• 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
Good lord are you really this uninformed?

Automobile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



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



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.

It really doesn't matter who created the first car I was trying to make a point.

Would you not agree though that all cars generally operate off of the same basic design principle? The internal combustion engine, is more or less the same thing as originally designed its just had improvements built upon it.
That is how people avoid patent violations because they can take the original and change it just enough to be issued their own patent.

With software you can't do that. For instance say I bought photoshop but I saw improvement I could add to it. I could personally do it but I could never sell it because it is copyrighted.

Software is a virtual mechanical device. It has an input and it delivers an output just like a physical machine.

Copyrighted material does not.

I'll pick up your response tomorrow. I have school in the morning.
 
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.

You seem to not be able to comprehend that if this made any sense then the money would be going to the printing companies ie. the people who print the books. Which it is not. It goes to the publishing houses and authors. Just like the money you pay for a Music CD goes not to the people who created the item which the content was created on but the people who created the content. It's a little sad really that you fail to grasp just how destroyed your argument has been. Specially after you claimed you're paying $30 for 'ink and paper'.
 
You seem to not be able to comprehend that if this made any sense then the money would be going to the printing companies ie. the people who print the books. Which it is not. It goes to the publishing houses and authors. Just like the money you pay for a Music CD goes not to the people who created the item which the content was created on but the people who created the content. It's a little sad really that you fail to grasp just how destroyed your argument has been. Specially after you claimed you're paying $30 for 'ink and paper'.

Still can't give up the straw man? Keep arguing with yourself about nothing, then you can think you've won either way.
 
It really doesn't matter who created the first car I was trying to make a point.

Would you not agree though that all cars generally operate off of the same basic design principle? The internal combustion engine, is more or less the same thing as originally designed its just had improvements built upon it.
That is how people avoid patent violations because they can take the original and change it just enough to be issued their own patent.

Wow. Do you have ANY clue as to what you're talking about at all? Seriously. Do any of you here trying to support your theft of other people's work? Patents for different types of internal combustion engines have been granted over and over again in the last 150 years.

History of the internal combustion engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The originals owners of these patents willingly allowed their work to be theirs for 20 years(or whatever time period their countries allowed 5-10-15 years). NONE what so ever allowed for their work to not be patented and freely used by whomever came along and decided to work on it.

With software you can't do that. For instance say I bought photoshop but I saw improvement I could add to it. I could personally do it but I could never sell it because it is copyrighted.

Jesus H. Christ. You can read about plug-ins. Companies pay so that Adobe will allow them to create extra content for Photoshop and then so that they can sell it and make a profit from it :

Example :

onOne Software - Award Winning Plugins for Adobe Photoshop

Software is a virtual mechanical device. It has an input and it delivers an output just like a physical machine.

Copyrighted material does not.

I'll pick up your response tomorrow. I have school in the morning.

:roll: - You seem to not be able to understand that this doesn't matter. Mercedez can't decide to start selling Mustangs because the patent for Mustangs runs out. It can't even grab 30 year old Mustangs and stick it's own logo on it and call it an Arabian. Why? Because Mustangs are the property of Ford. Cars have never been the property of Ford.
 
Still can't give up the straw man? Keep arguing with yourself about nothing, then you can think you've won either way.

Thanks for proving you're an idiot who thinks they're paying $30 for 'ink and paper'. Sucker born every day.
 
Thanks for proving you're an idiot who thinks they're paying $30 for 'ink and paper'. Sucker born every day.
Go ahead, keep running with that line of bull****. :roll:
 
......................have fun avoiding your lack of common sense.
Have fun hoping wallowing in your own dishonesty. I don't have the patience to deal with people who start to make up lies when they begin losing a debate.
 
Have fun hoping wallowing in your own dishonesty. I don't have the patience to deal with people who start to make up lies when they begin losing a debate.

