Copyright law and ethics discussion

[dhouwn]

Intellectual property is so much more different from tangible property that I don't see being for its enforcement of such rights as a particular classically-liberal (US: libertarian) position. If fact, I get quite the opposite sense when looking at some of the arguments for strict enforcement of it, e.g. to encourage enrichment of society (the "collective" ).

[Tom T.]

Intellectual property is so much more different from tangible property that I don't see being for its enforcement of such rights as a particular classically-liberal (US: libertarian) position.

I knew I should have locked this thread.

I go to my garage, take some wood and nails, and build a workbench or picnic table. It's mine.
I go to my keyboard and write a(n original) book. It's mine.

If fact, I get quite the opposite sense when looking at some of the arguments for strict enforcement of it, e.g. to encourage enrichment of society (the "collective" ).

"Someone who disagrees with you is not nearly so annoying as someone who agrees with you for the wrong reasons." (old saying; author unknown)
"An idea is not responsible for who believes in it" -- Barry Goldwater

I'm not responsible for "some of the arguments". I have my own, and they're sufficient for me.

The worst part about subtly accepting the collectivist mentality is that then, every principle must be defended as being good for the collective.
This is the opposite of believing in individual rights per se.

Come to think of it, if you have two well-functioning kidneys, and someone is facing dialysis or death, and you're a match, wouldn't the "total good" be enhanced by *forcing* you to donate, since you can function very well on one healthy kidney (small harm), but you save a human life (large good)?

Why don't I get a real life, instead of participating in these endless, fruitless arguments?

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." -- Isaac Asimov (?)

Not that you all are pigs; from your POV, I am a pig (metaphorically). The point is that once it's established that there is no common ground due to fundamentally opposing core values, we're all wasting our time. Not going to lock the thread, but I have nothing more to say or to gain by remaining.

Cheers all.

[dhouwn]

I knew I should have locked this thread.

Good that you didn't, might have otherwise looked like you just wanted to have the last word or that the privilege of this thread to stay open depends on your personal interest in discussing this matter.

I go to my garage, take some wood and nails, and build a workbench or picnic table. It's mine.
I go to my keyboard and write a(n original) book. It's mine.

The authorship of your artistic expression might be yours but with copyright law you have influence on whether someone has the right to photocopy it, in the tangible world I guess the same problem arises with 3d scanners and 3d printers. Would you argue that a blunt copy of your picnic table (with no originality on its own) would be your property? You having a monopoly on copies of the picnic table or the book (COPYright) is certainly not the same as you having a right to stick to your ownership of tangible things.
I stand by it, intellectual property is not the same as classical property, in fact even the common usage of this term is a relatively modern development.

Not sure what you are aiming at with the second half of your post, therefore discretely ignoring it.

[GµårÐïåñ]

I don't want to start a discussion that will end up with posts that are longer than my entire CCNA lectures and frankly I dread reading because it was pounded in to my head, less is more when learning to write briefs and research papers, but back on topic, I believe that there needs to be a balance between eternal monopoly by a person for coming up with the idea that frankly a hundred others could have come up with, you just got to the copyright office with it first is ludicrous and counter productive.

I also believe that applies to any intellectual property like music, novels, etc, as well. To me the only thing you are eternally entitled to is credit for coming up with the work in the form of a footnote mention and that's it, and whether you feel you have been compensated enough for it or not, the greater good at some point overrules your individual greed. The issue of, ITS MINE, comes down to simple vanity.

I mean at some point you did it supposedly to contribute to mankind right or was it just money? Then why would you behave in such a way that deprives it of building on it unless you give them permission. At some point you become an obstacle to progress thinking like that. That's why the majority of my contribution to society has been done in private, anonymously and without a catch because I cared neither for the credit, the gain or eternal recognition, just the principle of if I am going to take up space on this planet, contribute something to it so when you become a corpse, it can move on.

I served 15+ years in the USMC doing things that I will never get credit for, will never be known for, medals I would never be able to wear, uniforms I will never be seen in and the only people who know will deny it and those can verify it are either dead or in the same boat. I'll leave the glory hogging to the army and the career politicians. Truly glory comes without recognition and without profit, it just makes the world a better place. I know I made a difference and if that's the only thing I cared about, then the rest is just noise, who cares about the medals, ceremonies, this and that?

Ultimately you can't take it with you, and once you are corpse none of this will matter to you or will make any difference to you, you are still gone. Create something for the sake of creating and contributing, money and recognition should only be a secondary side effect, not the sole goal. [/soapbox]

[Tom T.]

Sometimes it costs money to invent things or to create words (expressions of ideas). It always costs time. Some people have an awful lot of money to spare, but every human being has a finite amount of time on Earth. Why shouldn't one be compensated for either or both? Not eternally -- whoever said that? -- but for the length of time specified in the applicable laws.

If someone wants to donate their mind and its creation, great. Let's see, the thousands of hours I've donated here, times even the current US minimum wage,= ....

To use the least-liked example possible: US drug companies spend about $500 million to create new medicines and conduct the trials necessary for FDA approval -- and that doesn't count the many tries that don't work, or don't get approved. Where did that money come from? Stockholders? Are they not entitled to receive it back, plus a return for their risk (dividend), on the ones that succeed?

If this is denied, how many new medicines would be invented? Is this what you want?

I had said I had nothing more to say, but saw Guardian's reply, and so replied to that. Not everything is invented by one person sitting alone in a shop or lab, and that includes IP.

[GµårÐïåñ]

What you are comparing and using as an example has no comparison to the topic discussed here. Apples and Oranges. We are talking about digital media, available for free or paid on the web that you are downloading for your own private use. Not knocking off drug companies and robbing them of their profits. Even then they only get 2 years before generics are permitted.

[Tom T.]

Sometimes it costs money to ... create words (expressions of ideas). It always costs time. Some people have an awful lot of money to spare, but every human being has a finite amount of time on Earth.

Someone spent their precious time creating these digital media.

[GµårÐïåñ]

Someone spent their precious time creating these digital media.

Yeah, and they released it either free, which speaks for itself, or charged you for the benefit of watching it, which entitles you to have a copy to review in your own privacy at anytime. I don't see the problem. Its not like we are saying, go get material and post it all over the web and bankrupt the material maker, we are talking about modest personal freedom to maintain what you paid for. That's not unreasonable at all.