Question

[Anonymous]

Is there some natural law that says I can't take my matter and energy and form it identically to the specifications of somebody elses, using my own tools? If this isn't the case, how can infringing copyright be considered theft?

[davout]

Is there some natural law that says I can't take my matter and energy and form it identically to the specifications of somebody elses, using my own tools? If this isn't the case, how can infringing copyright be considered theft?

Would you download a car ?

[kiba]

Sometime the only logical conclusion is this whole copying is theft is a bunch of nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Is there some natural law that says I can't take my matter and energy and form it identically to the specifications of somebody elses, using my own tools? If this isn't the case, how can infringing copyright be considered theft?

Would you download a car ?

Yes, yes I would.

[davout]

Is there some natural law that says I can't take my matter and energy and form it identically to the specifications of somebody elses, using my own tools? If this isn't the case, how can infringing copyright be considered theft?

Would you download a car ?

Yes, yes I would.

Would you download a bear?

[genjix]

Is there some natural law that says I can't take my matter and energy and form it identically to the specifications of somebody elses, using my own tools? If this isn't the case, how can infringing copyright be considered theft?

Would you download a car ?

fuck you! I would if I could!

[grondilu]

Is there some natural law that says I can't take my matter and energy and form it identically to the specifications of somebody elses, using my own tools? If this isn't the case, how can infringing copyright be considered theft?

Forget it.  Copyright laws are just plain stupid.  Copying is good.  The whole story of scientific, artistic and cultural developpement is a story of people copying and learning from each other.  Whether or not you get the agreement of the person you copy doesn't matter.  You didn't ask him.  You just did it.

Without the right to learn and copy people, we would not be better than apes.

[ribuck]

The whole of human development has been incremental. Everything builds on what has been done before. Humans are largely co-operative beings, but copyright law tries to pit them against each other.

Disney is happy to make their own adaptations of pre-copyright stories, but they will fight anyone who wants to do the same with what Disney produces.

[dingus]

Pretty soon you will be able to download a car, and manufacture it in your home. http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page

[gene]

how can infringing copyright be considered theft?

It isn't. In the US at least, copyright infringement is legally a distinct offense from theft.

[kiba]

A lot of people will says "How are artists/writers/programmers make money?"

I just published the first entirely public domain bitcoin magazine in the entire bitcoin economy. I hope it will continue like that. I just need to fix my crappy writing and it will the best magazine in the land. 

[Anonymous]

how can infringing copyright be considered theft?

It isn't. In the US at least, copyright infringement is legally a distinct offense from theft.

To phrase it differently, why should it be considered an offense?

[gene]

how can infringing copyright be considered theft?

It isn't. In the US at least, copyright infringement is legally a distinct offense from theft.

To phrase it differently, why should it be considered an offense?

An inventor or programmer should be able to dictate the terms of use of his work, for some period of time not to exceed his life.

[Anonymous]

how can infringing copyright be considered theft?

It isn't. In the US at least, copyright infringement is legally a distinct offense from theft.

To phrase it differently, why should it be considered an offense?

An inventor or programmer should be able to dictate the terms of use of his work, for some period of time not to exceed his life.

Why?

[ribuck]

An inventor or programmer should be able to dictate the terms of use of his work, for some period of time not to exceed his life.

Why just inventors or programmers?

A skilled carpenter just hung a new door on my house. Why shouldn't the government force me to pay him a penny every time someone uses that door, for some period of time not to exceed his life?

I just made Banoffee Pie for dessert. This recipe was invented by Ian Dowding in 1972. Why shouldn't the government force me to pay him a penny every time I cook his recipe, for some period of time not to exceed his life?

Google Maps just showed me a better route into town than the one I've been using. Why shouldn't the government force me to pay them a penny every time I drive that route?

The whole notion of government-enforced monopolies degrades society by setting people against each other.

[chaord]

I prefer to determine my answer for the whole "intellectual property" question by invoking a thought experiment.

Example:
Let's say that I discover that exactly 8 cups of water per day, no more, no less is a 100% cure for all types of cancer.  Depending on how clever your lawyers are, you probably could get some sort of copyright AND patent on such a "process."

Let's say that I do obtain a world-wide patent (for sake of argument) on the "process for curing cancer."  Legally speaking, no one is allowed to "cure cancer" without my consent.

This is a pretty ridiculous scenario, yet it is exactly what happens with intellectual property laws.  If I made my information (my cure) publicly available, in my opinion, there should be no penalty for public use of that information.  If someone else uses that information, they are not precluding me from also using the very same information.

If, on the other hand, some sinister company that profits from the existence of cancer wants to pay me billions of dollars to not publicize my cure, that is a choice I will have to make.  In the case of cancer, even if I took the money, I'd probably hate myself for the rest of my life (others might be completely ok with it).  However, if I break the contract with the sinister company and leak the cure anyway, that company should only have recourse with me, not with other beneficiaries of that information.  Their contract with me better have some serious teeth.   Likewise, if the very same cure is found by someone else independently, and released to the public, the sinister company should have no recourse against me or the other inventor.

In a nutshell, I always think to myself, "should anyone have a monopoly on the use of information that is publicly available?"  Especially when the information can undoubtedly advance or prolong life, in my mind, the clear answer is no.  If I want 100% ownership of that information, I should not tell anyone.  If I want to profit from that information, I must build a business model based on contracts and not utilization of force to ensure my revenue.

We cannot directly control information, but only the tangible representation of that abstract information.  Therefore property rights on information in its abstract form make no sense to me.

Sorry for the rant .  

[Local]

But what if I put a special picture on special paper and say it's worth $100? Surely someone can't make the same picture! People might get tricked into thinking that the same picture was worth the same amount!

[chaord]

But what if I put a special picture on special paper and say it's worth $100? Surely someone can't make the same picture! People might get tricked into thinking that the same picture was worth the same amount!

LOL.  Yes, that would be considered fraud.  Unless you're the Federal Reserve, then it's considered "legal tender."