Begin losing a debate? Kid you argued you paid money for ink and paper in a book and not the book itself. If that doesn't spell the fact that you had not argument then I don't know what does. Cry me a river about how you don't think it's fair to use to your own words to demolish your arguments.
 
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.
Are you suggesting patents should run 80 years or more?
 
Are you suggesting patents should run 80 years or more?

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.

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).
 
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.

That's a patent law, and rightfully so or Ford would still be the only ones making cars - and probably China since they ignore accepted business practices and do whatever the hell they want.

Copyright law are different and they extend the legal rights to intellectual property for a much longer period of time.

These two that are arguing this issue look like a bunch of freeloading college kids. And when I suggest they're college kids, it's because they know of certain topics that sound sexy, know of them but don't understand them well enough to use them as a basis for an argument.

So when you boil it down, these guys are just looking to justify a free ride. Throw a couple of things they saw somewhere once in to make it look legit.
 
If another is able to more efficiently produce and market a product, then the original developer deserves to lose market share. That's how markets work. Reward success, punish failure.

"Efficiently produce"? So you're saying the market should "reward" the cheapskate freeloader who didn't put in the money, time, talent, and resources necessary to create worthwhile content and instead leeches off the people who ARE willing to do the work? Of course the cheapskate freeloader can do it cheaper; your entire investment is twenty bucks and five minutes. Man, you really put in the work. :roll: You deserve that reward.

So, under your construct, why should anyone bother?


As in what law? The government's law?

Do you have another law in mind? God's law, maybe? Or "natural law," under which you're entitled to your private property only as long as you're able to physically defend it from someone trying to take it from you?


I just explained this a few pages ago.

No, you didn't.

If I own a CD with songs that I purchased, and I choose to copy it onto a disc that I own using a computer that I own and then share that copy in a private voluntary exchange, I am exercising my private property rights. What the fraud that is "intellectual property" does is allow others to dictate to me what I can do with my own property. The very concept of IP is anathema to property rights.

As I said, you can sell, lend, bury, burn, or do anything physical to the physical object you bought. But if you make a copy, you are creating something separate from that physical object, something which you were not given the right to do under the sales contract.

Also as I said, if the right to copy is in the sales contract, point out where. Show it to me.


But I own the CD as much as the original producer did before he sold it to me.

The physical CD, sure. Not the content recorded on it. Sales contract.


The state is inherently wrong since it is a parasitic entity that eats away at freedom.

And you're the parasite looking to profit from the work and talent of others.

(You're also a typical adolescent who thinks anarchy is a nifty idea. But you're hardly alone. Most tend to grow up, though.)


That is not the issue.

Oh, no, it really is.

The issue is whether property rights exist in this case in the first place. In the case of IP, they do not, thus it is not a legitimate justification for the use of force.

As I say, the Constitution and a large body of law say you're wrong.

If there's another code which says what your rights are and aren't, specify. Point to it. Show it to me.
 
Wow. Do you have ANY clue as to what you're talking about at all? Seriously. Do any of you here trying to support your theft of other people's work? Patents for different types of internal combustion engines have been granted over and over again in the last 150 years.

I never said I supported anyone stealing anything.

As the engine is changed a new patent issued for the modified engine because it is not exactly the same as the original.

The originals owners of these patents willingly allowed their work to be theirs for 20 years(or whatever time period their countries allowed 5-10-15 years). NONE what so ever allowed for their work to not be patented and freely used by whomever came along and decided to work on it.

I know that. What I am saying is that someone can take that engine and reverse engineer it and modify it.

The engine still retains original features that it started with but has added modifications to which a new patent is issued.


Jesus H. Christ. You can read about plug-ins. Companies pay so that Adobe will allow them to create extra content for Photoshop and then so that they can sell it and make a profit from it :

Example :

onOne Software - Award Winning Plugins for Adobe Photoshop

And doesn't that sound a bit screwed up.

They pay adobe so that they can create their own original work to put into adobe. Wouldn't having to pay adobe so that these people can create their own intellectual property be backwards.

Sounds like they modified the engine to which a new patent would be issued.


:roll: - You seem to not be able to understand that this doesn't matter. Mercedez can't decide to start selling Mustangs because the patent for Mustangs runs out. It can't even grab 30 year old Mustangs and stick it's own logo on it and call it an Arabian. Why? Because Mustangs are the property of Ford. Cars have never been the property of Ford.


They can do that. They can make a copy of it and all they have to do is call it something else because the name is trademarked.

It happens all the time with scooters and the gy6 engine design.
 
That's a patent law, and rightfully so or Ford would still be the only ones making cars - and probably China since they ignore accepted business practices and do whatever the hell they want.

Copyright law are different and they extend the legal rights to intellectual property for a much longer period of time.

These two that are arguing this issue look like a bunch of freeloading college kids. And when I suggest they're college kids, it's because they know of certain topics that sound sexy, know of them but don't understand them well enough to use them as a basis for an argument.

So when you boil it down, these guys are just looking to justify a free ride. Throw a couple of things they saw somewhere once in to make it look legit.

I know the difference.

I'm arguing that software is wrongfully put under copyright when it should be under patents.
 
I never said I supported anyone stealing anything.

So you don't support illegal downloading/pirating etc? Good to know we're on the same side. :2wave:

As the engine is changed a new patent issued for the modified engine because it is not exactly the same as the original.

I know that. What I am saying is that someone can take that engine and reverse engineer it and modify it.

The engine still retains original features that it started with but has added modifications to which a new patent is issued.

You're still fighting windmills here's how you get a patent :

Patent, How to Get a

Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of matters, or any new useful improvement thereof.

The operating word here is new. A patent isn't issued because you moved a few things you didn't like around.

And doesn't that sound a bit screwed up.
No.

They pay adobe so that they can create their own original work to put into adobe. Wouldn't having to pay adobe so that these people can create their own intellectual property be backwards.

Sounds like they modified the engine to which a new patent would be issued.

They don't pay Adobe so they can create their own work. They pay adobe so that they can make a profit from their work.
There are tons of plug-ins out there that are free to download.

They can do that. They can make a copy of it and all they have to do is call it something else because the name is trademarked.

It happens all the time with scooters and the gy6 engine design.

No. They. Can. Not. Simply because this violates distribution rights. See the hundreds of lawsuits filed because people decided to sell stuff they never had the patent to sell and/or the distribution rights to sell.
 
Begin losing a debate? Kid you argued you paid money for ink and paper in a book and not the book itself. If that doesn't spell the fact that you had not argument then I don't know what does. Cry me a river about how you don't think it's fair to use to your own words to demolish your arguments.

Perhaps if your little non-argument here make una iota of sense. Unfortunately for you, it does not.
 
My reasoning is simple. All the 3 industries have failed to keep up with the movement of technology. Why should I have to wait weeks and months if not years to see the next episode of my favourite tv show or new movie?
Simple. You dont have the right to see that movie or TV show w/o agreeing to compensate the copyright holder (should he want to be compensated).

This is because of "rights", an archaic method to exploit more money out of people world wide.
The concept of property rights is archaic?
 
Simple. You dont have the right to see that movie or TV show w/o agreeing to compensate the copyright holder (should he want to be compensated).


The concept of property rights is archaic?

It is to communists.
 
So you don't support illegal downloading/pirating etc? Good to know we're on the same side. :2wave:

On the surface I do and do not support it.

For music you can sample the product before you buy it

Movies I do agree with pirating in a limited aspect. I will download a movie to see if I like it or not. I won't keep it or burn it to a disk.

If I like it I will buy it then.

I'm not happy at all with length of copyrights though.

MLK's papers and speeches were copyrighted and since it has run out the King family has decided that the physical papers are not important and they have sold them.

That is more of a moral issue though.

You're still fighting windmills here's how you get a patent :

Patent, How to Get a



The operating word here is new. A patent isn't issued because you moved a few things you didn't like around.

I'm talking about creating an entirely new addition to an original design.

An original design to an original design.




They don't pay Adobe so they can create their own work. They pay adobe so that they can make a profit from their work.
There are tons of plug-ins out there that are free to download.

Yea but the plug in is an original design. It is an entirely new addition to adobe and they shouldn't have to pay anyone to create it.


No. They. Can. Not. Simply because this violates distribution rights. See the hundreds of lawsuits filed because people decided to sell stuff they never had the patent to sell and/or the distribution rights to sell.

I need to read up on distribution rights more before I can respond.

But let me ask you this. Why are genetically modified plants patented instead of copyrighted?
 
I never said I supported anyone stealing anything.

As the engine is changed a new patent issued for the modified engine because it is not exactly the same as the original.



I know that. What I am saying is that someone can take that engine and reverse engineer it and modify it.

The engine still retains original features that it started with but has added modifications to which a new patent is issued.


....
You don't have a clue about patent law. You may want to read up on it some. You are making yourself look rather silly with your statements about getting a new patent by making a minor modification. :roll:
 
You don't have a clue about patent law. You may want to read up on it some. You are making yourself look rather silly with your statements about getting a new patent by making a minor modification. :roll:

Don't be a troll and add something substantial or refute my argument.

I'm being civil but I can change my tone to suit you if you want.
 
"Efficiently produce"? So you're saying the market should "reward" the cheapskate freeloader who didn't put in the money, time, talent, and resources necessary to create worthwhile content and instead leeches off the people who ARE willing to do the work? Of course the cheapskate freeloader can do it cheaper; your entire investment is twenty bucks and five minutes. Man, you really put in the work. :roll: You deserve that reward.
Funny, I think an individual would have put in quite a substantial amount of money, time, talent, and resources if he were somehow able to compete with a major corporate record label.

So, under your construct, why should anyone bother?
Have to put food on the table, don't you? Of course the artificially inflated amounts of money which labels and 'artists' get today would be reduced by the loss of monopoly.


Do you have another law in mind? God's law, maybe? Or "natural law," under which you're entitled to your private property only as long as you're able to physically defend it from someone trying to take it from you?
God's law, natural law, whatever you wish to call it. It is the only absolute law.

As I said, you can sell, lend, bury, burn, or do anything physical to the physical object you bought. But if you make a copy, you are creating something separate from that physical object, something which you were not given the right to do under the sales contract.

Also as I said, if the right to copy is in the sales contract, point out where. Show it to me.
So you are admitting that IP gives another entity arbitrary veto power over what I can do with my own property?

See, you're getting there.

The physical CD, sure. Not the content recorded on it. Sales contract.
"Sale" implies transfer of ownership. If its my property I can do with it as I wish. Otherwise, as I said, they should not misrepresent it as a sale but as a rental.


And you're the parasite looking to profit from the work and talent of others.
Really spending my hard-earned money on a CD and taking the time and effort to share my new property with others is "parasitic?"


(You're also a typical adolescent who thinks anarchy is a nifty idea. But you're hardly alone. Most tend to grow up, though.)
Of course anarchy is the theoretical ideal, just like curing cancer is the ideal for a medical researcher.

Substitute "socialism" for "anarchy" and I think we have a pretty accurate picture of you here. But if I'm an adolescent, what does that make you? An infant?

As I say, the Constitution and a large body of law say you're wrong.

If there's another code which says what your rights are and aren't, specify. Point to it. Show it to me.
More appeals to authority.
2235_yawn.gif
 
Don't be a troll and add something substantial or refute my argument.

I'm being civil but I can change my tone to suit you if you want.
If you think telling someone they don't know what they are talking about when they don't know what they are talking about is trolling, all I can say is... oh well.

Be civil or uncivil, I don't care, but you do not know what the hell you are talking about. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom