Piracy

[kiyote]

Summarized:

What's a right:

"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles ...  the fundamental normative rules ... according to some..."

Or, the specific type of right to our case, the "Claim Right":

"Person A has a claim that person B do something if and only if B has a duty to A to do that something."
...
If a person has a claim right against someone else, then that other person's liberty is limited. ... such as [walking on] other people's private property"

Where rights come from:

"Politics ... discussion about ... "rights" is ongoing...."

And the specific claim right of Copyrights within the United States:

"Copyright law ... part of federal law, and is authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

    The Congress shall have Power ... by securing for limited Times ... Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Or "it's this or that, maybe having to do with politics, and discussion is ongoing, but we think it comes from law or Constitution."

As I said, no understanding of what rights are or where they come from. Or rather, believe rights are things just generally agreed on based on the whims of contemporary culture, and which we commit to paper.

Assuming you live in the US, you live in a republic.  You voice is heard through your vote for your representative, as well as any conversation you may have with him or her convincing her of your point.  The representative secures rights, in this case copyrights, through legislation, which aim to, yes, reflect "things just generally agreed on based on the whims of contemporary culture."

The point I've been trying to make throughout this whole ordeal, disagreeing with that legislation doesn't grant you the right to be exempt from copyright.  In fact, I doubt you can understand why the "whims of contemporary culture" deem a certain level of it necessary.  

Which is actually understandable if you've never been in a position to have produced something for which copyright granted a noticeable benefit, yet have been in a number of positions where you have either seen or felt the negative repercussions of breaking copyright.  

But the people who actually produce something will always be given the preferential treatment.  As they should be.

[kiyote]

I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.

It just hit me. Why would pro-copyright people claim that pirates want to take ownership of other peoples' IP (you're not the first) if pirates don't believe in the concept of intellectual property in the first place?

Because that's what you're effectively doing from an outsider perspective.  By disregarding copyright law, you are behaving in a way that, legally, only the original copyright holder can behave in. 

[RandyFolds]

I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.

Their supposed ownership holds no authority over me. It holds as much authority as your preference not to have other men dream of fornicating with your wife in their sleep. Your whole idea of a right is just a mere emotional whim. It has no standing on its own. The soil will not be tilled, the cows will not graze sustainably just because you prefer it.

Feel free to force others to your whim; however, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.

You picked the wrong analogy for Rassah. Something with banging dogs or horses atop coffeetables would have been more apt.

[kiyote]

I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.

Their supposed ownership holds no authority over me. It holds as much authority as your preference not to have other men dream of fornicating with your wife in their sleep. Your whole idea of a right is just a mere emotional whim. It has no standing on its own. The soil will not be tilled, the cows will not graze sustainably just because you prefer it.

Feel free to force others to your whim; however, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.

Mmmhmm, see how you believe in ownership when I take your cows, break your plow and then fuck your wife. 

[ALPHA.]

I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.

Their supposed ownership holds no authority over me. It holds as much authority as your preference not to have other men dream of fornicating with your wife in their sleep. Your whole idea of a right is just a mere emotional whim. It has no standing on its own. The soil will not be tilled, the cows will not graze sustainably just because you prefer it.

Feel free to force others to your whim; however, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.

Mmmhmm, see how you believe in ownership when I take your cows, break your plow and then fuck your wife.  

You can't because my household is armed. The government that puts a backing behind my supposed "rights" is armed and I'll probably snap you like a twig before you can touch my wife. My "rights" have backing. Your "intellectual property" does not. You cannot touch all the millions who infringe these supposed rights daily. They are broken and bypassed with ease by the individual. There is nothing to them. They are empty. Void.

[ALPHA.]

­­

[ALPHA.]

Assuming you live in the US, you live in a republic.  You voice is heard through your vote for your representative, as well as any conversation you may have with him or her convincing her of your point.  The representative secures rights, in this case copyrights, through legislation, which aim to, yes, reflect "things just generally agreed on based on the whims of contemporary culture."

I couldn't care less how the system views me and what they allow me to do. It's how they stop me from doing what I wish that matters. I'll go out of the way to accomplish what I want despite whatever others wish. I'll change nation's if that will bring me the value I desire in the end. I am a free body.

The point I've been trying to make throughout this whole ordeal, disagreeing with that legislation doesn't grant you the right to be exempt from copyright.  

Sure it does. It doesn't affect me one damn bit. It can't touch me.

Which is actually understandable if you've never been in a position to have produced something for which copyright granted a noticeable benefit, yet have been in a number of positions where you have either seen or felt the negative repercussions of breaking copyright.  

It doesn't affect me on an individual level. On a societal scale, it's only a negative benefit. Innovation is empirically limited by copyright laws.

But the people who actually produce something will always be given the preferential treatment.  As they should be.

Not for long. The force that makes their treatment possible is gradually becoming irrelevant.

[kiyote]

Assuming you live in the US, you live in a republic.  You voice is heard through your vote for your representative, as well as any conversation you may have with him or her convincing her of your point.  The representative secures rights, in this case copyrights, through legislation, which aim to, yes, reflect "things just generally agreed on based on the whims of contemporary culture."

I couldn't care less how the system views me and what they allow me to do. It's how they stop me from doing what I wish that matters. I'll go out of the way to accomplish what I want despite whatever others wish. I'll change nation's if that will bring me the value I desire in the end. I am a free body.

The point I've been trying to make throughout this whole ordeal, disagreeing with that legislation doesn't grant you the right to be exempt from copyright.  

Sure it does. It doesn't affect me one damn bit. It can't touch me.

Which is actually understandable if you've never been in a position to have produced something for which copyright granted a noticeable benefit, yet have been in a number of positions where you have either seen or felt the negative repercussions of breaking copyright.  

It doesn't affect me on an individual level. On a societal scale, it's only a negative benefit. Innovation is empirically limited by copyright laws.

But the people who actually produce something will always be given the preferential treatment.  As they should be.

Not for long. The force that makes their treatment possible is gradually becoming irrelevant.

Haha!  Fourteen!  My guess is you're fourteen, Alpha!  It could go a few years either way, you could be an old-twelve year old or a young eighteen year old, but I hold to fourteen.  ^_^

[ALPHA.]

Ad hominem; a false one at that.

Face the truth. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or hated by a flying spaghetti monster in the sky. If you can't effectively force people to do or not to do something, the preference is worthless.

I have your wife, kiyote. She chose me. I make her happier. No matter how much you want her back, no matter how wrong you think it is that she's in my bed, it changes nothing.

You'll have to kill me and rape her to get her back.

[kiyote]

Ad hominem; a false one at that.

Face the truth. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or hated by a flying spaghetti monster in the sky. If you can't effectively force people to do or not to do something, the preference is worthless.

I have your wife, kiyote. She chose me. I make her happier. No matter how much you want her back, no matter how wrong you think it is that she's in my bed, it changes nothing.

You'll have to kill me and rape her to get her back.

An "ad hominem" implies that I am trying to prove your claim is false by attacking your person, but all you're doing is putting your fingers in your ears while singing "Lalalala, the rules don't apply to me."  There's nothing to claim is false.

And yes, there is a lot your can do to force someone to obey the laws.  The fact that you can't see that makes you either young and sheltered, a malignant narcissist or a sociopath.  I still think you're just young.

[Serge]

>  Innovation is empirically limited by copyright laws.

How do copyright laws stop anyone from producing innovating ? what's the limiting factor?

[kokjo]

>  Innovation is empirically limited by copyright laws.

How do copyright laws stop anyone from producing innovating ? what's the limiting factor?

look at Apple and Samsung.
or linux, and a variate of patent holding companies.

THIS SUCK!

[RandyFolds]

>  Innovation is empirically limited by copyright laws.

How do copyright laws stop anyone from producing innovating ? what's the limiting factor?

I sincerely hope that you are joking here. You've got to be trolling. If not, you are clear-cut retarded. Why do medications that can be produced for pennies cost thousands of dollars, you ask?

[Explodicle]

Thank you for answering my question, kiyote. This is where I usually disagree with pro-copyright people, since I believe humans are born with their rights... elected representatives and constitutions don't change what those rights are. Governments can try to describe and protect those rights, but they never create rights.

[ALPHA.]

Ad hominem; a false one at that.

Face the truth. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or hated by a flying spaghetti monster in the sky. If you can't effectively force people to do or not to do something, the preference is worthless.

I have your wife, kiyote. She chose me. I make her happier. No matter how much you want her back, no matter how wrong you think it is that she's in my bed, it changes nothing.

You'll have to kill me and rape her to get her back.

And yes, there is a lot your can do to force someone to obey the laws.

You can use force. You can't hold force against the millions torrenting as we speak. You're ignoring the whole discussion at hand which is fine. Don't expect to get much out of this, in that case.

[Rassah]

...You live in a republic. ...  The representative secures rights ... through legislation

... disagreeing with that legislation doesn't grant you the right to be exempt from copyright.  In fact, I doubt you can understand why the "whims of contemporary culture" deem a certain level of it necessary.  

You are still confusing "rights" with "laws." One stands alone, the other just tries to describe it and put it on paper. You can still have rights without laws. For example, I think slaves still had a right to freedom and self-determination even if the written law said otherwise. That's why these laws change: society realizes that the law is going against basic rights, and fixes the broken legislation.

Which is actually understandable if you've never been in a position to have produced something for which copyright granted a noticeable benefit, yet have been in a number of positions where you have either seen or felt the negative repercussions of breaking copyright.  

But the people who actually produce something will always be given the preferential treatment.  As they should be.

Ahem...
United States Patent 8,047,138

[phillipsjk]

>  Innovation is empirically limited by copyright laws.

How do copyright laws stop anyone from producing innovating ? what's the limiting factor?

look at Apple and Samsung.
or linux, and a variate of patent holding companies.

THIS SUCK!

Copyright Laws are not the same as Patent laws.

Copyright law covers the creative expression of ideas. Because all ideas are based on those that come before them, copyright law has built-in exemptions that allow you to borrow/quote other people's ideas (the specific exemptions vary, but generally: the smaller the portion your borrow, the safer you are). Databases are generally not considered to be copyrightable because they are not creative enough. That is why some jurisdictions such as Europe have introduced the Database directive, which has little to do with copyright.

Patents cover novel inventions. They are intended to encourage disclosure, rather than the use of trade-secrets. As I said, they are stronger than copyright in that independent development is not a defence. They also allow a patent holder prohibit the use of the patented invention for the length of the patent period. The assumption is that it will be more profitable to license the invention rather than hold back technological progress for 20 years.

The argument that patents harm inovation is much more clear-cut* than the argument that copyright harms innovation. However, with copyright law being modified to include legal protection for Effective Technological Measures, copyright law has the potential to outlaw the general-purpose computer. This would hurt every sector of the economy as the computer industry is pushed back 30 years. For example, large businesses would see the return of paying by the processor cycle (the Windows Server Licenses already demand payment per-user and per-CPU).

* I have read rumours that the auto industry is using battery patents to prohibit the manufacture of high-capacity batteries. 10 Amp-hours is not a lot of capacity: it is about what you would get out of a D cell battery. Most rechargeable D-cells you see in stores (rated for 2000-3000mAH) are actually AA cells in a D sized case. It is actually cheaper to buy AA cells and put them in a AA->D adapter yourself. I have some cheap, real D cells from china. It is possible they are circumventing patent law by shipping them. It is the difference between 1 and 5 hours of run-time for the lights on my bicycle.

Edit: I suspect copyright law is being modified in such a strange way because traditionally, Patent law has been used to enforce DRM. Unfortunately, Copyright terms last much longer than patent terms. The Patents on DVD technology should be expiring soon. That means that without a blanket prohibition of circumventing "copy protection", people would be free to make region-free optical disk players that just happen to be able to read DVD (trademark) disks.

[phillipsjk]

Which is actually understandable if you've never been in a position to have produced something for which copyright granted a noticeable benefit, yet have been in a number of positions where you have either seen or felt the negative repercussions of breaking copyright.  

But the people who actually produce something will always be given the preferential treatment.  As they should be.

Ahem...
United States Patent 8,047,138

Are you claiming to be one of the patent holders?

I was expecting a "process for eating a can of soup" type patent.

If you read the details, the patent claims to disclose an invention distinct from existing maglev train designs.

[Rassah]

Ahem...
United States Patent 8,047,138

Are you claiming to be one of the patent holders?

I was expecting a "process for eating a can of soup" type patent.

If you read the details, the patent claims to disclose an invention distinct from existing maglev train designs.

Yep. This was my Summer legal headache, and something I've been involved with for last ten years

And yep. Totally unique, and incorrectly assumed to be impossible.

[chickenado]

In my view, all laws must pass the "Robinson criterion" and the "drop dead criterion".

Robinson criterion: "If this law were passed on Robinson Crusoe's island, it must not interfere with the way Robinson would have acted in absence of the law."

drop dead criterion: "If I were to drop dead tomorrow, and this doesn't make you worse off, then I am not indebted to you".


IP laws fail on both counts, especially proactive IP laws.

If you own property, it's your responsibility to defend it. It's your responsibility to pay for the cost of defense.  

If you accuse someone of a rights violation, the onus is on you to prove it.

The purpose of a legal system is not to defend people's property.  The purpose is to settle disputes where a rights violation has already provably occurred.

If I park my bike in a shady part of town, I can't force the local residents to buy me a bike lock because it's more likely to be stolen. It is my responsibility to pay for the lock.

It is not the responsibility of ISPs to pay for the defense costs of copyright holders.  Neither can ISPs be forced to spy on their customers against their will, on the mere suspicion that a rights violation is occurring.