you could keep up in these discussions.
 
Defensor said:
"Intellectual property" is not property at all.
Click to expand...

There is a very large body of law and a section of the Constitution which disagrees with you.


And if it is merely a license they are offering, they should call it leasing or renting and lower prices accordingly.
Click to expand...

The pittance you pay to buy a CD compared to what it would actually cost to buy the album's contents outright, with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto, is plenty discount enough.
 
Defensor said:
Well Captain, I'm not here to bestow my "intellectual property" upon you. Go help your local publisher and invest in that textbook I mentioned, or at least a dictionary so you could keep up in these discussions.
Click to expand...

First, it's your point. Just saying a word like "monopoly" doesn't expand on your point but honestly, I don't think you really have one.

I think you're simply trying to argue why you should get a freebie download because it's easy and you're attempting to reason against the reality of the fact that you'd be stealing from the rightful owner of the "rights" to that intellectual property.

Since you won't elaborate, I can only guess that you're suggesting that the concept of intellectual property includes a theory of monopoly in that there is a virtual "monopoly" to that specific work since only one person holds the rights to it, which is way beyond the subject at hand since that person or entity CONTINUES to hold that right and if it's copied and distributed illegally, then not only is it wrong (stealing) but the entity that owns the rights to that intellectual property is being ripped off.

You can't argue that issue (well, you can and are - but it's completely baseless).

Are you a first-year college kid? Just curious.
 
Harshaw said:
There is a very large body of law and a section of the Constitution which disagrees with you.




The pittance you pay to buy a CD compared to what it would actually cost to buy the album's contents outright, with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto, is plenty discount enough.
Click to expand...

Exactly - and where the "freemarket" system comes in as this gentleman keeps alluding to is that if your music stinks, nobody buys it and the price drops.

None of this supports the open stealing of intellectual property.
 
Captain Obvious said:
Exactly - and where the "freemarket" system comes in as this gentleman keeps alluding to is that if your music stinks, nobody buys it and the price drops.
Click to expand...

It also comes into play when there are hundreds or thousands of people like you willing to sell their wares at lower prices.

None of this supports the open stealing of intellectual property.
Click to expand...

But he doesn't WANT to pay for it, so he shouldn't HAVE to pay for it. Or something adolescent like that.
 
Harshaw said:
It also comes into play when there are hundreds or thousands of people like you willing to sell their wares at lower prices.



But he doesn't WANT to pay for it, so he shouldn't HAVE to pay for it. Or something adolescent like that.
Click to expand...

Hey - I demand top dollar for my wares.

:lol::lol::lol:

But I agree, it's all about getting freebies at someone elses expense.
 
Travelsonic said:
This I'd like to see.
Click to expand...

Art I Sec 8 Cl 8

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
There is a very large body of law and a section of the Constitution which disagrees with you.
Click to expand...
Really, where in the Constitution are your ideas on this stated? One vague clause you base your argument upon?

Not that it matters. Congress is Constitutionally permitted to implement tariffs and regulate commerce, reflecting the mercantilist myths of the time, but this does not mean that it should. Human understanding of economics and property rights has advanced since then.

The pittance you pay to buy a CD compared to what it would actually cost to buy the album's contents outright, with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto, is plenty discount enough.
Click to expand...
When I purchase a CD everything on that CD becomes my property. If a performer does not wish to make this available to people, (s)he should not sell CDs in the marketplace.
 
Should it be illegal?

It already is. Stop stealing ****.
 
Hatuey said:
Should it be illegal?

It already is. Stop stealing ****.
Click to expand...


Hmm..

Those who chose to distribute their copyrighted works for free would like to talk to you.

Stop generalizing. :spin:
 
Captain Obvious said:
First, it's your point. Just saying a word like "monopoly" doesn't expand on your point but honestly, I don't think you really have one.

I think you're simply trying to argue why you should get a freebie download because it's easy and you're attempting to reason against the reality of the fact that you'd be stealing from the rightful owner of the "rights" to that intellectual property.

Since you won't elaborate, I can only guess that you're suggesting that the concept of intellectual property includes a theory of monopoly in that there is a virtual "monopoly" to that specific work since only one person holds the rights to it, which is way beyond the subject at hand since that person or entity CONTINUES to hold that right and if it's copied and distributed illegally, then not only is it wrong (stealing) but the entity that owns the rights to that intellectual property is being ripped off.

You can't argue that issue (well, you can and are - but it's completely baseless).

Are you a first-year college kid? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Again, Captain, I'm not here you be your personal tutor. You don't know what a monopoly is and you refuse to swallow your pride to look it up. I can't engage in a debate with someone who doesn't even know the meaning of the words he's arguing over.
 
Travelsonic said:
Hmm..

Those who chose to distribute their copyrighted works for free would like to talk to you.

Stop generalizing. :spin:
Click to expand...

Their copyrighted works? Of who? No-name unsigned artists on MySpace? Freeware wannabe programmers on Download.com? The movie and music industries lose billions every year because of people who support pirating and illegally downloading the hard work of others. Adobe alone loses a grand every time people somebody decides to illegally download and then pirate it's latest Suite. Now what did I generalize? The fact that pirating software, music and movies is illegal? Get a ****ing clue.
 
Defensor said:
Really, where in the Constitution are your ideas on this stated? One vague clause you base your argument upon?
Click to expand...

You may call it a "vague clause," but it's the recognition of not only intellectual property RIGHTS by the Framers, but also their IMPORTANCE.


Not that it matters. Congress is Constitutionally permitted to implement tariffs and regulate commerce, reflecting the mercantilist myths of the time, but this does not mean that it should. Human understanding of economics and property rights has advanced since then.
Click to expand...

How is this an argument which in any way advances your point?


When I purchase a CD everything on that CD becomes my property.
Click to expand...

No. It does not. You don't get to make things up out of whole cloth and declare them the Way Things Are. You're wrong. You may wish you weren't, but too bad. You have nothing other than your arrogance to back you up.


If a performer does not wish to make this available to people, (s)he should not sell CDs in the marketplace.
Click to expand...

They ARE available to people, on the same terms.

You remind me of the graffiti "artists" who insist that "walls belong to everybody."
 
Defensor said:
Again, Captain, I'm not here you be your personal tutor. You don't know what a monopoly is and you refuse to swallow your pride to look it up. I can't engage in a debate with someone who doesn't even know the meaning of the words he's arguing over.
Click to expand...

Monopoly doesn't apply in this situation.

Even if it did, if someone has a monopoly, that doesn't mean you get to steal from them.
 
Harshaw said:
You may call it a "vague clause," but it's the recognition of not only intellectual property RIGHTS by the Framers, but also their IMPORTANCE.
Click to expand...
Hardly. When's the last time government grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal? Congress is not mandated to exercise the powers granted to it.

How is this an argument which in any way advances your point?
Click to expand...
Well I was never arguing over what the Constitution stated, so your argument was a strawman to begin with.

No. It does not. You don't get to make things up out of whole cloth and declare them the Way Things Are. You're wrong. You may wish you weren't, but too bad. You have nothing other than your arrogance to back you up.
Click to expand...
I have the concept of property rights, upon which Western society is based, on my side.

You, on the other hand, have only the force of government on your side. Like socialism did in the Soviet Union. It won't last forever.

And appeals to authority are not a valid debate tactic.


They ARE available to people, on the same terms.

You remind me of the graffiti "artists" who insist that "walls belong to everybody."
Click to expand...
Yet another red herring of an analogy thrown in. Walls are property. Defacing someone's property is not at all comparable to making a copy of your own property.
 
Harshaw said:
Monopoly doesn't apply in this situation.
Click to expand...
The whole discussion topic is about monopoly; there is no way to not discuss it.

Even if it did, if someone has a monopoly, that doesn't mean you get to steal from them.
Click to expand...
Of course not. But sharing copies of a product I paid money for is not "stealing."
 
Defensor said:
Hardly. When's the last time government grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal? Congress is not mandated to exercise the powers granted to it.
Click to expand...

But they do. And they do for the simple reason that profiting from a work is a great incentive to create that work.

Well I was never arguing over what the Constitution stated, so your argument was a strawman to begin with.
Click to expand...

No. You said there's no such thing as intellectual property. You're wrong. The Constitution recognizes it, along with all sorts of other rights.


I have the concept of property rights, upon which Western society is based, on my side.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah? Bring that home.


You, on the other hand, have only the force of government on your side.
Click to expand...

As is true with any set of laws, including any other property laws.


And appeals to authority are not a valid debate tactic.
Click to expand...

No, appeals to FALSE authority are not. Besides, what's "Western society" but an authority?


Yet another red herring of an analogy thrown in.
Click to expand...

I never claimed it was an analogy. It's simply what your arguments remind me of, as they, too, are attempting to justify doing what they do on false arguments.
 
Defensor said:
The whole discussion topic is about monopoly; there is no way to not discuss it.
Click to expand...

How so? You can't simply claim that it is and not explain it. The burden of showing it to be so is on you.


Of course not. But sharing copies of a product I paid money for is not "stealing."
Click to expand...

You didn't. You licensed it. The right to copy and distribute it is not in the sales agreement. If you say that it is, show where.
 
Harshaw said:
Monopoly doesn't apply in this situation.

Even if it did, if someone has a monopoly, that doesn't mean you get to steal from them.
Click to expand...

There's an old saying - if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****.

This guy keeps tossing the term around but refuses to explain why and simply says something like 'go buy a textbook and look it up'.

Something tells me this this guy is related to Jerry.

:lol::lol::lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom